Lieberman is just another Zell Miller in the making.

His votes for policies contrary to the Democratic party mainstream are bad enough.

But his catering to the rabid right (Fox, etc.) and his ass-kissing for Bush put him beyong the pale.

Send his ass to BushCo where his stench won't be noticed.

Posted at May 7, 2006 4:32 PM in response to Lieberman/Lamont

Hummm. How about this humanitarian intervention with private troops?

Three or four Divisions of Liberal Moonbats against a company of 101st Fighting Keyboarders. Put them (and us and US) out of their misery.

I'm sure Oregon could raise a brigade for the cause: (motto: Green, Clean, Liberal and Madder Than Hell)

Posted at April 26, 2006 2:03 PM in response to Intervention for Hire

I agree with the comments above that early-years support for Israel was fully justified.

But neither Israel or Egypt (which also gets a huge US subsidy) should be receiving the currently out-of-proportion foreign aid we provide. In both cases, the money seems to allow the countries to continue policies which don't seem to lead to progress for their countries, but for different reasons. In Israel, the huge cost of making settlements in occupied territories can be said to have been paid by the US. Was this really in either the US interest or Israel's?

Under Bush the US has lost whatever 'fair broker' influence we had between the Israelies and the Palestinians - purchased in part with foreign aid for both groups - although greatly weighted toward Israel.

We need to wean Israel from their subsidy - it cannot continue forever and it partly underwrites their arbitrary behavior.

In Egypt's case, from afar (and not well informed), it appears that democracy is not much closer today than 20 years ago, and their economy is not much better either.

But all this talk is just talk. We won't change course in foreign aid for either country because that aid is fully entrenched in both their societies and ours.

Posted at April 21, 2006 1:02 PM in response to Wading A Bit Deeper

In the application of basic science, having the teams in place and working with the researchers is an enormous advantage.

Getting to market first is always a plus, and rarely do late-arrivers overtake the first-responders (Microsoft excluded).

So, yes, having the research done here, in our universities and corporate research facilities IS an advantage.

Once the technology is perfected, then replicating the products is relatively easy.

The real trick is being able to do the research, apply it to products, and maintain a lasting advantage in the manufacture, sale and distribution. That combo is very hard to do, but the US has historically done it very well, thank you.

And, BTW, the basic research is not THAT expensive, relative to the cost of applying the research to make products. Research is a very good investment, but often it is best done by government-funded entities, since a bottom line payout is often elusive.

Posted at April 11, 2006 11:09 AM in response to Who Wins From Basic Research?

Just saying that 'It is unacceptable for Iran to have nukes', as Bush has said, makes a war very likely. Once he has stated a hard position, he will never back down.

See my comments on Max's post at TPM today for reasons why we should rely on containment and MAD, not a pre-emptive air attack.

Posted at April 10, 2006 3:00 PM in response to More Iran

An Iranian bomb is simply unacceptable.

Once this statement is accepted widely as the basis of policy, then very likely a war becomes inevitable.

Yes, Iran supports terrorists. Yes, Iran has threatened Israel. Yes, nuclear proliferation is generally very bad and specificly bad in the case of a terror-supporting country.

The Soviet Union supported terrorists, had thousands of nuclear bombs, and said they wanted to bury the western democracies.

We held them off with very credible threats to mutually assured destruction (MAD), a strong alliance, and containment as a policy. After 40 years we won, and the Soviet Union dissolved and became a some-time partner.

We should rely again on containment, the threat of MAD, and coaltition building to control the Iranian threat. We should make it very clear that if Iran builds and threatens to use - or uses - nuclear weapons against the US, Israel, or US allies, or sells/gives nukes to terrorists, that we will massively retaliate with nuclear weapons capable of destroying Iran completely.

Back again to containment and nuclear retaliation. Iran with a nukes isn't the danger. Iran with nukes and intent to use them (or actual use) is the danger. Pakistan and N. Korea are also nuclear dangers, and we know that N. Korea is a proliferator. We rely on containment to stop N. Korea from acting.

Posted at April 10, 2006 2:48 PM in response to WILL BUSH GO DOUBLE OR NOTHING?

I'd argue that what the Democratic party usually prefers is policy and programs that are fact-based and shown to have worked.

Employer-based health care for their employees has been satisfactory for those enrolled, especially with larger companies whose risk-pool is large enough to gain reasonable rates. It hasn't proved to be very workable for smaller businesses. In essentially all cases the current system has the major defects of not providing adequately for portability between employers (COBRA hasn't solved this problem), and the multiplicity of insurers that the current system supports leads to very high administrative costs (compared to the Medicare system, for instance).

Of course the biggest defect is that we are getting farther and farther away from universal coverage in the employer-based system, as companies retreat from this area - even though their costs are tax-deductible and therefore are being supported by the general revenue of the government provided by income taxes.

Is a mandate for employer-based coverage a way to get to universal coverage? Yes, if it were feasible politically - but it hasn't been in the past and is unlikely to be in the future. Employers don't want to be in the health insurance business anymore, for various reasons related to cost and competitiveness with other countries.

In the Medicare Part D bill, employers were basically bribed by subsidies to continue drug coverage in their health insurance plans. Is that the way to the future of universal coverage? Only if some kind of mandate is enacted - and that seems to be the problem.

What would employers prefer and support as an alternative that moves much closer to universal coverage? That isn't clear to me at the moment at the federal level, but at least in MA the employers supported a mandate - but only if their penalties were trivial. Time will tell how many choose the penalties overage providing coverage, but MA already had an abnormally high level of workers covered by insurance compared to other states.

How would AL or MS or SC choose to move? I doubt that employer mandates at the state level will get us closer to universal coverage because too many states will choose not to join in.

So, in my mind, the question really becomes are we to have a national program with uniform rules (via either employer mandates or single payer in some form), or will this be left to state discretion, with the result of increasing the complexity of the system (businesses providing different programs in different states)?

I think Ezra is right that the employer-based system is on life-support and the employers are ready to pull the plub. Why try and fix something that fails at controlling administrative costs and complexity when a simple, effective model of dealing with payment uniformity, coverage uniformity, administrative cost-control and general understandability is in front of us - Medicare.

Letting employees and employers elect to join Medicare seems simple enough, with the employer and employee sharing the cost equally via payroll taxes as Medicare currently does - this system is already in place in every business. Convert Medicaid to Medicare and remove the states as funders of Medicaid, arriving at a uniform national health insurance program. Make this program mandatory instead of elective when performance, costs and results are established.

Once that the payment solution is established, then the country may be ready to take on the issues of cost control and availability that are posed by private actors providing the services.

Posted at April 9, 2006 10:39 AM in response to A Quick, Partially Biblical History of Employer- Based Health Insurance

Perlman said: <i>...increasingly shows the fine hand of U.S. (maybe U.K. too) disinformation and psychological warfare against Iran using a variety of newspapers to plant stories of rising threats, time running out, and the urgency of the need to use force to stop Iran. </i>

The disinformation campaign is actually aimed at the US citizens.  Build up the threat, dismiss the alternatives as not viable, openly threaten and hint at war plans.  Then, when diplomacy and other approaches have failed - because BushCo wants it to fail - BushCo will make it clear that we can't back down now or the terrorists will have won.  Or just attack without warning 'under pre-existing authorization from the Iraq congressional resolution' and consistent with the pre-emptive attack doctrine they have put in place.

Has anyone seen any indication that a containment and threat of MAD-like retaliation (that worked against the Soviet Union when the Soviets had thousands of nuclear warheads) is being considered or should be considered? 

Does anyone believe now that BushCo has thought through the post-attack actions that Iran or other Islamic states might take? 

This is the Iraq debacle all over again, except this time the US will be limited to air and naval attacks with our land forces completely worn down.

How does the Hormuz straight filled with 10-15 tankers and US warships sunk blocking egress sound?  No Iraqi oil, no Iranian oil, Not much, if any,  of the Saudi or UAE oil?  Land terrorist attacks against US forces in Iraq by Shia militias and Iranian paramilitaries?  The Green Zone overrun?

There are madmen loose in the White House and DoD.  Who will bring the white coats to keep their hands off the buttons?

Posted at April 7, 2006 1:36 AM in response to Where There Isn't A Will...

This Amy Sullivan piece sounds just all of her work: nice sentences, carefully polished anecdotes, and lots of very argueable propositions.  She may have found the only bright spots in the Dem. leadership record, but she omits some major disasters because they don't fit her thesis.  Bankruptcy Bill?  Alito? Budgets? Oversight? Iraq War? Medicare Part D?

Gingrich created theater that got attention.  Day after day.  If the media wasn't responding, he went around them until they did. 

Only AFTER BushCo was busy doing hari-kiri and the polls headed south for them, did the Dems awake a bit.  Sullivan's dismissal of the Dem. base (grassroots, netwoots, and blogs) is palpable. 

Sullivan seems to understand that the Conventional Wisdom or Meme of the Season outlasts the reality on the ground, but her article is just more CW.  Yes the leaders have done some good things rather recently.  Are they acting like a robust opposition party?  Hell no.

Posted at April 7, 2006 1:14 AM in response to Democrats: Awesome

On fishiness: when the head is completely rotten, the fish is clearly dead.

Truth and Facts are dangerous things to BushCo. 

Posted at April 3, 2006 5:04 PM in response to The Missing Report