Seriously, who cares about bipartisanship?

"Any American who makes less than $80,000 a year and doesn't support health care reform is just f------ stupid." That's how a former Bush White House official summed up the health care debate for me last night.

"Do Americans really think that having their 'choice' of private insurer means shit?" he said. "I mean unless you are wealthy, how does the present system help you? Why aren't people demanding reform? Does it not occur to people that they could lose their jobs in this economy? I mean how f------ stupid are we as a country?"

This morning I see the New York Times has an article on "bipartisanship" and the health care debate. Now there's a five-syllable mouthful: concept to which news media professionals almost certainly attach far more importance to than do either politicians or the public at large. According to the article:

Should Mr. Obama abandon efforts to reach out to Republicans, he risks damaging his appeal among independent voters, who have a history of being put off by overt partisanship.

Please. What is the evidence for this claim? The article provides none. I guess we're just supposed to accept this kind of reasoning as meaningful political discourse because the New York Times reports it.

Personally, I don't like the word because I don't think "bipartisanship" explains Washington politics. For example, I do not think the word accounts for the big story last week: namely, the halfheartedness of President Obama's effort to "sell" health care reform. As my friend said, the case for introducing a government-administered insurance option is strong. Nevertheless, Obama seemed reluctant to make this idea the centerpiece of his argument.

An important observation is buried near end of the Times article:

The Senate Finance Committee right now offers the lone hope for the White House in its search for Republican support. That is also where the trade-off is particularly stark. It would mean giving up on some big principles, like a public plan to compete with private insurers, in return for what could be just a few Republican votes, a veneer of bipartisanship.

It is the prospect of that trade that has some Democrats worried and is another source of pressure for the White House.

Does speaking of a sacrifice of "big principles" explain what is really at hand? Ultimately, the question is not whether Obama Administration puts stock in principles, but whether it's committed to a plan that achieves meaningful results for the middle class. However complicated the legislation, the intended outcome ought to be easy for the Democrats to articulate.

I can't help but wonder if Obama is afraid to promise something that he has no intention to deliver.

Read more...

Was arrest of Henry Louis Gates, Jr. justified?

Concerning the arrest of Henry Louis Gates, Jr., an African-American professor at Harvard University, I concur with the sentiments expressed by Eric Adams, a former police officer, quoted today in the NY Times:

In New York, State Senator Eric Adams, a retired New York City police captain and co-founder of the group 100 Blacks in Law Enforcement, said the rules for dealing with someone differed by setting.

“If it’s their house, they’re allowed to call you all sorts of names,” Mr. Adams said. “A man’s house is his castle. If they’re in the street, and they don’t listen to the officer’s warning, ‘Sir, you’re being disorderly,’ you can lock them up at this time.”

Not that the officer necessarily should, he said.

“Let’s say I do a stop,” Mr. Adams said. “I question, and it’s nothing. ‘Sir, I’m sorry, I apologize.’ What’s the reason for staying, if the anger’s directed at me? If it’s directed at a third party, a storekeeper, I stay.”

But if the officer himself is the provocation, the officer should leave, he said, and added that Sergeant Crowley did not use such common sense.

Adams' view concurs with the opinion I expressed yesterday in a blog post.

Read more...

Sarah Palin: Iceberg Gate

There's speculation that Sarah Palin resigned because a new scandal was about to break. Could it be House Gate?

Read more...

Sarah Palin: House Gate

Village Voice broke this story. Essentially, House Gate concerns the question as to whether public funds, materials, and manpower for building the sports center in Wasilla had been used build the Palin family's new house:

Todd Palin told Fox News that he built the two-story, 3,450-square-foot, four-bedroom, four-bath, wood house himself, with the help of contractors he described as “buddies.” As mayor, Sarah Palin blocked an effort to require the filing of building permits in the wide-open city, and there is no public record of who the “buddies” were. The house was built very near the complex, on a site whose city purchase led to years of unsuccessful litigation and, now, $1.3 million in additional costs, with a law firm that’s also donated to Palin collecting costly fees from the city.

But that's not the only alleged scandal involving Sarah Palin. For the most comprehensive list of the other ones, consult this timeline.

Hat-tip Mudflats

Read more...