ThinkProgress Logo

Politics

At least 80 killed in Mumbai terrorist attacks.

Earlier today, terrorists attacked popular luxury hotels in Mumbai, India using machine-guns and grenades, killing at least 82 people and wounding 240. At the moment, “scores of tourists” remain trapped in one of the hotels. In response, President-elect Obama issued the following statement:

President-Elect Obama strongly condemns today’s terrorist attacks in Mumbai, and his thoughts and prayers are with the victims, their families, and the people of India. These coordinated attacks on innocent civilians demonstrate the grave and urgent threat of terrorism. The United States must continue to strengthen our partnerships with India and nations around the world to root out and destroy terrorist networks. We stand with the people of India, whose democracy will prove far more resilient than the hateful ideology that led to these attacks.

A group known as the “Deccan Mujahideen” has claimed responsibility. Earlier tonight, CNN’s Barbara Starr referred to the attacks as a “game-changer” according to “intelligence services around the world.” “Senior U.S. officials telling me just a few moments ago this is possibly the most well-coordinated attack they have seen in some time,” she added.

Politics

Lieberman contributed to GOP Senate and House candidates.

The fact that Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) supported Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) in the presidential election is well-known. However, the Washington Post reports today that Lieberman was also supporting at least four Republican lawmakers. His Reuniting our Country PAC gave $5,000 to Sen. Gordon Smith (R-OR) and another $5,000 to Rep. Peter King (R-NY) in October. He wrote an op-ed in the St. Pioneer Press defending Sen. Norm Coleman (R-MN), and publicly endorsed and contributed to the re-election of Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME). More recently, Lieberman has said that he fears “America will not survive” if Democrats receive a filibuster-proof majority.

Yglesias

Choosing Your Battles

Dana Goldstein has interesting posts up about “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” and the Freedom of Choice Act. I would say that it’s when considering these kind of issues that it’s most important to keep the “strategic presidency” considerations in mind.

Even a one-term president has a long time in office — four years. And even a two-term president has only a relatively brief “honeymoon” period in which he has a shot at really bending congress to his will. So when thinking about your priorities, it’s important to front-load with the right things. DADT is really bad candidate for front-loading. The president could change it by fiat, and the key stakeholders the president would want to bend to his will are in the military rather than congress. So there’s no advantage gained by bringing this up during your key window of opportunity. Conversely, bringing it up could easily shift attention off whatever it is you’re trying to do. Once you’re key legislative priorities are sorted into a “things that have already passed” basket and a “proposals that died in congress” basket, that becomes a good time to turn your attention, strike a blow for justice, and give a key group of supporters what they want.

With FOCA it seems like more of an empirical issue. There’s no sense blowing political capital on the current strong FOCA if it’s nowhere near having the support it needs to pass the Senate. If that’s the case (and I suspect that it is) then let it get watered-down to something closer to passable before having the president deal with it. But if it’s actually on the bubble and could pass in its current form, then I see a case to be made for plowing ahead. You’d need to gauge the actual level of support for this bill in congress. But what wouldn’t make sense would be a basically symbolic push for doomed legislation in the early months of the new administration. There are lots of chances over a four year term to have symbolic pushes for doomed legislation, but during your window of opportunity you want to focus on accomplishing as much as can realistically be accomplished.

Yglesias

The Final Days

Just a little reminder of what a shitty, shitty president George W. Bush is and what a bunch of immoral jackasses are working for him. A little taste of how they’re burning the midnight oil over at the White House: “White House Prods Allies to Oppose Limits on Greenhouse Gases.”

The more I think about it, the more I think that from the vantage point of 2108, Bush’s actions on climate may well rank right up their with the Buchanan administration in the annals of bad presidenting.

Yglesias

The Irrelevant House Republicans

electoralcollege2008svg_1.png

Elizabeth Drew has an interesting piece on “The Truth About the Election” but I wanted to comment on this one point:

Obama has spoken a great deal about seeking bipartisanship, but how much this is attainable is yet to be known. The Republican ranks on Capitol Hill will have shrunk as a result of the election, and will be more dominated by the right. Few moderate Republicans in the Senate—Maine Senators Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe among them—remain. In the House, there are only seventeen Republicans from the eastern states between Maryland and Maine, and none from New England. Obama seeks to set a new tone in Washington, but House Republican leaders, and those jockeying for leadership positions, like Eric Cantor (Virginia) and Dan Lungren (California), are playing to their conservative base and are sounding as partisan as ever—if not more so. They appear disinclined to give the new President any cooperation, shortsighted though that may be for their party.

The thing of it is that it doesn’t really matter what Eric Cantor thinks. The House Republicans are, in effect, irrelevant. The House GOP mattered in the 110th Congress because President Bush used his agenda-setting powers to frame a certain number of issues such that Blue Dogs agreed with the Republicans. In the 111th Congress, you’ll have more liberals (making Blue Dog votes less necessary) plus more Blue Dogs (reducing the proportion of the Blue Dog faction you need to get all the Blue Dog votes you need) and a Democratic president who presumably won’t deliberately shift the agenda to terrain that lets the Republicans get the upper hand.

What matters is the Senate. And I would suggest that what matters here is less the number of moderates than the number of people representing states Obama won. Namely — Senators Collins, Snowe, Spectre, Voinovich, Lugar, Grassley, Burr, Martinez, Ensign, and possibly Coleman. Obama will have a strong argument to make that the voters of those states would like to see congress cooperate with the Obama agenda, and he has the organizational tools at his disposal to ensure that voters who feel that way are able to express their feelings to their senators.

Politics

White House sends out Christmas-themed Hanukkah invitations.

President and First Lady Bush recently sent Jewish community leaders invitations to a Hanukkah reception at the White House next month. But as the New York Post reports, the invitations “raised more than a few eyebrows” because the image on them was that of a “Clydesdale horse hauling a Christmas fir along the snow-dappled drive to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave”:

news003.jpg

One Jewish community leader from Brooklyn quipped, “It’s obvious what’s going on here: The Christmas tree is being taken out of the White House and the menorah is being brought in the back.” The first lady’s spokesperson explained, “It is something that just slipped through the cracks.”

Culture

Braise the Turkey?

Ezra Klein recommends Mark Bittman’s proposal to save turkey by braising it. This, however, requires you to dismember the turkey rather than cook it whole:

Could be a promising meliorationist solution to the turkey problem. Still not convinced that this would actually taste better than, say, a coq au vin or a braised lamb shank or any number of non-turkey braising option.

Culture

The LeBron Factor

Doesn’t it seem a bit premature to be talking about where LeBron James will land in 2010? At the moment, Cleveland is posting the third-best record in the Association and their point differential is actually better than Boston’s. What’s more, the Cavs typically work somewhat better as a playoff team than as a regular season squad, because they can squeeze even more MPG out of the King. The Lakers are definitely still the favorites, but the interesting LeBron question of the moment is whether he’ll win an NBA Championship this coming spring, not what free agent moves he’ll make.

Meanwhile, if the guy’s making a max salary playing for a contending team in his home state, why’s he going to leave?

Health

Why Big Reform Should And Could Happen In 2009

costcontainment.jpgIn a post titled ‘Why big reform won’t happen in 2009,’ Joe Paduda of Managed Care Matters responds to our argument that the economic crisis demands health care reform. While recognizing, to some degree, that Congress cannot help American families or address the economic woes “in a lasting, meaningful way without health care reform,” Paduda argues that a lack of cost containment measures render comprehensive health care reform unaffordable:

While I applaud their motives, perspective and logic, I would also note that their piece completely misses the big point, a point they themselves explicitly acknowledge. None of the health care reform initiatives presently before Congress (except for the Wyden-Bennett bill), nor President-elect Obama’s health reform platform address costs.

A recent analysis of Barack Obama’s proposal by PricewaterhouseCoopers’ Health Research Institute priced Obama’s plan at $75 billion a year, with over one-third of the costs coming from existing funding for the uninsured. The group did agree with Paduda, noting “unless successful cost containment strategies were put into place, growing health care costs will increase the costs of Obama’s plan.”

Fortunately, Obama did not leave cost contain containment out of his proposal. In fact, just this summer CAPAF released an analysis of Obama’s cost-containment strategies. The report recognized that while universal health care reform would require an upfront investment in coverage and health care infrastructure, Obama’s containment measures would also help bring down health care costs and make covering all Americans more affordable.

Here are the specifics:

- Expanding Access Contains Costs: By extending coverage to all, Obama can achieve efficiencies, end cost shifting and rationalize
financing mechanisms. As Bookings Institute economist Henry Aaron points out, broadly expanding coverage is “a precondition for effective measures to limit overall health care spending.”

- Harness Market Power of Group Purchasing: Through Obama’s proposed insurance exchanges, small purchasers and individuals achieve greater clout vis a vis insurance companies. Small purchasers would enjoy greater choice of health plans, greater choice of provider networks, and lower premiums than they experience today.

- Emphasize Prevention: While the United States spent $132 billion in 2002 treating Americans with diabetes, just $70 billion went to the prevention of all diseases. It can be difficult to quantify the possible savings from expanded prevention efforts, but experts estimate that just ensuring that every child receives every routine vaccination could reduce direct and indirect health care costs by up to $40 billion over time.

- Improve Information On Effective Treatments: Today, Americans are likely to receive the appropriate care just half of the time, and approximately one-third of individuals seeking care are likely to experience a medical error such as a medication mistake or the wrong lab results. Improving quality could help save lives and contain costs. Estimates of savings go as high as 150,000 lives and $100 billion every year.

- Greater Use Of Information Technology: Less than 25 percent of hospitals, and less than 20 percent of doctor’s offices, employ health information technology systems. Estimates vary, and real-life experience is limited, but one group of researchers finds that implementing health IT would result in mean annual savings of $40 billion over a 15-year period.

- Better Management Of Chronic Disease: Treating the 90 million Americans with chronic conditions costs about $1.2 trillion a year, or approximately two-thirds of national health care spending. Better care for individuals with these conditions can translate into substantial savings. If every diabetes patient received the appropriate primary care for their condition, for instance, then national health care spending would fall by $2.5 billion.

Older

Switch to Mobile
ThinkProgress Signup Overlay Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress

Sign Up