SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: geode00 who wrote (182268)2/21/2006 7:57:39 PM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 281500
 
Taking On the Chickenhawks

by Ruth Conniff /

Published on Tuesday, February 21, 2006 by The Progressive

Will the dozens of Democratic vets running for office from coast to coast reverse the Republican revolution and help take back Congress? Or will they be Swift Boated and shot down by the Republican chickenhawks who managed to defeat John Kerry, Max Cleland, and John McCain by impugning their patriotism and military service?

The Democrats are excited about candidates who can neutralize their Republican opponents' tougher image. But, as a New York Times Week in Review piece pointed out Sunday, "After John Kerry's loss in 2004, some Democratic strategists have given up on the idea that a candidate's military experience alone would level the playing field on the issue of national security."

If the Dems are going to retake the House, they need more than a bunch of military uniforms, Representative Rahm Emmanuel, Democrat of Illinois (who is in charge of the Democrats’ House races in 2006) rightly points out in the Times piece. Actually, one thing they need is the opposite of Emmanuel's tentative Republican-light position on Iraq.

Military veterans who speak out strongly against this Administration's wasteful, dishonest, and incompetent war-making policies have the potential to galvanize voters. Witness the excitement stirred up by Representative John Murtha's demand that U.S. troops be withdrawn from their sitting-duck position in Iraq. Murtha's critique of the war let loose an explosion of agreement from a public that has been way ahead of the Democratic Party on this issue for a while.

Or, to take a contrary example, remember the failed Kerry campaign, in which the trappings of military service and patriotism became a hollow shell for a politician who waffled on his record of opposition to the war in Vietnam and supported--with many qualifications and qualms--the war in Iraq. The Republicans zeroed in on Kerry's ambivalent record.

The appearance that his campaign was trying to hide something bothered voters. The Kerry campaign wanted to trade on the candidate's war record by suppressing his opposition to the war in which he served. Instead, had Kerry had the guts and foresight to vote against the Iraq war, he would have been able to take the moral high ground against an opponent who dodged service in Vietnam and later sent thousands of Americans to die in an equally ill-fated mission.

It IS possible for Democratic veterans to gain a special edge in the upcoming election. Opposition to the war in Iraq is at 55 percent in the polls. Even voters who chose Bush in the last election are troubled by this President's complicated relationship to the truth, and his cavalier attitude about the safety of U.S. troops. This year's candidates can point to cuts in veteran's benefits, and lack of proper protective gear, and an overall lack of planning in the war, as evidence of the Republicans’ negligence.

In a February 9 Pew poll, 50 percent of registered voters said they were planning to vote for Democrats this year, while only 41 percent said they were planning to vote Republican. The time is right for a strong opposition to drive home the message that Americans--including American troops--deserve a better government.

The flood of evidence that the Republicans have bungled Iraq, botched Katrina relief, and used the sacrifice and suffering of American victims of terrorism--at home, on 9/11, and abroad, in Iraq--to hoard power for themselves, makes this a ripe political moment.

Even an event like last week's ridiculous Cheney hunting accident is revealing, prompting Senator Chuck Hagel, Republican of Nebraska, to remark that had the Vice President been in the military, he might have learned something about gun safety. Like Murtha, with his reference to Cheney's five draft deferments, Hagel was speaking to a public that understands the sacrifice gap between the troops and the Administration that got us into the mess in Iraq.

Democrats are missing a "golden opportunity," pollster John Zogby recently commented, pointing out that opposition to the party in power is at a peak. Yet the Democrats don't seem to be able to catch the wave.

Two years ago, the Democrats tried putting on a uniform, and they learned that it wasn't enough. This year, they've got a lot more uniforms running. What they need is for the political courage of the party leadership to match the battlefield courage of the candidates.

The lesson for this year's veteran candidates: shoot straight, and draw a sharp contrast with an Administration that doesn't.



To: geode00 who wrote (182268)2/21/2006 9:54:52 PM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 281500
 
Rx for GOP doom

salon.com

The Medicare drug program disaster could cost Republicans control of Congress.

By Joe Conason

If any single issue crystallizes the defects of Republican rule in the age of George W. Bush that issue is the Medicare Prescription Drug Improvement and Modernization Act. (It's also the single issue most likely to lead to the end of Washington's one-party regime.) Spawned by a White House under the influence of the pharmaceutical and insurance industries, rubber-stamped in a Congress bought by lobbyists for those interests, and imposed on the nation with prevarication, duplicity and outright bribery, the drug bill represents everything Americans hate about the federal government today. Within its 400-plus pages, the act contains something to offend everyone, including a potential majority of voters in November.

Congressional leaders still proclaim that problems with the new program will be worked out and smoothed over well before Election Day, but they know that their political survival is threatened. On Tuesday, a delegation of some 30 Republican senators attended a closed meeting with Health and Human Services Secretary Mike Leavitt and Medicare administrator Mark McClellan (the older brother of the White House press secretary) to discuss how to prepare a political defense against anticipated Democratic attacks against the program. Meanwhile, newly elected House Majority Leader John Boehner has admitted that the program's inauguration was "a disaster."

As elderly citizens across the country continued to struggle with the program's complexities and inequities last week, the Bush White House quietly admitted that its own cost estimate over the coming decade has risen from $400 billion to $1.2 trillion.

That rather substantial budgetary revision brings back bad memories of the bill's passage in 2003, when the administration concealed its true expense -- and, as the press revealed in 2004, threatened to fire Medicare's chief actuary, Richard S. Foster, if he spoke honestly about that subject. (Foster's secret $600 billion estimate has now turned out to be too modest by half.) The Government Accountability Office later determined that the silencing of Foster was not only unethical but probably illegal as well.

Unlawful suppression of central facts is merely one aspect of the bill's disgraceful history, however. The entire tale deserves to be told again, now that people are suffering the consequences and may, perhaps, pay closer attention this time.

For years before Bush ascended to the Oval Office, politicians had debated how to deal with the rapidly growing expense of prescription drugs, which play a more critical role in medicine today than when Medicare began in 1966. The essential question was whether to use the Medicare program's market power to negotiate lower prices with the pharmaceutical industry, as other nations do, so that senior citizens could afford their medication -- or to let the industry write the legislation to protect its enormous profits, as Congress ultimately did.

That is an antiseptic description of what turned out to be an extraordinarily dirty deal.

Many months before Bush introduced his bill in 2002, Big Pharma and its squadrons of lawyers and publicists mobilized to control the legislative process. Spending on lobbying rose sharply to more than $78 million, with a total force of 623 lobbyists that outnumbered all the members of the House and Senate. (Most of those lobbyists were former members of Congress, former staffers of congressional committees or former federal officials who had passed through the "revolving door.") PhRMA, the industry's dominant trade association, increased its own spending that year by 50 percent, from $7.5 million to $11.3 million.

Among the key lobbyists for the industry was the Alexander Strategy Group, the small but powerful firm linked to both Tom DeLay and Jack Abramoff. Alexander Strategy shut down last month after Tony Rudy, who formerly worked for both the super-lobbyist and the former Republican leader, and who had registered as a drug lobbyist, was named as "Staffer A" in the Abramoff indictment.

In the meantime, of course, the pharmaceutical industry continued to provide millions of dollars in contributions directly to members of Congress as well as the president and the Republican National Committee. But the influence campaign became still more insidious as the industry reached inside the Bush administration.

While Medicare administrator Thomas Scully oversaw passage of the bill for the White House, he was simultaneously discussing possible job offers from pharmaceutical and insurance companies. Scully, the bureaucrat who had threatened Foster to keep him silent about the program's likely costs, accepted a well-paid position as a lobbyist at Alston & Bird, a Washington firm that represents several drug companies. (The Bush administration gave him a "waiver" from the usual ethics rules that forbid such crooked conflicts of interest.)

After the compromised Scully had performed his part, the Republican congressional leadership took over. When the bill reached the House floor, Democrats were not permitted to offer a single substantive amendment. Roll-call voting on the final bill was held open for three hours instead of the normal 15 minutes so that DeLay and his deputies would have extra time to break arms and stuff pockets. At least one reluctant Republican, Nick Smith of Michigan, who finally voted "yea," later said that DeLay -- whose wife was paid by Alexander Strategy Group -- had both threatened him and offered a $100,000 bribe in the form of promised campaign contributions to his son, who planned to run for the father's House seat.

And again, the industry reached inside to fix the process. Billy Tauzin, the Louisiana Republican who chaired the House Energy and Commerce Committee and served as the bill's lead sponsor, soon retired from politics to accept one of the most lucrative jobs in Washington. The smooth-talking Tauzin became the new president of ... PhRMA!

To Washington insiders, this tawdry chronology is not news. To voters who rarely see how the legislative sausage is made in the capital, however, the manufacturing of the hated Medicare drug bill could prove decisive. They're already angry, and they don't even know what happened to them yet.