dajafi wrote:I hadn't heard about this disgraceful action of the Obama administration: quietly paying Jonathan Gruber, an MIT professor of health care economics, while using him as a spokesperson on behalf of the healthcare bill.

Whether the fault is Gruber's for not disclosing or the administration's for pointing journalists to this guy, at least on appearance grounds, this is fully as bad as some of the internal propaganda programs of the Bush administration.

Gruber has been pretty open about his affiliation with Team Obama, tho the July 09 NEJM piece doesn't carry any disclaimer and that's poor form. Most places where I've seen/read him interviewed or quoted (his MIT bio, PBS news shows, for example) have been candid, if not effusive, about his official connections.

EDIT: On more thorough review, I can't say Gruber's performance on full disclosure of his connection with Team Barry is exemplary. Still there are pre- 12/28/09 examples where he does allow as to how he's a paid consultant to the MOST EVIL EFFIN PRESIDENT ANY RIGHTEOUS REACTIONARY REPUBLICAN EVER POINTED A FLABBY FINGER AT:

(Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest form accompanying a Dec 2 09 Gruber commentary on a bit of CBO health reform cost analysis)

drsmooth wrote:not to derail discussion, but in the interest of getting a better handle on the tea deal, I've come across this:

Tea Party Patriots Mission Statement

is this confusing jumble of sentimental revisionist history and bizarro libertarianism really reflective of tea partiers' beliefs? Or is there really even any identifiable there there? I mean:

the increasing national debt is a grave threat to our national sovereignty and the personal and economic liberty of future generations....We believe that it is possible to know the original intent of the government our founders set forth, and stand in support of that intent.

like they know ""the" original intent of the government our founders set forth" as if such a phrase could genuinely mean anything.

No nation ought to be without a debt. A national debt is a national bond; and when it bears no interest, is in no case a grievance.

THOMAS PAINE, Common Sense

In the past week the Coakley campaign/DSCC/DNC/Obama White House have: misspelled Massachusetts in a campaign ad, denigrated their opponent for shaking hands at a hockey game, knocked over a reporter outside a lobbyist heavy fundraiser at a wine bar in DC, suggested pro life Catholics should not work in emergency rooms, used b-roll of the World Trade Center in an ad attacking Brown for ties to Wall Street/bankers, steadfastly denied Obama would go campaign in Massachusetts, decided to send Obama to campaign in Massachusetts.

The DSCC has picked up 15 Senate seats in the last two cycles.

OK you changed my mind

jerseyhoya wrote:In the past week the Coakley campaign/DSCC/DNC/Obama White House have: misspelled Massachusetts in a campaign ad, denigrated their opponent for shaking hands at a hockey game, knocked over a reporter outside a lobbyist heavy fundraiser at a wine bar in DC, suggested pro life Catholics should not work in emergency rooms, used b-roll of the World Trade Center in an ad attacking Brown for ties to Wall Street/bankers, steadfastly denied Obama would go campaign in Massachusetts, decided to send Obama to campaign in Massachusetts.

The DSCC has picked up 15 Senate seats in the last two cycles.

allow me to paraphrase:

"Over a recent period various candidates and political organizations have said various things that seem to contradict one another.

one of those organizations has had a hand in a change in the number of elective seats held in a specific governmental body by a specific party during the last two election periods."

with this sort of incisive commentary, who needs netnews?

Bakestar wrote:OK you changed my mind

Changed your mind about what?

drsmooth wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:In the past week the Coakley campaign/DSCC/DNC/Obama White House have: misspelled Massachusetts in a campaign ad, denigrated their opponent for shaking hands at a hockey game, knocked over a reporter outside a lobbyist heavy fundraiser at a wine bar in DC, suggested pro life Catholics should not work in emergency rooms, used b-roll of the World Trade Center in an ad attacking Brown for ties to Wall Street/bankers, steadfastly denied Obama would go campaign in Massachusetts, decided to send Obama to campaign in Massachusetts.

The DSCC has picked up 15 Senate seats in the last two cycles.

allow me to paraphrase:

"Over a recent period various candidates and political organizations have said various things that seem to contradict one another.

one of those organizations has had a hand in a change in the number of elective seats held in a specific governmental body by a specific party during the last two election periods."

with this sort of incisive commentary, who needs netnews?

The first list isn't 'various things that seem to contradict one another' it's 'an awful lot of rookie mistakes for one campaign and its allied organizations to make in a week.'

This sort of buffoonery is made all the more surprising since the Democratic Senatorial campaign arm has had one of the most successful runs of any political organization ever over the past two election cycles.

It would be like the Phillies, coming off consecutive historic seasons, getting no hit by the Nationals of all teams twice in the opening series next year, and losing the other game of the series thanks to errors from Utley and Rollins. Still time for them to save the season though.

It would be like the Phillies, coming off consecutive historic seasons, getting no hit by the Nationals of all teams twice in the opening series next year, and losing the other game of the series thanks to errors from Utley and Rollins. Still time for them to save the season though.

REMEMBER THAT 2009 ASTROS SERIES HUH YEA HUH YEA I BET YOU DO I JUST BET YOU DO AND WHAT DID THAT AMOUNT TO NOTHING IS WHAT YEA HUH THAT'S WHAT I THOUGHT YOU'D SAY

Vic Snyder, D-AR will not seek re-election. He's the most liberal member of the AR delegation, I think. Wendell Griffin and 2 other Republicans are already seeking the Republican nomination, and there are several potential Democrats who will run, including Clintonite and current Lt. Governor (and liberal and reasonably popular) Bill Halter.

TenuredVulture wrote:Vic Snyder, D-AR will not seek re-election. He's the most liberal member of the AR delegation, I think. Wendell Griffin and 2 other Republicans are already seeking the Republican nomination, and there are several potential Democrats who will run, including Clintonite and current Lt. Governor (and liberal and reasonably popular) Bill Halter.

its Tim Griffin. Sorry, Congressman Tim Griffin.

jerseyhoya wrote:In the past week the Coakley campaign/DSCC/DNC/Obama White House have: misspelled Massachusetts in a campaign ad, denigrated their opponent for shaking hands at a hockey game, knocked over a reporter outside a lobbyist heavy fundraiser at a wine bar in DC, suggested pro life Catholics should not work in emergency rooms, used b-roll of the World Trade Center in an ad attacking Brown for ties to Wall Street/bankers, steadfastly denied Obama would go campaign in Massachusetts, decided to send Obama to campaign in Massachusetts.

The DSCC has picked up 15 Senate seats in the last two cycles.

its shocking the number of mistakes they made. they were never prepared for a fight and once things got close they started making bad decisions, compounded by worse decisons.

I still am preparing myself to be very let down on Tues Night, but I dont see how Coakley has a better chance of 60/40 of winning right now. In 43-44 other states she would be DOA

if scott brown wins tuesday I will post here naked on wednesday

i swear i'll do it

make up your mind massa2shiettes

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmNpcMHwOa8&feature=player_embedded[/youtube]

I think she's just a ruhtard

jerseyhoya wrote:
I think she's just a ruhtard

schilling is a schilling fan

so technically she's not completely incorrect

I somehow ended up on a list where I received email from Neil B. Turner and Orly Taitz. I was pissed off about the content of the email to begin with but after I googled Taitz I was outright fuming. (These two are part of the "birther" movement, for those, like me, who have/had no idea who they are). I am trying to decide whether to just delete or to send them a big fuck off response; probably best just to delete.

traderdave wrote:I somehow ended up on a list where I received email from Neil B. Turner and Orly Taitz. I was pissed off about the content of the email to begin with but after I googled Taitz I was outright fuming. (These two are part of the "birther" movement, for those, like me, who have/had no idea who they are). I am trying to decide whether to just delete or to send them a big $#@! off response; probably best just to delete.

Orly; orly?

The fact of Orly Taitz's existence becomes more bearable when you implement a mental Find and Replace that turns her into "Oily Taint."

As for the MA election, I'm tempted to ascribe what jh pointed out to the absence of Chuck Schumer at the DSCC, but I know that's just one factor among many. Coakley obviously is an atrocious candidate (the Schilling thing... good god); it's a mystery to me why people who don't have any fondness or aptitude for retail politics decide to be politicians. There are so many other ways to seek ego gratification, or even "power"; why not leave it to the non-inept.

And I'm terrified about this election--not because of what it is in itself; even in Massachusetts, I don't think it's a shock that a skilled politician beats an awful one in a special election--but because of the larger implications if health care reform (whatever one thinks of its merits) dies.

We have huge problems in this country that have festered and worsened for a very long time. Health care, complex as it was and is, should have served as a stretching exercise for some of those bigger issues, the most important of which are the long-term financial outlook and climate change. Instead, we saw an unprecedentedly nihilist Republican minority solely interested in "winning the fight" rather than solving the problem (and thus keeping their own helpful ideas and priorities, such as tougher cost containment measures and tort reform, on the sideline rather than getting them into the legislation by the accepted path of negotiation). Plus a Democratic majority that first failed to realize the new state of things, wasting months with fucking Grassley and Enzi and Snowe before moving on, and then snarled itself in the usual net of venality (the "centrists") and "principled" myopia (historically illiterate House liberals).

The president had a good idea in isolation--letting Congress, basically de-balled during the Bush years, take the lead as it's supposed to do under the Constitution (and as Clinton didn't allow them when Democrats last tried to do health reform in 1993-94)--but one that failed to take into full account the reality that we've moved toward a de facto parliamentary system, or that he was a lot more popular than they were. (Still is, though they're both way down.) As tactical mistakes of first-year presidents go, this wasn't an awful one, but it's going to cripple him for the rest of his term.

Our system is complex. It's not supposed to be easy to make big change. But as the public increasingly expects instant gratification and fails to acknowledge that "the other side" might ever have a point--indeed blocks itself off from any information source that might convey a contrary view--frustration with the system's inability to deliver will mount. This sets the stage for radical, destabilizing, ultimately tragic developments.

dajafi wrote: even in Massachusetts, I don't think it's a shock that a skilled politician beats an awful one in a special election--

you must be thinking of someone else b/c she's running against Scott Brown

drsmooth wrote:

dajafi wrote:I hadn't heard about this disgraceful action of the Obama administration: quietly paying Jonathan Gruber, an MIT professor of health care economics, while using him as a spokesperson on behalf of the healthcare bill.

Whether the fault is Gruber's for not disclosing or the administration's for pointing journalists to this guy, at least on appearance grounds, this is fully as bad as some of the internal propaganda programs of the Bush administration.

Gruber has been pretty open about his affiliation with Team Obama, tho the July 09 NEJM piece doesn't carry any disclaimer and that's poor form. Most places where I've seen/read him interviewed or quoted (his MIT bio, PBS news shows, for example) have been candid, if not effusive, about his official connections.

EDIT: On more thorough review, I can't say Gruber's performance on full disclosure of his connection with Team Barry is exemplary. Still there are pre- 12/28/09 examples where he does allow as to how he's a paid consultant to the MOST EVIL EFFIN PRESIDENT ANY RIGHTEOUS REACTIONARY REPUBLICAN EVER POINTED A FLABBY FINGER AT:

(Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest form accompanying a Dec 2 09 Gruber commentary on a bit of CBO health reform cost analysis)

Maybe I'm (relatively) unique here, because I'd certainly heard of Gruber and read his positive assessments of the different iterations of the bill on multiple occasions, and his thumbs-up statements bolstered my own confidence that this legislation, warts and all, was worth passing. But I hadn't heard anything to the effect that he was taking payment from the administration until yesterday when Glenn Greenwald mentioned it on his blog. And perhaps this is a case of my monocle being too prone to pop out, but I found it pretty ugly.

Greenwald is back on the subject today:

People can characterize the magnitude of the failings here however they want ("huge" or otherwise), but the indisputable fact is that Gruber was running around publicly and favorably commenting on the President's health care plan -- while the White House and its allies were centrally relying on him and characterizing him as an "objective" analyst -- at exactly the same time that the administration, unbeknownst to virtually everyone, was paying Gruber many hundreds of thousands of dollars. The DNC alone sent out 71 emails touting Gruber's analysis without even once mentioning the payments. Those are just facts.

Nobody suggests that there's anything wrong with hiring Gruber to perform modeling analyses and paying him to do so. That's all perfectly appropriate; I'm all in favor of the Government's retaining genuine experts (as Gruber is) for analysis. Nor has anyone claimed that Gruber changed his views because of these payments. The issue is the non-disclosure, and -- most serious of all -- the misleading attempts by the White House and others to depict him as being "objective" and independent rather than disclosing that he was being paid a significant amount of money by the very party whose interests his advocacy was advancing...
[...]
Non-disclosure issues are, in my view, so important precisely because Washington is rife with these sorts of overlapping, hidden relationships. All kinds of people holding themselves out as independent commentators are, in fact, being secretly paid or otherwise rewarded by those whose interests they're serving. Many times -- as is the case with Gruber -- there is nothing wrong with the relationship itself. It's the total lack of transparency that becomes misleading.

Just think about what the Republicans did for virtually the entire Bush administration. They refused ever to criticize anyone on their own side for ethical or even legal transgressions. They believed that even when the evidence of wrongdoing was overwhelming, the fact that the people involved were on the Good Side -- or were striving for good outcomes -- meant that it was "no big deal." They not only refused to police their own side, but vehemently attacked anyone on their side who tried to hold Republicans to some standards. And the outcome of all that was clear and predictable: the party became a cesspool of ethics-free, anything-goes sleaze and corruption. That's the inevitable result of an "it's-okay-when-we-do-it" mindset. The fact that the Obama administration isn't in the same league as the prior one in terms of corruption (they're plainly not), or that the Gruber matter isn't a "huge scandal" (it isn't), is irrelevant. If it's wrong, it's wrong, and in terms of exposing and condemning it, that should be the end of the consideration.

The Massachusetts Democratic Party does not like losing. Holy shit what an over the top piece of crap flyer this is.