Insuring The Elderly, Insuring The Poor

Insuring The Elderly, Insuring The Poor | The New Republic



Copyright 2010 (text only). The Zaftig Redhead. All Rights Reserved.

The Arsonist and the Fireman

Copyright 2010 (text only). The Zaftig Redhead. All Rights Reserved.

Maddow Show Does Great Riff Against Lieberman -- the Wanker

Sen. Joe Lieberman (Whatever-CT) has announced his plans to join Republicans in filibustering a public option -- and a weak ass one at that -- in the Senate Democratic health insurance reform bill. Way to go, Joe, for showing everyone what a wanker you really are. Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) let Lieberman keep his chairmanship and caucus with the Democrats because he "trusted Joe." Just another mistake in a series of whoppers by the Majority Wuss, um, Leader. Why didn't you get a commitment from Lieberman that he would stick with the party on procedural votes? You know, the party that provides the chairmanship he so adores -- and is now using to undermine a Democratic president? Hello??

Lieberman makes me crazy. He really does. This is the first time in history that a member of one party is crossing party lines to break a 60 vote majority. And Lieberman's move just gives cover to other conservative Senate Democrats -- and Blue Dog House members where we are now hearing that there are not enough votes for the public option -- to wuss out despite the public's wish for a public option. You know, 34 Senate Democrats signed a letter saying that a health care reform bill without the public option is not acceptable. That number, 34, is more than enough to take away Joe's chairmanship. If it were me, I'd throw him out of the caucus too. Next he'll be campaigning against Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT).


As a devotee of The Rachel Maddow Show, I was delighted to see her do this fabulous riff on Joe. You said it, Sister.

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

Copyright 2009 (text only). The Zaftig Redhead. All Rights Reserved.

Please Stick a Fork in Lieberman: Isn't He Done Yet?

President Truman's old adage that there are no friends in politics has been put on vivid display this election season. Even in CampClinton, long time allegiances don't seem to hold water anymore. And, just as we did four years ago, we had the Democratic presidential nominee (John Kerry, for those of you who've blocked it out) diss his former running mate (my guy, John Edwards) and endorse someone else -- the junior senator from Illinois.

Which, of course, brings to mind my personal fav, Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT), who turned his back on Democrats (again) when he endorsed Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) for president. Never mind that Independent Joe caucuses with the Democrats or that it's our majority which provides him with the committee chairmanship (aka, bully pulpit) that he loves so much. It seems sadly appropriate that Joe gave the Dems the cold shoulder from the frozen tundra of New Hampshire.

Joe's really a piece of work when you think about it. Let's not forget that good ol' Joe lent his weighty support to McCain instead of home state Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT), as is traditional -- yeah, remember, Joe, when Dodd was the only senator who endorsed your wannabe, also-ran candidacy back in 2004, when you had your own delusions of grandeur about the Oval Office having your name on it?

Now, I know Dodd endorsed Ned LaMont, Joe, after he beat you in Connecticut's Democratic primary -- as did the rest of the Democratic party. You lost the party's nomination fair and square and for good reason, Joe. Dodd was just playing by the rules. But paybacks are hell, huh? I guess you learned about that when your former running mate Al Gore endorsed Gov. Howard Dean over your two-faced self four years ago. Bet that stung.

What's next, Joe? A McCain-Lieberman ticket? Hmmm.... well, you share bylines, write legislation in tandem, why not crisscross the country together in a vain attempt to show your mutual obsession with a failed war policy really ain't so bad after all? While you say you have no ambitions to be VP (sure, Joe, 'cause your politics over the past few years haven't demonstrated an ounce of personal ambition), Sen. McCain credits good ol' Joe's endorsement with helping him out in New Hampshire, putting the wheels back on the Straight Talk Express.

So, he owes you, right Joe? Especially if you keep honing your skills at playing the gratuitous hitman role against the Dem's presumptive nominee, Barack Obama. The lastest bit about Obama being Hamas' candidate of choice was inspired -- and you even said it with a straight face. Way to memorize those talking points, Joe. I mean, hey, if you can show the Maverick up front that you're willing to be his lap, um, I mean, attack dog, he'll have to move you to the top of his Veep list, right?

Well, don't bet on it, Joe...there are no friends in politics, as you've amply demonstrated. Don't count on being rewarded for this latest sucker punch, Joe. I wasn't shocked by your endorsement/defection to Team McCain. And I wasn't shocked when you lumped your former party's frontrunner in with militant extremists. In fact, you're becoming depressingly consistent. It's no wonder you endorsed John McCain -- none of the other Democratic candidates asked for your support, and who could blame them?

I just wish Majority Leader Harry Reid would get a clue, and boot you out of the Democratic caucus once and for all. Becasue for you, Joe, I really hope that what goes around really does come back 'round again -- and slaps you upside the head. At the very least, Reid should take your chairmanship away and give it to a senator who will actually vote Blue in November, as he recently hinted.

But the sad fact is, for now, we still need your sorry ass to keep the Dems in power. But that won't be the case next year, Joe. The Democrats are looking good to take back some prime Senate seats, and hopefully that means your double agent days are numbered. It couldn't happen to a nicer guy.


Copyright 2008. The Zaftig Redhead. All Rights Reserved.

Who's the Better Bet Against McCain?

There are clear and obvious differences between both Democratic candidates and Republican frontrunner-again John McCain. Lots of folks, however, think that Clinton and Obama are similar enough on the critical policy points -- despite style differences -- that the larger question facing party loyalists is which of the two makes a stronger showing against the Maverick.

One of the biggest bones of contention between Democrats and Republicans is, of course, the war in Iraq and the overall conduct of the War on Terror. While I think both Democrats could score easy points against McCain's intractable position, there is no denying that Obama has an advantage here. It's a no-brainer for McCain (or some swiftboat-like entity) to accuse Clinton of being just as complicit in the move towards war because she also voted yes on the Iraq War resolution. Obama, on the otherhand, can say McCain showed poor judgment on the Iraq War from the get go, and Mr. Surge has no defense against that. (As Obama said in the most recent debate -- sure, Clinton has experience from day one, but it's better to be right from day one.) Democrats looking to cast their vote strategically might not want to let this obvious rhetorical and policy advantage slip through their fingers by choosing a nominee that also voted for the war.

Of course, the war has a flip side as a voting issue. There is no denying we are waist-deep into the mess, and the idea of experienced leadership to pull us out of it is not only attractive but reasonable. In times of war, Americans have often been reassured by turning to veterans. The Republicans have a bona fide war hero in McCain. While the top two Democrats don't have military experience, Clinton does have a lot of experience, period -- which could be an important counterpoint to a nation weary of war that's also in the process of selecting a new president. Of course, there are still lingering gender stereotypes about a woman as commander-in-chief, but I think Clinton's confident manner puts a lot of them to rest.

There is another factor to consider. The right-wing base -- including the all-important talk radio royalty as well as TV talking heads and bloggers -- has its knickers in a twist over the idea of riding the Straight Talk Express all the way to the White House. They are scared spitless that McCain is a closet liberal -- there are even attack ads running to that effect, designed with an eye towards derailment. Interestingly enough, while Republicans like to bash Clinton as a lefty liberal, it's Obama who has the truly liberal record. In fact, for 2007, the National Journal rated Obama as the most liberal senator in the U.S. Senate -- compared to a relatively middle of the pack composite rating of 16th for Hillary. This liberal tag is sure to be used against Obama, but then again it will be used against Clinton, too, however inaccurately -- so this one's a draw. Besides, I'm tired of running from the word liberal like my mama's coming after me to wash my mouth out with soap. It's time we reclaimed it, with pride.

Unfortunately, about the only thing that can rally the entire vast right wing conspiracy behind John McCain might be -- Hillary Clinton. I've always thought the way she's been demonized was grossly unfair, not to mention inaccurate -- then again, considering the source, truth-telling was not exactly the first priority. I mean, what has Hillary really done to earn such animosity, besides stand by her hugely successful, philandering husband? Wait, maybe it's the hugely successful husband part -- despite the mud and special prosecutors and impeachments thrown his way. Hillary Clinton is polarizing by association, because right wingers have spent the better part of two decades unsuccessfully trying to convince the American people that Bill Clinton was the devil incarnate. Fair or foul, the right wing can't wait to go to war against the Clintons again -- and they will marshall resources the likes of which we've never seen to stop a Hillary presidency. Conversely, if it's Obama versus McCain in the final round, they just might dislike McCain more -- due to simple muscle memory. But, let's face it, the reflex to hate Hillary is stronger. No way around it -- it's a liability that has got to be factored into the equation.

Perhaps most importantly, voters are overwelmingly in favor of change this election cycle. If Obama is running, he is clearly the candidate of change. If Clinton is running, McCain could almost make an argument that you would get more change out of a Maverick White House than you would under another Clinton administration. It's that whole Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton dynasty thing. We've had a Bush or a Clinton on the ticket since 1980 -- think about it. Then again, Hillary's assertion that it took a Clinton to clean up after the first Bush, and it well might take another Clinton to clean up after the last Bush, has a certain appeal.

Then again, all this strategic analysis about who's a better bet against McCain might not be as relevant as in prior election cycles. This year, I think it's universally understood that a pure base strategy loses in the end. You need independents, and you need the youth vote who -- while more reliably Democratic, also has an independent streak. Given the whole John Kerry debacle, I'm not sure that voting for the person you think is the most electable is the best choice. I say, go with your gut -- and go for a historic first in the White House in November, as long as it's a Democrat.

Independents, Don't be Fooled: McCain is NOT a Moderate

John McCain is in many ways an admirable man. He's a war hero who survived the Hanoi Hilton with his dignity intact, and has served his country through the armed forces and in elected office. On some key issues, like campaign finance reform and immigration, he has tried to work across the aisle to seek a workable compromise. He prides himself on being a straight shooter, telling you what he thinks whether you like the taste of the medicine or not -- and a few times after he subverted his straight-talking instincts (like the confederate flag issue in South Carolina a few years ago), he has even righted his course and admitted his politically-induced lip service. And he has been blunt and unwavering in his disdain for U.S.-government-sanctioned torture, not hiding his deep disappointment that the United States has sunk to that new low. All of these things make for a good public servant and a good politician. As I said, John McCain is an admirable man. However, he is absolutely, postively, NOT moderate in his politics -- not even a little bit. And we'd all do well to remember that when we consider the kind of president he would make -- especially you independents.

I know some of you would like to believe otherwise, especially since both of our Democratic candidates have managed to make themselves look pretty unattractive of late (though they were better in tonight's debate). And now that McCain seems to have a good head of steam -- even the beginnings of an aura of inevitablity -- you might be looking at him seriously for the first time, all over again. But don't let the endorsements of the New York Times, Rudy Guiliani, and Arnold Schwarzenegger fool you. Remember that McCain also has the hearty support of such stauch social conservatives as Govs. Tim Pawlenty (R-MN) and Rick Perry (R-TX), fellow senators Sam Brownback (R-KS) and and Tom Coburn (R-OK), and former senator Phil Gramm (R-TX). And for god's sake, don't put any credence in the endorsement of Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT); in fact, that should give you pause. The allegiance of a turncoat is not a valuable statement, nor can it be trusted.

Just take a look at McCain's voting record on progressive issues, on social issues, on labor issues, on education issues, on women's issues. In the 109th Congress, he had a 20% voting record with the American Association of University Women, getting credit for a vocational education vote that went through 99-0. In 2006, McCain had a 7% voting record with the AFL-CIO, having only voted the right way on the Voting Rights Act -- another popular measure that went through largely unopposed. That same year he received a 15% rating from Americans for Democratic Action. There are more voting records on the Zaftig Redhead's main page, where you can guage McCain's support on issues you care about. Take a look, but even on the issues where you might be reassured -- like his vote against the marriage amendment last year -- don't count on the fact that his position will stay firm now that he's got Pennsylvania Avenue on his mind.

Remember that immigration compromise he worked on earlier? McCain is now back-pedaling from that bill -- which he co-authored -- as quickly and as publicly as he can. In truth, he may be one of the bigger flip floppers in the campaign, having seen the error of his ways in 2000 when he had the gumption to skip Iowa and diss the evangelical, conservative block in the Republican party. As a result, on issues like gay marriage to making the Bush tax cuts permanent to repealing Roe v. Wade -- McCain has changed his mind, pandering to the religious right since his speech at Bob Jones University, and even more so the closer he got to the nomination.

On other critical issues, like judicial nominations, healthcare, student aid, broader reproductive rights, pay equity issues and the minimum wage, McCain has been distressingly, depressingly, consistently conservative. This, despite always being a target of the civil rights community as a potential swing vote on the issues that matter most, McCain rarely comes through -- in 2007, only about 15% of the time.

So let's just be clear. Despite whatever appeal he may have as a person, whatever we might rightly admire in his life story and character, no matter how much we might like to have a beer with the man, McCain is a conservative. Indeed, he keeps saying so himself -- over and over and over again, in every Republican debate this campaign season. We should take him at his word on this one, folks. On the issues that matter most to progressives -- from civil rights to reproductive rights, from domestic budget priorities to his selections for the U.S. Supreme Court -- he will be a socially and fiscally conservative president. (NOTE: I do not believe that fiscally responsible and fiscally conservative are the same thing; they are, in fact, very different things.) McCain is not, in fact, all that much different from President Bush in his social positions -- just as McCain is not all that different from the president on Iraq. I don't mean to imply McCain would be anything like the unprincipled leader we have now. But I do believe John McCain would be a consistent president -- consistently conservative. Please, happy voters, don't be fooled -- not if you truly want change this election season.