From The Hill, posted 3 November 2009:
A key liberal group released an ad Tuesday encouraging lawmakers to support health reform, likening the vote to support for historic social programs.
A new 30-second television spot from the group Americans United for Change pushes lawmakers do weather any controversy over the health proposals before Congress and cast a vote in favor of the reforms…
Here’s the ad:
Cross posted at Care2.com’s Political Causes Blog
Dawn Johnsen, Barack Obama’s nominee to head his administration’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC), is potentially the most qualified candidate ever selected for the position. Nominated February 11 and approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee March 19, the Indiana University law professor has yet to be considered by the full Senate. What’s the hold up, you may ask? It appears that Johnsen is but another among many who has fallen victim to Republican obstructionism and the minority party’s ongoing misuse of the filibuster.
The Republican filibuster threat is only the most immediate cause for delay; forcing Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid (D-NV) to scramble for the 60 votes necessary for cloture, followed by an up or down vote which would undoubtedly result in Johnsen’s confirmation. The underlying causes behind GOP opposition to Johnsen stem from two ideological issues; one of which has been blown out of proportion by right-wing activists. The other, more significant reason for fighting Obama’s OLC nominee is grounded in GOP fear that she, unlike her Bush administration OLC predecessors, may actually follow the law.
Right-wing activist opposition to Johnsen pertains to her past work for NARAL, a pro-choice advocacy organization. More specifically, 
their objection pertains to a 1989 brief in which Johnsen’s organization — along with 76 others — argued against states having the right to prohibit abortions at public health institutions.
Johnsen’s critics have zeroed in on two sentences within a footnote, which they employ claiming the OLC nominee equated motherhood with “involuntary servitude.” It’s an assertion which Politifact declared, March 24, to be “false.”
Of course, right-wing pundits further afield have taken Johnsen’s words and maliciously converted them, as AmericanConservative.org did September 19, placing the Obama nominee as number 41 among 650 unpalatable administration officials as, “Dawn ‘Compared Pregnancy with Slavery’ Johnsen.” No matter how it’s stated, however, Johnsen’s pro-choice stance is and has always been remarkably mainstream.
“The real reason” for the GOP stance in opposition to Dawn Johnsen was imparted by Scott Horton, March 26, at The Daily Beast:
…Johnsen is committed to overturning the Bush administration’s policies on torture and warrantless surveillance, which would clip the wings of the imperial presidency. Even more menacingly (from their perspective), she is committed to shining a light on some of the darkest skeletons of the Bush years.
If this is correct, then Horton’s assessment lends credence to that of Glenn Greenwald, whose aptly titled post, “Dawn Johnsen’s belief in the rule of law disqualifies her from Senate consideration,” was published May 13 at Salon.com. Within his post, Greenwald emphasized the fact that the Senate’s scrutiny of Johnsen was tragically absent in its confirmation of some previous, ultimately dubious, past nominees:
The Senate that is refusing to confirm Dawn Johnsen is the same Senate that confirmed Gen. Michael Hayden as CIA Director — with overwhelming Democratic support — even after it was revealed that he oversaw Bush’s illegal NSA spying program. It’s the same Senate that confirmed Alberto Gonzales as Attorney General — with substantial Democratic support — even once everyone knew that he had played a key role in Bush’s torture program. It’s the same Senate that — thanks to Democrats Dianne Feinstein and Chuck Schumer — confirmed Michael Mukasey as Attorney General even after he refused to say whether waterboarding was torture and endorsed some of the most extremist presidential powers ever asserted in the U.S.
In other words, their covering their collective butts, and their doing so at the expense of a nation in desperate need of objective legal guidance.
Fortunately, there are those willing to tell their senators to quit stalling. A good example of this was a September 22 letter from the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, written behalf of several organizations, directing Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) to drop the stall tactics on Obama nominations.
The LCCR letter refers to Johnsen, specifically:
…Professor Johnsen has already served with distinction in the OLC, and is undoubtedly well-qualified for the position. Her nomination was approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee in March. The OLC plays a highly important role within the Administration, and the failure to confirm the President’s nominee to lead the office prevents the OLC from providing crucial legal advice on a wide range of issues currently confronting our nation.
I’ll include some additional links below, but if you agree with the sentiment of the above letter, contact your senators and tell them so. Additionally, consider signing THIS PETITION from NARAL-Pro-Choice America, calling on GOP senators to refrain from filibustering on the basis of any candidate’s pro-choice disposition.
See Also:
“A Legal Advisor Worthy of the Job,” New York Times Editorial Board, 26 March 2009.
Greg Sargent, “Key Dem Senator Likely to Vote Against Top Obama Legal Nominee,” ThePlumLine, 24 April 2009.
Scott Horton, “Are Republicans Blackmailing Obama?” TheDailyBeast, 5 April 2009.
From TheDailyBeast.com, posted 28 September 2009:
When they see footage in Michael Moore’s new film of FDR announcing his Second Bill of Rights, many Americans will wonder whatever happened to it. Harvey J. Kaye explains why we should honor his vision.
Michael Moore’s new film, Capitalism: A Love Story, not only takes on corporate power and greed in America. By featuring rarely seen footage of FDR calling for a “Second Bill of Rights” in January 1944 and of the Flint, Michigan, sit-down strikers fighting for their rights in 1937, the film also challenges our political passivity with the democratic ideals and struggles that made the men and women of the 1930s and 1940s the most progressive generation in American history. Conservatives and libertarians have rightly tried to portray Roosevelt and his New Dealers as revolutionaries. In the best American sense of the term, they were…
Read more HERE
From Slate.com – Updated 30 September 2009:
More than a few naive souls hoped that the election of Barack Obama signaled a new era of racial harmony. Instead, alas, American race relations have entered a bizarre new phase in which tension is ubiquitous and almost anyone can claim to be the victim of racism…
Politicians and pundits on both the left and right abuse the term racism to tar their political enemies. But decent people with good intentions also overuse the term as they struggle to draw attention to racial injustices that do not involve overt bigotry. With the R-word used to describe so many different things, it no longer has a clear and agreed-upon meaning. Attorney General Eric Holder has urged Americans to talk bravely and openly about race, but how can we when we aren’t speaking the same language? In the interest of democratic dialogue, I offer this rough-and-ready primer on racism for the not-so-post-racist era. Below, I’ll define several of the more commonly cited types of racism and offer my humble opinion as to whether they deserve the label.
Read More HERE
Originally Published at Care2.com’s Political Causes Blog, 4 September 2009:
I was sitting on a train, head buried in my laptop, minding my own business when an oddly dressed man burst in from the next car. Nobody else seemed to take notice, which was peculiar because he appeared to be wearing an early nineteenth century costume as if he were some kind of museum tour guide. The man looked about the train car, eventually focusing his gaze directly upon me! He glanced down at my computer, then at me again. He sat in the empty seat next to me and said, “My name is Francis Scott Key, are you a journalist?”
Of course my initial reaction was incredulous. The absurdity of it: Key, author of the poem that eventually became the “Star Spangled Banner,” National Anthem of the U.S., was long dead. Unsure what to make of this character, I proceeded to lie, telling him that I was a journalist. He could have asked me if I was an astronaut, and I would have done the same.
“I need to get something off my chest, and I’d like you to write it down,” he said.
“Certainly, Mr. Key. Pleased to make your acquaintance,” I told him, having decided to humor the guy. I was bored, and I was stuck on a train for the next hour, at least. He was dressed like a dandy and appeared to be harmless.
“I assume you know who I am, and that I died long ago,” he began. I nodded, and he continued, “You should know that we watch the living. We see everything.”
He proceeded to describe the present political drama in America with particular emphasis on the irrational fear of Barack Obama, “displayed in disparate, but decidedly loud segments of America’s politically motivated,” as he put it. He spoke of his observances like someone describing “Reality TV” to a person who had no idea what a television was.
With an eyebrow raised, I inquired, “What do you mean, you see everything?”
He tacitly acknowledged my skepticism and said, “Just bear with me. Yes, we watch you. There is very little else for the dead to do. Get over it.”
Key explained that afterlife viewership had fallen off somewhat during George W. Bush’s first term, but had dropped precipitously following the 2004 presidential election. “It got to be frustrating to watch, ” he said. “Your nation had clearly, jumped the shark, electing Bush to a second term.” He paused to inquire if he had used the entertainment industry phrase properly, and he was quite pleased with himself after I informed him that he had.
“We started watching again during the 2008 campaign,” he reassured me as if I were concerned about our ratings. He didn’t have to tell me it was entertaining. I saw it live!
He lowered his voice, “I happened to be in the company of Karl Marx, whose interest in the election was piqued following the primaries. It was about the time people started throwing Marx’s name around when referring to Obama. Honestly, I don’t understand it. At least when McCarthy did it, he had an external entity in the Soviet Union, to which he could, and did, attribute potential domestic subversion.”
“Marx was irritated at first,” Key explained. “Once Karl figured out that there was no real comparison between his predictive political philosophy and the proposed policies of Senator Obama, he just thought it was hilarious.” Key confessed, he didn’t think much of it at the time, but when the irrational comparisons continued past Obama’s election he became frustrated.
He wrung his hands as he went on, “You were just starting to get interesting again. You elected a clearly empathetic and erudite individual to the presidency. You celebrated well, deservedly so, but a malevolent undercurrent of fear-inspired hate persisted, and persists, which brings me to why I’m here, talking to you.”
He was visibly agitated, but at that point I was totally into it. “Go on,” I encouraged.
Key settled himself and continued, “I apologize for my candor, but the events of the present week provoked my action. Seeing a wheelchair bound woman heckled as she attempted to describe her health care plight was despicable. It was like a punch in the gut. Then I read about the Florida GOP chairman’s profound display of ignorance: proclaiming that a motivational speech from Obama to the nation’s children was somehow akin to socialist indoctrination. It’s preposterous!”
At this point, I informed him that he was preaching to the choir on this issue. I made an effort to calm him, explaining, “though it’s not rational, many are genuinely scared and..” Abruptly, he cut me off.
“But that’s just it,” he said. “The needless, pointless fear, don’t you get it? The man is the President of the United States, for heaven’s sake. Out of cowardice, some have decided to overtly disrespect and slander your constitutionally elected leader. It’s tantamount to heresy! Further, it is insulting to those who voted for Obama; perhaps, it’s insulting to anyone who has ever voted, EVER!”
Key took a deep breath and went on, “It is because this behavior is fear-inspired that I have come back. I’ve returned to take back my poem. ‘The Home of the Brave,’ sadly, is no longer applicable to a country capable of such a display.”
I sat in a state of shock, mouth agape, as the train approached the station.
Again, Key composed himself and went on, “I’m not doing this on a whim. Far from it. For weeks, I’ve heard the word ‘tyranny’ bandied about by people who have absolutely no concept of what the word actually means.”
“And, don’t think for a moment that demanding this comes without a sense of deep personal loss. Until recently, I had taken great pride that my poem was selected for your national anthem. When president Hoover signed the congressional resolution in 1931, making my remembrance of the defense of Fort McHenry a symbol of national pride, I was so excited I nearly forgot that I was dead!”
“Further, my story is not unique,” Key continued. “Take the first American president, George Washington, for example. Though he’d be the first to tell you he’s somewhat confused and embarrassed by the phallic nature of his monument on the national mall, he remains humbled by how the nation he helped guide through its infancy remembers him. Indeed, all of us whom history has chosen to smile upon following our deaths live on symbolically because living Americans honor us by remembering us and what we fought for. The poisonous political climate of the present has led to the perversion of that honor. It makes me feel dirty, to be honest. By taking back my poem, I’m symbolically washing myself.”
The train came to a stop as he finished. I followed him across the platform, begging him to reconsider. I told him that going through with his plan could only exacerbate the issue, preventing any chance for Obama to turn it around.
“Give him a chance,” I said. “With more time the displays of ignorance could subside. Give us a chance to come to our senses, to awaken to the fact that there is nothing to be afraid of,” I pleaded.
With that, the man who portended to be Francis Scott Key, paused, turned to me, and smiled.
“Alright,” he said. “If you haven’t given up, then neither will I. You’ve got until the next presidential contest in 2012.”
I barely had time to outwardly display my relief when Key turned to leave. As he parted, he issued a warning:
“Just know that if you haven’t sorted it out by then, I’ll return with others. Indeed, tell Glenn Beck if he misquotes Teddy Roosevelt again, he’ll have a lot more to worry about than losing his sponsors. The OP (Original Progressive, I’m guessing) is about ready to go ‘Rough Rider’ on his sociopathic backside.”
Following this bizarre encounter, I took some time to gather my notes and set to writing them down. Was it actually Francis Scott Key, back from the grave to reclaim his legacy? Probably not, but that’s beside the point. The perpetrators of the Obama-as-tyrant meme, and those who repeat it out of fear, or otherwise, are spitting on the very institutions they claim to hold most dear. Key, or not Key, his assessment was spot on in my opinion. I’d rather not disappoint him by giving up.
To that end, I encourage you to sign the following petition: Boycott Fox News Advertisers. Though Fox is not the exclusive purveyor of the above described fear, they are the most visible; and, for reasons I cannot begin to explain, they are the most watched.
HNN Breaking News AP @ Care2.com News Junkie – news, politics, & opinion AP’s FaceBook Shares Rachel Maddow This Day in World History
The Death Panel Lie ~ Conservative Dishonesty in the Health Care Reform Debate
A couple of weeks after publishing this Care2 post, I was overjoyed to discover that Dickipedia.org linked to it on their Newt Gingrich page. Whoever did it, I offer my heartfelt gratitude.
Originally posted on Care2.com’s Political Causes Blog 16 August 2009:
So the opponents of health care reform are sticking with the “death panel” talking point and the mob tactics it inspires. Admittedly, the strategy has yielded some results for… well, it’s unclear what they want aside from railing against President Obama. Regardless, the anti-reform crowd finally landed a punch. Good for them, I suppose. Conservatives have been flailing wildly since Obama took office with little to show for it, save a lot of embarrassing You Tube clips. Despite this, there is reason to remain optimistic about getting a reform bill ready for Obama’s signature this year.
Among the ethically challenged Republicans maintaining the “Death Panel” myth are Newt Gingrich, Sarah Palin, and Iowa senator, Chuck Grassley. All three of them are political opportunists, frankly, playing upon the fears of their dwindling, radical constituencies. At this time and in this debate, it is a losing political strategy.
Grassley’s Folly:
Grassley’s jumping on the crazy train isn’t much of a surprise, but it was unnecessary. Representing one of the most aged state populations in the U.S., the senator must have felt safer stoking the fear, rather than rebutting it. However, during his recess town halls, Grassley has failed to mention he — along with many other Republicans — voted in favor of a similar measure in 2003.
From Amy Sullivan at TIME.com’s Swampland Blog, August 13, 2009:
Palin’s Density:
As much as I would prefer not to mention Sarah Palin, her peculiar insistence upon furthering the “Death Panel” lie demands it. It is fitting, though, that her efforts are now publicized via Facebook rather than Governor’s Office press releases. Her August 7, 2009 post on the subject is the one that really gave the term “Death Panel” its legs within the mainstream media:
Palin followed up this lunacy with a call for civility during the health care reform town halls scheduled by Alaska’s representatives in an August 9 Facebook post. While it wasn’t a reversal of her previous post, it was a tacit admission that her rhetoric, at least in part, added fuel to the thuggish nonsense displayed by the right-wing at town hall discussions elsewhere.
Then she did something remarkably dense. Sarah Palin, following the above mentioned comments from Sen. Grassley, declared victory against the dreaded death panel legislation within her August 13 post:
Forget for a moment that Sarah Palin had, to put it kindly, a questionable record as Governor of Alaska when it came to elder care. Her above assertion displays a profound ignorance, not only of the present health care reform debate, but also of the basic mechanisms of the legislative process.
First, the Senate Finance Committee has nothing to do with HR 3200. The “HR” is for House of Representatives, of course, and HR 3200 is but one of five health care bills being considered by that body. Second, there is a Senate bill being considered by the Finance Committee, however both Houses of Congress are presently in recess. They are not presently “removing” provisions, or adding them for that matter.
Finally, Palin’s suggestion that the “provision was not the only disturbing detail in this legislation,” is simply another fear tactic. One she likely learned from her new mentor: Newt Gingrich.
Gingrich’s Hypocrisy:
Gingrich is supposed to be the conservative with the most formidable intellectual chops; yet, when he attempted to defend Palin’s comments on ABC’s August 9 broadcast of This Week, he complained about the bill’s length. “The bill is a thousand pages of setting up mechanisms,” he said. “You are asking us to trust turning power over to the government, when there are clearly people in America who believe in establishing euthanasia, including selective standards.”
Sounds scary, right? However, consider the former House Speaker’s own words from a July 2, 2009 article at The Washington Post:
The emphasis added to the above — again, they are Gingrich’s words — describes, in general terms, what the current health care legislation-in-progress is designed to do. It is the same idea for reform. It is the same proposal which Sen. Grassley told his constituents they were right to fear, that Sarah Palin claimed victory for killing, and Newt Gingrich thought was such a good idea just a few short months ago.
Reasons For Optimism:
The “death panel” talking point has absolutely no basis in fact. It is a false argument, and its success is contingent upon fear: frightening the oldest among us into thinking their country wants to kill them. (Wow! I had to wash my hands after typing the preceding sentence… Stay classy, conservatives).
The hypocrisy, fear mongering, and intellectual dishonesty described above have been employed by conservatives for years. They are the same cynical strategies that have been employed in the fight against health care reform since the Truman administration. They are also the same tactics that were employed against Obama during the 2008 campaign. Obama’s election, then, is proof positive that this cynicism can be defeated.
Progressive advocates for health care, myself included, and members of the punditocracy have been highly critical of the president for pursuing this reform agenda in an bipartisan fashion. As Thom Hartmann often says, “We have to hope that Obama is playing chess and not checkers,” with this contentious issue. Without going into further detail, Obama doesn’t strike me as a checkers man.
In closing, it is important to note that, while optimism for health care reform is warranted, complacency is not. Tell your representatives you want meaningful reform by signing this petition: Support Historic Health Care Bill
- Politics
- commentary
on October 3, 2009 at 9:36 pm Leave a CommentTags: charles grassley, congress, conservative, death panel, debate, end of life, grassley, health care, health care reform, hr 3200, hypocrisy, medicare reform, newt gingrich, obama, political, Politics, republicans, sarah palin, section 1233, senator