Crossposted from Care2.com’s Political Causes Blog ~ Originally Published 13 December 2009:

On Dec. 11, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 4173: The Wall Street Reform and American Consumer Protection Act.  The House legislation is intended to address the systemic risk in the financial services industry.  It specifically includes language strengthening government oversight of the financial derivatives market, and creates the Consumer Financial Protection Agency.

The bill must survive the Senate before becoming law, but getting it out of the House was a significant accomplishment.  If not for the legislation, itself, but the fact that not a single Republican voted for a bill intended to get a grip on Wall Street could prove politically useful for Democrats down the line.

One would think that this would be cause for celebration on the left.  However, as Nate Silver posted Dec. 12, the response from the left, “particularly the online left,” was surprisingly lacking of enthusiasm.

Nate Silver, FiveThirtyEight.com, posed the question, Dec 12:

If An Economy Recovers and No One Cheers It, Does It Make a Sound?

Silver finds it curious that those on the political-left are having trouble recognizing positive economic news when it occurs:

…there seems to be extreme reluctance among the left, and particularly the online left, to praise any economic successes achieved by the Congressional Democrats and the White House.

I do not expect Democrats, certainly, to be cheering the roughly 35 percent run-up in stock prices that has been achieved since Obama took the Oath of Office (we can pose an interesting counterfactual about whether Republicans would be touting the bull market if the roles were reversed). There have, however, been some other successes…

Careful not to appear too optimistic, Silver offers his objective analysis of the lowly state of present economic affairs and finds that the Democrats haven’t performed perfectly, but that their performance has been “pretty good.”

Be sure to read Silver’s post for his grading of the Democrats on “three policy imperatives that emerged from the economic crises of last year.”

For our purposes, let’s return to the original question: why the pessimism from the left?  Is it health care reform battle fatigue?  Or, rather, is it something less specific; for instance, have some on the left been persisting under a set of unrealistic expectations?  I’m hardly qualified to answer such questions, but since progressive positions are the ones I find most agreeable, I’ll venture a guess that its the latter.

The 2008 campaign season and the hard fight to get Barack Obama elected, in which the disparate progressive movement played a significant part, has left us with a hangover of sorts.  For me, what was most frustrating about advocating for Obama was refuting the accusations of idol worship from opposition on the political right.

When I think about it now, it seems silly.  Obama was merely a secondary target of the meme, his supporters were the primary focus.  But the notion that Obama walked on water was ephemeral; I, honestly, know of no one who actually viewed candidate Obama in this manner. Now, it appears some progressive factions want the president, not only to walk on water, but to do so while juggling chainsaws left by his predecessor.

I don’t wish to overstate the matter.  For many on the left, optimism is still exists.  But, for those who’ve abandoned it, here’s a few random thoughts on managing expectations:

1. We shouldn’t suffer under the delusion that, because the Democrats enjoy majorities in both houses of congress, there exists a rubber stamp for progressive initiatives.  Remember that in order to achieve those majorities the Democrats ran conservative candidates; additionally, even if the entirety of congress were Democrats, passing laws of any consequence would still look like herding cats.
2. All of the time and effort that went into ensuring Obama’s victory was not misspent in any way, shape, or form.  Keep in mind, though, that for our efforts what we got was a pragmatist.  But this is not a bad thing.  Pragmatists are uniquely suited for cat herding.
3. Don’t forget that our political opposition fights dirty and is incredibly well resourced.  Their skill in crafting perception is very effective among low information voters.  If you need a reminder of how effective they can be, read Joe Conason’s Oct. 5 Salon post, “The vast right-wing conspiracy is back.”
4. Our fight is about swaying the political center, and it’s a marathon, not a sprint.  The two party system is the present reality of the American political landscape.  That reality dictates that whomever is able to sway the vast political center will retain the reins of government.  But, controlling the reins can be a frustrating task (recall #1 on cat herding), and it can also be fleeting.  Should progressives be inclined to overreach beyond the comfort zone of the center, they’ll likely have to forfeit those reins at the behest of a center-dominated electorate, drifting to the right.
5. Every bit as frustrating is the speed at which Washington moves.  Pardon the cliche, but it truly is a marathon, not a sprint.  Even if the Democrats are able to maintain their majorities for years to come.  Just undoing the damage done by the Bush administration will be ongoing long after Obama completes his second term.

This list could go on, but you get the point.  If progressives wish to continue to have a positive impact, they’ll have to manage their expectations; a measure of acceptance that what they believe to be politically righteous is not always politically achievable… yet.

Please don’t misunderstand me.  I’m not suggesting that those on the left should refrain from vociferously advocating for their numerous causes.  The voicing of opposition to escalating the war in Afghanistan, and advocating for health care reform, to name just two, go beyond advocacy, existing as moral imperatives for today’s progressives.  What I am suggesting is that when progress is made — like the passage of HR 4173 — it shouldn’t be ignored.

As Nate Silver concludes, “…you may have a robust recovery by the middle of next year, but with neither the White House’s conservative nor liberal critics willing to give them much credit for it. Voters may stay away from Democrats as a result, pushing the country toward more conservative economic policy and ensuring that liberal critics of the economy aren’t lacking for greivances any time soon.”

*shiver*

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:

Remember the 2003 Medicare prescription drug bill, the one that passed with the votes of 204 GOP House members and 42 GOP Senators? Anyone want to guess what it provided funding for? Did you say counseling for end-of-life issues and care? Ding ding ding!!

Let’s go to the bill text, shall we? “The covered services are: evaluating the beneficiary’s need for pain and symptom management, including the individual’s need for hospice care; counseling the beneficiary with respect to end-of-life issues and care options, and advising the beneficiary regarding advanced care planning.” The only difference between the 2003 provision and the infamous Section 1233 that threatens the very future and moral sanctity of the Republic is that the first applied only to terminally ill patients. Section 1233 would expand funding so that people could voluntarily receive counseling before they become terminally ill.

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:

The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama’s “death panel” so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their “level of productivity in society,” whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil…

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:

I join millions of Americans in expressing appreciation for the Senate Finance Committee’s decision to remove the provision in the pending health care bill that authorizes end-of-life consultations (Section 1233 of HR 3200). It’s gratifying that the voice of the people is getting through to Congress; however, that provision was not the only disturbing detail in this legislation; it was just one of the more obvious ones.

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:

More than 20 percent of all Medicare spending occurs in the last two months of life. Gundersen Lutheran Health System in La Crosse, Wisconsin has developed a successful end-of-life, best practice that combines: 1) community-wide advance care planning, where 90 percent of patients have advance directives; 2) hospice and palliative care; and 3) coordination of services through an electronic medical record. The Gundersen approach empowers patients and families to control and direct their care. The Dartmouth Health Atlas has documented that Gundersen delivers care at a 30 percent lower rate than the national average ($18,359 versus $25,860). If Gundersen’s approach was used to care for the approximately 4.5 million Medicare beneficiaries who die every year, Medicare could save more than $33 billion a year.

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

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.

The following is from NewYorkTimes.com, posted 16 August 2009, by Alexi Barrionuevo.  The recently declassified documents are linked within a post from the historian responsible for analyzing them, Peter Kornbluh, located at GWU’s National Security Archive.

Some thoughts below the fold.

Barrionuevo wrote:

The formerly secret memos, published Sunday by the National Security Archive in Washington, show that Brazil and the United States discussed plans to overthrow or destabilize not only Mr. Allende but Fidel Castro of Cuba and others.

Mr. Nixon, at a meeting in the Oval Office on Dec. 9, 1971, said he was willing to offer Brazil the assistance, monetary or otherwise, it might need to rid South America of leftist governments, the White House memorandum of the meeting shows…

“The full history of intervention in South America in the 1970s cannot be told without Brazil coming clean about a dark past that is not previously acknowledged,” Mr. Kornbluh said.

This reminded me of a post I wrote for Care2.com following the 2009 Summit of the Americas.  There, Barack Obama was approached by Venezuelan President, Hugo Chavez, and they exchanged a greeting.  The post, “Gingrich Ignores History, Calls Obama – Chavez Encounter a Sign of Weakness,” is my take on the nonsense which erupted from conservative pundits & wannabe (but never will be) Presidents:

Conservatives have really got their shorts in a bunch over the Barack Obama – Hugo Chavez exchange over the weekend at the Summit of the Americas.  Their discomfort is yet another example of Obama’s detractors, digging in their heels, opposing every aspect of the three-month-old presidency; further, this conservative meme is no more rational than any of the others.  Their outrage over a simple greeting between Obama and Chavez is illustrative of a deeper problem within the American ideological divide.

The best example of irrational criticism came from a potential Obama opponent in 2012:  Newt Gingrich.  Satyam Khanna  summed up Gingrich’s position in a April 20, Think Progress post:

The right wing has responded with outrage to Obama’s meeting with Chavez, claiming face-to-face talks with a dictator show that Obama is projecting weakness. On NBC this morning, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said Obama “bows to the Saudi King and is friends with Venezuela” and claimed the President showed “shallowness” in talking with Chavez. Gingrich then claimed that U.S. presidents do not “smile and greet” with Russian leaders…

Khanna goes on to explain why Gingrich, a former history professor, needs to brush up on his history.  The author provides a series of photographs of past US leaders smiling and greeting Russian leaders during the height of the Cold War.  But, Gingrich’s factual error is emblematic of the larger issue:  Americans tend to forget their nation’s history.

[vodpod id=Groupvideo.3220917&w=425&h=350&fv=config%3Dhttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.dailykostv.com%2Fw%2F001198%2Fvxml.php%3F448]

more about “Gingrich: U.S. presidents didn’t “smi…“, posted with vodpod

Not only do we forget our history, many among us are inclined to guild memories of the past, providing them with a veneer of propriety that isn’t always deserved.  The past behavior in question — the contentious relationship between the US and Latin America — is a prime example of our historical ignorance.

Now, before you start with the “anti-American” or “Blame America Firster” accusations, hear me out.  American treatment of its neighbors to the South has been neither all good, nor has it been all bad.  Indeed, much of the most egregious offenses were undertaken with the best of intentions:  the prohibition of Soviet influence in Latin America.  While Americans are justifiably proud of their nation’s efforts in quashing their communist foes during the Cold War, too often we fail to empathize with Latin American populations who were adversely affected by US actions.

Consider that, historically, the US has, sometimes covertly, intervened in Latin American affairs over 50 times.  Regardless of the legitimacy of the interventions, a common result of such actions was American support of repressive right wing dictators for the sake of preventing leftist regimes from coming to power.

Hugo Chavez, whose handshake with Obama has garnered so much conservative ire,  was able to come to power in Venezuela because of that history.  Additionally, American support of a coup attempt to oust the Chavez regime in 2002 has served to strengthen his position in Venezuela.

In a March 2006 post at CommonDreams.org, Medea Benjamin described the consequences of the Bush Administration’s subversive actions in Venezuela, encouraging her readers to imagine if the shoe were on the other foot:

To this day, Bush Administration officials routinely deny their involvement in the coup, in spite of official US documents that prove otherwise. But the truth is widely known in Venezuela, and forms the basis for the antagonism that plagues the US-Venezuela relationship. To be fair, Chávez engages in regular verbal tirades against Bush and Rice which overreach presidential diplomacy. But imagine how the US government would treat a foreign government that had financed domestic groups that participated in a coup against the US government…

Well, what do you think?  How would you react to a foreign coup attempt?  I look forward to your comments, but consider this final question:  If it was a sign of weakness for Obama to interact with the Venezuelan President at a diplomatic summit, what action or actions could Obama have used in order to display strength?  Of course, Gingrich did not offer a suggestion.

Instead he railed against his own President, and did so without any consideration for how the Obama – Chavez encounter may have impacted the perceptions of the Venezuelan people.  Gingrich conveniently forgot that the eight years of Bush’s diplomatic neglect, combined with a long history of intervention in the region, contributed to the Venezuelans being predisposed to relish in Chavez’s anti-American rants.  His neglecting to include such considerations reflects his tacit acknowledgment that, Americans who are predisposed to accept such cynicism are ignorant of their own history. As a former history professor, Newt Gingrich should be ashamed of himself.

Maddow discusses the 2000 election debacle with The Nation’s Chris Hayes.

The next time I hear a talking head refer to this nonsense as the work of “concerned political activists…’  I’m coming through the EF’ing screen! At least with Rachel, my television will always be safe.

At some point, as I suggested in an August 6 Care2.com post, convincing a bunch of poorly informed, needlessly frightened citizens to advocate contrary to their own interests, as a political strategy (if you can call it that), eventually has to backfire.  How can it not?

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O5L4dXl4fns&hl=en&fs=1&]

I wrote the below post, firm in my belief that Republicans couldn’t possibly maintain their opposition to Obama’s first Supreme Court nominee on the basis of the candidates ability to empathize.  It was written before the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor, and, as was evidenced by her confirmation hearings, I was clearly wrong.

Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee, unable to attack Sotomayor on the basis of her remarkable record, focused almost entirely on the “Wise Latina” comment, and really exposed themselves as being uncomfortable with a non-Caucasian on the SCOTUS.  During the hearings, it appeared that their strategy entailed repeated — and quite unsuccessful — attempts at soliciting an outburst from Sotomayor:

[vodpod id=Groupvideo.2988464&w=425&h=350&fv=%26rel%3D0%26border%3D0%26]

Cross-posted @ Care2.com – From Aaron D. Pendell – 6 May 2009:

When politicians speak in code, parsing statements for phrases or words which carry negative connotations, they do our nation a profound disservice.  Fortunately for Americans, we host some particularly talented satirists who have taken it upon themselves to, justifiably, mock this manipulative practice.  Since Supreme Court Justice, David Souter, announced his intention to retire after the present term, providing  Barack Obama the opportunity to appoint someone new, our satirists — namely, Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert — have already enjoyed the chance to impart the inherent irony of the Republican opposition’s newest code word:  empathy.

It’s not much of a surprise that Republicans would find something to complain about regarding the anticipated Supreme Court vacancy.  Political conservatives have been critical of the President’s every action, so why should this be any different?  But, empathy?  Their opposition to a character trait of a Justice yet to be named, took shape over the weekend, and are discussed briefly at the beginning of this clip from Countdown with Keith Olbermann:

[vodpod id=Groupvideo.2988081&w=425&h=350&fv=%26rel%3D0%26border%3D0%26]

more about “Republicans Reject Obama Desire for E…“, posted with vodpod

As noted in the Countdown clip, empathy is code for judicial activism, which is code for pro-choice for Republicans.  Jon Stewart’s and Stephen Colbert’s treatments of the Souter retirement, aside from being funnier than Olbermann’s, go beyond the bickering of conservative politicians and reveal the mainstream media’s penchant for stirring up controversy.  David Greggory, in particular, appeared adamant about drawing a reaction from Sen. Arlen Specter, fresh off his defection from the GOP, focusing on the word “empathy” as if a coded meaning was implied. (Really, David, what’s happened to you?)

Be sure to tell me what you think in the comments section below.  First, however, read Obama’s stated desires for his first Supreme Court appointment:

Now, the process of selecting someone to replace Justice Souter is among my most serious responsibilities as President.  So I will seek somebody with a sharp and independent mind and a record of excellence and integrity.  I will seek someone who understands that justice isn’t about some abstract legal theory or footnote in a case book.  It is also about how our laws affect the daily realities of people’s lives — whether they can make a living and care for their families; whether they feel safe in their homes and welcome in their own nation.

I view that quality of empathy, of understanding and identifying with people’s hopes and struggles as an essential ingredient for arriving as just decisions and outcomes. I will seek somebody who is dedicated to the rule of law, who honors our constitutional traditions, who respects the integrity of the judicial process and the appropriate limits of the judicial role.  I will seek somebody who shares my respect for constitutional values on which this nation was founded, and who brings a thoughtful understanding of how to apply them in our time.

Does that sound at all unreasonable to you?

Also, consider what has happened when empathy is lacking in a Supreme Court ruling as it was in the case of Lilly Ledbetter.  The Court ruled against Ledbetter, 5-4, despite overwhelming evidence of pay-based gender inequality based upon a strict, or formal, interpretation of the law.  Author of the Court’s dissent, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg expressed disappointment in the majority’s lack of empathy in the case, “In our view, the court does not comprehend, or is indifferent to, the insidious way in which women can be victims of pay discrimination …”  Fortunately, this wrong was corrected last January when Barack Obama signed the Lilly Ledbetter Equal Pay Act into law.  Justice achieved, but two years late.

Finally, consider this:  What do conservatives want in an appointee, if not empathy?  Perhaps they desire a narcissist, someone incapable of seeing or appreciating another point of view.  If they are hoping Obama will appoint someone likely to overturn Roe v. Wade, I would suggest that they shouldn’t hold their breath.  Besides, we already have at least two narcissists on the court, and that’s more than enough.

Personally, I feel that Republicans are reading way too much into the attributes Obama desires in whomever he decides to select.  They’ve chosen “empathy” as a buzzword to stir up their dwindling base in an effort to sway the President’s choice.  Both, conservatives and the mainstream media need to drop the code, as our invaluable satirists have hilariously suggested. Instead, they should consider what empathy really means:

empathy:  Noun – the ability to sense and understand someone else’s feelings as if they were one’s own.

Should they do that, they’ll likely arrive at the conclusion that I have:  Empathy is not only desirable in a Supreme Court Justice, but it should be a prerequisite for consideration.

Weber Writes Obituary for the Republican Party

Posted 11 April 2009 @ The Huffington Post:

…The Republican Party is like a dying tyrant, mad with syphilis, ironically like that very Stalin they would accuse their enemies of associating with. How else to account for their desperation to resurrect the wraith of Joseph McCarthy; the hammy and baffling utterances from high level party officials like Boehner and McConnell; the blatant desire on their part to let the country fail out of sheer resentment; the wanton sedition of Conservative shit-stirrers ranging from the quasi Madame Defarge Michele Bachmann to the porcine, pill-popping porcine propagandist Rush Limbaugh?

read more | digg story

As George W. Bush prepares to leave office, he and his staff appear to be attempting to rewrite history to cast him in a more favorable light — but it seems that history may have the last laugh.

[vodpod id=Groupvideo.1874473&w=425&h=350&fv=image%3Dhttp%3A%2F%2F216.87.173.33%2Fmedia%2F2008%2F0812%2Fmsnbc_ko_bushed_taliban_crap_081216a.jpg%26file%3Dhttp%3A%2F%2F216.87.173.33%2Fmedia%2F2008%2F0812%2Fmsnbc_ko_bushed_taliban_crap_081216a.flv%26logo%3Dhttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.rawprint.com%2Ffvp%2Frsvidlogo04.png%26link%3Dhttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.rawstory.com%26autostart%3Dfalse%26lightcolor%3D0x557722%26backcolor%3D0x000000%26frontcolor%3D0xCCCCCC%26showicons%3Dfalse]
more about “The Raw Story | Olbermann: ‘The presi…”, posted with vodpod
read more | digg story