He was old school. Never in your face about whether your theology, faith and belief was correct in his eyes. He often said, “I’ll leave them to their theology. I’m out to save souls. I have more friends among doctors than among ministers.” I can’t imagine a media preacher having the same kind of tolerant tone in today’s I’m right, You’re wrong environment.

A far cry from the charismatic Pentecostal preachers of today, Roberts was a man who was sought after by Presidents because he stayed out of the political fray. At the height of his popularity, way before the infamous January 1987 prediction of his own demise, Roberts could have inserted himself in the Roe v. Wade political debate but for whatever reason did not make a public statement on the Supreme Court decision.

Rest In God’s Hands, Oral Roberts. You gave people hope and followed God’s will upon you life while being wise enough to keep your mouth and your ministry out of the policy making arena.

Jane Hamsher (no surprise) seconds Dean. “From what we know about the bill, it is worse than passing nothing,” she says. So do Darcy Burner, a former House candidate, and so do pretty much all the health care reform activists as opposed to policy wonks. There has been a sharp difference of opinion for some time now between those on the left who felt the public option was more important than the overall bill, and those who took the view that the underlying legislation was more important. As Greg Sargent notes, the response among liberal bloggers to Howard Dean’s call to “kill the bill” is falling rather neatly along that same dividing line:

There’s a debate raging in the blogosphere about whether the Senate bill has been so watered down that it’s time to try to kill it, and one thing that’s interesting is how cleanly it breaks down as a disagreement between operatives and wonks.

The bloggers who are focused on political organizing and pulling Dems to the left mostly seem to want to kill the bill, while the wonkier types want to salvage it because they think it contains real reform and can act as a foundation for further achievements.

In the former camp are bloggers like Markos Moulitsas, former House candidate Darcy Burner, and the Firedoglake crew. They mostly deride the bill as a giveaway to the insurance companies that does nothing for consumers. A quick rundown of their opinions right here.

In the latter camp are wunder-wonk types like Ezra Klein, Jonathan Cohn, and Nate Silver. They all make expansive arguments that the current legislation contains real reform and indeed represents a fairly immense progressive achievement. A quick rundown of their opinions here.

I respect the activists’ passion and sincerity, but I do not agree with them at all — although at one time, I would have. I think the underlying policy is more important than whether we get everything we want in the first round. One of the reasons I feel that way is the length of time we’ve been trying to get health care reform: All my life. That’s since 1950, for who those who don’t know. I think activists are being very naive if they think we can start from scratch and get the best parts of this legislation — or any parts of it at all through reconciliation. If it dies now, it’s dead. Maybe not forever, but for another couple of decades for certain. And I’m not willing to see that happen.

More commentary here.

The Huffington Post and Roll Call are both reporting that Joe Lieberman notified Harry Reid that he will filibuster health-care reform if the final bill includes an expansion of Medicare. Previously, Lieberman had been cool to the idea, saying he wanted to make sure it wouldn’t increase the deficit or harm Medicare’s solvency (and previously to that, he supported it as part of the Gore/Lieberman health-care plan). That comforted some observers, as the CBO is expected to say it will do neither. Someone must have given Lieberman a heads-up on that, as he’s decided to make his move in advance of the CBO score, the better to ensure the facts of the policy couldn’t impede his opposition to it.

To put this in context, Lieberman was invited to participate in the process that led to the Medicare buy-in. His opposition would have killed it before liberals invested in the idea. Instead, he skipped the meetings and is forcing liberals to give up yet another compromise. Each time he does that, he increases the chances of the bill’s failure that much more. And if there’s a policy rationale here, it’s not apparent to me, or to others who’ve interviewed him. At this point, Lieberman seems primarily motivated by torturing liberals. That is to say, he seems willing to cause the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people in order to settle an old electoral score.

This is nothing more than the plain truth, expressed rather mildly in my view, given the heinousness of what Lieberman is doing. Notwithstanding, Chuck Lane — another columnist at the Washington Post — took great offense at Klein’s accusation, even though he agreed with it substantively:

Joe Lieberman is an odd political duck, to put it mildly. I understand that he seems to bear a grudge against the Democratic liberals who tried to unseat him in 2006 because of his vote for the war in Iraq, and that he might be engaged in a little pay back right now. Perhaps he’s shilling for his home state insurance interests, as if no other senator would ever do such a thing.

But his position on the Medicare buy-in is hardly beyond the pale. That’s more than you can say for Ezra Klein’s venomous post.

Lane appears not to understand that Lieberman’s motive is the entire point, not the fact that others may be taking the same position:

That’s pretty much the ballgame, then. There are two component parts to my argument about Lieberman. The first is that the defeat of health-care reform will cost hundreds of thousands of lives. That’s not a particularly controversial statement. It relies on data from the Institute of Medicine and the Urban Institute, both of which are credible sources who’ve been used, I’d wager, by Lieberman and The Washington Post editorial page in the past. The second is that Lieberman is being driven in part by pique, an assertion that I lay out the reasoning for here, and that Lane explicitly supports in his post.

Lane squares this circle, or attempts to, by saying that “Joe Lieberman does not oppose insuring everyone.” True enough, but he’s willing to destroy the effort if it includes a Medicare buy-in, which he supported in 2000? A policy, in fact, that he supported as recently as three months ago? And why? Because, as Lane says, he wants “a little pay back?” That, again, is exactly my point: It’s morally irresponsible to imperil this effort in return for “a little pay back,” just as it’s been irresponsible for some on the left to suggest that the bill should be killed if it lacks a public option.

And Ezra Klein is hardly the only one to be talking about Joe Lieberman in harsh terms these days. Matthew Yglesias asks, “Can’t liberals be just as stiff-necked as Lieberman?” and answers his own question:

Sure, they could. But liberal [...] members do have an incentive to compromise—the tens of thousands of people who die every year for lack of health insurance. The leverage that Lieberman and other “centrists” have obtained on this issue (and on climate change) stems from a demonstrated willingness to embrace sociopathic indifference to the human cost of their actions.

Josh Marshall points out that even Republicans — as thrilled as they are by Lieberman’s actions — are perfectly well aware of what he’s doing:

They [Senate Democrats] need to confront the problem that Lieberman isn’t negotiating in good faith. No surprise that Republicans are giddy with what a problem he’s creating for Harry Reid & Co. But in my conversations with them, it’s as clear to them as it is to anyone else that he’s now basically mocking his Democratic colleagues by moving the goal posts every time a new agreement is struck.

If the Democrats support it, Lieberman opposes it — and he has gradually lost the trust of long-time colleagues eager to give him every possible benefit of the doubt:

Lieberman blessed the Gang of Ten deal privately before those talks were completed, then reversed himself as soon as it became evident that the left saw a silver lining in the consolation prize of a Medicare buy-in proposal.

[...]

To many of Lieberman’s colleagues, it’s been hard for them to accept that his motives were different than those he stated in public, but there have apparently been a number of private assurances given — and broken — by the Connecticut senator in recent weeks — and a growing recognition that, of all the wavering “moderate” Democrats — Bill Nelson, Blanche Lincoln and Mary Landreiu — Lieberman is the least likely to negotiate to a compromise.

Word is they are threatening to close Offutt Air Force Base if Senator Nelson (D-NE) does not vote for the health care bill.

Not that Offutt is important or anything, it’s just headquarters for US Strategic Command.

I’m sure we don’t need that anymore…. right ?

Whether you support or oppose the bill, the idea of threatening to shut down a base (and a vital one at that) is pretty nasty politics.

Just when you thought Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad couldn’t say anything more outrageous, he tops himself again. According to this analysis from Germany’s Die Welt of the Iranian leader’s comments during a visit to Isfahan, the site of four China-built nuclear reactors, Ahmadinejad not only claims to have “documents” proving that Washington seeks to prevent the emergence of the Shiite Messiah “by promoting a previous revelation,” but that nevertheless, Iran is preparing for its role under the 12th Imam or “Mahdi” to “administer the world.”

Quoting Ahmadinejad for Die Welt, columnist Wahied Wahdat-Hagh writes in part:

“Iranian president, Dr. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, rarely expresses his paranoia as clearly as he did in Isfahan. On December 4 he said, “We have documents in our possession that prove that America wants to prevent the return of the 12th Imam.”

“According to Iran’s Tabnak News Agency, the Iranian President said that the, ‘arrogant ones are after the oil and the riches of the world’ and claims to be able to prove that the Americans want to prevent the “return of the Imam” by accelerating a previous revelation.”

“Tabnak reported that Ahmadinejad announced a number of ‘government objectives’ during his visit to Isfahan, the first being: to prepare Iran for ‘the administration of the world.’ The Iranian President added: ‘We mustn’t allow those who have dominated the world for 400 years to continue to oppress us and saddle us with their arrogance.’ Ahmadinejad believes that the issue of ‘culture’ makes him and the ‘Islamic Republic of Iran’ ideally suited to manage the world, and he therefore concludes: ‘We want to put the world’s economy and politics in order, but we have only a limited time.’ In this context, he called Western societies ‘uncultured.’ As proof of the West’s lack of culture, the Iranian President referred to, “the [violation of] the sanctity of Islamic beliefs and the prevention of Muslims from building mosques and minarets.”

By Dr. Wahied Wahdat-Hagh*

Translated By Stephanie Martin and Ulf Behncke

December 12, 2009

Germany – Die Welt – Original Article (Germany)

During a visit to Isfahan [on Dec. 4], Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad commented on his messianic ideas, his hostility toward the West and the Iranian nuclear program. Meanwhile, the massive oppression of civil society continues.

READ ON AT WORLDMEETS.US, your most trusted translator and aggregator of foreign news and views about our nation.

Such consequences of low behavior by men in high places (gender equality has not yet evolved enough to ensnare powerful women in sex scandals, but give them time), suggest guidelines for who gets away with what these days–and for how long.

Congressmen who cheat have a better chance of career survival than governors, perhaps because of low public expectations. Eliot Spitzer, who was elected as the scourge of Wall Street manipulators, had to leave the New York Governor’s mansion, but Sen. David Vitter is still legislating away after his call-girl disgrace, and just last weekend Max Baucus drew a pass for an iffy confession about juggling a wife back home and a girlfriend on his Senate payroll.

What’s more, penalties are not permanent. Spitzer has reemerged as a pundit and is now thinking about running for state controller next year, while his former call girl has embarked on a love-advice column for the New York Post. Prurience conquers all.

The prospects for Tiger Woods’ rehabilitation may be reflected in what happened to baseball’s Alex Rodriguez this year. In 2008, both his game and reputation tanked during an extramarital affair with Madonna and charges of steroid use.

Now, after a divorce, the rehabilitated and single A-Rod entered a performance-enhancing relationship with Kate Hudson, who sat quietly beaming in the stands as he led his team to a World Series victory.

MORE.

Over the past 25 years, I have been directly involved in many different types of business and legal negotiations between two or more parties over large and small matters. Extreme initial positions were not uncommon but they were understood to be just opening gambits. Ultimately reasonable minds prevailed in most negotiating situations and real progress was made in formulating worthwhile new agreements that left the extremes far behind. Everyone understood that the future tangible and intangible benefits outweighed the estimated and associated costs, and there was a strong desire and ability by everyone involved to visualize something better than the current situation.

HEALTHCARE FAILURE

This nation’s 2009 healthcare reform efforts have failed miserably and they will not improve this nation’s health system in any meaningful ways. What we are witnesses in Congress is the final death throws of a legislative process and irrational national debate gone terribly wrong. All efforts to get any deal passed (no matter the lack of actual substance) are rather meaningless if nothing intrinsically worthwhile is actually accomplished.

Healthcare reform, after both the Senate and the Joint Conference Committee get through with it, will have no public option, no meaningful cost controls in the public and private sectors, and no significant expansions of or improvements to Medicare or Medicaid. There will be some new limits on consumer abuses by insurance companies that will be effective (sometime in the future) and a lot more customers (some with public-sector subsidies) who must buy policies that have no limits on premiums for very likely limited coverage. The current dysfunctional system will not be fixed, and the new solutions may just exacerbate the current situation.

With uncontrolled health insurance premiums covered by federal subsidies, the eventual costs of these proposed reforms will skyrocket. With increased global competition, most U.S. companies will continue to reduce healthcare benefits to their employees so that eventually the majority of citizens under the age of 65 and not eligible for Medicaid will lack meaningful private health insurance. With stagnant employment opportunities and more people falling into poverty, more people will become eligible for Medicaid even under the stingiest of eligibility requirements.

It is one thing to compromise the ideal for something decent and workable, but it should not be traded for something that is completely lousy. On the bright side, by letting things get even worse by passing lackluster reforms and keeping much of the status quo, both will make a complete and radical makeover of our healthcare system all the more necessary in 5 to 10 years.

TIME TO MOVE ON

Obama has met his Waterloo and he must move on to saving his Congressional Democratic majorities in 2010 and his Presidency in 2012 by concentrating on things that can be controlled and promptly enacted, and dominating the storyline to mitigate the likely criticisms from his many opponents. At this point in time, healthcare reform is a complete political loser for this President and Congress, and it would be a waste of time and words trying to make things appear better than they actually are.

The only priorities for the Administration and Congress should be creating a growing economy and many new jobs, along with passing strong and meaningful financial reforms and consumer protections. Unfortunately all efforts towards these goals will be difficult and protracted because there are no quick fixes to our terribly dysfunctional national economy and financial system. Whether Americans have the patience, intelligent understanding of history and economics, and possess any cohesive outlook, are completely separate matters.

SYSTEMIC NATIONAL GRIDLOCK AND PARALYSIS

We Americans must scale back our expectations from Washington DC and the 50 states. If super-majorities are required to pass all legislation in the U.S. Senate and to raise taxes in many state legislatures, then a minority of people will always control public policy and governmental budgets. We must also realize that the majority of our elected officials in both political parties belong to the wealthiest part of society, and they are principally dedicated to serving their large campaign contributors and various well-funded and dedicated special interests.

Unfortunately with our polarized, partisan, ideologically rigid, greedy, narcissistic, and intransigent society, most extreme negotiation stances are now non-negotiable. Any signs of flexibility and willingness to compromise are viewed as weaknesses and used to refuse any changes in the initial demands. This naturally results in complete systemic paralysis and gridlock. If some compromise is achieved, it is only by combining extreme policies into an unnecessarily complex, unworkable and illogical agreement that essentially changes nothing.

It was once thought that our country was only able to take meaningful, concerted and bipartisan actions in the wake of complete disasters, but we were unable to adequately plan for or prevent them. The events of the past 10 years indicate that we can’t even do that as a society. A crisis is not even an opportunity that can be used favorably for any policy changes. Instead a crisis is now only another excuse to argue endlessly and simultaneously ignore until we start the next new crisis, which will be also be argued about and ignored as well, and so forth. When faced with multiple crises, we can justify doing nothing because we can’t handle the various challenges simultaneously or separately – particularly if another scheduled election is a year or two away.

TAKING CHARGE OF OUR FUTURE

Americans must determine what we really want to accomplish for ourselves and our country. Major changes have always been effectuated by a large and cohesive group of common and sometimes nameless people forcing our political leaders to lead, follow, get out of the way, or else face election defeats. If we believe in certain policies and principles, we cannot just hope they will also be shared or pursued by our ruling political, social, and business classes. The events of the past few years are excellent arguments for such a realistic viewpoint.

If Americans want change, they have to personally get involved and take actions. Peaceably taking to the streets, actually voting out of office all current office-holders, setting new priorities, and effectively forcing our nation’s wealthy business, social and political classes to put the best interests of the nation and the majority of citizens first instead of last, are our best hopes.

WE MIGHT NEED TO NEGOTIATE A NATIONAL CIVIL DIVORCE

We should also realize that our country has at least 2 to 4 distinct and irreconcilable world views that will never be compatible. Then we must acknowledge this impasse and formulate a national civil divorce – a complete split of this country geographically, politically, socially, religiously and economically. If we cannot move forward on any of our goals together, it might make better sense to go forward separately to maintain our collective and individual sanity.

At the beginning of the 21st Century, our nation has few overriding centrist ideals in common. We may be deluding ourselves in thinking we can continue to function as a unified nation beyond sharing a common currency and central bank. If irreconcilable differences justify divorces between married individuals, then the same should apply with our entire society.

We might better serve our diverse country by dividing ourselves into about 6 workable smaller yet more cohesive countries. Respecting our differences may only be possible if we actually live separately in several new political entities free to fully pursue the ideological policies that best address our different political, economic and social needs. Forcing everyone to accept one lousy national policy (or no policies whatsoever) may be far worse than permitting various separate policies to be offered to different groups of people who are willing to embrace them. It would be cheaper to help people peaceably relocate to several newly-incorporated North American nations located between Canada and Mexico rather than perpetually accomplishing nothing on a nationwide basis.

GIVE A DAMN

Losing ourselves to anger or depression in the face of opposition or apathy, wallowing in social and political isolation, and pursuing technologically narcissistic and meaningless entertainment, and the adulation of empty personalities, will certainly not accomplish anything or make anything better. Giving a damn and getting fully involved in life might stand a far better chance of remaking our cities, states, nations and the world into places where we can fully participate, prosper and build better futures.

Marc Pascal, happily ranting in Phoenix, AZ which still remains a part of the U.S.

North Park, one of the oldest communities within the City of San Diego, is no different than any other small town although it’s quirkier than many. Its annual North Park Toyland Parade is an attraction luring visitors from far and wide since 1936.

Hours before and during this year’s parade on Dec. 5 police towed 31 vehicles for disregarding the signs posted three days earlier, an unofficial record for the event.

North Park resident Heather Detering was especially irate. She paid $350 to get her minivan back. She claimed she paid $300 for the vehicle. Her defense: She didn’t see the signs. She claimed she saw ‘em last year and obliged.

Not all the cops were Scrooges, says Mónica Muñoz, SDPD spokesperson. Four holiday-spirited officers went beyond the call of duty, knocked on doors and found 15 residents who moved their cars off the neighborhood streets.

The towed-away gang called an emergency town meeting Monday night with an aide of the city councilman representing North Park and an assistant police chief. Ron Lanthier, the ringleader, wanted his money back after paying a $500 fine to retrieve his vehicle. His defense: No no-parking signs were posted.

Elizabeth Studebaker, executive director of North Park Main Street, the parade promoters, was dumbstruck. She told reporters for The San Diego Union-Tribune everything was done by the book. As custom, she hired volunteers from the Urban Corps to post the signs 72 hours in advance. She said police confirmed the signs were properly posted 24 hours before the parade.

“My heart goes out to them,” she said. “I feel so horrible. I don’t know what else could have been done.” Uh, Elizabeth, maybe next year you might consider handing out seeing eye glasses.

Historically, North Park residents and business owners march to their own drummers. In the 1960s, North Park businessman Allen Hitch was elected to the city council on the pledge he would remove all the parking meters from the business district.

He kept his pledge and remained in office for 12 years.

Many critics of Attorney General Holder’s decision to prosecute Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM) and his fellow 9/11 conspirators in federal criminal court seem to believe military commissions would be an efficient and straightforward solution to all the weaknesses present in criminal courts. They promote military commissions as some kind of panacea that would disperse efficient and certain justice to KSM and other terrorists. When one actually understands the two systems, however, it becomes apparent that disparagement of the criminal system and praise for the military commissions both go too far.

In reality, the systems are similar in many ways. Try to figure out which system is described below:

A terrorist defendant is informed in open court of the charges against him, which include murder and conspiracy to commit murder. He is presumed to be innocent. The defendant hires a well known and effective defense attorney who in turn files numerous motions demanding information, suppressing statements, and to dismiss the charges. Some of the demanded information is classified so the judge denies those requests. Some of the defendant’s statements are in fact suppressed while some are admissible. After extensive pre-trial litigation, the trial finally begins. Twelve jurors are seated and they must determine whether the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The defendant is allowed to testify and takes advantage of the opportunity to justify his actions and defend al Qaeda ideology. If the defendant is convicted, he has the right to appeal his conviction in a federal appellate court and even ask the Supreme Court to hear an appeal.

If you guessed this scenario describes a federal criminal court, you are correct. If you guessed it is a military commission, you are also correct. That is because both have many of the same characteristics. In KSM’s case, his trial in both would unfold in a very similar way.

How do we know this? Take a look at the military commissions rules of evidence and rules of procedure. Or, for a succinct summary, read a recent report comparing the two systems by the Congressional Research Service.

In both systems, KSM can hire the attorney of his choice. Statements he made about the 9/11 plot before his capture and in court proceedings afterwards would be admissible in both systems. When the death penalty or imprisonment over ten years is sought, all members of a twelve person military commission must agree on the verdict. The government must overcome KSM’s presumption of innocence by proving its case beyond a reasonable doubt.

Both systems have protections against the disclosure of classified information. Neither system can force KSM to testify, but both allow him to do so. Both systems require an impartial judge to play the leading role in adjudicating disputes and making evidentiary rulings.

So, when Alabama Senator Jeffrey Sessions says, “different procedures are far more appropriate” in military commissions, it is difficult to know specifically which procedures he is referencing. When he says KSM’s case in federal criminal court will result in “massive pre-trial motions,” he does not mention the same is true in military commissions. In fact, there is even more room for pre-trial litigation in the military commissions because of the lack of precedent in that system. Defense lawyers in the commissions will attack everything from the constitutionality of the proceedings to the most minute procedural issue.

While former Vice President Dick Cheney laments KSM’s ability to “proselytize millions of people out there around the world” during his trial in New York, he fails to explain how a military commission will curtail that opportunity.

When Minnesota Representative Michele Bachmann proclaims “we would have had 100 percent certainty in a military tribunal, but because of the provisions of reasonable doubt, that could turn into something like 80 percent,” as she did in a recent protest on the steps of the Supreme Court, she apparently overlooks the fact that reasonable doubt is the standard in both systems.

All this is not to say KSM’s trial in criminal court will be a short process immune from intrigue and legal maneuvers. But any court with the required due process provisions will present the same prospects. If the military commission system has the due process its advocates insist, any marginally competent lawyer will be able to fight conviction every step of the way. Trying KSM and other terrorists in either system will be a complex and time-consuming process. Military commissions will hardly shortcut that fact. The use of misleading and incomplete statements about the two systems should be seen for what it is: an attempt to score cheap political points without much regard for the truth.

Michael Foote is a deputy district attorney in Boulder, Colorado and a principal at the Truman National Security Project.

At Barry Ritholtz’s blog they have a complete evisceration of the report and clearly show it is too early to celebrate yet.

Regardless of the actual revenue generated, I have repeatedly cautioned people to hold off on forming an opinion until we get a good look at margins. There is deep discounting and price deflation is picking up steam, which is squeezing margins to unsustainable levels. I didn’t know that the government estimates of revenue didn’t take price changes into account, which makes the report nearly useless at present.

Far from expecting an increase in demand reflective of a recovery, major players are clearly fighting to reduce their margins as much as possible in order to destroy the competition. This is going to exacerbate the commercial real estate crunch and joblessness for some time; although I don’t think this is a bad development in the long term because we clearly have excessive retail investment that needs to be purged.

Needless to say, I expect another “unforeseen” downturn in the coming year or two.

Update: Gallup: Self-reported consumer spending was down more than 20% in each of the last three weeks from last year’s depressed weekly comparables.

So in the view of this headline writer, based on the story written about our President’s meeting with bankers, Mr. Obama is begging, urgently entreating, and beseeching these greedy buglers who nearly destroyed the world economic system (and may do so yet), bankers who now make their own money by trading stocks with money from the Fed they borrow at no interest, to help do a little something for the rest of us.

Besides begging, urgently entreating and beseeching, what else has this administration done to check the proclivities of these bankers? Check the Bloomberg web site today for the answer. According to a story posted there, no U.S. authority has put into force “a single measure that would transform the financial system.”

While the unseemly, profoundly embarrassing scene between our President and top bankers in Washington was taking place yesterday, two of the banks being begged, urgently entreated and beseeched were doing a little something for their own top managers. Wells Fargo announced it would repay about $10 billion in TARP money, and Citigroup said it would repay some $20 billion, steps that will allow both banks to do what bankers do best these days — give each other bonuses without interference by the government.

These latest TARP paybacks, the New York Times noted in an editorial of its own today, didn’t come about because these two banks were healthy again. No indeed. But because these two banks are raising money from “investors” (i.e. other banks who are the big traders on Wall Street these days and who give their own top people big bonuses). Banks now, it seems, don’t have to stay in business by lending to small companies or consumers, they make their money trading stocks with cheap money from the Fed — which petty well explains why the stock market is up more than 60 percent this year while the Main Street economy staggers.

Ah, but wait, you say. Tim Geithner, Larry Summers, and even the President himself, are now saying nasty things about banks. Boy, that has hurt the small group of predators who are giving themselves more than $140 billion in bonuses this year. Oh, yeah. You can see the pain on these bankers’ faces — the pain caused by forcing themselves not to laugh out loud.

There was a chance when Obama first came into office, a chance the rotting, rigged and self-serving financial system of this country might have been truly reformed to the benefit of all. The time when this mattered most, when it was still possible in any real sense, is past. So now we get the hot air and shame-shame gestures from a fast hollowing out administration.

You wuz out president, Mr. Obama. You shoudda protected our interests.

center>http://www.wallstreetpoet.com ]]> http://themoderatevoice.com/55998/a-banking-beast-now-beyond-reform/feed/ 7 http://themoderatevoice.com/55998/a-banking-beast-now-beyond-reform/ http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/themoderatevoice/~3/_Jeh0nMrnbY/ http://themoderatevoice.com/55994/independents-are-a-sleeping-giant-part-2-how-we-limit-our-own-success-guest-voice/#comments Tue, 15 Dec 2009 16:33:04 +0000 Guest Voice http://themoderatevoice.com/?p=55994 Independents Are a Sleeping Giant Part 2 – How We Limit Our Own Success

by Alex Hammer

In Part 1 of Independents Are a Sleeping Giant I talked about how Independents represent a large section of the electorate but a minute slice of elected representation. I discussed in rather general terms the role that such a disconnect may play in our government overall.

For example, I noted that:
“We’ve shortchanged ourselves as a nation by ceding our collective non-partisan, solution-oriented strength to those with partisan interests.

It’s not that we have the government we deserve, but rather the government we have allowed.”

The Next Step

In this piece, Part 2, I offer a few thoughts in regard to ways in which, as Independents and Moderates, we may limit our own reach and power.

Certainly, many obstacles have been put in the path of third party candidates by the powers that be and much can and should be written about that (and has to a certain degree) but with the volume of Independents already in existence in this great nation we must also be limiting ourselves in some ways to not have already gotten further than we have.

The latent political power of Independents, largely unorganized, represents a sleeping giants of individuals disenfranchised by partisan politics and seeking greater solutions from government.

First, is it a strength or a weakness — or both — that as Independents we are a pretty heterogeneous lot. While some Independents might well be very eager to organize to carry greater political punch, my feeling is that any such political collaboration would have to be very grassroots and organically organized in order to be effective.

As Independents we just don’t like to be told what to do. Even from each other.

As it should be.

The last thing that Independents and Moderates would want, it seems likely, is to be part of one more party, bureaucratic and rigid in nature.

The Nature of Change

Change sometimes occurs imperceptibly for some time, incrementally but also spontaneously as well, reflecting growing discontent over the status quo.

From a distance water that is one degree above freezing looks pretty much the same, perhaps, as water that is one degree below showing beginning signs of boiling, but the internal dynamics of the two are of course quite different.

Independents internal heating up has also been occurring, but how close or far away we are from boiling – that is, from demonstrating a qualitative change from our prior state, perhaps nobody knows.

The discontent of Independents over the political status quo can be very individualistic and take a variety of forms. I don’t feel that it is my place, or that of anyone really, to attempt to definitively say what those forms of change by Independents collectively across the country ought to be.

Over time, some consensus in regard to the structure of such changes may be reached. But I do have some thoughts, generally, in this regard.

Political change can occur at a variety of entry points. Independent representatives can be elected at the local, State or Federal level. My state, Maine, has had two Independent Governors, and I am seeking now to become the third (I can receive support nationwide). Unity08 was an attempt to form a bipartisan Presidential ticket. Ross Perot, John Anderson and others have made individual Presidential efforts in modern times.

Some change agents focus on addressing the political obstacles in election laws and practices that make running as anything other than a D or an R much more difficult. For example, CUIP and http://independentvoting.org/about/ together “are a national strategy, communications, and organizing center working to connect and empower the 40% of Americans who identify themselves as independents…We do not aspire to be another special interest. Independents seek instead to diminish the regressive influence of parties and partisanship by opening up the democratic process.”

Independents, Democrats and Republicans

Because we live in a society in which the individual is becoming increasingly empowered (both politically and overall) relative to “the authority” or “the system”, you, me and all of us as individuals will increasingly be determining factors of our own and collective political lives. Citizens gave the Congress back to the Democrats in 2006, adding the Presidency in 2008. But can either the D’s or the R’s really reach the level of meaningful changes that voters vote for? (My take on that question:
“Too Small to Fail”: President Obama and the Dilemma of Political Parties (Guest Voice) )
It seems to me, that if enough Independent and Moderate voices reach out within their individual sphere of influences that over time an Independent consensus, not necessarily beholden to movement status, will organically grow.

This site, The Moderate Voice (TMV), for example, has many voices, structurally connected, but serving a variety of overlapping audiences in aggregate.

Please step back for a moment and think about how powerful such aggregated voices could be. As more and more pockets of such critical mass develop and grow — for example thousands of sites like TMV perhaps but each unique — collectively they will amass a volume of voices that dictate real political reform.

Independents are a major, perhaps the major, block of voters, but we’re currently so fragmented as to be politically essentially invisible in our own right, seen instead solely as contributors to D’s and R’s.

America 2.0

I do not feel that Independents need joint platforms, party-like in nature, on which we can seek to agree. And yet perhaps there may over time evolve some principles extractable across the many Independent and Moderate circles of influence which will become better known.

An Independent Bill of Rights, perhaps, if you will.

What is your Independent Bill of Rights? I ask every one of you.

The rise in numbers of Independents signifies, I believe, a growing recognition among this portion of the electorate, and perhaps among the electorate to some degree as a whole, that something better exists beyond a conforming to “politics as usual” as evidenced by both major parties fundamentally.

If that wasn’t the case, there wouldn’t be the unending cries for real political change.

Something more fundamental would have already occurred by now.

The Future is Now?

I believe that as a nation, collectively we have some idea, known but perhaps not well defined, of where we wish to go. But we just don’t seem to know how best to be able to get there.

Independents in particular, if you agree, have perhaps been most pushed into a political system incongruous to us.

Only square pegs available for round holes.

Independents are a giant that is indeed still sleeping because while we are large in numbers we are collectively, still, perhaps, too self-unaware. What defines us? What are our core principles? What are th similarities and differences between us?

Organic developments of such understandings take time. Perhaps our evolving political awareness — and thus power — as Independents reflects not only a desire to act politically as we judge best but also to understand and communicate such actions as well, in language that is developed, rich and well understood.

And appreciated and shared.

Independents are a sleeping giant in this country.

And we’re starting to stir.

Alex Hammer is an Independent candidate for Governor of Maine who believes in the saying that “there is nothing more powerful than an idea whose time has come”.

Our political Quote of the Day is actually two quotes of the day dealing with the question of why Senator Joe Lieberman seemingly changed a key position — on the medicare buy in. The quotes come from two sources generally considered reliable stand-back-and-analyze infooutlets, versus the typical left-right weblogs that seem engaged in permanent political campaigns for their own party and against the other party.

The Atlantic’s Marc Ambinder must-read-each-day blog often contains posts with original reporting and Ambinder has extensive sources so whatever he writes carries a lot of weight. He writes this:

What Lieberman is actually trying to do — and surely, the Democratic leadership has discovered this by now — is to kill or weaken the bill.

Since, really, 2006, Lieberman has felt alienated from his caucus, and he’s grown more conservative. He does not care about liberals, who tried to drum him out of office in 2006; he seems to enjoy poking them in the eye. He’s not likely to run for office again, so he’s not terribly worried about loud protests. His contempt for liberals coincides with his new conservative friends, aides, colleagues, donors. (He was never a fiscal liberal to begin with, but his fiscal conservatism seems to have ripened lately.)

Lieberman blessed the Gang of Ten deal privately before those talks were completed, then reversed himself as soon as it became evident that the left saw a silver lining in the consolation prize of a Medicare buy-in proposal.

There is the explanation that Lieberman is an unusually talented egoist; certainly obstreperous for the sake of seeming obstreperous. But if this impulse of Lieberman’s governed his policy decisions, then he would certainly want to be seen as health care’s savior, and not be content with being seen as its destroyer. Lieberman has designed his public campaign as a way to streeeetch out the debate as much as possible, and just as Democrats seem to be on the verge of reaching him, like a quantum particle, he appears instantly at a completely different location, rendering useless at least a week of hard soldering by the Democrats.

To many of Lieberman’s colleagues, it’s been hard for them to accept that his motives were different than those he stated in public, but there have apparently been a number of private assurances given — and broken — by the Connecticut senator in recent weeks — and a growing recognition that, of all the wavering “moderate” Democrats — Bill Nelson, Blanche Lincoln and Mary Landreiu — Lieberman is the least likely to negotiate to a compromise.

Ambinder notes that the Democrats will have to do something that I have predicted for a long time in my discussions with friends about this issue: they’re going to have to pass a diluted bill giving Senator Snowe what she wants and use it as a kind of political skelteon — to add meat and flesh to it later. He writes:

The good news for Democrats is that once they pass this bill, they can add subsidies through the much-easier reconciliation process later on. They’ve got several years to do so, assuming they retain their majority, which is probably not possible if they fail to pass health care.

Ambinder’s piece is notable because it shifts the Joe Lieberman reportage narrative from a Senator of conscience being pursued because he isn’t left enough by the left to a Senator angry at the left who is now involved in payback of the left.

It fits in with the analysis provided by MSNBC’s respected First Read team of Chuck Todd, Mark Murray, Domenico Montanaro, and Ali Weinberg:

*** Principle or Politics? There’s now growing evidence that Lieberman’s objection to the Medicare “buy-in” compromise isn’t necessarily based on principle. Yesterday, a video from this past September made the rounds that showed Lieberman clearly stating he supports expanding Medicare to those in their 50s. In addition, while Lieberman has been a hawk on national security issues, he’s been a consistent liberal on economic ones. According to National Journal’s vote ratings for 2008, he was MORE LIBERAL than 68% of the Senate on economic issues, putting him squarely in the Democratic mainstream. (By comparison, he was more liberal than just 38% of the chamber on foreign affairs, placing him to the right of the Dem caucus.) In 2007, he was more liberal than 72% of the Senate on the economy, and his ratings for 2005 and 2006 were similar. Bottom line: It appears Lieberman is acting a bit out of character on this issue, given his history of being a rank-and-file Democrat (leaning liberal/progressive) on domestic issues. This is why the charge of playing politics with the left is looking so believable to some.

So now you have two, reliable, stand-back analytical web sources essentially coming to the same conclusion: despite what he or his aides may say, an emerging conventional wisdom is that Lieberman on one level was essentially acting out.

Could this indeed be what happened?

It certainly sounds as if some of what is going on is Lieberman payback, which he can do because Congressional Democrats and the White House decided after the election that working with him would have more benefits than targeting him.

But is there another factor as well?

Couldn’t it have been predicted that Lieberman would take this path? In recent years he has increasingly been on the same wavelength on many issues as his good friend Senator John McCain, another partisan who until recently was considered not completely reliable as a party person by many in his own party. McCain even reportedly wanted Lieberman to run as his Veep but was told the GOP rank and file would never accept it. As McCain took an increasingly firmer — and angrier — stand against healthcare reform as details trickled out about what could emerge, and became Obama’s chief critic, is it any real surprise that Lieberman in the end would essentially be on the same wavelength?

But never underestimate the 21st century political trend towards payback. Grudge matches are evident between parties, ideologies, you see it on the Internet between websites, within websites, and in comments on websites. It’s starts as issue based but often evolves into about getting back at and trying to flatten those who opposed you or see things differently. In Lieberman’s case, his foes on the left thought they finished him off in the primary. NOT! They thought he was humbled by the 2008 election results. NOT! And – the latest — they thought based on his past statements on television and what Senate Democrats said he had indicated to them just weeks earlier that he would go along with the latest emerging compromise. NOT!

So, unless there is some big surprise, Lieberman clearly wins this skirmish.

Now the question becomes, given that he’s not up for re-election, will those now enraged at Lieberman more than ever have their own nice, cold dish of revenge in coming months as well?

The cartoon by RJ Matson, Roll Call, is copyrighted and licensed to run on TMV. Unauthorized reproduction prohibited. All rights reserved.

Climate talks have been going on in Copenhagen for a week now, and it appears to be a two-sided debate between alarmists and skeptics. But there are actually four different views of global warming.

The writer proceeds to offer a “taxonomy of the four,” labeling them the “Denialists,” “Skeptics,” “Warners,” and “Calamatists.” He then summarizes …

The calamatists and denialists are primarily political figures, with firm ideological loyalties, whereas the warners and skeptics are primarily scientists, guided by ever-changing evidence.

This seems a healthy way to look at this particular issue, if not every issue, since there are frequently more than two sides to a debate. In fact, I’d go a step further than the author of the noted op-ed and suggest there are at least 14 “sides” in the global-warming debate.

Nestled between the four primary camps the op-ed writer outlines, I’ll anticipate three additional “mini-camps,” namely: skeptics who lean toward denial; warners who are bridled by skepticism; and calamatists who temper their predictions of doom. In turn, these seven total camps/mini-camps could probably be subdivided twice each into those who have some expertise and those who don’t, giving us expert and non-expert deniers, calamatists, and so on.

Of course, you might respond that the expert/non-expert divisions are meaningless, since the fundamental positions of the experts and non-experts within a given camp are the same. Perhaps, although I think the sophistication of the knowledge underlying our convictions can materially shape the way we argue our convictions. For instance: The non-expert calamatist might support actions against polluters that are even more punitive than the expert calamatist supports, because the expert calamatist might have the requisite knowledge to understand that certain less-punitive actions could produce the same result.

Either way, you can put me in the camp of the non-expert warners who are bridled by doses of skepticism — not so much skepticism of the fundamental science, but skepticism that theoretical models can reliably anticipate every variable and predict with precision every outcome. I’m also skeptical, as noted before, about the focus of the current debate, i.e., should we spend as much time as we are debating ways to prevent warming trends that we may or may not be able to stop — or should we balance this debate with more discussion of ways to deal with the consequences of warming trends, regardless of the causal factors?

The number of states involved: 16!  Currently, just six states (Michigan, North Carolina, Arizona, Washington, Connecticut and Hawaii) have female governors.

And if you don’t subscribe to ElectWomen’s enewsletters, you should.

Any bets on how far these candidates will get, what the outcome will be in 11/10?

Alex Sink, Nikki Haley, Sue Bysiewicz, Meg Whitman, Kay Bailey Hutchison, Jan Brewer – those are the names I know, from one way or another. I don’t think Whitman (CA) can do it, I wish Hutchison (TX) could at least get past Rick Perry (whose been endorsed by Sarah Palin) but I’m not sure, Nikki Haley (SC) is very intriguing but assessing the impact of her closeness to Mark Sanford and his policies is tough. Alex Sink (FL) has been getting name play from women’s forums for quite a while and I’ve been hearing about Bysiewicz for years and years because of my connections in CT.

And how many of these women, after two years, do we think might challenge potential candidates in runs as vice president…or president in 2012? If elected to gov-ship in 2010, they’d at least meet the minimum experience qualification threshold, set – for better or worse – by Sarah Palin in 2008.

Nate Silver goes a step further, claiming Senate progressives would be ‘[expletive] crazy’ to kill an amended, make-Joe-happy bill.

His detailed explanation is worth considering — and challenging, if you’re so inclined. In fact, Silver invites your challenges:

… please do pick apart my numbers: I’m sure that you will find some questionable assumptions and possibly some outright errors. But if you found a persuasive, progressive policy rationale against the bill, I’d be stunned.

So have at it. In the meantime, I’ll put my money on Silver, and if I win that bet, if Silver and his calculations are correct, then progressives who kill the bill should blame themselves, first, for any resulting cascade of falling dominoes.

—————-

UPDATE: Jonathan Cohn (via Ben Smith) reaches a conclusion similar to Nate’s and suggests the following about the “movement” that resulted in the Senate bill sans public option and Medicare expansion …

Someday in the future, that movement may be powerful enough to win more sweeping changes. Who knows, maybe those changes will include a government-run insurance plan.

Or maybe those changes will include other, smarter, more politically viable ways to “curb costs and increase quality,” such as one or more of the “test” programs to that end that are apparently already in the Senate bill.

Cook report: Number of “likely” Democratic House seats down to … 218

A bare majority. Actually, there are only 39 seats listed in the “lean Democratic” and “Democratic toss-up” columns, but as Taegan Goddard points out, if you toss in Bart Gordon’s retirement today in a very winnable GOP district you’re down to the magic number. But never mind that. Follow the first link to Cook and skim the column of “likely Democratic” seats, which are considered safe-ish, to see how many come from districts with a Republican-leaning PVI. If you see multiple retirements in that column — and the NRCC thinks you very well might — then suddenly a bunch of seats are in play on top of the 40 that are already shaky.

All of this, of course, hinges on the jobs numbers as we move into next summer. If unemployment somehow droops back down below 8%, I think you can count on a number of those Dem seats slipping quietly back into the safe column. But if people remain out of work and Democrats keep announcing their retirements at a rate of one per week, combined with spiraling debt numbers and the ramrodding of increasingly unpopular programs and spending items… we might be in for a very interesting autumn.

And remember what the ancient Persians said in one of their more popular curses… “May you live to see interesting times.”

The Medicare buy-in plan, of course, was the compromise that was crafted to replace the public option, which Joe Lieberman wanted out of the bill, or he would stand with Republicans to kill the entire bill, via filibuster, if he did not get his way.

Lieberman was a leading proponent of expanding Medicare coverage in the 2000 presidential campaign, and he continued to support it right up until the Gang of Ten agreed to trade the public option for the Medicare buy-in idea, and progressives in the Democratic caucus made it clear they were enthusiastic about the trade-off, and didn’t think it was a loss at all.

That was a serious tactical error. They should have pretended to hate the idea. If they had, Lieberman would now be insisting that he would join a Republican filibuster unless they put it in.