Politics Plus

It had appeared to me that Joe Biden was beginning to make progress  toward restarting negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians.  Then Israel slammed the door.

Hours after the arrival Tuesday of Vice President Joe Biden to help launch indirect Israeli-Palestinian peace talks, Israel announced the construction of 1,600 homes in a settlement block in mostly Arab East Jerusalem, an open rebuff that led Biden to issue a sharply worded condemnation.

"I condemn the decision by the government of Israel to advance planning for new housing units in east Jerusalem," Biden said in a statement issued by the White House.

"The substance and timing of the announcement, particularly with the launching of proximity talks, is precisely the kind of step that undermines the trust we need right now and runs counter to the constructive discussions that I’ve had here in Israel."

The announcement by the Israeli Interior Ministry came during Biden’s first day in the region, the highest profile visit by an Obama administration official. It appeared to catch the administration off guard.

President Barack Obama repeatedly had demanded a halt in settlement construction in order to revive the moribund peace negotiations.

Just hours before the announcement, Biden told Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that the U.S. was "optimistic" that indirect talks would begin a process by which a final peace deal could be reached.

"I am very pleased that you and the Palestinian leadership have agreed to launch indirect talks. We hope that these talks will lead, and they must lead eventually, to negotiations and direct discussions between the parties," Biden said.

He said his visit was meant to highlight the "unbreakable" bond between Israel and the U.S., especially on issues of security.

"Progress occurs in the Middle East when everyone knows there is simply no space between the United States and Israel. There is no space between the United States and Israel when it comes to Israel’s security," he said

The Israeli decision to approve 1,600 new settler homes could torpedo the talks before they have even begun, officials from the Palestinian Authority said… [emphasis added]

Inserted from <McClatchy DC>

Even though the embedded map is over 18 months out of date, it clearly shows the extent of the Israeli incursion into Palestinian territory.  This indicates that Israel’s intent is to eliminate the Palestinian state, guaranteed by treaty, through attrition.  The timing of Israel’s announcement is a slap in the US face for having the audacity to try to achieve peace.  It shows that Israel does not want peace.  While I have no objection to the US guaranteeing Israel’s sovereignty (in their OWN territory only), I think it’s tome to withdraw the military aid being used for Israel’s predatory behavior toward the Palestinians.

As health care reform comes down to the wire, Dennis Kucinich is the lone progressive holdout.  His could be the one vote that derails over a year’s of hard work and hands a huge victory to the Republicans.  He appeared last night on Countdown.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

It’s hard to disagree with Dennis.  Most of what he says is right on.  His description is more applicable to the Senate Bill as passed, and does not take into account the changes proposed for the reconciliation bill.  Nevertheless, on this issue, I want everything he wants.

But here’s the rub.  We’re not going to get everything we want.  We either take what we can get, or we get nothing at all.  This is where Kucinich takes leave of his senses.  In his absolute, concrete view, he is willing to give up everything we can get, because he cant have it 100% his way.  I expect that kind of pig-headedness from Republicans, not progressives.

Robert Creamer explains why we have to move forward.

Over the last several weeks various pundits — and Republican talkers — have fanned out across the airwaves to proclaim that Democrats face grave political danger this fall if they are so bold as to pass health care reform in the face of united Republican opposition.

For Congressional Democrats, the source of this advice should be enough to make it completely suspect. And in fact, history shows that just the opposite is true — and many Republicans know it.

Republicans do not win when Democrats are successful at making fundamental progressive change. They win when they stop Democrats from making fundamental progressive change.

As a progressive Democrat, I would be thrilled if every Republican votes against a health care reform bill that passes Congress and is signed into law by the President, since history shows they will pay a steep price for their united opposition to progressive change.

All you need to do is look at the last century of American politics. When has the modern Democratic Party been most successful? When it delivered on fundamental progressive change.

After Roosevelt delivered Social Security, the right of unions to organize, the regulation of Wall Street through the SEC, the reorganization of the banking system and FDIC, public works programs, and by massively increasing the share of taxes paid by the very rich, Democrats maintained huge margins in Congress and the Presidency for two decades. They also lay the foundation for the most robust period of economic growth in the history of humanity.

When President Johnson and the Democratic Congress passed Medicare and Medicaid, the Civil Rights Act and the War on Poverty – and later the Democratic Congress created the EPA — Democrats had majorities in the House for three and a half decades that outlasted the conservative Reagan revolution of the 1980s by 14 years.

It wasn’t until 1994 – largely because of the failure of Congress to pass the Clinton health care reform plan – that Republicans gained control of the House.

Why do Democrats do so well when they make fundamental progressive change? Because those policies benefit the vast majority of the voters rather than the tiny super-wealthy minority – the top 2% of the population – that are the chief beneficiaries of Republican status quo economic policies.

Ask any senior, or person with a disability, how they feel about Medicare and Social Security – policies that were passed by Democrats and opposed tooth and nail by Republicans. Even some Tea Party activists carry around signs that read: "Hands Off My Medicare." Ask most everyday Americans how they feel about child labor laws, or the minimum wage, or the Food and Drug Administration that protects consumers from unsafe food and medicines. Ask any consumer how she feels about the Federal Trade Commission, or federal laws that protect us from unsafe products. Ask anyone who breathes how they feel about laws that cleaned up our air and water.

Ask virtually anyone in America how they feel about public education – or a woman’s right to vote.

All of these fundamental changes in American society were fought by the conservatives of the time, and once passed they all came to define the high political ground.

Americans are not disgusted with Washington today because of the bold initiatives it is considering. They are disgusted, in considerable measure, because it appears gridlocked and unable to deal with the problems confronting the nation, and their stagnant standard of living. They are tired of politicians who see politics as a "gotcha" game instead of a way to deal with the problems and opportunities that confront their families. They hate the idea that their political leaders are in bed with Wall Street, the oil companies and the insurance giants – that campaign contributors have more sway than the voters.

They want decisive action to make fundamental change every bit as much as they did when they elected Barack Obama a little over a year ago.

When Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) said last year that Republicans could make the defeat of health care reform "Obama’s Waterloo," he understood that it was great politics for Republicans to prevent fundamental reform, not the opposite.

If, once it is passed and signed into law, the Republicans want to campaign to repeal health care reform I say, go ahead, make my day.

As a Democrat, I love our odds if we can campaign against Republicans who voted against allowing ordinary Americans to have the right to buy the same kind of health care that is available to Members of Congress.

Something like: "Republican Congressman Mark Kirk is happy to let the government pay for his health care, but Congressman Kirk voted against requiring that ordinary Americans be eligible to buy the same health insurance as Members of Congress.

Congressman Kirk may enjoy being an important Member of Congress, but when it comes to his health care, he should be no better than the rest of us."

When Congressman Roy Blunt runs for the Senate in Missouri this fall, I can’t wait to see ads like:

"When it came to health insurance reform, Congressman Roy Blunt knew which side he was on.

Blunt voted against reining in the power of health insurance companies to raise rates – by thirty nine … fifty… even sixty percent.

He voted to oppose preventing insurance companies from denying coverage because of pre-existing conditions.

He opposed requiring that insurance companies spend at least 80% of our premiums on medical care instead of CEO salaries, lobbyists, exploding profits, and armies of bureaucrats that do nothing but deny claims.

In fact, Congressman Blunt stood up for the insurance companies every time he had a chance. Isn’t it time we had someone who stands up for us?"

The pundits who are blathering on that passing the health care bill is bad politics for Democrats either don’t know what they’re talking about, or are running a deliberate misinformation campaign to persuade swing Democrats to vote no… [emphasis original]

Inserted from <Huffington Post>

I would like nothing better than to see this bill, flawed as it is, pass.  It will serve as a foundation for future reform.  It will hand the GOP a huge defeat.  And, id the Republicans are stupid enough to run on repealing it, it will help lead to their extinction as a viable political party.  I only hope that a few extreme ideologues, like Stupak on the right and Kucinich on the left, who refuse to compromise, do not deprive 30 million Americans of health care, leave Big Insurance free to deny coverage to and cancel coverage of sick people, allow the needless deaths of 47,000 Americans a year, and hand the GOP a huge victory in November.