Slowpoke_Rodrigo
New member
ESSAY
A VIEW FROM HERE
by deb weiss
Dogs Can't Sue -- Yet
July 10, 2000
Al Gore's candidacy continues to teeter and shimmy from one incarnation to the next, like a defective Whirligig
Currently, Ralph Nader is breathing down his left flank, picking off a significant fraction of the Democratic base.
Mr. Gore's media allies, dismayed, struggle to tarnish the Nader legend they spent so many years embroidering.
There's been a barrage of journalistic pouting, from last week's curiously panicky New York Times editorial skewering Mr. Nader as a spoiler, to yesterday's "Late Edition" on CNN, when Wolf Blitzer mournfully asked Mr. Nader if he would be able to "sleep at night," if his insurgency helped elect George W. Bush. (The answer was "yes.")
While the press hacked away at Nader, Gore strategists were doing some improvising of their own. Erasing all traces of previous Als, they produced the newest model: Populist Al, the Nader alternative.
Populist Al spent last week stumping from union hall to union hall, denouncing the Special Interests. The man who made his national reputation as a 'New Democrat' (whatever that means) by cozying up to every 'special interest' in sight, was suddenly campaigning hard to the left, assailing Big Oil and the pharmaceutical industry, ranting in crisp denim shirtsleeves like some kind of nouveau Huey Long.
There was a Naderite glitter in his icy little eyes as he flung about charges so wild they hovered at the margins of sheer paranoia.
George W. Bush colluded with the oil companies to drive up gas prices, he shouted. George W. Bush is conspiring with the pharmaceutical industry to keep drug prices sky-high.
Populist Al doesn't collude with anybody, mind you. He's too busy caring about the little people -- little teachers, little 'workers,' little people of color.
Most of all, he cares about OLD little people, though naturally, with leaden condescension, he insists on calling them 'seniors.' (I have a 94-year-old friend who spits fire when she hears this term. "I'm not a 'senior,' dammit," she snaps, "I'm an old lady!")
Whatever you call them, old people vote.
Once a reliably Democratic constituency, they've shown a tendency to stray in recent elections. More than most segments of the electorate, they've been revolted by the garish corruption of the Clinton regime.
Populist Al must woo them back if he's to have a prayer of winning. However, he knows that bribes mean more than diatribes. That's why he's offering free goodies in exchange for their votes.
The ultimate goody: a prescription drug benefit that would, if implemented, bankrupt the next generation.
It's a blatant appeal to greed, gussied up with horror stories about poor old people forced to choose between food and medicine, or compelled to travel to Canada against their will, on air-conditioned buses, to buy prescription drugs on the National Health.
Listening to these stories, you might be tempted to forget that the collective wealth of older Americans is simply astronomical (kings of yore would weep with envy). They are the chief beneficiaries of a tax system that has already forced one generation of mothers out of the home and into the workplace, leaving children to the tender mercies of the latchkey and daytime TV.
It's those children, by the way, who will one day have to face -- as we have not -- the inevitable meltdown of Medicare and Social Security. FDR's Ponzi scheme is running out of time, and shifting demographics are fraying the safety-net beyond repair.
This nightmare dangles just a few decades away: far enough for the complacent to ignore, but near enough to scare the Bejasus out of anyone who's actually paying attention. There couldn't be a more reckless moment to add another dish to the federal smorgasbord.
Yes, prescription drug costs are prohibitive for many folks. Republicans ignore this blunt reality at their own risk. Litigation and regulation have driven costs steadily upward, creating a price structure which is utterly bizarre, and riddled with inequities.
For instance, it's quite true, as Democrats are fond of noting, that some drugs cost only a fraction as much when dispensed by a veterinarian as they do when dispensed by a medical doctor.
"Why does your grandmother have to pay more than a dog for the same prescription drug?" they wail.
(Answer: dogs can't sue.)
Unquestionably, the prescription drug burden must be eased for poor folks of all ages. It's just that there are ways to do it without creating a new entitlement program -- the biggest and most costly yet.
None of this matters to Populist Al, though. This isn't about 'The People:' it's about him. He'll out-Nader Nader till those polls roll back his way.
Unless, of course, the tactic backfires. In which case, I hope you're ready for Wall Street Al, the businessman's friend.
Or whoever.
------------------
Slowpoke Rodrigo...he pack a gon...
"That which binds us together is infinitely greater than that on which we disagree" - Neal Knox
[This message has been edited by Slowpoke_Rodrigo (edited July 11, 2000).]
A VIEW FROM HERE
by deb weiss
Dogs Can't Sue -- Yet
July 10, 2000
Al Gore's candidacy continues to teeter and shimmy from one incarnation to the next, like a defective Whirligig
Currently, Ralph Nader is breathing down his left flank, picking off a significant fraction of the Democratic base.
Mr. Gore's media allies, dismayed, struggle to tarnish the Nader legend they spent so many years embroidering.
There's been a barrage of journalistic pouting, from last week's curiously panicky New York Times editorial skewering Mr. Nader as a spoiler, to yesterday's "Late Edition" on CNN, when Wolf Blitzer mournfully asked Mr. Nader if he would be able to "sleep at night," if his insurgency helped elect George W. Bush. (The answer was "yes.")
While the press hacked away at Nader, Gore strategists were doing some improvising of their own. Erasing all traces of previous Als, they produced the newest model: Populist Al, the Nader alternative.
Populist Al spent last week stumping from union hall to union hall, denouncing the Special Interests. The man who made his national reputation as a 'New Democrat' (whatever that means) by cozying up to every 'special interest' in sight, was suddenly campaigning hard to the left, assailing Big Oil and the pharmaceutical industry, ranting in crisp denim shirtsleeves like some kind of nouveau Huey Long.
There was a Naderite glitter in his icy little eyes as he flung about charges so wild they hovered at the margins of sheer paranoia.
George W. Bush colluded with the oil companies to drive up gas prices, he shouted. George W. Bush is conspiring with the pharmaceutical industry to keep drug prices sky-high.
Populist Al doesn't collude with anybody, mind you. He's too busy caring about the little people -- little teachers, little 'workers,' little people of color.
Most of all, he cares about OLD little people, though naturally, with leaden condescension, he insists on calling them 'seniors.' (I have a 94-year-old friend who spits fire when she hears this term. "I'm not a 'senior,' dammit," she snaps, "I'm an old lady!")
Whatever you call them, old people vote.
Once a reliably Democratic constituency, they've shown a tendency to stray in recent elections. More than most segments of the electorate, they've been revolted by the garish corruption of the Clinton regime.
Populist Al must woo them back if he's to have a prayer of winning. However, he knows that bribes mean more than diatribes. That's why he's offering free goodies in exchange for their votes.
The ultimate goody: a prescription drug benefit that would, if implemented, bankrupt the next generation.
It's a blatant appeal to greed, gussied up with horror stories about poor old people forced to choose between food and medicine, or compelled to travel to Canada against their will, on air-conditioned buses, to buy prescription drugs on the National Health.
Listening to these stories, you might be tempted to forget that the collective wealth of older Americans is simply astronomical (kings of yore would weep with envy). They are the chief beneficiaries of a tax system that has already forced one generation of mothers out of the home and into the workplace, leaving children to the tender mercies of the latchkey and daytime TV.
It's those children, by the way, who will one day have to face -- as we have not -- the inevitable meltdown of Medicare and Social Security. FDR's Ponzi scheme is running out of time, and shifting demographics are fraying the safety-net beyond repair.
This nightmare dangles just a few decades away: far enough for the complacent to ignore, but near enough to scare the Bejasus out of anyone who's actually paying attention. There couldn't be a more reckless moment to add another dish to the federal smorgasbord.
Yes, prescription drug costs are prohibitive for many folks. Republicans ignore this blunt reality at their own risk. Litigation and regulation have driven costs steadily upward, creating a price structure which is utterly bizarre, and riddled with inequities.
For instance, it's quite true, as Democrats are fond of noting, that some drugs cost only a fraction as much when dispensed by a veterinarian as they do when dispensed by a medical doctor.
"Why does your grandmother have to pay more than a dog for the same prescription drug?" they wail.
(Answer: dogs can't sue.)
Unquestionably, the prescription drug burden must be eased for poor folks of all ages. It's just that there are ways to do it without creating a new entitlement program -- the biggest and most costly yet.
None of this matters to Populist Al, though. This isn't about 'The People:' it's about him. He'll out-Nader Nader till those polls roll back his way.
Unless, of course, the tactic backfires. In which case, I hope you're ready for Wall Street Al, the businessman's friend.
Or whoever.
------------------
Slowpoke Rodrigo...he pack a gon...
"That which binds us together is infinitely greater than that on which we disagree" - Neal Knox
[This message has been edited by Slowpoke_Rodrigo (edited July 11, 2000).]