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*

                          

The National Journal conducted a poll of 109 Republican Party leaders, asking them to “rank 5 candidates in the order of likeliness to capture the GOP nod.”  That former MA Governor Mitt Romney topped the lists of those polled with 81 points, 62 per-cent of which were first place votes, is unsurprising.  Were it not for half-term Alaska Governor Sarah Palin’s poor showing (25 points) it probably wouldn’t be worth talking about.

Not one of the party leaders or pundits polled selected Palin to top their list.  Taking into account the ideological nature of her supporters — distrustful of government, adherents to the myth of a liberal media, and, most importantly, a profound disdain for the GOP elite — this was the best outcome Palin could have hoped for.

Talented FiveThirtyEight.com political prognosticator, Nate Silver, likes Palin’s chances to win 2012 Republican presidential nomination.  Silver posted “10 reasons that Palin Could Win,” last Nov. 18.  In his Jan. 7 reaction to the Insider’s Poll, Silver reiterated his number eight reason from last year:

…If the Establishment, owing to electability concerns or whatever else, tries to put hurdles in her way by re-structuring the primary or delegate allocation process, it may only play into the victimization complex of Palin and her supporters.

Silver’s commentary is apt, and though the poll doesn’t represent any direct effort to “neuter” Palin’s potential candidacy, that doesn’t mean they wont (see video, below).  “Although the Establishment’s concerns about Palin’s viability as a general election candidate are well grounded,” Silver notes, “mostly they’re just terrified of her because she doesn’t need them. “

It might be wiser for establishment Republicans to remain hands-off, and wait for Palin to self destruct.  Her supporters have proven themselves willing to keep their blinders on, content to cling to the dazzling façade rolled out at the 2008 Republican National Convention.  However, Palin’s high visibility — albeit, NEVER in a critical forum — increases the probability of a politically fatal mistake.

Indeed, she may have already made it.  I’m not referring to Palin’s recent doubling down on her “death panel” analysis of health care reform efforts in Washington – a turn of phrase awarded “Lie of the Year” for 2009 byPolitifact.com, Pulitzer winner in that same year.  Palin’s deceit in this matter will go unnoticed by her supporters.

However, Palin’s snubbing of the 2010 Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) has got much attention.  Much more interesting is her commitment to speak at the National Tea Party Convention in Nashville, Feb. 4-6.

Muriel Kane posted an excellent summary about how different factions are reacting to Palin’s curious positioning at RawStory.com, Jan. 8.

Missed opportunity, simple greed, or shrewd calculation? Only time will tell the real meaning of Sarah Palin’s Tea Party gambit.

Another aspect that has, thus far, received little attention from the media pertains to whom Palin will share the stage with at the Tea Party Convention.  Senior Fellow at Media Matters for America, Eric Boehlert, posed the question in a Jan. 9 post:  “Will the press question the ‘Palin – Farah’ ticket?”

The Beltway press still refuses to raise questions about Palin’s decision to attend the first annual Tea Party convention in Nashville next month and share the stage with a fringe radical like Joseph Farah, who is an avowed gay and Muslim-hating extremist, and whose wingnut publication, [World Net Daily], remains obsessed with the loony, and thoroughly debunked, conspiracy claim that Obama was not born in America.

Of course, Kane was correct – only time will tell how this will play out.  There is a long way to go, but the potential for Palin to become the 2012 GOP nominee still exists.  So, too, does another outcome which I suggested the day Palin announced her resignation as Governor of Alaska:

If Palin does still have national aspirations, her only hope of success (in her mind, mind you) would be to position herself at the head of some third-party, the radical right-wing of the GOP finally throwing off its remaining moderate faction.

See Also:

• David Weigel, “Is Palin Getting $100,000 to Speak at the Tea Party National Convention.“ WashintonIndependent.com, 7 January 2010.

• Here’s a teaser for the Jan. 10 ‘60 Minutes‘ segment on Sarah Palin:

Palin Inaccurate says McCain Strategist

Related on Care2:

• Palin Quits – Could GOP split be in the offing?

• The Death Panel Lie – Conservative Dishonesty in the Health Care Reform Debate

                          

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:

The Death Panel Lie ~

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

                          

“They love to engage in revisionist history,” Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-NC) said on the floor of the U.S. Congress, Nov. 19.  She was referring to Democrats as she had risen to speak in opposition to an environmental protection measure intended to safeguard a 21-mile segment of Molalla River in Oregon.  As she spoke, Foxx set about some blatant revisionism of her own.

Foxx’s began her objection with the bizarre suggestion that the GOP had been the champion of “good” environmental protection laws.  Had she stopped there, her floor speech would have justifiably been dismissed as a bit of irony.  Instead, Foxx went on to perpetuate the misconception that Republicans were also the champions of civil rights legislation in the 1960s, amid fervent obstruction from Democrats.

Upon the completion of Foxx’s remarks, she was passionately rebuked by Rep. Dennis Cardoza (D-CA).  “I can’t believe my ears,” Cardoza said, and went on to assign credit for the Civil Rights Act (1964) and the Voting Rights Act (1965) to the efforts to the Democratic administration of Lyndon B. Johnson.

Here is video of the exchange on the House floor from the ThinkProgress.org Nov. 19 post on the subject. (continued below the clip)

[vodpod id=Groupvideo.4150138&w=425&h=350&fv=%26rel%3D0%26border%3D0%26]

While Cardoza’s assessment was factually correct and his tone appropriate, his rebuke of Foxx would have been strengthened by informing her that the Republican Party of which she spoke no longer exists.  Indeed, the Republicans whose votes were vital to passing civil rights legislation in the 1960s would be derided as RINOs – Republicans in Name Only – by Foxx and like minded, right-wing ideologues of today’s GOP.

That conservatives have sought to maintain this myth is nothing new.  Paul von Hipple addressed it in a 2005 Alternet.org post responding to a taxpayer funded “Republican Freedom Calendar” which presented a one-sided representation of their Party’s historic role as advocates of civil rights.  The evidence employed to prop up this argument relies upon the higher proportion of GOP votes for the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

It’s a far too narrow interpretation of history, as von Hipple indicated in his 2005 post:

In fact, Congressional votes on the Civil Rights Act did not break along party lines – they split along regional lines. In the North, both parties supported the Civil Rights Act; in the South, both parties opposed it. The difference was that the Republican Party had very little presence in the South, which had been dominated since the 1870s by the segregationist wing of the Democratic Party.

This period marks a historical turning point for both political parties.  President Johnson and liberal Northern Democrats were ill prepared for the Southern white backlash that followed the passage of civil rights legislation.  Of course, the legislation wasn’t the only factor, but it was during this time that the Democratic Party set on a path to shedding its racist elements.  In doing so, Democrats lost the political grip on the South it had held since the Great Depression.

The path chosen by the Republicans was altogether different.  Interestingly, the GOP underwent a schism, not unlike the one presently in progress.

Republican conservatives, sympathetic to the racist backlash among Southern whites, made their first political inroads in the South around this time.  The most significant evidence for this trend was the GOP’s 1964 presidential nomination of Arizona Senator Barry Goldwater.

Before Goldwater’s nomination, the GOP’s regional strength was based in the American North-East.  Their party leaders were inclined to support government investment in infrastructure.  Having been decimated during their initial struggle against Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal (which they decried as “socialist,” sound familiar?) a moderate GOP persisted as a minority party, seeking to improve FDR’s legislation rather than rail against it.

Goldwater lost to LBJ in 1964, but having won his home state and four other Southern states in the contest, the GOP’s course was set.  They abandoned their moderate positions — the mantle of which Foxx is presently attempting to claim — in pursuit of the racially divisive “Southern Strategy.”

This political strategy was neatly summarized by Sidney Blumenthal in a 2003 Salon.com post:

With the coming of the civil rights revolution, Democratic presidents John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson deployed the federal government to support social equality. In reaction, Republicans — from Barry Goldwater to Richard Nixon to Ronald Reagan — developed a Southern strategy to win over white voters in the region who felt betrayed. That strategy involved using widely understood code words going back to the Civil War like “states’ rights,” an updating of the well-worn strategy of Southern reactionaries to demagogue on race in order to keep poor and working-class whites divided from blacks on issues of common interest. Thus the party of Lincoln became the party of Reagan.

Indeed, Reagan’s ascendency is instructive.  His rise was facilitated by the GOP’s rejection of its moderate voices.  Just as Foxx mistakenly claimed the civil rights mantle on Nov. 19, Reagan did also.   Yet his true feelings were betrayed by his policies and rhetoric.

From the above mentioned von Hibble Alternet post:

…Ronald Reagan, in his 1966 campaign to become governor of California, endorsed repeal of California’s Fair Housing Act, saying, “If an individual wants to discriminate against Negroes or others in selling or renting his house, it is his right to do so.”

Similarly, Foxx’s own statements over the past year illustrate her departure from the moderate positions of the kinder, gentler GOP of yore.  She has more than made herself clear regarding the present-day civil rights issues, most notably in debates over the rights of homosexuals and health care reform.

My Care2 colleague Tracy Viselli understandably called for Foxx’s apology or resignation following her slanderous comments about Matthew Sheppard on the House floor while debating the hate crime legislation that bares his name.  More recently, Viselli , rightly, took issue with Foxx’s declaration that the present health care reform proposals pose a bigger threat to America than “any terrorist from any country.”  Add to this Foxx’s 2006 vote, along with 33 other Republicans, opposing the extension of the Voters Rights Act, and it becomes clear that any claim of civil rights advocacy exists only in her mind.

Further, these outrageous examples of Foxx’s true beliefs plainly illustrate that the North Carolina congresswoman has absolutely nothing in common with the Republicans who helped advance  the cause of civil rights in the 1960s.  Rather, Foxx is just another product of the cynical GOP which prospered by exploiting the societal divisions left after their passing.

                          

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

                          

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.

                          

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.

                          

“Well, the stimulus package passed and look at the stock market.”

Senator, Lindsey Graham (R – SC)

What an absurd statement.  Sen. Graham is probably aware of its absurdity, which leads me to ponder:  why would he say such a thing?  Of course, he would love us to believe that Obama is responsible for the lowly state of the stock market.  I suspect from what he said next on Sunday’s Meet the Press, Graham’s motives for the insinuation were even more misleading.

Graham finished, (emphasis added) “I think the president has quite frankly, in his budget, told us a lot about who he is and what he believes, and it’s scary.”

The implication that we should fear Obama’s beliefs is nothing but a backdoor accusation of a “socialist” agenda represented in the president’s budget.  In effect, Graham has found a way to accuse Obama of such a program without actually saying it.

The senator should leave such tripe for the conservative pundits who, incidentally, have received far too much press as of late. For that reason they shall remain unnamed in this post…

read more | digg story