Krauthammer on Death Panels

IT SHOULD NOT BE NEWS THAT A REPUBLICAN ONCE IN A WHILE SAYS SOMETHING HALFWAY SENSIBLE.
.
Unfortunately, for now this is a "man-bites-dog" story.

I hardly think the anti-healthcare reform crew cares much what happens to the poor. The poor could all get talked into cyanide as the latest weight loss craze for all they care. It's the possibility that some public money might get diverted from funnel into the pockets of the insurance and drug companies and do, you know, some public good that bothers them.

whoops - replied to the wrong comment - scroll down please, folks.

His interview with Smerconish was another serving of political softballs. Obama continues to talk in generalities of what he wants then demurs when confronted by the utter nonsense of his statements. He will then argument "it is lies and misinformation" as none of those items are in the bill. He speaks fluent BS.

It's not the illegal things that have been done to the poor in the name of finance that appalls me, it's what has been done that is legal and still is.

Paul

Here is a concept for you. If the APR's are too high DON'T USE THEM. No one holds a gun to someones head to use the service.

You also mention 18-22% as unconscionable. The you must really be appalled at 35-50% confiscatory tax rates for governments. With credit cards you have a choice to use them, not so much with taxes.

They're getting it from mindbogglingly poor "reporting" like this:

A Basis Is Seen for Some Health Plan Fears Among the Elderly
.
By ROBERT PEAR Published: August 20, 2009
.
WASHINGTON — White House officials and Democrats in Congress say the fears of older Americans about possible rationing of health care are based on myths and falsehoods. But Medicare beneficiaries and insurance counselors say the concerns are not entirely irrational.
.
Bills now in Congress would squeeze savings out of Medicare, a lifeline for the elderly, on the assumption that doctors and hospitals can be more efficient.
.
The zeal for cutting health costs, combined with proposals to compare the effectiveness of various treatments and to counsel seniors on end-of-life care, may explain why some people think the legislation is about rationing, which could affect access to the most expensive services in the final months of life.

“I don't think we will get the quality of health care with this plan that we get now,” said James T. Aronis, 79, of Wichita, Kan.
.
In an interview, Mr. Aronis explained his reasons for concern. “I had prostate cancer,” he said. “My doctor removed it immediately, one day after getting the results of a biopsy. That probably would not happen under the new health plan.”

In the poll, among those 65 and older, 62 percent said they were confused by the debate in Washington, compared with 43 percent of those under 65.
.
In effect, Mr. Obama says he can cut bloated Medicare payments to inefficient health care providers without adversely affecting any beneficiaries. Many doctors are dubious.
.
Mr. Obama has been unable to dispel the concerns of older Americans because the health care bills in Congress are long, complex and evolving.

.
I can't even imagine the kind of thinking that believes that this level of He Said/She Said is journalism, but there it is.
.
Where are facts? Where is any actual reporting of them? What possible good does this article do for anyone confused about anything?
.
"A Basis Is Seen for Some Health Plan Fears"? What?
.
" White House officials and Democrats in Congress say the fears of older Americans about possible rationing of health care are based on myths and falsehoods." Oh! That's what those people say! Fine job of reporting, Robert Pear!
.
But is there another side?
.
Yes!
.
"But Medicare beneficiaries and insurance counselors say the concerns are not entirely irrational." Oh, really! Some unnamed, unlinked people with an unknown agenda say something else? That death panels are "not entirely irrational"? Not entirely, did he say? Does that mean "irrational" in almost every case one can think of? Does that mean "irrational" unless certain important information about rationing not existing is withheld? Does that mean "irrational", except on the surface of Jupiter?
.
"The zeal for cutting health costs, combined with proposals to compare the effectiveness of various treatments and to counsel seniors on end-of-life care, may explain why some people think the legislation is about rationing..."
.
Right.
.
The proposals themselves, which have nothing to do with rationing, and everything to do with addressing the problem of the United States paying twice as much as every other developed country, combined with important information sharing and decent, noble efforts to help us prepare for the inevitable may explain why some are misinformed about those proposals.
.
Apparently, Robert Pear hasn't considered the idea that perhaps articles about non-rationing proposals entitled "A Basis Is Seen for Some Health Plan Fears Among the Elderly " may also "explain why some people think the legislation is about rationing".
.
Perhaps he might have considered that, in reporting the entirely reasonable concerns of "Mr. Aronis", that "[his life-saving prostate surgery] probably would not happen under the new health plan" without ever actually evaluating whether or not this is true, Mr. Pear has contributed to why "Many doctors are dubious" that proper treatment would be paid for under current proposals.
.
Maybe, in addition to the complexity and length of the bills befuddling he and his colleagues so, "Mr. Obama has been unable to dispel the concerns of older Americans" precisely because of this surreally poor output of worthless, He Said-She Said reportage from our respected, elite, Serious institutions of journalism.
.
Truly, it is amazing that we in this country are subject to a public policy debate in which "reporting" like this abounds --even in a supposedly elite institution of journalism like the New York Times. It explains quite a bit about the confusion that exists amongst ordinary people about how the proposals being discussed will or will not help them.
.
It also explains quite a bit about how career liberals --busy as they are climbing political media ladders towards and through these elite institutions-- can't quite ever match the misinformation power of the rightists (who don't depend on papers like the Times to exist), and then blame those strangely uninformed people out there for not being as sure of things as they are.

They also do it through their free choice and to assure the government stays out of their affairs

They also do it through their free choice and to assure the government stays out of their affairs
.
By leaving living will consultation coverage out of government-run Medicare?

every time I hear someone talking about Obama being spineless I get the urge to say - run for f**king office yourself if you think you could do better.

a question: would you rather Obama be verbally tougher but fail to get a bill through or for Obama to be conciliatory but get a bill through?

"would you rather Obama be verbally tougher but fail to get a bill through or for Obama to be conciliatory but get a bill through?"
.
I prefer he use the majority he was given and do what those who voted for him want him to do. He doesn't need any Republican support and yet he persists in trying to win their approval. My guess this weak need for mass approval, even from his enemies and people who hate him, may be a result of growing up without a father.

"My guess this weak need for mass approval, even from his enemies and people who hate him, may be a result of growing up without a father."

my guess is that amateur psychology is really not helpful to any debate.

"I prefer he use the majority he was given and do what those who voted for him want him to do. He doesn't need any Republican support and yet he persists in trying to win their approval. "

but how do you know what he is doing or not doing? he still supports the public option and wants to keep costs down. what has he done to make you think he's spineless. The house has passed three bills, the senate one and only one other committee is stalled in these bipartisan negotiations.

"my guess is that amateur psychology is really not helpful to any debate."

.
I suggest that blowing up at other posters adds nothing to the conversation. Just scroll by mine if you are unable to control your temper.

in your dreams

Last night Paul Begala stated that Obama has made 100 concessions to the Republicans without getting a single thing in return, like a vote for example. If that isn't a sign of weakness I don't know what is. If I were the Republicans I'd just sit there is silence and watch him fold up like an accordion, negotiating with himself.

Derek, isn't it more likely he's just not that into progressive policies? Why search for elaborate psycho-babble explanations when a simple one is readily available?
.
He's governing like WJC, with similar aims and ideological orientation, but trying to avoid some of his process mistakes. Which is probably because that's the kind of person who becomes the leader of the Democratic party. Look, if HRC had won and was making exactly the same choices no one would be surprised. Disappointed maybe, but not surprised or confused. Obama is like other elite Democrats.

"Derek, isn't it more likely he's just not that into progressive policies? Why search for elaborate psycho-babble explanations when a simple one is readily available?"
.
I was under the illusion he was more liberal than Clinton. However, if he isn't I see no reason for democrats to blow up at progressives for deserting him, in the same way he has deserted liberals. Why stay in a party where you are not welcome?

I was under the illusion he was more liberal than Clinton.
.
Derek, okay. But why? He was the hedge fund managers favorite candidate. He was to the right of HRC on health care, with that transparently illogical argument that mandates were not essential for universal health care (and for doing something about costs, of course). Was it Iraq? Because WJC was right, he did backtrack on that before he embraced his initial opposition again.
.
Instead of blaming his failure to meet your (unrealistic) expectations on father issues, it would be better to just face the truth.
.
However, if he isn't I see no reason for democrats to blow up at progressives for deserting him, in the same way he has deserted liberals. Why stay in a party where you are not welcome?
.
Because it's better than the alternative.

Rose I don't see what is so outrageous about suggesting that someone who did not have a father may try to compensate for it later in life. However, believe me I'll never raise it again.
.
To me the democrats no longer offer a better alternative that the Republicans. I don't see a difference between them. The party is more concerned with appeasing a small band of blue dogs than satisfying the large group of activists who worked tirelessly to get them into power. It would be better for liberals to behave like the blue dogs, and then maybe they will get some attention.

To me the democrats no longer offer a better alternative that the Republicans. I don't see a difference between them.
.
Really? Do you not remember the past 8 years? The changes in reproductive aid policies alone make his election worthwhile. And Sarah 'Death Panel' Palin is not a heartbeat away from having her finger on the button.
.
There are a lot of reasons why it's problematic to focus on Obama's potential father issues, but perhaps the most important reason is that it changes the discussion from 'What are the forces margianalizing progressivism?' to a purely speculative and gossippy dissection of Obama's personal life.

"There are a lot of reasons why it's problematic to focus on Obama's potential father issues, but perhaps the most important reason is that it changes the discussion from 'What are the forces margianalizing progressivism?' to a purely speculative and gossippy dissection of Obama's personal life."
.
I am simply trying to understand why he keeps trying to make friends with people who hate his guts, and who wish him nothing but ill will. It is obviously some sort of psychological defect, an overriding need to be loved and accepted. There is no rational reason why he would still be trying to cut a deal with them.

I am simply trying to understand why he keeps trying to make friends with people who hate his guts, and who wish him nothing but ill will. It is obviously some sort of psychological defect, an overriding need to be loved and accepted. There is no rational reason why he would still be trying to cut a deal with them.
.
Derek, love? Acceptance? Um... maybe he just wants to maintain the support of fanatic bipartisan ideologues like Joe Klein, and maybe he doesn't want to be beholden to progressives.
.
Look, I suggest you face the obvious here: he's happy to try and cut deals with "moderate" Republicans because he is happy to make the concessions. And he's happy to make the concessions because he is not a progressive.
.
It would be irrational for Obama to refuse to make concessions which are essential for his popularity with elites in the MSM and elsewhere and which he's not even strongly opposed to on ideological grounds.

I can sympathize w/both positions illustrated here. On a rational level, I'd have to side with Rose's contention that psychology is purely speculative and unproductive. I think dems personally affronted by Obama's "betrayal" (an arguable depiction to begin with) are similar to those who trust him on some nebulous gut level. Greenwald says of trust for ALL politicians:
~
"'trust' is appropriate for one's friends, loved ones, family members and the like -- but not for politicians."
~
But, of course, we are all human and thus seek to understand human (I know, they're POLITICIANS!) actions in human terms. And I admit I'm guilty of this at times. Perhaps I'm just trying to salvage a reason to continue voting donkey-D after decades of disappointment (a humiliating cycle of hope and reality).
~
In my less than rational moments, it's 'oh, Obama, really, in his heart of hearts is a progressive, his sympathies are with us,' but as Rose says, he's afraid to embrace those inner convictions, terrified of losing Joe Klein or Chucky Grassley. Part of me knows I'm projecting wildly when I do this, but, honestly, where would most of us summon the resolve to participate in this so-called democracy without such vain misreadings.
~
Before I head out for the day, let me just say that per GG, Krug, and espec Link！Digby that Derek's feeling is hardly surprising or limited in scope. 9 months in, let's be frank, Obama is poised to alienate his base and see another Naderite desertion in coming elections.

"Look, I suggest you face the obvious here: he's happy to try and cut deals with "moderate" Republicans because he is happy to make the concessions. And he's happy to make the concessions because he is not a progressive."
.
John Kyl said today he does not expect a single Republican to vote for health reform. Even if he gets one of them to vote for it do you think alienating your base for one lousy Republican vote is the action of a rational person? He either has some sort of pychological problem or he just isn't very bright.

I know conservatives have a fetish for tort reform, but don't expect it to move the needle on basic Health Care costs.
.
"Family physicians, internists, and pediatricians all paid a median of $12,500 annually for med-mal coverage, based on the survey."
.
and
.
"Malpractice premiums are expected to stabilize or continue falling through 2009 in most areas"

Rustydog:

The 2nd proposal from Krauthammer is to eliminate the largest tax credit in the US. Healthcare benefits paid to employees by employers. "The health-care benefit exemption is the largest tax break in the entire U.S. budget."
I am not entirely convinced that eliminating the healthcare benefit as non-taxed income from our employers is a good thing.

.
I think that, in theory, Krauthammer (and John McCain) are right that this exemption needs abolishing, but for the wrong reasons (as usual). It's a very, very stupid incentive with perverse outcomes. The private insurance market is wildly distorted as a result, and smaller entrepreneurs (who Democrats and liberals support and encourage) are unfairly disadvantaged.
.
I'm fairly certain that this idea shouldn't be included at this stage of the game, since there's nothing simultaneously being proposed that could handle what would most likely be the resulting flood of uninsured. If the Democrats were talking about single-payer, that would be one thing, but they're not.

momentomaury

As always a half ass argument. It may be true that tort reform does not move the needle in Primary Care and Pediatrics however; it is the mother lode in OB/GYN, Surgery and Cardiology where the cost for tort insurance is over $200,000/year. As most liberals tend to do, you look at one point in isolation. Tort reform is needed in every aspect of our economy not just health care. The lack of reform has negatively impacted innovation, manufacturing and job creation.

It may not be the holy grail but the cost curve doesn't bend very far without it.

stuart:
.
You "agree" in theory, but do not state your opinion as to why you agree.
.
I'm curious to know why you believe this employment benefit should be taxed?
.
My hesitation is giving the government more money in the form of taxes to piss away on frivilous programs.

Rustydog:
.
You "agree" in theory, but do not state your opinion as to why you agree.
.
I'm sorry, I thought that I had made this as clear as possible (with an unusual minimum of words):
.
I'm curious to know why you believe this employment benefit should be taxed?
.
Because the practical effects of this big-business subsidy are pernicious in terms of the insurance market, and because larger businesses then enjoy a government-mandated double competitive advantage over individuals and entrepreneurs: both in scale of purchasing power and tax break.
.
If IBM can employ their size to their competitive advantage over me as a consultant when negotiating rates with insurers, and they also get a subsidy in the form of tax advantages that I don't enjoy as an individual, then the field is perpetually tilted to the benefit of the largest competitors, which is both unfair and bad for capitalism (we liberals care about both).

Shorter pierogielunaire: It IS subtle pressure on elderly patient's and families at a very emotional time in their lives to choose less expensive treatments and Hospice / Palliative care by dicussing a Living Will or Advance Directive. Most patient's and their families at death's door do not want to discuss it. Denial is overwhelming for some people.
.
Have you ever had a discussion with a patient and/or family about end of life options?

Prior to my heart surgery a few years ago, the local hospital insisted on having a signed, notarized copy of a living will on file a month prior to the operation.
.
The idea was to do this at a point in time when cool heads could prevail, not in a moment of crisis. I don't recall if the counseling was covered, but at $12K out of pocket for a $100K procedure, it would have been nice to have a public option in which it was.

Actually, rustynuterrs, the definition of an [argument] can mean more than just contradiction.

Interesting that you focus on that meaning almost exclusively. You could maybe try:

a discussion involving differing points of view; debate

or

a process of reasoning; series of reasons

Just trying to help; you're welcome...

Arguments are usually contradictory statements.

Man: Oh look, this isn't an argument.
.
Mr Vibrating: Yes it is.
.
Man: No it isn't. It's just contradiction.
.
Mr Vibrating: No it isn't.
.
Man: It is!
.
Mr Vibrating: It is not.
.
Man: Look, you just contradicted me.
.
Mr Vibrating: I did not.
.
Man: Oh you did!!
.
Mr Vibrating: No, no, no.
.
Man: You did just then.
.
Mr Vibrating: Nonsense!
.
Man: Oh, this is futile!
.
Mr Vibrating: No it isn't.
.
Man: I came here for a good argument.
.
Mr Vibrating: No you didn't; no, you came here for an argument.
.
Man: An argument isn't just contradiction.
.
Mr Vibrating: It can be.
.
Man: No it can't. An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition.
.
Mr Vibrating: No it isn't.
.
Man: Yes it is! It's not just contradiction.
.
Mr Vibrating: Look, if I argue with you, I must take up a contrary position.
.
Man: Yes, but that's not just saying 'No it isn't.'
.
Mr Vibrating: Yes it is!
.
Man: No it isn't!
.
Man: Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of any statement the other person makes.
.
(short pause)
.
Mr Vibrating: No it isn't.
.
Man: It is.
.
Mr Vibrating: Not at all.
.
Man: Now look.
.
Mr Vibrating: (Rings bell) Good Morning.

Thanks for the quote from the Python sketch, Stuart. Seems not just funny, but prophetic given the current state of discourse.

Again grape_slushy, I said "usually". Had I said "always", then your point would be a valid one. But, as usual and typical for a liberal you simply jump to conclusions, filled with multiple delusions.
.
Furthermore, "debate" and "discussions" are possible without argument.
.
Ever hear of "agreeing to disagree"?

Ever hear of trying to resolve an issue?

Anti-reformers say a bill can be interpreted to yield an evil result. Pro-reformers say they do not agree with the argued interpretation, and in any case that result is not their intent.

Is the adult approach to scream about "Death Panels" or even to take Krauthammer's approach and merely try to justify the strained interpretation? Or is the adult approach to suggest resolution – a clarifying amendment that precludes the agreed evil interpretation without undermining general support for responsible end-of-life consideration by individuals?

If you're not trying to improve the bill, there's a reasonable argument you're trying to scare people into killing it for unrelated reasons – say, preservation of profit.

Meh. I didn't finish my gratuitous JOE-bashing sentence:
.
Once again Joe Klein demonstrates that he is supremely unqualified to opine on anything as complex as health care reform. You are in over your head on this, Joe; you don't know what you are talking about, and your stenography transcribing the distortions and lies of your Republican buddies like Hoekstra is embarrassing you and your family. Too bad you are too vain to recognize that fact.

So explain how you pay for it. You want free crap to every Democrat and don't explain where the money comes from. You want everyone to get free medical care and don't explain who gets the bill.

Basic concept about "insurance" -- it is based on percentages. The premium is based on the likelihood you will get sick. If you come in with a pre-existing condition, guess what moron -- the probability is 1.0. So you walk into the insurance company and say "I've got terminal cancer, it will cost $1M a year to treat me, now cover me for $100 a month." The company has 1 of 2 options under the New Messiah plan -- (1) charge EVERYBODY a premium of $10,000 a month to cover every fool that comes in or (2) go bankrupt. There is no way to pay for it in the free market.

Your "public option" -- that's just a nice Obaterm for "shaft the taxpayer and it's handouts as far as the eye can see". Obozo charges the terminal cancer person $100 a month, and sends the balance of the $1M treatment costs to the taxpayer.

However, when the treasury runs out, guess what -- only 2 options again. (1) Print money until hyperinflation renders the money worthless, or (2) ration the care and hope the guy dies before he gets up for the $1M treatment. Oh, wait, "death panels" is just a big Republican myth, right????

bitterpill8:
.
which idiot dreamed up that header
.
Cretins. I can't wait until they're in bankruptcy.
.
When reporters like Scherer bemoan the financial woes of corpulent swill-mongers like the Times, he should be given a link to this monstrous pile of dung.

Oh, really? "EXTRAORDINARY" hunh? Wow, I'm impressed by your argument! You make a compelling case! So strong in fact that you don't need data or numbers, because that WORD ALONE convinces me that I ought to jump aboard the "tort reform" bandwagon!

Oh, and WOW! His premiums are "A PROBLEM"!
.
Well that settles it! I'm a believer now!

Er, James, I'm just asking you to acknowledge the problem. Don't get too excited.

We had this conversation the other night, Yoshi, wherein I presented you with my argument and a plea for a rational argument for "tort reform" from proponents. I presented you with a real life model that debunks the myth that "tort reform" might have any impact whatsoever on bringing down the cost of health care. You said you would do some serious reading and get back to me.
.
And you come up with "the malpractice burden is EXTRAORDINARY" and "the premiums are a problem"? Forgive me for being wholly unimpressed.

Pay attention...

We've been around this before, and in this post, I'm not going to argue tort reform

Is there something you do not understand about this?

Oh and. Gratuitous JOE-bashing. Joe Klein has drunk so much Hoestra koolaid that he actually thinks that the "tort reform" argument has merit. Klein is so innumerate that he is unable to demonstrate where "tort reform" will significantly reduce health care costs, and he is so vain that he refuses to acknowledge it.

I thought you were jumping back into the "tort reform" argument to help Joe out, Yoshi. It's rather disingenuous to back Joe up with "extraordinary" and "a problem" a claim you aren't arguing for "tort reform". By doing so, in effect you ARE jumping into the fray, trying to inoculate yourself from the burden of presenting a rational argument with facts and data.

I'm not going to argue tort reform...
.
[Good, considering that]:

As of 2006, most states had enacted some type of tort reform. In total, thirty-two states have established some type of medical malpractice award cap. The amounts and applications of these caps vary by state. Some of these damage caps are rigid, while others can be adjusted for inflation or severity of the damage.
.
For example, four states (Alaska, Florida, Ohio, and Massachusetts) have caps that can be waived or increased in severe cases. The caps in Oregon and Maine apply only to wrongful death cases. Four states have a $250,000 general award cap, four states have a total damages cap, eighteen states have non-economic damages caps between $250,000 and $500,000 , and four states have damages caps that exceed $500,000.

And the results of 'tort reform are a mixed bag, anyway.
.
...the malpractice burden is extraordinary
.
It is, especially in the more delicate specialties like neurosurgery. Or if the doctor has a lot of malpractice suits filed against him/her. An interesting point is that:

...although medical malpractice caps reduce the burden on insurers, they do not alleviate the growing problem of skyrocketing insurance premiums. One report reveals that limitations on medical malpractice awards produced payout averages 15.7% lower than those of states without caps between 1991 and 2002. This statistic is true despite the fact that many of the states did not institute the limitations until near the end of the reporting period. Meanwhile, the median annual premium in states with caps increased an alarming 48.2%. Surprisingly, the median annual premium in states without caps increased more slowly: by 35.9%.

Seeing how 'tort reform' has a) mostly been done already, and b) premiums have actually gone up instead of down, it's useless to continue flogging this dead horse.

It's rather disingenuous to back Joe up with "extraordinary" and "a problem" a claim you aren't arguing for "tort reform".

Ah, so if we identify a problem, there can be only one solution? That sounds...disingenuous.

grape_crush
August 21, 2009
at 12:23 pm

Thanks for the data. A link would be appreciated.

Oops. You did hyperlink it. Sorry.

Yoshi –

Allow me to suggest, without protracting an argument, that there's an essential disconnect in the usual citation of "tort reform" as a requirement of health care cost control.

Between the compensation awards deemed reasonable by juries of our peers and the doctor facing a bill for malpractice premiums stands an insurance company. There's little correlation between the trends in damage awards and the changes in premium rates, so it's likely the responsibility lies with the controlling entity in the middle.

I haven't seen recent figures, but for some time the trends in malpractice premiums correlated inversely with insurance company earnings from unrelated investments, and not directly with trends in jury awards. Doctors have reason to be concerned, but I'm not sure they're putting their fire on the right target.

Obama's communications team is wholly incompetent. The whole staff is inept and small time.
.
Yes, I don't know why they changed a winning communications strategy. Did you read the NY Times article on Rahm Emanuel? It was uninteresting except for its emphasis on how Rahm is largely in charge of communications and messaging, and he's back to a reactive, 24-hour news cycle approach. Apparently they change their message on a daily basis. Which is exactly the approach Plouffe et. al rejected during the campaign.
.
It's like Mark Penn and Bob Shrum are running communications...

Frankly, Rose, it wouldn't surprise me in the least to discover Penn and Shrum ARE in charge behind the scenes. That poll-driven daily wavering has the stink of Clinton-era Pennism, no?

I was wondering when you would notice that one.

Unfortunately people who really have no idea what they are talking about are a clear majority and the people who know the issues intimately all have particular agendas.

Joe is just engaging in his standard 'navigate to the center - avoid the rocks' strategy that he applies to almost every issue.

Joe is just engaging in his standard 'navigate to the center - avoid the rocks' strategy that he applies to almost every issue.
.
...Because Joe Klein is a radical centrist, which is it's own political ideology:

The New Democrat philosophy was seen -- and is still seen by die-hard, old-style lefties -- as a cynical corruption of the true faith, an electoral strategy gussied up as a political philosophy. Which was rather ironic, since traditional liberals soon began to adopt many of the positions developed in the early 1990s by the Progressive Policy Institute (PPI), the think tank of the DLC.
.
Indeed, a delightfully dangerous centrist radicalism was in the air. The political spectrum seemed, suddenly, an arrow -- with moderates pointing the way to the future and the traditional left and right wings lagging behind, hopelessly retro.
.
Joe Klein, DLC | Blueprint Magazine | May 21, 2002

.
It's not a habit; it's not even the professional tic of Beltway Conventional Wisdom.
.
Joe Klein is a committed, wildly enthusiastic centrist ideologue. That is the fact of the matter.

Stuart ... "... a committed, wildly enthusiastic centrist ideologue."
.
I have to ask .... what exactly does that mean? Centrist radicalism seems about as counter intuitive as "keep government out of my Medicare".
.
You have the differing right and left, and the contention is that something in the middle of the two extremes would be the ideologue, or radical?
.
Please expound.

maurice2u:
.
Please expound.
.
First of all, I'm quoting Joe Klein directly from his book when he gurgles blissfully: "Indeed, a delightfully dangerous centrist radicalism was in the air. The political spectrum seemed, suddenly, an arrow -- with moderates pointing the way to the future and the traditional left and right wings lagging behind, hopelessly retro."
.
Secondly, if you're really interested, click on this link here to a conversation between Jay Ackroyd and myself that he told me to go write down.

joyo,
thanks for weighing in. That's a profoundly moving document. Thanks for bringing into the discussion.
...I really miss your presence here on Swampland.
-j

Thank you for posting that. What a beautiful and honest statement.
.
My condolences.