COVER/Pratap Chatterjee
Bush gone, but Halliburton still cashing in
EDITORIAL
Keep health options open
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
RURAL ROUTES/Margot McMillen
Sell me a car, Detroit
DISPATCHES
Kennedy makes health choice stand;
GOP sens oppose public option;
Caucuses unite behind public health option;
Medical bills linked to 2/3 of bankruptcies;
Rush, Osama vs. Obama;
Obama undercuts extremists;
GOP rep undermines US in China;
Reviving Employee Free Choice;
No free ride for Specter;
Who's afraid of interest rates;
Socialized medicine?
GOP budget cutters target ed opportunities, bike paths, tech;
Buying justice OK for right wing;
Hours still vanishing;
Prius loves gas tax
...
HARRY KELBER
Jobs for the ‘forgotten people’
HEALTH CARE/Joan Retsinas
Dissecting the fascination with Dr. House
SAM URETSKY
Obligations are negotiable
DON ROLLINS
Bloody Kansas
WAYNE O’LEARY
Health-care conundrum
GRASSROOTS/Hank Kalet
Where’s the change?
JOHN BUELL
Abortion and innocent life
N. GUNASEKARAN
India’s choice: What’s left?
EMANUEL G. BOUSSIOS
Demographic changes threaten GOP
MARGIE BURNS
Old hands at misleading Congress
JOEL D. JOSEPH
Locking in the price of oil
ROB PATTERSON
Woodstock: 40 years of myths
POPULIST PICKS
Check out The Animals
and more ...
See our health reform resource page.
The Blog
(6/15/09)
Single-payer health care gets hearings in the House and Senate
Actually more of a hearing in the House Health, Employment, Labor and Pensions Subcommittee, where four of the five witnesses favored single payer, than in the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, where one of 24 witnesses favored single payer. But at least she wasn't arrested. David Swanson reports on the single-payer hearings in Truthout.
(5/9/09)
Populism is Not a Style, It's a People's Rebellion Against Corporate Power
Jim Hightower writes about the historically grounded political doctrine (and movement) that supports ordinary folks in their ongoing democratic fight against the moneyed elites.
(1/21/09)
Get Serious About Mideast Peace
Now that Barack Obama is in charge of US foreign policy, he should start discussions with Iran and Syria, as well as other Arab neighbors, in an effort to bring Palestinian authorities and Israel to the negotiating table to implement a two-state solution with secure borders.
The US should guarantee the survival of the nation of Israel, and the $3 billion in military aid we send annually to Israel has helped it build the strongest military in the region, but we must not continue to enable atrocities against Palestinians, as exemplified in the recent punitive strikes in Gaza.
Both Israel and Hamas--the ruling party in Gaza--are at fault in the conflict, but in this case it looks like a matter of who hit back first. Hamas--frustrated with the longstanding Israeli blockade of Gaza--broke a cease fire and started firing rockets into Israel in December. Israel reacted predictably and disproportionately in a punitive campaign against Hamas that created a humanitarian crisis in Gaza. Israeli forces destroyed civilian neighborhoods it accused of harboring militants as it did in Southern Lebanon in a failed 2006 campaign. That was supposed to wipe out Hezbollah fundamentalists who, like Hamas, are supported by Syria and Iran. Instead, Israeli overkill in South Lebanon ended up giving Hezbollah new prestige in the Arab world.
Once again, as Israeli forces shelled Gaza neighborhoods, including schools, mosques and at least one UN sanctuary that Israel claimed was being used as a base of Hamas activity, Israel looks like the bully to the rest of the world, Hamas is viewed as the victim and its leaders have acquired legitimacy in the eyes of Palestinians at the expense of the more moderate and secular PLO/Fatah party that rules the West Bank
Peace will continue to elude as long as neither side appears to be interested in achieving it. But the peace accord in Northern Ireland after 900 years of conflict there should give hope in a land where the main grudges date back only 60 years to the partition of Palestine by the United Nations to create a Jewish homeland.
During his inauguration speech on Tuesday, Obama pledged a new approach to the Muslim world, saying "To the Muslim world, we seek a new way forward, based on mutual interest and mutual respect."
Agence France-Presse reports that Obama promised to work towards a "durable peace" in the Middle East during a phone call to Palestinian president Mahmud Abbas on Wednesday, Palestinian officials said. Obama assured Abbas, who also is chairman of the Palestine Liberation Organization and a Hamas rival, that he intended "to work with him as partners to establish a durable peace in the region," Abbas's spokesman Nabil Abu Rudeina told AFP.
Obama told Abbas that the president was the first foreign leader he called since taking office, Rudeina said.
That's an encouraging sign.
UPDATE: (From ThinkProgress): Former Sen. George Mitchell, who handled the Northern Ireland peace process, is being eyed by the Obama administration to be a top diplomatic envoy to the Middle East. In 2001, Mitchell produced a report on the Middle East which recommended that Israel freeze all its settlement activities. Without a freeze, a cessation of violence would be “particularly hard to sustain,” he argued. While Mitchell’s impending appointment is earning a great deal of praise, the Anti-Defamation League’s Abe Foxman complains the diplomat is too fair and balanced for the post: “Sen. Mitchell is fair. He’s been meticulously even-handed....So I’m concerned. I’m not sure the situation requires that kind of approach in the Middle East.”
That's the problem. As Kevin Drum notes at MotherJones: "But Abe: you're not supposed to say this in public."
(1/20/09)
Change we can believe in
(1/1/09)
(12/31/08)
(See updates through 1/2/09 below)
Senate leaders seem to think they have the authority to reject Gov. Ron Blagojevich's choice of Roland Burris as the senator from Illinois to succeed President-elect Barack Obama, but the last time we checked it took more than a criminal complaint from a federal prosecutor to remove a governor from office. Not even Dick Cheney has claimed that the feds have the authority to summarily remove state governors from office (though Cheney might have that in a memo from some jackleg "constitutional scholar" somewhere).
We're not defending Blagojevich or the well-publicized allegations of his attempts to market the senate vacancy, but until he is removed from office, he is the duly-elected governor with the authority to appoint the interim senator to serve until the next general election, and unless the Senate has reason to believe that Burris improperly gained that appointment -- and no such evidence has been alleged, indeed Burris' reputation is said to be above reproach -- then the Democratic caucus has no business snubbing Burris. This is the same Democratic caucus, after all, that forgave Joe Lieberman's betrayal and not only welcomed him back in the caucus but let him keep his committee chairmanship after he repeatedly undermined the party, broke his pledges and campaigned against its candidates, so they have plenty of experience in bending principles.
If the Senate refused to seat senators with shady connections, it would struggle to keep its membership in double figures. If Democrats don't think Burris should be a senator, they should run somebody better then him in the primary two years hence. If that doesn't work, the Republicans will have a shot at him in the general election.
Against the tide of blogosphere complaints about the Burris appointment, Steve Benen of WashingtonMonthly.com entertains the argument made by Brian Beutler, who's slammed Blagojevich's corruption but nonetheless argued that Barack Obama and Senate Democrats are "doing the wrong thing" by refusing to accept Burris' appointment. John Cole at Balloon Juice also said he "fundamentally disagrees" with the Democrats' position. "We are a nation of rules, after all. How about we follow them rather than creating all this damned drama?"
UPDATE 1/1/09: Jane Hamsher at firedoglake.com notes that "It would certainly be interesting to watch the same Senate who gave convicted felon Ted Stevens a standing ovation (Reid calling him 'distinguished colleague') exclude Burris."
Harry Reid has sworn to use his mastery of Senate procedure to block the Burris appointment and protect the integrity of that very exclusive club, which nonetheless warmly embraces Joe Lieberman.
If only he had been so Johnny-on-the-spot when Bush was appointing Supreme Court Justices, ramming through telecom immunity, FISA and the Military Commissions Act, and otherwise trashing the country.
I think this may be my favorite part, however:
Should Roland Burris show up Tuesday for duty in the Senate, armed police officers stand ready to bar him from the floor. ...
Would that by any chance be the Sergeant-at-Arms, who oversees the Capital police, who was never deployed to enforce congressional subpoenas when the Bush administration refused to comply?
The Washington Post reports there are several possible "next steps":
• Burris arrives on Tuesday and is sworn in with the senators who were elected in November.
• Burris shows up, and his appointment is rejected because the Illinois secretary of state, Jesse White, has refused to sign the paperwork certifying the appointment.
• Burris shows up in Washington, and his appointment is referred to the Senate Rules and Administration Committee, which conducts an investigation of his selection by the governor to determine whether Burris should be seated.
• The matter ends up in Illinois and federal courts as Burris tries to force the Senate to seat him.
In any event, Hamsher noted, "Blago has done a damn good job of making the Democratic leadership look absolutely ridiculous."
UPDATE 1/2/09: Chris Bowers of OpenLeft sees selective outrage over Burris:
If Senate Democrats do indeed block Roland Burris from entering the Senate chamber, as they have threatened to do, it will be the strongest action they have undertaken, like, ever. Hearing Democrats invoking Article One, Section Five of The Constitution is more reminiscent of Republican attempts to impeach President Clinton or destroy filibusters than it is of anything under Harry Reid's leadership. It is worth noting that blocking a Democrat who was unquestionably appointed legally, from being seated in the Senate is the issue where Democrats decide to grow a spine and play hardball. I mean, really, this is the issue where Senate Democrats decide to stand up for themselves?
(12/19/08)
After hearing Obama's selection of "GMO-lovin', bio-fuelish, feedlot-friendly Tom Vilsack for Secretary of Agriculture [draw] a resounding 'Bleech!' from the blogosphere this week," Kerry Trueman of Eating Liberally asked Denise O'Brien, an organic farmer who ran (unsuccessfully) for Iowa's secretary of agriculture in 2006, what she thought of Vilsack, who served two terms as Iowa governor.
O'Brien noted that Vilsack in 1998 was the first Democrat to hold the office of governor in 30 years, since Harold Hughes, who left office in 1969.
"Many were ecstatic that a Dem had made it to this high office and that at last, we would have access," O'Brien wrote in a letter at OpenLeft.com. And Vilsack's office was accessible. "We thought we could stop Confined Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) and do something about genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and have a voice for fair trade. But alas, we found that even though we were of the same party, there were some differences. ..."
She added:
It wasn't far into his administration, it finally dawned on many that our Governor Tom Vilsack was a centrist as was the leader of our country - Bill Clinton - and that we were likely to disagree on a lot of issues. What's a progressive to do? Give up? Not bother to even engage in discussions about relevant issues? The best thing to do was to keep talking and to keep exposing the governor to a more progressive line of thinking. We resigned ourselves to the fact that our expectations of a Democratic Governor were exactly that, expectations and that there was still a lot of work to do.
There were a number of times that Governor Vilsack did act on issues that were more in line with a progressive agenda. He brought people together for problem solving. He appointed a strong leader as the head of the Department of Natural Resources who worked hard to reign in the CAFOs but was ultimately unsuccessful. The Governor also appointed people to the Environmental Protection Council who were intelligent and outspoken in their opposition to the CAFOs. Alas, big ag still had the upper hand.
One of the best issues that addressed a progressive agenda during his administration was the creation, by Executive Order, of the Iowa Food Policy Council. This was the second one to form in the United States. A number of progressives served on this Council and were able to make inroads on issues of food security, local foods, farmer's markets and programs addressing the needs of people in poverty - food stamps and WIC. Yes, this happened in Iowa, the "Belly of the Beast" of agribusiness, and Vilsack was the leader who made it happen.
The bottom line is that we can work with Governor Vilsack. ...
Read the rest.
See a roundup of reactions to Vilsack's appointment at Bleeding Heartland and more reaction at MyDD.com.
(12/17/08)
News that former Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack was President-elect Barack Obama's choice for agriculture secretary has drawn some jeers from the progressive community because he steered a centrist course on ag issues and supported development of genetically modified croups.
Chase Martyn writes in the Iowa Independent:
On matters of agriculture, Vilsack was a pragmatic centrist, content with incremental changes and reluctant to take steps to significantly disrupt the status quo. When he successfully ran for his first term as governor in 1998, the generally pro-Republican Farm Bureau decided not to oppose him, choosing instead to endorse both him and his opponent. That was an impressive feat for an underdog Democrat running for governor — especially for a trial lawyer who had never farmed a day in his life. ...
Art Cullen writes in the Storm Lake (Iowa) Times:
Vilsack grew into the governorship from a cautious compromiser to a bold leader who set out to reshape Iowa on its key strengths: natural resources and education. Vilsack envisioned a state that would become a national leader in biosciences. He told the eager Beavers that we could feed the hungry and cure the sick through advancements in life science through livestock and plants.
Through fits and starts, we believe that Vilsack set the stage for Iowa’s golden era where town and farm alike prosper through scientific innovation. Our verdant fields can become a source for fuel and food. With Vilsack leading the USDA, we can expect to get the push we need. ...
We think Vilsack will be a good fit for the Obama administration. Vilsack is familiar with the same farm economics Obama worked with as senator from Illinois. (They grow a lot of corn and soybeans in Illinois, too.) Vilsack promotes development of rural areas, small farmers and ranchers and renewable energy resources, as does Obama. He also supports stricter limits on farm subsidies, as does Obama. He is friendly with Monsanto and supports the development of genetically modified crops, but you can't win ’em all. Vilsack will restore balance to the USDA but progressive activists who were hoping the USDA would veer leftward were bound to be disappointed.
2008
2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August
2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 16-31, 2005
January 1-15, 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
