Opt-out: still a bad idea for Florida

Normally I don't re-run blog posts, but in light of the announcement today by Sen. Harry Reid (D-Noballs) that the Senate would move forward with the "public option with opt-out" on health care reform, I think it's important to reiterate what I said on October 8: Florida will opt out of any federal health care scheme if it is allowed to do so via legislation. I believed it then and I see no reason to change my position now.

Below is my explanation, as it appeared on this blog 18 days ago. You also may wish to listen to today's edition of Blast Off! Radio, now archived for your convenience, in which I go into further detail on why opt-out is bad for Florida.

---

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), after consulting with Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.), one of the five Democratic senators who voted against Sen. Jay Rockefeller's (D-W. Va.) public option proposal in the Senate Finance Committee last week (another was Florida's own Bill Nelson)*, is circulating a compromise health care reform proposal that purportedly is gaining some traction among moderate Democrats and Republicans alike. Under the Schumer/Carper plan, a vigorous public option would be included in the final bill, but individual states themselves would have an "option:" to "opt out" of the federal scheme. But, in a situation when the "public option" already is a compromise -- we've already backed down from single-payer to get to the "public option" level -- this is a further compromise that is both unwise and unnecessary.

Some observers, like Nate Silver of FiveThirtyEight.com, insist that the "opt-out" is probably the best compromise we're going to be able to get. Silver contends that anyone on the Left who is opposed to it is afflicted with "public option purism" and that this is "leaps and bounds better than most of the others that have been floated," for several reasons:

1) If the public option is indeed popular -- and the preponderance of public polling suggests that it is -- we should expect the solid majority of states to elect to retain it. Perhaps some Republican governors or legislatures would seek to override the popular will in their states -- but they would do so at their own peril (and at Democrats' gain).

2) Behavioral economics further suggests that default preferences are extremely powerful. Making the public option the default would probably lead to much greater adaptation than requiring states to "opt in".

3) If the public option indeed reduces the costs of insurance -- and most of the evidence suggests that it will -- than the states that opt out of it will have a pretty compelling reason to opt back in. Say that Kansas opts out of the public option and Missouri keeps it. If a Kansan realizes that his friend across the border is buying the same quality health insurance for $300 less per month, he's going to vote restore the public plan in a referendum or demand that his legislator does the same in Topeka.

4) Even in states that do opt out of the public option, the fact that voters could presumably elect later to restore it creates an extremely credible threat to the private insurance industry that will itself help to create price competition.

[...]

I wish I shared Silver's optimism, but I can't really see a scenario where Florida doesn't opt out. We already have two wingnut members of the legislature who are proposing a bill (which almost undoubtedly would be unconstitutional under the Supremacy Clause) that would prohibit Florida from complying with any federal health care plan, and with a legislature that is pretty overwhelmingly Republican -- and wingnut Republican at that -- I am certain that there would be a bill introduced to "opt out" of this compromise faster than you can say "Terri Schiavo."

But then this bill, assuming it passes, would go to Gov. Crist's desk. Crist, you'll recall, refused to join with many of his fellow Republican governors in the South in attempting to reject federal stimulus funds; he openly accepted them -- and he's taken a load of crap from the Right for having done that. And, of course, Crist is facing a primary challenge in next year's U.S. Senate race from the right, by Marco Rubio. Although there is a lot of skepticism about Rubio's chances, I'm not going to pooh-pooh his straw poll success; it shows a tremendous amount of dissatisfaction among GOP grassroots (such as they are), which basically means the extremists who control the party in Florida as elsewhere.

So, does Crist veto this hypothetical bill to have Florida opt out of the federal scheme, knowing that's the best decision for Floridians, or does he burnish his conservative credentials and sign it in order to improve his electoral chances in 2010? Well, in recent decisions when it's come down to what's best for Florida versus what's best for Charlie Crist, he's tended to go with the latter -- his appointment of his crony George LeMieux to the vacant U.S. Senate is evidence enough of that. I suspect it would be extremely hard for Crist to stand in the way of any opt-out effort from the legislature.

I've been challenged on my position several times on Twitter today. Markos Moulitsas Zúniga, the "Kos" of Daily Kos, has "bet" me that Florida won't opt out. Another insists that the large elderly population in Florida wouldn't stand for opting out ... but, of course, they already have government health care in Medicare, so they're unlikely to be major players in the opt-out debate in Florida. And one contends that any Republican move to opt out would "be the death of the [Florida] GOP ... [Florida will] opt back in in 2-3 [years with Democratic] majorities."

Elsewhere, mcjoan on Daily Kos also predicts that few if any states will opt out, since no state opted out of Medicaid in the '60s (although it took Arizona until 1982 to join):

[L]eaving any people out of the system should be of vital concern to lawmakers. There's a relatively simple fix to that--make uninsured citizens of those states who choose to opt out eligible to enroll in Medicare. Of course, that might create huge citizen lobbies in every state to get their state to opt out so that everyone could join Medicare, but it would be critical fix for covering more of the uninsured.

Well, exactly. There has to be some kind of safeguard so that every American has a chance to exercise the option; otherwise, there might as well not even be a public option for those people whose states opt out. Moreover, I don't think the Medicaid experience is a good means of predicting how things will go now, with rabid wingnuttery having taken a hugely disproportionate role in state government in Florida and elsewhere. Needless to say, it's hardly 1965 out there anymore.

So much for "unwise" ... as for the opt-out proposal being "unnecessary," it's just another in a long series of attempts to earn 60 votes in the Senate ... which the bill doesn't need. I guess it's because Democrats want to make sure they can prevent a GOP filibuster and 60 votes would be needed for cloture ... but Rachel Maddow reported last night that plans were in the works to revoke chairmanships from any Democratic senators who supported oppose cloture ... pretty powerful political pressure, if true, and further evidence (maybe?) that Harry Reid may have grown a pair. But that just shows that all real health care reform needs -- with a meaningful public option -- is 51 votes, not 60 ... so I really don't know why folks like Max Baucus keep pushing for the "magical" 60, except that they really want to dilute the public option beyond recognition.

So, sure, you may support the opt-out, and your state may well reap the benefits of it ... but I'm not so sanguine about our chances here in Florida.

(cross-posted at Daily Kos)

---

* Carper and Nelson subsequently voted for Sen. Chuck Schumer's (D-N.Y.) public option proposal, but that, too, failed.

"Opt-out" compromise: a bad idea for Florida

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), after consulting with Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.), one of the five Democratic senators who voted against Sen. Jay Rockefeller's (D-W. Va.) public option proposal in the Senate Finance Committee last week (another was Florida's own Bill Nelson)*, is circulating a compromise health care reform proposal that purportedly is gaining some traction among moderate Democrats and Republicans alike. Under the Schumer/Carper plan, a vigorous public option would be included in the final bill, but individual states themselves would have an "option:" to "opt out" of the federal scheme. But, in a situation when the "public option" already is a compromise -- we've already backed down from single-payer to get to the "public option" level -- this is a further compromise that is both unwise and unnecessary.

Some observers, like Nate Silver of FiveThirtyEight.com, insist that the "opt-out" is probably the best compromise we're going to be able to get. Silver contends that anyone on the Left who is opposed to it is afflicted with "public option purism" and that this is "leaps and bounds better than most of the others that have been floated," for several reasons:

1) If the public option is indeed popular -- and the preponderance of public polling suggests that it is -- we should expect the solid majority of states to elect to retain it. Perhaps some Republican governors or legislatures would seek to override the popular will in their states -- but they would do so at their own peril (and at Democrats' gain).

2) Behavioral economics further suggests that default preferences are extremely powerful. Making the public option the default would probably lead to much greater adaptation than requiring states to "opt in".

3) If the public option indeed reduces the costs of insurance -- and most of the evidence suggests that it will -- than the states that opt out of it will have a pretty compelling reason to opt back in. Say that Kansas opts out of the public option and Missouri keeps it. If a Kansan realizes that his friend across the border is buying the same quality health insurance for $300 less per month, he's going to vote restore the public plan in a referendum or demand that his legislator does the same in Topeka.

4) Even in states that do opt out of the public option, the fact that voters could presumably elect later to restore it creates an extremely credible threat to the private insurance industry that will itself help to create price competition.

[...]

I wish I shared Silver's optimism, but I can't really see a scenario where Florida doesn't opt out. We already have two wingnut members of the legislature who are proposing a bill (which almost undoubtedly would be unconstitutional under the Supremacy Clause) that would prohibit Florida from complying with any federal health care plan, and with a legislature that is pretty overwhelmingly Republican -- and wingnut Republican at that -- I am certain that there would be a bill introduced to "opt out" of this compromise faster than you can say "Terri Schiavo."

But then this bill, assuming it passes, would go to Gov. Crist's desk. Crist, you'll recall, refused to join with many of his fellow Republican governors in the South in attempting to reject federal stimulus funds; he openly accepted them -- and he's taken a load of crap from the Right for having done that. And, of course, Crist is facing a primary challenge in next year's U.S. Senate race from the right, by Marco Rubio. Although there is a lot of skepticism about Rubio's chances, I'm not going to pooh-pooh his straw poll success; it shows a tremendous amount of dissatisfaction among GOP grassroots (such as they are), which basically means the extremists who control the party in Florida as elsewhere.

So, does Crist veto this hypothetical bill to have Florida opt out of the federal scheme, knowing that's the best decision for Floridians, or does he burnish his conservative credentials and sign it in order to improve his electoral chances in 2010? Well, in recent decisions when it's come down to what's best for Florida versus what's best for Charlie Crist, he's tended to go with the latter -- his appointment of his crony George LeMieux to the vacant U.S. Senate is evidence enough of that. I suspect it would be extremely hard for Crist to stand in the way of any opt-out effort from the legislature.

I've been challenged on my position several times on Twitter today. Markos Moulitsas Zúniga, the "Kos" of Daily Kos, has "bet" me that Florida won't opt out. Another insists that the large elderly population in Florida wouldn't stand for opting out ... but, of course, they already have government health care in Medicare, so they're unlikely to be major players in the opt-out debate in Florida. And one contends that any Republican move to opt out would "be the death of the [Florida] GOP ... [Florida will] opt back in in 2-3 [years with Democratic] majorities."

Elsewhere, mcjoan on Daily Kos also predicts that few if any states will opt out, since no state opted out of Medicaid in the '60s (although it took Arizona until 1982 to join):

[L]eaving any people out of the system should be of vital concern to lawmakers. There's a relatively simple fix to that--make uninsured citizens of those states who choose to opt out eligible to enroll in Medicare. Of course, that might create huge citizen lobbies in every state to get their state to opt out so that everyone could join Medicare, but it would be critical fix for covering more of the uninsured.

Well, exactly. There has to be some kind of safeguard so that every American has a chance to exercise the option; otherwise, there might as well not even be a public option for those people whose states opt out. Moreover, I don't think the Medicaid experience is a good means of predicting how things will go now, with rabid wingnuttery having taken a hugely disproportionate role in state government in Florida and elsewhere. Needless to say, it's hardly 1965 out there anymore.

So much for "unwise" ... as for the opt-out proposal being "unnecessary," it's just another in a long series of attempts to earn 60 votes in the Senate ... which the bill doesn't need. I guess it's because Democrats want to make sure they can prevent a GOP filibuster and 60 votes would be needed for cloture ... but Rachel Maddow reported last night that plans were in the works to revoke chairmanships from any Democratic senators who supported oppose cloture ... pretty powerful political pressure, if true, and further evidence (maybe?) that Harry Reid may have grown a pair. But that just shows that all real health care reform needs -- with a meaningful public option -- is 51 votes, not 60 ... so I really don't know why folks like Max Baucus keep pushing for the "magical" 60, except that they really want to dilute the public option beyond recognition.

So, sure, you may support the opt-out, and your state may well reap the benefits of it ... but I'm not so sanguine about our chances here in Florida.

(cross-posted at Daily Kos)

---

* Carper and Nelson subsequently voted for Sen. Chuck Schumer's (D-N.Y.) public option proposal, but that, too, failed.

Welcome, Daily Kos visitors

If you've come here from AAbshier's "Cheers and Jeers" this morning, the link provided was to Blast Off! itself rather than to the "rant" about David Gregory as intended. Here's the post you are looking for.

Hey, as long as you're here, why don't you plan to check out Blast Off! Radio at 4:00 Eastern this afternoon? It's fun and it's free ...

You can't please everyone

Everyone has been so unbelievably (and, really, unnecessarily) complimentary of me these last few days that Miss July has joked with me more than once that she's going to have to take me down a notch or two.

Well, MJ, you can stand down, because "mariosavio" at Daily Kos has taken care of that for you. Here's what mariosavio said earlier this afternoon over at the so-called Great Orange Satan:

Nice job. But a little desperate for attention? (0+ / 0-)

"Yeah, I'm the guy..."

Thanks for the transcript of your speech.

You did a good job, but by posting here & bragging that you risked your life to do this you have only proven that you are desperation for attention & affirmation.

Are you really that insecure that you need pats on the back from us Kossacks? Come on, you're better than the GOP.

Wow. Thanks, Mario (may I call you Mario?), for your thoughts. You'll permit me an opportunity to respond, of course ...? Here's what I said in reply at dKos:

I beg your pardon? (0 / 0)

I never thought I risked my life at the time (only later, when my girlfriend scolded me for that reason), and I only wrote the diary because several people asked me to do so on that morning's Open Thread, where the video first appeared. I wouldn't have done so otherwise.

Yeah, I'm insecure, though. Desperate for attention, too. That must be it. Thanks for saving me thousands in psychotherapy.

Seriously, d00d. That was a pretty dickish thing to say. Help me out, readers -- am I wrong about that? Even if you think that I'm just tooting my own horn, would you say that on my diary comments? Would it be fun, or sporting, to deflate me? I mean, unless you're a dick ...

The story behind the video

This was posted earlier today as a diary at Daily Kos, but thought some folks here might enjoy reading it.

---

I've been asked to diary my experiences from yesterday's Tea Party in Pensacola, Fla., the one that was on the open thread this morning and has shown up on a number of other blogs (including my own, of course -- the place where it all started). I don't want to be redundant, but if you want to know how it happened, I'll tell you about it below the fold.

Oh, yeah, if you missed the video somehow, here you go:

I had planned to cover the local teabaggery for a while, but really only to livetweet it for posterity. However, after arriving and taking a few pictures and such, they announced via megaphone, "Anyone who'd like to say a few words is welcome to do so." Well, they did say anyone ...

I worked my way up to the front ... well, it wasn't so much front as it was middle. It ended up being like a "theater in the round," with the main action taking place in front of a bust of Andrew Jackson, once the governor of territorial Florida with its capital in Pensacola. I took lots of pictures and videos there (some of which I hope to post shortly at Blast Off!), and I was thinking about what I might say if and when I got up there. Still, I wasn't sure I wanted to do it. People were, well, rather rambunctious in their Obama hatred, and the shouting and craziness was, to be honest, a little unnerving.

But when a couple of my friends showed up, one offered to film my "speech," so I figured I'd go for it. I gave a lot of thought to what I wanted to say, making sure to draw the crowd in so they'd listen carefully before bringing the rhetorical hammer down. I guess it worked. :) After I spoke, the MC of the event calmed everyone down and said, "All opinions are welcome here. And besides ... he's half right." That helped defuse the situation a bit, as did the next speaker, who started by complimenting me on my hat (it's a Baltimore Orioles hat -- I was born in Baltimore and I'm a lifelong O's fan).

Anyway, a few, including my girlfriend, have chided me a bit for putting myself in harm's way. "Someone could have had a gun," they say. Well, that's true ... but I've never really been the type to stand around and watch, especially when half-truths and lies are being disseminated with no one to challenge them. Sometimes we have to take a little bit of risk, I think, in order to accomplish things. So many people throughout history have taken such risks ... maybe I'm foolish to do so, but I can only do so much from behind a laptop keyboard. I'd like my kids (9yo boy, 3yo girl) to know that their dad stood up for something important, at least once.

I guess this little impromptu speech is having some positive impact -- I've been asked to appear on the Richard Hunter radio show today at 4:30 pm CDT, if they ever get back to me -- but mostly I just wanted to show those teabaggers that maybe everything isn't as they get from their constant aural assault by Beck and Limbaugh and Hannity and their ilk. Maybe they all dismissed me as a crackpot, but maybe I got through to someone. And at the end, isn't that worth a little risk?

Thanks for all the kind words on the Open Thread. Keep fighting the good fight.

P.S. If anyone wants to hire a DFH recovering attorney blogger and university fundraiser (12 years) with some broadcasting experience (I even did a couple of segments on Sky News in October during their election coverage), let me know. Oh, yeah, I did okay on a game show once, too. ;)

P.P.S. Just confirmed: I will be a guest on the Richard Hunter Show, progressive talk radio out of Dallas, this afternoon at 4:30 pm CENTRAL. Listen live here. Hope I don't suck. ;)

UPDATE (12:24 pm CDT 4/16/09): By popular demand, here's a transcript of my remarks:

(Crowd applauds as he takes the microphone)
All right. Thank you very much.

I want to start also by honoring the service of our veterans, our current servicemembers, our Gold Star parents, thank you so much for what all you've done for this country. (Crowd cheers)

I also want to say, a little history lesson here, back in 2000, there was a budget surplus in the country. (Man in crowd: Yeah!) And during the next eight years, (Man in crowd: What happened?) it was destroyed by the profligate spending of the Bush administration. (Crowd reacts)

And so here we are today, here we are today in a situation ... let me ask you this: Cheer if you make less than 250,000 dollars a year. Just cheer. (Crowd cheers) Your taxes are going to be cut under the current budget. Congratulations!

I was laid off in September because my employer had to make budget cuts. That was before the election, okay? So let's remember, that if you're going to argue about more taxes and less spending, to place the blame where the blame belongs, and that's squarely in the hands of the Republican Congress until 2006 (Crowd starts to react) and the Bush administration. (Crowd boos)

Krazy Kitty Harris resurfaces

Well, looky here at the company our old pal Katherine Harris has been keeping:

Why, that's one-time federal fugitive R. Allen Stanford, now facing a number of charges relating to his multi-billion-dollar Ponzi scheme based in Antigua, kibitzing with Our Kitty during her brief, glorious congressional career. Stanford apparently paid for a congressional junket to Antigua, and I'm sure you can imagine my surprise to discover that Rep. Harris was connected to Stanford and to that Caribbean vacation. I'm just shocked, I tell you ...

To tell you the truth, I'm almost disappointed that we don't have Krazy Kitty to kick around anymore.

(h/t to AAbshier at Daily Kos)

Navel-gazing: the old media cover the new media

The most remarkable thing about the convention so far from this blogger's perspective is the degree to which the bloggers are the story. Here we are, alternative (or "new") media covering the DNC, and a good chunk of the mainstream media are covering us covering the Convention.

One example is the Las Vegas Sun, whose front-page (at least on the intertubes) story today is about us pixel-stained wretches:

These are the online liberals who, a few years ago, were like the boxing trainer who slaps his fighter around a bit, imploring him to fight back.

“The Democratic Party used to be afraid of its own shadow,” said [Markos] Moulitsas [Zuniga], whose Daily Kos blog receives 1.5 million unique visitors a month, with daily traffic matching the circulation of the Chicago Tribune.

This crowd is ensconced near the Democratic National Convention and brings a certain swagger to the week, a knowing confidence that the online world helped change the party and deliver victory in 2006. The big prize is now so close its members can taste it like the free smoothies and high-end hippie food being passed around in what’s called “The Big Tent,” a sly homage to a famous Ronald Reaganism.

[...]

John Podesta, once President Clinton’s hard-charging chief of staff, said he marveled at how much the online liberals had changed politics.

“Nothing gets by them,” he said, referring to their rapid response to news events and their attacks on Republicans. Back in his White House days, he noted, there were three TV networks and a few big newspapers to worry about.

(This is often cited as one of several reasons New York Sen. Hillary Clinton didn’t win the nomination: not understanding this new media environment.)

As for the [previously mentioned] swagger, Podesta said, “I don’t know if I’d say ‘swagger,’ but there’s a strong movement for change, and a ticket to get it done.”

"High-end hippie food?" Lunch was Chipotle burritos. Oddly, I never saw -- or smelled -- any hemp or patchouli -- not once. But then, I'm notoriously obtuse ...

Then there was the accompanying picture:

The Sun's caption: "Bloggers [Sinfonian], far right, and [Athenae] confer Monday inside the Big Tent during the Democratic National Convention in Denver."

Pro: It was an excellent editing/cropping choice to use half of me and all of Athenae. Also cool: including the increasingly popular (and someday ubiquitous) DFH sticker in the pic.
Con: Putting the words "far right" next to my name.

Well, guess it's time to get my swagger on again ...

(cross-posted at FPC Blog)

Blast Off! Radio today at 4:00 pm EDT: Live from the Big Tent in Denver

Well, here I am. Sitting in the Big Tent, snarfing down lunch and dealing with a dead communal battery (which, to give the BT staff credit, they are in the process of replacing). There are about 150 bloggers in here, which should make the radio show interesting. But, as you know, the show must go on.

Assuming I find her in here somewhere (and she's supposed to be here by showtime), I'll be interviewing the lovely and talented Athenae of First Draft, along with anyone else I can arm-twist (Atrios is in da house, but he looks busy. Kos is here, too, but ... well, you know. Kenny Quinnell will do it if I ask him, of course. Anyway, we'll see ...)

I'm sitting with bloggers from Oklahoma and Colorado, and of course others are all around me. Should be fun, if it's not too loud to broadcast from here. One way or the other, though, I'll be on, and here's how you can listen and, I hope, call in (assuming I get a power connection before 2pm local time):

TIME: 4:00 pm Eastern TODAY

Click here to listen

Call in number: (646) 716-7543

E-mail: blastoffradio-at-gmail-dot-com

Hope you'll listen and call in! Don't forget chatroom and e-mail, too ...

Lots to talk about! Talk to you soon.

Netroots Nation: a clarification

(ooh, I made a rhyme!)

Okay, evidently my efforts to stir up a hornet's nest over Netroots Nation succeeded too well. Perhaps I should clarify, because rather than just giving a swift yet generally painless kick in the nuts to the hyper-sanctimonious Kossacks (my original intent), I've ended up with friends sniping at each other -- I mean, I don't mind disagreement, but I don't want it to get personal. Even an uncivil dirty fucking hippie like me has boundaries, y'know ...

My intention was to criticize two particular elements of the Code Pink incident at NN: the fact that the Pinkers were hustled from the room when they dared to protest Nancy Pelosi's speech, and the failure of others at the event to challenge Rep. Pelosi on the impeachment issue (and others where she, in my opinion, has fallen short as Speaker). Whether or not the CP protest was appropriate or civil or necessary was beyond the scope of my post; I happen to believe it was appropriate, but I respect those who believe otherwise.

As for challenging Pelosi directly, I find it difficult to believe that in a gathering of over 1,000 progressives (real ones and PINOs, I guess), not one was able to get Nancy off her precious talking points and try to delve into the real issue: why did she take impeachment off the table in 2006 when it was absolutely the wrong thing to do (it gave the Bush crime syndicate virtual carte blanche to do whatever the fuck they wanted)? I'm not targeting specific individuals, many of whom are my personal friends with whom I agree on nearly every other issue. I'm just saying that it's unfortunate when we miss opportunities to get real answers from our elected officials, who were put there precisely to clean things up in Washington.

Granted, I wasn't there. If I had been there, I would have been waving my arm frantically or first in line at the microphone or however they allowed questions (if they did). But I wasn't. So you can dismiss my opinion as talking out of my ass. Or we can examine how, as progressives, we might be able -- with all due respect to the people from whom we seek answers, and they deserve respect just as human beings, regardless of their titles -- to confront, politely yet firmly, those who work for us as Americans.

I'm not planning to make nice in Denver. If I have the chance to ask someone something, I will, just as I did with Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Sen. Bill Nelson. I'm not going to be foolish about it ... but complacency and manners haven't gotten us very far to this point.

UPDATE (11:12 am 7/25/08): Newcomer to the blogosphere (and to the Blast Off! blogroll) drawin' has a similar perspective.

Why I didn't go to Netroots Nation

It's no secret that I've not been much of a fan of Daily Kos ever since the front-pagers there took on their holier-than-thou attitude about progressivism, essentially becoming almost DLC-ish in their refusal to confront misbehaving (i.e., insufficiently progressive) Democrats. Long-time Blast Off! readers -- both of you -- might recall my little flame war (okay, I diaried, they flamed) back in '06 when I dared to criticize then-Speaker-designate Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) for taking impeachment off the table. Oddly, the Kossacks changed their tune a year later ... but I digress.

It seems the latest flap amongst the ideological purists who dominate the so-called "Orange Satan" is over -- horrors! -- the Code Pink protesters who attempted to remind Speaker Pelosi of her oath to uphold the Constitution. According to eyewitnesses, they were chanting things like "Impeachment!" when Pelosi spoke, but they were hustled out of the room before the next speaker, Al Gore, came to the podium.

Naturally, our orange pals were incensed that reality interfered with their lovefest:

If Code Pink's goal is to prevent people from wanting to join Code Pink, they're succeeding -- [Bill in Portland Maine]

I don't necessarily mean to pick on Bill personally -- he was plenty nice to me online when I appeared on a certain TV game show a couple of years ago -- but his attitude, evidently shared by the vast majority of commenters at dKos, demonstrates the biggest problem I think we as progressives face today: an almost pandemic unwillingness to "make waves" -- a fear of controversy and confrontation, whether it's against Republicans themselves or against those on our own side who incessantly enable and kowtow to Republicans. I left a comment over there, of course, but I figured I'd expand on it a bit ...

Why is it so objectionable when a progressive group attempts to make a statement to one of those enablers (in this case, Speaker Pelosi) about her utter ineffectiveness? We progressives like to wave the Constitution around and say that we, unlike people on the Right, adhere to the values and ideals contained therein, yet there are some among us (I'm looking at you, Netroots Nation) who would restrict a group's freedom of expression for the sake of politeness?

I for one am tired of treating our piss-poor congressional leadership with kid gloves, like their shit doesn't stink. The fact is, Code Pink and those like them are right -- impeachment not only should be on the table, the hearings should have been underway for weeks or months by now. The Speaker has utterly failed to justify the faith that I, and so many of my progressive friends, placed in her upon her ascension to that lofty position. And now her apologists at Daily Kos still say that we have to be nice?

That's why I didn't go to Netroots Nation. I've no desire to be told that I need to sit still and be quiet and not advocate that our Democratic leaders wake up and smell the coffee. I knew it would be like that from the moment I heard about the conference. So I chose to stay home rather than put up with the Politeness Patrol.

Look where "playing nice" has gotten us already, folks. You can have your Netroots Nation -- I'd rather chant with the sinners than fluff with the saints.

(cross-posted at Pax Americana ... and at Daily Kos, just to see if anyone's paying attention)

A sucky blog makes a big noise

If you're out there in the blogosphere and think you can't make a difference from where you sit, wherever you are, I'm here to tell you to think again.

Blast Off!'s Debbie Wasserman Schultz post on Tuesday drew front-page attention yesterday at DailyKos from Kos himself, and it's also reached Democratic Underground, Memeorandum, and the Washington Post among others. While it's important that the information gets out regarding Rep. Wasserman Schultz's refusal to campaign against her friends, I hope we don't lose sight of the larger message: blogs and bloggers can make a real impact in providing the much-needed progressive viewpoint that the mainstream corporate media generally lacks.

UPDATE (7:02 am 3/20/08): Add Discourse and Swing State Project to the list above. Ironically, the post on SSP immediately before their Wasserman Schultz post is a listing of the DCCC's 90 "targeted races" ... pointedly including FL-18, FL-21, and FL-25 -- the Miami districts of the Three Hyphenated Stooges.

UPDATE (10:19 am 3/20/08): Add The Sideshow to the list, too. The lovely and talented Avedon Carol always has been generous about reading Blast Off! and linking to it; her place should be a regular stop for all progressive-minded blog-type folks.

Daily Kos Obama

These people are truly batshit insane.

Sitting out the presidential election rather than support Hillary Clinton, if she wins the nomination? Then enjoy President McCain, morons. As for me, I'm voting for the Democratic candidate in November, and I'll work to elect him or her as well.

Fringe wingnut blog takes Kos to task, but shoots self in the foot

Proving once again that it's foolhardy to cite Dan Gerstein as an authority on anything except what it means to be an idiot, some überwingnut named Warner Todd Huston (he supports Alan fucking Keyes, for crying out loud!) takes Kos and the Kossacks over at Daily Kos to task for their support of the "angry populist" John Edwards, saying that the victories of "unity" candidates like Joe Lieberman (gag!) prove that Daily Kos "has lost the contest for the hearts and minds of the Democrat Party."

This Huston guy is pretty uncivil himself ... get out your clutching pearls, gang:

The angry Kossacks might take that very angle to explain away why they lost (as Gerstein points out, they supported Edwards heavily) but this would not explain why Edwards' campaign did not resonate at all outside the nutroots on Al Gore's Internet. So, with this in mind, I'd say that Gerstein is right that the petulant, tyros [sic] of the DailyKos are an ever dwindling minority and have lost their battle to control the Party.

Oh, and there's more, where Huston quotes Gerstein favorably:

Gerstein sums up his feeling that the angry left is waning with some "delicious irony."

The best evidence that Kos-ism is about kaput, though, comes from Kos's mouth himself. Yes, the most delicious irony of this campaign is that the supposed hatemonger is supporting the hopemonger.

Seeing the writing on the wall, as well as on his own blog, Markos Moulitsas — Kos himself — rejected the candidacy he himself helped spawn and announced (albeit grudgingly) on Dec. 12 that he would be voting for Mr. Obama via "a process of elimination."

Not exactly the most graceful concession, but the import is undeniable: Hope trumped Kos for Democrats. Now let's see what it will do for the rest of the country.

Hope trumped Kos? This guy is certifiably batshit crazy. What will he say when November comes and hopeful, positive agitation for change (whether from Clinton or Obama) "trumps" the hatemongering, war-hungry, selfish, ultra-negative message of the Right?

Finally, lest you have any doubt about whether Huston is truly insane, check out this passage:

Gerstein misses the mark when he throws in a few remarks about what is going on with the GOP — his own leftist bias skews his vision in this case. In attempting to explain what the Daily Kos set was emulating in their style of politics, he garbles the truth fairly badly by assuming that the Kossacks were trying to act like Karl Rove.

The Kossacks and their activist allies... believe that Republicans are venal bordering on evil, and that the way Democrats will win elections and hold power is to one-up Karl Rove's divisive, bare-knuckled tactics.

Gerstein is right that the Kossacks believe that Republicans are not just opponents to beat at the polls but are actually evil, but Karl Rove never showed anything remotely like the hate and vitriol exhibited by Kos and his venal acolytes. Rove is not what the wild-eyed Kossacks are emulating. Stalin is closer to their pattern, than Rove.

First of all, the only thing remotely "leftist" about Dan Gerstein is that he has a left hand and a left foot. Secondly, if I'm not mistaken, saying Karl Rove isn't hateful is cause for instant commitment to a mental facility in at least 32 states, the District of Columbia, and Guam.

Sadly -- and unsurprisingly -- Huston's blog doesn't permit comments. Still, it would be wise to keep this in mind for some tasty schadenfreude in a few months.

(cross-posted at Daily Kos)

UPDATE (9:58 am 2/11/08): Eschaton commenter nona alerts us to a representative remark by Karl Rove:

Eventually, I met with Rove. I arrived at his office a few minutes early, just in time to witness the Rove Treatment, which, like LBJ’s famous browbeating style, is becoming legend but is seldom reported. Rove’s assistant, Susan Ralston, said he’d be just a minute. She’s very nice, witty and polite. Over her shoulder was a small back room where a few young men were toiling away. I squeezed into a chair near the open door to Rove’s modest chamber, my back against his doorframe.

Inside, Rove was talking to an aide about some political stratagem in some state that had gone awry and a political operative who had displeased him. I paid it no mind and reviewed a jotted list of questions I hoped to ask. But after a moment, it was like ignoring a tornado flinging parked cars. "We will fuck him. Do you hear me? We will fuck him. We will ruin him. Like no one has ever fucked him!" As a reporter, you get around—curse words, anger, passionate intensity are not notable events—but the ferocity, the bellicosity, the violent imputations were, well, shocking. This went on without a break for a minute or two. Then the aide slipped out looking a bit ashen, and Rove, his face ruddy from the exertions of the past few moments, looked at me and smiled a gentle, Clarence-the-Angel smile. "Come on in." And I did. And we had the most amiable chat for a half hour.

But that's not "hateful" or "vitriolic." No sirree.

How Kossacks view impeachment -- then and now

I don't mean to whine about being flamed -- certainly, I can take it, and I did, plenty of it -- but I can't help but laugh a little at the way things have changed around here in just a few short months ... basically not much more than a Friedman Unit.

I'm simply amazed at how Kossacks are responding to the idea of taking impeachment off the table when it's Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) doing the taking ... but last fall, when I said Speaker Pelosi was ignoring a mandate by doing the same thing, I was roundly castigated at dKos ...

Back in November, shortly after the election, I posted a diary wherein I dared to criticize Speaker Pelosi and others in the Democratic congressional leadership for taking impeachment "off the table." I felt then, as I do now, that there was no tactical or strategic benefit to disavowing impeachment right away, indeed, I felt that the Bush crime syndicate would be even more likely to ignore anything Congress might do unless impeachment were a real threat. As the comments demonstrate, Kossacks were none too pleased by my position, and I heard it pretty much from all comers, both here and elsewhere.

Today, though, Sen. Feingold posted a diary saying essentially what my commenters said in November -- no, let's wait, impeachment isn't going to do any good, what's the point, yadda yadda -- but the attitude has shifted completely. Kossacks everywhere are falling all over themselves to urge impeachment and to point out the flaws in Sen. Feingold's opinion (and I agree that said opinion is mighty flawed, too).

So, what's different about today's diary as compared with mine back in November? Could it be that those of us who have been advocating for impeachment since the moment Democrats took on the majority might have been right after all?

Maybe it's the source? Some lousy Z-list blogger versus a member of the United States Senate? Possibly, but I don't think that's it. The opinions have validity regardless of who is voicing them.

What about the timing? Have things changed so much since November that what seemed totally unpalatable back then today is not only hoped for, but demanded? You know, maybe that's true for the Kossacks who stomped all over my diary last fall ... maybe they just changed their minds. But if that's the case, they're not very smart, because the impeachable offenses have been patently clear since well before November ... indeed, they've been obvious since around 2003. And I don't think Kossacks are that stupid ... on the contrary, these are among the most brilliant folks with whom I've ever had the pleasure to associate. So, it's not that things have changed drastically since November ...

So what is it? Why was the idea of impeachment so noxious in November and so de riguere now? I mean, normally I'm not the type to say "I told you so," but ... well, make of it what you will. I'm just glad to be on the same side of the debate as most everyone else here, this time.

(Cross-posted at Daily Kos)

Why the MSM doesn't get it

What Grand Moff Texan said.

Period.

Another battle in the blogwars

I began blogging back in 2004, thanks to Wes, and I became very active both at Daily Kos and at Atrios' Eschaton. At dKos, I had a very low "uid," or user ID, number (1142), which presumably was a badge of status and honor, as one of the earliest participants there. (The uid's are well over 100,000 now.)

Over time, though, I noticed dKos getting more and more shrill and exclusionary, and I always felt more comfortable in the chatroom-like environs of Eschaton. The Kossacks didn't just attack right-wing trolls, but essentially they ostracized anyone who even dared to criticize Democrats, as I did when I took issue with Nancy Pelosi's decision to take impeachment off the table in January.

Today, MissLaura posted an open thread at dKos that, among other things, essentially said that the time-honored Atriot tradition of saying "First!" or "Frist!" or, now, "Pelosi" at the start of a new comment thread would not be tolerated at dKos. Well, that's fine -- have it your way. That's not the way I prefer to blog.

So I guess my comment at dKos today is kind of my valedictory, my farewell to a blog that was a great introduction to the blogosphere for me, but which I believe I have left behind. I don't see this as an arrogant attitude, but simply one that recognizes that I prefer to spend my blogging time laughing with online friends, railing at the abuses of power on both sides of the figurative aisle, and feeling free to express what might be less-than-popular viewpoints. In other words, I value my open mind, and I intend to keep it that way.

Thanks, Markos, for the good times.