Obama Wins Nobel Peace Prize; Award Might Spur Action

All three of you who read this blog voluntarily know that during the presidential campaign last year, I was all about Obama. I stood in line for over an hour just to cast my vote in a blue state, I believed that he would be the change that Washington desperately needed, and I thought he could get the job done. I have been sorely disappointed. In recent conversations with friends of mine, I found out that the frustration I've been feeling is not unique among the progressive crowd.

So when I awoke this morning to a CNN News Alert on my phone saying Obama had won the Nobel Peace Prize, I thought to myself, "For what?" What, exactly, has Obama accomplished in his first 10 months in office? He has failed to lead his party in the fight for healthcare. Instead, he wants to work with Republicans and their respective crazies (Chuck Grassley, I'm looking at you, you crazy old man) and has thusly sacrificed the most important part of reform, the public option. He and his Democratic colleagues have equivocated, waffled, and downright fumbled healthcare reform and all other progressive initiatives (we'll close Guantanamo, oops, not when we said we would).

Obama has also stated that he personally would like to dismantle the Don't Ask Don't Tell policy, the abysmal diktat regarding gays in the military that is the result of Obama's Democratic predecessor's own equivocating and bending to right-wing illogicality. But if you expected him to actually do something to overturn the discriminatory policy, well, you might as well expect Glenn Beck to stop crying.

The Nobel Peace Prize committee has cited his ability to strengthen international diplomacy and his striving towards a world free of nuclear weapons. In reality, Obama is on the verge of increasing troop levels in Afghanistan and he oversees the second largest stockpile of nuclear weapons in the world. I understand that any Democrat would have a good chance of winning this award, as they would have ushered George W. Bush out of office, but this seems a bit preemptive (to borrow a term from the Wolfowitz doctrine embraced by Bush). It's like giving an actor an Oscar before filming starts.

Let's just take a step back for a moment. Obama has a pretty big mandate; we were sick of Bush and his 8 years of follies and we not only gave the country a Democratic president, but we gave the Democrats the House and 60 senators in the Senate. This is not a common occurrence, and what did the Democrats do? Pulled a classic Democrat move and blew it when it came to the most important issue of today: healthcare. But maybe we should have seen it coming, as this is the same party that lost the 2000 presidential election when it was a future (legitimate) Nobel prize winner versus George W. Bush.

The Democrats have everything in place and they are not using it. Instead of talking to and "working with" Republicans who want to spread death panel rumors and all of that, why not just push the legislation through Congress and sign it? The country gave you all those seats for a reason; they're not for decoration. Get on message, get Baucus and the other Blue Dogs in line and let them know they'll be facing tough primaries if they're going to pull the crap they've been pulling, and damnit Rahm, where is that badass everyone was talking about when Obama appointed you as his Chief of Staff? You let him go to Copenhagen without knowing Chicago was a sure thing? Seriously?

I've heard some say, "Wait until his second term, then he'll get his hands dirty." We didn't elect him in 2008 to get things done in 21013. He may not even have a second term if he continues to pussyfoot and not live up to his promises and what we put him in the White House for. Bipartisanship is dead, so as Ernie Anastos might say, stop fucking that chicken. Bush rammed a war based on outright lies we didn't need down our throats, and now Obama can't even get us healthcare reform when we desperately need it. I hope Obama changes his ways and gets serious on getting things done. He ran on hope, but we elected him to eradicate the need for it

Public Option: Fail

Senators Max Baucus (D-MT) and Chuck Grassley (R-IA),
ranking members of the Senate Finance Committee (Washington Independent)

Now that the Democrats have pulled a classic Democratic move by losing when they had all odds in their favor (for previous Democratic performances, see the 2000 presidential election), it is time to mourn to public option. That's right folks, the insurance system as it stands today has won the war on health reform, as their pockets will soon be lined by tax subsidies that the government will be giving out to Americans to shop around for their own insurance coverage. It's all right, though, because the insurance companies will play fair and follow the rules without strict government regulation, right Wall Street?

But we had to see this coming. It happened to Clinton in the 90s, and the powers that be (read: special interests and their lobbying arms) are just too entrenched to get anything done. Look at the massive amounts of money that they have donated to the folks responsible for the death of the public option. Chuck "Death Panel" Grassley has received $227,000 in the first half of 2009 alone from these interests. Max Baucus, the Democrat whose bill was supposed to garner wide bipartisan support but in reality was a bigger flop than a Vlade Divac offensive foul, has received $3.9 million since 1989 and is currently ranked fifth in terms of donations from the healthcare sector. It should be no surprise, then, that Baucus' plan had no public option.

But why do we need a public option so bad? Think about it: do you really think that the healthcare industry will police itself? No. Since that is a given, do you really think that the government will effectively ensure fairness in the insurance industry while making sure that those with horrible insurance or no insurance at all receive adequate coverage? If you do, then you're either a moron or have good enough insurance that you just don't care (this latter group, as indicated by the effort put forth by them, includes senators and congressmen).

A robust public option would have created what those in love with capitalism have wet dreams about: competition. How unfair would it be? The public option probably would not be that great to begin with, it would be a basic form of care. Those opposed to it on the principles (that great mass of people who refuse Medicare coverage because it is government-run) do not have to partake in it. To say that a public option would take down companies with a net income of more than $1.3 billion in 2008, or more than $1.2 billion sounds a little crazy.

But that's not even the point, as the popularity of a public option seems split according to public opinion polls. The point is that the Democrats have what has been deemed a "supermajority," a mandate if you will, that the country was sick of the way things were going and wanted to change things. Instead of ramming this legislation through Congress or making deals with their peers or doing whatever it took to fix this inherently flawed system, they held town halls, pandered to rumor mongers, and proved to the American people why bipartisanship simply does not work when you elect morons.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Democratic Super Majority
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Ron Paul Interview

The death of the public option began (and in my opinion, ended) with the Senate Finance Committee. The committee shot down both public option amendments, and then in a twisted turn of events voted to restore $50 million for abstinence-only education. So how did Senate Finance Committee member Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY), a staunch public advocate for th public option, feel about the day's activities? "We're feeling good," and "We're pleasantly surprised." In an utterly embarrassing day for Finance Committee Democrats (who outnumber Committee Republicans 13-10), Chuck Schumer says that he feels good about what took place? Two public options proposals were shot down and $50 million was allocated to a horrible educational curriculum that simply does not work. That's like Omar Minaya saying that the Mets have had a good couple of years.


So who's to blame for all of this? Democrats? Republicans? Tea bag nutjobs who don't understand nearly anything? That's a good start, but as we continue to vote in incumbents who really do not have our best interests at heart (if this bill affected their healthcare it would have been done decades ago and we would be pitying Canada for having such backwards, universal healthcare) and continue to allow special interest groups to dictate what we talk about in the media and in the legislative halls, we're only screwing ourselves. Because while the Chucks live in their own worlds - Grassley saying the government will pull the plug on grandma, Schumer saying two vote-downs of the public option and an increase in failed abstinence-only education is, essentially, a victory - we live in ours, and right now our healthcare system sucks and will continue to suck with no public option.

Bipartisanship: Fail

With all of the talk of the healthcare debate, "pulling the plug on grandma," and Kenyan birth certificates, it's a wonder that bipartisanship has not bloomed and flourished like the beautiful flower that it is. But when both sides (in this case the Democrats and the Republicans) are so entrenched and, despite ill-advised concessions (taking the public option off the table, really?), neither will stop hypberbolizing and feigning outrage, bipartisanship is as probable as a Mets playoff berth.

We'll start with the Republicans.

First there was Senator Chuck Grassley who was praised by Obama for his willingness to reach across the aisle and repaid the compliment by telling a crowd in his home state of Iowa that the government should not have a plan that decides when to pull the plug on grandma. Grassley later admonished those people bringing up the "end-of-life" issues because, as Grassley stated, they "are not the issues that we ought to be talking about." In other words, he pulled a Palin.

Then there's Rep. Paul Broun (R-Georgia), who wrote a letter disseminated by the American Conservative Union that stated, among other things, "When mama falls and breaks her hip, she'll just lie in her bed in pain until she dies with pneumonia because her needed surgery is not cost efficient." In terms of invoking fear and anger in people, telling them that their mothers will die slow, painful deaths because the government does not want to pay for their surgery seems like a successful strategy, facts be damned.

There's also the birthers, who go beyond Lou Dobbs and Tom DeLay to our elected officials. Rep. Roy Blunt (R-Montana) stated that he would stop talking about the president's birthplace. But before you think it's because he thinks that Obama was born here, you better recognize that it's because the media could not "legitimately" discuss the issue. Of course! Don't forget Rep. Patrick McHenry (R-North Carolina, also the Irish version of the founding father?), who told a town hall attendee that he didn't have enough evidence one way or the other to determine whether Obama was a jus soli citizen.

The most over-the-top performance by a Republican during these town hall meetings, however, goes to Rep. Todd Akin, who joked that "Different people from Washington, D.C., have come back to their districts and held town hall meetings, and they almost got lynched." To follow this up, he pretended to choke himself as if being lynched. He and Michael Richards have an HBO special coming up. But seriously, this is 2009; joking about lynching is so far over the line it's incomprehensible. Especially given the way that some folks (like Rep. David Scott (D-Georgia), who got hate mail calling him a "nigga") have been treated by those who disagree with him.

With such rational, level-headed folks on the other side of the aisle to Obama, it's no wonder that people are blaming Obama for not being bipartisan enough. But having one rational side in a debate and one irrational side would be an improvement from what we're seeing, because the Republicans do not have a monopoly on idiocy.

Rep. Baron Hill (D-Indiana) refused to even hold town meetings because, as he told the Washington Post, he felt that the protesters were "political terrorists" and would try to "blow up" the meetings and not answer the questions in a forthright manner. Way to bridge the gap between the left and the right and try to work together to help your constituents. Listening to them would be Step 1.

Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-New York) pulled a Rush Limbaugh and compared town hall protesters to Nazis. He told the Huffington Post that protesters' means of protest "is fascist. It is a fascist tactic. That's exactly what they did in Weimar Germany. Let me put it this way. It is a fascist tactic not to disagree with you, or to say you are an idiot or whatever, but to try to shut you up. That's what I mean. That's a fascist tactic." Joining Nadler in comparing the town hall protesters to Nazis (for, apparently, comparing the healthcare plan to Nazis) is Rep. Brian Baird (D-Washington). He accused the town hall protesters of "Brown Shirt tactics." As I've said before, comparisons to Nazism (outside of people actually trying to exterminate a large group of people based on ethnicity/religion/etc.) is never appropriate and does nothing to add to intelligent discourse.

It's utterly ridiculous that these are the people that we have elected to guide and lead us. If they're incapable of having a civil discussion about healthcare and then bitch and moan when a bunch of fringe elements that no one takes seriously fulfill their tangential role in society as wanna-be cranks, should we really expect them to get anything worthwhile done? Let's not forget that at the end of the day, whether comprehensive healthcare reform is passed or not, our elected officials and their families are still covered under one of the best plans in the country. That would explain why they want to pander to special interests and small pockets of voters instead of pass legitimate healthcare reform at the expense of losing their seat in Congress (and their Rolls Royce of healthcare plans).

All quotes of the esteemed elected officials in this post come from Andie Coller and Daniel Libit's "Some lawmakers engage in made-for-YouTube crazy talk"

Photo - Healthcare protesters and supporters (Guardian)