Monday, October 26, 2009

The Best Health Care Bill that Money Can Buy

The Health Care Reform Bill is slowly falling together. The big insurance companies are getting almost everything they want. Public financing to subsidize them, a requirement for the uninsured to buy insurance or pay a fine, and guaranteed profits. Looks like they lose on the public option -except that it will not be available for the vast majority, only to the uninsured - and only if your state decides not to "opt-out". So it won't really be "competition". If you like the insurance your employer offers - you can keep it, and if you don't like the insurance your employer offers - you have to keep it anyway. So much for "options".

A few congressmen will be offering amendments to make the public option a true option for everyone - introducing actual competition. Others will be offering a bill allowing individual states the right to offer a single payer plan in their state - the proven method for providing the best care at the lowest cost. Use the the chart below to understand how your congressional representative makes their decisions (from the Center for Responsive Politics).

Every member of Congress and the total contributions they have received from the Health Care industry from 1989 through June 2009.



Saturday, September 19, 2009

Thursday, August 27, 2009

Send in the Big Dog


Ted Kennedy's passing leaves Massachusetts without full representation in the US Senate, and the nation without our greatest champion for Universal Health Care right when we need him the most.

With respect to the probability that Massachusetts will change it's law to appoint a temporary Senator until a new Senator can be chosen in a Special Election in February - most of those suggested in the media as replacements are not going to be interested in a temporary position from which they will be barred (as seems likely) from running in the special election

What Massachusetts, and the nation, needs is an strong interim Senator with no interest in a permanent position, but who has the stature, ability and connections to step into Kennedy's very large shoes and push Ted's health care reform through. Even better if that is someone with a long commitment to universal health care, who would find this temporary role as a chance to fulfill one of his own greatest goals.

I can think of one person who perfectly fits those needs:

Bill Clinton

He'd have to change his address, yet again, but he can afford it. He's been vetted - both as a former president and most recently during Hillary's confirmation.

The Big Dog can carry Kennedy's water for 5 months, working to get Universal Health Care passed, while Massachusetts works out who they want to elect for the permanent position. Then he can retire with his greatest legislative failure as president redeemed, and Ted Kennedy's legacy fulfilled.

Monday, August 24, 2009

SOCIALISM! Booga Booga Boo!


I think conservatives are confused. They see government spending money on social services and think social services ... hmmmm ... socialism. They see the name of the old USSR - the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and think ... hmmm ... communism ... is socialism. They look at the name of the Nazi Party - The National Socialist German Worker's Party ... hmmm ... fascism is socialism. Thus in the conservative mind, every form of political-economic system is socialism. Communism is socialism, Fascism is socialism, Capitalism is socialism. EVERYTHING is socialism!

OK.... let's clear a few things up.

Government paying for things is not socialism. Government providing social services is not socialism. Those are both normal functions of a capitalist state - recognized as such since Adam Smith wrote The Wealth of Nations and drove a stake through the heart of mercantilism and defined what would come to be known as the modern Capitalist state. Specifically Smith outlined 3 broad areas of government responsibility; national defense, administration of justice, and providing those public goods which are essential to a free and prosperous society. Those public goods which Smith identified were infrastructure and education - which are essential to both the public weal and commerce. In today's more complex world social safety nets are also essential to commerce. The example of the cost of private healthcare crippling our industries points toward the utility of providing social services within a capitalist system - they are part of the human infrastructure that supports private enterprise and makes it more competitive.

The Nazi Party - formally The National Socialist German Worker's Party, was originally a Worker's party (pro union party) until taken over by Adolf Hitler, he added the word "socialist" to the name in a gambit to attract more working class members, but from the beginning of Hitler's involvement the party was firmly (even homicidally) anti-union and anti-socialist and anti-communist. They finessed the inclusion of "socialism" in their name by saying they were against "liberal" socialism, their "version" of socialism had nothing to do with actual socialism, and consisted instead of a form of social Darwinism.

So what is socialism? It is an economic system where the means of production of goods is owned by the people.

Government buying goods - or services - is not socialism. As an economic system socialism can exist in either democratic or authoritarian political systems.

Authoritarian Socialism is Communism.

Liberal Socialism (not neoliberal) or Social Democracies are democratic states with free enterprise market systems and extensive social welfare systems in which certain key industries may have been nationalized, but those states maintain private ownership of capital. Recently this has been referred to as EuroSocialism. Both modern Capitalist states and EuroSocialist states have mixed economies with both private enterprise and government sector industry, the difference being the relative balance between the two.

Conservatives will accuse progressives of trying to move the balance of the mixed economy in the United States closer to that of European States. And they have a point. But the point is not quite the indictment they make it out to be. To attribute any perceived policy as "socialism" doesn't make it anti-capitalist. Social Welfare programs - which are common to Capitalist and Socialist systems - are not socialist in and of themselves - they are not the means of production of industrial goods. But they do help support the industrial system - social welfare programs ultimately buttress capitalist enterprise. The social welfare system exists to support capitalist industry as much as any other intended benefit.

Perhaps EuroSocialism should be called Democratic Social Capitalism. It's benefit to capitalist enterprise has been well demonstrated in the aftermath of the 2008 economic meltdown and the quick recovery of the EuroSocialist sector while we still flounder here in America. With their stronger safety nets many European citizens suffered no loss of health care, less deprivation from high unemployment rates, and were able to keep buying goods at a great enough level to revive industry and return their economies to positive growth. The 2008 recession ended quickly in Germany, France and much of Scandinavia.

I'm not afraid of the "S" word, I just don't think it is used properly. Mostly it is used as an epithet - and grossly incorrectly at that.

Modern progressives believe in private enterprise and private ownership of property and commerce. They don't want government or public ownership of the means of production, they don't want government factories making shoes, or cars, or consumer goods. They think there are things that government does better to the benefit of the public and of private enterprise, and there are things that government funds better but lets private enterprise provide. That's not really Socialism, so lets call it Social Capitalism.

Tuesday, August 11, 2009

The High Cost of Doing Nothing


"ObamaCare", the opposition name for the health care reform effort now proceeding through 4 or 5 bills in Congress is rather short on true reform since its number one goal seems to be to preserve the astronomical profits of the industry. But ... is it worse than doing nothing?

The Congressional Budget Office recently scored one of the Democratic proposals, and concluded that it would cost $1 trillion over 10 years, or even $1.5 trillion in the worse case.

My God - how can we afford that! That's like 1/7th of what we spent in a little over a year bailing out Wall Street!

Well, not exactly. The CBO scored an early version without a public option or employer mandate, it now says that plan would "only" cost $600 billion over 10 years and that doesn't include all the savings that would be achieved from such things as new cost controls and far fewer of the very high costs from uninsured people avoiding early care and waiting for expensive publicly funded emergency care. $600 billion - over 10 years - is about a third of what we'll spend on Iraq and Afghanistan.

Still - an extra $60 billion a year is a lot of money. Can we afford it?

Better question: can we afford doing nothing?

America has the most expensive health care system in the world - and for that we provide the best health care industry profits in the world, but not anywhere near the best health care outcomes for our population - we are solidly in the second tier of emerging nations in overall quality of health care, no where near the rest of the industrialized world - we are bested by such industrial powerhouses as Costa Rica, Dominica, Chile, Cyprus and Columbia.

For that we are paying nearly twice as much as any other nation - 17.6% of our GDP - over $2.5 trillion this year. Costs are increasing at a rate of over 6% every year, in 10 years time we'll by spending over $4.6 trillion per year, about 21% of GDP.

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services actuarial center (in the Dept of HHS) calculates that 47.4% of the total expenditures on health care in the United States will come directly from government sources this year - and by 2019 that will increase to 51.7%.

With National Health Expenditures increasing from $2.51 trillion this year to $4.67 trillion in 2019, and the public paying 47.4% today increasing to 51.7% in 10 years, the extra cost to taxpayers of doing nothing will be $5.66 trillion dollars.

And on top of that the average taxpayer can expect to be paying twice as much for their private health insurance.

Kinda makes $600 billion look like chump change.

Friday, July 17, 2009

Senator Jefferson Beauregard "Jeff" Sessions III: Tool



In an interview on NPR Senator Jeff Sessions reiterated his problem with statements Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor made in a 2001 speech.

Sessions:
It was a speech that reflected a judicial philosophy that a person's background, sympathies and prejudices (those were her words) can impact your ruling. She said her background could affect the facts she would chose to see as a judge. That's ... I believe that is a disqualifying thing, frankly.
...
This is so basic to American law, your justice and the result in a court should not depend on the judge's personal views, background or ethnicity. A judge makes ... takes an oath to be impartial, the oath says, ah, you will do equal justice to the poor and rich alike, and that you put on that robe and it represents a fundamental commitment to put aside all those things and to be fair and objective in the process.

His statement includes direct quotes from Sotomayor's 2001 Berkeley speech which included the now infamous "wise Latina" remark. In fact, they are from passages that expand and explain that remark:

Sotomayor:
Personal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see. My hope is that I will take the good from my experiences and extrapolate them further into areas with which i am unfamiliar. I simply do not know exactly what that difference will be in my judging. but I accept there will be some based on my gender and my Latina heritage.

...
I am reminded each day that I render decisions that affect people concretely and that I owe them constant and complete vigilance in checking my assumptions, presumptions and perspectives and ensuring that to the extent that my limited abilities and capabilities permit me, that i reevaluate them and change as circumstances and cases before me requires. I can and do aspire to be greater than the sum total of my experiences but I accept my limitations. I willingly accept that we who judge must not deny the differences resulting from experience and heritage but attempt, as the Supreme Court suggests, continuously to judge when those opinions, sympathies and prejudices are appropriate.

Notice that taken in context the Sotomayor statements - that according to Sessions represent a disqualification for her appointment, explain the need to ensure impartiality and fairness completely the opposite of what Sessions claims she said.

The fact that Sessions admitted he was directly quoting from those statements proves that he was perfectly aware of what she was actually saying.

His mischaracterizations are nothing less than deliberate lies.

Saturday, March 28, 2009

Did the US Navy just save the world?

The US Navy made an announcement a few days ago that may ultimately put an end to the causes of Anthropogenic Global Warming - they have developed a process that produces replicable evidence of Cold Fusion.

Cold fusion experimentally confirmed
Neutron tracks revive hopes for cold fusion
After 20 years: New life for cold fusion?

Although some claim that it cannot be proven to be the result of fusion, these experiments produce heat, gamma rays, helium, and neutrons, but no radioactive waste. If it ain't Cold Fusion, it's close enough. If this proves out, and can be usefully upscaled, it will mean the end of the energy crisis, oil wars, man made global warming, and your Exxon stocks. Buy palladium futures now.

Friday, March 27, 2009

Sorry about destroying the world



Dear A.I.G., I Quit!

Yes, I read that letter several days ago. I felt a lot of sympathy for Jake DeSantis and his many coworkers who have borne the brunt of outrage from the public over their company's role in destroying the world. Clearly most of them bear no blame for the Credit Default Swap and Derivatives gambling at the center of the fiasco.

But there was something that kept bringing me back to his letter, even though he said all the right things and comported himself honorably ... something bothered me.

And I think I am getting closer to nailing it down ... there is, behind the heartfelt concern and aggrieved forthrightness a sense of - entitlement.

This is a guy who made great sacrifices - apparently foregoing a 7 figure salary (for a year!) in exchange for a promised million plus bonus ... ummm ... yeah ... but the undercurrent is of course he deserved more money.

He was entitled to those great sums for the important work he did while destroying the world - keeping in mind that he personally was not responsible for the really bad stuff (even though the division that he was the EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT of WAS responsible ...)

I applaud his promise to donate his after tax bonus of 750 thousand dollars to those hurt by his company's work at destroying the world. He is by all accounts a good man, personally generous and well liked. But still, there is something about his fully justified whining that just feels a bit unworthy ... it must just be my own failing to properly appreciate that those who are our betters are entitled to their sense of ... entitlement.

Another view

Tuesday, December 16, 2008

Cheney Admits to War Crime

Saturday, December 13, 2008

Still Trying to Kill Joe Hill


The GOP has decided that breaking a union is more important than preserving the industrial backbone of the US economy. The party issued an Action Alert on December 10, 2008 to Republican senators outlining a strategy to derail the Auto Bailout bill and listed as its first point:
This is the democrats first opportunity to payoff organized labor after the election. This is a precursor to card check and other items. Republicans should stand firm and take their first shot against organized labor, instead of taking their first blow from it.

This is a rather bitter outcome for the automakers who have been big supporters of the Republican Party, contributing 3 times as much to GOP candidates as to Democrats in the last two decades. But of course, the GOP is more interested in beating down a powerful union than in supporting a powerful American business. Most times the car companies feel common cause with the Republicans in weakening unions, but they now must understand that that common cause does not correspond to any GOP interest in preserving their business.

At a time when we are at the edge of a deep recession that most acknowledge looks to be the worst in 70 years - since the Great Depression - the GOP is obsessed with lowering the wages of the middle class - they had no such concern with the wages of the Wall Street bankers who have received over $2 trillion in government dollars to prop up their business.

Thom Hartmann, interviewed by NBC's David Shuster puts the GOP actions in historic context as part of their deliberate effort to destroy unions - which are strong supporters of the Democratic Party - and to deliberately impoverish the middle class.



Michael Moore states it plainly:

Friday, December 12th, 2008
Senate to Middle Class: Drop Dead ...a message from Michael Moore

Friends,

They could have given the loan on the condition that the automakers start building only cars and mass transit that reduce our dependency on oil.

They could have given the loan on the condition that the automakers build cars that reduce global warming.

They could have given the loan on the condition that the automakers withdraw their many lawsuits against state governments in their attempts to not comply with our environmental laws.

They could have given the loan on the condition that the management team which drove these once-great manufacturers into the ground resign and be replaced with a team who understands the transportation needs of the 21st century.

Yes, they could have given the loan for any of these reasons because, in the end, to lose our manufacturing infrastructure and throw 3 million people out of work would be a catastrophe.

But instead, the Senate said, we'll give you the loan only if the factory workers take a $20 an hour cut in wages, pension and health care. That's right. After giving BILLIONS to Wall Street hucksters and criminal investment bankers -- billions with no strings attached and, as we have since learned, no oversight whatsoever -- the Senate decided it is more important to break a union, more important to throw middle class wage earners into the ranks of the working poor than to prevent the total collapse of industrial America.

We have a little more than a month to go of this madness. As I sit here in Michigan today, tens of thousands of hard working, honest, decent Americans do not believe they can make it to January 20th. The malaise here is astounding. Why must they suffer because of the mistakes of every CEO from Roger Smith to Rick Wagoner? Make management and the boards of directors and the shareholders pay for this.

Of course that is heresy to the 31 Republicans who decided to blame the poor, miserable autoworkers for this mess. And our wonderful media complied with their spin on the morning news shows: "UAW Refuses to Give Concessions Killing Auto Bailout Bill." In fact the UAW has given concession after concession, reduced their benefits, agreed to get rid of the Jobs Bank and agreed to make it harder for their retirees to live from week to week. Yes! That's what we need to do! It's the Jobs Bank and the old people who have led the nation to economic ruin!

But even doing all that wasn't enough to satisfy the bastard Republicans. These Senate vampires wanted blood. Blue collar blood. You see, they weren't opposed to the bailout because they believed in the free market or capitalism. No, they were opposed to the bailout because they're opposed to workers making a decent wage. In their rage, they were driven to destroy the backbone of this country, not because the UAW hadn't given back enough, but because the UAW hadn't given up.

It appears that the sitting President has been looking for a way to end his reign by one magnanimous act, just like a warlord on his feast day. He will put his finger in the dyke, and the fragile mess of an auto industry will eke through the next few months.

That will give the Senate enough time to demand that the bankers and investment sharks who've already swiped nearly half of the $700 billion gift a chance to make the offer of cutting their pay.

Fat chance.

What's the deal with Joe Hill? He was the union organizer and song writer who was framed and executed in 1915 as part of the effort to destroy the labor movement. His death backfired, making him a martyr and rallying cry that ensured the movement's continued growth. In 1936 Earl Robinson wrote I Dreamed I Saw Joe Hill Last Night based on the poem by Alfred Hayes:

I dreamed I saw Joe Hill last night
Alive as you and me
Says I, "But Joe, you're ten years dead,"
"I never died," says he, "I never died," says he.

"In Salt Lake, Joe, by God," says I
Him standing by my bed,
"They framed you on a murder charge."
Says Joe, "But I ain't dead," says Joe, "But I ain't dead."

"The copper bosses shot you, Joe,
They killed you, Joe," says I.
"Takes more than guns to kill a man,"
Says Joe, "I didn't die," says Joe, "I didn't die."

And standing there as big as life
And smiling with his eyes
Joe says, "What they forgot to kill
Went on to organize, went on to organize."

"Joe Hill ain't dead," he says to me,
"Joe Hill ain't never died.
Where workingmen are out on strike
Joe Hill is at their side, Joe Hill is at their side."

"From San Diego up to Maine
In every mine and mill
Where workers strike and organize,"
Says he, "You'll find Joe Hill," says he, "You'll find Joe Hill."


Sunday, December 07, 2008

Saving Detroit


OK, I've been thinking about this for quite awhile. We need to save jobs. And we need to do it smarter than we did for the banks. Ultimately financial institutions only shuffle ones and zeroes, auto companies create real wealth by making things. In a sane world we'd spend the $2 trillion (or more) saving our industries and bicker over whether the banks deserve a mere $34 Billion. But since we live in bizarro world we are now negotiating between Congress and the White (quack) House to advance a mere $15 billion to let the auto companies stay open long enough to lay off half their workforce.

I think I have a better idea. Let's put their entire workforce back to work, on overtime, maybe even let them hire some of the 1.9 million people who have lost jobs this year. Let's do it in a way that puts them on the course to offering the high mpg and alternate fuel vehicles the world - and environment - really need.

Instead of lending them money to lay off workers, let's use that money to buy a whole bunch of cars.

Let's place an order for a million vehicles.

Phase one is for versions of the hybrid vehicles they already make.
Phase two is for their first generation conversions of existing vehicles to plug in hybrids.
Phase three is for a variety of new vehicles to meet special needs and new refined models of plug in hybrids, all electrics, alternative fuels and other new technologies.

The government would use these vehicles as replacements for retiring vehicles in the existing federal motor pool, for new needs, as well as for sales to other governments in the US and abroad, and even to corporate fleets. In other words, It would replace purchases the government would make anyway, except with new technology, plus create an inventory for the government to resell.

And with $30 billion in assured sales, the automotive companies should have no problem obtaining bridge loans to meet short term liquidity needs from the banks who have received $2 trillion in government money.

I know ... it isn't socialism, but it just might work anyway.

Wednesday, October 08, 2008

The Real Mavericks want their good name back


Turns out that there were Real Maverick's in the old west long before James Garner's fictional Bret Maverick. However since Garner's "Maverick" was an amiable con-man and gambler he might be the best one to compare to McCain when he calls himself a maverick.

Radio host Thom Hartmann read my comment about Garner's "Maverick" and expanded on it with information on the real Maverick family that popularized the term as chronicled by John Schwartz in the New York Times: Who You Callin' a Maverick?

Thom Hartmann on Maverick

Tuesday, September 30, 2008

The 700 Billion Dollar Mugging


This was all premeditated.
This IS the "October Surprise".
It has been planned for years.
And yes ... they plan to steal us blind.

The proof is call-girl Ashley Alexander Dupre.

Ashley, or "Kristin" has no particular connection to the government plan to dump over a trillion dollars of taxpayer IOU's on Wall Street in order to reward Wall Street for it's irresponsibility. She just happened to be the tool used to take down New York governor Eliot Spitzer, who as governor, and previously as Attorney General of New York was one of the only grown ups in government willing to take on the corporate criminals on Wall Street during a time when the Federal government had abdicated its responsibilities and had thrown in with the crooks instead.

Spitzer had to be silenced because he was unraveling the bailout mugging plot. It is laughable to believe that random bank audits led to his exposure as a serial "John" as claimed - the eminent legal expert Alan Dershowitz throws overwhelming doubt upon that notion in The Entrapment of Eliot. Spitzer was under intense domestic surveillance - probably of precisely the sort that Bush won't allow to be reviewed by the courts. You'll note that there are still no criminal charges against him - for good reason - it is doubtful that the evidence could be presented in any court if it was derived as a result of surveillance without a warrant.

Just one month before he was taken down, Eliot Spitzer wrote a Feb. 14, 2008 Op-Ed for the New York Times titled Predatory Lenders' Partner in Crime: How the Bush Administration Stopped the States From Stepping In to Help Consumers in which he detailed the Bush Administration's efforts to prevent the States from taking any steps to forestall the current crisis.

Even as Spitzer public life was imploding, in March 2008, the first $200 Billion dollar installment of the plan was being made.

What? Whaddya mean you didn't know the bailout started back in March?


Yep, the Fed's Bernanke loaned 1/5th of a trillion dollars to the very same villains we are now promising another $700 billion to. Greg Palast connected those dots back on March 14: Eliot's Mess: The $200 billion bail-out for predator banks and Spitzer charges are intimately linked. Add to that the $300 Billion spent on the Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, AIG, and Bear Stearns episodes. That's $1.2 Trillion in less than 8 months. Someone is cashing out their chips before leaving the casino.

Remember Deep Throat's imperative "follow the money", or "follow the honey" in Kristin's case ... she's the link that shows us that this mess was planned well ahead of time, and that even a US governor would not be allowed to stand in its way.

Obama makes "Worst Persons" list

It was bound to happen sooner or later. Barack Obama has finally landed on Keith Olbermann's Worst Persons in the World list ...

Thursday, September 25, 2008

Democracy First First First

Newly minted US citizen Craig Ferguson loves him some democracy.

Tuesday, September 23, 2008

700 Billion Dollars, Section 8, and my Tin Foil Haberdashery


"Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency."

- Section 8 of the Wall Street bailout bill

Nothing to be alarmed about - unless you think giving unchecked power and funds to the people who allowed this meltdown to happen in the first place is ... problematic. And gee ... wouldn't it be easy to steal if no one can oversee what you are doing and no court can hold you accountable? It's not like we haven't seen a billion dollars or 12 slip through the cracks before.

And then there is this - Welcome to the final stages of the coup... which sees this as the fulfillment of Prescott Bush's Business Plot to overthrow the US Government back in the 30s. And even if this 'enabling act' fails, they still have this.


Sunday, September 21, 2008

Why They Lie


Have you been pondering why the "Straight Talk Express" has devolved into a lie machine? Lies every day. Obvious lies. Ridiculous lies. Lies repeated even after they have been publicly proven false. Despite the fact that McCain and Palin are exposed as proven liars, they continue to lie. Even the usually complacent media has dropped euphemisms and started to call them lies - not just "misstatements" or "inaccuracies" or "misleading".

Why?

I found the answer listening to On The Media: Uncorrectable

They lie because it works.
Because it works even better when the lie is exposed.
The more McCain is proven a liar, the more he is believed.
Conservative America really is Bizarro world.

Here is what is going on:

The Power of Political Misinformation

By Shankar Vedantam
Monday, September 15, 2008


A series of new experiments show that misinformation can exercise a ghostly influence on people's minds after it has been debunked -- even among people who recognize it as misinformation. In some cases, correcting misinformation serves to increase the power of bad information.

In experiments conducted by political scientist John Bullock at Yale University, volunteers were given various items of political misinformation from real life. One group of volunteers was shown a transcript of an ad created by NARAL Pro-Choice America that accused John G. Roberts Jr., President Bush's nominee to the Supreme Court at the time, of "supporting violent fringe groups and a convicted clinic bomber."

A variety of psychological experiments have shown that political misinformation primarily works by feeding into people's preexisting views. People who did not like Roberts to begin with, then, ought to have been most receptive to the damaging allegation, and this is exactly what Bullock found. Democrats were far more likely than Republicans to disapprove of Roberts after hearing the allegation.

Bullock then showed volunteers a refutation of the ad by abortion-rights supporters. He also told the volunteers that the advocacy group had withdrawn the ad. Although 56 percent of Democrats had originally disapproved of Roberts before hearing the misinformation, 80 percent of Democrats disapproved of the Supreme Court nominee afterward. Upon hearing the refutation, Democratic disapproval of Roberts dropped only to 72 percent.

Republican disapproval of Roberts rose after hearing the misinformation but vanished upon hearing the correct information. The damaging charge, in other words, continued to have an effect even after it was debunked among precisely those people predisposed to buy the bad information in the first place.


Not too surprising, but then something really strange happens when Conservatives hear a refutation to something they are predisposed to believe. Unlike Democrats, who reduce their belief after a refutation, Conservatives believe the falsehood even more strongly when it has been refuted - often they are nearly twice as likely to believe the lie after it has been proven false.

Political scientists Brendan Nyhan and Jason Reifler provided two groups of volunteers with the Bush administration's prewar claims that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. One group was given a refutation -- the comprehensive 2004 Duelfer report that concluded that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction before the United States invaded in 2003. Thirty-four percent of conservatives told only about the Bush administration's claims thought Iraq had hidden or destroyed its weapons before the U.S. invasion, but 64 percent of conservatives who heard both claim and refutation thought that Iraq really did have the weapons. The refutation, in other words, made the misinformation worse.

A similar "backfire effect" also influenced conservatives told about Bush administration assertions that tax cuts increase federal revenue. One group was offered a refutation by prominent economists that included current and former Bush administration officials. About 35 percent of conservatives told about the Bush claim believed it; 67 percent of those provided with both assertion and refutation believed that tax cuts increase revenue.

In a paper approaching publication, Nyhan, a PhD student at Duke University, and Reifler, at Georgia State University, suggest that Republicans might be especially prone to the backfire effect because conservatives may have more rigid views than liberals: Upon hearing a refutation, conservatives might "argue back" against the refutation in their minds, thereby strengthening their belief in the misinformation. Nyhan and Reifler did not see the same "backfire effect" when liberals were given misinformation and a refutation about the Bush administration's stance on stem cell research.

There you have it.

In a Machiavellian (or Rovian) campaign both sides would have an incentive to lie - because even after the lies are exposed, there is some gain among those predisposed to believe the lies. But for conservatives the incentive is overwhelming - the more boldfaced and untrue the lie - and therefore the inevitability that it will be soundly refuted - the more solid the support and belief in the lie among the base. And McCain's biggest problem has been his very weak support among the conservative base. All he has to do to change his lukewarm support from the conservative base into rock solid enthusiastic support is to become the biggest most obvious liar on the planet.

Mission Accomplished.