A disgusting vat of filth that no self-respecting intelligent person would wade into.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

DeLong now quotes Robert Novak shedding a little more light on the split:

• Members of the Senate intelligence committee, Republicans and Democrats alike, were alarmed last week that John Negroponte was leaving as director of national intelligence after less than two years to become deputy secretary of state. By way of explanation, he informed one Republican senator that he did not want to make the switch but that the White House had prevailed on him to do so.... [T]o pull him out just as his on-the-job training was completed reflects a panicky desire to fill the deputy secretary post, which had been unfilled for an unprecedented six months. Five other key State Department positions are either vacant or are soon to be vacant.
  
  Republicans in Congress who do not want to be quoted tell me that the State Department under Condoleezza Rice is a mess.... Rice has failed to manage.... Rice's previous government duties had been as an analyst and staffer rather than as a manager.... The deputy's post went to Robert Zoellick, one of the most talented national security administrators of the past generation who during Bush's first term was U.S. trade representative.... Zoellick took a bullet for the team, dropping down a step to No. 2 at State....
  
  Estranged from Zoellick, Rice relied on Burns and State Department Counselor Philip Zelikow.... Zelikow was near the top of the arrogance scale in a building where arrogance is the norm.... Zoellick... had enough after 18 months.... That began a furtive, sporadic search for a deputy. Several prospects (including Marine Gen. James Jones, who just retired as NATO's supreme allied commander) said no.... Negroponte... was implored by fellow Foreign Service officers to bring order out of chaos...

As DeLong says, someone has it in for Rice, to be giving this stuff to Novak. Payback for her selling out the Iraq Study Group? Be that as it may, I still don't understand the split between Rice and Zelikow.

eta: Here's a link to Novak's piece:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...002021_pf.html

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Is that because people chose to move from plan to plan? Or is it because they had to -- either because they changed jobs, their employers changed providers, or (as has happened to me countless times) mergers among HMOs led to the plan effectively being changed on them?

I think it was a lot of things. I think especially that Americans are spoiled about going to the physician of their choice and don't like to be limited by the plan's rules and regs. So they didn't like the gatekeeper model which assumed some basic competence in a lot of fields by PCPs.

Members wanted to skip the (less expensive) GP appointment and go straight to the (more expensive) cardiologist, orthopedist, allergist, etc. and get lots of tests because, of course, American consumers know more about healthcare than their physicians do. Sometimes that's the case, a lot of times it's not.

As people started not liking the concept's limitations, the plans started changing until pretty much they're less HMOs and more PPOs with exclusive contracting for in network physicians and hospitals.

I've been on a Blue Cross PPO for years, and I'm pretty happy with it. Of course, it's only paid for my nurse practitioner visit once a year and birth control prescriptions, so I'm printing money for them.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Then you're not complaining about what's happening now, you're worrying that all this expressing of different opinons -- something we didn't have to worry about for several years -- might actually lead to something dangerous, like action.

I understand that it's frightening and exhilerating to have people in the nation's capitol disagreeing with each other, but many countries around the world have had experience with this sort of democracy, and it often works out OK.

Really? Fascinating. I had not heard of this strange system you discuss.

I am indeed worried that influential voices within my party are pushing the nation to adopt policies that I believe would be mistakes -- ranging from bad to disastrous.

For example, some influential Dems have spoken out in support of beginning an immediate withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq.

I wonder about their motives, because it seems to me that no rational, intelligent and informed person could truly believe that this would produce the best results in Iraq and/or for broader U.S. foreign policy objectives in the long term. Maybe these people [eta: who include John Edwards, who is running for President] have adopted this (ridiculous) policy position completely independently of any domestic political calculation about their own best interests. Maybe not.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Who is in a position to pressure him to do anything?

At a minimum, pressure exists to avoid the further damage to the GOP and its 2008 election prospects. You think there is none? That Presidents face no political pressure in their last two years in office?

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
It is an elitist view, though I was avoiding the word.

Why avoid the word? Nothing is wrong with being moderately elitist -- although it is wise to hide it well.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
And let's just say that the Founding Fathers were well acquainted with the kind of bad public policy that results when the government does not need to answer to the people.

Are you being intentionally obtuse, or did you really misunderstand me so badly?

The point is not that politicians should not be accountable to the people. My point was that they should do the right thing even if they pay the political price down the road. Don't formulate public policy with your own political interests in the forefront.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
But that's not what we were discussing. And there's surely a middle ground with some accountability, but without constant referenda to decide every issue of the day.

I'm really not sure we were discussing the same thing.

S_A_M

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
So. Shut. The. Fuck. Up.

I realize that this issue really seems to strike home with you, but this isn't the sort of friendly, kind and helpful response we've come to expect and appreciate from you.

S_A_M

P.S. Or, in the alternative, that's mighty bold talk for an old man in a dress.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Really? Fascinating. I had not heard of this strange system you discuss.

I am indeed worried that influential voices within my party are pushing the nation to adopt policies that I believe would be mistakes -- ranging from bad to disastrous.

For example, some influential Dems have spoken out in support of beginning an immediate withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq.

I wonder about their motives, because it seems to me that no rational, intelligent and informed person could truly believe that this would produce the best results in Iraq and/or for broader U.S. foreign policy objectives in the long term. Maybe these people [eta: who include John Edwards, who is running for President] have adopted this (ridiculous) policy position completely independently of any domestic political calculation about their own best interests. Maybe not.

I think it's more productive to have a conversation about Iraq policy on its own merits than to start from the presumption that the voters will demand that we do the wrong thing and to suppose that ought not listen to them. John McCain is running for president, and he supports escalation. So is Sam Brownback, and he doesn't. Both are pandering, but it's not clear to me that the pandering (a) is influencing policy much, given the President's insulation from political pressure, and (b) cuts both ways.

At a minimum, pressure exists to avoid the further damage to the GOP and its 2008 election prospects. You think there is none? That Presidents face no political pressure in their last two years in office?

I would expect any such President to face some pressure. More typically, this is at least partly because his Vice President (e.g., Nixon, Bush, Gore) is running for office. Here, not so. Perhaps there is some, but I don't see much sign of it. Iraq is such a clusterfuck that many Republicans up for re-election in '08 will distance themselves from him (e.g., Brownback, Smith, Coleman, and -- until the President suprised everyone by going along to an extent, McCain, who thought he'd outfoxed everyone by pushing for escalation). Do you see any sign that there is pressure on the President or that it might have any effect? If so, what?

Why avoid the word? Nothing is wrong with being moderately elitist -- although it is wise to hide it well.

To many, it's pejorative, which is why many think it wise to hide it.

The point is not that politicians should not be accountable to the people. My point was that they should do the right thing even if they pay the political price down the road. Don't formulate public policy with your own political interests in the forefront.

I'm really not sure we were discussing the same thing.

I agree with the second and third sentences here. Who wouldn't?

I thought you were lamenting that public opinion might have an effect on Iraq policy. If all you mean is that you disagree with the public, and you're afraid that the public will persuade the government to do the wrong thing here, the interesting conversation is not about whether public accountability/involvement is a good thing in general, but rather what is the right policy choice right now. If so, let's turn to discussing what Spencer Ackerman said.

But I thought you were defending elitism per se. If so, I would suggest that governmental decisionmaking is worse when hidden and insulated from public scrutiny.

edited in an attempt to improve clarity

[SlaveNoMore]

Tyrone Slothrop
Iraq is such a clusterfuck...

Oil is down to what - $55? Most of Iraq, other than Bagdad and a few other Sunni strongholds in the Sunni triangle, is absolutely thriving. The Iraq economy is booming. And attacks are down.

In 3 years, we've lost less American troops then we did during WWII on a few islands in the South Pacific in a week.

But it's a clusterfuck.

PS - at least you didn't trot out the word "quagmire".

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Oil is down to what - $55? Most of Iraq, other than Bagdad and a few other Sunni strongholds in the Sunni triangle, is absolutely thriving. The Iraq economy is booming. And attacks are down.

In 3 years, we've lost less American troops then we did during WWII on a few islands in the South Pacific in a week.

But it's a clusterfuck.

PS - at least you didn't trot out the word "quagmire".

Set Kurdistan aside. Is there anywhere else in Iraq where you would feel safe walking around on the streets. Iraq is a complete mess. Huge proportions of the population have emigrated, are emigrating, or would if they could.

As for your celebration of oil at $55/barrel, a graph is worth 1000 words:

[Adder]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Oil is down to what - $55? Most of Iraq, other than Bagdad and a few other Sunni strongholds in the Sunni triangle, is absolutely thriving. The Iraq economy is booming. And attacks are down.

In 3 years, we've lost less American troops then we did during WWII on a few islands in the South Pacific in a week.

But it's a clusterfuck.

PS - at least you didn't trot out the word "quagmire".

What color is the sky in your world?

[SlaveNoMore]

Adder
What color is the sky in your world?

Enter the ad hominem, stage left.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Adder
What color is the sky in your world?

Ty. doesn't it ever bother you that those mental giants Adder and GGG take in the news and reach the same conclusions you do? It would scare me if I thought like them.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Really? Fascinating. I had not heard of this strange system you discuss.

I am indeed worried that influential voices within my party are pushing the nation to adopt policies that I believe would be mistakes -- ranging from bad to disastrous.

For example, some influential Dems have spoken out in support of beginning an immediate withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq.

I wonder about their motives, because it seems to me that no rational, intelligent and informed person could truly believe that this would produce the best results in Iraq and/or for broader U.S. foreign policy objectives in the long term. Maybe these people [eta: who include John Edwards, who is running for President] have adopted this (ridiculous) policy position completely independently of any domestic political calculation about their own best interests. Maybe not.

At a minimum, pressure exists to avoid the further damage to the GOP and its 2008 election prospects. You think there is none?

You are exactly right but Ty likes to pretend that the motives of the Democrat party are always pure.

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Are you being intentionally obtuse, or did you really misunderstand me so badly?

He is being intentionally obtuse. It is obvious the founding fathers did not want the government to have to be responsive to the changing whims of the electorate. That is why the President was indirectly elected by the electoral college and Senators were elected by the state legislature and were in for six years. The house, which wasn't supposed to influence foreign policy much at all, was the only branch that was really close to the people. The founding fathers were definitely elitist and they set up an elitist system.

Ty just like to argue against points that are painfully obvious.

[SlaveNoMore]

Hank Chinaski
Ty. doesn't it ever bother you that those mental giants Adder and GGG take in the news and reach the same conclusions you do? It would scare me if I thought like them.

TEHRAN (AFP) - Air pollution has killed 3,600 people in just a month in the Iranian capital Tehran, an official said, describing the city's environmental situation as a "collective suicide".

"Pollution has directly or indirectly caused the deaths of 3,600 people in the month of Aban (October 23 to November 23)," Mohammad Hadi Heydarzadeh, director of Tehran's clean air committee, was quoted by Tuesday's edition of Kargozaran newspaper.

He said that the deaths were caused by heart attacks brought on by the air pollution and that the smog was responsible for 80 percent of the fatal heart problems that month in Tehran, one of the world's most polluted cities.

"It is a very serious and lethal crisis, a collective suicide," he warned. "A real revolution is needed to resolve this problem."

The new figures showed a sharp rise in pollution-related deaths in Iran, where 9,900 people died of pollution in the previous Iranian year (March 2005 to March 2006).

Carbon monoxide from car exhausts is blamed for the majority of deaths by creating respiratory and cardiac problems in Tehran, which has 1.3 million ageing cars with poor fuel efficiency, spewing lethal gases into citizens' lungs.

Half of Iran's six million cars fail to meet global standards and burn twice as much petrol as a European car. With pump prices at a mere nine cents a liter With pump prices merely at nine cents a liter (41 cents per gallon), streets are crammed with cars, with terrible traffic jams in rush hours.

The pollution problem becomes particularly acute during winter when a lack of wind and the cold air means that great clouds of smog sit on the city for days on end.

The authorities regularly ask the elderly and children not to leave their homes when the pollution is at its peak in Tehran, a city of at least seven million people. They also shut down schools to protect the pupils.

link

Wow! More dead in a mere month than all the US troops KIA in Iraq in 3 years. I blame Bush and his environmental policies. What a clusterfuck!!!

[SlaveNoMore]

Spanky
You are exactly right but Ty likes to pretend that the motives of the Democrat party are always pure.

Enter the "pure" party, again, stage left:

The Senate is boiling with excitement right now. For background, the Senate is proposing very weak earmark reform rules. In contrast, Speaker Pelosi and the House Democrats implemented some very strong earmark rules in the lower chamber last week.

In response, Senator Jim DeMint, who is a very strong advocate for more transparency, figured, “Let’s just offer Pelosi’s reforms as an amendment to the Senate bill.”

It was a very clever strategy. Dick Durbin, the Majority Whip, threw a fit on the Senate floor and offered a motion to table it (kill it).

Let's be clear about the rich irony here. Senate Leadership tried to kill a bill that House Leadership supported and passed. Harry Reid and Dick Durbin are basically saying that they want their pork no matter what, even if it embarrasses their own party.

So when the motion to kill the bill came to a vote, Durbin and the Democrats lost! [ed. note: At this point, the Senate erupted. The chair, who I think was Maria Cantwell, banged the gavel repeatedly to bring the room to order. The Democrats were frantically performing triage in an attempt to recover.]

It should be noted that a majority should never offer a motion to table if they aren’t sure they can win. It was very embarrassing. Especially since Durbin was trying to kill a proposal that his Leadership colleagues in the House offered!

Anyways, after the motion failed, DeMint asked for a voice vote, which is common. It's basically used to save time since de facto support of the bill was decided when the motion failed. However, Big Ted Kennedy objected, which is all that it needed to skip a voice vote.

http://www.instapundit.com/

[Adder]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Enter the ad hominem, stage left.

How is it an ad hominem to believe that your summary of the "facts" is inaccurate?

Or are you suggesting that the sky is actually a different color in your world, and that it is unfair of me to suggest your burnt orange sky somehow clouds your judgment?

For the record, I hear almost no one playing the "things really are good in Iraq, the media is just misleading everyone" card anymore. I am surprised that you are sticking to it.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
You are exactly right but Ty likes to pretend that the motives of the Democrat party are always pure.

(a) bullshit -- I'll vote for Republicans but you don't vote for Democrats

(b) to the extent that Democrats are putting aside their best views about Iraq for the sake of politics, they are soft-pedaling their opposition to what the President is doing for fear of being accused of undercutting the troops and losing the war -- there are lots of Dems who seem to be doing this, and they are being attacked for it from the left

(c) name Democrats who think escalation is a good idea but who are opposing the war for political purposes -- I can't think of one

(d) since you're the GOP insider, tell us who is pressuring the President to do what on Iraq for what GOP political purpose, and tell us how it's working