He Wins Again

We know that Politico's Edward Isaac-Dovere believes unquestioningly in trade pacts. Today, he refers to "Paul Ryan's anti-trade-focused, Trump-connected primary challenger;" "the anti-trade energy that Trumpand Sanders...."; "anti-trade protesters hounded (Democratic Rep. Derek) Kilmer" of Washington; and "Rep. Kathleen Rice (D-N.Y.), who enraged anti-trade forces..."

But though the words "fair trade" or "pro- fair trade" evade Isaac-Dovere, the concept of fair trade continues to escape someone far more consequential. We learn

And the White House continues to be on edge, with President Barack Obama nervously pushing for the deal to move in the lame-duck session. Not making a convention fight on TPP was the one request the president made of Sanders when they met in the Oval Office in June at the end of the primaries, according to people familiar with the meeting, and aides conveyed a similar message to Wasserman Schultz about the party platform when she was still guiding it as chair.

It worked: Sanders toned down his public rhetoric on TPP, though many of his supporters still went to the convention floor in Philadelphia holding anti-TPP signs. The platform contains watchful language about trade deals, but not the specific condemnation of the TPP that the West Wing dreaded.

Obama is placing the power of his office behind a deal less about "free trade" than about "patent and copyright protection (which) are really at the core of the TPP" and which "was crafted by and for the pharmaceutical industry, the software industry, the finance industry, the telecommunications industry and other major industry groups." It's how he rolls. If that is not surprising, that's part of the problem.

The tacit support Sanders evidently gave Obama in de-emphasizing the TPP at the convention is disturbing, especially because- in the absence of an explanation- the Senator did the President a favor he did not deserve.

Isaac-Dovere continues

Though he hasn’t needed to all that often, Obama has made good on his promise last year to commit himself to helping any member who faced political trouble for backing trade, recording robocalls for Wasserman Schultz and Rep. Derek Kilmer (D-Wash.), as well as Reps. Greg Meeks (D-N.Y.), Brad Ashford (D-Neb.) and Kurt Schrader (D-Ore.). Kilmer also got a TV ad from Obama, and Kind got a mailer with Obama’s endorsement.

They all  won and, Isaac-Dovere observes, "of the 28 House Democrats who were targeted by organized labor and the progressive base for supporting fast-track, Wasserman Schultz is now the 28th who either skated through a  primary challenge or didn't get one at all."

President Obama can't be blamed for the defeat of all 28, only (and merely in part) for those who were defeated by incumbents he actively supported.  But it was the Obama Party, has been the Obama Party, and remains the Obama Party. Back in late March the President (photo by Getty-Mandel Ngan) claimed "Debbie has been a strong, progressive leader in Congress and a hardworking, committed Chair of our national Party since I proudly nominated her to the role in 2011/  She always stands up and fights for what is right for her district while passionately supporting middle class families."

Barack Obama, still doing great stand-up! At the time, Charlie Pierce, too kind to both the congresswoman and the President, explained

Right now, Debbie is passionately supporting middle-class families by trying to deregulate the payday loan industry, which is probably the least excusable business in America until someone finds a way to franchise drive-thru anthrax dispensaries. She's also fighting for what's right by taking gobs of money from the private prison industry, which is probably the third- or fourth-least excusable industry in America. And, of course, in the past, DWS worked hard and was committed to the election of two of the most egregious Republican congresscritters rather than their Democratic opponents.

That's what passes in Obamaworld  for "passionately supporting middle class families." It has been that way for the past few decades, but not until this presidency has such allowance, and such loyalty, been given by Democratic voters to someone who says things like this.

In the manner of Pierce, who is much more forgiving of the President than I am: This is your (our) Democratic Party, friends. Cherish it.  Do so because the next time we have a President like Barack Obama, he or she won't be able to get away with putting a (D) after the name.








Share |

Obama And Schultz: Perfect Together

As everyone knows, Democratic National Committee chairperson Debbie Wasserman Schultz has done all she could to ensure the presidential nomination of Hillary Clinton.   In April of 2015 the DNC head so objectively remarked

Secretary Clinton, I think is arguably one of the most qualified people – assuming she announces her candidacy – who have ever run for president. I was proud to support her in 2008. Of course as DNC chair, I will neutrally manage our primary nomination contest, assuming we have one.

Secretary Clinton’s candidacy is another step of progress for women and for my daughters. As the mom of two little girls, a 15-year old and an 11-year old, and my mom who told me in America a little girl can get elected president, and can be anything she wants to be, this is something that I’m very proud to be able to point to when she announces her candidacy – but I say that neutrally, because I will be neutral during the primary. But Secretary Clinton’s a very special, a special leader and a special woman.

The DNC the next month announced that it would sanction all of six (6) pre-convention debates, one to be held the last Saturday before Christmas, among the presidential candidates.  (Negotiations in January between the Sanders and the Clinton camps yielded several additional debates.)  In February, Schultz defended the influence of super delegates, remarking "unpledged delegates exist really to make sure that party leaders and elected officials don't have to be in a position where they are running against grassroots activists."










Last year, Charles Pierce reminded us that in 2008 Schultz "was running the DNC's 'Red to Blue' project and famously abstained from supporting three Democratic challengers to incumbent Republicans, once even remarking at a Washington luncheon for Miami-Dade commissioners "I can't say enough good things about (Republican Representative) Ileana Ros-Lehtinen; she has been my friend since I was first elected to office."   And until this past week, Representative Schultz was a good friend to the payday loan industry.

In January, the (New York) Observer observed

Another group, Roots Action, has accumulated over 30,000 signatures in a separate petition. “In addition to her recent attempt to deny the Bernie Sanders campaign access to its own voter files, Wasserman Schultz has tried in other ways to minimize competition for her candidate, Hillary Clinton,” states the Roots Action petition. “In Congress, she has served as a pro-militarist and corporatist tool of the high bidders.”

MoveOn.Org has collected over 60,000 signatures, and Change.org has over 47,000 signatures calling for Ms. Wasserman Schultz’s resignation.

Debbie Wasserman Schultz’s weak leadership brings nothing but negative attention to the Democratic Party. Democrats must stop delaying the inevitable, and either fire Ms. Wasserman Schultz or push her to resign. She has essentiallybankrupted the DNC during her tenure, and is unreliable in helping Democrats win congressional and senate elections. It is in the best interests of the party to rid itself of Ms. Wasserman Schultz as quickly as possible.

However, Mrs. Schultz has remained in her job, despite opposition from the Sanders' camp, which can recognize as a biased party leader when it sees one, and which during the campaign has increasingly charged that the process is rigged.  Sanders has endorsed Representative Schultz's primary opponeny, Tim Canova, who is clearly more partial to progressive interests than is she, and there is mounting pressure to remove her as party chairperson before the national convention convenes in Philadelphia.

Any public support for Schultz has been tepid- that is, until this week when

Speaking at a Democratic National Committee fundraiser in Miami on Friday, President Barack Obama expressed his support for his party's embattled chairwoman — Florida Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz....

"She's had my back, I want to make sure we have her back,” he said.

Obama added that she is "somebody who I don't know how she does it, because she's everywhere all the time, non-stop, and she's a mom and a wife and has been just incredibly supportive of my agenda."  

(And such a frail creature! In related news, the President praised Democratic Rep. Brian Schatz of Hawaii as "somebody who I don't know how he does it, because he's a dad and a husband." Just kidding.)

She was appointed to her position by President Barack Obama five years ago. She blocked a resolution to praise the President for the Iranian nuclear deal, though she later voted for the agreement.. Under significant pressure, she finally has dropped her opposition to legislation reining in payday loan lenders.  Coincidentally, Obama's statement came at the close of  a week in which he revealed that he no longer believes Social Security is an existential threat to the American economy.

Perhaps Schultz has had President Obama's back. But her statements and actions as Democratic National chairperson demonstrate that she has not had the Party's back.  Under the Floridian's watch, the Party got rolled in the 2014 midterm election and currently she is presiding over a nomination battle of increasing rancor, to which she has contributed.  She has had Barack Obama's back, and now he has hers.

All in all, given what we've seen from the White House the last seven years, this shouldn't be at all surprising.









Share |

No Help From Her

Debbie Wasserman Schultz is the GOP's secret weapon.

At the annual meeting of the Democratic National Committee in August, Jonathan Martin of The New York Times noted on CNN, "The Obama-controlled DNC could not pass a resolution this weekend expressing support for President Obama's Iran deal. It's a bit of an embarrassment for the administration, seeing as how it's his party. He appointed Debbie Wassserman Schultz."

An embarrassment, indeed, recognized Charlie Pierce, who observed

This is not the first time that she has put her parochial interests ahead of her party. Back in 2008, when she was running the DNC's "Red to Blue" project, she famously abstained from supporting three Democratic challengers to incumbent Republicans – the Diaz-Balart brothers and the ever-insufferable Ileana Ros-Lehtinen –friend to terrorists who blow up passenger jets – because she was friends with all three of them.

In the run-up to the 2008 congressional campaign, Wasserman Schultz, then co-chairperson of the DNC's Red to Blue program, and Republican Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen had

lavished compliments on each other at a Washington luncheon with Miami-Dade commissioners. "I can't say enough good things about Ileana Ros-Lehtinen; she has been my friend since I was first elected to office," Wasserman Schultz said, noting she relied on Ros-Lehtinen's advice to help balance the demands of elected office and motherhood.

Lending credence to the notion the chairperson actually may be a stealth Republican, last month 

A senior state Democratic Party official likened the national party chairwoman’s tenure to a “full-fledged dictatorship,” amplifying growing unease among some top Democrats about party leaders’ efforts to restrict the number of candidate debates during the presidential primaries.

Deb Kozikowski, vice chairwoman of the Massachusetts Democratic Party, said the chief of the Democratic National Committee, US Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz of Florida, had done a disservice to grass-roots volunteers by allowing Republicans to dominate the airwaves for the last month.

“How do I tell these really dedicated Democrats who work really hard from top to bottom that debates for our presidential candidates are restricted, and they’re there watching all these Republicans get all this air time?” she said. “I think about the folks at the grass roots who work day in day out, no money no glory, because they believe in democracy with a small ‘d’ and the Democratic Party with a large ‘D,’ getting bombarded with all these Republican candidates.”

Interviewed by MSNBC, Representative Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii, a vice chairwomanof the DNC, stated "More and more people on the ground from states all across the country are calling for more debates, are wanting to have this transparency and greater engagement in our democratic process at a critical time, as they make the decision of who should be the next person to lead our country,"

Wasserman Schultz and her lieutenants evidently aren't listening to those people. Now Gabbard

said she was disinvited from the first Democratic presidential primary debate in Nevada after she appeared on television and called for more face-offs.

Ms. Gabbard confirmed on Sunday that her chief of staff received a message last Tuesday from the chief of staff to Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the chairwoman of the national committee, about her attendance at the debate. A day earlier, Ms. Gabbard had appeared on MSNBC and said there should be an increase beyond the current six sanctioned debates...

“It’s very dangerous when we have people in positions of leadership who use their power to try to quiet those who disagree with them,” she added. “When I signed up to be vice chair of the D.N.C., no one told me I would be relinquishing my freedom of speech and checking it at the door.”

Now that one of the few Democratic debates is about to be held, the image of the Party may begin to improve.  But not necessarily, as displayed below by the photo illustration from Juliana Jiminez and photos by Scott Eisen/Getty Images and Darren McCuollester/Getty Images.  Jeremy Bailenson, founding director of Stanford University's Virtual Human Interaction Lab and professor in Stanford's Department of Communication, explains

CNN is partnering with a virtual reality company to enable viewers at home to feel like they are actually at the Las Vegas debate.

Granted, only a few hundred thousand people in the United States have virtual reality headsets at home, and of those who do, it could be a far smaller number who will actually watch Hillary Clinton square off against her main challengers Sen. Bernie Sanders and Martin O’Malley. But there is a risk that one or more of the candidates could look less than flattering, and that the image could go viral, creating an awkward storyline the candidates would typically want to avoid.

The fascinating question for me is why did the candidates agree to this when there is nothing to gain by participating in a debate broadcast in virtual reality?

New technologies bring new risks. In the first televised presidential debate in 1960, Richard Nixon’s ashen and sweaty appearance and frumpy ill-fitting suit made him look like he’d been “embalmed … before he even died,” then–Chicago Mayor Richard J. Daley said while the dapper, bronze-complexioned John F. Kennedy appeared the clear winner, even though most viewers agreed that Nixon performed better on the issues.

It may be a stretch to call this a potential Nixon moment, especially this early in the Democratic primary. But virtual reality presents a separate set of challenges that the candidates likely haven’t considered.

First, if Clinton or Sanders wants to win in the virtual reality version of this debate, they’d better negotiate for the middle podium. In live-streamed, stereoscopic video—a cutting-edge technology that will be used Tuesday night—typically there is a sweet spot.

Toward the edges, a viewer will see less depth, something like seeing out of one eye. Close one eye and look down at your hands on the keyboard for 20 seconds. Then open your eyes and, “pop,” you will see the benefits of stereoscopic vision. 

Candidates closer to the center of the camera’s field of view will literally stand out more than those on the edges. A reach toward the camera by a candidate on the periphery may make his or her arm look stubby.

On the flipside, candidates can’t hide. The viewers will get to choose where they look, unlike the regular television viewing audience which relies on the CNN producer to decide on the camera angles. In virtual reality, those who want to spend two hours scrutinizing Sanders’ every facial tic and micro-movement can do so. The probability of YouTube-viral gaffes just went through the roof.

Then there is the issue of time. Candidates shouldn’t just lobby to stand in the center of the stage—they must speak first. Virtual reality displays can cause simulator sickness. Over time, a person’s visual system gets fatigued triggering nausea, dizziness, and disorientation. I have researched the psychological impact of virtual reality for almost two decades, and to date I haven’t worn a head-mounted display for more than 30 minutes. Tolerance for simulator sickness varies across people, but watching a two-hour debate in virtual reality will make many people feel ill.

CNN is trying to be a pioneer in a technology that is about to go mainstream. That is admirable. But this is the wrong experiment. Live-streamed virtual reality is a brand new technology, and there are bound to be some hiccups. Perhaps a pointing gesture will get distorted into a plastic man–like stretch, or a lean toward the camera will get exaggerated in depth and cause a horror-show flinch response by the audience. Remember, the volume of a scream—“Yaaahhh!!”— was enough to end Howard Dean’s campaign. 

Put aside all the jokes about Donald Trump's hair and bombast, Ben Carson's hatred of Muslims, John Ellis Bush's floundering campaign, and Carly Fiorina's utter failure at her last job, 10-11 years ago (no, not enough jokes about that one). When all is said and done and Marco Rubio (or some other candidate who has been a loyal Republican and held office) is nominated, the Republican freak-show unfolding in public will enable the mainstream media to portray the GOP nominee as a moderate reflecting mainstream values.

Mediate exults that the few people who will experience virtual reality watching the debate "will be able to feel like you’re really there in the room with Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, and other people you haven’t bothered to learn the names of yet." However, it's no bargain for the candidates, who are being played for suckers not only by CNN, but by the DNC chairperson who had to have signed off on this. If she were a Republican operative the last few years, she couldn't have done a better job.  

Share |

One-Sided Debate

Children! Stop whining and eat your vegetables!

Clinton ally and circa 2004 Democratic National Committee chairperson Terry McAuliffe has a point- albeit not a very good one- when he maintains “We found that six debates gave candidates the platform they needed to showcase differences with their opponents while giving campaigns the flexibility they need to do other events, including joint-forums and appearances.”

Mayor Michael Nutter of Philadelphia, who already had endorsed Hillary Clinton for president, did not have a good point when, Politico reports, he wrote

It’s time for a reality check fellow Democrats. Let’s end this pointless complaining and channel our energies into every facet of what it takes to win: registering people to vote, pushing out our message, raising money, and organizing and coordinating our efforts within this great big tent we call the Democratic Party.

Not feeling the "great big tent," Democratic National Committee chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, an ally of Hillary Clinton, set up a mere six debates, one of which is to take place on that great viewing night of the last Saturday before Christmas.  It seems that some Democrats are not heeding the sentiments of Mrs. Schultz or Mr. Nutter. The Boston Globe explains

Deb Kozikowski, vice chairwoman of the Massachusetts Democratic Party, said the chief of the Democratic National Committee, US Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz of Florida, had done a disservice to grass-roots volunteers by allowing Republicans to dominate the airwaves for the last month.

“How do I tell these really dedicated Democrats who work really hard from top to bottom that debates for our presidential candidates are restricted, and they’re there watching all these Republicans get all this air time?” she said. “I think about the folks at the grass roots who work day in day out, no money no glory, because they believe in democracy with a small ‘d’ and the Democratic Party with a large ‘D,’ getting bombarded with all these Republican candidates.”

And they are getting bombarded. When she announced the debate schedule, Wasserman argued the Democratic Party is focused on "strengthening the middle class versus Republicans who want to pursue out of touch and out of date policies.”

But voters are not hearing that.   They're hearing that: Republicans stand for fiscal irresponsibility and Democrats for higher taxes; Iran will drop a nuclear bomb on Iraq unless the USA withdraws its agreement with the nation; nations throughout the world have lost respect for the USA because of Barack Obama; the Second Amendment was practically written by God, who bears a striking resemblance to Ronald Reagan; Planned Parenthood must be defunded; and vaccination is a greater threat to global survival than is climate change. These are the messages because, notwithstanding minor differences, the GOP candidates are in lockstep on most issues.

As the Republican debates proceed, the GOP's perspective on issues, and hence the Party's credibility with the American people, is enhanced.  The right wing is dominating the airwaves with a message than is only barely, and faintly, rebutted.

The major fault lies with Wasserman-Schultz. But politicians like Michael Nutter who want Democrats, those of "the great big tent," to "end this pointless complaining" are enabling the chairperson.  To Michael Nutter, dissident Democrats are whining, immature children. To the Republican Party and conservative ideas, he is a dream come true.







Share |

And In This Corner, Good Cop John Boehner


Sahil Kapur of Talking Points Memo is, it is to be hoped, psychic.  He writes that Texas freshman Senator Ted Cruz

and his fellow Obamacare defunders, most notably Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT), have found themselves in an unthinkable position. The House granted their wish on Friday and passed legislation that eliminates funding for Obamacare in a bill to keep the government funded, sending the battle to the Senate. That means that for once, these senators have have to put up and demonstrate their gravitas. Their first instinct was to concede defeat and slink away in the Senate, but after a furious reaction from House Republicans, they feel renewed pressure to walk the walk.

"I hope that every Senate Republican will stand together and oppose cloture on the bill in order to keep the House bill intact and not let Harry Reid add Obamacare funding back in," Cruz said in a statement Friday, referring to the GOP's ability to filibuster.

Lee said that "with a unified Senate Republicans Caucus, we will convince enough Democrats" to agree to defund Obamacare.

Hope, after all, isn't much of a plan...

If, by some miracle, Senate Republicans are successful in delaying the legislation long enough to face a real government shutdown -- the first since 1996 -- the party is likely to pay a political price. Cruz has seemed unconcerned about the political blowback of such a scenario, likening a shutdown to an extended weekend in July.

But the issue isn't- or shouldn't be- a government shutdown.  Ezra Klein explains that the Democratic-"controlled" Senate probably will send to the House a continuing resolution (unlike the one which the GOP-controlled House approved) which does not defund the Affordable Care Act.  Then

Boehner isn't going to simply shrug, say he tried, and bring the Senate bill to the floor. He'll shrug, say he tried, and tell his members that they should let him bring the Senate bill to the floor. He'll say it's because they need to save their fire for the debt ceiling fight, where they can force the White House to delay Obamacare for a year by threatening to trigger a global financial crisis. In fact, this is already the message he's delivering to his members.

And Democrats may put up limited resistance..

Thursday's All In with Chris Hayes included Democratic National Committee chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz stating

You know, a number of us were talking about that on the House  floor tonight. And, you know, ironically, you know, the best potential  fall back position could be that we get out of this by not shutting the  government down, and just going with 988 as a limit, but that`s the sequester levels. And I`ll tell you, there are many, many Democrats who  are not OK with that.

At the end of the day, Chris, what has to happen, in order for us to avoid  government shutdown, is set aside the ideological battle over Obamacare,  and focus on making sure that we can come together, as a Congress, not as  hyper-partisan Tea Party --

And on Friday she reportedly told Andrea Mitchell

We've all got to set rigid ideology aside and sit down and find common ground because we've got to make sure that we can focus on continuing to get our economy to turn around. I know, look I'm the chair of the DNC, I know it can't be my way or the highway. I'm willing to put my vote on the line and go back to my constituents and explain why I didn't do it exactly the way they wanted me to. We've got to make sure that in the congress and put a majority of members, not Republicans, but members, on the board so we can continue to get our economy turned around and get a budget that breaks from the rigid adherence to dogma and ideology.

It shouldn’t be about fault here, but there is a way out of this where we just sit down together and figure it out and find some common ground on the crux of the matter,

It's clear what the problem is here.   One party is taking an extreme position, with an implied threat to put the full faith and credit of the United States of America at risk by defaulting on the debt.   The chairwoman of the other party, which controls the presidency and half of Congress, says all need to hold hands and "focus on making sure that we can come together... set rigid ideology aside and sit down and find common ground."   And she is not likely to be saying that unless she was signaled by the White House that it is willing to deal.

The focus in the media has been on the Affordable Care Act and the President's determination not to allow it to be repealed, thereby harming his legacy.  But that resolve is also a Repub bargaining chip.  Because short of rescinding the health care law, there is a lot Obama and his minions can acquiesce to, whether delaying some of its provisions, expanding the sequester's impact on domestic spending or eliminating it on defense spending, or implementing a portion of the Grand Bargain.   Cutting Social Security and Medicare were initially put on the table by the President, and they remain prominent on the GOP's dart board.

Unfortunately, the Repubs still have that underrated bargaining chip, the "hyper-partisan Tea Party" invoked by Wasserman Schultz.  The President has his own bargaining chip with Democratic progressives: utter the dreaded phrase "tea party" and tell the base that only by supporting a deal he cuts with Speaker Boehner can it be kept at bay.

Which is why, contrary to what we are to believe, Ted Cruz is crazy.  Like a fox.



Share |

They Really Don't Want To Work

Democratic National Committee Chairperson Debbie Wasserman Schultz is being unfair. Responding to Thursday night's Repub presidential debate (transcript here) in Orlando, Wasserman Schultz remarked "the message is always the same. They have no new ideas for creating jobs or helping America's middle class" (and) "are offering no plan for securing our economic future."

An exchange between a debate host, Fox News' Megyn Kelly, and Newt Gingrich is illustrative:

KELLY: Speaker Gingrich, this next one's for you. You criticized extending unemployment benefits, saying that you were, quote, "opposed to giving people money for doing nothing." Benefits have already been extended to 99 weeks, and they are set to expire soon. If you were president today, would you extend unemployment benefits? And if not, how do you justify that to the millions of unemployed Americans who are looking in earnest and whose families are depending on those checks?

NEWT GINGRICH, FORMER SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Well, what I've said is that I think unemployment compensation should be tied directly to a training program. And if you have to -- if you don't have a job and you need help, then in order for us to give you the help, you should sign up for a business-led training program so that that 99 weeks becomes an investment in human capital, giving us the best-trained workforce in the world so you can get a job.

But I believe it is fundamentally wrong to give people money for 99 weeks for doing nothing. That's why we had welfare reform.

True, the GOP has no ideas for creating jobs. But as Gingrich's answer indicates, at least one Republican has a plan for securing our economic future- a very bleak economic future, if the former House Speaker has his way.

Unemployment compensation is not welfare but is afforded individuals who have, beyond their control, lost their job. And in most states, the unemployed worker is required to seek a job. There are, roughly, five unemployed workers currently for every one job. Newt Gingrich, reflecting the new politics of resentment, implies that they're lazy. And just to prove it, he's determined to create a new layer of bureaucracy in service of that great conservative axiom: if it ain't broke, fix it.

Leave the private sector alone, the GOP counsels; reduce regulation everywhere. And here a leading Republican is advocating a whole new function for government to intervene in the market. This would, as Gingrich probably is aware, drive down wages and benefits, a major objective for a party loathe to see a thriving, prosperous middle class.

Share|

Standing Short For Medicare


She is a Democrat. She represents a major swath of South Florida, including the retirement havens of North Miami Beach, Miami Beach, and Miami. Much of her constituency is elderly people, especially retired people who were reared in the relatively liberal northeastern U.S.

So what in the world was Debbie Wasserman Schultz following- and commenting on- the upset victory in N.Y. 26 of Democrat Kathy Hochul up to on Chris Matthews' Hardball (transcript here) maintaining

So, I mean, I think it is really -- it couldn`t be more clear that Republicans want to end Medicare as we know it and yank the safety net out from under our senior citizens, deny them affordable health care. And Democrats want to make sure that we can sit down around the table with Republicans, work to save Medicare, make sure that we can add to -- more to the long-term security of Medicare, like we did with the Affordable Care Act when we added 12 years of solvency to it.

She probably was up to the same thing she was the previous evening talking about the same issue to Lawrence O'Donnell (transcript here) on the same network:

....and make sure that we continue to draw the contrast that Kathy so successfully did between the Republicans who want to end Medicare as we know it and Democrats who make sure, like President Obama has talked about and Kathy did, that we strike the right balance and not balance all the pain on the backs of our seniors and people who can least afford. it....

I hope the message that Republicans got from this election result yesterday is that they should come to the table with us, sit down around the negotiating table and let`s work together to hammer out a reasonable compromise so we can preserve Medicare for the long term.

Schultz was touting, fairly gloating- as chairman of the Democratic National Committee, she has every right to- the upset victory in upstate New York by a nominee whom Wasserman Schultz herself attributed partly to Medicare. But instead of a full-throated defense of Medicare, she declares "We just need a willing partner to sit down and compromise with us" so the pols can "strike the right balance and not balance all the pain on the backs of our seniors...."

She wants to do that with a party which provided President Obama with zero (0) votes in the House and Senate for the Affordable Care Act and, after winning control of the House, proceeded to approve a repeal of health care reform, such repeal failing in the Senate notwithstanding every Republican standing in favor. It is a party 233 of whose 240 members House members have signed the Taxpayer Protection Pledge of Grover Norquist's Americans for Tax Reform, pledging never, evhttp://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gifer to vote in favor of increasing a tax or cutting a tax loophole. (Two Democrats currently in the House have signed.) And in a completely unrelated issue, it is a party whose members of Congress cheered on the Israeli Prime Minister after- and expressly because- he humiliated our own President (who, admittedly, is a willing victim).

The nomenclature is telling from the DNC head. Schultz wants to "preserve Medicare for the long term," mimicking Paul Ryan, who promises to "save" and "preserve" Medicare. Ryan denies that he is aiming to end, or even cut, Medicare. Why, he wants only to save and "strengthen Medicare by empowering seniors."

That sounds a lot like Debbie Wasserman Schultz. Moreover, she accuses Republicans of trying to "end Medicare as we know it." No, it's not "as we know it." It's ending Medicare. Period.

Perhaps Schultz deserves a break, seeming to take her talking points from the White House, which is negotiating (through surrogates Durbin and Biden) a cut in Medicare, after which it will tell its supporters that the program has been preserved against GOP attempts to end it. But as Robert Reich points out, this is the time for the Democratic Party boldly to propose Medicare for all, moving the goalposts to the left (which, in this environment, is toward the center), rather than to take a defensive posture. With a Democratic President, a Democratic Senate, and an electorate which wants its leaders to hold firm against the opponents of Medicare, America's less-conservative party can do better.

Share|