Spot on.

Let the Obama trolls now come forth with more inane irrelevancies.

I think Krugman was advocating bitter confrontation, not predicting it.

Krugman's criticism applies to more than just Obama's position to healthcare, it also applies quite well to his positions on Iran.

Look, I want to avoid war with Iran as much as anybody, but in the course of fighting back against Bush's bats**t policies, some people, Obama included, are adopting what amounts to dangerously naive policies. Iran isn't going to just play nice, turn over a new leaf and join a grand bargain if we stop provoking them; it's a legimately dangerous country with some wacko views. The fact that Obama's approach is the least like Bush's doesn't necessarily make it the best. Sometimes you really do need to use both carrot and stick to make points.

Trust me, says Obama. I am so much better than Clinton and Edwards that I can accomplish more than they can without being impolite. And it is impolite of them to suggest otherwise.

As I read Krugman, it's both. He's predicting bitter confrontation and yearning for a president who's tough enough to take it on rather than back away from it.

I agree with Krugman. Progress can come only if the vanguard party excludes counter-revolutionaries from any share in the discussion. They are enemies of the state anyway. That's democratic centralism.

Alter's (and Obama's) argument is just on its face bizarre.

Corporations, by their inherent nature, are concerned fundamentally with one thing: their profits.

What does Alter think that corporations will do if you threaten to take away their profits? Why, fight with every available tool to prevent it. How can this not devolve into "bitter confrontation"?

It's been pretty well established that one of the major reasons that health care is so very expensive in the US is that the insurance industry makes the management and payment of health care services so very inefficient. How do you stop that problem without cutting deeply into the revenues of the insurance industry? Why would they not rightly fight for every penny they can keep? And why would not the public, which has a profound interest in reducing the overall cost of health care, not rightly fight for every penny they can keep from paying to the insurance industry?

I've already gotten hit by trolls on yglesias' blog for basically agreeing with Krugman by an Obama-ite who said
Hillary and Edwards supporters have both been trying to caricature Obama as this delusional magic negro with a messiah-complex who thinks he's Martin Luther King and JFK and Ghandi all rolled into one.
Obama may be right about being able to push his agenda with "a new kind of politics"(I doubt it), and work with republicans and corporate powers. Or he might not believe that at all and its just rhetoric to get elected. But either way, its ridiculous to completely discount Krugman's contention as some kind of water-carrying hit piece for Edwards or racially motivated as the troll i quoted seems to imply. If someone like Krugman, who's be at the vanguard of progressive media for years can't criticize Obama without that kind of crap response from other supposed progressives, its a problem.

One way to predict whether the Obama strategy will work is to answer this question: Is there a compromise policy that delivers universal access to healthcare? If yes, then it could work. Obama may have the talent to deliver this compromise policy. If no, then it will be time to play hardball. Anyone care to propose what a possible compromise policy among all the stakeholders would look like?

Um, I'm pretty sure you're wrong, Kevin. Krugman just penned piece imploring the Dems to ride a wave of populist, anti-corporate rhetoric to the White House in the hopes of using the bully pulpit to bludgeon the GOP and their corporate backers into submission.

That's not yearning for confrontation?

Methinks you're doing your whole Rorschach thing here, only its not actually an inkblot. It is a picture of a butterfly (or whatever)

I am in favor of returning in kind to the Republicans the exact measure of civility that was shown the Democrats for the first six years of the Bush administration. I shall pop corn and enjoy the spectacle as they whine like little bitches. They simply must be punished - severely - for their obstructionist ways that serve no purpose save willful obstreperousness and the indulgence of an innate, congenital meanness.

Do you really think these jackals would have dared be such feckless fucks if Nixon had done some time in prison? Time to reset the law & order pins.

What *do* we know about how tough Obama can be when he needs to?

The late Arthur Barbieri understood FDR better than Alter, I think.

Barbieri was the political boss of New Haven for many years, and he had a simple method. If you opposed him, HE BEAT YOU.

Then he gave you something.

[Iran] 's a legimately dangerous country with some wacko views."

er, no it's not. Iran is a country with some wackos in it that's legitimately concerned about its own safety, following more than a century of being beaten around by the US/UK and foreign corporates. That it seeks to maximise it's own negotiating position is rational behaviour, particularly in light of the treatment of India, Pakistan and North Korea.
Moreover, the words of Ahmadinejad are refreshingly sane when compared to the words, and more importantly actions, of the real wacko, George W Bush.

>> It's also untrue of other successful
>> Democratic presidents and for a simple reason:
>> "Bitter confrontation" simply doesn't work in
>>policy-making.

Seems to have worked extremely well for Dick Cheney from October 2001, a span going on 7 years, and fairly well overall for the Republicans for the last 15 years. In fact the damage the Cheney, Addington, Norquist, and their ilk have done may be irreversible. So I would be curious to hear a bit more about how "bitter confrontation" simply doesn't work since the evidence is that it works quite well.

Cranky

If your response is, it works for Radical Republicans but not Democrats or progressives then you have a bit of splainin to do.

But bitter confrontation is what Krugman is predicting, not what he's yearning for.

Mr Krugman has many, many good points, but.....

If a Democrat is elected President, and tries to reform health care, there will be a no-holds barred all-out war waged against reform by the insurance industry and their paid stooges (the press and the Republicans, as well as some Democrats). STOP SOCIALIZED MEDICINE - LET THE MAGIC OF THE FREE MARKET SOLVE ALL ILLS they'll cry.

The insurance industry kingpins will be fighting for their 7-figure paychecks and stock options, so they'll be using every dirty trick in the book. One thing they won't be doing is memorizing the words to Kumbaya or "It's a Small World."

There's no point in fighting fire with fire, either - just be prepared for a fight, and keep repeating our mantra: "Doctors don't make health care decisions in our system - the insurance companies do. Do you want really want to keep having insurance company clerks making health care decisions for you?"

Krugman is right.

Obama, unfathonably, vastly, vastly overestimates his o-someness.

just be prepared for a fight, and keep repeating our mantra: "Doctors don't make health care decisions in our system - the insurance companies do. Do you want really want to keep having insurance company clerks making health care decisions for you?"

Just this past weekend I was having the latest installment in the 20-year-feud about healthcare access with my bleached-blond Republican twit of a sister-in-law. Finally, exasperated, I asked her if she would be willing to let her doctor do her taxes? "Of course not!" she snorted.

And finally...after twenty fucking years, I had the bitch. I asked her why she was so damned eager to let someone with the equivalent of an H&R Block free tax course make her healthcare decisions for her?

Billy,

That a country is acting rationally to maximize their survival chances against a hostile US/UK means that their actions make sense; it doesn't mean those actions aren't dangerous, or that they will cease to be dangerous when we rachet down the rhetoric and actually start negotiating.

It is possible for the pendulum to swing too far in the other direction. Given the choice between Obama's foreign policy and Bush's, I'd clearly go with Obama. But our choice isn't between Obama and Bush, it's between Obama, Clinton, Edwards, and the rest. And given those options, my concern with Obama is that he's a bit too starry-eyed on his ability to succeed where others have failed.

Krugman was advocating bitter confrontation and joyfully predicting that it would arise from the vanguardism of Krugman and his chosen candidates. I agree exactly with y81, Krugman, Lev Davidovich Bronstein, and Bob Avakian:

"Progress can come only if the vanguard party excludes counter-revolutionaries from any share in the discussion. They are enemies of the state anyway. That's democratic centralism."

One man, one vote, one time, one Krugman.

By the way, you filthy lefties, how'd that "democratic centralism" work out in Russsia, and East Germany, and Poland, and Hungary, and Romania, and Yugoslavia, and Czechoslovakia, and Lithuania, and Estonia, and Latvia, and the Ukraine, and White Russia, and the eastern Stans, and Mongolia, and Red China, and North Korea, and Laos, and Cambodia, and North Vietnam, and Cuba?

You think Bush is a nightmare. That was a billion times worse nightmare. It's lucky the world survived.

Well, here is some of what we *do* know about Obama:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/30/us/politics/30obama.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/08/AR2007020802262_3.html
I'd say it looks promising.

Why is Krugman, more than most pundits, so often "misunderstood" by intelligent people?

Do you really think these jackals would have dared be such feckless fucks if Nixon had done some time in prison? Time to reset the law & order pins..

Good question. Note that although Nixon avoided prison, some of his top aides and cabinet officials served time. In fact, 25 felony convictions directly related to their work for the President, courtesy of federal prosecutor.

Note the 27 felony convictions of Reagan administration officials, courtesy of a special prosecutor.

Note the zero convictions of the Carter administration, courtesy of a special prosecutor who found nothing.

Note the zero convictions of the Clinton administration (unless you want to count stuff that had nothing to do with the U.S. government, e.g., Webb Hubbell law client over billing), courtesy of special prosecutors who just couldn’t seem to pull it off.

Note that we are probably not finished counting the felony convictions of the GWBush administration.

So, yes, my guess is that there will always be jackals for hire by the likes of the Republicans.

I don't have a position in this fight, but one thing that worries me about Obama is that he's tall, handsome and articulate -- just like John Lindsay, who was a great hope for mayor of New York until his first day in office, 1966, when Mike Quill called a transit strike. That set the tone for much that followed.

He did get re-elected, but I don't think history remembers him that kindly. How ready is Obama for the Mike Quills of today? (One retort might be that he's already met them, during his rise in Chicago. That could be.)

I think the nays have it.

Krugman isn't simply predicting, or even hoping for a more confrontational presidency. He is salivating at the thought of sticking it to those bastards. (Not unlike Blue Girl a few comments up)

Bare-knuckle politics is often effective (Just look at how many Democrats are opposed to the Iraq war at every moment except for when it mattered. It's unlikely that they were taken in by Bush's charm and eloquence.), but it is usually more so when you deliver the gut shot with a smile. It can also backfire spectacularly, particularly if it seems mean spirited (again, see Blue Girl's comment above) or small minded (Gingrich in '98).

More to the point, it really needs to be a means to an end not an end in itself. I would be more convinced that there is a purpose behind the animus if it's supporters main argument wasn't "It feels good for me, so it will surely resonate with the great and good American people if we were just a bit more vocal."
(Rote disclosure: my candidate preference list is Obama, Giuliani, Clinton, make of that what you will)

Hey Kevin,

You stated that Dr. Krugman is "simply observing that any Democratic president had better expect sustained, dogged, and bitter confrontation from their opponents if he or she tries to implement serious healthcare reform."

I don't think that is all Dr. Krugman has been saying.

Some of his harshest criticisms of Obama have been directed at Obama's unwillingness to adopt a more aggressive stance towards the drug and insurance companies. Dr. Krugman has even opined that by failing to engage in this more aggressive/progressive rhetoric on the campaign trail Obama is missing an historic �progressive wave� that would otherwise sweep him into office with more than just 51% of the electorate behind him.

However, Krugman's statement that Obama may not be prepared for the resistance he will face from corporate lobbyists is, I believe, not only wrong, but completely unsubstantiated.

Most of the evidence that Dr. Krugman provides to support this argument appears to be limited to Obama�s rhetoric and his stated willingness to bring everyone to the table (including representatives of insurance and pharmaceutical companies).

However, say what you will about Obama's strategy of inclusiveness (at least as a starting point); but the man is clearly very intelligent and not a newcomer to politics. If you read about his time in the Illinois State Senate you'll find that almost every person who was asked about him (Democrats and Republicans, liberals and conservatives) describes Obama as a gifted politician, and a legislator who got things done.

But we are supposed to believe that he is "naive" and not prepared for the confrontations that will no doubt arise with powerful lobbyists- or that he will not be ready to play hardball?

Dr. Krugman does not appear to have similar doubts about John Edwards (who I also like, though he is not my first choice for President); however, isn't it a little bit naive to think that Mr. Edwards is going to be able to get his progressive agenda passed- simply because he has no illusions about big pharma or the health insurance industry?

Again, I like John Edwards, but when exactly has he demonstrated an ability to pass progressive (or difficult pieces of) legislation? During his one term as US Senator he was not particularly progressive; and before that he was a lawyer, with no previous political experience.

To say that Obama- with a life-time of working for progressive causes, 10 years working as a legislator with a history of getting progressive policies realized, and according to his colleagues a gifted politician- is naive, one has to completely ignore everything the man has achieved and everything he has learned over the course of his political career.

Obama is offering us HillaryCare 2.0

Hillary learned from the first effort and isn't repeating it. Why will Obama?

Edwards stepped up and offered us something new.

Edwards -- Leadership!

Progressive blogsphere really has done an excellent job of misconstruing Senator Obama's approach and Krugman is just the latest (and most prominent). He's talked a great length about not demonizing the other side; proposed listening to the other sides position and recognizing it's validity (and at the same stress where he disagrees on the merits). Some how this has gotten translated into kumbaya politics.

If you think the best approach is brinksmanship, then I think Bush is your man. Negotiating for a living, I can tell you this is not a winning solution, unless your idea of winning is getting nothing done.

Gheby it doesn't mean those actions aren't dangerous, or that they will cease to be dangerous when we rachet down the rhetoric and actually start negotiating.

actually, that's exactly what it means. Iran has never been a threat to any nation, nor has it ever expressed an interest in neighbours' land or politics. On the contrary, it has consistently made overtures to the west for talks and reconciliation, and would like nothing better than to get on with its own business.
What is most perplexing is that you, and Washington, choose to elevate your personal prejudices into the realms of global foreign policy, tossing around ideas like existential threat and pretending that "potential to maufacture weapons" is somehow the same thing as having weapons ready to fire and intending to use them. Without this kind of hysteria, this and myriad other global problems would not exist. And if your choice of vote for president is based solely on the candidates' position on Iran, then you neeed to take some serious thinking time.

Blue Girl,

First, sorry to keep singling you out, but I have a question regarding doctors and taxes: Isn't the difference that your insurance company pays for you health care (you might say that the doctor works for them, not for you). This is not an argument against universal healthcare, exactly, but you wouldn't be giving your doctor more power by turning financial control over to the government. You'd simply be changing who the bean-counters work for.

I suppose the question of who is more trustworthy, the Feds or the Insurance industry, is not one where we are likely to persuade each other. I do think we can agree, however, that the ultimate disagreement between market types and universal types is over that question.

Keith, I won't call Obama's approach kumbayah politics but I will say I think its not going to be effective. People here seem to think Krugman is spoiling for a fight, slavating at the thought of "sticking it" to the republicans. I think he's spoiling for fight, salivating at the thought of winning and providing universal healthcare for everyone in the US and moving a progressive agenda forward. Salivating at the idea of holding both the legislative and executive branches to undo the damage of the last decades to the nation. There's a difference. Obama doesn't want to demonize his oppenents? I do, because the modern republican party and its corporate allies are demons. Krugman advocates coming out swinging with a powerful populist message because that's what's needed to win the battles we want to fight.

also keith said
If you think the best approach is brinksmanship, then I think Bush is your man
Well, as a matter of fact, in many ways Bush and his allies have done a marvelous job governing so long as you agree with their policies. They were able to push through virtually all their priorities and maintain popular support for most of his 2 terms despite a vast series of scandals, failures and losing 2 wars. If they had actually had even a modicum of competence and desire to help the world, imagine what they could have accomplished. So if you want to call that brinkmanship, then yes I'm for it as long as its in support of smart policies that I also support. And I'm sure you're a great negotiator in whatever industry you work in, but you may have noticed over the last 6 years that the modern republican party does not like negotiating. They're a bunch of corrupt, power hungry assholes shilling for their corporate alies so they can get nice little lobbyist and VP jobs once they're done screwing the country over.

Thesis vs. Antithesis = Synthesis

It isn't anything more than the Hegelian Dialectic restated. Krugman recognizes that real change only occurs when two polar viewpoints reach equilibrium. I don't think Obama has the cajones to define a real progressive stance. Edwards is the man.

Kahner:

You are part right. Republicans have successfully implemented a brinksman strategy. It wasn't, however the brinksman strategy that is the root of their success, it's the spineless nature of the Democratic party. Democrats seem to have no belief in their case. They seem to worry more about looking bad than achieving results. The result: they look bad and don't achieve results. Examples: 2002 AUMF, the last supplemental war fundings, move-on.org condemnation vote, etc., etc.

As for you and Krugman's reading of Obama, I think where you both lose me is the notion that his approach and fighting like hell for the critical pieces of legislation are mutually exclusive. They aren't, at least to my mind. I can win my argument with facts, without calling you an asshole or threatening you, then I'll take that approach. If that method's not working, I still have my club in the bag and I've lost nothing in my initial approach.

Don't mistake his cool approach as evidence that he will fold under pressure. All evidence suggest this can't be farther from the truth.

Conservative Deflator:

When in Edwards' legislative career (albeit a short one), shown these cajones to advance a progressive stance?

y81: I agree with Krugman. Progress can come only if the vanguard party excludes counter-revolutionaries from any share in the discussion.

This may shock you, but neither Krugman nor Edwards is talking about excluding any parties that have legitimate Constitutional representation.

Ever since the property requirements for voting were eliminated in the early 19th century, we've been on the radical socialist road towards "one person, one vote" rather than "one dollar, one vote". Better get used to it, comrade.

Heck, folks should have known where we were headed when the pinkos at the Constitutional Convention decided to start their manifesto with the words "We the People". And just to rub everyone's nose in it, they wrote it in a larger font!

They are enemies of the state anyway.

No. "Enemy of the state" is a right wing term of art. The corresponding left wing term is "enemy of the people".

C'mon. Let's face it. Krugman has a soapbox. But if you have ever seen him in action -- ever seen his whole schtick -- you'd have to conclude he's basically a smart self-important academic blowhard. I'm with Alter on this.

I haven't been following Krugman vs. Obama, so none of what I am saying here should be interpreted as a criticism of either.

As a few have pointed out, Republicans and corporations know exactly what they want and have done everything they could to get what they want one way or the other. Regarding healthcare, they want fat profits for insurance companies and drug companies. You can't reason with these people and hope to get them to agree to something less than what they want.

There won't be real reforms unless someone is bold enough and smart enough to take on these "profit above anything else" interests and defeat them into submission.

Democrats tried to play nice with Bush and his party after 9/11 and look what Bush/Rove did to them! Look what they did to Kerry (or even McCain and that other ex-democratic senator who lost his limbs in Vietnam). Pretending to be on the side of the military people, they managed to ridicule and demean military heroes for political gain. What is the value of a US military medal if the President of the US decides to undermine them for political gain? These people cannot be reasoned with. They know exactly what they want and will go to any length to achieve it. You can't sit with them and have them yield to reasonable terms simply by presenting them with persuasive logic.

What makes anybody think Hillary Clinton is up for a fight with the Republicans? Honestly, what has she fought for as a Senator? On what issue has she been a leader and/or stood up to corporate interests or this administration?

Obama/Webb08:
Um, no I don't have to conclude that. Why is it some people (i thought mostly republicans)equate being smart and/or an academic with being a self-important blowhard. I've seen quite a bit of his "schtick" and I think he's a smart academic. And if you look back on his columns and other writings over the past several years, you'll see he was ahead on the curve on a plethora of important issues. And if people had paid him a bit more attention we'd all be better off. But you certainly made a great case with your whole name calling thing. You're clearly not a self-important blowhard, but a well informed genius.

I have been having this fight with a friend who looks at Obama as the next great American hero. We don't need a hero, but we do need someone who can look corporate America in the eye and not flinch. Hillary has taken too much of their money and Obama does seem to have a Rodney "Can't we all just get along" King attitude. Well, the answer is, "No, we can't all just get along!" when the other side is Corporate America: Headquarters in New York, hindquarters spread all over this land. Edwards has whipped their asses before and he can and will do it again. That is our only hope for health care instead of health insurance, and just about anything else you can think of that we need.

rational: You can't sit with them and have them yield to reasonable terms simply by presenting them with persuasive logic.

Methinks the appropriate alternate strategy was laid out in the beginning of Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid. Harvey Logan has challenged Butch Cassidy to a knife fight:

Butch Cassidy: No, no, not yet. Not until me and Harvey get the rules straightened out.

Harvey Logan: Rules? In a knife fight? No rules.

Then Butch kicks him in the balls.

Here, from Obama's days as a state legislator, is, apparently, Obama's idea of how he envisions himself as a negotiator:

"The concept of the Health Care Justice Act was to bring the sides - the different perspectives and stakeholders - to the table," Duffett said. "In this situation, Obama was being a conduit from the insurance industry to us."

Obama later watered down the bill after hearing from insurers and after a legal precedent surfaced during the debate indicating that it would be unconstitutional for one legislative assembly to pass a law requiring a future legislative assembly to craft a healthcare plan.

During debate on the bill on May 19, 2004, Obama portrayed himself as a conciliatory figure. He acknowledged that he had "worked diligently with the insurance industry," as well as Republicans, to limit the legislation's reach and noted that the bill had undergone a "complete restructuring" after industry representatives "legitimately" raised fears that it would result in a single-payer system.

"The original presentation of the bill was the House version that we radically changed - we radically changed - and we changed in response to concerns that were raised by the insurance industry," Obama said, according to the session transcript.

During debate over the Health Care Justice Act, Obama also attacked the insurers, accusing the industry of "fear-mongering" by claiming, even after he made changes they wanted, that the bill would lead to a government takeover.

Don't you just think that we might hope for a little bit more out of someone we might vote for on the Democratic side?

Billy,

Of course Iran is interested in its neighbors' politics, for the simple reason that they're its neighbors. What they do affects Iran, and what Iran does affects them. It would be very irrational for them not to be interested.

I've never argued that Iran is an existential threat, or potential-to-manufacture is the same as ready-to-fire, or any of that other bs. What I AM saying is that the crazies in both countries have spent the past 7 years inflaming the relationship, and that just because we get rid of our crazies doesn't mean that they'll get rid of theirs; it just doesn't work like that. The crazies will still be in charge of Iran for the near future, and they can do a LOT of damage without ever touching another country's soil. Iran is a dangerous country.

Of course I'm not basing my vote soley on Iran. But Obama's position on Iran illustrates the problem I have with his approach to a lot of other issues (and a lot of his supporters' arguments), which is that they all seem to be based on precious little more than Obama-will-succeed-on-thorny-issues-because-there's-just-something-different-about-him. I find that notion dangerously naive from a domestic politics perspective, and potentially quite misguided

your insurance company pays for you health care...

I am prejudiced here - I grew up a Navy brat and my husband is retired military and I am retired from the GSA. After my solitary hitch in the Reserves, I laterally moved into the VA/DoD healthcare system. I have had government provided health care my entire life and I like it just fine. I have better care than my civvie friends or that sister-in-law. For starters, never had to fight a bean counter for a procedure or a medication. In the civvie side of my healthcare career, I didn't see a lot of problems with MediCare, either.

Frankly0:

Thanks for posting that. Can you post an example of Edwards and Clinton kicking butt and taking names and getting healthcare reform passed at any level of government? I want to compare and contrast the frontrunners approach in real life terms. Thanks in advance.

I love it when conservatives quote Hegel -- and Mr or Ms Deflator, if you're not conservative, don't make that the first word users encounter in your pen-name!

Claude Levi-Strauss argued that the dynamic of cultural entities circulated around "bundles of opposition" -- here the food is cooked, there the food is raw.

We seem to be in a more bloodlust environment in these United States -- here the meat is red; NO! here, the meat is redder! (Anybody who's seen Beowulf in 3D will know what it means to have a pagan pointing a sword at you.)

I don't disagree with Krugman, even if it's possible he's sired children he does not know of who happen to be schilling for Hillary. A '60s coming-of-age can sometimes do that to you, after all.

But entering Iowa, NH, South Carolina, and all those fun states on 2/5, is it possible to discover that among the Dems we are actually looking at matters of degree on health care? Should the bureaucracy of the IRS, brutally defunded by generations of Republican legislators, be considered capable of tracking those who have been good and those who have been bad as far as health care goes?

True, primaries are the place where preachers are addressing the believers -- which leads to the question: why is there no image of Mitt in his Joseph Smith longjohns? A testimony of faith I am sure we will all enjoy when the time comes -- but it feels to me that Krugman is trying to draw the tipping point between Jesuits and Dominicans in the midsts of an Inquisition.

In sum, no one is going to smell good when this is all done.

Can you post an example of Edwards and Clinton kicking butt and taking names and getting healthcare reform passed at any level of government?

Well, SCHIP looks a whole hell of a lot like the "Kids First" component of Hillary's failed healthcare overhaul during Bill's first term.

Can you post an example of Edwards and Clinton kicking butt and taking names and getting healthcare reform passed at any level of government?

I'd rather see no legislation passed than botched, compromised legislation that will only stand in the way of real reform. I'd rather see, say, Hillary fail to bring about legislation on health care if it only undermined the concept of universal health care than to see her "succeed" in passing legislation that was largely dictated by the insurance industry and Republicans.

Is Krugman still on the Enron payroll?

Just wondering.

Gheby: You are right, every country has its crazies. Every country also has its sane people. The trick is for the sane people to keep the crazies under control. Yes, the crazies may get on TV and indulge in sabre rattling once in a while, but that is probably a trivial "free speech" price you pay to let the crazies get their craziness off their chests. The problem is when crazies get their hands on their nation's military assets. Actions speak much louder than words. Judge other countries on what they do, not on what some of their crazies say on TV, even if they say it hundred times a day. Why exactly is Iran a threat when there are scores of other countries in the world, some of them in Iran's own neighborhood, with lot more weapons, lot less stability, and a much less transparent political order. Iranian President may be a crazy SOB (based on his ramblings), but it appears that the saner people around him have managed to keep him on a tight leash. Can we say that about our own country?

Frankly0:

So your objection is that Obama's approach will accomplish something rather than nothing? Confusing, but okay.

And for the record, I believe Illinois has had REAL reform. Nothing in the article says that legislation was "botched" or that there was no real reform. Misconstruing the article doesn't advance your point.

Thanks Blue Girl.

Dude, he won a Democratic primary in Illinois. He worked in the illinois legislature.

This may be the first time in recorded history anyone has suggested that a guy who came up through Chicago Democratic politics is "too naive."

Keith, yes sometimes its better to accomplish nothing rather than something. If the something accomplished is detrimental to your long term goals, despite possibly being an apparent short term improvement. Like passing a health care reform that does enough to allow the politicians to kick the can down the road, while not actually providing a good solution.

Yes, let's find the candidate who will man the barricades and sing feel-good revolutionary songs. Better to go down in flames standing against the man than actually get something done. Naivete runs rampant.

Keith,

And I guess it doesn't occur to you that a bill that is "watered down" to accommodate all the concerns of insurance companies and Republicans is pretty much inherently going to be flawed. Confusing, but okay. I think most of us imagine that that the concerns of insurance companies and Republicans are only going to protect their interests, and not those of the larger public -- you know, the public that actually votes for its politicians, including even Obama?

And, yes, as I said, nothing is better than something when something is badly compromised. If you have nothing, then the need can be addressed another day, and perhaps with another politician.

Obviously, that politician will never be Obama, because you know from day one he's going to give in big time to the parties who are the enemies of the common good. He's basically already told us that that is what he plans to do, though, of course, he doesn't put it in those words.

Here's what Obama needs to do after he's elected:

At the first state dinner, stab any Republican leader with his fork and establish his crazy toughness.

And if that doesn't work bomb Iran.

Posted by: anon: Dude, he won a Democratic primary in Illinois.

When his opponents self-destructed.

He worked in the illinois legislature.

Where he was known primarily for being soft on some sort of bill on gang killings of policemen, as I recall.

This may be the first time in recorded history anyone has suggested that a guy who came up through Chicago Democratic politics is "too naive."

Right. He knows how to make a crooked buck with the best of them.

http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/124171,CST-NWS-obama05.article

Obama on Rezko deal: It was a mistake

November 5, 2006

BY DAVE MCKINNEY AND CHRIS FUSCO Staff Reporters Contributing: Mark Brown

U.S. Sen. Barack Obama expressed regret late Friday for his 2005 land purchase from now-indicted political fundraiser Antoin "Tony" Rezko in a deal that enlarged the senator's yard.

"I consider this a mistake on my part and I regret it," Obama told the Chicago Sun-Times in an exclusive and revealing question-and-answer exchange about the transaction.

In June 2005, Obama and Rezko purchased adjoining parcels in Kenwood. The state's junior senator paid $1.65 million for a Georgian revival mansion, while Rezko paid $625,000 for the adjacent, undeveloped lot. Both closed on their properties on the same day.

Last January, aiming to increase the size of his sideyard, Obama paid Rezko $104,500 for a strip of his land.

The transaction occurred at a time when it was widely known Tony Rezko was under investigation by U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald and as other Illinois politicians befriended by Rezko distanced themselves from him.

One way to think about the problem with universal health care in the US is that it truly is a case in which "win-win" is not possible.

The insurance companies in America are the enemy of the common good when it comes to health care reform. It is the insurance industry, more than any other entity, which is most responsible for the extraordinary inefficiency of the health care system in the US. Replace them with, say, a single payer system, and suddenly the cost of health care goes down dramatically.

That is what makes taking their "concerns" with great seriousness a pretty unforgivable offense for someone who styles himself as a progressive. Satisfying their concerns comes at the direct cost of the public good.

So when I hear how willing Obama is to take their concerns -- as well as those of Republicans -- into account when putting together legislation, I know the guy is nothing but an impediment when it comes to implementing progressive policy.

"Why is Krugman, more than most pundits, so often "misunderstood" by intelligent people?"

He talks about things that "intelligent" people are so often afraid to understand.

Well I'm feeling better now. I was getting that little chill on the nape of my neck. The chill I get when a commissar gets too near.

I know, I know, Krugman doesn't have a commissar loving bone in his body. He hates them as much as I do. He leads a band of stout, good hearted men. He's a democratic liberal of the best sort. Many of his followers here seem to be frothing at the mouth, but it's just high spirits.

The chill's over now. I've learned that the poster with the cruel moniker: "redterror" thinks:

the answer is, "No, we can't all just get along!" when the other side is Corporate America: Headquarters in New York, hindquarters spread all over this land. Edwards has whipped their asses before and he can and will do it again.

I'm feeling OK. The whole reason we spun up the "plaintiff's bar" and created the "personal injury" jackpot game was to let some steam out of the system. It's worked like a charm. Some incredible percentage of the disadvantaged class have a "case" working. But the really sweet part is that it took the energies of many dangerous rabble rousers away from the streets and into the courthouses. As distasteful as it is that Lerach and Coale and all the rest have gotten so rich, it sure has taken the edge off of their social revolutionary motivations. They'd have to mobilize their own servants to cut their own throats. Michael Ratner is a possible leader of the revolution, but it sure nice to have Bruce as a brother if you ever need a spare million or five.

We're gonna be OK. Redterror will settle for Edwards "whipping their asses". I think that we can live with that. American politics is wonderful. I don't mind that it's contentious and vituperative. It's got to have some vigor to work as a substitute for slaughter.

Well, that bit of angst is gone. Now I just feel some gentle regrets. It is too bad that Glenn Greenwald and Howie Klein count as "intellectuals" for you folks. You must not get to the library much. It's too bad that ThinkProgress and MediaMatters think that a Stalinist rhetorical style is anything other than a very bad nightmare. I'm sure that "redterror" is just a youngster who doesn't know better. John Podesta and Eli Pariser and George Soros and David Brock I do not forgive.

Kevin, it's great that you're a partisan. Just remember that the hard lefties are never your friends and remember this: politics-wise you may be closer to MediaMatters, but decency-wise you're closer to The Cato Institute. The former gets its style from Koba the Dread and the latter from James Madison and Alexander Hamilton. If you think of yourself as traveling with Thomas Jefferson: he was 99.999% of the way over to the side of Madison and Hamilton when put on the scale with Koba.

Of course it's rhetoric. Obama came out of Chicago politics.

Part of Obama's possible upside is that we don't know what he can or might be able to do, and that may give him flexibility that Clinton and Edwards are unlikely to have.

The set story line is that Clinton and Edwards are ready to be as confrontational as the Republicans. But instead of giving them an advantage, that actually yields just the opposite. It assumes they are as negative as the Republicans (or the insurance companies, etc.), so the two sides begin in a position where neither side has an advantage over the other. That makes a progressive triumph harder.

On the other hand, if Obama is cagey he *might* be able to turn the opposition's intransigence to his advantage. He extends his hand (or seems to do so), they spurn it with invective, and then with more sorrow than anger, he goes into opposition to them. That would seem to give Obama an advantage in the court of public opinion to me.

Is he savvy and tactical enough to carry this out? No idea. But it *is* true that he would go into the battle appearing to the public as more conciliatory than either Clinton or Edwards so he *could* use a tactic like this whereas the other two probably couldn't.

I love Krugman both he's both itching for a fight and predicting it. And he's doing WAY too much projecting. In his reading, Clinton has been hit by the right before, so she's good to go and know what's to expect. Edwards' adoption of Gore's "people vs. the powerful" rhetoric as well as being on the end of a losing presidential campaign have him ready to do battle with the dark forces of the right.

But Obama? The guy who who was a community organizer in the rough and tumble political landscape in Chicago...man, that guy knows nothing about how to fight back against entrenched interests or stand up for what he believes in.

Give me a break.

urban legend: Yes, let's find the candidate who will man the barricades and sing feel-good revolutionary songs.

Much better to start a negotiation by offering your bottom line compromise.

If you don't start out swinging, you'll have nothing left to compromise on. Roll over and declare defeat! It's the Democratic way (otherwise some right wing pundit might disagree with me or even say something unkind!).

Used to be that in order to be part of the Radical Left you had to join the Weatherman or something. It's so much easier now - all you have to do is defend the current Social Security system (the best financially managed part of the government).

C'mon. Let's face it. Krugman has a soapbox. But if you have ever seen him in action -- ever seen his whole schtick -- you'd have to conclude he's basically a smart self-important academic blowhard. I'm with Alter on this.
Posted by: Obama/Webb 08 on December 19, 2007 at 10:51 PM

I saw him do a video lecture for the first time yesterday about the real estate bubble linked at Calculated Risk and it was first-rate. There wasn't one thing that he said that didn't make sense or that I didn't agree with him about. Maybe it's his delivery that you don't like. He came across to me somewhat like Richard Dreyfuss in "Jaws" telling everybody at the town meeting about the danger of The Shark.

But Obama? The guy who who was a community organizer in the rough and tumble political landscape in Chicago...man, that guy knows nothing about how to fight back against entrenched interests or stand up for what he believes in.

Yep. And he taught law classes on substantive due process & the 14th Amendment; racism and the law, Con Law III.

I can recall a couple of American populists who also thought they could work with the opposition. Nobody called them "starry-eyed", as I recall, and they had extremely strong followings among the American people. Unfortunately, both were assassinated before they had a chance to prove their way could work.

Bill Clinton managed to get a fair bit of work done in spite of a Republican Congress that foamed at the mouth with hatred for him. It can be done. Is Obama as savvy as Slick Willie? That's not for me to say.

I like Paul Krugman, and since I always found his scathing critiques of George W. Bush's sandbox economics deeply satisfying, I must accept that he perhaps doesn't like Obama. I do, and I don't think Hillary Clinton would make a very good president. In fact, I suspect she might govern very much like a Republican, although she couldn't get drunk enough to make such a stupid job of it as Bush. I like Edwards, too, but I don't think he has a hope of getting the nomination. I think it's Clinton or Obama, and of the two, I prefer Obama.

Nobody really knows a thing about what kind of leader he'd make. Maybe this time we'll get to find out.

To quote: Krugman
...The point is that if national health reform is going to happen, it will be as the result of a no-holds-barred fight of an entirely different order from what Obama saw in Illinois. The president’s role will have to be far more confrontational, involve far more twisting of arms and rallying of the public against the special interests, than Obama’s role as a state legislator in the Illinois case. And it will take place against a backdrop of fierce attacks not just from the industry but from Republicans who fear, rightly, that any kind of reform will move the country in a more liberal direction.

It takes a good deal of arm twisting and toughness as LBJ and the recent passage of the Medicare Prescription Drug program show. Many forget the battle of the 1993 Clinton health care proposal
...running through the administration’s argument for health care reform was the concept of “shared responsibility” between employers and employees--that no one was getting a “free ride.” Clinton’s speeches on the subject stressed the importance of bipartisanship and compromise.
By the time the administration’s proposed “Health Security Act" reached Congress on November 20, 1993, it was a watered-down proposal centered on private health maintenance organizations (HMOs)--based in part on input from the Health Insurance Association of America (HIAA).
The HIAA would later run its infamous "Harry and Louise" TV ads decrying the Clinton plan as “big government.” “This plan forces us to buy our insurance through new mandatory government health alliances,” complained Louise. “Run by tens of thousands of bureaucrats,” said Harry. “Having choices we don’t like is no choice at all,” replied Louise. “They choose, we lose,” they said.
Ultimately, insurance companies, large and small, decided that the series of concessions made by the Clintons in formulating their plan weren’t enough.
During 1993 and 1994, 660 lobbyist groups spent more than $100 million to stop health care reform. According to a report from the Center for Public Integrity, organizations with health care interests funneled $25 million to members of Congress. About a third of that went to members sitting on one of five committees overseeing health care. It was money well spent....

It will not be any easier this time either.

....The whole reason .... created the "personal injury" jackpot game was to let some steam out of the system..... foucaultfan at 11:57 PM

Thank you.

One negotiating style is to use a tone of voice which says you are willing to listen to the other side, and compromise if their case makes sense. Then when it is shown to be self-serving bunk, hold your ground. The public should be more likely to listen to your case if you appear reasonable at first. Perhaps this approach will work for Obama. Givimg in for the sake of appearances won't.

Mr. Drum,

I wish you would use "may" instead of "might."

"As a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, I firmly believe that the issue of Iraq is not about politics. It’s about national security. We know that for at least 20 years, Saddam Hussein has obsessively sought weapons of mass destruction through every means available. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons today. He has used them in the past, and he is doing everything he can to build more. Each day he inches closer to his longtime goal of nuclear capability — a capability that could be less than a year away."
...

"The path of confronting Saddam is full of hazards. But the path of inaction is far more dangerous. This week, a week where we remember the sacrifice of thousands of innocent Americans made on 9-11, the choice could not be starker. Had we known that such attacks were imminent, we surely would have used every means at our disposal to prevent them and take out the plotters. We cannot wait for such a terrible event — or, if weapons of mass destruction are used, one far worse — to address the clear and present danger posed by Saddam Hussein’s Iraq."

Senator John Edwards (Democrat, North Carolina)
US Senate floor statement: Iraqi Dictator Must Go”
September 12, 2002

Quite the fighting, progressive hero when it really mattered.

Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.

I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.

I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars.
...
The consequences of war are dire, the sacrifices immeasurable. We may have occasion in our lifetime to once again rise up in defense of our freedom, and pay the wages of war. But we ought not – we will not – travel down that hellish path blindly. Nor should we allow those who would march off and pay the ultimate sacrifice, who would prove the full measure of devotion with their blood, to make such an awful sacrifice in vain.

Barack Obama, October 2002

Nuff said...

I see very little mention of the fact that the Democratic position on health care is already the compromise position! Ask anyone with an understanding of health care economics and you'll be told that single-payer is the way to go in this country. It would result in generally cheaper health care than anything the Democrats are proposing, without any reduction in quality. A private/public competition, as Edwards envisions, or channeling the program entirely through the private sector, as Clinton proposes, results in huge, highly cost inefficient duplications of bureaucracies, but it allows people to maintain their current policies, a political necessity.

Problem is, the basic plans as outlined as Clinton and Edwards are the minimum necessary in order to actually deliver any sort of nationalized insurance. Any program, to be effective needs 1) mandatory community ratings; 2) subsidies for those who can't afford insurance, and 3) mandates to purchase and carry insurance.

Without 1), insurance would be unaffordable to people with bad health histories and preexisting conditions; without 2) insurance would be unaffordable to much of the middle and lower class who don't qualify for Medicaid, and without 3) the program would collapse in a death spiral of increasing premiums as healthy people opt out of insurance, driving up premiums for everyone else, driving out slightly less healthy people and poor people as subsidies fail to match increased costs, driving up premiums again, until we're left with most of the same coverage problems we're trying to solve today.

This is not controversial; this is consensus. A program without any one of these elements can not work. It might improve insurance coverage, but it can't come anywhere near the goal of universal coverage. That's just the straightforward economic, objective truth.

Obama, in his willingness to speak the language of compromise, has already indicated a willingness to compromise away a critical element without which any universal private health insurance coverage scheme is destined to fail: mandates to purchase. Obama has proposed a compromise that we know with a reasonable degree of certainty can't work!

That's what Krugman objects to from Obama. It's not Obama's stated willingness to compromise that's a problem; it's Obama's willingness to start negotiations by compromising away critical, absolutely, indisputably necessary aspects of a universal health insurance coverage scheme. Krugman's objection is that Obama has said that he's willing to concede defeat on universal coverage, not that Obama's willing to negotiate in good faith.

Krugman doesn't seem to have a clue where Obama's coming from. He needs to read Moral Politics and other writings of George Lakoff, and maybe he'd understand.

With voters, and public opinion on his side, Obama will move mountains.

This correlates with that other cliche about catching more flies with honey.

Krugman doesn't seem to have a clue where Obama's coming from.

Krugman knows exactly where Obama's coming from; Obama's coming from a position of conceding defeat before negotiations even begin. Obama's willing to start "negotiating" by proposing a plan to possibly increase health insurance coverage--possibly not, because companies will respond to any government program by reducing health benefits to employees, possibly counteracting any increase in coverage Obama's proposed program might otherwise allow for--while conceding on the concept of universal coverage from the very start.

Krugman, a progressive, wants to see universal coverage implemented. Obama has, by virtue of his proposal that rejects mandates to purchase insurance--see my post just above--said he has no interest at all in achieving universal coverage. Krugman knows exactly what Obama's doing: promising to sell out the cause of universal coverage. Krugman's problem is that Obama's negotiating position can not work to achieve the substantive goals Krugman wants the next President to pursue.

Krugman is pretty much of a sacred cow in the left blogosphere.

It is foolish to attack him rather than try for some common ground.

I can only think of one target that an attack on would generate a worse reaction. If any Democratic candidate tried to smear Dibgy then all holy hell would descend.

"Obama has, by virtue of his proposal that rejects mandates to purchase insurance--see my post just above--said he has no interest at all in achieving universal coverage."

People who don't know what the hell they're talking about would be better advised to not open their mouths and look like idiots.

(I'm beginning to think that includes Krugman...)

"Krugman is pretty much of a sacred cow in the left blogosphere."

And the left blogosphere, insofar as they buy into Krugman's foolishness about Obama being the least "attuned" to progressive thought, are looking like the kind of folks who worship sacred cows, i.e. idiots.

Great thread. Best I've read on this. Two killer punches:

1) That devastating quote of Obama by FranklyO at 11:04 pm.

2) The devastating reframing of jusr why Krugman thinks Obama's plan is DOA by RJohnston at 1:58 am.

Powerful stuff, guys. Obvious why the Obama guys here are so very waspish.

Fast Pete:

Except that "that devastating quote of Obama" is also precisely what you'd expect him (a good politician with a reputation for negotiation) to say to insurance companies right after he's taken their lunch money. I don't know the exact situation -- I have to read up on it.

But is the general conclusion here that Obama needs a Dixie Chicks moment ("Not Ready to Make Nice")?

That may be one reason for HRC's appeal: despite (what appears to be) substantive lack of opposition to the Republican agenda, people know that she's been way too bruised by the system to think that she can deal with some of these people without a (metaphorical) kick in the balls.

Frankly has half a point -- and most likely, the wrong half: "nothing is better than something when something is badly compromised. If you have nothing, then the need can be addressed another day, and perhaps with another politician..."

And how's that been working out for us over the last decade or so on, say: Iraqimmigrationhealthcaretaxesspendingortheenvironment?

The late Henry Hyde, of all people, nailed it in 1992. As a senior Republican, he was asked to give a speech to incoming Republican freshman, the last Congress they were in their long minority. (The speech set up the political attitude that become the Contract with America, so it's particularly significant.)

He said: what's the issue on which you guys are prepared to LOSE?

Look, he explained, we make real decisions here. Because these are real choices, reasonable people can disagree. Your EMPLOYERS, the voters, might want you to vote one way but your principles and your judgment may require you to vote another. So go home tonight, and write down on a piece of paper the issue on which you know you are prepared to have an open disagreement with the people you work for, lose your job over it, and just walk away.

He said: don't cheat, either. No fair writing down "a strong national defense' if you're from a district with an Air Force base and a Navy shipyard.

You might be pro-life from a pro-choice district. You might favor same sex unions in a district that's against gay rights. You might favor gun controls in a district where every other voter belongs to the NRA.

The point is, he told 'em, if you CAN'T or WON'T write down the issue on which you know you are willing to lose, if you don't even know what it is, sooner or later, you will be no good here. You will talk about the choices you make here in squishy terms, and eventually, you will help make the choices soft on the edges, too. That's not what you're here for.

Personally, I think Clinton should make that speech now. But I'd like to know what the issues are that progressives really WOULD be willing to lose over, cuz that's not only the way to win, it's the way to make winning worth the effort.

But progressives still face their essential problem that it isn't our agenda, it's our attitude, that the public has trouble with. On issue after issue, Frankly's idea that nothing is better than something compromised, produces something BAD, instead.

Then we blame the public (Republicans, Swiftboaters, evil corporations, etc.) for what sensible people would recognize as OUR failures. Look at the mess we got left with in Congress -- it's too easy to say it's cuz Pelosi and Reid aren't vertebrates: when it counts, the progressive base is amorphous.

Why should we assume the Republican posture towards President Obama will be any different than that exhibited towards President Bill Clinton and the current Democratic Congress? They will be sore losers, and will pursue obstructionism to the maximum destructiveness they can get away with.

Good points Ask2. Seems all senators ask for trouble when they run, it's such a tough place to look good from.

Front page of today's NY Times? Story that Obama sidestepped nearly 130 tough votes in Springfield. Link here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/20/us/politics/20obama.html

Seems to me two perceptions are missing in this and other threads:

One, just how VERRRY seriously Krugman takes the resolving of the health care mess.

Proof: not just two or three or five NYTimes columns, and not just recently, but columns up in the several dozens now, over his whole time with the NYT.

A book in themselves, in fact.

Two, he has pursued THREE great angles: (1) pain of a truly vast low-income group, with shortened lives, more diabetes, etc; (2) utterly corrupting influence of the big HMOs and pharmas; (3)a real macro-economic hit: a slide in competitivess with costs up, costs loaded on GM etc (he's sympathetic to GM), and a workforce that's ailing.

And he writes on them at least as much as an economist as a liberal.

ANY pussyfooter is going to light his fuse. It happened to be Obama; could have been any of them.

I think elites like Alter are missing a major problem with Obama. He just cannot relate to average people who have struggled or face the prospect of struggle against powerful interests and he cannot talk their language in simple and direct terms. His language may appeal to elites who are impressed with lofty high flung theoretics but a lot of people end up thinking "huh? what did he say?" after listening to Obama's lectures. Obama toggles back and forth between high flown rhetoric and fake street jive, none of it real or persuasive enough to overcome the clever market appeal that will be launched by the insurance industry. Edwards' simple, direct and emotional rhetoric is what is needed. In addition to Obama's lack of a track record in opposing the industry (thanks Frankly0) and lack of judgment regarding lobbyists like Rezko, Obama's ability to push through change clearly a lot of hype.

Chrissy, I bet Edwards and Clinton have a great track record we can refer to. Obama's fake street jive? Wtf r u talking about?

Oh my! All this anti-corporate rhetoric? What happened to the supposedly smart progressives who were part of the "reality based community?" Seeing bogeymen inside every corporation is not unlike seeing jihadists in every mosque. If our next president and supporting cast turn out to be the polar opposite of GWBush and Co., then our republic really is in decline. You fight fire with fire only if your strategy is to let everything burn itself out. But if you're trying to save a house with a roof on fire, you use water.

Krugman and Kevin Drum appear to like fire because it sells newspapers and draws page views. That's the only way I can rationalize what they've been saying about Obama recently. Krugman is a loud voice generally shouting in a good (progressive) direction. He may know a lot about particular policy details and pet economic topics, but he has demonstrated absolutely nothing about what it takes to actually govern a group of people, let alone a country.

And, even if Krugman is not advocating confrontation but expressing concern that Obama is not prepared for confrontation, since when does one have to be belligerent to be prepared for confrontation? In fact, it's exactly the opposite: the tough people in any real world setting are usually the quiet, deliberate ones. Anyone with life experience knows that. Blow-hards always cave in the end.

GOD, I'm referring to Obama's "don't tell me I'm not ...." his "down with the brothers", his "y'all know" jive etc. Makes me wince. He is about as authentic as a $3 bill. And don't even go there with me, I recognize fake street when I hear it.