1 year later

All of a sudden, the political game has changed. One year minus one day after Barack Obama was inaugurated as President, the Senate seat held by Ted Kennedy for 46 years went Republican. Despite protestations of independence, the victor and new Senator, Scott Brown, will make the 41st Republican vote opposing the President's agenda. How far the Democratic star has fallen is incredible.

Interactive Map
Massachusetts Election Results

January 20, 2010
Senator - Elect Scott Brown Pushes For Prompt Seating
By REUTERS


Filed at 12:22 p.m. ET


BOSTON (Reuters) - Scott Brown, who scored a big win for Republicans by winning a Democrat-held U.S. Senate seat in Massachusetts, said on Wednesday that given the wide margin of his victory he should be allowed to take up the seat very quickly.


Republicans hope that Brown can occupy the seat as soon as possible, replacing interim Senator Paul Kirk, a Democrat, and become the key 41st vote in the 100-member chamber and help block Democratic health care reforms and other legislation.


State law provides for some 15 days to delivery the final election results, but Brown noted at a post-election news conference that this had been circumvented in the past to seat Democratic lawmakers.


His campaign has requested that Massachusetts Secretary of State William Galvin make available an unofficial vote count, including the number of absentee ballots still outstanding.


"I'm confident that it will show the margin of victory exceeds the number of absentee ballots. Since the election is not in doubt, I'm hopeful that the Senate will seat me on the basis of those unofficial returns," he said.


Brown defeated his opponent, state attorney general Martha Coakley, by more than 100,000 votes on Tuesday.


Brown said the message sent by his upset win was that "people are tired of business as usual" in Washington politics, adding that he would like to see Congress move back to the drawing board on health care reform.




January 20, 2010
News Analysis
A Year Later, Voters Send a Different Message
By ADAM NAGOURNEY


BOSTON — Special elections come and go. And the party that wins the White House one year ordinarily loses seats in the next Congressional election that comes along.


But what happened in Massachusetts on Tuesday was no ordinary special election.


Scott Brown, a Republican state senator for only five years, shocked and arguably humiliated the White House and the Democratic Party establishment by defeating Martha Coakley in the race for a United States Senate seat. He did it one day short of a year after President Obama stood on the steps of the United States Capitol, looking across a mass of faces that celebrated the potential of his presidency.


As a result, Mr. Obama will spend the first anniversary of his inauguration watching Democrats tangle in an unseemly quarrel over who lost Massachusetts — Ms. Coakley’s pollster, Celinda Lake, called the Huffington Post four hours before the polls closed to blame Democratic leaders in Washington — and contemplating a political landscape that has been thoroughly upended in the course of only 10 days.


The implications are sure to be far-reaching, and the result leaves Mr. Obama with a long list of tough choices.


Stripped of the 60th vote needed to block Republican filibusters in the Senate, will Mr. Obama now make further accommodations to Republicans in an effort to move legislation through Congress with more bipartisanship, even at the cost of further alienating liberals annoyed at what they see as his ideological malleability?


Or will he seek to rally his party’s base through confrontation, even if it means giving up on getting much done this year?


Will he find a way to ram his health care bill through Congress quickly in the wake of the Massachusetts loss, so that his party can run on a major if controversial accomplishment? Or will he heed the warnings of Republicans, and now some Democrats, that to do so would be to ignore the message of Tuesday’s election, with its clear overtones of dissatisfaction with the administration’s approach so far?


It is not just questions of policy: for Mr. Obama and the Democrats, already worried about the coming midterm elections, the results could hardly have been more distressing. States do not come more Democratic than Massachusetts, the only one that voted for George McGovern over Richard Nixon in 1972, a fact that older residents still recount with fresh pride. By challenging the legacy of Edward M. Kennedy, the holder of the contested seat for 46 years and a liberal icon, the Republican victory could only be dispiriting to the left.


Most ominously, independent voters — who embraced Mr. Obama’s presidential campaign and are an increasingly critical constituency — seemed to have fled to Mr. Brown in Massachusetts, as they did to Republicans in races for governor in Virginia and New Jersey last November. It is hard not to view that as a repudiation of the way Mr. Obama and Democratic Congressional leaders have run things.


“This is a giant wake-up call,” said Terry McAuliffe, the former Democratic National Committee chairman who lost a bid for the Democratic nomination for governor in Virginia last year. “We have to keep our focus on job creation. Everything we have to do is related to job creation. We have to do a much better job on the message. People are confused on what this health care bill is going to do.”


Even before the polls closed, the White House was suggesting the outlines of a recovery strategy, a combination of a more populist tone and an embrace of greater fiscal responsibility.


Mr. Obama has signaled that he intends to take a more populist stance on financial regulation legislation in Congress, seeking to position Democrats as defenders of the people against Wall Street, and to cast Republicans as defenders of bonus-laden bankers. And on Tuesday night, the White House brokered a deal that could lead to a bipartisan commission to recommend spending cuts and tax increases to address the nation’s fiscal condition. For months, Mr. Obama’s advisers had warned that the perception that budget deficits and the national debt were spiraling out of control was alienating independent voters already turned off by partisan battling.


David Axelrod, a senior adviser to Mr. Obama, said he did not view the results as a repudiation of the White House’s agenda, but he acknowledged that the administration needed to do a more effective job of signaling concern about the problems gripping Americans.


“We are the party in power, and as such there’s an element of responsibility assigned,” he said. “I think people need to know that their challenges and their concerns are the focus of our work every day.”


Ms. Coakley lost in no small part because of what many Democrats viewed as a stumbling campaign against a sharp and focused opponent. There is a good argument that the outcome was as much an anti-incumbent wave during tough economic times as it was an anti-Democratic wave. And there is still time before the midterm elections for the economy to rebound in a way that benefits Democratic candidates, and for Mr. Obama to make a case that the health care legislation, if he finds a way to sign it into law, will benefit the hard-pressed middle class.


Still, Ms. Coakley’s defeat could easily be seen as evidence that the Obama White House is out of step with much of the American public — pushing through a health care plan at a time when many voters are primarily concerned about unemployment.


Mr. Obama could find it more difficult to get moderate and conservative-leaning Democrats in Congress to cast politically tough votes.


It will be lost on few in the House or the Senate that the Democratic defeat in an overwhelmingly Democratic state came despite a last-minute personal appeal from Mr. Obama, who campaigned here for Ms. Coakley on Sunday. This suggests that Mr. Obama may be of limited or no help to candidates in close elections. No less important, he may not have much leverage to stop them from defying him in Washington.


“I think there’s been a misreading of where the public is at: having a health care debate when so many people were focused on their jobs,” said Joe Trippi, a Democratic political consultant who managed the presidential campaign of Howard Dean in 2004.


“The failure to understand how anti-establishment the country has become is a big part of the problem,” Mr. Trippi said of Mr. Obama and the White House. “He actually led the way on that in the campaign and didn’t recognize what was happening as he was president.”

Wild about Harry

One take on the brouhaha by a Times blogger.And another by "The University of California regent who got that institution to dump affirmative action and then spearheaded successful California and Washington ballot initiatives overturning those states' affirmative action policies" who wrote Creating equal: my fight against race preferences.

The comment – made to the authors of a new book on the presidential campaign – is not so different from remarks Mr. Obama has made himself while navigating the complicated intersection of race and politics in America during his rapid rise to the White House.

It was only two years ago, after all, that Mr. Obama was struggling to persuade some African-American voters that he was black enough. His electoral prospects did not rise among many Democrats in the South Carolina primary, where black voters are critical, until winning the Iowa caucuses, where the vast share of voters are white. As Mr. Obama moved from state to state in the long Democratic primary fight, his policy proposals sounded mainly the same. But it was not unusual for his inflection and mannerisms to be a bit different.

When he spoke to some black audiences, Mr. Obama’s consonants tended to linger a bit. He would speak with a certain staccato and rhythm – particularly in churches – that he had not used when addressing white audiences in Iowa or New Hampshire. This, of course, is hardly unique to Mr. Obama.
.
Bubba's and Al Gore's southern twang always seemed to get heavier south of the Line.


Other black politicians have followed a similar pattern. And the same is true for many white politicians – Bill and Hillary Clinton, for example – when a Southern accent suddenly is more pronounced during a campaign speech below the Mason-Dixon Line.

For Mr. Obama, the pattern began well before he started running for president. It was noticeable as he gave speeches across the country as a freshman senator. One day in 2005, after he delivered an address in Detroit at an anniversary celebration of the N.A.A.C.P., I asked Mr. Obama about the differences. “I know if I’m in an all-black audience that there’s going to be a certain rhythm coming back at me from the audience. They’re not just going to be sitting there,” Mr. Obama told me. “That creates a different rhythm in your speaking.”

Throughout his presidential campaign, and during his time in the White House, many observers have suggested that Mr. Obama is uncomfortable talking about race. A more nuanced view, however, finds that he does not want race to be a distraction.

Ward Connerly: I'm still trying to figure out what was offensive about the Senate majority leader's comment.  Me too.

WC is a bit more biting in his comments about people: As if Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid didn't have enough on his plate—trying to find sufficient cash to buy the 60 votes necessary for his health-care reform package—he's now found himself at the center of a race controversy.

Votes are always bought; that is what political compromise is about.

Leader Reid apologized to as many people as he could. Mr. Connerly has trhis to say: As I have observed coverage of this incident by the media and captains of the African-American community, I cannot help but be reminded of former Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, who made remarks praising Strom Thurmond in 2002. Mr. Lott said of the segregationist: "When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we [Mississippians] voted for him. We're proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn't have had all these problems over all these years either."

When Mr. Lott's controversy erupted, he apologized repeatedly and sincerely to one and all—even groveling on Black Entertainment Network—all to no avail. Black leaders were unforgiving and persisted in demanding that he either resign from his position or be removed. In the end, they got what they wanted.

All well and good, but the Republicans dumped him. The Bush White House dumped him. It wasn't just political correctness, but political calculation. Still, he does make good points.


For my part, I am having a difficult time determining what it was that Mr. Reid said that was so offensive. Was it because he suggested that lighter-skinned blacks fare better in American life than their darker brothers and sisters? If so, ask blacks whether they find this to be true. Even the lighter-skinned ones, if they are honest with themselves, will agree that there is a different level of acceptance.


Or, finally, could it be viewed as offensive that Mr. Reid suggested that blacks often have a distinctive way of speaking? If that is, indeed, the offense, then I will offend a lot of individuals when I assert that I can tell in probably 90% of the cases whether an individual is black merely by talking to him on the telephone.

No one else has had the nerve to say that openly, except, perhaps, Stanley Crouch.


“We have a certain script in our politics, and one of the scripts for black politicians is that for them to be authentically black they have to somehow offend white people,” Mr. Obama said. “And then if he puts a multiracial coalition together, he must somehow be compromising the efforts of the African-American community.”

“To use a street term,” Mr. Obama added, “we flipped the script.”

Few would dispute that Mr. Obama is a far smoother speaker than Mr. Reid. But were they saying essentially the same thing?

Light-skinned, no accent

The latest brouhaha involves Harry Reid, Senate Democratic leader, quoted in a new book (Game Change) as referring to Barack Obama had a chance of being elected because of his light skin and lack of "Negro" accent. Republicans are equating this incident with Trent Lott's having said a few years back that perhaps the US would have been better off if Strom Thurmond's 1948 Dixiecrat candidacy for the presidency had been successful.

Equating those two incidents is palpably absurd. But what the Republicans need is a wedge, and they will try everything to get one.

This piece appeared in the Daily Beast website.

Harry Reid Was Right

by Peter Beinart
January 10, 2010 | 11:07pm

Yes, the Senate leader’s “light-skinned” comments about Obama were uncomfortable. But that’s because he spoke the truth about white attitudes—a truth even Colin Powell concedes.

Hell, of course it's true.

There’s nothing Americans love more than demanding “honest talk” about race and then kicking the teeth out of anyone who engages in it. Thus the tale of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who is now in political purgatory because he told authors Mark Halperin and John Heilemann that white people were more open to voting for Barack Obama because he’s “light-skinned” and has “no Negro dialect.” Reid’s use of the word “Negro” was, to be sure, unpleasantly retro. But everything else about his statement is undeniably correct. Political scientists have proved it. Famous African Americans have testified to it. So now Reid must be punished, because he said things about the contours of white racism that you’re not supposed to say, except behind closed doors, where everyone knows that they’re true.

First, skin color. White people (and perhaps African Americans and other minorities as well) are more likely to vote for lighter-skinned blacks. In 2007, when Harvard’s Jennifer Hochschild and the University of Virginia’s Vesla Weaver surveyed every African-American governor, senator and member of Congress since 1865, they found that light-skinned blacks were dramatically overrepresented as a share of the black population. Similarly, they found that when light-skinned blacks run for office, they win at higher rates than their darker-skinned brethren.

It has been written about: even many blacks prefer a lighter skin color. But to talk about that is very difficult.

Reid’s statement was less an example of white racism than an analysis of white racism. He dared to discuss an aspect of race prejudice that people generally find too toxic to publicly discuss.

But how do we know that this particular species of racism informs people’s view of Obama? Because in 2009, Eugene Caruso of the University of Chicago, Emily Balcetis of New York University and Nicole Mead of Tilburg University in the Netherlands proved it. They showed three pictures of Obama—one lightened, one darkened and one undoctored—to people who planned to vote for him, and to people who did not. The Obama voters were significantly more likely to claim that the lightened photo was the real one. The McCain voters were more likely to claim that the darkened photo was.

How about “black” speech patterns? Yet again, social science is on Reid’s side. In 1999, Thomas Purnell of the University of Wisconsin, William Idsardi of the University of Delaware, and John Baugh of Stanford had people answer apartment-rental ads in the San Francisco area using a variety of dialects. The callers who “sounded black” were substantially less likely to secure an appointment to see the apartment than those who “sounded white.”

Is any of this really a surprise, in a country where the extent of one’s blackness, as well as the fact of one’s blackness, has been the basis of oppression for centuries? In the antebellum South, states like Louisiana even maintained special legal categories for “quadroons” and “octoroons,” blacks whose mixed-race ancestry allowed them rights denied their “full-blooded” brethren. And as African Americans generally understand better than whites, that legacy remains alive today. When asked in 1995 why white people liked him so much, Colin Powell replied that “I speak reasonably well, like a white person,” and, visually, “I ain’t that black.”


So if what Reid said was palpably true, why is he in so much trouble? Yes, his use of the word “negro” was unattractive. But overall, his statement was less an example of white racism than an analysis of white racism. He dared to discuss an aspect of race prejudice that people generally find too toxic to publicly discuss. But it should be publicly discussed. Because amid the triumphalism that has followed Barack Obama’s election—the insistence, particularly on the right, that his election proves that racism has all but died out—it is worth remembering that while Obama’s election constitutes racial progress, it is also, peculiarly, testament to how far America still has to go.

Peter Beinart, senior political writer for The Daily Beast, is associate professor of journalism and political science at City University of New York and a senior fellow at the New America Foundation.

The new Know Nothings

This woman writes for UK's The Guardian. She makes some interesting points, to say the least.

In their quest to convince voters that America is in danger, Republicans are lying about 9/11 and baldly denying history


Megan Carpentier

More than 150 years ago, a disparate group of anti-immigrant, conspiracy-minded Americans became sick of traditional politicians and started a grassroots movement to take political power from the hands of those they no longer trusted. When asked by outsiders what their movement was called, they were ordered to answer, "I know nothing," leading others to call them the  Know Nothing party. The movement, however, was co-opted by the traditional parties and undermined by policy disagreements, and many members eventually folded into the Republican party. Some things, apparently, don't change as much as we'd like to believe.

Republican leaders, and the 20-somethings crafting their made-for-television talking points, are apparently counting on the fact that their base still knows nothing, or is at least willing to forget what they do know. Not content to blame the Bush-led Wall Street bailouts on President Obama, or the shoe-bomber reprise on Obama's security and intelligence policies that were nonetheless instituted by his predecessors, Republican thought-leaders like Mary Matalin, former White House press secretary Dana Perino and former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani have decided that there is one big thing that just couldn't have happened on the Republicans' watch: 9/11.

Perino started the re-write of history in November, baldly stating: "We did not have a terrorist attack on our country during President Bush's term." Matalin picked up the torch shortly after Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab set his crotch on fire, claiming that Bush "inherited the most tragic attack on our own soil in our nation's history."

Who buys this stuff?

Most astonishingly, former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani – who made his national political reputation on the tragedy of the 2,752 people who died from a terrorist attack in the city he led – told Americans on Friday: "We had no domestic attacks under Bush." In the wake of widespread disbelief that Giuliani would repudiate the deaths in his own city in an effort to defend an unpopular former president who presided over not one by two attacks by foreign terrorists on American soil – not including the anthrax attacks – Giuliani was forced to admit he did, indeed, remember September 11th. That is, undoubtedly, a relief to both his wife and his political advisers, if small solace to the families of those whose deaths he seems happy to use as a political weapon against the opposing party.

Repeat something, even a lie, long enough, and some people will believe it. And Guiliani, thrice-divorced, will say anything.

In the end, though, the brain trust – such as it is – of the Republican party wouldn't be attempting to re-write recent history if their focus groups and polls didn't show that  truthiness pays political dividends. Shortly after Perino's comments, polls showed voters trust Republicans more than Democrats on issues of national security and that 63% of voters think that "political correctness" – a refusal to disobey laws prohibiting racial profiling – was the root cause of the failure to prevent one soldier's attack on his colleagues at Fort Hood.

Republicans have apparently decided that they can improve their standings with Americans if they can convince them, despite all evidence to the contrary, that terrorist attacks only happen when Democrats are in power. Republicans seem perfectly and increasingly happy to slough off all responsibility for the things that happened and that they caused during their watch, as long as it brings them back to power. The question for Americans ought to be what they'll do with that power when they get it back. Last year, they weren't so keen on keeping Republicans in power. This year, many of them seemingly know nothing about that.


George Santayana once said: "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." In this country, Republicans are trying hard to make sure Americans cannot remember the past in which a Republican president ignored a security assessment warning of the attacks of 11 September, in which he chose to prosecute a war against a country that wasn't, at the time, harbouring the terrorists that attacked us, or in which a terrorist without a Muslim name or Islamic appearance boarded a plane and attempted to detonate his feet. And they certainly don't want us to remember anything about a Republican president who told Americans that he didn't know nothing about the location of the person who masterminded the biggest terrorist attack on American soil, nor did he care. If you know nothing, and no one else does either, you apparently can't be held accountable for anything.

Ay, Cristina (Kirchner)

Martín Redrado, the chief of Argentina's Central Bank who is in an increasingly tense political dispute with President Cristina Fernandez, talks to reporters as he leaves the bank's headquarters in Buenos Aires on Friday. A court issued two rulings Friday, blocking the use of foreign-currency reserves to pay debt, and revoking her dismissal of the central-bank chief.

This is a contest of wills. President Kirchner, the current one, supported, of course, by the previous President Kirchner (Cristina and Nelson, respectively), is demanding that about $7 billion (or, about, 26 billion Argentinian pesos) be released from the central bank-controlled reserves, and used to service foreign debt. Señor Redrado refused. He got sacked.

A federal judge blocked President Cristina Kirchner from using foreign-currency reserves to pay Argentina's national debt and revoked her dismissal of the central-bank chief who opposed that policy.

The twin legal defeats for the government injected further uncertainty in the battle for control of the central-bank reserves. The dispute, which has put Argentina on the verge of a constitutional crisis and placed the president and the opposition-controlled Congress at loggerheads, led to a selloff in the country's bond and stock markets.


A selloff? I don't know who the hell owns any Argentinian securities. Talk about speculation.


Mr. Redrado said he was motivated by the principle of central-bank independence. "It's necessary to keep working for ideas," he said. "We have shown commitment to maintaining the prestige of the Central Bank."

Mrs. Kirchner defended using a portion of the $48 billion in reserves to pay debt.

"It's much better to use the reserves than to take loans at 15% interest," President Kirchner said in remarks at a political event. She added that Mr. Redrado had been guilty of misconduct, and she was within her rights to dismiss him.


I think the expression at loggerheads is apt.


Roberto Sifon Arevalo, a director in the Latin America Sovereign Ratings Group at Standard & Poor's said compromising central-bank authority is disturbing to investors.

"There is a conceptual reason why people focus on the independence of the central bank," he said. "In a context where you already have inflationary pressures, if you don't have that independence and you have a central bank that starts financing current expenditures, then that's going to get significantly worse."

The  US Congress is walking the same way, proposing to curb the Fed's independence.

Waking Up Serious Instead of Silly

George Stephanopoulos

Not that I watch morning teevee, but I like George a great deal, have gotten to like Charlie Gibson, and have never liked Diane Sawyer (she worked in the Nixon White House). I shall miss Charlie.

ABC News hopes that its anchor shakeup will help close its ratings gap with NBC News, but new faces are not necessarily a guarantee of success: the anointment of Katie Couric as the first solo female network anchor has not budged CBS’s evening news out of a distant third place.

Despite ever-dwindling audiences, network news programs cling to established formula and cookie-cutter formats. Changes in personnel don’t radically alter the program, but personality does have an effect on its content.

Uninvited

Samantha Appleton/The White House - In a photo released by the White House, President Obama greeted Michaele and Tareq Salahi, right, at his first state dinner on Tuesday.


O, boy, does the media love this story!

President Obama and his wife, Michelle, had a face-to-face encounter with the couple who sneaked into a state dinner at the White House this week, White House officials acknowledged on Friday. The revelation underscored the seriousness of the security breach and prompted an abject apology from the Secret Service.

A White House spokesman said that the couple, Michaele and Tareq Salahi of Virginia, met and shook hands with the president and the first lady in the receiving line in the Blue Room, as the Obamas greeted each of their 400 invited guests Tuesday night before moving to a tent on the South Lawn for dinner.

Of course, this is serious: uninvited guests got into a White House fête with, perhaps, a combination of guile and charm on their part (aspiring reality teevee people that they are, all the better for them), and security breakdown on the Secret Service's part (disastrous public relations, and serious implications for the security of the President and the WHite House: if the WH itself can be penetrated, what is safe?).

That disclosure coincided with a statement from the director of the Secret Service, Mark Sullivan, saying that his agency was “deeply concerned and embarrassed” by the events. Secret Service officials said the agency wanted to interview everyone connected with the episode, including the Salahis, and had not ruled out criminal charges.

Filing criminal charges seems a way to get even, but would amount to more free publicity for the couple, and could well backfire in the face of the Secret Service.

Related
The TV Watch: For Some, a Search for Celebrity Is Worth Any Risk (November 28, 2009)
Obamas’ Uninvited Guests Prompt an Inquiry (November 27, 2009)

For their part, White House officials took pains to publicly refrain from criticizing the Secret Service. “The men and women of the Secret Service put their lives on the line every day to protect us; they are heroes, and they have the full confidence of the president of United States,” said Nick Shapiro, a White House spokesman.

Heroes? They do perform hazardous duty, but heroes? Heroes are those who perform extraordinarily, and are "distinguished by exceptional courage and nobility and strength." These days the word hero is bandied about too often and dropped far too easily.

Dooffus

Lou Dobbs, speaking with Bill O’Reilly of Fox News.

Doofus: dimwit.

People take this jerk seriously?




A spokesman for Mr. Dobbs said he was seriously considering a race in 2012 against Senator Robert Menendez of New Jersey, above, as “an intermediary step.”

Intermediary? Another dim bulb. Intermediary is a go-between; surely the spokes-jerk meant intermediate. Spare us, Yahweh.


he told a Washington radio station, “For the first time, I’m actually listening to some people about politics,” adding: “I think that being in the public arena means you’ve got to be part of the solution.”

Really? there are scads of people in the public arena who are nothing more than part of the problem.

House Attacks Fed, Treasury

Actually some on House panel, not the House itself, attacked the Fed and the Treasury.

At the Joint Economic Committee, a couple of House Republicans called for the resignation of Mr. Geithner, who, as president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, played a major role in last fall's moves to prevent the collapse of the financial system. "The public has lost all confidence in your ability to do the job," said Rep. Kevin Brady, Republican of Texas.

The public? Who the hell is the public? I'm part of the public, and I haven't lost confidence in Secretary Geithner. I have a lot of confidence in him. Whom I don't have confidence in is a Representative who thinks that by grandstanding and demagoguery he can strongarm fiscal policy.

Mr. Geithner, in an unusual public display of pique, fired back. "What I can't take responsibility is for the legacy of crises you've bequeathed this country," he told Mr. Brady.

Exactly. While Geithner is not perfect, by any means, he is dealing with the mess left by the tram of Bush and Greenspan, the most severe economic crisis in three quarters of a century.

Although several Democrats defended Mr. Geithner at the hearing, some liberal Democrats have been complaining that the Obama administration isn't doing enough to combat unemployment. Rep. Peter DeFazio (D., Ore.) called on Mr. Geithner to resign this week, and said in an interview that Mr. Geithner is too close to Wall Street.

Whom would he have? Paulson?

Treasury chief Geithner faced a House Republican who told him, 'The public has lost all confidence in your ability to do the job.' He shot back: 'What I can't take responsibility is for the legacy of crises you've bequeathed this country.'

You go, Timothy.

The House Financial Services Committee voted, 43-26, to approve a measure sponsored by Texas Republican Ron Paul, vociferously opposed by the Fed, that would direct the congressional Government Accountability Office to expand its audits of the Fed to include decisions about interest rates and lending to individual banks. The Fed says the provision threatens its ability to make monetary policy without political interference.

43 plus 26 means there are 69 members in the committee. What in hell could 69 politicians possibly get done? Less than nothing is what.

Hutchison Chases Texas Right

Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, above, in August announcing her candidacy to unseat Gov. Rick Perry, who is seen below with Texas Rangers in October.
















Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison may have won the backing of former Vice President Dick Cheney in her race for Texas governor, a key endorsement for a candidate seeking conservative support. But her drive to unseat Republican Gov. Rick Perry remains an uphill battle.

Ms. Hutchison, one of the Lone Star State's most popular politicians, was expected to mount a formidable challenge to Mr. Perry in one of the long-anticipated GOP primary battles of next year's elections. The GOP winner is an overwhelming favorite to be the next governor in this Republican state.

"We Westerners know the difference between a real talker and the real deal," Mr. Cheney said before a small crowd of about 100 Hutchison supporters and journalists Tuesday evening. "Kay Bailey Hutchison is the real deal."

Perry is more conservative than Hutchison; he even alluded to Texas seceding from the Union. But the Senator is an old Washington pal of Cheney.

But Mr. Perry has built a large lead in polls with less than four months to go to the March 2 primary. In part, he has scored points using what's shaping up as a popular strategy for many candidates during this election cycle, with rhetoric portraying Ms. Hutchison as a Washington insider out of touch with down-home Texans. He also has accused her of waffling on a pledge to resign from her Senate seat, which she had initially said she would do in October or November.

"It really does appear that it is slipping away for her," said Calvin Jillson, a political science professor at Southern Methodist University in Dallas.

The Hutchison campaign hopes the backing of Mr. Cheney, who before being elected vice president was chief executive of Halliburton Co., then based in Dallas, will deepen the shallow conservative backing that has been long viewed as her principal weakness. But supporters of Mr. Perry, who has the backing of conservative groups and such governors as Haley Barbour of Mississippi, have tried to use the Cheney endorsement as evidence Ms. Hutchison is out of touch with Texas voters. "The Washington establishment usually sticks together," Perry campaign spokesman Mark Miner said.

That is almost an insult to Cheney, the right's darling.

Let's be friends, plu-eez

Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg had lunch Wednesday with New York's incoming public advocate, Bill de Blasio, a Democrat.





Michael R. Bloomberg, stung by an election outcome that revealed resentment over his undoing of the term limits law and his extravagant campaign spending, moved quickly Wednesday to strike a conciliatory tone as he reached out to the Democratic establishment that backed his opponent in the mayor’s race.

As aides worried that the narrow win — by a margin of less than 5 percent — would embolden previously cowed lawmakers, the mayor made clear in meetings and telephone calls with Democratic leaders that he understood that the roughness of his campaign had upset some people.

It is to be hoped that someone develops some spine, and challenges Bloomberg, denying him the option to rule without opposition.

But in his conspicuous gestures, Mr. Bloomberg and his aides also sought to send another message: we are still in charge.

That is where they have it wrong: the people are, or should be, in charge.

But tellingly, when the mayor tried to meet with John C. Liu, the Democratic comptroller-elect, Mr. Liu said he could not find time on his schedule, a highly unusual slight.

Good. Great.

Later, Mr. Liu told a reporter: “A long time ago, the people of New York decided there would be no king nor a monarch in New York City.”

Amen.

The speaker of the City Council, Christine C. Quinn, another Democrat, summed up her conversation with the mayor Wednesday as: “It’s time to move on.”

Time to move on, indeed. But keeping in mind that the City Council should not be the Mayor's doormat.

Mayor Bloomberg believes people still like him, and support his mayoralty.

But the election results seemed to reveal a much more complicated relationship with those he governs. Despite at least $90 million in campaign spending, Mr. Bloomberg lost large swaths of the city to William C. Thompson Jr.: he was defeated in both Brooklyn, the most populous borough, and the Bronx, the poorest.

“There’s certainly going to be a lot of Council members who are going to take him on,” said Councilman David I. Weprin, who supported Mr. Thompson. “There is a lot of resentment.”

Good. I certainly expect them to do their jobs, which is not to kowtow to the Mayor.

As the city’s political establishment tried to understand the huge gulf between the cocksure rhetoric of the mayor’s campaign and his showing at the polls, Bloomberg aides said that they had relentlessly promoted the mayor as invulnerable in the race when they knew differently, saying it was the only way they for them to keep the Democratic establishment from rallying behind Mr. Thompson.

No one read poll numbers?

Said one top Bloomberg campaign adviser, who spoke on condition of anonymity to protect internal discussions: “If a poll had come out showing that the race was within five points, Barack Obama would have swung into town, the United Federation of Teachers would break for Thompson and Mike Bloomberg would not be mayor today.”

Too bad.

No such thing as too much money

To market Bounty paper towels last year, Procter & Gamble spent about $63 million. To advertise Yoplait Light yogurt, General Mills spent about $62 million.

But these corporate giants have nothing on Michael. R. Bloomberg. To hold on to his job as mayor this year, he has spent $65 million of his own money, according to his latest financial disclosure report, released on Friday. Mayor Michael. R. Bloomberg, left, is expected to spend more this year than he did in his campaigns in 2001 and 2005.

Having much money qualifies him to buy political office, a decidedly undemocratic practice.



William C. Thompson Jr., Mr. Bloomberg's Democratic rival who is still scrambling to raise money from donors.


The mayor has spent 16 times as much as his Democratic rival, William C. Thompson Jr., who is still scrambling to raise money from donors. And at his current pace, Mr. Bloomberg is on track to easily spend more than $100 million by Election Day on Nov. 3

The City Council went along with his proposal to repeal term limits; ridiculous. And he became a Republican to win this first election, he has been a Democrat, and is now Independent. What the hell is he?

The disclosure of the figures drew expressions of outrage from Democrats and from supporters of campaign finance limits.

“It badly distorts the city’s democracy to have one candidate spend his own money like a drunken sailor — or more accurately, like a million drunken sailors,” said Gene Russianoff, staff attorney for the New York Public Interest Research Group, a nonpartisan government watchdog organization.

He described the $65 million figure as “grotesquely excessive.”

Grotesque is a good start; I'll add obscene, undemocratic.

But Jill Hazelbaker, a spokeswoman for Mr. Bloomberg’s campaign, defended the spending as prudent. “We’re confident that Mike Bloomberg’s record of progress on job creation, crime and education will prevail over Bill Thompson’s record of failure,” she said. “But we’re not taking anything for granted.”

His campaign is spending so much money because Bloomberg has a good record?

According to the latest filing, as of Sept. 28, the mayor had spent $22 million to saturate television channels with his commercials, $10 million on campaign mailings and $3.4 million on wages for campaign workers.

Three and a half million dollars on wages?

By comparison, Mr. Thompson has spent $305,000 on TV ads, $2,000 on campaign mailings and $529,000 on wages for workers. Overall, Mr. Thompson, who has been the city’s comptroller since 2002, has raised $5.6 million, received almost $2.5 million in matching funds, and spent $3.8 million — equivalent, roughly, to Vermont’s annual advertising budget for tourism.

A blithering idiot

No Buyers for Palin's Speeches

If need be, she could always downgrade to the bar mitzvah circuit: The New York Post reports that the Washington Speakers Bureau—which also represents George W. Bush, Laura Bush, and Condoleezza Rice—is having a hard time convincing potential clients to book Sarah Palin for $100,000 a pop. One industry expert tells the Post: “The big lecture buyers in the U.S. are paralyzed with fear about booking her, basically because they think she is a blithering idiot.” Palin is believed to have quit her job as governor of Alaska early, in part, to earn more money. According to the source, many big lecture circuits are subscription series, and bookers are afraid of ticking off subscribers by putting her on the roster.

Sarah's lectures a tough sell (from NY Post)

Sarah Palinis said to have pocketed a $7 million advance for the 400-page memoir she turned in four months early, but she might not have such an easy time on the lecture circuit. After quitting as governor of Alaska in July, Palin signed with the top-notch Washington Speakers Bureau, which also reps George W. Bush, Laura Bush,
Condoleezza Rice, hero pilot Chesley Sullenberger, LA Dodgers manager Joe Torre and magician David Blaine.

Palin's bookers are said to be asking for $100,000 per speech, but an industry expert tells Page Six: "The big lecture buyers in the US are paralyzed with fear about booking her, basically because they think she is a blithering idiot."

Many big lecture venues are subscription series, "and they don't want to tick people off," said our source. "Palin is polarizing, and some subscribers might cancel if she's on the lineup." Other lecture buyers are universities, which have a leftist slant, and corporations, which dislike controversy.

"Palin is so uninteresting to so many groups -- unless they are interested in moose hunting," said our insider. "What does she have to say? She can't even describe what she reads."

Palin likely quit as governor just months after losing the election as John McCain's vice-presidential running mate because of money. "She knew that if she waited until her term ended in 2010, these opportunities would be gone," said a source. "She would have lost millions by staying in office."

Palin's "Going Rogue: An American Life" is described by Harper publisher John Burnhamas "her words, her life, and it's all there in full and fascinating detail." Harper wouldn't discuss what Palin was paid.

Lynn Vincent, Palin's collaborator, wrote the book so fast, publication has been moved up from the spring to Nov. 17.

How much can there be t say?

Divided Traditional Allies

Business is parting from its traditional allies in the Republican Party on health care as companies and big corporate lobbyists lend tentative support to a congressional overhaul that conservative lawmakers staunchly oppose.

Staunchly: steadfastness: loyalty in the face of trouble and difficulty is one way to define the term, and the Republicans are facing troubles and difficulties, indeed.

The rift mirrors a similar divide on other issues, including immigration and climate change, where many companies have backed legislative action that Republican lawmakers oppose. But the health-care debate, in particular, casts a spotlight on the split in the longstanding alliance between economic conservatives and the business community. Republican lawmakers are digging in to oppose the overhaul effort as a big-spending government intrusion.

Big-spending intrusion is when the Democrats are in power; when Republicans are in power the same thing is called reform by Republicans.

Many companies, on the other hand, cite soaring costs to explain why they continue to back the congressional work under way to revamp the health-care system, despite misgivings over a range of provisions.

Drug and insurance companies have also signed on, though their goals are far less ambitious than those of others.

Just as Sen. Baucus was preparing to unveil his plan, the Business Roundtable, a lobbying group that represents major U.S. multinationals, released a study arguing that congressional inaction was not an option.

Even the Republicans have hurriedly put together some sort of proposal, for simply saying no is not a good strategy (other than pleasing their right-wing base).

The study found that without any changes to the current system, the cost to insure a single employee, including the person's own out-of-pocket expenses, would jump to more than $28,000 a year by 2019, from around $11,000 a year now.

155% increase in cost in ten years. Wow!

"The reality with the business community is that we want reform, while some Republicans want to stop this train and start over," said Bruce Josten, the chamber's chief lobbyist. "That is just not going to happen."

That pretty much says it: health care reform is going to pass, perhaps by December, and the Republicans will not be able to stop it.

"I wouldn't confuse pleasant noises about the Baucus bill with an endorsement," said Republican Rep. David Camp of Michigan. "If this bill tacks left, which it is already doing, business won't support it."

Of course, some people can't see or smell what they've stepped on.

Republicans have been particularly furious at the pharmaceutical industry, whose early willingness to cooperate with the White House and with Sen. Baucus proved crucial in keeping the push for an overhaul alive this summer. In June, the drug makers' lobbying group, PhRMA, cut a surprise deal with Mr. Baucus, offering to slash $80 billion in drug costs in exchange for a range of protections from the government.

No one howls as loud as a spurned lover.

That deal was shortly followed by the announcement of $150 billion in concessions by the hospital industry. House Republican leader John Boehner blasted the PhRMA deal in a letter to the group's president, Billy Tauzin, a former Republican lawmaker.

Muammar rambles

Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi, the Libyan leader, took the lectern at the United Nations on Wednesday morning for his first address at the General Assembly, and delivered a long and rambling diatribe — far exceeding the 15-minute limit on speeches — against the United Nations Security Council and a host of other perceived enemies, while urging the world to welcome President Obama, referring to him as “our son.”

Of Africa?

In the first third of a speech that lasted more than 90 minutes, Colonel Qaddafi focused on what he called the inherent unfairness of the United Nations, which gives the five permanent members of the Security Council far more authority than the nations in the General Assembly. This, Mr. Qaddafi said, was dictatorship, not democracy, and as such, “was terrorism itself.”

And when was the last time the Colonel held elections in his democracy?

The Afghan war, too, he said, should be investigated for possible prosecution. At times, Colonel Qaddafi veered into conspiracy, saying, for example, that the H1N1 influenza virus, also called swine flu, might be a military or corporate weapon that got out of a lab and intimating an Israeli hand behind the assassination of President John F. Kennedy.

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict, he said, should be solved by the creation of a single state, which Mr. Qaddafi calls Israteen, but Mr. Qaddafi stressed it is wrong to infer that Arabs hate the Jews. “You are the ones who burned them, not us. You expelled them,” he said, referring apparently to European nations.

For Mr. Obama personally, however, he had only warm words, calling on the collected nations to welcome “our son” on the occasion of his first United Nations appearance. “We are content and happy if Obama can stay forever as the president of America,” he said, saying he feared America would return to its old ways after the end of his term.

Oy vay.

Carter’s Racism Charge Sparks War of Words

Perhaps only Jimmy Carter has the nerve to be as blunt as this; his blunt comments on Israeli apartheid drew similarly passionate reactions.

Former President Jimmy Carter’s view that some of the recent protests against President Obama, including the “You Lie!” outburst by Representative Joe Wilson last week, are “based on racism,” has fueled a new war of words over this already charged issue.

The former president first weighed in on Tuesday during a question-and-answer session at the Carter Center in Atlanta. Mr. Carter responded to a question about Mr. Wilson’s eruption by saying that he did believe it was laced with racism. Coupling the Wilson remark with the images in recent weeks of angry demonstrators wielding signs depicting Mr. Obama as a Nazi or as Adolf Hitler, Mr. Carter said: “There is an inherent feeling among many in this country that an African-American should not be president.”

I agree with him, and not always, but I see the racism.

He lamented the tone of disrespect toward the current president, adding: “Those kind of things are not just casual outcomes of a sincere debate on whether we should have a national program on health care. It’s deeper than that.”

The rancor against the person, the fundamental questioning of his legitimacy, the labeling him a socialist, a Nazi, un-American, it all smacks of hatred of the person, and it is quite disturbing. Perhaps the rancor against Bush went too far, too, but his legitimacy wasn't questioned (other, of course, than his winning the 2000 election because of the Supreme Court's decision, itself a topic for debate).

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Mr. Carter’s criticisms drew a sharp response from Michael Steele, the African-American chairman of the Republican party, who called the remarks an “outrage.” In a statement, Mr. Steele said: “President Carter is flat out wrong. This isn’t about race. It is about policy. This is a pathetic distraction by Democrats to shift attention away from the president’s wildly unpopular government-run health care plan that the American people simply oppose. Injecting race into the debate over critical issues facing American families doesn’t create jobs, reform our health care system or reduce the growing deficit. It only divides Americans rather than uniting us to find solutions to challenges facing our nation.”

Carter isn't wrong. It is not the ex-President who injected race into the public domain. And the President's health care plan is not "wildly unpopular" nor is it a government-run health care plan.

By stepping into the debate in such an explicit way, Mr. Carter used labels that the White House and others have clearly tried to avoid in the wake of Mr. Wilson’s remarks and last weekend’s angry demonstration on the Washington Mall. White House aides and some lawmakers had earlier deflected or dismissed questions centered on whether a racially tinged prism was underfoot, in what seemed a concerted effort to try to stay above the fray.

Above the fray? Race is a subject no one has the nerve to discuss openly, for too many people could get offended.

In a television interview on Sunday, Mr. Wilson, who was officially rebuked by the House on Tuesday, dismissed suggestions that his actions were racially motivated. One of his sons sprung to his defense after Mr. Carter’s remarks were publicized, saying his father didn’t have a “racist bone” in his body.

No one is a racist. There is no racism. We live in a racial Eden. The White House will not approach it openly, for it would be political dynamite, and would draw attention away from policies.

Other prominent officials however, like Representative James Clyburn, the Democratic majority whip from Mr. Wilson’s home state, have publicly implored the White House to directly confront what they view as an unseemly element aimed at, in Mr. Clyburn’s words “delegitimizing” the president. Don’t let it fester, he warned.

There are many people who do not accept President Obama's legitimacy, or even his citizenship. Black skin, a Muslim name.

Nearly all agree that the level of hostility aimed at Mr. Obama runs extremely high. Mr. Hoyer termed it unusually harsh. Some attribute part of the volume to the 24/7, Web-and-cable news driven world that we live in. Mr. Hoyer also noted policy divisions, including those who are also angered by how their tax dollars are being used, given the bank and auto bailouts by the government.

What would have been the alternative? And President Bush was not charged with being a socialist.

How are news reported?

President Barack Obama and Secretary of Education Arne Duncan (right) hold a discussion with 9th graders at Wakefield High School in Arlington, Va.

After the right wing raised a brouhaha over President Obama's speech to school kids, and after the White House dropped a phrase the right wing objected to (same phrase used by President HW Bush, about kids helping "the President"), the speech was reported on by all the various media outlets. The Wall Street Journal took its usual slant: Speech to Students Puts Politics Aside is the title of the article. The blurb on page one has it: the speech steered clear of politicking critics had warned about.

Well, it was never about politics, but about education. The critics had criticized something they did not know anything about; they would criticize anything, and everything, the President says and does.

slideshow

Text of Speech

Scary stuff

Seems simple enough: the President will speak to school kids, and give them the tough love needed: work hard, stay in school, be a success. It ain't that simple. Opponents are injecting fear and racism into everythng the President does.

Educators take heat over Obama school speech
By Alan Silverleib - CNN

Call it a lesson in contemporary political discourse. Educators across America found themselves at the center of a political storm this week as conservatives exploded in anger over President Obama's plans to give a speech to the country's schoolchildren.

Conservatives oppose everything Obama.

A stunned White House insisted the address, planned for Tuesday, and accompanying suggested lesson plans are meant simply to encourage students to study hard and stay in school.

But some parents said they aren't buying it. They said they're convinced the president is going to use the opportunity to press a partisan political agenda on impressionable young minds.

Some parents? Just what is that? Can that be quantified?

"Thinking about my kids in school having to listen to that just really upsets me," a suburban Colorado mother, Shanneen Barron, told CNN affiliate KMGH-TV in Denver. "I'm an American. They are Americans, and I don't feel that's OK. I feel very scared to be in this country with our leadership right now."

Text: We're Americans. Subtext: He's black, and not an American. Very scared? About what?

School administrators are caught in the middle of the controversy. Some have decided to show the president's speech, while others will not. Many are deciding on a class-by-class basis, leaving the decision in the hands of individual teachers.

GOP leaders have not shied away from the debate. Florida Republican Party Chairman Jim Greer released a statement Monday accusing Obama of using taxpayer money to "indoctrinate" children. "As the father of four children, I am absolutely appalled that taxpayer dollars are being used to spread President Obama's socialist ideology," Greer said.

Here it is: socialist ideology.

"The idea that schoolchildren across our nation will be forced to watch the president justify his plans ... is not only infuriating but goes against beliefs of the majority of Americans, while bypassing American parents through an invasive abuse of power."

Justify his plans? How the hell does he know that?

Nonsense, the White House replied. "The goal of the speech and the lesson plans is to challenge students to work hard, stay in school and dramatically reduce the dropout rate," an administration spokesman said. "This isn't a policy speech. It's a speech designed to encourage kids to stay in school."

White House officials said that Obama's speech, the text of which will be available on the Web on Monday, is not unprecedented.

In 1991, President George H.W. Bush delivered a nationally televised speech to students from a Washington school, encouraging them to say no to drugs and work hard.

Spreading what ideology then?

Charles Saylors, president of the National Parent Teacher Association, said the uproar over the speech is sad. "The president of the United States, regardless of political affiliation, should be able to have a presentation and have a pep talk, if you will, to America's students," Saylors said.

Exactly.

Some of the controversy surrounding Obama's speech stems from a proposed lesson plan by the U.S. Education Department to accompany the address. An initial version of the plan recommended that students draft letters to themselves discussing "what they can do to help the president."

The letters "would be collected and redistributed at an appropriate later date by the teacher to make students accountable to their goals," the plan said.

Under pressure from conservatives, the White House agreed the plan was not artfully worded and distributed a revised version encouraging students to write letters about how they can "achieve their short-term and long-term education goals."

The controversy is the latest example of how sharply polarized political debate has become.

The White House is not doing well: in trying to be too accommodating, they have lost the initiative and given the right wing every opportunity to scream socialism. They should simply press on, and damn the opposition.

polling director. "Ninety percent of Americans who identify with the president's party approve of him, but 85 percent of those who belong to the opposition party disapprove," said Keating Holland, CNN's"In that kind of environment, almost nothing Obama does is immune from politics."

Fear of Medical Rationing Unfounded

Fear is, in essence, by nature, irrational. Let someone say something to trigger fear, and rational discussion becomes simply impossible. Republican operatives know this, and have exploited it for political gain. Their issue is not winning an argument, but dealing a defeat to the black guy who's president.

August 25, 2009
Policy Experts Call Fear of Medical Rationing Unfounded
By Reed Abelson

“Rationing.”

It is what many people say they fear most from an overhaul of the health care system — the prospect of the federal government’s limiting the medical care they can receive.

Even some people who now have private health insurance through their employers have expressed this concern in opinion polls and public forums. They say they worry that the enormous price tag for providing care to tens of millions of additional Americans will eventually force everyone else to make do with less.

Is that a realistic fear?

Policy experts say people are rightly concerned about the nation’s health care costs. But they also say there is nothing in the current proposals in Washington to suggest that the country is likely to embark on a system of medical rationing anytime soon.

Those fears, the experts say, seem to stem from talk of a government-run health plan or proposals for government-sponsored research to determine which medical treatments are most effective. But few health policy experts see the likelihood of lawmakers’ adopting some sort of new system in which government bureaucrats decide whether someone’s grandfather can get his hip replaced or a wife can have her cancer treatment paid for.

“I don’t think all of this fast-forwards to something called a national rationing program,” said Paul H. Keckley, the executive director for the Deloitte Center for Health Solutions in Washington, a unit of the Deloitte consulting firm. “Our culture is not going to allow that.”

And people who worry about the government’s playing such a role may not remember that even now private insurers make decisions “about what is medically necessary and what is not,” said Mike Thompson, a principal in the health care practice of the consulting firm PricewaterhouseCoopers. The private insurers, Mr. Thompson said, might decide that a certain cancer treatment was experimental, for example, and refuse to pay for it.

What is most likely under a health care overhaul, Mr. Thompson said, is that people may initially have a harder time finding a primary-care doctor as more insured people seek treatment from the same number of doctors. Even if no one is denied care, he said, “if it takes longer to get an appointment, it certainly feels that way.”

Paul Ginsburg, the president of the Center for Studying Health System Change, a nonpartisan research group in Washington, said he was more concerned about the opposite of rationing: that lawmakers do not seem to be focused enough on controlling costs, by making sure people do not receive unnecessary care or unproven treatments.

People should be more worried about what will happen if none of the legislation addresses the current inefficiencies of a system in which people do not receive the right care at the right time, said Peter Lee, who oversees health policy for the Pacific Business Group on Health in California, an alliance of big employers.

“It is a huge concern to add 50 million Americans to a health care system that does not have its financial house in order,” Mr. Lee said.

If nothing is done, he said, “health care is going to break the bank of not the only federal government but of every household in America.”

From Hookers to Health Care

Sen. David Vitter seemed finished after his brush with the D.C. Madam, but his new ploy to provoke the Obama-hating town-hall mobs just might get him re-elected.










Socialism? Can anybody spell Medicare? Social Security?

ObamaCare? Legislation is being crafted in Congress, not by the black guy (well, not openly, anyway, something those placard-holders may have trouble grasping.)

While Democratic members of Congress confront indignant town-hall crowds opposed to President Barack Obama’s health-care policies, Republican Sen. David Vitter is enjoying a Louisiana love fest. Vitter is barnstorming through the Bayou backwoods, hosting town-halls meetings before packed houses of ferociously anti-Obama audiences. They come to praise rather than shout. Billed as public forums to discuss Obama’s health-care proposals, or what Vitter has derisively referred to as “Obamacare,” the pre-screened events appear to be functioning effectively as surrogate campaign rallies for the scandal-scarred senator’s 2010 reelection bid.

Black health care, is perhaps what the Senator and his supporters are discussing.

"Please know that this and any other angry mob is welcome at my town-hall meetings whenever you want to come,” Vitter declared, bringing the audience to its feet with a raucous ovation. In the back of the chapel, an elderly woman waved a placard reading, “Send Obama & congress back to USSR.”

Whip up the natives. The USSR? Perhaps the news has not yet reached the Louisiana backwoods, but the Soviet Empire is no more.

Many of those attending Vitter’s town halls have been shepherded to the events by local chapters of TeaPartyPatriots.org, a supposedly grassroots network of national activists that happens to “partner” with the health-care and insurance industry-funded lobbying firm Freedom Works, which has directed angry mobs to Democratic events. At a town-hall meeting on August 10 in Jefferson Parish, many local constituents were reportedly turned away while Tea Party activists were allowed to enter. When the event concluded, Vitter rushed out of the back door and away from the press and his constituents, guarded by a phalanx of police officers.

Why didn't he invite the mob over to his place for some iced tea?

Vitter has good reason to fear public scrutiny. Had he not pre-screened his audiences, some wily constituent might have asked the senator to address his affair with Wendy Cortez, a high-priced New Orleans escort, or asked how his name showed up on the client list of Jeanne Palfrey, the so-called DC Madam, who killed herself in May 2008 after being convicted of money laundering. The constituent could have framed the question in terms of the health-care debate by asking Vitter why he reportedly wore a condom when he visited Cortez but subsequently tried to introduce an amendment barring health-care providers that offer free STD testing and contraception from receiving federal funds.

Well, he is white, at least.