There is a lot of talk about the recent special election in Massachusetts being a referendum on health care reform. It was not. In fact, Massachusetts has already moved comprehensive reform and 98% of Massachusetts residents have health insurance as a result. It was a referendum on a particular candidate in a climate in which people, hard pressed and frustrated by the economy, are impatient for change.
And nothing has changed.
People still need quality, affordable health care. Our friends and loved ones are still being denied care for pre-existing conditions. We still need to address the health care crisis, and cannot continue to allow medical expenses to bankrupt our country's families and businesses.
It's time to finish reform right. There are two things you can do right now to help:
Below is the letter to the editor I submitted to Connecticut Post, a truncated sanitized version of which was printed today:
Earlier this month Hearst Newspapers' chief political correspondent for Connecticut Ken Dixon wrote on his blog: "Got A Bright Idea, like Hang the Lawmakers?" Really. He was referring to an upcoming meeting of the Commission on Enhancing Agency Outcomes (CEAO) chaired by Democratic State Senator Gayle Slossberg, which is looking for ideas to streamline government and cut spending. That was Mr. Dixon's notion of a bright idea: "Hang the Lawmakers". Later, attributing criticism to "a couple of the more sensitive, or possibly guilty, lawmakers", Dixon retracted his remarks. But referring to hanging lawmakers, then stating that those who complain are "guilty", actually makes his words more threatening.
Though Mr. Dixon might have thought he was being funny, he wasn't. And it is certainly not the sort of comment that should ever come from the chief political reporter for Hearst Newspapers, the largest newspaper company operating in Connecticut. Certainly not today, given the rise in violence and threats of violence across the country.
Right-wing provocateur Hal Turner is being prosecuted for threatening the lives of federal judges and elected Connecticut state legislators on his webcast. He stated, "Let me be the first to say this plainly: These judges deserve to be killed," according to the June 24 indictment. "Their blood will replenish the tree of liberty. A small price to pay to assure freedom for millions." The FBI indicated that Turner threatened the lives of State Senator Andrew McDonald (D-Stamford) and State Representative Michael Lawlor (D-East Haven). As the late Capitol police chief Michael J. Fallon remarked,
"(Turner) is inciting others through his website to commit acts of violence and has created fear and alarm. He should be held accountable for his conduct."
In light of Chief Fallon's remarks, should Mr. Dixon be treated differently?
Let's also recall that Dr. George Tiller, a doctor in Kansas who provided abortion services, was murdered earlier this year. Far-right Fox News pundit Bill O'Reilly had for years demonized Dr. Tiller, repeatedly labeling him "Tiller the baby killer" and once said,
"..if the state of Kansas doesn't stop this man, then anybody who prevents that from happening has blood on their hands."
O'Reilly didn't actually tell people to murder Dr. Tiller, but he used inflammatory language that could be interpreted to support violence against him. The weak-minded can be egged on to violence by this sort of inflammatory speech in the media.
Mr. Dixon's "hang the lawmakers" remark was made in an atmosphere of rising threats of right-wing domestic terrorism. The Department of Homeland Security's Office of Intelligence and Analysis issued a report in April warning that, "Right wing extremists may be gaining new recruits by playing on their fears about several emergent issues. The economic downturn and the election of the first African American president present unique drivers for right wing radicalization and recruitment." Death threats against President Obama have surged, according to author Ronald Kessler, running 400% higher than against George Bush, and stretching the Secret Service to its limits.
Mr. Dixon's "hang the lawmakers" remark is especially troubling coming from a journalist, a profession whose practitioners are themselves particularly vulnerable to violence. The Committee to Protect Journalists lists 795 journalists as having been killed around the world since 1992, including 93 in 2009 alone, making this the deadliest year ever. And journalists are far more likely to be killed investigating political and economic corruption than to be killed in war zones. So for Mr. Dixon to display such blindness to the violence perpetrated against fellow journalists, while hinting that violence against politicians is a "bright idea," is shameful and irresponsible.
Mr. Dixon might try to suggest that he was only joking. But no one should find it funny, not his readers, and certainly not Hearst management. In these times, no one should be making jokes about killing anyone, least of all journalists suggesting violence against government officials.
Sunday debate: America in Afghanistan Good can mitigate horror
Published: 09:22 p.m., Friday, December 4, 2009
Comments (0)
Larger | Smaller
Let me begin this opinion piece by advising you the reader of my personal perspective.
I was born into a Republican family in 1953, and to this day I consider Dwight Eisenhower a fine president. As a retired General, he had an unique perspective on the subject of war and peace. Like other Generals who preceded him, Robert E. Lee comes to mind as a good example, Eisenhower knew what it was like to send American children into battle to slaughter and be slaughtered. He understood the true cost of war, and understood that nations should use war only as a last resort.
Additionally, I consider myself to be a pacifist -- at least as much as a person can attempt to be. Many Christians like myself, many Jews, many Muslims, many Buddhists, many Atheists and many agnostics also share this spiritual goal.
Along with many other Americans who respect Republican Presidents like Dwight Eisenhower, Abraham Lincoln and even Gerald Ford, I watched in horror as the National Republican Party went from being the party of the aforementioned three presidents to being the party of Jerry Falwell, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, Glen Beck, Sarah Palin and George W. Bush.
I mention George W. Bush in particular, because he reacted in a very measured way immediately after September 11th, 2001, setting out what appeared to be a careful strategy to attack those who attacked us.
As we all know, that strategy was thrown by the wayside when America was lied into an invasion and occupation of Iraq by the Bush Administration.
Regardless of individual Americans' political persuasion, it is nearly universally agreed that Afghanistan was the war we should have waged, and Iraq became a misadventure which has caused the death of over 4,000 of America's children, fathers, mothers, grandfathers and grandmothers.
It also caused debilitating physical and mental injuries to tens of thousands American heroes. A president who avoided military service during Vietnam could never know the horrors of war the way that Generals Eisenhower and Lee knew them.
It also has caused the death of hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi citizens through the bunker-buster bombs dropped during "Shock and Awe" and six years of occupation and a civil war that followed the end of the Saddam Hussein's regime.
It also emboldened the government of Iran, which no longer has its long-standing enemy Saddam Hussein counter-balancing them.
It has added what will likely be well over a trillion dollars to our national debt, as the Bush Administration and a Republican Congress never factored the cost of the war into the annual budget.
Back to the question of Afghanistan.
Afghanistan had been a wound festering for seven long years when President Barack Obama replaced George W. Bush as commander in chief.
What had been an opportunity for both America and for Afghanistan -- had become a country without strong leadership, a country without other strong international allies, a country without hope.
President Obama, as he pledged during his campaign for President, had shifted America's focus from Iraq to Afghanistan. As troop levels have been reduced in Iraq, troop levels in Afghanistan have been increased.
Progress has been slow. The cost has been high.
Americans like myself have been saddened by the deaths of both American service people and Afghan civilians. And my personal feelings -- all the while knowing that Jesus Christ would not agree with me on this matter -- is that the good which can come out of this effort to help the people of Afghanistan may mitigate even the horror of war.
I stand with good and dear friends of mine at Rogers Park on Saturday mornings from 10:30 until noon, led by the heroic group Veterans for Peace.
There is some obvious disagreement on President Obama's decision, but I personally believe that if America's allies do their part to help America and Afghanistan, Afghanistan can be the country it has never been in its thousands of years of history.
As I've said to both those who agree with me and those who disagree with me -- if they (our allies) don't, we can't win.
The Soviet Union fell partly because of its misadventure in Afghanistan, and I don't want my country to suffer the same fate.
Until we know how those other nations will react, I believe this is worth the effort.
David A. Stevenson is a Bethel resident and a participant in weekly anti-war protests at the War Memorial in Danbury.
Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC) who embarrassed himself last night by shouting out "You lie" during President Obama's health care address to the nation turns out to be a major recipient of campaign money from the health care industry. What a coincidence!
Raw Story reported today that Wilson's largest donors are from the health care industry. Over his congressional career, Wilson collected:
$244,196 from health professionals
$86,150 from pharmaceutical companies
$73,050 from insurance companies
$68,000 from hospitals and nursing homes.
Embarrassing yourself before the nation, your congressional colleagues, and your president while carrying water for the health care industry - PRICELESS!
I guess that would be fine except these are the clowns that haunt little children's nightmares. Like them we think to laugh at their funny antics until they spin and reveal that they are not the funny big shoe clown but rather the crazy bug-eyed razor teethed nightmare clown.
Too many of us have acted as if the clowns we see in the media questioning the presidents citizenship, simultaneously calling him a fascist and a socialist (say what?!?), and just all around being disrespectful are harmless.
Newly installed Greenwich Public Schools superintendent Dr. Sidney Freund has decided to cave in to exactly ten right-wing crazies and to refuse to air President Obama's live broadcast to Greenwich students on Tuesday. Dr. Freund stated that students will not view the broadcast live as scheduled, but "at a date to be determined". According to Superintendent Freund, he decided to postpone viewing the president's address "primarily (because the) school district needs time to ensure that technical capacity is in place." Yet that assertion appears to be false, since a Greenwich Time article quotes Freund as stating that he spent 30% to 40% of his time last week dealing with this issue. Clearly he had time to deal with the technical issues surrounding the viewing, especially given that the school system was able to arrange for live viewing of President Obama's inauguration in January. He also put forth the excuse that he needed to have an "instructional team" develop "age-appropriate activities to accompany viewing of the president's address."
What a crock! The president didn't ask school systems to come up with activities to accompany the address, but merely to permit American students to view the address on Tuesday.
According to Greenwich Time, Dr. Freund received exactly ten- yes, ten- emails protesting permitting students to hear their president address them, and five in favor of preparing the schools to permit students to view the address. Those few communications spurred Dr. Freund to engage in "careful consideration of all perspectives", after which he decided to pull the plug on the president of the United States.
In essence, it only takes a tiny handful of crazies to make new superintendent Freund act like the head of a school system in Alabama, or the Texas panhandle, or some other place full of uneducated, right-wing extremists. There is little excuse for Dr. Freund's cop-out, because he served for years in nearby Dobbs Ferry, New York.
And Congressman Jim Himes thinks Superintendent Freund is full of crap also. Congressman Himes issued the following statement on Sunday night:
"As a Congressman and as a father to two young girls (who attend Greenwich public schools), I urge all local schools to provide their students the chance to listen to the President's address to school children on Tuesday. Denying children the rare opportunity to hear directly from their President is a disservice to them as students and as young citizens. The President will encourage students to do what we all know is right: to work hard to prepare themselves to be successful citizens in the greatest democracy in the world.
"Whether we agree or disagree with everything the President says, this is a rare chance for classes and families to discuss and debate the President's speech and to develop the thoughtfulness and critical faculties necessary for success in an increasingly complex and challenging world."
It is all the more shameful, because Dr. Freund couched his language announcing that students would not be permitted to view the Tuesday address in language suggesting that they would: "District to View President's Address to Students", was the title of his press release. He also states, "this is a teachable moment", but just not on the scheduled day of Tuesday, apparently. Yet the truth was precisely the opposite.
And, according to the Greenwich Time article, Connecticut's State Commissioner of Education Mark K. McQuillan:
sent a memo to school superintendents Friday calling the controversy over the president's speech 'truly unfortunate,' 'inaccurate' and 'beyond the definition of responsible civil discourse'"
When the state superintendent of schools refers to postponing viewing of the president's address "beyond the definition of responsible discourse", and our United States congressman calls it a "disservice" to our young people, you know that Dr. Freund has come to a lousy decision.
Will Greenwich students be shown the president's address "at a date to be determined"? Frankly, I doubt it. A couple more right-wing nutjobs will send him emails, and he'll determine that it has to be put off yet again for another to be conjured up reason.
It is a very bad beginning for the new Greenwich Public Schools superintendent. Too bad, because he's the seventh superintendent in just over ten years.
There has been a lot of talk this week about the surprising move by Walmart to publically support President Obama’s health care reform plan, supposedly positioning themselves as a
leader in the fight to bring health care to all Americans. As we mentioned in a post on our blog
yesterday, this might be easier to swallow if Walmart had any history of leading by example. Instead, they usually do just the opposite.
Given
Walmart’s long record of trying to build a positive
reputation on ineffective work-arounds to health care coverage
for employee, the recent revelations about sacrificing quality for cheap perescription drugs, and their deceptive PR campaign that severely overstated their workers’ health
care coverage, it’s not hard to understand our skepticism. [get the details in the extended entry]
What a difference an election can make. Do you remember what Chris Shays said in 2006 when asked about torture at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay?
"Now I've seen what happened in Abu Ghraib, and Abu Ghraib was not torture," Shays said at a debate Wednesday.
Then when the feces hit the fan, Shays wiggled a little:
"It was outrageous, outrageous involvement of National Guard troops from (Maryland) who were involved in a sex ring and they took pictures of soldiers who were naked," added Shays. "And they did other things that were just outrageous. But it wasn't torture."
Democratic Sen. Christopher Dodd understood the truth. He was quoted at a press conference with Farrell as saying:
"It's not because it was some pornography ring. I'm surprised anyone would make that suggestion," Dodd said. "The suggestion that somehow this was something less than that is, again, almost bordering on the bizarre."
In contrast to ole Both Ways, new 4th district congressman Jim Himes appeared before the Westport DTC recently and showed that not only does he understand what torture is, but also that it's wrong to do nothing about the torturers of the Bush administration. This from WestportNow:
Congressman Jim Himes told the Westport Democratic Town Committee at Town Hall tonight that he supports a more thorough investigation into harsh interrogations of terrorism suspects under the Bush administration. Saying it was one area where he disagrees with President Barack Obama, Himes said: "I will support efforts in Congress to put together a commission of inquiry" into CIA actions.
As the movement to prosecute the CIA torturers as well as the higher-up's who ordered it gains momentum, let's hope that Congressman Himes comes out strongly for prosecution as well.
(PS: Sorry for the lack of links. I'm having trouble copying them in to this posting from the computer I'm using.)
WASHINGTON -- U.S. Sen. Chris Dodd appears to have looked everywhere but his home state to fuel what pundits anticipate will be one of the most hotly contested races in the nation in 2010.
The five-term incumbent reported raising just $4,250 from five Connecticut residents during the first three months of the year while raking in $604,745 from nearly 400 individuals living outside the state.
While incumbents often turn to special interests for early campaign fundraising, Dodd's out-of-state total seems unusually high and comes at a time when he has been plagued by poor approval ratings among state voters.
Massie Ritsch, a spokesman for the Center for Responsive Politics, which tracks federal campaign contributions, said Dodd's low percentage of in-state funding strikes him as unusual.
"Historically, there is no shortage of campaign money that comes out of Connecticut," he said. "In 2008, Connecticut ranked 14th, contributing $53 million to all federal candidates and parties." Ritsch also noted during his last re-election campaign Dodd, a Democrat, raised 30 percent from within Connecticut's borders.
The meager state fundraising effort also seems antithetical to a campaign strategy to rebuild confidence among Connecticut voters that he is on their side.
SNIP
But the Boston Globe reports that President Obama will help the embattled CT senator --
[cross posted at yourct.com] Stamford Mayor and Democratic Gubernatorial front-runner Dan Malloy was invited to the White House along with about 80 municipal executives from across the country to discuss with the President implementation of the stimulus moneys just passed and signed into law.
Excerpt:
"We have urban areas -- Stamford, Bridgeport, Hartford, New Haven -- that are job-producing centers," Malloy said. "We need to get the money quickly."
Malloy said Obama has delivered on his pledge to work with mayors by including them in the economic recovery bill. Money is available for weatherization, community policing, schools and road repairs. But much of it will have to pass through the state first -- and that worries Malloy. "A lot depends on whether Connecticut state government can do its job and get the money in our hands. My fear is they won't," he said. Malloy ... sees a potential conflict between the governor's office and state legislature over how to disburse the stimulus funds.
"The last eight years was roughly the equivalent of 40 years in the desert," Malloy said. "This is the first time I've been back to the White House since Clinton was president." Malloy said the Bush administration would turn to the governor to see their input, but Clinton and Obama see mayors as their allies.
Hey y'all, greetings from the mountainous western region of North Carolina, the "Old North State"!
I'm on the ground in Asheville, NC today. My old roommate is getting married tomorrow, and I figured it might be worthwhile to fly down a day early and spend some time at the local Obama office. This is a hilly and very lovely part of the country, at the peak of its fall foliage. Perhaps not as brilliant of foliage as New England at its peak in a brilliant year, but in some years some years the humidity or the occasional Nor'easter reduces New England's leaf peeping index, and I think Carolina wins this year.
But I digress.
I called the Asheville office after booking my flight, and they told me to show up anytime so I did. The office was buzzing all day, with dozens of phonebankers, several canvassers (not trick-or-treating!) a couple kids and a little dog. They put me to work right away calling Obama supporters to check if they had already voted; early voting in North Carolina runs though 5 PM Nov 1. (Saturday). Almost all of the contacts were super friendly (of course, being both North Carolinians and pro-Obama) and it was a lot of fun. Some had already signed up to volunteer so we were just checking they knew about their neighborhood field office so they didn't all pile into downtown Asheville at the same time, and several hadn't volunteered but were interested in getting started. I get the sense that this is a huge GOTV operation here. The only thing that went wrong was an Epson printer that started malfunctioning when a new ink cartridge was installed. I tried to download the drivers and get it to work, but alas could not.(Epson sucks!)
And now, I present for your enjoyment, a homage in the style of 538's Sean Quinn's On the Road, which is itself an homage to Kerouac's On the Road. Here is joesaho on the Road in North Carolina:
Sean has been to battlegrounds all across the country from the Southwest to Pennsylvania, and has come to one sweeping conclusion: McCain's GOTV is nonexistent compared to Obama's. From my small sample of one Obama office, I can say the enthusiasm and activity level is as high as expected here.
As far as other happenings in NC, sitting Senator Elizabeth (Liddy) Dole is down a few points in the polls to Senate challenger Kay Hagan. Dole used to be in charge of the NRSC and was viewed as doing a pretty pathetic job, at least until her successor threw a hissy fit about the problems Republicans have been having in their ranks. Now sinking in the polls, Dole has gone on the attack by accusing Hagan of being a godless heathen. This is a patently dishonest attack, possibly the worst of the 2008 cycle. The response, from as far away as Kansas City, has been pointed. Campbell Brown took Dole to task as well:
"The information in this ad is so ridiculously misleading, and yet Senator Dole is standing by it and continuing to raise questions about Hagan's so-called godlessness on the campaign trail," Brown said. "Is this really what it has come down to? We are fighting two wars, our economy is a disaster, and Senator Dole's message to voters is to falsely accuse her opponent of not believing in God?"
Later, addressing all politicians who are using such distortions in a desperate effort to "save your jobs," Brown pleaded: "Just say no to your own craven ambition. Just cut it out. Reclaim your dignity! And with only a few days to go, please please just tell us what you think you can do to get this country back on track."
And on the state level, I just saw a hilarious, if nonpartisan, TV ad (watching MSNBC in the hotel) for agriculture commissioner. I don't remember the guy's name but his tagline was "Where would we be without agriculture? Naked and hungry - not a pretty sight!" And the Buncombe county Democrats had a neat ad where all the county-level candidates are shown individually, walking with a very purposeful gait. At the end of the ad, they all meet up and shake hands. When I see it I hear the music to A-Team in my head for some reason...
The Washington Monthly Saturday reports that Joe Lieberman is starting to try to rewrite history as he begins to backtrack on his criticism of his party's nominee, Barack Obama. Steve Benen in his Political Animal column says:
LIEBERMAN HASN'T BEEN PAYING ATTENTION TO HIMSELF.... Joe Lieberman adopted the role of Republican attack dog early on, but as the election draws near, he's hoping the political world has a very short memory.
Lieberman, a self-proclaimed "independent Democrat" who was chosen by McCain to make the case against Obama at the Republican National Convention in early September, said his comments have been within bounds.
"When I go out, I say, 'I have a lot of respect for Sen. Obama. He's bright. He's eloquent.'"
My hunch is, Lieberman sees the direction of the political winds, and hopes to convince Democrats that while he's been a McCain sycophant, he's always been "respectful" towards Obama.
Lieberman, in other words, has to hope Democrats haven't been paying any attention at all. The party is supposed to forget, for example, when Lieberman argued that Obama doesn't put "country first."
And the time Lieberman said it was a "good question" to ask whether Obama is a "Marxist."
And the time Lieberman ironically accused the Obama campaign of "sleazy tactics."
And the time Lieberman, at the Republican National Convention, falsely accused Obama of trying to undermine the troops
"Respectful"? Nice try, Joe.
The article is here. The comments alone are worth the visit!
UPDATE ctblogger: Last night, Keith Olbermann calls out Lieberman for his new fond "respect" for Obama.
It seems that way back in 1980, Ronald Reagan laid out the crucial questions of this year's presidential race and in the end, he appears to have endorsed Barack Obama for president:
Exactly two weeks before Election Day, the New Haven Obama-DeLauro campaign office will be receiving some very special guests - Senator Chris Dodd, State Senator Joe Crisco, and Democratic State Chair Nancy DiNardo.
3:00pm
900 Chapel Street
Go and ask a question, volunteer, or just lend your support!
I missed most of the Himes-Shays debate apart from a few minutes here and there (I had the radio on in the car while driving between errands) but caught a funny exchange at the end with Shays's campaign director Michael Sohn.
Sohn's take was that Himes only had "generic ideas and cookie cutter comments", as if acknowledging the economic dire straits facing Connecticut voters is somehow "cookie cutter". And yet when asked to highlight Shays's performance, Sohn gave...
...a cookie cutter response about experience, bipartisanship (awesome) and understanding the "realities" of how Congress works.
It strikes me as more than a bit odd that the last Republican Congressman in New England (he made a joke about being an "endangered species") who makes no effort to conceal his desire to hitch his wagon to Barack Obama in what is unequivocally viewed as a change election, would make a point to remind voters that Congress is an unresponsive, unproductive institution. If anything, Obama voters who really do believe in change will come to the conclusion that changing the Presidency is not likely to be enough. We've heard the "experience to get things done" argument before, and the bipartisanship argument before, in Lieberman's 2006 campaign. I don't think it's gonna work for Shays this time around, no matter how tightly he pretends to cling to Obama.
In 2004, I traveled to Pennsylvania and New Hampshire to volunteer on the ground for John Kerry. I picked those states because they were perceived as swing states and they were within a few hours driving distance from Connecticut. Kerry won both of those states, which is gratifying, but obviously Ohio is where the election was decided. I wish I went to Ohio.
In retrospect, my trips to New Hampshire were not a productive use of my time. Whether Kerry won or lost New Hampshire and since Florida was really out of reach, winning Ohio was the whole ballgame.
The contest of Obama vs. McCain has redrawn the map this year. States not in play in 2000 and 2004 are very close this year. When deciding whether and where to volunteer out of state, it is important to consider the Electoral College scenarios.
On the 45th Anniversary of Martin Luther King Jr.'s "I Have a Dream" speech, an African-American will accept the Democratic Party's nomination for President of the United States.
1963:
"We have come to this hallowed spot to remind America of the fierce urgency of now. ... Now is the time to make real the promises of Democracy." - Martin Luther King, Jr.
2008: An American Prayer: "This is the time, so finish what you've started."
Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro is guest blogging from the Democratic Convention for My Left Nutmeg (as well as CT Local Politics). Please make sure to express your gratitude on Congresswoman DeLauro taking time to share her experiences from the convention with the MLN community --ctblogger
I want to thank you for letting me share my Democratic Convention experience with you and appreciate all of your feedback and comments.
Everywhere I turn at this convention continues to reinforce how Barack Obama and Joe Biden have the leadership to bring the change this country needs.
I just spoke with reporters about the wage gap between men and women. I was sitting at this table with Senator Debbie Stabenow of Michigan , and Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, and Lily Ledbetter - a woman you are all likely familiar with as the face and voice of pay discrimination. As she sat with us, she reminds us of why we fight so hard for equal pay and why this election matters. But as you would expect, with a topic of women and the economy, we veered into a broad range of topics....the state children's health insurance program, social security, reproductive health, and taxes.
As you would expect, on each of these issues, John McCain would continue the failed policies of the Bush Administration. He is so out of touch with middle class Americans. Even in the face of Lily Ledbetter, McCain continues to say he doesn't believe in the wage gap. But what do we expect from a man who cannot keep track of how many houses he owns.
Quite contrary to Barack Obama. When I was fighting to pass the Paycheck Fairness Act, Barack was right there - applauding the bill's passage in the U.S. House of Representatives with me. It really is not that surprising - just look at the inspiration Barrack Obama has in his daughters and his wife, Michelle, (who was phenomenal at the Convention last night).
In this weekend's Sunday Times Magazine, David Leonhardt will present an interesting and insightful analysis of Barack Obama's economic ideology. Many people may not agree with all the ideas in his plan, but I think it is clear that Obama has put forth a serious plan to move this country forward and he has put a great deal of thought into this highly complex issue. This is in stark contrast to John McCain who doesn't appear to see any problems with the disastrous economic stewardship of the current administration - his plan mainly consists of more Bush tax cuts for the wealthy.
The challenge for Obama will be to package his ideas in a way that will appeal to an electorate that doesn't really understand economic issues and that in the past has been taken in by the GOP's simplistic solutions to complex issues.
A few highlights:
The International Monetary Fund has described the [US economic] situation as "the largest financial shock since the Great Depression." ... The fact that the economy grows - that it produces more goods and services one year than it did in the previous one - no longer ensures that most families will benefit from its growth. ... Most families are still making less, after accounting for inflation, than they were in 2000.
John McCain's economic vision, as he has laid it out during the campaign, amounts to a slightly altered version of Republican orthodoxy, with tax cuts at the core. Obama, on the other hand, has more-detailed proposals but a less obvious ideology.
"My [Obama's] core economic theory is pragmatism," he said, "figuring out what works."
Obama's agenda starts not with raising taxes to reduce the deficit, as Clinton's ended up doing, but with changing the tax code so that families making more than $250,000 a year pay more taxes and nearly everyone else pays less. That would begin to address inequality. Then there would be [Robert] Reich-like investments in alternative energy, physical infrastructure and such, meant both to create middle-class jobs and to address long-term problems like global warming.
Compared with many other Democrats, Obama simply is more comfortable with the apparent successes of laissez-faire economics. ... So his policies often involve setting up a government program to address a market failure but then trying to harness the power of the market within that program. This, at times, makes him look like a conservative Democrat.
"The market is the best mechanism ever invented for efficiently allocating resources to maximize production," Obama told me. "And I also think that there is a connection between the freedom of the marketplace and freedom more generally." But, he continued, "there are certain things the market doesn't automatically do." In other words, free-market policy isn't likely to dominate his agenda; his project would be fixing the market.
The Tax Policy Center, a research group run by the Brookings Institution and the Urban Institute, has done the most detailed analysis of the Obama and McCain tax plans, and it has published a series of fascinating tables. For the bottom 80 percent of the population - those households making $118,000 or less - McCain's various tax cuts would mean a net savings of about $200 a year on average. Obama's proposals would bring $900 a year in savings. So for most people, Obama is the tax cutter in this campaign.
The second criticism is that Obama's tax increases [on the wealthy] would send an already-weak economy into a tailspin. The problem with this argument is that it's been made before, fairly recently, and it proved to be spectacularly wrong. When Bill Clinton raised taxes on upper-income families in 1993, his supply-side critics insisted that he would ruin the economy. As we now know, Clinton presided over the longest economic expansion on record, the fastest income growth most workers had experienced in a generation and the disappearance of the federal-budget deficit.
For all his skills as a storyteller and a speaker, he has not settled on a compelling message about how to put the economy on the right path.
If you don't want to wait for Sunday's Times, the full article can be previewed here:
What a difference an election can make. Do you remember what Chris Shays said in 2006 when asked about torture at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay?
In contrast to ole Both Ways, new 4th district congressman Jim Himes appeared before the Westport DTC recently and showed that not only does he understand what torture is, but also that it's wrong to do nothing about the torturers of the Bush administration. This from WestportNow:
Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro is guest blogging from the Democratic Convention for My Left Nutmeg (as well as 
MLN is powered by