AP on Care2.com AP’s Tweets ~ @pastINprintRon Howard directs a team of SNL’s presidential satirists, past and present, in Presidential Reunion from the Funny or Die Team.
Barack Obama gets a surprise visit in the night from ex-Presidents Bush Sr., Bush Jr., Clinton, Ford, Reagan and Carter to get a few pointers about the Consumer Financial Protection Agency and why it’s so important.
Feb. 21 clip from CBS’ Face the Nation, by way of MediaMatters:
Rush Limbaugh declaring Powell’s assessment to be racially motivated in 3… 2… Oh, wait. It’s Sunday? On Monday, then.
Digg the MMFA post –> HERE
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:
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*
Great satire from the FOD team and Jordan Peele in response to the U.S. Supreme Court decision on Citizens United v. FEC, declaring corporations to posses free speech rights, guaranteed under the 1st Amendment as if they were individuals.
Satire just makes the impact of it more digestible… Enjoy!
Sadly, it takes a satirist to illustrate how pundits have framed Obama as both, a tyrant bent on the destruction of America, and an inept president who was unable to accomplish anything during his first year in office.
Of course, neither assessment is correct.
From Angie Drobnic Holan, published 18 December 2009:
Of all the falsehoods and distortions in the political discourse this year, one stood out from the rest.
“Death panels.”
The claim set political debate afire when it was made in August, raising issues from the role of government in health care to the bounds of acceptable political discussion. In a nod to the way technology has transformed politics, the statement wasn’t made in an interview or a television ad. Sarah Palin posted it on her Facebook page…
Read More ~ PolitiFact | PolitiFact’s Lie of the Year: ‘Death panels’.
Politifact’s treatment gives me occasion to crosspost my own assessment of the “Death Panel” meme, published Aug. 18, 2009, at Care2.com:
Conservative Dishonesty in the Health Care Reform Debate
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
Crossposted at Care2.com‘s Political Causes Blog – 18 August 2009
As you may have seen reported, in a perfect exclamation point to the obstruction we’ve seen all year, when the Senate adjourned last week, the Republicans objected to what is ordinarily a routine request to waive Senate rules and permit pending nominations to remain in the Senate confirmation pipeline. Without what’s called “unanimous consent,” under Senate rules, pending nominations must be returned to the President, who then has to re-nominate in the next session. In what has become a far too typical exercise by the “Just Say No” party, Republicans objected to three DOJ nominees who have been on the Senate’s calendar awaiting consideration for months: Dawn Johnsen, for the Office of Legal Counsel; Chris Schroeder for the Office of Legal Policy; and Mary Smith, for the Tax Division. They also objected to two pending federal District Court nominees (Edward Chen, for a seat on the Northern District of California and Louis B. Butler for a seat on the Western District of Wisconsin) and to Craig Becker for reappointment as a member of the National Labor Relations Board…
Follow the link below to read more:
via Dawn Johnsen and the GOP Obstruction Game | People For the American Way Blog.
Related on PiP:
There was some exciting news from the White House last week regarding government transparency via a GOV 2.0 initiative. If you missed it, that’s understandable. Most media outlets were otherwise engaged with the shocking revelation that a professional athlete had strayed from his marriage. However, beneath the din of the Tiger Woods scandal, the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) issued its directive(.pdf) for executive departments and agencies to publicly share vast amounts of information.
The Dec. 8 OMB directive is the latest outgrowth of Barack Obama’s Memorandum on Transparency and Open Government(.pdf), issued Jan. 21, 2009, in which the president laid out the three principles of his Open Government Initiative:
My Administration is committed to creating an unprecedented level of openness in Government. We will work together to ensure the public trust and establish a system of transparency, public participation, and collaboration. Openness will strengthen our democracy and promote efficiency and effectiveness in Government.
The directive memo from OMB establishes specific steps and deadlines for government agencies to adhere to those principles. Within the memo, the following four steps are established in pursuit of the administration’s transparency goals :
The “flagship” site for this effort is already up and running at Data.gov. At present, however, only a limited number of government agencies are participating.
If the Dec. 8 Open Government Initiative(OGI) is properly followed, every government agency will have added three existing “high value data sets” within 45 days, and will have created systems for disseminating future data within 120 days. In between these deadlines, all government agencies are to have their own open government websites active within 60 days, from which Data.gov will import their open source formatted data.
Thus far, open source advocate reactions have been cautiously optimistic, viewing the OGI as big step in the right direction. However, as Steven Aftergood noted Dec. 8 at Secrecy News, “Success is not guaranteed.”
The previous Administration used to invoke the theory of “the unitary executive,” which generally holds that all executive branch power and authority is vested in the President. But the opposite may be closer to the real state of affairs, in the sense that the exercise of presidential authority is dependent on innumerable acts of compliance by scattered officials any of whom can, whether through disobedience or incompetence, frustrate the implementation of policy. And the more ambitious the proposed change, the more likely it is to encounter resistance.
More recently, he remarked that the “Openness Initiative” was beginning “to take root.” Again, there are some concerns. “Most national security and intelligence agencies, however, met the new Open Government Directive with silence, as if it did not concern them,” Aftergood wrote. While the OGI specifically prohibits sharing classified information, there are existing non-classified data sets presently controlled by the intelligence community. Aftergood suggests that this would be a good place for them to start.
The opinions of Aftergood and others — Meredith Fuchs, lead counsel at George Washington University’s National Security Archive, for example — will be important to watch as the OGI moves forward. Advocates of government openness are a tireless bunch. Should some of the executive branch agencies resist the directive, and if its deadlines aren’t met, these are the folks who’ll be shouting the loudest.
I’ll list some additional resources below, but there are reasons to be optimistic about the initiative’s success; lead among them, Obama’s choice as Chief Information Officer, Vivek Kundra has already implemented a similar program for the Washington D.C. metropolitan area. Kundra is considered to be among the leading innovators in using technology to ‘democratize data.’
See Also:
originally published 16 December 2009.
History News Network ~ Breaking News Junkie Post Progressive Juice via The p2 Feed
