A (Dangerous) Gaffe

In the world of apologies (Joe Wilson, Kanye West, Michael Vick), there are apologies and there are apologies. And then there is the not-apology; or non-apology; or, "you're wrong and I'm right."

Guess which Howie Kurtz of The Washington Post and CNN's Reliable Sources has issued? This, from an online chat, entitled, "Glenn Beck, Protest Coverage, More" he held on September 14:

Los Angeles, Ca.: Hey, Howie, in your column today you say that Kenya is Obama's "native country." Are you a "Birther" now?

Howard Kurtz: Oy. I obviously meant the country of his father. He wrote a book about it.

As long as Kurtz claimed context- "I obviously meant...."- here is the section, subtitled "Back in Kenya," of the column, "Beck And The Mainstream," in which Kurtz's comment appeared:

Back in Kenya

The Boston Globe has an interesting piece from Obama's native country on attempts to cash in:

"The price of land here has skyrocketed because of rampant speculation about an Obama family museum that the Kenyan Ministry of Tourism has promised to build. And there have been some modest, but tangible, signs of progress that seem tied to the village's new notoriety. Within a week of Obama's election victory last year, the government began to pave the main road to town. It also brought in an electricity and water lines to Obama's step-grandmother's compound.

"Some relatives have also set up foundations, trying to raise money for development projects using the Obama name. And strangers are suddenly a common sight in the market, attracted by safari companies that advertise heritage tours about the first African-American US president. A tourist hotel is planned.

"But what is missing is a direct infusion of cash from Obama or the U.S. government, say local residents and members of the extended Obama family, some of whom say they have relayed funding requests through e-mails and letters to Washington."

Admittedly, "oy" is coastal U.S.A. for "ohmigosh," suggesting that Kurtz realizes that for whatever reason, he shouldn't have written what he did. Nonetheless, he claims "I obviously meant the country of his father." But nothing in what Kurtz wrote precludes an implication that Kenya is the native country of Barack Obama himself. Nothing. Instead, he cleverly turns the charge on the questioner, reminding him/her: "He wrote a book about it."

Of course, Howie Kurz, being better informed than the average conservative "Birther," does not believe that Barack Obama was born in Kenya. However, he strongly implied that the President was born in Kenya. And when Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, and other snake-oil salesmen pick up on this, it's unlikely they will put it (or practically anything else in the universe) into perspective. The "obviously I meant the country of his father. He wrote a book about it," is not likely to be omitted in service of their right-wing hucksterism.

Your response may vary, but response should have been unequivocal and decisive, perhaps something along the lines of: I carelessly inferred something which no thinking American believes.

Aside from the talk-show hosts who want to bring Obama's presidency down, and those individuals who aren't aware that these media personalities are making things up to stir controversy and ratchet up ratings, virtually everyone realizes that Barack Obama was born in the State of Hawaii, which entered the union the same year as Sarah Palin's State of Alaska.

Not So Fast

No one can accuse Maureen Dowd of mincing words, fence-sitting, or ambivalence. She wrote in her Saturday column in The New York Times:

The normally nonchalant Barack Obama looked nonplussed, as Nancy Pelosi glowered behind.

Surrounded by middle-aged white guys — a sepia snapshot of the days when such pols ran Washington like their own men’s club — Joe Wilson yelled “You lie!” at a president who didn’t.

But, fair or not, what I heard was an unspoken word in the air: You lie, boy!

....Wilson clearly did not like being lectured and even rebuked by the brainy black president presiding over the majestic chamber.

There is far, far more to it than that. In making another point(s), a "driftglass," at crooksandliars.com reminds us:

Once upon a time, there was a President named Bill Clinton, who was, by most historical standards, a typical Centrist Republican, although by a fluke of geography and circumstances he ran for public office with a "(D)" after his name.

Under his Administration, many Conservative ideas which had long gathered dust on the shelf -- ideas such as welfare reform, a balanced budget, debt reduction, a strict “Pay as You Go” fiscal regime, a boom in technology jobs, budget surpluses, NAFTA, GATT, official bans on gay marriage, etc. -- were finally realized.

And for all of his good work on behalf of their ideology, Conservatives spent eight, long years treating Bill Clinton -- a Southern, White, Christian man -- as if he were a case of flesh eating nuclear syphilis.

Because he did not run for office with an "(R)" after his name.

And because he did not run for office with an "(R)" after his name, according to the leading voices in the Republican Party and the Conservative Movement, Bill Clinton was, in no particular order, Hitler, a Socialist, a rapist, a warmonger, a serial murderer, and a drug dealer, whose Presidency was somehow vaguely illegitimate.

And counterpointing the 24/7 slime campaign, there were those endless, endless hearings. Whitewater. Travel office. Christmas Card lists. Lincoln bedroom. Etc ad nauseum.

Or don’t you remember?

He was “Not my President!” (Ollie North: War criminal, terrorist arms dealer, GOP Senate Candidate [1994] and FoxNews Contributor.)

He was warned “not to set foot in my state.” (Jesse Helms: Professional Bigot, Confederate Senator, 1820-2003)

His picture was used for target practice by G. Gordon Liddy. (Watergate felon, would-be assassin, radio 'personality' and Republican hero.)

From "The American Prospect":

...it's worth remembering just how virulent the opposition to Clinton's presidency was. Republicans began plotting to impeach Clinton long before anyone had ever heard the name "Lewinsky," and many on the right simply refused to accept that he legitimately occupied the office he held. Then-House Majority Leader Dick Armey, when talking to Democrats, used to refer to Clinton as "your president."

It was a warped, hysterical campaign funded by wealthy Right Wing thugs like Richard Mellon Scaife and propagated by wealthy Right Wing thugs like Rupert Murdoch who made sure the lies were jack-hammered into the headlines day after day, year after year.

It didn't begin with Barack Obama and it has continued to the present day, sinking with help of the mainstream media, including Maureen Dowd (described here and here), the candidacy of Al Gore. Attacks on President Clinton were routine, as these quotes indicate:

“Explain to the mothers and fathers of American servicemen that may come home in body bags why their son or daughter have to give up their life?”
-Sean Hannity, Fox News, 4/6/99

“This is President Clinton’s war, and when he falls flat on his face, that’s his problem.”
-Senator Richard Lugar (R-IN)

And my personal favorite, uttered in the days when Tom DeLay and other prominent Republicans thought Al Qaeda was a minor nuisance and Osama bin Laden a mere annoyance:

“Bombing a sovereign nation for ill-defined reasons with vague objectives undermines the American stature in the world. The international respect and trust for America has diminished every time we casually let the bombs fly.”
-Representative Tom Delay (R-TX)

There are reasons for the remarkable and despicable (but not extraordinary) and irrational hatred directed against President Obama. One of them is the disturbing influence of the self-serving antics of the second most popular radio talk show host in the nation, who has described himself as "a rodeo clown;" and of the nation's most popular radio talk show host and loyal corporate apologist. Race is a factor but easily overrated and making the charge without powerful evidence that it is the prime catalyst behind the right-wing assault on the presidency denies recent GOP history and obscures more complex motivation, preventing a full exploration of the extremist mind of the early 21st century. And it is a backlash waiting to happen.

Henry Louis Gates, Jr., Again

Every time I think I'm out, I'm pulled back in. The Boston Globe reported yesterday that the police commissioner of Cambridge, Massachusetts has announced the names of the 12 members selected to the Cambridge Review Committee to ponder the lessons of the arrest in July by Sgt. James Crowley of Professor Henry Louis Gates, Jr. The panel has been charged with considering these questions:

- What are the lessons learned that are unique to Cambridge?

- What departmental training should be addressed?

- How does the Cambridge Police Department take this event and use it as an opportunity to modify its operational procedures?

- How do race, class, and interpersonal conflict have an impact on engaging with the public?

- Are there opportunities for the city as a whole to learn and grow from this experience?

- What can other communities and police departments learn from this experience in Cambridge?

I would not claim to be a "liberal with sanity," as Ed Koch used to describe himself. Liberals generally are sane (at least as much as conservatives) and, anyway, no one ever has accused me of being sane. Nonetheless, as long as the power brokers have devised a set of questions guaranteed to produce the answers they desire, I can suggest several other questions, which are nearly as slanted. They include:

- Can the action of the onlooker in this matter inspire among citizens of the city a commitment to community and willingness to assist law enforcement when appropriate?

- How do notions about race and class affect the attitudes of members of the community toward the Police Department?

- What misunderstandings and prejudices among the tenured professionals of Harvard University should be addressed by training?

- Does resistance to law enforcement in the academic community derive from class envy or from an antipathy toward authority?

- Are there opportunities for the academic community as a whole to learn and grow from this experience?

- Why did the city not respond to the concerns of the minority community until such time as a distinguished member of an Ivy League institution was disadvantaged by an altercation with law enforcement?

- What can other communities learn from this experience in Cambridge about the impulse to label as "profiling" an incident completely unrelated to the concept of profiling?

It's possible that, upon examining the facts of the situation, the panel would come to the conclusions that are being urged upon them. Unfortunately, we'll never know, given the slant the Cambridge city fathers and mothers have chosen to give to this study.

Mandate, Yes; Mandate, No

President Obama aimed his speech last night at many constituencies; one of them, Congressional liberals/progressives. Or, as he put it

To my progressive friends,I would remind you that for decades, the driving idea behind reform has been to end insurance company abuses and make coverage available for those without it.

After applause, he continued:

The public option- the public option is only a means to that end, and we should remain open to other ideas that accomplish our ultimate goal.

If in fact the "ultimate goal" of making "coverage available for those without it" were met by health care legislation, reform will have accomplished something, though limited.

But Barack Obama does not aim to "make coverage available for those without it." To be sure, he said last night

that's why under my plan, individuals will be required to carry basic health insurance- just as most states require you to carry auto insurance.

A moment later, he would explain

There will be a hardship waiver for those individuals who still can't afford coverage,and 95 percent of all small businesses, becuase of their size and narrow profit margin, would be exempt from these requirements.

That may be a contradiction, but it didn't start on September 9. An article by Mike Glover of Newsday of May 29, 2007 and posted soon after by Organizing For America (predecessor to Obama For America), makes it perfectly unclear:

"The time has come for universal, affordable health care in America," Obama said in remarks prepared for delivery Tuesday in Iowa City....

"My plan begins by covering every American. If you already have health insurance, the only thing that will change for you under this plan is that the amount of money you will spend on premiums will be less," Obama said. "If you are one of 45 million Americans who don't have health insurance, you will after this plan becomes law."

Whereas, Glover observes,

Obama's plan doesn't have the mandate that his rival John Edwards is proposing to ensure that all Americans get coverage. The 2004 Democratic vice presidential nominee would require everyone to have health insurance, much like state requirements for auto insurance for every driver.

Three months ago, President Obama told a Green Bay, Wisconsin audience

We have decided that it's time to give every American quality healthcare at an affordable cost.

Last night, the President argued (emphasis mine)

.... I believe a broad consensus exists for the aspects of the plan I just outlined: consumer protections for those with insurance; an exchange that allows individuals and small businesses to purchase affordable coverage; and a requirement that people who can afford insurance get insurance.

Barack Obama probably knows what his health care is, though confusion serves his strategic purposes. If nothing else, however, he again apparently gave new life to so many individuals. The President was able to inspire persons who surged with excitement as they were swept away at the grandeur of what they were experiencing:

He reminded us Wednesday night with his moral, economic and political call to arms on health care. Veering from poetry to prose and back again, sometimes stern, sometimes earnest, always determined, Obama took ownership of what he called "my plan" and his place in nearly 100 years of presidential striving for reform.

More Than Distortion

It's ironic that The Weekly Standard's William Kristol, once Chief of Staff to Vice President Dan Quayle and now a pundit, would have served (albeit briefly) in the conservative chair of the op-ed section of The New York Times.

That role was held for a long time by William Safire, who also fancied himself, justifiably, as something of an amateur etymologist. For Safire, words were important, and not to be trifled with.

But this morning the Washington Post's website carried a piece by Mr. Kristol in which he claimed

But isn’t health care a crisis? No.

Indeed, the president acknowledged it isn’t: “But we did not come here just to clean up crises. We came to build a future. So tonight, I return to speak to all of you about an issue that is central to that future -- and that is the issue of health care.” In other words, health care -- unlike, say, the financial system a few months ago -- is not in a state of crisis.

So there is no health care crisis.

Mr. Kristol imagines there is no health care crisis. And he imagines that President Obama, in his speech to a joint session of Congress, "acknowledged" there is no health care crisis, stronger than even "implied," which itself would be an inaccurate interpretation.

Here is what Mr. Obama said (emphasis mine), according to Kristol and the transcript of the speech: "But we did not come here just to clean up crises."

"Just"- is not the preferred word here, given that its primary definition is as an adjective, meaning "fair" or thereabouts, rather than as an adverb. But as an adverb it can mean "merely, only" and that is clearly what the President was saying- saying, not just only meaning, but actually saying. Clarified (apparently necessary for Kristol), Obama stated "But we came here for more than to clean up crises."

Odd enough that the fellow's GOP would find the need to promote a health care plan (pdf) of its own absent a crisis. Still, Mr. Kristol is entitled to fantasize about having a health care system that's the finest in the world. But he is not entitled, without rebuttal, intentionally to misinterpret what the President said.

A Public Option, Unless There Isn't

OpenLeft is an excellent blog and I'm sure Mike Lux is a sincere and well-meaning individual. But I have a beachfront property in Arizona I'd like to sell him- and at a special price, just for him.

Last night, following President Obama's speech to a captive audience of Congress, Lux wrote in part:

I was pleased that he made clear not only that he was for a public option, but gave a full-throated multi-paragraph defense of it. He did what public option advocates needed him to do, which was to make clear that he supported it.

Mr. Lux apparently didn't watch the same speech I, or Jane Hamsher, did. Admittedly, the President did refer

to a provision in our plan that allows the uninsured and small businesses to choose a publicly-sponsored insurance option, administered by the government, just like Medicaid or Medicare.

(Sarcasm alert) Big news! President Obama likes the idea of a public option (or, rather, a "publicly-sponsored insurance option." But he vigorously qualified that support several times:

- It would only be an option for those who don't have insurance.... (and) based on Congressional Budget Office estimates, we believe that less than 5% of Americans would sign up."

Here, the President is endorsing an option so enthusiastically that he feels it necessary to point out that it would apply to very few individuals.

- I've insisted that, like any private insurance company, the public insurance option would have to be self-sufficient and rely on the premiums it collects.

The option would "rely on the premiums it collects." Those eligible to choose the option are disproportionately poor- and are going to find it extremely difficult to pay the premiums. The people (such as young, healthy persons) who are able to pay the premiums had decided to forego buying insurance. They will not be amused at having to buy it now, though this requirement might be necessary.

- It's- it's worth noting that a strong majority of Americans still favor a public insurance option of the sort I've proposed tonight.

Absolutely true- when asked by objective pollsters about a public option- without a reference to "triggers"- most respondents have been supportive. The President, however, clearly did not foreclose the possibility of the trigger mechanism, which would fundamentally change the nature of the health care plan.

- To my progressive friends, I would remind you that for decades, the driving idea behind reform has been to end insurance company abuses and make coverage available for those without it.

Everyone is (or thinks he/she is) opposed to "abuses" of anything by anyone. And making coverage available for those without coverage is a very commendable goal- but availablity without affordability is of little value. Still, there is that pesky little matter of cost.

- The public option- the public option is only a means to that end, and we should remain open to other ideas that accomplish our ultimate goal.

Not only is Obama making it clear he is not committed to a public option, but suggesting that if a plan makes "coverage available for those without it" while the cost of health care continues to rise and quality does not improve, well, we've "accomplish(ed) our ultimate goal."

- For example- for example, some have suggested that the public option go into effect only in those markets where insurance companies are not providing affordable policies. Others have proposed a co-op or another non-profit entity to administer the plan.

These are all constructive ideas worth exploring.

Evidently, to this President practically all "ideas (are) worth exploring." All except single-payer- and, to be fair, one in which we would "end employer-based systems and leave individuals to buy health insurance on their own." To Mr. Obama, these are equally radical ideas- a)some form of single-payer (such as Medicare for all) systems not uncommon in the rest of the developed world and b)barring government or the private sector from providing any assistance at all. Seriously.

Public Option, Compromised


The focus of President Obama's message to Congress tonight, which probably will take place before most people read this, is becoming increasingly clear.

Firedoglake's Jane Hamsher, who arguably has been following the fight over, and leading the fight for, a public option more than anyone in the country, refers to an ominous, if somewhat predictable, development reported today by The Hill:

Sens. Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) both cast doubt Tuesday on their support for a public-option component to the Democratic healthcare reform effort, which suggests that the Obama administration is still struggling to win over key Senate centrists.

However, Collins and Lieberman both told The Hill they are more supportive of a “trigger” concept floated by Collins’s Senate colleague, Maine Republican Olympia Snowe, which calls for a public option to be implemented if insurance companies fail to fix the current system’s cost inefficiencies.

Reform supporters and critics alike are watching Collins, who cast a key vote this winter for President Barack Obama’s stimulus bill, and Lieberman, who occasionally breaks with Democrats, although he caucuses with the party and generally supports it on domestic issues....

Collins’s comments suggest that the administration approached her for support and determined her to be an unlikely ally. Collins did say she spoke for a half-hour last week with Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.), who is leading a six-way series of bipartisan talks on a Finance Committee health bill.

According to Politico today

Aides say Obama thinks it would be hard to get to true choice and competition without a public option or a fallback to a public option — such as the so-called trigger, which would kick in based on the insurance market....

But White House officials privately say they know they don't have the votes in the Senate for a public option. It is clear Obama will gladly compromise on this point, hence the loose language in the speech, allowing for future horse trading.

In a break for the White House, the American Medical Association is endorsing Obama-style health reform, in an “Open Letter to President Obama and Members of Congress,” signed by President J. James Rohback, M.D.

Hamsher noted that the "groundwork was laid" for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid "to push triggers yesterday." But give credit to Major Garret of GOP TV, who in a blog on September 3 reported

That is true," Pelosi said of stepped up talks on a trigger mechanism as a replacement for the public option. "But I don't know what particulars are of the trigger. Here we have a situation where in the Kennedy bill in the Senate, there is a public option, it's not as strong as the public option in the House bill. If they want no public option, but a trigger, you can be sure that the trigger will bring on a very robust public option. So, if I were advising insurance companies, I'd tell them take this bill the way it is now."

In retrospect, it was fairly clear by then that President Obama favored the "trigger," (warning: hedge ahead) whether or not he would formally and directly endorse the concept in his remarks tonight. Pelosi, obviously, was not exactly "advising" insurance companies; she is a dynamic critic of theirs. Rather, she sounded like an individual who knows that her approach is facing powerful, organized opposition (from the industry, the Senate Finance Committee, and the President) is not likely to prevail. And the comment "you can be sure that the trigger will bring on a very robust public option," gives her an out in eventually supporting a trigger, when eventually the only alternative is no bill at all.

And if Hamsher believes "the needle will soon be impossible to thread," that day- that hour- is fast approaching. The GOP will not jump up to support a trigger, especially now that the leader of the Party has criticized it. As Steve Benen wrote Monday in his blog at The Washington Monthly

Republicans aren't looking for concessions; they're looking to kill the legislation. Indeed, asked about whether a trigger is a possible compromise move, Newt Gingrich and Tim Pawlenty both rejected the idea outright yesterday.

It's hard not to be impressed with these negotiations. Dems say, "How about a public option that would offer consumers a choice, and lower prices through competition?" Republicans reply, "No." Dems say, "OK, how about a system of non-profit co-ops"? Republicans reply, "No." Dems say, "How about a trigger, which would bring added competition to the system if private insurers fail to meet certain benchmarks?" Republicans reply, "No."

It's one thing to entertain the idea of a trigger to bring Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) into the fold and keep Nelson from helping the GOP. But if the idea is that a trigger is a compromise measure that would generate broad, bipartisan support for reform, forget it. Republicans don't support health care reform, and no combination of concessions will change that.