We hate the current health care bill, for reasons to be skipped here. But we agree that given the enormous sums that are wasted on health care in this country, the huge lapses that occur in care anyway, the enormous and unnecessary insurance company costs and de facto intrusions (if you give your health care money to your health insurance company you don’t have it for the test you needed yesterday that they deny or play around with for for weeks) between doctor and patient, and the absolutely gargantuan government expenditures on health care, reforming our current system seems like a good idea.

Just not via a bad idea.

However, Lanny Davis has penned an editorial for the Wall Street Journal Editorial pages, which is to objective and non partisan analysis what the San Diego Chargers are to winning clutch playoff games at home against a lesser Jets team the past ten years.

This editorial is in some ways so bad, it defies description. We’ll let provocateur Glenn Greenwald explain:

Last night, Evan Bayh blamed the Democrats’ problems on “the furthest left elements,” which he claims dominates the Democratic Party — seriously.  And in one of the dumbest and most dishonest Op-Eds ever written, Lanny Davis echoes that claim in The Wall St. Journal:  ”Blame the Left for Massachusetts” (Davis attributes the unpopularity of health care reform to the “liberal” public option and mandate; he apparently doesn’t know that the health care bill has no public option [someone should tell him], that the public option was one of the most popular provisions in the various proposals, and the “mandate” is there to please the insurance industry, not “the Left,” which, in the absence of a public option, hates the mandate; Davis’ claim that “candidate Obama’s health-care proposal did not include a public option” is nothing short ofan outright lie).

We don’t agree with the “furthest left” elements, whatever they are. But blaming the Democrats problems on the “furthest left” elements (unless, by blame, Bayh means the inability and unwillingness to connect with, show and sell to American without presuming what America thinks, feels, perceives or assumes) is like one time Arizona Representative (and future McCain opponent) J.D. Hayworth blaming the recent economic collapse on George Soros or Chuck Schumer.

The Democrats problems come down to two things. One, Democrats allow their opponens to control, shape, and frame the debate. Two, Democrats don’t even tend to realize what this entails, or that they do it. And if we had to add a third, it would be Democrats resistance to what this idea actually means.

What other party would be losing their effective majority in the Senate and White House by seeing their number drop not from 50 to 49, but from 60 to 59?

And because Democrats seem to be constantly afraid of what their opponents will say (largely because they allow their opponents to control the debate, but they miss this), and afraid of saying what they believe, why they believe it, and showing and selling it to the country. As a result, they pass piece of crap more government control no underlying problem solving pieces of legislation because they think that that is what is going to get them re-elected, when the irony is, it is what is going to get their opponents re-elected.

Update: Lanny Davis says the election was not about the candidate, but about the message.  Timothy Egan, writing today in the NY Times (covered here) points out the following:

Coakley belittled the retail politics of her opponent, who stood in the cold of a Bruins hockey game at Fenway Park, thus disparaging three great New England institutions a single two-second sound bite. It follows, then, that she didn’t know that Curt Schilling, the Boston pitcher who bled through his sox, was a Red Sox fan. Stealing a page from Mike Dukakis when he decided to spend August mowing his lawn while the 1988 presidential contest slipped away from him, her campaign essentially went dark with a double-digit lead. And she did what no Kennedy had ever done — she took the voter for granted.

Effectively showing how one’s opponent is either deceiving and misleading voters, or profoundly wrong, and either way can’t be trusted, is the most valuable thing one can do in politics. Belittling one’s opponents, in a way that also impugns some of the very target voters that need to be reached, as if one is speaking only to an audience that already agrees with everything one has to say and is full support, is one of the worst things one can do. Democrats do it all the time.

But what about Davis’ point about the message itself?  He writes, of the Democrats message, “How is it that so few people have heard that message?”  He is right on that point. And we have made it ourselves, here.

But Davis also writes:

In the last several months, the minority congressional Republicans have dominated the message on health care—and stamped on the Democratic Party the perception that we stand for big government, higher taxes, and health insecurity when it comes to Medicare.

This comes from two things. First, nothing to do with the issue, but who has controlled the issue. Once again Democrats opponents.  This is the doing of all Democrats, and the DNC, not just the “left.”  Second, it is because the bill has in fact in some ways become these things, while at the same time it has failed to address the root of the problem.

And why is that? Because, ironically, the alleged “non left” wing of the party has demanded these concessions in order to get re-elected (they think) and thus in fact turned the bill into just such a spectacle of bigger government, rather than just consist of the empty rhetoric that had predated the calls for legitimate health care reform, which were based upon neither liberal nor conservative principles at heart, and could just as easily have been used to lower government costs and wastes, as to provide, heaven to mercy “universal” coverage for people.

Ironically, the supposedly more “liberal” option, which was that if the government was going to try and curb costs and expend funds, it should provide an option to insurance companies was more popular than this ridiculous mandate as to our how we address our own care — rendered even worse by the simple fact that most health insurance coverage in this country, presently, both costs a fortune, and is a veritable abomination of control, inconsistencies, forced interjection between doctor and patient, and endless paperwork and needless hassles.

But it was this line from Davis’ piece that really makes one want to tear their hair out:

We liberals need to reclaim the Democratic Party with the New Democrat positions of Bill Clinton and the New Politics/bipartisan aspirations of Barack Obama—a party that is willing to meet half-way with conservatives and Republicans even if that means only step-by-step reforms on health care and other issues that do not necessarily involve big-government solutions.

“We liberals”? Who is he talking to?  Putting that issue aside, his proscription is to let the far right define the terms, and then accomodate to the far right’s demands, rather than simply sell, show, explain and frame, their own position, beliefs, and reasonings.  This fits in perfectly with the absolute donkeyness of this, regarding this whole heath care debacle, in the first place, where Democrats have managed to allow their opponents to take control of the Senate, effectively, with just over 40 out of 100 member, when for close to eight years, Democrats themselves couldn’t accomplish this with larger numbers than Republicans have right now.

Real Donkeys, the kinds with four legs, ought to be hiding in holes in shame.

And then Davis plays right into this right wing framing of liberals and Democrats of favoring “big government” solutions.  Republican consultants would have paid Davis money to write this, if they had to. And he (presumably) did it for them, for free.

But Davis, worst of all, misses the fact that it is the current bill which is a perfect example of big government that mandates and intrudes, while doing little in return to protect freedoms or reduce costs at the same time, and that had the bill been better written — exactly what Davis, backwardly, seems to think would have made it more unpalatable — it would have accomplished far more, with far less infringment and legitimate complaint of big government overtone, and been far more politically successful for Democrats, throughout the country, and our national discussion.

This is why, dear reader, Democrats lose, and spend most of their time, complaining about the ramifications of those losses, despite the fact that more people in America are Democrats than Republicans.

Whatever one thinks of his politics (or his recent “debate” with Salon columnist Glenn Greenwald) Krugman has numerous accolades, and is an accomplished economist.  He has even won a Nobel prize. Often his opionions are characterized as “Liberal,” when what that really means is that he sensibly takes issue with the unofficial position of the Fox advocacy channel that masquerades under the clever guise of “Fox News.”

Whether Krugman is spot on much of the time, or often spouting knee jerk partisan positions, when it comes to Democrats and importance of framing and understanding what the national debate is imparting, he may follow the same mold as other Democrats. That is, the application of what seem to be intellectual, rationale (sometimes subjective, sometimes not) standards to the analysis of why things are the way that they are in American politics.

This is a huge, and typical, Donkey Party mistake. Krugman makes it here, yesterday:

Lately many people have been second-guessing the Obama administration’s political strategy….

The Obama administration’s troubles are the result not of excessive ambition, but of policy and political misjudgments.

This is not the place to go into the conditions that the Obama Administration inherited when it took office, or the mistakes it has made, or the things that it has done, good and bad.  That has been debated elsewhere.

The Obama Administration’s troubles, politically, are a result of the fact that once again, the Right has controlled the debate, and done far more to define the Obama Administration, than Democrats have.

The analysis essentially starts, and stops, there.  Yet Democrats seem to live in a different world, and hold Obama to some standard of their own disappointment, rather than how Obama is being characterized to, and perceived by, the country.

The latter defines the administration. The former only defines it to a core of Democrats.  The former is not the country. Democrats often confuse it, for the country.

Yes, part of what Krugman suggests might be correct. The Obama administration has made political misjudgments. But to the extent relevant here, all of those  go to how the Obama Administration has framed and controlled (or failed to control) the debate, and thus, ultimately, the same issue. Here is a stunning example, rendered even more stunning by the response to it, from what is a mostly (but not all) Liberal site.

Yet the media has covered the story quite a bit. As they have covered ACORN for quite some time now, on the continued rantings of those who think ACORN is the biggest thing in America.

But still, why hasn’t the media covered this latest “pimp” scandal even more?  Salon Columnist Glenn Greenwald, clearly, wonders as well why the media has not covered the  huge, enormous ACORN scandal as the very huge, enormous, once in several years type scandal that it quite clearly is.  Some hyperbole aside, his piece is well worth reading.

But even if the media “ignored” this HUGE story — which according to the far right means not making it one of the bigger stories in ages –Congress didn’t, and promptly passed a bill to address the situation. (As Congress often does, most particularly this decade, to address “situations.”)

However, there was a little problem.

So a few days ago Greenwald “interviewed”  Florida Representative Alan Grayson on just exactly this problem was.  Grayson, it should be noted, is a pretty formidable attorney.  (Here, he is lovingly described by Rolling Stone reporter and latest “in” commentator guy Matt Taibbi, in a pretty hilarious and entertaining post that describes Taibbi’s “personal experience” with him.  The video of Grayson grilling the Chief Counsel for the Federal Reserve, embedded at the bottom), gives a pretty good indication of Grayson’s skill set.)

Glenn Greenwald: You discovered that there was a potential consequence in this bill that was probably not intended by the bill’s sponsors. Can you talk about [that]?…

Alan Grayson: Well, I wouldn’t go that far, but I will say that it is true that 10 out of the 10 biggest defense contractors have been convicted of fraud at one time or another in the past few years, and ACORN hasn’t, it’s difficult to frame any bill, whatever one’s intent, to punish ACORN and keep ACORN from being funded by fed contracts…[and] This bill, taken literally, at its words, actually forbids and prohibits fed funding of virtually every large defense contractor in America.

Glenn Greenwald:Why couldn’t the bill just have simply said we will defund ACORN, and left it at that?…

Alan Grayson: The Constitution specifically prohibits bills of attainder; bills of attainder are actions by Congress that are directed toward one individual or one organization. And the reason for that is that Congress is a law-making body, not a judicial body. We [Congress] don’t actually decide guilt or innocence; we don’t decide liability, and therefore the Constitution understandably forbids a law that singles out ACORN or any other organization for punishment.

Glenn Greenwald: …Before you got to Congress, one of the things you were known for was working on fraud and abuse among contractors in Iraq. Can you put, in terms of the cost to the taxpayer of funding ACORN versus, say, the waste and abuse that comes from fraud on the part of military and defense contractors in Iraq [in context]?….

Alan Grayson: AG: …The amount of money that ACORN received in the past 20 years, all together, is roughly equal to what the taxpayer paid to Halliburton each day, during the war in Iraq.

We  agree that the ACORN scandal bears looking into.  But it also seems fair to ask the far right, if some dime store low level employees of already scandal ridden ACORN, engaging in some two bit, and somewhat hilarious, if not disturbing, ”free” pimp and prostitute and income sheltering advice is a national scandal of such epic proportions as to warrant a full court press of ongoing national news coverage; where was the same cry for more glaring media coverage, with respect to the far more significant — from a taxpayer standpoint – fraud convictions of each of our nation’s top defense contractors?

True, the ACORN story is more salacious.   But from a taxpayer standpoint, as Grayson points out, Halliburton – which has already been convicted of fraud with respect to expenditure of Taxpayer funds (awarded via not bid contracts, as well, upping the price to taxpayers considerably) – received from taxpayers each and every single day, roughly the same amount that ACORN had over 20 years. (The far right is also calling out for an investigation of Obama, as if he has been ACORN’s CEO just before becoming president;  Dick Cheney was Halliburton’s CEO.)

If we are talking about taxpayer support of fraud and improper purpose, it seems like Congress was focused on making an issue out of a pretty small ACORN, that fell from the mighty Oak tree of taxpayer funded fraud and abuse, instead of also going after, say, an actual mighty tree of fraud and abuse itself.  Wouldn’t all those Independent, anti Big Government, anti Fraud and Abuse, anti Waste of Taxpayers’ Money Tea Partiers agree with this?

Probably not. And therein lies the political problem that America is facing today.

Tea Party attendees and health care town-hall protesters share the common belief that the extravagant spending of President Obama and the Democratic Party will eventually lead more people into government dependency…our country’s financial ruin. These are legitimate fears felt by millions of Americans.

We noted that these concerns are legitimate, while also putting them into perspective with respect to what seems to have become enormous anti Obama hatred and spin.  And we suggested contrasting these concerns, with the contemptuous attitude, as said article also pointed out, of those at the top of other perches:

Stepping up the rhetoric from mockery to pure hatred, and absent any evidence, Mr. Olbermann has called the president’s public protesters “worse than racists.” Political activist and comedian Janeane Garofalo colored them “racist rednecks who hate blacks.”

Regarding these “tea bagger” protests, Salon columnist Glenn Greenwald offers a relevant update to a powerful column putting the far right’s seeming obsessive and almost nonstop concern with a relatively small community activist organization into a little bit of perspective;  a column that, some hyperbole therein aside, we somewhat agree with. 

On the teabaggers, and the right and far right, Greenwald’s points below are perhaps a bit  unyielding. But it is still an interesting assessment of the so called Tea Bagger movement itself, as opposed to what the spinners in popular online blogs have turned their own narrative into.  We think there is credibility to this assessment, because again, where was any of this when Bush was President? (see below).  Or is such vehement anger really just about the economic stimulus recovery package, and a health care plan that very few on either side really seem to understand??

[Greenwald] UPDATE II:  The American Spectator’s Joseph Lawler responds by claiming that the tea-party movement is every bit as devoted to combating the extreme corporate influences I highlight here as it is the likes of ACORN (”it is the same right wing that uncovered ACORN’s crimes that opposed the same marriage of state and big business that Greenwald complains about”).  Sorry, but that’s just ludicrous.  I have no doubt that there are people attending these protests who are non-partisan, non-discriminating and principled in their opposition to government corruption, expansion and excesses.  That’s because there’s no real coherent message to these protests; it’s just amorphous anger which likely has numerous causes among the various participating constituents:  Ron-Paul libertarians, paleoconservatives, LaRouchians, Southern race resenters, social conservatives, GOP operatives, standard dittohead liberal-haters, etc.  Each group has a different agenda, often wildly divergent.  The only thing they seem to have in common is that they hate Obama.

The column goes on to suggest:

But look at who the lead supporters are:  Rush Limbaugh, the Murdoch-owned Fox News, Glenn Beck, the right-wing blogosphere and talk radio generally, business groups led by Dick Armey.  Does anyone actually believe that what motivates them is concern over the excessive, corrupting influence of Wall Street and large corporations in government?  Please.  They are pure GOP partisans who are exploiting citizen anger to undermine Democratic politicians in order to return the GOP to political power.  It’s nothing more noble or profound than that.  In fact, many of the movement leaders are among the most vocal advocates for unfettered corporate power.

These are also interesting points. But in conjunction with the paragraph above, they seem to mildly conflate e the idea of open marriage between large business and government, with the somewhat separate idea of excessively powerful business’ influence upon government.

We are against both.  Those of whom Greenwald writes seem to be against only the former, and only cry out against the latter when all of the effects have trickled up, and in very patently obvious fashion, from the very bottom to the very top of society, as most of the time they don’t. And most of the time, they are hidden. 

There also seems, perhaps more importantly,  to be an implicit belief on the far right’s part, that true freedom does in fact mean unfettered corporate power. That is, the word “freedom” is confused with just “economic freedom” and even economic freedom that impinges more on others than it provides in rights to the impingers in the first place. Thus, for example, the far right’s hysteria over any sensible regulations that protect everyone’s individual rights against environmental and toxicological harm flowing from the actions of others, while at the same time showing a complete lack of outrage over what was an intrusive, government power magnifiying,  constitutionally violative, overly secretive, non accountable, and somewhat imperialistic Bush government — the same government that, on the other hand, got out of the way when it came to say, sensibly regulating or overseeing pollutants in the air that we all much breathe, hidden carcinogens in the food supply, national security and environmentally destructive reliance upon international oil, other gaseous emissions of excessive greenhouse gases, or that which cause cause these things.

Thus, we have a right to unfettered corporate influence over government, and unbridled freedom to do what we want therein at any hidden cost to all of society, includingfund future generations, and perhaps inherent individual rights therein.  But we dont have an inherent right to stand up and say, hey, be accountable at the same time for fundamental destruction to whole mountain tops, complete ecological systems, a clean food supply, etc., which my children and your children have as fundamental a right to, as we do to plunder what resources we do have in a sort of non sustainable, environmentally destructive, individual health impacting, economic mad scramble.

Greenwald also seems to believe that one’s hypocrisy– particularly that of those on the right, is something which is self apparent.  We suggest it’s not.