Booman Tribune ~ A Progressive Community

I'm pretty sure that any good campaign finance reform will run into some troubles with the supremes. Money is speech. Corporations are people.
War is peace.
and soforth.

I agree with you, I just figured I'd be a downer and argue that real campaign finance reform is just completely impossible.

by afterthought on Wed Jun 24th, 2009 at 07:08:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Simple Thoughts (4.00 / 3)

Well, I'm sure we were told the colonies would never be independent, either.

We may need the same level of effort. And sadly, too many are comfortable under the latest King to make that effort.

"If you look for the social economic motive, you will not have to wait for history to tell you what was propaganda and what was truth." - George Seldes

by Real History Lisa (lpeaseRemoveThis@gte.net) on Wed Jun 24th, 2009 at 07:18:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

you are completely right.

by afterthought on Wed Jun 24th, 2009 at 07:53:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I'm even more sure that a radically curative campaign law could be written without constitutional roadblocks. The supremes are just an excuse for the pols that like the current bribocracy just fine, thank you. But you're right in the bigger picture -- real reform is essentially impossible until the current system is destroyed.

FDR's response to progressive demands: "I agree. Now go out and make me do it."

by DaveW on Wed Jun 24th, 2009 at 07:28:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

yup.

although, i've always thought that the right kind of law could substantially change the economic incentives for actors within the current system.

for example, if each small dollar donor's money up to $100 was matched 4:1 with federal funds (i.e., you give $100 and the candidate gets another $400 from the feds), then it would be much more difficult to drown out the voice of the average joe. i'm pretty sure this would be a 'content neutral' regulation on speech so it wouldn't be subject to strict scrutiny.

just a thought.

by afterthought on Wed Jun 24th, 2009 at 07:58:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Corporations are people.

It's only law because the Supreme Court(Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad) was practicing "Juidical activism" .. when it later became law passed by Congress .. I am not sure .. though I believe it did .. sadly

by Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle on Wed Jun 24th, 2009 at 08:25:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Conrad was parsing like the asshat he is on Ed Schultz's radio show this morning-- when Ed mentioned 72% of the people want a plan with the public option, shitheel Conrad goes, "yeah, but when you dig into it, you get a different story" or some such nonsense.

question for Conrad: have you even bothered to poll your own constituents to determine what THEY want?

I doubt it.

by Superpole on Wed Jun 24th, 2009 at 09:59:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Holt (none / 0)

Until Holt sees the value of "paper ballots, hand counted, with opposing scrutineers" I don't see any value in Holt.

If the voters don't understand and trust how their votes are counted, they are justified in joining Neda on the street.

"Think this through with me, Let me know your mind" Hunter/Garcia

by epcraig (epcraigatgmaildotcom) on Wed Jun 24th, 2009 at 10:50:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Holt (none / 1)

Hello, that's what Holt's bill provides!!!

Paper ballots.

Hand counts.

Public witnesses (opposing parties and anyone else interested).

What are you smoking? Are you listening to disinfo re the Holt bill? There's plenty of it going around.

"If you look for the social economic motive, you will not have to wait for history to tell you what was propaganda and what was truth." - George Seldes

by Real History Lisa (lpeaseRemoveThis@gte.net) on Thu Jun 25th, 2009 at 12:40:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Holt (none / 0)

No, it provides for paper tallies and a paper recount, if necessary. The count can be machine tallied by scanners to which nobody but Diebold or ES&S (or whatever manufacturer) has source code access.

"Think this through with me, Let me know your mind" Hunter/Garcia

by epcraig (epcraigatgmaildotcom) on Fri Jun 26th, 2009 at 02:12:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I agree with you completely; we need to activate the activists---at once. Maybe, we need a reform party but I think it is an easier task to just overhaul the Democratic Party. I think the health care issue may be the one that really gets the electorate upset preparing the ground for massive changes. Sure hope so.

Suppose you scrub your ethical skin until it shines, but inside there is no music, then what? Kabir

by Dongi 2 on Wed Jun 24th, 2009 at 11:33:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Simple Thoughts (4.00 / 2)

The good plan that's a piece of crap? What am I missing?

Confusion is understandable in this "debate", though, because none of it makes sense. Obama said single-payer was the best plan, so why didn't he start from there? Do Baucus and Conrad really believe some crap compromise is the best they can get, or is that the best they want to get? I guess I still haven't quite reached the point where I think congress operates entirely on the basis of bribery, or at least that, if they do, they're not totally open about it like Baucus.

Why would an outfit like the AMA go against something that obviously make being a doctor gratifying again? They represent only 15 percent of doctors, so do doctors really oppose nationalized health care? The ones I've asked are all for it.

Why does anybody care what miserable failure like the GOP and the insurance/financecos think, or want? I thought Americans were supposed to love winners.

And then of course there are the great American people who seem to vaguely want improvements in health care but not to change the plan they've got, which they're satisfied with. Never mind that most will not have that plan for much longer and will be up shit creek.

So I don't know, Boo -- maybe there's really no point in writing about massive stupid, because nothing fixes it except a massive dieoff, which will be the result of all the current trends being brought to us by the Patient Zeros of Stupid.

FDR's response to progressive demands: "I agree. Now go out and make me do it."

by DaveW on Wed Jun 24th, 2009 at 07:22:43 PM EST

but it IS a piece of crap. The only decent option, as booman has written before, is single payer. it's the least expensive and most efficient.

the debate make sme feel like i do when I shop for a stereo and the slaesman is trying to get me to buy something inferior that i don't really want.

"no, it doesn't have a subwoofer output or an inpout for a record player.....but it does have a neat-o red light that goes on when you push the power button."

John Mccain Called his wife WHAT??

by brendan on Thu Jun 25th, 2009 at 07:50:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]

long game (none / 1)

the bill will come up in the fall. in the meantime, the public plan is having a devastating effect on the opposition.

there is no way that in a system like ours a huge financial industry that employees hundreds of thousands of people and owns politicians at all levels can simply be abolished. The beauty of the public plan is that it is not compatible with the existing industry, but it is political dynamite. For years, the Pukes have been the experts at framing issues this way: making Democrats who opposed their insane plans engage in complex defensive tactics. Finally the Dems have people in place who can play the game and give the Pukers the task of explaining why they don't want to "give ordinary people the same choice that congress gives itself."

And predictably, the "progressives" are angry that we are not engaged in a clear cut frontal attack right at the fortifications and into the artillery of the other side.

by rootless2 (sansracine_at_yahoo_dot_fr) on Wed Jun 24th, 2009 at 07:49:02 PM EST

Re: long game (none / 0)

even when I allow myself to hold out the slight hope that you are right, I still can't motivate myself to write about the Kabuki Theatre that gets us there.

by BooMan on Wed Jun 24th, 2009 at 08:07:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: long game (4.00 / 3)

it's not a kabuki theater, it is a power struggle. What I think is weird about the American left is that much of it appears to have intellectually accepted critiques like those of Chomsky or Zinn or even Mills to some extent, but then remain shocked when things work as Chomsky/Zinn/Mills say things will work. If you have come to a political analysis where you believe that the forms of representative democracy are an overlay on a system of corporate power and elite privilege, then it's weird to complain that the system is not highly responsive to genuine popular demands for change and has to be wedged into it.

by rootless2 (sansracine_at_yahoo_dot_fr) on Wed Jun 24th, 2009 at 08:24:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: long game (4.00 / 2)

BALONEY.

I read Chomsky, Zinn, Chalmers Johnson, Kevin Phillips, etc. and I don't think at all as you describe.

I'm not at all surprised regarding how this is going, in fact over at the orange site I've been stating since the day after Obama was elected that certain congressional "democrats" were going to fight him on progressive legislation.

I have predicted, and still predict the so called democrats in congress will FAIL when it comes to EFCA and health care with a strong public option-- which will inevitably lead to the FAIL of the democratic party in general.. which barely had any credibility anyway.

the only think giving them one iota of credibility is Barack Obama. they are now screwing that up royally.

by Superpole on Wed Jun 24th, 2009 at 10:06:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You are right, it IS a power struggle. A power struggle between what the people want, and what congress gets paid by special interests to obstruct.

Money is power, so special interests win. I always thought we would get a 'foot in the door', now I doubt we get that. Obama could pass a public option, but he is an accommodator, so the public loses.

Again.

nalbar

by nalbar (nalbarsatgmaildotcom) on Wed Jun 24th, 2009 at 08:36:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

That's exactly what I mean. You begin by noting that the government is controlled by the special interests. And then you are upset that Obama cannot simply decree a change. The people who own the senate are not going to give up simply because they don't totally control the President. And Obama, even if he wanted to, has no ability to abolish a bizilion dollar power that has tentacles all over DC (and in the statehouses and courts).

The best you can hope for in this situation is what we have - a smartly run guerrilla campaign that is nibbling at the edges.

by rootless2 (sansracine_at_yahoo_dot_fr) on Wed Jun 24th, 2009 at 08:43:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I accept Obama's meta-strategy. If he had joined Kucinich in calling for single-payer in the primaries, he would have joined Kucinich back in Congress. He had to run right with Clinton on the issues to keep people focused on 'change', as ironic as that might sound.

And that meant that single-payer was off the table because he had no mandate for it. Sometimes you run for president to push an issue like campaign finance reform or the budget deficit or family values. Other times, you run to win. Obama ran to win and I respect him for that.

But, he has to figure out a way to pass the plan he ran on, because that is as diluted as we can afford the health care plan to be. He can do that, but he isn't getting the help he needs from the key senators.

If this is all theatre to set everyone up for the reconciliation process, then I can accept a lot of bullshit rhetoric. But that doesn't mean I have to write about it like it is serious. It's theatre. And that's the best-case scenario. If they try to pass a bipartisan bill without a public option, I won't support it because it will be too expensive and inefficient.

by BooMan on Wed Jun 24th, 2009 at 09:00:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: long game (none / 0)

But isn't it a given that the Senate is pretty much a fake organization and that Senators pretend to deliberative function like corporate boards pretend to watchdog the ethical values of the mission statement? Do you think Max Bacaus and Orren Hatch have deeply held ethical principles or worked out economic theories that will drive their votes as the bill moves through the Senate or that their positions on any one day indicate anything about what they really are doing or trying to do? This is the US Senate that fell over itself passing the "Patriot Act", that entrusted W with the keys to the Army, and that has "debates" that look like tryouts for some dismal marionette show. Have you ever listened to Brownback or Inhofe speak? This is a body where Chuck Schumer is in the top 10% of smarts and ethics. He couldn't get that post position in an average county lockup.

I knew the stimulus was going to pass when the Chamber of Commerce endorsed it. What's going on is a very interesting series of moves to split and/or form coalitions that have power. But trying to take it seriously from the Politico/FDL viewpoint would be most unrewarding.

The interesting events are e.g. Obama splintering the AMA so that its leadership went from a strong "kill public option" platform to a hurried effort to take an explicit endorsement of public option out of the hands its own membership. Of course, the press is not really highlighting such stuff.

by rootless2 (sansracine_at_yahoo_dot_fr) on Wed Jun 24th, 2009 at 09:12:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

In a sense, I am agreeing with you.

On the other hand, someone has to treat it seriously or the whole thing will be written entirely by the insurance cos. It just doesn't have to be me.

by BooMan on Wed Jun 24th, 2009 at 09:17:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

What I think is boring coverage is the FDL/politico/digby "the bill emerged with this or that feature" accompanied by some emoticon. What is missing from coverage and right now has to be derived from indirect evidence is some idea of what's happening underneath.

When we have Jeff Imelt essentially bonding himself to the new administration and Wall Street in chaos, the theocracy is obviously fractured and in disarray.

by rootless2 (sansracine_at_yahoo_dot_fr) on Wed Jun 24th, 2009 at 09:32:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

long game? (none / 0)

it's more likely to be a lost game.

and you really don't have to write about it boo, a few others are doing a reasonably commendable job of staying after it. krugman in the nyt, for example...Health Care Showdown:

America's political scene has changed immensely since the last time a Democratic president tried to reform health care. So has the health care picture: with costs soaring and insurance dwindling, nobody can now say with a straight face that the U.S. health care system is O.K. And if surveys like the New York Times/CBS News poll released last weekend are any indication, voters are ready for major change.
The question now is whether we will nonetheless fail to get that change, because a handful of Democratic senators are still determined to party like it's 1993.
...
Or to put it another way, in effect voters support the health care plan jointly released by three House committees last week, which relies on a combination of subsidies and regulation to achieve universal coverage, and introduces a public plan to compete with insurers and hold down costs.
Yet it remains all too possible that health care reform will fail, as it has so many times before.

as well as on his blog... Obama messes up on health care, big time:

Really bad news on the health care front. After making the case for a public option, and doing it very well, Obama said this:

"We have not drawn lines in the sand other than that reform has to control costs and that it has to provide relief to people who don't have health insurance or are underinsured," Mr. Obama said. "Those are the broad parameters that we've discussed."
There he goes again, gratuitously making a big gift to the other side.
My big fear about Obama has always been not that he doesn't understand the issues, but that his urge to compromise -- his vision of himself as a politician who transcends the old partisan divisions -- will lead him to negotiate with himself, and give away far too much.

l am not optimistic that whatever the bill finally looks like...whether it squeaks thru with reconciliation or not...it's highly unlikely that it will resemble anything that might be construed as a stepping stone...foot in the door, if you will...for the eventual creation of a truly universal plan.

there are too many demoRATs that won't go along with it, regardless. fortunately for us, and unfortunately for them, they don't have the RATpublicans to hide behind anymore.

we shall see soon see exactly what the demoRATic party really stands for soon enough and then we can judge, in retrospect, whether or not there's any method to the madness that's transpiring.

the revolution will not be televised...

by dada on Wed Jun 24th, 2009 at 11:36:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: long game? (none / 0)

Based on past performance, Krugman is not qualified to evaluate Obama's negotiation tactics.

by rootless2 (sansracine_at_yahoo_dot_fr) on Thu Jun 25th, 2009 at 11:31:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: long game (none / 0)

... and what's more I don't think you're right, rootless.

John Mccain Called his wife WHAT??

by brendan on Thu Jun 25th, 2009 at 07:53:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

we can debate the crap out of this insanity but it won't make any difference so long as the dems and the administration refuses to simply bite the bullet and go to the public and name the names!
They have to call the bastards! The have to simply point out that this is only the first battle in the health care war and the real battle will come in 2010 when we all go to the polls! The pres must lead in this. Without the use of the pulpit the dems will be portrayed as the losers that they will become. Tallk about a defining moment! This is it. Call the bastards. If the goopers threaten a fillibuster force them to do it. Point out each and every member that refuses to support reform. Publish their donor lists. Let the voters know just who owns the congress and Vote their asses out in 2010.
Given the results in 2008, it is definitely possible that come 2010, we will have a fillibuster proof congress.
If we don't do it, we are dead.

by billjpa (billjpa@aol.com) on Wed Jun 24th, 2009 at 09:14:48 PM EST

Unfortunately, the current administration is still obsessed with the idea that the opposition -- which includes the Blue Dogs, not just the Republicans -- is negotiating in good faith. It's the same mistake they're making with people like Netanyahu.

A compromise requires good faith on both sides. When you don't have that, you aren't negotiating with an opponent, you are fighting an enemy. And failure to recognize that does not mean they are going to stop fighting you.

Obama needs to stop believing in the basic goodness of all people before that belief serves him -- and us -- as well as it did Anne Frank.

by corvus on Wed Jun 24th, 2009 at 10:36:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

This is precisely why I can't watch the goings-on.

Recommended by Hideo Kojima

by robertdsc on Thu Jun 25th, 2009 at 02:00:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]

It's odd how well people are able to see into Obama's mind.

by rootless2 (sansracine_at_yahoo_dot_fr) on Thu Jun 25th, 2009 at 11:31:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]