The highlight of the Feb 19 debate was the stand-off between Sanders and Bloomberg, Bloomberg getting so frustrated by Sanders that he practically called Sanders a communist: "They had socialism in Russia only they called it communism." As Sanders pointed out, we have socialism now but it is socialism for the rich. And, of course, we have public schools and public libraries, socialism of a sort. I think one of the reasons Sanders is doing so well is that he sticks by his positions both practically and theoretically, saying that health care is a right, while everyone else waffles on the issue, saying that millions are happy with their health insurance and we shouldn't take it away, though even if they are happy (which I doubt) they can't change jobs because they and their family need the health insurance. Sanders continues to point out that there are thousands of bankruptcies every year due to health care costs even though those who go bankrupt have health insurance. It is an unacceptable conflict of interest that the more insurance companies turn down routine claims the more they make in profits.
I would support any of the candidates on the stage except for Bloomberg, especially considering his contributions to the increasingly higher cost of living in New York City and his attitudes toward women and minorities. All the candidates have positive and negative reasons why they can or can't beat Trump: Biden stumbles, Klobuchar and Warren have to overcome misogyny (see Caroline Fraser's article in the March 12 issue of The New York Review of Books), Pete Buttigieg is relatively young and inexperienced, Sanders is a socialist, and so on. I do think much has changed since McGovern ran against Nixon in 1972, but has it changed enough to replace a con man with a person of integrity.
Monday, February 24, 2020
Thursday, February 6, 2020
State of the Union 2020
The President's state of the union address was, predictably, a dispiriting and depressing affair, full of dissembling and dubious assertions. He also used incendiary language, referring not only to so-called "illegal aliens" but also to the horrors of public schools, which he referred to as "government" schools, presumably to demonize them compared to the private and religious schools he prefers to subsidize. When the president lied he lied big, referring to an "ironclad" promise that he would never allow those with preexisting conditions to be denied insurance while his administration fights for exactly that in Congress and the courts, as well as fighting against providing any medical care for the uninsured. He accuses the Democrats of planning to take away the health insurance of 180 million Americans who are "very happy" with their insurance (not true; I have never met anyone happy with their health insurance and its high deductibles, co-payments, and constant denial of benefits) while failing, of course, to mention that the replacement, a single-payer system, would be inclusive and effective.
And so it went, as a grinning Trump paused after almost every sentence to wait for applause, led by whack-a-mole popping up by vice-president Pence and the Republicans. Ever the con man and showman the president filled the gallery with heroes, including the military and families who had members killed by immigrants, while the president bragged that he would never interfere with anyone's second amendment right to carry a gun, though some thought he went a little too far giving a medal to the homophobic and misogynistic Rush Limbaugh.
Incidentally, some have criticized me for not reporting on the last two Democratic debates, which I felt added nothing of substance that had not already been rehashed in the earlier debates. I am hopeful that this week's debate will break some new ground, including discussion of how to encourage unions and what to do about foreign policy. Meanwhile, on the latter subject, I recommend Jessica Mathews's article "Do the Democrats Have a Foreign Policy" in the Feb. 13th issue of The New York Review of Books and Adam Shatz's "The Death of Qasem Soleimani" and Patrick Cockburn's "Blundering into War" in the Jan. 23 London Review of Books.
And so it went, as a grinning Trump paused after almost every sentence to wait for applause, led by whack-a-mole popping up by vice-president Pence and the Republicans. Ever the con man and showman the president filled the gallery with heroes, including the military and families who had members killed by immigrants, while the president bragged that he would never interfere with anyone's second amendment right to carry a gun, though some thought he went a little too far giving a medal to the homophobic and misogynistic Rush Limbaugh.
Incidentally, some have criticized me for not reporting on the last two Democratic debates, which I felt added nothing of substance that had not already been rehashed in the earlier debates. I am hopeful that this week's debate will break some new ground, including discussion of how to encourage unions and what to do about foreign policy. Meanwhile, on the latter subject, I recommend Jessica Mathews's article "Do the Democrats Have a Foreign Policy" in the Feb. 13th issue of The New York Review of Books and Adam Shatz's "The Death of Qasem Soleimani" and Patrick Cockburn's "Blundering into War" in the Jan. 23 London Review of Books.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)