Plans, Plans, We Got Plans
There was that great moment back in the 1992 Jerry Brown presidential campaign, I have been told by someone in the room at a time, when the former California Governor had a bit of a primary surge and was headily heading into New York. His advisors were bickering about how to take the Big Apple, coming up with conflicting plans. "Plans? There will be no plans!," shouted Brown's long-time confidante Jacques Barzaghi. "Rommel had a plan and the British stole it!"
The Brown campaign did crash a few days later in New York after Jerry announced that Jesse Jackson would be his running mate, though Jackson knew nothing about it. Barzaghi wound up in political exile a decade later, embroiled in sex harrassment charges. Brown is today California's attorney general and is said to be mulling another shot at the Governor's chair.
Don't know exactly why I tell this story -- except it's so much fun. But I was reminded of it as I read that both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are each announcing their own "plans" on Monday -- the former on economics, the latter on health care. I suppose there's theoretically no harm in any of that -- except that Hillary's 1994 health plan set us back a decade or two, or three. I have little reason to hope this time around things will be much better, but if y'all want to dream, who am I to stop you?
What I really wanted to say was something was much simpler. Democrats need to learn to talk more like preachers and like like lawyers. Their most important plan would be one that would re-inspire the American people to believe that the system really was responsive, that it wasn't in the stranglehold of money bundlers and special interests and that real and profound change within the system was actually possible.
What day is that speech scheduled for?
September 17th, 2007 at 8:27 am
Marc gives me real hope for Hillary Clinton’s possible presidency. Democrats get votes based upon what they promise. However, they rarely deliver, usually intentionally, and blame their failures on Republicans. This way the Democrats will have their election issues available election after election. With that in mind, Hillary would never will achieve socialized medicine in her terms.
September 17th, 2007 at 8:48 am
Think Hill’s trying to change the subject? It’s a Hsu-in.
September 17th, 2007 at 9:23 am
Marc you want in spiration? Does the name John Edwards mean anything to you?
September 17th, 2007 at 9:26 am
Woody and Bob. Please keep up the good work. Fact is Hillary is the victim here. And as long as you’re so shocked!~ shocked! that campaign finance irregularities are going on I’m sure you’ll condemn Mitt Romney whose CO-FINANCE Chairman (that means he works for him simple ones) has been indicted for no fewer than 23 campaign finance law violations!
September 17th, 2007 at 9:32 am
Would that Hillary would opt for “Socialized Medicine!” Alas word is she’s going to go down the Romney-Scwartzenger road. One part of her plan , applauded by Matt Miller so you know it stinks, is to make purchase of Health Insurance Manditory. Just like Auto insurance only the government will subsidize low income families and small busineses while providing “Incentives” to large companies.
Great! Just what we need. I guess she figured as long as she voted for the bankruptcy bill – better known as “The credit Card Company Enrichment Act of 2005″ she blow a wet kiss to the insurance industry and the HMOs. I’m sure that is supposed to keep Harry and Louise silent but they’re greedy mothers and will probably not like the regulations she’ll want to put on them for this largese – I mean why not just tell them to back an armored car up next to the Treasury!
Edwards has her beat by a mile!
September 17th, 2007 at 9:49 am
I welcome Hillary’s health care proposal. Her last one accrued to the Republicans’ benefit.
Remember when she was going to “roll” Moynihan?
BTW, Edwards is SO over.
September 17th, 2007 at 9:49 am
Call me a cynical and sarcastic but any politician such as Ron Paul the Libertarian Republican who speaks about “real and profound change†will never be elected.
He voted against the USA Patriot Act, the Iraq War Resolution, and the Military Commissions Act of 2006. Paul supports reduced government spending, opposes the debt-based monetary system and seeks the gradual re-introduction of the silver or gold standard. He states that he has never voted in Congress to raise taxes or to approve an unbalanced budget.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IWfIhFhelm8
September 17th, 2007 at 10:00 am
Oh Bob, since you’re so concerned about those evil bundlers like Hsu:
http://www.americablog.com/2007/09/top-fundraiser-for-rudy-and-bush-had.html
September 17th, 2007 at 10:03 am
SS, Yes Ron Paul voted against all that. Here’s some other things he would vote against:
1. Social Security
2. Medicare
3. Any public monies for roads
4. Any public monies for schools
And only vote for funds for:
a. A Defense of the Continental US
b. Law Enforcement
c. Civil courts to prevent “Fraud” but no other torts. Also enforce contracts.
Still think he’s the man?
September 17th, 2007 at 10:03 am
Marc the “speech” you ask for is already being made but who is listening?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G7d_e9lrcZ8
September 17th, 2007 at 10:10 am
Richard,
Marc asked the question, where the candidate who speaks about “real and profound” change was, I never said he was “the man†or “my man”.
September 17th, 2007 at 10:13 am
I agree with Marc. Sit on your ass until the candidates give better speeches.
September 17th, 2007 at 10:47 am
Richard: I’m not much concered about bundlers or pacs or Al Gore’s Adventures in Bhuddism, or for that matter, John Edwards’ investments and his beautiful mansion. This to me is a form of amusement.
September 17th, 2007 at 10:58 am
Their most important plan would be one that would re-inspire the American people to believe that the system really was responsive, that it wasn’t in the stranglehold of money bundlers and special interests and that real and profound change within the system was actually possible.
This describes the speech that John Edwards gave at the Harkin Steak Fry yesterday.
C-SPAN covered it. I’m not sure if this link will work:
rtsp://video.c-span.org/archive/c08/c08_091607_harkin.rm?mode=compact
If not, go to c-span.org; under “Recent Programs” click on ‘Tom Harkin (D-IA) 30th Annual Steak Fry’.
The speakers in order: Obama, Richardson, Clinton, Dodd, Edwards, Biden. (Kucinich was not invited, despite polling significantly higher than Biden, in Iowa and nationally. Senatorial courtesy, hm?)
September 17th, 2007 at 11:03 am
Off topic but I just thought Marc might want to go over to COUNTERPUNCH today and view the remarks of Roberto Alarcon on C. Wright Mills and Cuba.
Just in case you’re blood pressure needed raising.
September 17th, 2007 at 12:50 pm
“Their most important plan would be one that would re-inspire the American people to believe that the system really was responsive, that it wasn’t in the stranglehold of money bundlers and special interests and that real and profound change within the system was actually possible.”
Obama will never tell you that because it isn’t true. Not if “the system” is Beltway politics. He is absolutely clear on the fact that “real and profound change” won’t happen without social movements demanding it.
Meanwhile, we can quibble about the different candidates’ policy papers, but they’re all “the audacity of hype” unless and until we (1) get more actively involved in electing more broadly responsive and progressive legislators in DC – INCLUDING the money side to shift the center of gravity in campaign $$$ so that whoever’s elected to the top spot (“if”) has a base in Congress and (2) giving elected progressives more ammunition by helping build the base of programmatic support for their initiatives like effective universal health care.
Frankly, one of the things that draws me to Obama is that he doesn’t sound like a stereotypical Democratic populist who’s talking about all the great things he’ll do “for the little guy”. He’s appealing at least as muchy to the intangibles that might actually help “turn the page” because lots of “little guys” start to realize that nobody’s going to go to Washington and solve most of their problems. It’s the community organizer in him, as opposed to the professional politician. It’s not enough to “defend” the common folk. You’ve got to at least begin to move them. I don’t know -and probably even “doubt” – that Obama can actually do that. But I sure as hell KNOW Hillary Clinton nor John Edwards ever will. We’ve seen them both in national presidential campaigns and making policy in Congress, and in the crunch there’s “not a dimes worth of difference.” If I’m going to bet on something that, one way or another, will significantly impact our future, I’d rather it not be reruns of the predictable past.
September 17th, 2007 at 12:53 pm
that should have been ” Hillary C. or John Edwards never will”…
September 17th, 2007 at 12:56 pm
RLC… Those “remarks” by Comrade Alarcon on C Wright Mills were already made by him 3 months ago in The Nation. File under: The Mummy Speaks.
As to Reg: It’s not for me to say that Obama or Edwards hasnt indeed already delivered The Speech as I am calling it. If they have, it wont count so long as there is no massive response from the American people. They are the sole judges as to whether or not they have been inspired.
September 17th, 2007 at 1:30 pm
And of course – like most cliches that happen to be true – a “massive response” is nothing more than a whole lot of small, personal, woefully inadequate responses that, unpredictably, catch fire. “They” are never going to do what “I” won’t do.
September 17th, 2007 at 1:32 pm
Some says …
“Their most important plan would be one that would re-inspire the American people to believe that the system really was responsive, that it wasn’t in the stranglehold of money bundlers and special interests and that real and profound change within the system was actually possible.â€
Meanwhile, we can quibble about the different candidates’ policy papers, but they’re all “the audacity of hype†unless and until we (1) get more actively involved in electing more broadly responsive and progressive legislators in DC – INCLUDING the money side to shift the center of gravity in campaign $$$ so that whoever’s elected to the top spot (â€ifâ€) has a base in Congress
****************************
I think I’ll go back to watching Jerry Springer.
September 17th, 2007 at 1:46 pm
Requiring people to buy health insurance is a great solution. It just makes me realize how foolish we’ve all been all these years. Why argue about socialism or a welfare state when all we need to do is to legally require everyone to be rich? In fact, why have health insurance at all, why not just outlaw disease?
September 17th, 2007 at 2:28 pm
True Marc about the need for a response but I think the old tree in the forest analogy works here. For there to be a response the people would have to know about John Edwards’ remarks. So far the media have told them that he spends a lot for haircuts and lives in a big house. Oh, and his wife has cancer.
Now maybe if he had been in that room in Vegas when OJ came calling . . .
September 17th, 2007 at 7:55 pm
Word is Edwards gave a doozy of a speech at the SEIU convention today (you know – the one where Bill Richardson told the crowd how great it was to address AFSCME!). Several think they’ll endorse the N. Carolinian.
That ought to thrill Natasha!
September 17th, 2007 at 8:29 pm
Edwards is going to get the SEIU endorsement ? Ya think ?
From TAPPED: Despite the tremendous outpouring of enthusiasm for Barack Obama from the conference’s audience of union leaders and regular members earlier in the day, member after member predicted that loyalty would trump enthusiasm, and that John Edwards, the candidate who has most assiduously courted labor, would win the SEIU’s straw poll, and eventually the powerful and activist union’s nod.
“I will fall off my chair tomorrow if he don’t get it,” said Tamekia Robinson of California’s Local 1000, predicting a win for Edwards in the SEIU’s straw poll, whose results will be announced tomorrow. “If he don’t get it, I will be highly, highly, highly surprised.”
Robinson, who described herself as an Obama supporter, said she was pleased that the membership was included in the endorsement process, even though she thinks the outcome is already foreordained. “I think it’s nice they did their little fluff, their go-around, even though it was already concluded,” she said. Three of the five largest SEIU locals have already called, at the conference, for an endorsement of Edwards, she noted. It would be hard for anyone to trump that.
“We had a meeting,” explained Laurene Mackay of the United Long Term Care Workers, Local 6434, which she says endorsed Edwards in a membership vote “at the union.” Mackay sported a T-shirt with the John Edwards campaign logo on it, printed in the SEIU colors of yellow on purple, that her local had given her. “We had already chosen who we were going to vote for,” she explained. “Then we got the T-shirts.”
Those T-shirts were a matter of some controversy with one of her table-mates, Larry Perkins of Local 1000. “I was O.K. with the presentations today with everyone until they got to John Edwards,” he said. “Then I saw all these purple and yellow T-shirts with “John Edwards” on them and I didn’t see shirts for anybody else. It was like they were steering people to John Edwards.” Of course, Perkins himself had been an Edwards man until he saw that. “It was like, man, this was engineered,” he said.
(Sorry richard, but Edwards is an old Dem blast from the past…)
September 17th, 2007 at 9:26 pm
Reg, I know it’s an old story but given you’re an Obama supporter I wanted to know if you had shared your thoughts about this:
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-ehrenstein19mar19,0,5335087.story?coll=la-opinion-center
Full disclosure: I’ve conversed with Mr. Ehrenstein many times via another blog, and met him in person a few weeks ago. Per his own description, he’s as ‘lefty’ as they come.
September 17th, 2007 at 9:35 pm
My thoughts are that Eherenstein needs to take his head out of his ass…
September 17th, 2007 at 10:36 pm
Reg…. Great Minds Think Alike. Have I ever told you what a great mind you have?
September 17th, 2007 at 10:47 pm
Marc, hope you don’t mind but I just attempted to post two links for Reg… one to Ehrenstein’s website, another to my usual hangout blog where Ehrenstein can often be found. Apologies if it looks/looked like spam and/or bandwidth theft or if I violated any rules here.
I met Ehrenstein just over a week ago in Los Alamitos at a meetup we had for The Festering Swamp blog. He came across in person as warm and agreeable enough. But I wanted to mention… when I mentioned your name and how much I enjoy your stuff here, David said he thought you were trying to become “the next Joe Klein.” Something tells me that’ll provide you with a good laugh.
September 17th, 2007 at 10:57 pm
“Have I ever told you what a great mind you have?”
Uh…not recently. Hey, I’m just grateful you give me stuff to bitch about.
September 17th, 2007 at 11:23 pm
Hey, I’m just grateful you give me stuff to bitch about.
I thought that was Woody.
September 19th, 2007 at 7:57 pm
Jacques, per usual, didn’t quite get it right …
November 14th, 2007 at 8:01 am
Long Term Insurance…
I couldn’t understand some parts of this article, but it sounds interesting…