How High?

I swear I've seen this movie before.

Last week Senate Democrats announced they had reached a deal which would allow them to move forward on healthcare legislation. They would drop the “public option,” replacing it instead with a combination of an early buy-in provision for medicare and a nationwide private plan administered by the same agency that handles healthcare plans for members of Congress. Apparently upset that he wasn’t hugged enough during the process, Joe Lieberman has decided - again - that he will vote with Republicans to kill the bill. At this point it’s a little difficult to understand the rationale of the senior senator from Connecticut, as the reasons for his discontent seem to change depending on what he’s had for breakfast. (As an aside, Democrats probably should have seen trouble coming when they saw Lieberman campaigning against now President Obama a year ago.) It has nothing to do with him representing his constituents, since he isn’t - Connecticut residents support healthcare reform with a “public option” by a margin of nearly two to one. So his motivations are left to speculation. I choose to speculate that his opposition has something to do with his defeat in the 2006 Democratic primary, but that may or may not be accurate.

In a way, Republicans relish Democrats in power, because Democrats can always be counted on to cannibalize one another. Like the winners they are, Congressional Democrats have managed to take an issue they easily had majority support for at the beginning of the process and run it into the ground. Approval and disapproval ratings for reform have virtually flipped since September, due in no small measure to their inability to agree on a policy and success at alienating their base. And with so much time invested in the process, failure to pass a reform bill would spell disaster for the party. So, they leave themselves with two options. They can capitulate to Lieberman’s demands, strip out the public option and the medicare buy-in and the national private option completely neutering the bill, pass a 2,000 page paperweight and try to patch the holes in years to come. Or, they can revert to the bill that passed the first vote, tether the public option to some sort of trigger mechanism thereby courting Olympia Snowe’s vote to reach the cloture vote and kick Lieberman to the curb. Whichever road they decide to take, it is clear that after the vote - if there is one - senate Democrats must re-evaluate Lieberman's position and influence in the Democratic caucus.

After healthcare reform failed under the President Clinton during the 90’s, conventional wisdom was that the failure was due to Congress largely being left out of the picture. As healthcare reform goes down in flames in 2008, the consensus seems to be that the impending doom is a result of the President allowing Congress to take the lead in shaping the bill. The common denominator here appears to be Congress.

In other news, the Congressional.... I’m sorry. I was distracted by Alicia Keys on television. Wow.

In an interview with Tavis Smiley on PBS last week, Jesse Jackson spent much of his time discussing a developing feud between the President and the Congressional Black Caucus. Apparently the caucus - and the reverend - feel that the White House has not done enough to help African Americans weather the recession. They have threatened to hold up and/or defeat aspects of Obama’s legislative agenda unless he responds to their concerns. Listening to the interview I couldn’t help but get the impression that what the activists want is for the President to propose and support legislation specifically targeting black people. Sigh. I guess it was only a matter of time before this issue cropped up. And in some respect it’s no different from issues resulting from any other election. When 95% of a voting block helps elect a particular candidate, that block expects their concerns to be addressed. But it is worth reminding Reverend Jackson and the Congressional Black Caucus that Barack Obama is President of the United States of America, not President of the United States of Black America. He cannot play favorites. Whatever policies he initiates must apply to everyone, not just certain segments of the electorate. This President will be held responsible for lifting the entire country out of economic catastrophe, not simply those with which he shares certain characteristics.

It was a good news/bad news kind of week for Mark Sanford last week. Over the past several months, the Governor has spent much of his time trekking around the state apologizing for misusing public funds to see his mistress/soul mate in Argentina. Last week, while the South Carolina legislature voted against his impeachment, his wife did something wives of politicians seldom do - she filed for divorce. Jenny Sanford decided that in the wake of her husband’s much publicized affair, the time had come for her to move on without him. Can’t say I blame her. Mark Sanford is term limited and is required to leave office in January of 2011. No word on whether or not he plans to relocate to South America. I hear it’s nice that time of year.

Last Friday President Obama spent the four hours of daylight available in Norway this time of year accepting his Nobel Peace Prize. Like most other awards, it is customary for the winner of the prize to deliver an acceptance speech, and deliver he did. According to many pundits on both ends of the political spectrum, it was his finest rhetorical hour since his reflections on race from Philadelphia during the campaign. While offering a vigorous defense of the role of war and particularly American military power in a dangerous world, the President also made a spirited case for the non-violent pursuit of peace and the power of individuals to affect positive change through dialogue and debate. Some liberals - perhaps some members of the Nobel committee - while moved by the plea for peace through non-violence, were disappointed by the defense of armed conflict under certain circumstances and probably wished they could rescind the award. However, some conservatives - Newt Gingrich for example - while dismissing the plea for non-violent peace, were surprised and impressed by Obama’s eloquent defense of a “just” armed conflict. Neither of these reactions are unexpected. What is surprising however, is the surprise.

During the campaign, too many people were so busy seeing what they wanted Barack Obama to be, that they failed to see Barack Obama as he actually is. This President is an idealistic pragmatist. He is not now and never has been a pacifist. From the very beginning he based his presidential campaign on the idea that while Iraq was the wrong war, Afghanistan was the right war and ought to be prosecuted judiciously and effectively. When challenged during a Democratic primary debate he stood by his statement that if the United States possessed actionable intelligence regarding the location of terrorists inside Pakistan’s borders, the United States should take military action to kill or capture those suspects, even if Pakistan refused to grant permission to cross the border. However, it is also clear that he believes war must be the last resort, turned to only AFTER EVERY diplomatic avenue has been explored and exhausted. “Supporting the troops” is as much about not placing them in harms way as it is about protecting them once they are in harms way.

According to Oscar Wilde, the test of a first rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposing ideas in a mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function. Very few public personalities perform this task better than Barack Obama. His Nobel acceptance speech was a perfect example of one adult talking to other adults as though we are capable of understanding concepts too long to fit on a bumper sticker. Writers far more articulate than I have already expounded upon the essence of the speech, so I refer to you to one of my favorites, Andrew Sullivan of The Atlantic, for deeper analysis. If you take the time to read it you will not be disappointed. http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/12/the-tragedy-of-hope.html

In hopes of developing an energy policy slightly more bipartisan than, well, anything to come out of Congress thus far, senators John Kerry, Lindsey Graham and yes, Joe Lieberman have announced they will be working together to present a draft bill palatable enough to gain support from both sides of the isle. Let me guess. Heavy on wind power. I know, too easy.

My NFL Thoughts for Week 14:

The Saints squeaked out another victory while the Colts held off a methodical Denver offense to continue their unbeaten streaks. However, careful observers may have noticed cracks beginning to show in the armor of both teams. A New Orleans defense that was chewing up opponents and spitting them out earlier this season now appears merely average. And the typically unflappable Peyton Manning has revealed himself to be less than superhuman, throwing at least two interceptions in the past four games. Fortunately for the undefeated, the quality of their opponents have been less than stellar, as better teams might have been able to take advantage of those mistakes. But with only three games left it looks as though all that stands in the way of two perfect regular seasons are a pair of coaching decisions. Will Indianapolis and New Orleans actually put any effort into winning the next three games? Or will they simply shut it down and rest their players in preparation for the playoffs? Conventional wisdom says they will shut it down - although history is weighted against that option. But, I’d like to look at it a little differently.

Following a loss to the New England Patriots Sunday afternoon, Carolina Panthers cornerback Chris Gamble accused Patriots superstar wide receiver Randy Moss of “shutting it down,” or taking more than a few plays off. Unfortunately for Moss, that statement is more or less true, and he has been ripped by every football talking head in every media since the first pass he dropped on Sunday. Sure, Moss’s history of this type of behavior makes him an easy target for people to question his work ethic, but why is he being held to a higher standard than the entire Indianapolis Colts organization? As a player under contract in the National Football League, Randy Moss has an obligation to show up to work every week and leave his best performance on the field. And when he neglects to do so he should be roundly and rightly criticized. Likewise, every NFL team has an obligation to put their best product on the field week in and week out - including New Orleans and Indianapolis. With a record of 1-12, the St. Louis Rams have absolutely nothing to play for. But if their players go out and mail it in for the next three games, they should be - and will be shredded in the media. If the Saints and Colts sent out the third string to play out the schedule in preparation for the playoffs, why should they be treated any different?

Is there a team in the league more schizophrenic than the Arizona Cardinals? After rolling up to Minnesota and soundly defeating the previously one-loss Vikings, the division leaders made the relatively short trip up to San Francisco only to be soundly walloped by a 49ers team three games behind them in the standings. Arizona turned the ball over SEVEN times, leaving San Francisco no choice but to clobber them and prevent them from clinching the division title. While the Cardinals are capable of performing to the level of a Super Bowl-caliber team, they are also fully capable of being blown out in the first round in much the same manner they disposed of Carolina a year ago. Looks like we’ll just have to wait and see which Cardinals team shows up to play in January.

Last week I accused the Cleveland Browns of being awful. Worse than the Detroit Lions. I was wrong. No, the Browns are still awful. But after defeating the defending Super Bowl champion Pittsburgh Steelers in a grass-covered icebox last Thursday I can no longer consider them worse than the Lions. That dishonor falls to the Buccaneers, who failed to record a first down against the Jets last weekend until they were gifted one on a penalty midway through the third quarter.

Don’t look now, but the San Diego Chargers have crept into second place in the conference behind Indianapolis look very capable of playing through to February. They are the one team absolutely no one wants to face right now.

My Super Bowl Picks for Week 14: New Orleans Saints vs. Indianapolis Colts.

Last week the city of Houston, Texas elected its first openly-gay mayor. While this is not unique in America, (cities like Portland Oregon already have gay mayors), Houston is the fourth-largest city in the country, and smack in the middle of the Bible-belt. I guess sometimes little things like issues matter more than the color of one’s skin or one’s sexual orientation.

Finally, I ran across an interesting statistic this morning. There are more medical marijuana dispensaries in the city of Los Angeles than there are Starbucks and McDonalds restaurants combined. Would you like a joint with that Big Mac and Frappuccino?