Mario Diaz-Balart gets it exactly wrong on health care debate

Actually, it wouldn't really be precise to say U.S. Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart (R-Miami) gets it wrong, when he manages to avoid questions altogether so skillfully.

I'm talking about an interview conducted the other day by Brent Batten of the Naples Daily News, wherein Diaz-Balart was asked to "put himself in a virtual town hall facing supporters of the national health-care reform being supported by the president and Democrats." And I don't know which is worse: Diaz-Balart's gymnastic gyrations in sidestepping the questions or Batten's obsequious ass-kissing in somehow interpreting the sidesteps as direct answers.* Either way, it's just more right-wing hypocrisy and fact-free rationale, both from Congress and the corporate media.

Here, let me give you some examples:

Q. I keep hearing about euthanasia, death panels and “pulling the plug on grandma.” But reading the passage of House Resolution 3200 that people keep citing, beginning on page 424, it talks about advance care planning. Things like living wills and hospice care. It says nothing about forcing people to end their lives early. Isn’t this just a tactic to scare senior citizens into opposing the plan? How do you get euthanasia out of a discussion about living wills and hospice care?

A. “There’s obviously a problem because the Democrats took the language out. We need to at least have hearings on that. It’s obviously a bi-partisan concern. You’re dealing with the government, particularly a government that wants to do all and say all.”

How exactly is Diaz-Balart's answer responsive to Batten's question? We need to have hearings on language that (1) was removed from the bill and (2) was completely misrepresented, mostly by right-wing corporate media (not to mention Sarah Palin) with the acquiescence and, indeed, encouragement of "mainstream" Republicans? Diaz-Balart should be drummed right out of Congress (let alone the GOP) for suggesting such an utter waste of time and resources.

Besides, he clearly failed to answer the question, which was "how do you get euthanasia out of a discussion about living wills and hospice care?" (I did edit out a piece of the answer, but the stuff I removed, which followed the quote shown above, was no more responsive than the above-quoted tripe.) Diaz-Balart never even comes close to addressing the question.

Next ...

Q. A concern seems to be that the government is angling for a single-payer system. You dig out a quote from 2003 in which President Obama says he favors a single-payer system yet he’s said numerous times since then he doesn’t think one will work here. The House plan offers a public option that is just an option. Why do you think that will result in just one payer, namely the government?

A. “Three things. First, Barney Frank. Have you seen the video?” Diaz-Balart asks, referencing a video available on You Tube that shows Frank saying on July 27, “I think if we can get a good public option it could lead to single payer and that’s the best way to get to single payer.” (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3BS4C9el98)

“Another word that comes to mind is ‘Citizens,’” Diaz-Balart continued, referring to Florida’s government-run hurricane insurance option. “Remember the insurer of last resort? Where we are today, it’s essentially the only game in town. Citizens is not actuarially sound, which would be the case (with a government-subsidized health insurance plan). They say the way you have competition is to have a government-run option. Should we have government-run grocery stores? It’s ludicrous on its face. They’re proposing something that would have lower prices through subsidies. It will inevitably lead to government-run health care.”

I'm not sure Diaz-Balart could miss the point, or the question, any more egregiously than he does here. First off, what the hell does Citizens Insurance have to do with health care? Diaz-Balart throws up a superb strawman here, suggesting that the failings of Citizens, as a government-subsidized insurance plan in Florida, somehow are characteristic of all government-subsidized insurance plans. Yet he makes no such claim with regard, say, to Medicare, a government-subsidized insurance plan that bears far more resemblance to the plans currently under consideration by the Obama Administration and Congress than does Citizens. Lovely strawman, Congressman, but your argument is a massive FAIL. (Besides, it's not the least bit responsive to the question, which has to do with the desirability of a single-payer system.)

And the Barney Frank thing? It's a video where, as Batten indicates, Rep. Frank suggests that public option could lead to single payer. But again, Diaz-Balart misses the point, because Barney Frank doesn't speak for Congress. He's one member. Sure, he hopes that a public option someday would lead to single-payer. I do, too. That doesn't mean it's inevitable, and to suggest otherwise, as Diaz-Balart does here, is more of the scare tactics that are practically instinctive acts by Republicans. (Moreover, needless to say, single-payer would be an eminently good thing for America, but I'll leave that for another post.)

(By the way, Congressman Diaz-Balart, you said "three things." What's the third? Did Batten edit it out or did you just forget?)

Republicans, especially in Congress and in the mainstream corporate media (where they are legion), have a charming habit of using strawman arguments like this to dog-whistle their supporters ... bringing up Barney Frank is a sure way to do this because the wingnuts hate that gay congressman from Taxachusetts so very, very much. But ultimately, like nearly all right-wing arguments, it's a lot of talk and very little substance.

So once again we see a wingnut congressman who can't answer questions and who opposes health care reform, well, just because. And we see a wingnut newspaper columnist who will do or say nearly anything to prop up those tired right-wing arguments. And the beat goes on ...

---

* In Batten's own words: "[Diaz-Balart] was happy to do so, responding via telephone with answers specific to the questions asked, as opposed to Congressman Connie Mack, who represents western Collier County and who answered the same questions two weeks earlier with vague generalities about more freedom and less government."

I guess that somehow is different than vague generalities about insurance and death panels, which is what Diaz-Balart gives us.

Cuba libre?

Well, not exactly. But President Obama is making a bold (and long overdue) move by relaxing the restrictions on travel to Cuba for Cuban-Americans, and there is talk of opening up Cuban travel more broadly in the near future. It's a refreshing change from past policy of either acting like Cuba doesn't exist or behaving hostilely towards it.

"The president has directed that a series of steps be taken to reach out to the Cuban people to support their desire to enjoy basic human rights," said White House spokesman Robert Gibbs. "These are actions he has taken to open up the flow of information."

U.S. officials said Obama hoped the new measures would encourage Cuba's one-party state to implement democratic reforms long demanded by Washington as a condition for removing sanctions imposed after Fidel Castro took power in 1959.

Shares of companies that stand to gain from a thaw in U.S. ties with Cuba soared on the news, led by Canadian mining and energy company Sherritt International, a major player in Cuba's nickel and oil industry, whose stock rose 24.5 percent.

Miami-based cruise operator Royal Caribbean also saw its shares rise on hopes that the No. 2 cruise ship operator and rival Carnival, could sail to Cuba, just 90 miles from the United States.

U.S. telecommunications companies will now be allowed to set up fiber-optic cable and satellite links with Cuba, start roaming service agreements and permit U.S. residents to pay for telecoms, satellite radio and television services provided to people in Cuba, the White House said.

Obama also directed his government to look at starting regularly scheduled commercial flights to Cuba. Air travel between the United States and Cuba is now limited to charter flights.

Predictably, though, Florida politicians on both sides of the aisle are lining up against the decision. Democratic congresspersons Kendrick Meek and Debbie Wasserman Schultz "disagree[] with part of the Administration's new Cuba policy," and Rep. Connie Mack (R-Fla.) talks out of both sides of his mouth, as usual. However, it's the notoriously moronic Diaz-Balart brothers, two of Miami's "Three Hyphenated Stooges," who take their Obama Derangement Syndrome and run with it:

Despite the Cuban dictatorship increasing its repression of pro-democracy activists, torturing countless prisoners of conscience, and refusing to allow human rights activists and observers into the country, President Obama has violated his pledge of January 20 by unilaterally granting a concession to the dictatorship which will provide it with hundreds of millions of dollars annually. Unilateral concessions to the dictatorship embolden it to further isolate, imprison and brutalize pro-democracy activists, to continue to dictate which Cubans and Cuban-Americans are able to enter the island, and this unilateral concession provides the dictatorship with critical financial support.

No, you brotherly douchebags, the decision doesn't "provide the dictatorship with critical financial support." It provides real people -- Cubans and Americans -- with an opportunity to visit family and to help the island nation overcome and recover from the Castro regime. Of course, being Republicans, you two wouldn't understand the idea of helping real people, would you?

The idea that the embargo hurts Fidel (and Raul) Castro never really was correct, and it's certainly an antiquated notion now, as Fidel wastes away and Raul is little more than a figurehead. All the embargo has done is keep the Cuban populace from having the ability to help themselves economically. America's shunning of Cuba is anachronistic and essentially useless, at least insofar as the stated goals are concerned.

And you know who gets this, of all people? Florida's GOP U.S. senator, Mel Martinez, himself a Cuban-American:

The announcement today is good news for Cuban families separated by the lack of freedom in Cuba. Likewise the change in remittances should provide help to families in need. Given these changes will benefit the regime in Havana, it would be wise in the implementation to place some reasonable limits on this type of travel and the amounts that can be sent to Cuba.

The President has expressed his commitment to freedom - libertad - for the Cuban people, and policy implementation should advance that objective. To this end, the Administration is right to call on the Cuban government to end the onerous charge of 20 percent on remittances. Lowering remittance charges and allowing travel for Cuban families wishing to see relatives abroad are two steps the Cuban regime could immediately take that would show change in Havana.

Opposition to the president's action here can only be political, because it's certainly not rooted in anything factual or in any realistic foreign policy objectives. I know many Cuban-Americans have long memories. But it's well past time to realize that it's not 1959 anymore.

Gov. Crist: you win some, you lose some

It's been an interesting week for Florida governor Charlie Crist.

On Monday night, he attended the Miami Heat's game to make a few remarks in honor of their retired star player, Alonzo Mourning, whose number was raised to the rafters that night. The always classy Miami crowd booed the governor.

Now, I'm no huge fan of Charlie Crist ... but I'll acknowledge that he's a damn sight better than his predecessor. (Of course, a bag of dirty diapers would be preferable to Jeb! Bush.) However, I can't help but wonder whether the Heat fans booed him because he's Republican or rather, as I suspect, because he's not Republican enough.

As you may recall, Gov. Crist accepted on behalf of the state of Florida (properly, in my opinion) federal stimulus money that some of his fellow GOP governors refused, and he's played nice with Democrats from Washington to Tallahassee. This is, naturally, treasonous behavior in the eyes of the wingnuts who disproportionately fill the stands for professional sports these days, since they believe anything that smacks of cooperation with that dirty black Muslim Obama represents the purest form of evil.

But today, Charlie got a little redemption, in the form of an ever-widening door to a U.S. Senate seat in 2010. Rep. Connie Mack (R-Fla.) sent a letter to the governor today that reads in pertinent part:

Based on ongoing press speculation, I know that you are giving serious consideration to the question of whether to seek re-election, or whether to instead seek election to the United States Senate.

As you contemplate this decision, I want to let you know that I have decided not seek election to the U.S. Senate in 2010, and that I will instead seek re-election to the U.S. House of Representatives.

I also want you to know that, as you contemplate your own political future, I will be your strongest supporter and champion -- regardless of whether you seek re-election or election to the Senate.

I'm on record as saying that Charlie Crist will win whatever office he seeks next year, whether it's reelection as governor or a trip to D.C. Rep. Mack likely knew this, but he still stood to gain a lot of far-right support in a primary contest against Crist and, depending on how things went between now and next summer, he still had a decent shot at the nomination. Mack's stepping aside now leaves an unencumbered path for Crist to gain the GOP nomination for the Senate -- and likely election two Novembers from now.

So, Charlie, you may have been booed by a bunch of fat cat hoops fans ... but you can probably laugh about that all the way to the U.S. Capitol.

Republicans celebrate Jeb!'s possible run for Senate ... well, most do

Merely by saying he was "considering" a run for the U.S. Senate in 2010, Jeb! Bush has the state GOP all in a lather. Thinking they've figure out how to placate the batshit crazy wingnut side of the party, the radical right is falling all over themselves to get out of Jeb!'s way.

The news also gave pause to at least some of the hopeful GOP politicians mulling a run. U.S. Rep. Connie Mack, who was among the potential candidates identified by Republican insiders on Tuesday, issued a news release titled "Jeb Bush Would Make an Outstanding United States Senator" Wednesday afternoon.

Interestingly, though, not every prominent Florida Republican is overwhelmed with excitement.

Gov. Charlie Crist's response to the possibility was a marked departure from the enthusiasm expressed by other Republicans.

He called Bush a "great Floridian" and gave a tepid response when pressed about whether he'd like to see Bush run: "I would like to see him do what he wants to do."

How's that for a ringing endorsement?

Actually, I see these Senate feelers a lot like Sunny does. She commented here yesterday, "I bet somebody got to Mel [Martinez]. These guys are setting the table for 2012 already."

Even more to the point, I'm sure it's no coincidence that a potential Senator Jeb! would be completing his first six-year Senate term in 2016 ... right when President Obama could be wrapping up his second term in the White House.

The Republicans just don't give up on the Bushies, do they? Well, they don't -- or they can't.

But, if the all-powerful Bush machine propels Jeb! to the Senate, we in the reality-based community can take solace in one historical fact: the only Republican President to be elected directly from the U.S. Senate was Warren G. Harding, in 1920. And, if you know your history, you know that didn't turn out very well -- for the country or for Harding personally.

When Republicans attack marry

Well, here's a match made in someone's sick imagination somewhere:

Mary Bono [(R-Calif.)], who was married to late singer-turned-politician Sonny Bono and replaced him in Congress after his death, has married U.S. Rep. Connie Mack [(R-Fla.)].

Bono's sister, Katherine Whitaker, told The Associated Press the couple [(right)] were married Saturday in a private ceremony attended by 35 family members.

No, seriously, mazel tov to the happy couple. Here's hoping gays still can't marry and ruin your marriage, right? Well, just remember: the family that votes together to bomb brown people for nothing more than a personal vendetta, stays together.