Bits & Pieces

U.S. Senate candidate Carly Fiorina (R-Suckup) told a group of business leaders, “Only in America could a woman who is a medieval-history major, a law-school dropout, a full-time receptionist, rise to become the chief executive of one of the largest companies in the world and now be privileged to run for the U.S. Senate.” That’s right, Carly, only in America… because in any other sensible, semi-literate country, you would be seen as the flagrantly unqualified hack that you are.

She also said, in what must qualify as one of the least politically risky statements any candidate for office in the history of the universe has ever uttered, “I think we need a little more practical problem-solving (in Congress) and a little less back-room deal-making.” Really, Carly? You’re for practical problem-solving and against back-room deal-making? Gosh, how bold of you. I bet you’re also for education and against crime! Anyway, has she forgotten how many legitimate problems (health care, the economy, global warming) went unsolved, and how many corrupt, middle-of-the-night back-room deals were cut (as documented brilliantly by Matt Taibbi in Rolling Stone) the last time her party controlled Congress?

What I’d really like to hear Fiorina (and every other Republican running for Congress this year, but especially those running against Democratic incumbents) answer is this: Do you think the country was better off under George W. Bush and the Republicans than it is under Barack Obama and the Democrats? It’s a simple yes-or-no question, and as far as I’m concerned it is now the job of every sensible reporter in this country to get an answer to that question out of every Republican candidate for Congress, everywhere. And then print that answer. On the front page.

* * *

The New York Times notes that Senator-elect Scott Brown of Massachusetts, who has promised to join his 40 fellow Republicans in blocking health care reform, voted for - and still strongly supports - Massachusetts’s landmark health care legislation as a member of the Bay State’s legislature back in 2006. Anyone who knows a hoot about the two plans knows how strikingly similar they are (the Massachusetts plan served, in many ways, as a model for the federal bill), but Brown, on the campaign trail, has “sought to portray [the federal proposal] as fundamentally different from the Massachusetts plan.” According to the Times’s “Prescription” blog, however:

The federal law, like the one in Massachusetts, is built around a system of government-subsidized, private insurance coverage with subsidies on a sliding-scale based on income. The federal law, however, also includes a number national steps aimed at controlling health care costs, and new taxes and fees aimed at paying for the legislation. Massachusetts has continued to struggle with its costs.

So, let me get this straight: the big difference between the Massachusetts bill and the federal legislation is that the federal bill actually pays for itself, and takes steps toward controlling health care costs for everyone! Massachusetts, meanwhile, has failed to do either of these things so far, and the costs of their reform – both to individual consumers and to the state treasury – have been spiraling out of control. And Scott Brown sees the federal bill as being worse than the Massachusetts bill. Hmm.

* * *

University professor Timothy Jost agrees with me that, in the wake of yesterday’s Massachusetts election, the House should just adopt the Senate health care bill, in its entirety, no amendments, to avoid a second vote in the Upper House. Of course, by “agrees with me,” I mean that he makes essentially the same argument I made, but better informed and much more articulately. Check it out.

* * *

Meanwhile, back in the Golden State, somebody named Martin Garrick was elected leader of the Assembly Republicans yesterday. Thus far he seems to be your standard, assembly-line (no pun intended) Limbaugh-Palin conservative who hates abortion, taxes, and government, and loves guns, God, and vague references to “freedom.” Here’s a real head-scratcher – the Bee speculates about how Garrick’s selection will affect the painful annual budget process, and has Jaime Regalado of CSU Los Angeles predicting that bipartisan compromise will somehow be even more difficult under Garrick than it has been in the recent past. “I think when you get ideologues on either side in such important positions, it threatens more of the same (partisan fighting) – and perhaps even worse,” says Regalado.

News flash, Jaime – the Republican caucus is almost entirely composed of ideologues! Even if a sensible, open-to-compromise legislator like Roger Niello were somehow chosen as leader, he or she would be kicked to the curb if they dared to commit the unforgivable sin of compromising with the other party by voting for tax increases. Ever heard of Dave Cogdill? Or Mike Villines? Me neither.