« Democracy: it's dangerous | Main | Toothless dog gums man »

Mightabeens

By Owen Paine on Friday April 28, 2006 05:00 PM

The problem is not the promise lines that get you elected -- it's the actions once elected.

Here's my favorite case: Clinton I believe might have altered the course of the donk parade, if in early '93 he'd stumped for a bottom-up payroll tax cut. I believe not only would he have gotten it, but he might have re-labeled the donkery for a generation as the working stiffs party, and without triangulating a damn thing.

But as he's mentioned many times since, the very notion of a working family tax break was ruled out by Wall Street Bob Rubin -- from day one.

So we got instead... that's swell but don't tell, and Hillary's health folly. And so the '94 housecleaning was a lock.

Comments (6)

J. Alva Scruggs:

Hey! what kind of commie talk is that? Don't you know that when the far-left wing of the Democratic Party runs the party, we lose?

Al Gore: swore to randomly expropriate honest shareholders; pour encourager les autres, as he put it. Loser.

John Kerry: stormed into the Fed one day, pointed at poor old Alan Greenspan and said, "sometimes four walls are three too many". Loser.

Tom Daschle: rallied the Senate to defeat the Patriot Act and deny President Bush extraordinary war powers. Now he's slinging hash in a greasy spoon. Loser.

I could go on, but the point is clear. The radical tendency is killing the party!

jsp:

jas:


my god what a sub textual article

the lex and shooooomeee
hour

whjat's with all
the blatant
odd couple contrasting

sure both "urban"

both into
" brash...big shouldered .."politics

but one's

late and sloppy ....

while the other's

"prompt....precise "

for heaven sake

"a former ballet dancer"

Hillary had spent six years on the board of directors of Wal*Mart. That was a clear indication of where her friends were--and they weren't working stiffs. And when her hubby was running for office in 1992, he wasn't talking about "workers" or "the poor", he talked constantly about the "middle class" (whatever it is that is supposed to mean.) He never aimed his campaign at those at the bottom of the socio-economic scale.

J. Alva Scruggs:

That article really is sublimely rich with awful, disgusting signifiers, JSP. It's a gold mine, and perfect of its kind.

I like the glee with which Nagourney anticipates the lean, agile and hungry one joining hands with the lumbering, fat and hungry one. Will they eat each other? Or go on to victory, and then eat each other?

Tim D:

Speaking of Hillary and health care reform, here's an excerpt from a Socialist Worker interview with Dr. David Himmelsteing, professor at Harvard Medical School and cofounder of Physicians for a National Health Program:

CLINTON ACTUALLY rejected a straightforward national health insurance system in favor of a system that would have virtually required every American, except for very upper-class people, to enroll in corporate-dominated HMOs. He didn’t think he could take on the HMO industry.

I say that not only on speculation, but based on meeting with Hillary Rodham Clinton. When I presented the case for national health insurance to her, she said to me, “Can you name any force capable of taking on the $300 billion dollar-a-year HMO and insurance industry? You make a convincing case, but where’s the power to do that?” When I said, “How about the president of the United States leading a crusade of the American people?” she asked me for something real.

So I think it was clear that Clinton made a political calculation in not championing national health insurance and in trying to strike a deal with the private insurance industry. And the end result of the deal was two things. One is that the Democrats abandoned their four-decades-long commitment to national health insurance, so that by the time Al Gore ran for president, national health insurance was struck from the Democratic Party platform for the first time since the 1940s.

The second is that the Democrats endorsed managed care as a strategy for health care, which said to investors that investment in managed care was safe, stimulating an enormous growth of the power of the HMOs and a reconfiguring of the health care system to one dominated by corporate giants.

Clinton, maybe inadvertently, gave the go-ahead for the corporate transformation of the health care system.

Now, now, Tim D. Hillary didn't call for the legalized summary execution of anyone who couldn't pay his/her medical bills. That proves inescapably that Democrats are superior to Republicans.

So there.

Post a comment

Note also that comments with three or more links may be held for "moderation" -- a strange term to apply to the ghost in this blog's machine. Seems to be a hard-coded limitation of the blog software, unfortunately.

About

This page contains a single entry from the blog posted on Friday April 28, 2006 05:00 PM.

The previous post in this blog was Democracy: it's dangerous.

The next post in this blog is Toothless dog gums man.

Many more can be found on the main index page or by looking through the archives.

Creative Commons License

This weblog is licensed under a Creative Commons License.
Powered by
Movable Type 3.31