"It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood..."
Theodore Roosevelt
There continues to be a great deal of political fall-out, and deservedly so, from the Senate Republicans move last week to filibuster bipartisan legislation, the Medicare Improvements for Patients and Providers Act, that would have prevented the impending 10.6 percent cut in payments to physicians who care for the 44 million American seniors in Medicare, and made other key improvements to the program.
The Senate's failure to pass this legislation means a 10.6 percent pay cut for doctors will go into effect July 1. In addition, people with Medicare recovering from a stroke or other injury will face an arbitrary cap on the rehabilitation therapy they can receive, since a policy allowing exceptions to the cap also expires July 1. Over 1.5 million older adults and people with disabilities living on less than $1,171 per month ($1,576 for a couple) now face being dropped from programs that help pay their Part B premiums and prescription drug costs.(The bill would have also) improved coverage of mental health and preventative services under Medicare and removed bureaucratic obstacles that prevent low-income people with Medicare from receiving assistance with premiums and copayments for medical care and prescription drugs.
Senate passage of the bill appeared certain after the House overwhelmingly approved the legislation by a vote of 355 to 59, but the audacity of Senate Republicans to recklessly cast aside good policy and judgment and hitch their political fortunes to an unpopular President (who had issued a veto threat) was greatly underestimated.Those upholding the filibuster included Senator John Sununu of New Hampshire, who appears willing to concede his inevitable loss in November to Democrat Jeanne Shaheen. Also leading the way were Bush lackeys Jim Inhofe, who is being challenged by the promising Democratic State Senator Andrew Rice,and John Cornyn, who currently leads Democratic state legislator Rick Noriega in the polls but whose support continues to hover below 50%. In Cornyn's case, a doctors’ group quickly rescinded their endorsement following his vote:
“The Texas Medical Association Political Action Committee is outraged that you made the decision to follow the direction of the Bush administration and voted to protect health insurance companies at the expense of America’s seniors,” Dr. Manuel Acosta, its chairman, wrote to Mr. Cornyn
Here are some more perspectives on the legislation and the vote:
MedicareRightsCenter President Robert M. Hayes: "The 39 Republican senators who lined up behind President Bush to oppose this sensible and humane bill are agents of harm to older Americans. People with Medicare, as well as the doctors who care for them, should know that and tell them that as they go home for their July 4th recess. The vote shows a callous disregard for the older adults and people with disabilities in their states and a craven submission to the insurance industry."
Nancy H. Nielsen, M.D., President of the American Medical Association:"The physicians of America are outraged that a group of Republican senators followed the direction of the Bush Administration and voted to protect health insurance companies at the expense of America's seniors, disabled and military families.These senators leave for their 4th of July picnics knowing that the most vulnerable Americans are at risk because of the Senate's inability to act to stop drastic payment cuts for health care services that are needed by our Medicare and TRICARE patients. The House voted to preserve access to care for Medicare patients in a bipartisan landslide vote to pass H.R. 6331 by an overwhelming margin of 355 to 59. The House made seniors, the disabled and military families a top priority. The AMA appreciates the courage of the 59 Senators, including 9 Republicans, who voted to put patients ahead of partisan politics and vote for H.R. 6331.Today, thanks to some senators, we stand at the brink of a Medicare meltdown. On July 1 - just four days from now - the government will slash Medicare physician payments by 10.6 percent, forcing many physicians to make the difficult choice to limit the number of Medicare patients in their practices.The Senate must return from their recess and make seniors' health care their top priority. For doctors, this is not a partisan issue - it's a patient access issue."
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid: “Our seniors and the health-care providers who care for them have only Senate Republicans to blame when Medicare payments are cut and other key protections expire.The House overwhelmingly passed a good bill in bipartisan fashion that ensures Medicare works better for every American senior and saves taxpayers billions of dollars – but Senate Republicans insist on standing with President Bush to protect insurance companies at the expense of patients and providers.This is nothing short of putting politics above the seniors and people with disabilities who depend on Medicare.”
Senator Max Baucus, Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee:“Senators who voted against the Medicare bill last night just voted wrong.This bill was bipartisan, with huge support in the House, and its failure in the Senate jeopardizes seniors’ access to medical care, plain and simple.”
Rep. John Dingell, Chairman of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce: "Republican Senators were wrong to block legislation that helps beneficiaries and doctors so that they could protect payments to the insurance companies that are scamming our seniors. This week, the House approved this bill with an overwhelming bipartisan vote.We came together in an effort to improve Medicare's preventive and mental health benefits, help low-income beneficiaries and rural communities, and ensure that seniors and disabled Americans can continue to see the doctors they know and trust. It's unfortunate that Senate Republicans have joined the Administration in looking out for insurance industry profits instead of patients. I urge Senate Republicans to reconsider their misguided position and join House leaders in our bipartisan effort to improve Medicare and support the program's beneficiaries."
Rep. Pete Stark, Chairman of the House Ways and Means Health Subcommittee: “Republicans in the Senate tonight rejected a modest and overwhelmingly bipartisan compromise on Medicare. This was the last chance to prevent a July 1st pay cut to physicians.Their willingness to ignore the needs of physicians, seniors, people with disabilities, pharmacies and other small businesses, show that Senate Republicans are truly captive to the health insurance industry. I hope those Republican Senators who voted no don’t plan on making doctor appointments, visiting their local pharmacies, or going to any senior centers over this Congressional break.There are an awful lot of angry Medicare beneficiaries and providers in this country right now – all because Senate Republicans insisted on protecting the insurance industry.”
A list of the many organizations who strongly supported this legislation can be found here. Below are excepts from some of their statements of support:
American Medical Association: “This is a critical vote for the physician community... These cuts threaten to undermine access to care for millions of Medicare beneficiaries.”
Leadership Council of Aging Organizations: “This legislation would strengthen the Medicare program and significantly improve the lives of seniors and people with disabilities throughout the nation. In our view, a vote against the H.R. 6331 is a vote against America's seniors.”
National Community Pharmacists Association: “Pharmacists must be treated fairly by government programs so that they can continue to provide access to our most vulnerable patients—children and the elderly.H.R. 6331 goes a long way to ensure community pharmacists can continue to provide quality prescription care and DMEPOS to help contain health care costs and promote the best possible patient outcomes.”
National Rural Health Association:“The NRHA applauds your efforts to prevent these devastating cuts.Additionally, H.R. 6331 also includes several other critical provisions for rural providers which, cumulatively, create a rural package that will help both protect the rural health safety net and the health of tens of millions of seniors who call rural America home.”
AAHomecare: “We are writing to voice our strong support for HR 6331… the legislation would make meaningful improvements to the bidding program aimed at ensuring that beneficiaries continue to receive high quality homecare items and services of care while also promoting fairness in the bidding process.”
In knocking down the District's 32-year-old ban on handgun possession, the conservatives on the Supreme Court have again shown their willingness to abandon precedent in order to do whatever is necessary to further the agenda of the contemporary political right.The court's five most conservative members have demonstrated that for all of Justice Antonin Scalia's talk about "originalism" as a coherent constitutional doctrine, those on the judicial right regularly succumb to the temptation to legislate from the bench. They fall in line behind whatever fashions political conservatism is promoting.
Conservative justices claim that they defer to local authority. Not in this case. They insist that political questions should be decided by elected officials. Not in this case. They argue that they pay careful attention to the precise words of the Constitution. Not in this case. The political response to this decision from many liberals and Democrats was relief that the ruling still permits gun regulation, and quiet satisfaction that it will minimize the chances of the gun issue hurting Barack Obama in the presidential campaign. Some will rationalize this view by pointing to maverick liberal constitutional scholars who see a broad right to bear arms in the Second Amendment.But these pragmatic judgments underestimate how radical this decision is in light of the operating precedents of the past 69 years. The United States and its gun owners have done perfectly well since 1939, when an earlier Supreme Court interpreted the Second Amendment as implying a collective right to bear arms, but not an individual right.
Here is what the Second Amendment says: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."Yesterday's narrow majority spent the first 54 pages of its decision, written by Scalia, trying to show that even though the Framers inserted 13 important words in front of the assertion of a right to bear arms, those words were essentially meaningless. Does that reflect an honest attempt to determine the "original" intention of the Constitution's authors?
In fact, it was the court's four more liberal justices who favored judicial modesty, deference to democratic decisions, empowerment of local officials and care in examining the Constitution's actual text and the history behind it. Indeed, the same conservative majority ran roughshod over the work of an elected branch of government in its ruling yesterday on campaign finance law.It was telling in the gun case that while Scalia argued that the Constitution does not permit "the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home" -- note that the Second Amendment says nothing about "self-defense in the home" -- it was Justice John Paul Stevens in dissent who called for judicial restraint. He asked his conservative colleagues where they were able to find an expansive and absolute right for gun possession.
The court majority, Stevens said, "would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons." But such evidence, Stevens insisted, "is nowhere to be found" in the majority opinion. Justice Stephen Breyer also defended the rights of democratically elected local officials in a separate dissent, saying the D.C. ban was "a permissible legislative response to a serious, indeed life-threatening, problem."
In his intemperate dissent in the court's recent Guantanamo decision, Scalia said the defense of constitutional rights embodied in that ruling meant it "will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed." That consideration apparently does not apply to a law whose precise purpose was to reduce the number of murders in the District of Columbia.
Advocates of reasonable gun regulations found some silver linings in this decision, and it's true that a court ruling the other way could have strengthened the hand of political opponents of gun control by energizing their movement.While criticizing the court majority, Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, argued that the majority decision at least "permits restrictions on place, on types of weapons, on conditions of sale and on carrying concealed weapons."
The decision, he said in an interview, will make gun control less of a "wedge issue" by refuting the claim of gun control opponents that any restrictions on weapons lead down "a slippery slope to gun confiscation."I hope Helmke is right. But I also hope this decision opens people's eyes to the fact that judicial activism is now a habit of the right, not the left, and that "originalism" is too often a sophisticated cover for ideological decision-making by conservative judges.
Obama benefits from this decision. Although he formerly supported groups promoting a collectivist interpretation -- nullification, really -- of the Second Amendment, as a presidential candidate he has prudently endorsed the "individual right" interpretation. Had the court held otherwise, emboldened gun-control enthusiasts would have thrust this issue, with its myriad cultural overtones, into the campaign, forcing Obama either to irritate his liberal base or alienate many socially conservative Democratic men.
The Millionaires' Amendment decision:
The amendment, written to punish wealthy, self-financing candidates, said that when such a candidate exceeds a particular spending threshold, his opponent can receive triple the per-election limit of $2,300 from each donor -- the limit above which the threat of corruption supposedly occurs. And the provision conferred other substantial benefits on opponents of self-financing candidates, even though such candidates cannot be corrupted by their own money, which the court has said they have a constitutional right to spend.
Declaring the Millionaires' Amendment unconstitutional, the court, in an opinion written by Alito, reaffirmed two propositions. First, because money is indispensable for the dissemination of political speech, regulating campaign contributions and expenditures is problematic and justified only by government's interest in combating "corruption" or the "appearance" thereof. Second, government may not regulate fundraising and spending in order to fine-tune electoral competition by equalizing candidates' financial resources.
The court said it has never upheld the constitutionality of a law that imposes different financing restraints on candidates competing against each other. And the Millionaires' Amendment impermissibly burdened a candidate's First Amendment right to spend his own money for campaign speech.
This ruling invites challenges to various state laws, such as Arizona's and Maine's, that penalize private funding of political speech. Those laws increase public funds for candidates taking such funds when their opponents spend certain amounts of their own money or receive voluntary private contributions that cumulatively exceed certain ceilings. Such laws, like McCain-Feingold, rest on the fiction that political money can be regulated without regulating political speech.
The more McCain talks -- about wicked "speculators," about how he reveres the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge as much as the Grand Canyon, about adjusting the planet's thermostat, etc. -- the more conservatives cling to judicial nominees as a reason for supporting him. But now another portion of his signature legislation has been repudiated by the court as an affront to the First Amendment, and again Roberts and Alito have joined the repudiation. Yet McCain promises to nominate jurists like them. Is that believable?
Their ranks, though growing, feature few famous people. But looming on the horizon are two big potential Obamacons: Colin Powell and Chuck Hagel. Neither Powell, first-term secretary of state for George W. Bush, nor Hagel, retiring after two terms as a U.S. senator from Nebraska, has endorsed Obama. Hagel probably never will. Powell probably will enter Obama's camp at a time of his own choosing. The best bet is that neither of the two, both of whom supported President Bush in 2000 and 2004, will back John McCain in 2008…
The prototypal Obamacon may be Larry Hunter, recognized inside the Beltway as an ardent supply-sider. When it became known recently that Hunter supports Obama, fellow conservatives were stunned. Hunter was fired as U.S. Chamber of Commerce chief economist in 1993 when he would not swallow Clinton administration policy, and he later joined Jack Kemp at Empower America (ghostwriting Kemp's column). Explaining his support for the uncompromisingly liberal Obama, Hunter blogged on June 6: "The Republican Party is a dead rotting carcass with a few decrepit old leaders stumbling around like zombies in a horror version of 'Weekend With Bernie,' handcuffed to a corpse."
While he never would use such language, Colin Powell is said by friends to share Hunter's analysis of the GOP. His tenuous 13-year relationship with the Republican Party, following his retirement from the Army, has ended. The national security adviser for Ronald Reagan left the present administration bitter about being ushered out of the State Department a year earlier than he wanted. As an African American, friends say, Powell is sensitive to racial attacks on Obama and especially on Obama's wife, Michelle. While McCain strategists shrug off defections from Bruce Bartlett and Larry Hunter, they wince in anticipating headlines generated by Powell's expected endorsement of Obama.
While Powell may not be a legitimate Obamacon because he never was much of a conservative, that cannot be said for his close Senate friend Hagel. He has built a solidly conservative record as a senator, but mutual friends see no difference between him and the general on Iraq, Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld, George W. Bush and the Republican Party. In a speech today at the Brookings Institution, Hagel is expected to urge Obama and McCain to reach out to each other. At the least, Hagel is not ready to strap on armor for his longtime political ally and office neighbor, John McCain.
I think Novak is right when he notes that Obama's appeal among some conservatives has much to do with a reaction against the direction of the Republican Party.By exclusively relating it to this, however, he misses a key aspect of Barack's appeal for some conservatives, which is that Obama's story confirms what conservatives have always believed about America.
He is the black son of an immigrant, raised by a modest single mother and yet despite the obstacles inherent in this background he is approaching the pinnacle of American success.Isn't he the poster boy for what conservatives have always assured us is possible here in America?Conservative perseverance, not liberal victimization explains Obama's rise.He is a black Horatio Alger whose life adds to the long list of American success stories that began with Benjamin Franklin's Autobiography.He personifies the American exceptionalism which is at the heart of American conservatism.If he wins conservatives, even those that vote against him, can justifiable take pride in their nation and say, "Only in America."
In this month's Esquire, Scott Raab provides a fascinating profile of Newark Mayor, Cory Booker's, fight to retake his city. It's just the latest test for Booker who, up until this point, has compiled an amazing track record. At Stanford University, he was an all-American tight-end on the varsity football team and class president. In his "spare time", he ran a crisis hotline and organized programs for area children. While studying at Oxford as a Rhodes Scholar, he ran a mentoring program for low-income youth. He was also President of the L'Chaim Society, a Jewish group, to signify his commitment to end tensions between Jews and African Americans.While earning his law degree at Yale, he co-founded and operated free legal clinics to help low-income residents of New Haven. Upon earning his degree, he served as Staff Attorney for the UrbanJusticeCenter in New York and Program Coordinator of the Newark Youth Project. During his first election to become a Newark councilman, he upset a four-term incumbent by knocking on tens of thousands of doors and inspiring over a thousand previously discouraged voters to turn out for the first time. Since 1998, even after he was elected mayor, he has lived amongst the people - first, in a notorious public housing project in Newark's Central Ward (where he organized tenants to fight for improved conditions) and then in a three-story rental on Newark's south side, an area described as "a drug- and gang-plagued neighborhood of boarded-up houses and empty lots. The sky is the future for this 39 year-old.
An excerpt from the Esquire article:
The battle for America's soul isn't in Baghdad. It's right here at home, in a place forsaken long ago and ruled by depravity and despair. Then Cory Booker came to raise a city from the dead... "Before they came after me in 2002," he says, "they offered me every job imaginable. McGreevey offered me Secretary of State, Secretary of Commerce, or Secretary of Labor. They said, 'The county bosses will give you the line for the Essex County Executive - you'll be the first black county executive' - all that kind of stuff." His voice goes from matter-of-fact to plummy with passion in a heartbeat. "These people don't understand what this is about. This is not about a position - it's about a mission, and a city that should be so much further along than it is."
One of the more amazing aspects of this election is the inexplicable way in which the media and so many conservatives still take the word of Karl Rove as gospel. When he was winning elections (granted, it depends upon your interpretation of “winning”), he was viewed as the unrivaled political genius who was transforming the face of electoral politics. But just how good was he?
Consider that the candidate he helped groom into a two-term president is now widely seen as one of the most destructive Commanders-in-Chief, one of the most divisive leaders, and one of the least effective executives in our nation’s history. For good reason, his approval ratings are at historic lows.
And what did Karl Rove always tout as his ultimate objective each step of the way? It was to create a permanent Republican majority. And how has that worked out? Well, he may have actually accomplished the opposite through polarization, unilateralism, incompetence, corruption, and poor judgment. So maybe he's not such a genius after all.
Nevertheless, each time Rove takes a jab at Barack Obama it quickly becomes a headline. The latest - that Obama is a self-centered martini-drinking elitist flip-flopper. Yeah, I know, Rove used the exact same play-book against John Kerry, but this time it's different because this Democratic nominee stoops so low as to play the race card. Yeah, I know, it’s a hollow accusation meant to stir racist sentiments but what do you expect from the same guy who played the race card against John McCain (the candidate he now champions) eight years ago.
One of the claims that stands out amongst others is the Rove assertion that Obama, yes Obama - not McCain, is the flip-flopper in this election who cannot be trusted.
Mr. Obama has said he "strongly supported public financing" and pledged to take federal funds for the fall, thereby limiting his spending to roughly $84 million. Now convinced he can raise more than $84 million, he reversed course last week, ditching the federal money and its limits. But by discarding his earlier pledge so easily, he raises doubts about whether his word can be trusted.
What’s interesting/ridiculous about this assertion is that John McCain’s flip-flop on public financing was not only more egregious than Obama’s, but that it was illegal. Oceanna explains:
The Democratic National Committee has filed suit today in federal district court in Washington, D.C. to force the Federal Election Commission to investigate John McCain's decision to unilaterally withdraw from the FEC's matching funds program for the primary election despite his already having used program to benefit his campaign financially.
Let's review: John McCain signed a binding agreement with the FEC back in August 2007 to accept spending limits for the primary and to abide by the conditions of receiving matching funds. To get out of that agreement, FEC Chairman David Mason explained in February, the FEC must grant permission, and for stating this obvious legal truth David Mason is being forced out of the FEC. What's more, based on past FEC rulings McCain would not have been allowed to withdraw from the matching funds program, because in December he pledged to use his matching funds as collateral for a private loan to keep his campaign afloat.
So, four months ago the DNC filed a complaint with the FEC to investigate all this, but because there's been no quorum the Commission couldn't actually do anything. (Four votes are needed to authorize an investigation, and only two of the six seats are currently filled.) But under the law, if the FEC doesn't act within 120 days, you get to sue in district court to force the FEC to act. What the lawsuit asks the Court to do is issue an order saying, (a) the FEC must act to investigate the complaint within 30 days, and (b) if it doesn't (or can't), the DNC should be able to sue McCain directly to force his compliance with the law. Moreover, the Commission is likely to be back in business before month's end. This lawsuit will place this investigation atop its agenda.
Bottom line: John McCain played fast and loose with the law. He used the public financing system when it was convenient and helpful to his campaign, ignored it once the money started flowing again, and now takes a hands-off approach to the millions in the 527 money to be spent on his behalf. It's time for the shenanigans to stop, and this lawsuit will help shine a light on just how unprincipled this so-called "maverick" is.
In the end, I really don’t mind seeing Karl Rove in the headlines every day. His assertions always border on the absurd and, more than anything, he serves as a constant reminder of the divisive politics of the past, the promise and change that Barack Obama could bring, and the increasingly blurry differences between John McCain and George Bush. Turd Blossom, indeed.
The Fix explores the work of the Eleison Group, a consulting group that seeks to bridge the gap between faith and values voters and the Democratic Party. One of its founders, former Hillary Clinton aide Burns Strider, explains: “By communicating shared values and delivering a message that resonated with people of faith, we help Democrats and people of goodwill frame and expand the national values debate and focus attention on the common good that are central to America's families ad communities.”
The formation of the Eleison Group comes on the heels of the release of interesting new polling from the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life that reveals not only the large numbers of Americans who believe in God but also the gap between the parties among these religious/values voters."One of the realities in politics in the U.S. today is that people who regularly attend worship services and hold traditional religious views are much more likely to hold conservative political views while those who are less connected to religious institutions and more secular in their outlook are more likely to hold liberal political views," according to the Pew summary document on the poll.
A few questions in the Pew poll explain this supposition:
* Among those who attend religious services weekly or more, 50 percent call themselves conservative as compared to 31 percent who describe themselves as moderate and 20 percent who think of themselves as liberal.
* Forty six percent of those who consider religion "very important" identify as conservatives as opposed to 32 percent who call themselves moderates and 12 percent who say they are liberals.
* Those who pray daily also are far more likely to think of themselves as conservative (44 percent) than liberal (15 percent). One in three Americans who pray every day refer to themselves as moderates.
In 2004, the exit polling revealed that the God Gap was even wider than expected:
Among voters who attended church more than weekly (16 percent of the overall vote), President Bush beat Sen. John Kerry (Mass.) 64 percent to 35 percent. Bush carried a 17 point edge among the one in four voters who went to church once a week. Voters who attended church on a monthly basis split evenly between Bush and Kerry, while those who attended infrequently or not at all skewed toward the Democrat.
“Barack Obama has a long record of bipartisan accomplishment and we appreciate that it is respected by his Democratic and Republican colleagues in the Senate. But in this race, Oregonians should know that Barack Obama supports Jeff Merkley for Senate. Merkley will help Obama bring about the fundamental change we need in Washington.” -- Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton
The unpopularity of President Bush, the growing realization that McCain offers more of the same, and the appeal of Barack Obama with moderates and independent all surely spell doom for the Republican Party this fall. But on the bright side, it’s refreshing to finally see a Republican candidate touting bipartisanship as a virtue and not a sign of weakness.
It's becoming increasingly obvious that the new Republican answer to every national energy challenge is to drill for oil - drill now, drill often, and drill everywhere. But regardless of how many times they say it, and regardless of how hard they try to play the role of conscientious public servants, it simply doesn't work. They're seen in the role they really play - that of shameless political panderers - who grasp for the easy policy one-liner if it has a nice ring to it. I guess it doesn't matter that the policy doesn't make sense and would ultimately enrich oil companies much more than it would ever provide relief to taxpayers at the gas pump. But yes, the policy of off-shore drilling is bad. The Times elaborates:
It was almost inevitable that a combination of $4-a-gallon gas, public anxiety and politicians eager to win votes or repair legacies would produce political pandering on an epic scale. So it has, the latest instance being President Bush’s decision to ask Congress to end the federal ban on offshore oil and gas drilling along much of America’s continental shelf.This is worse than a dumb idea. It is cruelly misleading. It will make only a modest difference, at best, to prices at the pump, and even then the benefits will be years away. It greatly exaggerates America’s leverage over world oil prices. It is based on dubious statistics. It diverts the public from the tough decisions that need to be made about conservation.
There is no doubt that a lot of people have been discomfited and genuinely hurt by $4-a-gallon gas. But their suffering will not be relieved by drilling in restricted areas off the coasts of New Jersey or Virginia or California. The Energy Information Administration says that even if both coasts were opened, prices would not begin to drop until 2030. The only real beneficiaries will be the oil companies that are trying to lock up every last acre of public land before their friends in power - Mr. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney - exit the political stage.
The whole scheme is based on a series of fictions that range from the egregious to the merely annoying. Democratic majority leader, Senator Harry Reid, noted the worst of these on Wednesday: That a country that consumes one-quarter of the world’s oil supply but owns only 3 percent of its reserves can drill its way out of any problem - whether it be high prices at the pump or dependence on oil exported by unstable countries in Persian Gulf. This fiction has been resisted by BarackObama but foolishly embraced by John McCain, who seemed to be making some sense on energy questions until he jumped aboard the lift-the-ban bandwagon on Tuesday.
A lesser fiction, perpetrated by the oil companies and, to some extent, by misleading government figures, is that huge deposits of oil and gas on federal land have been closed off and industry has had one hand tied behind its back by environmentalists, Democrats and the offshore protections in place for 25 years.The numbers suggest otherwise. Of the 36 billion barrels of oil believed to lie on federal land, mainly in the Rocky Mountain West and Alaska, almost two-thirds are accessible or will be after various land-use and environmental reviews. And of the 89 billion barrels of recoverable oil believed to lie offshore, the federal Mineral Management Service says fourth-fifths is open to industry, mostly in the Gulf of Mexico and Alaskan waters.
Clearly, the oil companies are not starved for resources. Further, they do not seem to be doing nearly as much as they could with the land to which they’ve already laid claim. Separate studies by the House Committee on Natural Resources and the Wilderness Society, a conservation group, show that roughly three-quarters of the 90 million-plus acres of federal land being leased by the oil companies onshore and off are not being used to produce energy. That is 68 million acres altogether, among them potentially highly productive leases in the Gulf of Mexico and Alaska.
Meanwhile, Gail Collins explores John McCain’s odd reversal on the issue (the latest development in his de-Maverickation), the continued blurring of Bush and McCain, and what is becoming McCain's increasingly disastrous and unfocused energy “policy”.
Bush wants to search for oil offshore, out West, in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, in the basement, beneath the WashingtonMonument - you name it, he’s ready to drill. This would require a great deal of excruciatingly controversial legislation, all of which he demanded the Democrats in Congress pass before the Fourth of July recess. Otherwise, everything is their fault… The Rose Garden event was peculiar, and only partly because the chief executive of the United States suddenly announced that Congress has two weeks to reverse an offshore drilling policy that it has had in place since 1981.
There was also the matter of John McCain. Poor McCain has been trying desperately to convince the public that there’s a vast, vast gulf between him and the current administration. It’s been tougher than he expected. In the past, McCain parted company with Bush on everything from torture to taxes. But now he’s fudged some of those differences, and completely caved on others...Earlier this week, McCain made news when, in a change of position, he called for allowing more offshore drilling. It was his moment to betray the environmentalists in the name of cheaper gasoline. You’d think the president would have the decency to wait, and refrain from holding a press conference that made the two of them sound like soul mates.
First, there was that extremely cheesy idea of a federal gas-tax holiday. It was dead on arrival the day he proposed it. Besides, any position that leaves you lashing out at “so-called economists” is not going to instill a deep sense of confidence in the voting public. The way he’s been working the energy issue only makes him look like a man with no inner core. For instance, the guy who was speaking in Houston this week was considerably different from the one who did a town-hall meeting in New York last week.
The New York McCain laced into oil companies for their “obscene” profits and their failure to invest in alternative sources of energy. “I think it’s an abrogation of their responsibility as citizens,” he said, assuring the audience he was “very angry with oil companies.” The Houston McCain seemed to have gotten over his wrath, and contented himself with lacing into Obama’s plan for a windfall-profits tax on oil companies. It would, he said, discourage oil exploration.
At the state level, the fall-out in Florida continues and the back and forth between members of the delegation is getting more and more entertaining.
In the wake of the endorsement by Bush, McCain and Florida Gov. Charlie Crist - all three of whom previously supported the ban - a number of congressional Republicans, including Florida Reps. AnderCrenshaw and Connie Mack, have dropped their prior opposition and embraced offshore drilling as a way out of the gas crisis.
…The nine Democrats in the Florida delegation issued a joint statement Wednesday afternoon dismissing calls for offshore drilling as “a political gimmick that will not lower gas prices for consumers but could have real and tragic consequences for Florida’s economy and natural environment.”
“While President Bush, Sen. McCain, Big Oil and perhaps even our governor are willing to put Florida’s vital tourism and fishing economies at risk for a small amount of oil and gas, we are not willing to do so,” the Florida Democrats said. “We cannot sacrifice Florida’s billion-dollar tourism and fishing industries, our beaches, coastal environment and marine resources due to the administration’s wholesale failure to produce sound energy policy.”
Though left-handers comprise just 10% of the population, they are dominating presidential politics. Their recent success transcends ideology. Since 1974, presidents Ford, Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and Clinton have all favored their left hands, while President Carter and the current President Bush are righties. The trait is also not exclusive to winning candidates: Vice President Gore is left-handed, as are past presidential contenders Robert Dole, John Edwards, Bill Bradley, and Ross Perot.
Researchers who have studied handedness have found links to genetics and to brain function, but there is no prevailing theory to explain the plethora of left-handed commanders in chief in recent decades. Yet the trend is more than a statistical anomaly…
Studies have shown that whereas righties favor the left hemisphere of their brain, which controls language, left-handers are more likely to have bilateral brain function, which could allow them to visualize problems more broadly and with more complexity. A higher percentage of mathematicians and scientists are left-handed, and the same is true for artists.
In Newsweek, Fareed Zakaria lays out the Iraq speech that Barack Obama needs to give. “The reason to lay out his approach to Iraq is that, were he elected, the war would be his biggest and most immediate problem. He will need to implement a serious policy on Iraq, one that is consistent with his long-held views but is also informed by the conditions on the ground today.” This is what he should say:
"In six months, on Jan. 20, 2009, we will have a new president. But it is not clear that we will chart a new course in the ongoing war in Iraq. Senator McCain has promised a continuation of the Bush strategy—to stay in Iraq with no horizon in sight, with no benchmarks or metrics that would tell us when American troops can come home. In 2006, when levels of violence were horrifyingly high, President Bush and Senator McCain said that things were going so badly that if we left, the consequences would be tragic. Today they say that things are going so well that if we leave, the consequences would be tragic. Whatever the conditions, the answer is the same—keep doing what we're doing. How does one say 'Catch-22' in Arabic?
"I start from a different premise. I believe that the Iraq War was a major strategic blunder. It diverted us from the battle against Al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan—the people who launched the attacks of 9/11 and who remain powerful and active today. We face threats in Iraq, but the two greatest ones, as General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker have testified, are Al Qaeda (which is wounded but not dead) and Iran. Both are a direct consequence of the invasion. There was no Al Qaeda in Iraq before 2003, and Iran's influence has expanded massively since then.
"And then there are the more tangible costs. The war has resulted in over 4,000 U.S. combat deaths, four times as many grievously wounded, and tens of thousands of Iraqi deaths. Over 2 million Iraqis have fled the country and 2 million more have been displaced within the country. The price tag in dollars has also been staggering. In the last five years, the United States has spent close to $1 trillion on the invasion and occupation of Iraq. That is enough money to rebuild every school, bridge and road in America, create universal health care and fund several Manhattan Projects in alternative energy. Whatever benefits the invasion of Iraq might produce, it cannot justify these expenditures in lives and treasure.
"But these costs have already been paid. Nothing we can do today, in June 2008, can reduce those expenditures or bring back to life those brave people. We have to look at the situation we're in now and ask, what can we do to create the best possible outcome at an acceptable cost? Economists warn us not to dwell on 'sunk costs' and, while painful, we must move beyond the mistakes of the past and focus on the possibilities of the future.
"The surge has produced a considerable decline in violence in Iraq. General Petraeus has accomplished this by using more troops and fighting differently. Perhaps more crucially, he reached out and made a strategic accommodation with many Sunni groups that had once fought U.S. troops. To put it bluntly, he talked to our enemies. These reversals of strategy have had the effect of creating what General Petraeus calls 'breathing space' for political reconciliation. And he has always said that without political progress in Iraq, military efforts will not produce any lasting success.
"He is right. All today's gains could disappear when American troops leave—and they will have to leave one day. The disagreement I have with the Bush administration is that it seems to believe that time will magically make these gains endure. It won't. Without political progress, once the United States reduces its forces, the old mistrust and the old militias will rise up again. Only genuine political power-sharing will create a government and an Army that are seen as national and not sectarian. And that, in turn, is the only path to make Iraq viable without a large American military presence.
"In recent months there has been some movement on the reconciliation long promised by the Bush administration. It remains piecemeal and limited—nothing like the new national compact that the Maliki government promised two years ago—but I welcome the gains. It is encouraging to see the Iraqi government act against Shiite militias in Basra and SadrCity, which sends a signal that they will be equal-opportunity enforcers of the law.
"More needs to happen. Militias remain powerful in many parts of Iraq. The Sunni tribes that have switched sides must have their members enrolled in the armed forces and police (a process that has moved very slowly so far). Constitutional discussions that have been postponed again and again need to take place soon.
"I have often said that we cannot give a blank check to the Iraq government. And I believe that congressional pressure—the growing frustration of Democrats and Republicans—was an important factor in getting the Iraqi leadership to start moving on outstanding political issues. I believe that we must continue to keep that pressure on the government in Baghdad. The best pressure remains the threat of troop withdrawals. But the obvious corollary is that were the Iraqi government to take decisive action, we should support it by altering the pace of our drawdown. I have set as a target the reduction of U.S. forces at one to two brigades a month, starting in early 2009. Were the Iraqi government to make significant political progress and request a pause in this timetable, and were General Petraeus to support this request, I would give it serious consideration.
"My objective remains to end American combat involvement in Iraq and to do so expeditiously. At some point we are going to have to take off the training wheels in Iraq. I believe that we must have a serious plan that defines when that point is reached. If we define success as an Iraq that looks like France or Holland, we will have to stay indefinitely, continue spending $10 billion a month and keep 140,000 troops in combat. And that is neither acceptable nor sustainable. We will have to accept as success a muddy middle ground—an Iraq that is a functioning, federal democracy with a central government and an army able to tackle the bulk of challenges they face. General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker have themselves said that no matter what success we achieve, there will remain some Al Qaeda presence in Iraq and some Iranian influence, since Iran is a neighbor.
"I have been a longstanding opponent of the Iraq War. But I am a passionate supporter of the Iraqi people. They deserve a decent future after decades of tyranny and five years of chaos. The United States must continue its assistance and engagement with Iraq on a whole range of issues—economic, administrative and security-related. We owe the Iraqi people this, and we hope to maintain a friendship with them for decades. I have always said that I would not withdraw troops precipitously, nor do I insist that we will draw down to zero. If circumstances require, we will have a small presence in the country to fight Al Qaeda, train the Iraqi Army, protect American interests and provide humanitarian assistance. But it will be small and it will be temporary—which is also as the Iraqi people seem to wish.
Another significant difference between Senator McCain and me is that I would couple the reduction in our military forces in Iraq with a diplomatic surge, not just to push the Iraqis to make deals, but also to get its neighbors more productively involved in Iraq. It is a sign of our neglect of diplomacy that today, five years after the fall of Saddam Hussein, only two Arab governments have pledged to name an ambassador to Baghdad. Iraq is not an island. It is a founding member of the Arab League and a crucial country in the Persian Gulf. We need to engage with all Iraq's neighbors—including Syria and Iran—to create a lasting political stability that is supported in the region.
"But finally, I would return to my original concerns. General Petraeus has successfully executed the task he was given, to shore up a collapsing situation in Iraq. But his responsibility was Iraq. His new area of operation stretches from the Arab world into Pakistan and Afghanistan. There lie the most dangerous and immediate threats to American security. The Taliban is enjoying its greatest resurgence since 9/11. Former U.S. commander Gen. Dan McNeill has said we need at least two more combat brigades to fight it. But there are literally no brigades to spare because of our massive commitment in Iraq.
"The president of the United States is responsible not just for Iraq, not just for the Middle East and West Asia, but for America's interests across the globe. We must make our commitment in Iraq one that is limited, temporary and thus sustainable. And we must also be aware that there is a much larger world out there, with the Taliban in Afghanistan, with Iran's growing ambitions, a rising China, a resurgent Russia, an obstructionist Venezuela. All these require attention. The test of a commander in chief is not to focus obsessively on one battlefield but to keep all of them in view and to use resources and tactics in a way that creates an overall grand strategy, one that keeps the American people safe and the world at peace."
Senator Jack Reed of Rhode Island, a studious, introverted former Army Ranger, is one of the Democratic Party’s eminent voices on military affairs. But in neighborhoods hit hard by foreclosures, like the West End of Providence, it is Mr. Reed’s lesser-known expertise on housing policy that is proving critical these days...
Mr. Reed, 58, is perhaps best known for his repeated efforts last year to set a deadline for the withdrawal of American military forces from Iraq. He is a graduate of the United States Military Academy at West Point, but his diminutive height — 5 feet 7 inches on a good day, he says — makes his Special Forces background seem both improbable and all the more intimidating.
He has taken frequent trips to Iraq on which he goes out in the field with troops and surveys territory and operations that would most likely be off limits were it not for his close relationships with so many commanders. Mr. Reed is a former paratrooper retired from active duty as a captain, did time as a professor at West Point and is a member of the academy’s Board of Overseers. All in all, his military credentials have some Democrats speculating about him as a potential vice-presidential nominee or, more likely, as a secretary of defense in an Obama administration.
Prior to serving in the Senate, Reed was a three-term Member of the U.S. House of Representatives from Rhode Island's 2nd Congressional District.
After graduating from West Point and receiving an active duty commission in the United States Army, Reed attended the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University where he received a Masters of Public Policy. Reed, an Army Ranger and a paratrooper, served in the 82nd Airborne Division as an Infantry Platoon leader, a Company Commander, and a Battalion Staff Officer. He returned to West Point in 1978 as an Associate Professor in the Department of Social Sciences.
Reed resigned from the Army as a Captain in 1979 and enrolled at Harvard Law School. In 1982, he graduated from Harvard and served a year as an associate with the Washington, DC law firm of Sutherland, Asbill, and Brennan. In 1983, he returned to Rhode Island and joined the Providence law firm of Edwards and Angell. Reed was elected to the Rhode Island State Senate in 1984 and served for three terms.
cal care and prescription drugs.
