The insurance companies have become the new whipping boy because they make money off of people's misery.
The real problem is lack of competition, state laws that set the terms of what policy can be offered and the inability to have cross state purchasing of insurance.
If these issues were addressed, competition would drive costs down, insurance companies, desirous of making money, would come up with innovative policies and Obama's radicalization of health care would fade as an imperative.
In truth, health care is the eagle on whose wings Obama can bring more of the private sector under government control. Obama and his Pelosi/Reid liberals are control and power freaks and health care is the surrogate opportunity for achieving more control and thus power. They distrust the public, they are opposed to freedom of choice and they do not believe the free market allocates wealth equitably
As for why Democrats have decided to strike while the anvil is hot has, itself, become an equally hot topic. Passing something monumental has become worth the calculated sacrifice of some party members. Of course the numbers could swell should calculations could prove wrong.
Desperation equates to win at any cost and if that means buying off a few 'whorish' Senators by relieving their states of future costs, ugly as that may be, so what.
Obviously, Obama, Pelosi and Reid are betting on current angst fading come election time. The end justifies the means is what Obama change is all about.
If the health care bill is so good why should its implementation be deferred? Here again, it is all due to smoke and mirror accounting. This from a president who campaigned on eliminating politics as usual. More Obama lies? You decide.(See 1, 1a and 1b below.)
When it comes to global warming, Obama cut a deal with China, Brazil and India and left Europeans outside the room. Having thrown our 'historic' allies under a bus operated by the Chicago Politics Authority, will Europeans continue to love Obama more than his own countrymen? Probably so because his views reflect more theirs than ours.
Has the entire issue of global warming turned out to be more smoke blowing contrived science? More Obama lies? You decide. (See 2,2a and 2b below.)
The greatest tragedy is the just passed Defense Bill and Health Care Bill are laden with earmarks. I doubt most legislators , who will be voting on this multi thousand page legislative monstrosity, understands it, can explain it or have even read it.
Obama campaigned against earmarks and pledged he would not sign a bill including them. More Obama lies? You decide.
All social legislation is initially presented as a Christmas tree with limited branches. Over time the tree becomes overgrown with extended branches on which more wealth transfer baubles are hung. Legislative trees are never pruned of waste or ineffectiveness. Like Topsy, they are fertilized with tax payer money and just grow taller until they bend and break of their own weight.
How much longer will Americans tolerate this type of governance? Is it too late to retrieve our Republic from the clutches of extremists on either side? Again, you decide.
As for myself, I believe we may have reached an ungovernable point.
Reagan knew how to change a nation's climate. (See 3 below.)
Hezballah just legitimized itself by forcing Lebanon to repudiate a Security Council resolution, something only within the purview of the U.N.'s Security Council. (See 4 below.)
Is there a Saudi connection to J Street? (See 5 below.)
John Yoo sees maturity. John Yoo might be seeing what he wants to see. Words have meaning but actions speak louder. (See 6 and 6a below.)
Dick
1)Seizing the Moment on Health Care Reform
By Eugene Robinson
When all is said and done -- and, yes, there is a bit more saying and doing to endure, which means that anything can happen -- the health care reform legislation that President Obama now seems likely to sign into law, while an unlovely mess, will be remembered as a landmark accomplishment.
The bill making its way through the Senate by the slimmest of margins is imperfect, to say the least. But before listing its many flaws, let's consider the measure's one great virtue: For the first time, we will enshrine the principle that all Americans deserve access to medical care regardless of their ability to pay. No longer will it be the policy and practice of our nation to ration health according to wealth.
When you blow away all the smoke, that's what this fight is about. The Senate bill lacks a public health insurance option, the House bill is burdened by gratuitous abortion restrictions, and the final product of a House-Senate conference will probably have both those failings. But once the idea of universal health care is signed into law, it will be all but impossible to erase. Over time, that idea will be made into reality.
The loose ends are so many and varied, in fact, that it will probably be necessary to revisit the health care issue sooner rather than later. Even if it takes years to get it right, eventually is better than never. History suggests that major new social initiatives have to be perfected over time -- and that basic entitlements, once established, are rarely taken away.
Progressives who argue for killing the Senate bill and starting over should explain their position to the 30 million Americans without health insurance who would be covered under this insufficiently progressive legislation. They should recall that when Obama and the Democratic leadership in Congress began this crusade, public opinion was solidly in favor of reform. With polls now showing widespread wariness, with Republicans having confused and frightened many voters who already have adequate health insurance, why would anyone think that beginning from scratch is likely to produce a more progressive result?
It surely wouldn't. For anyone who believes it is shameful that the richest, most powerful nation in the world cares so little about the health and welfare of its citizens, this is the moment. It should be seized, not squandered.
Is it ridiculous that the Senate bill essentially bribes Sen. Ben Nelson with special Medicaid reimbursements for Nebraska alone? Yes. Is it galling that the public option and the idea of a Medicare buy-in fell victim to Sen. Joe Lieberman's whims? Supremely so. But our eyes should be kept on the prize.
The bill has been described as a gift to the health insurance companies since it provides them with 30 million new customers and no competition from a public plan. I don't believe it's a coincidence that the stock prices of health insurers are soaring. But I also don't believe the main point of this exercise was to stick it to the insurance companies, however satisfying that might be.
Someday, perhaps, we will deal with the perversity of having for-profit health insurance companies. Executives of those firms have a duty to maximize value for shareholders, which gives them the incentive to behave badly -- rejecting those who are most in need of health care, denying reasonable claims, raising premiums whenever possible. If health care is a fundamental right and a societal good, then why should its allocation be mediated by the private sector? But this is not the debate we've just had.
Eventually, we probably will ask that question. While the reform package nearing completion bends the curve of rising health care costs, more bending is going to be needed. Ultimately, we're going to have to take a more fundamental look at how the health industry is structured.
So this isn't the end of a process that leads to a rational, sustainable, more efficient health care system. It's the beginning. But when a reform bill passes, as now seems likely, Obama and congressional leaders will have achieved a goal that progressives have sought for decades. They will have established that quality health care should be for all, not just for those who can afford it.
We have a system now in which Americans go bankrupt trying to pay doctors and hospitals to keep them alive. When you have the opportunity to change this, you take it -- even if it means winning ugly.
1a)Obama Claims Two Unsightly Triumphs
By George Will
It was serendipitous to have almost simultaneous climaxes in Copenhagen and Congress. The former's accomplishment was indiscernible, the latter's was unsightly.
It would have been unprecedented had the president not described the outcome of the Copenhagen climate change summit as "unprecedented," that being the most overworked word in his hardworking vocabulary of self-celebration. Actually, the mountain beneath the summit -- a mountain of manufactured hysteria, predictable cupidity, antic demagoguery and dubious science -- labored mightily and gave birth to a mouselet, a 12-paragraph document committing the signatories to ... make a list.
A list of the goals they have no serious intention of trying to meet. The document even dropped the words "as soon as possible" from its call for a binding agreement on emissions.
The 1992 Rio climate summit begat Kyoto. It, like Copenhagen, which Kyoto begat, was "saved," as Copenhagen was, by a last-minute American intervention (Vice President Al Gore's) that midwifed an agreement that most signatories evaded for 12 years. The Clinton-Gore administration never submitted Kyoto's accomplishment for ratification, the Senate having denounced its terms 95-0.
Copenhagen will beget Mexico City next November. Before then, Congress will give "the international community" other reasons to pout. Congress will refuse to burden the economy with cap-and-trade carbon-reduction requirements, and will spurn calls for sending billions in "climate reparations" to China and other countries. Representatives of those nations, when they did not have their hands out in Copenhagen grasping for America's wealth, clapped their hands in ovations for Hugo Chavez and other kleptocrats who denounced capitalism while clamoring for its fruits.
The New York Times reported from Copenhagen that Barack Obama "burst into a meeting of the Chinese, Indian and Brazilian leaders, according to senior administration officials. Mr. Obama said he did not want them negotiating in secret." Naughty them. Those three nations will be even less pliable in Mexico City.
At least the president got a health care bill through the Senate. But what problem does it "solve" (Obama's word)? Not that of the uninsured, 23 million of whom will remain in 2019. Not that of rising health care spending. This will rise faster over the next decade.
The legislation does solve the Democrats' "problem" of figuring out how to worsen the dependency culture and the entitlement mentality that grows with it. By 2016, families with annual incomes of $96,000 will get subsidized health insurance premiums.
Nebraska's Ben Nelson voted for the Senate bill after opposing both the Medicare cuts and taxes on high-value insurance plans -- the heart of the bill's financing. Arkansas' Blanche Lincoln, Indiana's Evan Bayh and Virginia's Jim Webb voted against one or the other. Yet they support the bill. They will need mental health care to cure their intellectual whiplash.
Before equating Harry Reid to Henry Clay, understand that buying 60 Senate votes is a process more protracted than difficult. Reid was buying the votes of senators whose understanding of the duties of representation does not rise above looting the nation for local benefits. And Reid had two advantages -- the spending, taxing and borrowing powers of the federal leviathan, and an almost gorgeous absence of scruples or principles. Principles are general rules, such as: Nebraska should not be exempt from burdens imposed on the other 49 states.
Principles have not, however, been entirely absent: Nebraska's Republican governor, Dave Heineman, and Republican senator, Mike Johanns, have honorably denounced Nebraska's exemption from expanded Medicaid costs. The exemption was one payment for Nelson's vote to impose the legislation on Nebraskans, 67 percent of whom oppose it.
Considering all the money and debasement of the rule of law required to purchase 60 votes, the bill the Senate passed might be the only bill that can get 60. The House, however, voted for Rep. Bart Stupak's provision preserving the ban on public funding of abortions. Nelson, an untalented negotiator, unnecessarily settled for much less. The House also supports a surtax on affluent Americans, and opposes the steep tax on some high-value health insurance. So to get the bill to the president's desk, the House, in conference with the Senate, may have to shrug and say: Oh, never mind.
During this long debate, the left has almost always yielded ground. Still, to swallow the Senate bill, the House will have to swallow its pride, if it has any. The conference report reconciling the House and Senate bills will reveal whether the House is reconciled to being second fiddle in a one-fiddle orchestra.
1b)Votes For Sale in the Senate
By Michael Gerson
Sometimes there is a fine ethical line between legislative maneuvering and bribery. At other times, that line is crossed by a speeding, honking tractor-trailer, with outlines of shapely women on mud flaps bouncing as it rumbles past.
Such was the case in the final hours of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's successful attempt to get cloture on health care reform. Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska, the last Democratic holdout, was offered and accepted a permanent exemption from his state's share of Medicaid expansion, amounting to $100 million over 10 years.
Afterward, Reid was unapologetic. "You'll find," he said, "a number of states that are treated differently than other states. That's what legislating is all about."
But legislating, presumably, is also about giving public reasons for the expenditure of public funds. Are Cornhuskers particularly sickly and fragile? Is there a malaria outbreak in Grand Island? Ebola detected in Lincoln?
Reid didn't even attempt to offer a reason why Medicaid in Nebraska should be treated differently from, say, Medicaid across the Missouri River in Iowa. The majority leader bought a vote with someone else's money. Does this conclusion sound harsh? Listen to Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, who accused the Senate leadership and the administration of "backroom deals that amount to bribes," and "seedy Chicago politics" that "personifies the worst of Washington."
This special deal for Nebraska raises an immediate question: Why doesn't every Democratic senator demand the same treatment for their state? Eventually, they will. After the Nelson deal was announced, Sen. Tom Harkin of Iowa enthused, "When you look at it, I thought well, God, good, it is going to be the impetus for all the states to stay at 100 percent (coverage by the federal government). So he might have done all of us a favor." In a single concession, Reid undermined the theory of Medicaid -- designed as a shared burden between states and the federal government -- and added to future federal deficits.
Unless this little sweetener is stripped from the final bill by a House-Senate conference committee in January, leaving Nelson with a choice. He could enrage his party by blocking health reform for the sake of $100 million -- making the narrowness of his interests clear to everyone. Or he could give in -- looking not only venal but foolish.
How did Nelson gain such leverage in the legislative process in the first place? Because many assumed that his objections to abortion coverage in the health bill were serious -- not a cover, but a conviction. Nelson, a rare pro-life Democrat, insisted in an interview he would not be a "cheap date." Republican leadership staffers in the Senate thought he might insist on language in the health care bill preventing public funds from going to insurance plans that cover abortion on demand, as Democratic Rep. Bart Stupak had done in the House.
Instead, Nelson caved. The "compromise" he accepted allows states to prohibit the coverage of elective abortions in their own insurance exchanges. Which means that Nebraska taxpayers may not be forced to subsidize insurance plans that cover abortions in Nebraska. But they will certainly be required to subsidize such plans in California, New York and many other states.
In the end, Nelson not only surrendered his own beliefs, he betrayed the principle of the Hyde Amendment, which since 1976 has prevented the coverage of elective abortion in federally funded insurance. Nelson not only violated his own pro-life convictions, he may force millions of Americans to violate theirs as well.
I can respect those who are pro-life out of conviction, and those who are pro-choice out of conviction. It is more difficult to respect politicians willing to use their deepest beliefs -- and the deepest beliefs of others -- as bargaining chips.
In a single evening, Nelson managed to undermine the logic of Medicaid, abandon three decades of protections under the Hyde Amendment and increase the public stock of cynicism. For what? For the sake of legislation that greatly expands a health entitlement without reforming the health system; that siphons hundreds of billions of dollars out of Medicare, instead of using that money to reform Medicare itself; that imposes seven taxes on Americans making less than $250,000 a year, in direct violation of a presidential pledge; that employs Enron-style accounting methods to inflate future cost savings; that pretends to tame the insurance companies while making insurance companies the largest beneficiaries of reform.
And, yes, for $100 million. It is the cheap date equivalent of Taco Bell.
2) Obama the Calculator: A Copenhagen Postmortem
By David Corn
For the past two weeks, as I covered the Copenhagen climate summit, I was able to observe closely the political calculus of Barack Obama. The conference peaked (or crashed) with a master stroke for Obama -- but perhaps not for the planet and billions of its inhabitants whose lives depend upon stabilizing the atmosphere.
If you've followed my previous dispatches or have glanced at a newspaper in the past few days, you've probably gotten the gist. As the conference was coming to what looked like a disastrous close, Obama, in a closed-door meeting, cut a deal with China (and India, Brazil, and South Africa). The goal of this U.N.-organized conference was to draft a binding treaty that would compel all the major emitters of global warming pollution to curb their emissions at rates scientists say are necessary to avert the more dangerous consequences of climate change. But the arrangement reached in that room produced merely a non-binding accord, under which nations will declare their own voluntary reductions. The pact established no firm targets for reductions or concrete schedule for decreasing emissions. Though Obama pushed hard for verification measures that would allow the world to determine if any particular country (meaning China) is meeting its self-proclaimed goals, the final wording of this provision was weak and vague. The accord does state that developed nations will devote $30 billion in the next three years to international program to help poorer nations contend with climate change and mobilize a $100 billion annual fund starting in 2020. But it left key details about these programs unstated. And the accord established no path for further negotiations.
All this was quite far from the goal that Obama has endorsed: a comprehensive and binding treaty in line with the science. So why did he engineer such a pact? He and his top aides clearly had concluded that the complicated and tortuous talks at the conference were leading nowhere--perhaps to no agreement at all. There were too many conflicts to resolve. China and other emerging developing nations didn't want to be covered by a treaty. Poor nations sided with them on this, but some disagreed with China and the others over whether an agreement should aim to limit a global temperature rise to 1.5 degrees or 2 degrees Celsius. (The higher number, backed by China, India, the United States, and other big emitters, could cause water crises for 1.8 billion people in Africa.) The European Union yearned for deeper cuts from the United States and the major developing countries and offered to increase its own proposed reductions by 50 percent, if these other countries did more. (The other countries did not meet the EU's standards; so it did not adopt the deeper cuts.) The United States and Europe proposed a $100 billion fund; developing nations demanded a bigger amount. Meanwhile, several bad actors -- Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Bolivia -- were trying to blow up the proceedings. Under the UN rules for the climate change negotiations, any final agreement would have to be accepted by all of the 193 countries present. That's certainly one way to kill one-world government!
Obama decided a comprehensive treaty was a bridge too far. And he pulled off a deft political maneuver. He circumvented the UN process (ticking off less powerful nations), screwed his European allies (by cutting them out of the real talks), and reached out to his top opponent in the negotiations: China.
When he announced the watered-down deal, Obama acknowledged that it did not include sufficient reductions -- meaning global warming would continue at an alarming pace. But his argument is this: we at least roped China and other major developing nations into a system in which they're going to have to commit to some form of emissions limits (even if those obligations are not binding under international law). It's a start, he and his aides would contend, and better than what the UN blah-bah-blah would have produced. Not coincidentally, persuading China to submit to any form of emissions curbs will help Obama pass the climate change bill pending in the Senate, where foes of that measure have been saying the US should not cut emissions if China and others keep spewing.
Copenhagen became classic Obama: he focused more on his opponents than his allies and accepted a deal far weaker than what he himself had claimed was necessary. See health care reform. I've missed the debate on that bill for the past two weeks, but I have caught some highlights -- such as the report that Republican Maine Sen. Olympia Snowe, who was once passionately courted by Obama, has now declared she's not going to vote for the bill. I also see that Howard Dean proclaimed the compromised Senate compromise as worse than nothing. Abortion rights groups also are angry. And -- do I have this right? -- at some point Sen. Joe Lieberman waged a successful coup and took over the US government.
As with climate change, the White House is arguing, we're getting the best we can, there are positive provisions, and we can improve on this later. (Tell me, which members of Congress are going to be eager to revisit this subject any time in the next two decades?) Obama could have pressed for a more ambitious health care bill, one more in keeping with what he proposed during the presidential campaign. And he could have exploited Senate rules to end-run a GOP filibuster and pass legislation closer to the desires of his party. But he chose the conventional route and perhaps he has a point: achieve what's possible through the traditional mechanism and build on that.
Here's the rub. That may work for health care (though anyone with health insurance problems unaddressed by the legislation won't be so sanguine). It may not work for climate change. Time could be short. Scientists worry about tipping points: if high levels of carbon dioxide trigger severe changes in the climate, it will be impossible to redress the consequent problems. Put simply, it's tough to recreate a polar ice cap.
In the health care reform battle, Obama only wanted a vote out of Snowe. He didn't need her to do anything after that. With climate change, he must get China and the other major developing nations to do more than say "yea." China has surpassed the United States as the world's No. 1 emitter. As US officials repeatedly said at Copenhagen, China and its fellow emerging economic powerhouses will be responsible for 97 percent of the growth in greenhouse gasses in the next decade. Europe and the United States can reduce their emissions dramatically, but the atmosphere will still be at tremendous risk unless China and the others quickly throttle back. (This is indeed unfair; the United States and other industrialized countries got rich befouling the atmosphere with CO2. But China and India cannot do the same -- without casting the lethal blow to the atmosphere.)
So the fate-of-the-world question is, did Obama's political razzle-dazzle in Copenhagen produce a result that truly addresses the China problem? Under this agreement, Beijing is not committed to any global targets for reductions. With weak verification mechanisms, the Chinese dictatorship could change its goals or fudge its numbers. More worrisome, China might hide behind this accord and dodge any future talks designed to create a binding treaty with scientifically-guided reductions that would force China to ramp up its reductions. It's possible that by undermining the UN process for the sake of reaching an accommodation with China, Obama has undercut the only process that could truly hold China to task.
Will this accord nudge China in the right direction (and also lead the United States toward more serious reductions)? Or will it provide China an escape hatch? There's no telling. But Obama's fancy steps might have yielded a short-term win that causes a long-term loss. That's the thing with political calculations: immediate gains are often easy to see; the full costs are often hard to measure.
2a)Time for a Climate Change Plan B: The U.S. president is in deep denial .
By NIGEL LAWSON
The world's political leaders, not least President Barack Obama and Prime Minister Gordon Brown, are in a state of severe, almost clinical, denial. While acknowledging that the outcome of the United Nations climate-change conference in Copenhagen fell short of their demand for a legally binding, enforceable and verifiable global agreement on emissions reductions by developed and developing countries alike, they insist that what has been achieved is a breakthrough and a decisive step forward.
Just one more heave, just one more venue for the great climate-change traveling circus—Mexico City next year—and the job will be done.
Or so we are told. It is, of course, the purest nonsense. The only breakthrough was the political coup for China and India in concluding the anodyne communiqué with the United States behind closed doors, with Brazil and South Africa allowed in the room and Europe left to languish in the cold outside.
Far from achieving a major step forward, Copenhagen—predictably—achieved precisely nothing. The nearest thing to a commitment was the promise by the developed world to pay the developing world $30 billion of "climate aid" over the next three years, rising to $100 billion a year from 2020. Not only is that (perhaps fortunately) not legally binding, but there is no agreement whatsoever about which countries it will go to, in which amounts, and on what conditions.
The reasons for the complete and utter failure of Copenhagen are both fundamental and irresolvable. The first is that the economic cost of decarbonizing the world's economies is massive, and of at least the same order of magnitude as any benefits it may conceivably bring in terms of a cooler world in the next century.
The reason we use carbon-based energy is not the political power of the oil lobby or the coal industry. It is because it is far and away the cheapest source of energy at the present time and is likely to remain so, not forever, but for the foreseeable future.
Switching to much more expensive energy may be acceptable to us in the developed world (although I see no present evidence of this). But in the developing world, including the rapidly developing nations such as China and India, there are still tens if not hundreds of millions of people suffering from acute poverty, and from the consequences of such poverty, in the shape of malnutrition, preventable disease and premature death.
The overriding priority for the developing world has to be the fastest feasible rate of economic development, which means, inter alia, using the cheapest available source of energy: carbon energy.
Moreover, the argument that they should make this economic and human sacrifice to benefit future generations 100 years and more hence is all the less compelling, given that these future generations will, despite any problems caused by warming, be many times better off than the people of the developing world are today.
Or, at least, that is the assumption on which the climate scientists' warming projections are based. It is projected economic growth that determines projected carbon emissions, and projected carbon emissions that (according to the somewhat conjectural computer models on which they rely) determine projected warming (according to the same models).
All this overlaps with the second of the two fundamental reasons why Copenhagen failed, and why Mexico City (if our leaders insist on continuing this futile charade) will fail, too. That is the problem of burden-sharing, and in particular how much of the economic cost of decarbonization should be borne by the developed world, which accounts for the bulk of past emissions, and how much by the faster-growing developing world, which will account for the bulk of future emissions.
The 2006 Stern Review, quite the shoddiest pseudo-scientific and pseudo-economic document any British Government has ever produced, claims the overall burden is very small. If that were so, the problem of how to share the burden would be readily overcome—as indeed occurred with the phasing out of chorofluorocarbons (CFCs) under the 1987 Montreal Protocol. But the true cost of decarbonization is massive, and the distribution of the burden an insoluble problem.
Moreover, any assessment of the impact of any future warming that may occur is inevitably highly conjectural, depending as it does not only on the uncertainties of climate science but also on the uncertainties of future technological development. So what we are talking about is risk.
Not that the risk is all one way. The risk of a 1930s-style outbreak of protectionism—if the developed world were to abjure cheap energy and faced enhanced competition from China and other rapidly industrializing countries that declined to do so—is probably greater than any risk from warming.
But even without that, there is not even a theoretical (let alone a practical) basis for a global agreement on burden-sharing, since, so far as the risk of global warming is concerned (and probably in other areas too) risk aversion is not uniform throughout the world. Not only do different cultures embody very different degrees of risk aversion, but in general the richer countries will tend to be more risk-averse than the poorer countries, if only because we have more to lose.
The time has come to abandon the Kyoto-style folly that reached its apotheosis in Copenhagen last week, and move to plan B.
And the outlines of a credible plan B are clear. First and foremost, we must do what mankind has always done, and adapt to whatever changes in temperature may in the future arise.
This enables us to pocket the benefits of any warming (and there are many) while reducing the costs. None of the projected costs are new phenomena, but the possible exacerbation of problems our climate already throws at us. Addressing these problems directly is many times more cost-effective than anything discussed at Copenhagen. And adaptation does not require a global agreement, although we may well need to help the very poorest countries (not China) to adapt.
Beyond adaptation, plan B should involve a relatively modest, increased government investment in technological research and development—in energy, in adaptation and in geoengineering.
Despite the overwhelming evidence of the Copenhagen debacle, it is not going to be easy to get our leaders to move to plan B. There is no doubt that calling a halt to the high-profile climate-change traveling circus risks causing a severe conference-deprivation trauma among the participants. If there has to be a small public investment in counseling, it would be money well spent.
Lord Lawson was U.K. chancellor of the exchequer in the Thatcher government from 1983to 1989. He is the author of "An Appeal to Reason: A Cool Look at Global Warming" (Overlook Duckworth, paperback 2009), and is chairman of the recently formed Global Warming Policy Foundation (www.thegwpf.org).
2b)How China ensured it was an unfair COP
By Mark Lynas
Here's what really happened to scupper the climate summit
Su Wei, Chief negotiator of China on climate change and deputy head of the Chinese Delegation at the Copenhagen Summit, 8 December 2009. Credit: Getty Images
The truth about what happened at Copenhagen will not be easy for many people to hear, because it challenges everything they think they know about the world.
Yes, the "deal" was atrocious -- no long-term targets, no peaking year for emissions, no legally-binding framework. What no one seems to properly understand is why such high hopes were dashed with such devastating failure.
The truth is this: a better deal was blocked by powerful nations in the developing world, in particular China. Several of those present in the room as heads of state from more than 20 countries battled it out late into the final night confirm this essential truth, and that Chinese attitudes and behaviour were, at times, deeply shocking.
Consider that the Chinese premier, Wen Jinbao, did not deign to attend the heads of state meeting, instead sending a middle-ranking official to sit at the table with Obama, Merkel, Sarkozy, Australia's Kevin Rudd and leaders from Grenada, Ethiopia, Maldives, Brazil, Mexico and others.
The Chinese have a reputation for being highly status-conscious. There is little doubt that this was a calculated diplomatic slight, aimed, perhaps, at the American president. Instead, all these world leaders, Obama included, were forced to wait as the Chinese delegate went to consult his superiors, or alternatively to separate bilaterals with the Chinese premier as he held court in a nearby luxury hotel.
I was attached to one of the delegations whose head of government attended nearly all the top-level negotiations among leaders and, as senior adviser, had the opportunity to be present in the room where the intense top-level negotiations took place. Moreover, what took place in the heads of state meeting room and other parallel negotiations is confirmed by multiple high-level sources.
They emphasise that it was the Chinese delegate who insisted on watering down the 1.5degrees Celcius temperature target -- crucial to the survival of small-island states -- until it was largely meaningless. China and India together also removed any mention of an emissions peaking year (essential to keep temperature rises below even two degrees) or any long-term target for global emissions reductions by 2050, fearing that this would threaten their growth.
Most egregiously, it was China that insisted also on the removal of any mention even of rich countries' own targets -- initially suggested as 80 per cent by 2050. It is known that Angela Merkel in particular was incensed that even previously-agreed and publicly-announced targets by industrialised countries should also be excised from the text. Australia's Kevin Rudd, too, protested strongly. But China stood firm and the targets disappeared.
When the text became public, it was Western leaders who stood excoriated for having "weakened" the Copenhagen Accord. In the final conference plenary after the announcement of the "deal", the Sudanese delegate Lumumba Stanislaus Di-Aping (leader of the G77 and China group of developing countries) tore apart the agreement, suggesting that the weakness of its targets made it "murderous" to Africans.
What he did not mention was that it was his patrons, the Chinese (who have large investments in Sudan), who had gutted the much stronger, original deal pushed by the western leaders in the first place. Di-Aping's comparison of the Accord with the Holocaust was not just offensive and inappropriate; it was also grimly ironic given that Sudan's own head of state was unable to attend the meeting because he has been indicted by the International Criminal Court for war crimes.
One of the heroes of the hour was our own Ed Miliband, who saved the conference from certain failure by intervening to move an adjournment seconds before the Danish prime minister (who was chairing) was about to throw in the towel. Gordon Brown, too, emerges with credit, having kept the $100bn financing provision for developing nations in the final text.
So what is China's game? Clearly the country is beginning to assume the mantle of a global superpower, and the picture is not pretty. Any suggestions of constraints on its coal-based growth are roundly rejected. It was clear to me that a collapse of the entire process would also have been just fine with China in particular, and probably India as well.
If this is how China plans to use its growing might over future years and decades, we are all in deep trouble. I came to Copenhagen full of optimism and hope. I left with a sense of deep foreboding and near despair.
A version of this piece by Mark Lynas will appear in the 4 January 2010 issue of the New Statesman.
3)A Candle for Iran?
By Paul Kengor
President Obama could learn a lesson from President Reagan on dealing with Iran.
Twice in this space last summer, I wrote about Iran -- specifically, about the dramatic June protests against the theocratic-totalitarian regime of Holocaust-denying despot Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. More than that, I focused on President Obama's reaction to the Iranian cry for freedom and justice.
President Obama's initial response was outrageous. It improved only after widespread criticism hit him from all sides. Still, even given the improvement in his rhetoric, our new president's treatment of the protests was a telling display of his tragic lack of recognition of what presidents Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush termed the "March of Freedom."
I concluded those articles by emphasizing the need by Obama to employ the bully pulpit of the presidency to consistently encourage this vital groundswell of freedom in Iran. I noted that Reagan in particular had done precisely that in places like Poland in the 1980s -- with grand historical results. For Obama, this means not simply reacting to occasional incidents in Iran -- if and when they rarely present themselves -- but to be proactive, to be creative, to regularly call out the tyrants and encourage the dissidents. Obama must do this if he wants to push the freedom tide --and yes, if he wants to change the status quo in a dungeon like Iran, which for thirty years now has been the world's worst terrorist state.
If I may, I'd like to offer a specific example from the Reagan playbook. It happened 28 years ago -- Christmastime -- this week. You will not hear about in our public schools and liberal universities. That's a loss for liberals, too. They're missing a moving lesson that their guy -- President Obama -- could benefit from considerably.
The moment occurred in December 1981. That year, throughout the Evil Empire, "church-watchers" were on duty: sitting in chapels, taking notes on the "stupid people" entering to worship. The communist "war on religion" (Mikhail Gorbachev's apt description) was in full rot, as was the ugliness of communist repression generally.
The prospects for shining light upon that darkness seemed bleak. The Soviets were on the march, having added eleven proxy states as allies since 1974. The new man in Washington, President Ronald Reagan, was sure he could reverse Moscow's surge. He would jump-start the process in Poland, one of the most repressed Communist Bloc states -- but one where hope survived.
And just then, on December 13, 1981, the lights went out again. At midnight, as a soft snow fell lightly on Warsaw, a police raid commenced upon the headquarters of Lech Walesa's Solidarity labor union. The Polish communist government, consenting to orders from Moscow, declared martial law. Solidarity's freedom-fighters were shot or imprisoned. The flames of liberty were being snuffed out in this pivotal Eastern European nation.
But as Poles prayed for light to pierce the shadows, some remarkable things began to transpire. A week and a half later, the Polish ambassador, along with his wife, defected to the United States. Right away, they wanted to see Ronald Reagan. Reagan welcomed them into the Oval Office. They were overwhelmed. The ambassador's wife wept as Vice President George H. W. Bush put an arm around her shoulders to comfort her.
The ambassador then made an extraordinary request: "May I ask you a favor, Mr. President? Would you light a candle and put it in the window tonight for the people of Poland?" Ronald Reagan rose and walked to the second floor, lighted a candle, and put it in the White House window.
But Reagan wanted to do more than that. He saw a window of opportunity. So on December 23, with Christmas only two days away, speaking to all of America in a nationwide address, Ronald Reagan connected the spirit of the season with events in Poland: "For a thousand years," he told his fellow Americans (watch video here), "Christmas has been celebrated in Poland, a land of deep religious faith, but this Christmas brings little joy to the courageous Polish people. They have been betrayed by their own government." The president then took a remarkable liberty: He asked Americans that Christmas season to light a candle in support of freedom in Poland.
It was a significant gesture -- for Poland, for America, for a free world. Poles heard about it and took it to heart. They still talk about it today.
What does this have to do with President Obama and Iran? Everything. To wit: How about doing something similar for Iranians today? Why not light a candle as a sign of hope for Iran's freedom-fighters? If not a candle, then something -- some kind of overt public display.
Would such an action offend the Iranian leadership? Of course -- just as the light of day and light of truth repels a vampire.
The point, again, is for the American president to be proactive, to be creative, to be encouraging, to advance positive change in the world. He can make these simple but profound gestures even as he proceeds with his domestic agenda. Reagan did. Reagan -- quite apart from Obama's mindset -- passed his massive tax-reduction program in 1981.
Of course, there's an interesting juxtaposition there. Both domestically and in foreign policy, Reagan sought to remove power from the state and transfer it to the individual, whether through tax cuts for Americans or through undermining the communist totalitarianism shackling Poles. Obama is looking to empower the state domestically, while not undermining the theocratic totalitarianism shackling Iranians. It's a very instructive contrast.
And so, President Obama, I once again go back to my conclusion in my earlier articles: If you want to employ America as that light, as that beacon of freedom, then get going. Bring a flicker of hope, the light of liberty, to freedom's dungeon. Shine it into the terror-state of Iran.
Of course, proclaiming liberty to the captives means desiring to do so. A proclaimer must first be a believer. Like Reagan, and yes, like George W. Bush said too, you need to believe in the American ideal -- in the heart, in the soul, in the gut. You need to believe, as Ronald Reagan did, that America is as much an idea as a place.
Is Obama a believer? I said six months ago that only time will tell. So far, the story isn't promising.
Paul Kengor is professor of political science at Grove City College. His recent books include The Crusader: Ronald Reagan and the Fall of Communism and The Judge: William P. Clark, Ronald Reagan's Top Hand.
4)Lebanon repudiates UN 1559 outlawing Hizballah terror militia
Lebanon has announced its repudiation of 2004 UN Security Council resolution 1559 which in 2004 ordered all militias including Hizballah disbanded and disarmed. Lebanese sources reported Wednesday, Dec. 23, that president Michel Suleiman had notified US president Barack Obama about this decision, while Lebanese foreign minister Ali al-Shami passed the word to heads of the diplomatic missions.
The announcement came two days after Iranian foreign minister Manouchehr Mottaki visited Beirut and shortly after Lebanese prime minister Saad Hariri held talks in Damascus with Syrian president Bashar Assad.
The US embassy spokesman's only comment was: "We haven't received a verbal note on the matter."
He did say whether the notice had been relayed to the embassy or directly to President Obama when Suleiman met him at the White House last week.
According to military sources, Mottaki's visit was devoted to discussing with Lebanese leaders, including Hizballah heads, Beirut's possible attachment to the new Iranian-Syrian mutual defense pact signed last Thursday, Dec. 10 in Damascus. Its terms deal with the coordinated steps the two nations will pursue in the event of an Israel attack on Iran's nuclear facilities.
Lebanese officials replied to the Iranian feeler by saying it was too soon to broach this plan now, but could be discussed when prime minister Saad Hariri visits Tehran some time soon. Iran's invitation was handed to Hariri when he visited Damascus this week for his first meeting with Syrian president Bashar Assad, since his the assassination of his father in Beirut four years ago. Syria was widely implicated in the murder.
Lebanese officials also advised Mottaki that Iranian-Lebanese relations would be best served by quiet, inconspicuous action to have Security Council Resolution 1559 annulled. This would leave Hizballah free to take delivery of continuous arms consignments from Iran and Syria in broad daylight without either side being accused of illicit smuggling.
No government may unilaterally repudiate a Security Council resolution - only the SC, which must reconvene and adopt a fresh motion to amend or annul the motion in question. However, Beirut feels confident enough to make this gesture of defiance, emboldened both by Iranian and Syrian support and by apparent Israeli apathy in the face of Hizballah's massive arms build-up, which is going forward with the full endorsement of the Lebanese government and president. Even the most recent supply of a mixed bag of lethal surface missiles from Syria to Hizballah has failed to rouse the Netanyahu government to a response.
5)The Saudis Take a Stroll on J Street: There are some very close ties between Saudi Arabia, the Arab American Institute, and J Street
By Lenny Ben-David
Talk about a tough sale. Imagine being Saudi Arabia's public relations firm
in the United States in the months after the 9/11 attacks, which were
perpetrated by 19 terrorists, 15 of whom were Saudi nationals. Shilling for
a tarnished Saudi Arabia was the daunting task that faced Qorvis [1], a
Washington-based PR company. The $14 million contract surely compensated.
In their 2002 contract, Qorvis promised to [2] "draft and/or distribute
talking points, press releases, fact sheets, and op-ed pieces in order to
promote the [Saudi] Kingdom, its commitment to the war against terrorism,
peace in the Middle East, and other issues pertinent to the Kingdom."
Soon thereafter, a new organization appeared on the American scene, the
"Alliance of Peace and Justice in the Middle East." In April 2002, the
organization ran radio spots [3] on dozens of stations across the U.S.
extolling the Arab Peace Initiative proposed by then-Crown Prince Abdullah
and attacking Israel's settlements.
According to one ad: "The [Saudis'] fair plan [would] end the senseless
violence in the Mideast." The plan involved Israel's "withdrawal from the
Palestinian land it has unjustly occupied for years. . There will be no more
midnight raids and random searches, no more violence." "Start the peace -
end the occupation" is the phrase that ends the ads. It is followed by the
words "paid for by the Alliance of Peace and Justice."
Who was behind the alliance? One American Jewish activist tracked them back
to a Virginia address, which just happened to be the offices of Qorvis.
Eight months later, in documents submitted to the U.S. Justice Department's
Foreign Agents Registration Office (FARA), Qorvis began to fess up. They
listed receipt of $679,000 from the Alliance of Peace and Justice for
"payment for radio, television, and print ads."
In a tiny footnote, Qorvis added this classic piece of obfuscation:
Registrant [Qorvis] assisted in the preparation and placement of certain
advertisements to promote the Saudi Middle East peace plan that were
prepared by the Alliance for Peace and Justice, an American organization
concerned about the Middle East peace process. The Alliance paid Qorvis for
work on the advertisements. At the time of these payments, the Alliance was
funded by a bridge loan from the Embassy of Saudi Arabia. The Alliance
received its permanent funding from the Council of Saudi Chambers of
Commerce and Industry, through its Committee for the Development of
International Trade and the Alliance repaid the loan to the Embassy. The
Council, including the Committee, is based in Saudi Arabia, with its
principal offices in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. The advertisements prepared by
[2] the Alliance for the Council were filed with the Department of Justice
on April 29, 2002.
When he was confronted by reporters in 2002, Qorvis CEO Michael Petruzzello
told them that [4] the financial backers of the "alliance" included the Arab
American Institute (AAI), the U.S.-Saudi Arabian Business Council, and the
Arab-American Anti-Discrimination Committee.
In December 2004, the other shoe dropped when the FBI raided several Qorvis
offices as part of FARA compliance investigations. A grand jury was
convened, but details of their findings were never made public.
As of November 2009, no FARA registration was ever made by the Alliance of
Peace and Justice despite Qorvis' claim that Saudi institutions paid the
alliance, and despite Qorvis' portrayal of the alliance as a separate
American organization. Nor are there FARA filings for one of the
organizations named by Petruzzello, the Arab American Institute, despite
their receipt [5] of $300,000 from Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal in that
very busy year of 2002.
The Arab American Institute was founded by Arab-American and Democratic
Party activist James Zogby, an early supporter of Barack Obama [6]. (Zogby
was rewarded for his support in July when he was asked to deliver the
keynote address at the Justice Department's 45th anniversary commemoration
of the Civil Rights Act.)
Another AAI leader is Wisconsin businessman Richard Abdoo, a member of the
organization's board of governors.
Little was heard of the Saudi peace plan after the Alliance of Peace
episode. Until recently, that is.
Abdullah's peace plan, also called the "Arab Peace Initiative" and the "Arab
League Plan," was presented on an "all or nothing basis " in 2002. It
insisted on the Arab interpretation of UN Security Council Resolution 242,
which demands a return to the 1949 armistice lines, a position at odds with
the American and British drafters' intentions. The plan also demands a
solution to the Palestinian refugee issue "in accordance with UN General
Assembly Resolution 194." That resolution is understood by the Arabs to
include the Palestinian "right of return" to areas they fled between 1947
and 1949, areas and even major cities in today's Israel. Israel rejects "the
right of return" as a mortal threat to its existence.
J Street's support of the Arab Peace Initiative
Today, the Saudi plan is a major tenet in J Street's platform.
J Street's website position papers state [7], "U.S. leadership can be
deployed . to normalize relations between Israel and the Arab world,
utilizing the Arab Peace Initiative and helping to create institutional
frameworks for regional cooperation."
When asked about the plan in a Ha'aretz interview in June 2009, J Street
director Jeremy Ben-Ami responded, "Yes, we support the idea behind the Arab
Peace Initiative - which is that resolution of the conflict needs to be
regional and comprehensive."
In a November CNN interview [8] with Christine Amanpour, Ben-Ami referred to
the Arab plan repeatedly, including: "The Arab League has put on the table
not simply an Israeli-Palestinian deal, but an Israeli-Arab comprehensive
peace with the entirety of the Arab world."
Why does J Street push the Saudi initiative? Perhaps the answer lies in the
new "alliance" that has been formed - the very close ties between Saudi
Arabia, the Arab American Institute, and J Street.
In September 2009, J Street joined some 30 ethnic and religious groups to
support Obama's Middle East diplomatic efforts. One of the groups was the
Arab American Institute, which posted on its Internet site the coalition's
statement [9]. Included was this clause: "We support the idea of a
comprehensive regional peace that builds on the Arab Peace Initiative."
A member of J Street's advisory board, Judith Barnett, worked on aspects of
the Saudi account for Qorvis in 2004. She was also [10] one of the first
contributors to J Street's PAC and was later joined in the PAC by Nancy
Dutton, the Saudi Embassy's Washington attorney; Lewis Elbinger, a U.S.
State Department official who was based [11]in Saudi Arabia; and Ray Close,
the CIA's station chief in Saudi Arabia for 22 years who later went to work
for Saudi intelligence bosses. Close's son Kenneth registered at the Justice
Department as a foreign agent, working for [12] Saudi Prince Turki
al-Faisal, the author of the Saudi peace plan.
Beyond sharing support for the Saudi plan, the J Street-AAI financial and
ideological ties also appear to be very tight. Richard Abdoo is a member of
J Street's finance committee with its minimum contribution of $10,000 to J
Street's PAC. James Zogby recently wrote in the Bahrain Gulf Daily, "On
October 25, [2009] the Arab American Institute and J Street convened a joint
meeting that brought leaders and activists from both communities together as
an expression of our shared commitment to advance a just and comprehensive
Middle East peace."
J Street's embrace of the Saudi initiative is not a surprise, considering
the strong endorsement the plan received from George Soros, J Street's
purported godfather and sugar daddy.
"The 2002 Arab Peace Initiative," Soros wrote in a 2007 manifesto [13],
"[is] a settlement to be guaranteed by Saudi Arabia and other Arab
countries, based on the 1967 borders and full recognition of Israel. The
offer was meant to be elaborated by Saudi King Abdullah at the Arab League
meeting to be hosted by Saudi Arabia at the end of March. But no progress is
possible as long as the Bush administration and the Ehud Olmert government
persist in their current position of refusing to recognize a unity
government that includes Hamas."
Incredibly, the billionaire blames AIPAC for the initiative's failure, a
factor that may explain Soros' burning desire to create a left-wing
alternative to AIPAC. "Both for the sake of Israel and the United States, it
is highly desirable that the Saudi peace initiative should succeed; but
AIPAC stands in the way. It continues to oppose dealing with a Palestinian
government that includes Hamas."
Despite its recent national conference, J Street still defies definition.
Beyond Ben-Ami, its ubiquitous and loquacious director, the decision-makers
and major funders of J Street remain anonymous. The Saudi-Arab-American
Institute-J Street nexus begins to provide some definition to the
self-proclaimed "pro-Israel" organization. But more disclosure is needed.
Article printed from Pajamas Media: http://pajamasmedia.com
6)An ironic victory for Obama
By John Yoo
Who said this?
"Make no mistake: Evil does exist in the world. A nonviolent movement could not have halted Hitler's armies. Negotiations cannot convince al-Qaeda's leaders to lay down their arms. To say that force may sometimes be necessary is not a call to cynicism — it is a recognition of history; the imperfections of man and the limits of reason."
It sounds like George W. Bush but it was Barack Obama accepting the Nobel Peace Prize in Oslo.
The Obama administration may be growing up. One sign of maturity is understanding that international politics do not wax and wane with a president's popularity or media buzz. Iran and North Korea did not drop their quest to acquire nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles simply because we elected our first African American president. Al-Qaeda did not end its plans to launch another terrorist attack on our country because the Democrats won big in 2008.
So out with the apologies before foreign audiences for America's sins. And in with a full-throated defense of America's right to protect itself.
"As a head of state sworn to protect and defend my nation, I cannot be guided by the examples" of Dr. Martin Luther King and Mahatma Gandhi alone, Obama said in Oslo. "I face the world as it is, and cannot stand idle in the face of threats to the American people."
Obama may be coming to grips with reality. Platitudes about the United Nations and world peace are not going to protect the United States from terrorists and rogue states that wish us harm.
"The world must remember that it was not simply international institutions — not just treaties and declarations — that brought stability to a post-World War II world," Obama said. "Whatever mistakes we have made, the plain fact is this: The United States of America has helped underwrite global security for more than six decades with the blood of our citizens and the strength of our arms."
So instead of fleeing Afghanistan, as many in the antiwar left hoped, Obama is sending an additional 30,000 troops. Instead of accelerating the drawdown of American forces in Iraq, Obama is keeping to the Bush timetable.
Add to all this a full dose of American exceptionalism — the idea that the United States has a special role to play in the world — and you have a strategy that is returning toward, rather than away from, the course of the previous eight years.
As we near the end of the administration's first year in office, it is ironic, to say the least, that victory in Afghanistan and Iraq may save the Obama presidency from itself. According to the latest Gallup poll, less than half of the American people (49 percent) now approve of Obama's job performance. His massive stimulus plan, bank and auto bailouts, and explosive deficit spending did not stop unemployment from topping 10 percent. He wants to nationalize one-sixth of the economy by taking over health care, and limit greenhouse gas emissions, which will result in energy rationing. These measures will suppress growth and entrepreneurship just when our nation needs it most. The inevitable tax increases that will have to pay for these grandiose schemes may herald the return of 1970s-style stagflation.
The even larger irony is that if anything saves Obama after his rocky first year, it will be a constitutionally vigorous presidency along the lines of Reagan or Bush. It will not be the meek one for which he and the Democratic Party campaigned the last eight years.
When Obama decided to boost troop levels in Afghanistan, he did not go to Congress on bended knee. He said in his speech at West Point: "As commander-in-chief, I have determined that it is in our national interest to send an additional 30,000 U.S. troops to Afghanistan." He told those brave cadets: "I make this decision because I am convinced that our security is at stake in Afghanistan and Pakistan."
Congress has conveniently forgotten how to howl about an imperial presidency. The attacks on Bush were always more about partisan politics than the Constitution. Almost no one questions that Obama holds the power to decide the nation's fundamental security policies and to send the military and intelligence agencies in harm's way. Congress could cut off funds for Obama's surge, just as with Iraq, but making tough decisions does not get representatives and senators reelected.
The last irony is that if Obama someday joins the ranks of our great presidents, it will be by returning to the founding father's original vision of the office. They could never have imagined its vast bureaucracy or sweeping influence over domestic affairs. They designed the presidency to act with "decision, activity, secrecy, and dispatch," not to bail out businesses or take over health care, but to prevail in the face of unforeseen emergencies, crises, and wars.
If Obama succeeds in bringing the nation through Iraq and Afghanistan, and destroys al-Qaeda, he will have drawn on the same wellsprings of presidential power that sustained Washington, Lincoln, and FDR. Let's hope he has learned the lessons of past presidents well as he enters his second year in office.
6a)Obama Has Failed His Words
By Jonah Goldberg
On his own terms, President Obama is a failure.
During the presidential campaign, he fought hammer and tongs with Hillary Clinton over the best way to govern. Clinton, casting herself as a battle-scarred political veteran, argued that diligence, dedicated detail work and working the system were essential for success.
Obama, donning the mantle of a redeemer descending from divine heights, argued that his soaring rhetoric was more than "just words"; it was a way out of the poisonous, partisan gridlock of yesteryear. Early on, in New Hampshire, he proclaimed that his "rival in this race is not other candidates. It's cynicism."
Occasionally the Obama-Clinton argument was explicit (such as when they sparred over who was more important to the Civil Rights Act — Martin Luther King Jr. or Lyndon Johnson), but it was always there, implicit in everything from their body language and stagecraft to position papers and platforms.
The great irony of it all is that it seems they were both wrong.
Obama's rhetoric in fact looks to be the best way to achieve a Clintonian agenda. But a Clintonian agenda is the worst possible way to live up to Obama's rhetoric.
From his 2004 DNC keynote speech onward, Obama rejected the partisan divide. He earned points by insisting that invidious descriptions of political opponents were deleterious to civic health and distracted us from the fact that "we are one people, all of us pledging allegiance to the stars and stripes, all of us defending the United States of America."
In a speech following a June primary victory, Obama said he was "absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children … this was the moment — this was the time — when we came together to remake this great nation."
So, does anyone feel like Americans are coming together?
Obama the outsider hasn't changed the way Washington works; he's worked Washington in a way that only an outsider with no respect for the place would dare.
Consider his signature domestic priority: health care reform. After a year of working on it, his progressive base is either profoundly disappointed with him or seethingly angry. His Republican and conservative opponents are not only furious, they are emboldened. And independents — who've been deserting the Democrats in polls and off-year elections — are simply disgusted with the whole spectacle. Most important, an administration that once preened over its people-power roots can't even claim that Americans like what he's doing.
The bill does have its supporters: inside-the-Beltway pundits and Capitol Hill deal-makers, the pharmaceutical industry and the supposedly rapacious insurance companies (don't take my word for it, just ask Howard Dean — or your stockbroker).
Under the Clintonian paradigm of governance, Nebraska Democrat Ben Nelson's parlaying of his pro-life objections to the Senate bill into a windfall for his state and Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders' leveraging of his socialist principles for billions in special deals would be dramatic twists in a conventional story of LBJ-style arm-twisting.
But Clintonian means cannot further Obamaian ends. For the last year, Obama's party has made a mockery of everything Obama was supposed to represent. The tone has gotten worse as his communications staff spent the year demonizing Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and Fox News. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Majority Leader Steny Hoyer called opponents of their health proposals "un-American." Over the weekend, Rhode Island's Sheldon Whitehouse insisted that Senate opposition is being driven in part by "Aryan support groups."
Everywhere you look, the sizzle doesn't match the steak. He won the Nobel Peace Prize as he (rightly) sent even more men off to war. He promised that the oceans would stop rising but delivered a nonbinding something-or-other in Copenhagen.
In his special health care address to Congress in September, he said, "I am not the first president to take up (the cause of health care reform), but I am determined to be the last." Those were just words, and everyone, including Obama, knew it. Indeed, the only grounds for supporting the bill, according to progressives, is that it is a "first step" or a "starter house" that they'll build on for years, even generations, to come. In other words, the health care debate is not only not going to end, it's going to get uglier for as far as the eye can see.
But here's the point: Obama's rhetorical audacity breeds cynicism, because utopianism always comes up short. Obama has many victories ahead of him, but his cause is already lost.
No comments:
Post a Comment