Mitt Romney: Will Direct His Policies to the "Middle Class" -- Not the "Very Poor"

Mitt Romney has created a stir with comments he made during a CNN interview today. Romney stated that his policies will not focus on the "very rich" or the "very poor." Instead, he would direct his energy and policies toward middle-class Americans. When the interviewer asked Romney to explain his position, he elaborated that the country already has a safety net that protects the most impoverished Americans and that if it needed repairing, he would do so.

Liberal commentators have pounced upon these statements, claiming that they demonstrate Romney's indifference to poor folks. I have a few responses.

FIRST, Romney's critics are correct. His comments show a stunning disregard for poor folks, including the working poor who cannot qualify for many government benefits. Even though he also said that he was not concerned about very rich folks, the President of the United States should have a deep concern for the plight of poor folks.

SECOND, Although Democrats have not said anything as politically sloppy as Romney with respect to poor folks, their rhetoric often focuses on the middle-class as well. President Obama, for example, created a Middle-Class Task Force during the first month of his presidency.  He did not, however, create a similar task force for poor people. Also, when Obama tours important swing states, his speeches usually stress the plight of middle-class Americans above all others. Basically, both parties are chasing large chunks of middle-class voters who live in states such as Ohio, Florida, Missouri, and other "purple" jurisdictions. If the "very poor" were a larger voting bloc and antipoverty programs had more support among voters, then both parties would pay more attention to the needs of poor folks.

So, Romney has made a very troubling statement. But it is hard to say that Democrats are doing all that they can do for poor people. Democrats' policies, however, do more for poor people than the policies advocated by most Republican politicians.

Sexual Hypocrisy and Democratic Weakness: Just Another Day in the USA

So Anthony Weiner has resigned. Lacking anything better over which to obsess, the rapidly declining US media created a faux scandal that forced Weiner to resign. The story is very brief. The former House member sent an electronic picture of himself wearing briefs to a woman. Rather than creating a fictional email and Twitter account, Weiner sent the pictures using his official email address. He also used various accounts bearing his name in order to engage in sexual banter and to flirt with several women. The outrage surrounding this issue forced Weiner to resign. Before he resigned, several Democrats – including President Obama – told Weiner that he should quit. This decision should upset anyone who believes in personal liberty.

Weiner’s conduct was reckless for a politician. He risked getting caught and subjected to a political scandal. This observation, however, does not indict the underlying behavior itself. It only means that he was not politically savvy. With respect to Weiner’ conduct, however, there are no allegations (at least credible ones) that he violated any criminal laws, committed a tort, or violated any statutory rights held by any of the women with whom he communicated. In fact, it seems that several of them willingly engaged in sexual banter with Weiner. In other words, Weiner resigned because he engaged in noncriminal sexual conduct that appears to have been consensual or otherwise nonabusive.

Puritanical Values

The United States has a long and tired history of suppressing consensual sexual conduct. Historically, white women have been viewed as “sexually pure”; they should not engage in or be exposed to sex outside of marriage. Weiner crossed this socially constructed boundary. Dignified male politicians should act like “gentleman.” Their sex should remain private and restrained. Weiner crossed this boundary as well. And teenagers, LGBT persons and persons of color have all been stigmatized due to sexual conduct and stereotypes. The reaction to Weiner implicates this long puritanical history that seeks to strip away sexuality in very racial and gendered terms.

Despite the ways in which the reaction to Weiner implicates a troubling slice of US history, many self-proclaimed liberal critics refuse to defend Weiner. Instead, they continually make the observation that his behavior was stupid, that he was asking to get caught. Not too long ago, people routinely made this same argument when gays and lesbians who came out of the closet experienced employment discrimination. Although Weiner’s situation is not completely analogous to the struggle for LGBT rights, the reaction to his conduct sounds eerily familiar. Rather than focusing on his right to engage in consensual sexual conduct, many people are simply arguing that he should not have done so. But this does not explain why the country treats sexual expression as immoral.

Hypocritical Values

The United States ranks among the world’s largest markets for pornography and prostitution. Nevertheless, it retains relatively puritanical views about sex. Until recently, federal law shielded the supposedly strong and heroic members of the armed forces from the presumed threat of homosexuality. States have rushed to ban same-sex marriage. A significant portion of the country opposes teaching teenagers about birth control – even though teenage pregnancy remains a serious problem.

Down in the Bible Belt, residents of Dallas, Texas often joke that the city has more churches and strip joints than any city in the nation. In Texas, however, state law bans the sale of “sex toys,” unless they are necessary for medical purposes. Texas treats sex toys as obscenity – unless you need them for medical purposes.

These are just a few examples of the hypocritical stance towards sexuality in the US. Weiner's resignation brings that hypocritical history to the surface.

Weakness

Rather than treating Weiner’s conduct as politically unwise – but generally harmless – Democrats rushed to kick him out of office. Predictably, the party caved when it could have resisted a silly scandal.

Ironically, the weak party has now kicked out one of its most passionate and fearless members. But this is typical of Democrats -- very typical and disappointing. Several other politicians on both sides of the aisle have suffered political scandal, but they kept fighting (remember Clinton). Today, the Democrats cannot fight at all. They have the spines of slugs.

Republicans Are Scared That Charlie Crist Will Run As An Independent

Everyday, another Republican politician lends support to Marco Rubio, the candidate who is challenging Florida Governor Charlie Crist in the upcoming Senate election. A recent poll, however, shows that while Rubio would trounce Crist in the Republican primary, Crist would win a 3-way general election against Rubio and Democratic candidate Kendrick Meek, if he decided to run as an Independent.

There is a simple explanation for these poll results. Crist is a centrist. He embraced the stimulus package and other policies of the Obama administration. Furthermore, he recently vetoed a controversial bill that would have ended tenure for public school teachers and linked their salaries and recertification to student performance on standardized tests. Republican leadership strongly favored the legislation.

Florida is a purple state. Bill Clinton lost Florida by less than 2 percent of the vote in 1992, but he won the state in 1996.  George W. Bush won Florida by a hair in 2000 and by a few points in 2004. And in 2008, Obama carried the state by a slight margin. The state has a number of Independent voters, and registered Republicans and Democrats have crossed party lines in recent elections. Crist's appeal among moderate voters makes him a viable threat in a general election (which is what makes this analysis so bankrupt).

By contrast, Florida has closed primaries. Thus, only Republicans can vote in the primary pitting Crist against Rubio. Typically, a party's base is most influential in primary elections. And in the South, this means that conservatives have a loud voice in Republican primaries. Conservatives are not happy with Crist-the-moderate. The general election, however, is a completely different ideological contest. If Crist ran as an Independent, there is a strong possibility that he would defeat the Republican and Democratic candidates.

So, when Republicans like Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani endorse Rubio, they are only trying to marginalize Crist and to make him unpopular.  They also want to let him know that he could suffer politically among Republicans if he runs as an Independent. But these calculations might not impact Crist's decision.  If Crist decides that he values winning over running as a Republican, he could jump ship and seek the Senate position as an Independent.  On this issue, the scenario looks a lot like Joe Lieberman's Independent run in Connecticut (except that the state is liberal, but open to moderate Democrats and Republicans).

Good Advice for Democrats

Former Representative Tony Coelho offers some good advice to Democrats in a Politico op-ed.  Here's  clip:

Democratic candidates must make this a debate about the bill’s individual components. Where does your opponent stand? Does he or she want to repeal the reform?

What exactly do Republicans plan on taking away from the American people?

Will they tell small-business owners in their districts that tax credits to provide health care for their employees will be repealed? Are they going to ask senior citizens to give back rebates for prescriptions not covered under Medicare? Will the Republicans throw the young people in their district to the wolves and take away their coverage? Will they tell those who were uninsured or denied coverage because of pre-existing conditions before this reform law passed that they are taking away their new coverage. . . . 

Be proud of what you have done and tell your constituents what is in the bill. Don’t let your opponent frame the debate.

Sounds about right to me.

What A Joke: Republicans Deny Similarities Between Massachusetts Healthcare Refrom And Democratic Proposals

This one is from the surreal vault. Republicans are trying to distinguish Massachusetts healthcare reform -- endorsed by Mitt Romney and Senator Scott Brown -- from the federal proposals pending in Congress.

Last week, Brown described the Democrats' reform proposals as "bitter" and "destructive." David Axelrod, appearing on ABC's This Week, criticized Brown's statement, noting the similarities between the Democratic proposals and the Massachusetts policy.

Senator Lindsay Graham, who appeared after Axelrod, however, disputed Axelrod's comments: "No way in the world is what they did in Massachusetts like what we’re about to do in Washington." Graham explains that: "We didn’t cut Medicare — they didn’t cut Medicare when they passed the bill in Massachusetts. They didn’t raise $500 billion on the American people when they passed the bill in Massachusetts."

Graham's effort to distinguish the Massachusetts policy from the Democratic proposals is foolhardy. First, states cannot raise federal taxes, nor can they reform the Medicare program. So, Graham's explanation regarding the differences between Massachusetts policy and the federal proposals is ridiculous.

Furthermore, the Massachusetts plan and federal proposals are also quite similar in terms of substance. The Wonk Room has compiled a side-by-side comparison of the two packages, showing the dramatic similarities. Also, Think Progress nicely summarizes the similarities:

[T]he plan implemented by former Republican Gov. Mitt Romney in Massachusetts is very similar to the Democratic proposal. Both plans require people to purchase coverage and both provide affordability credits to those who can’t afford insurance. Both create insurance exchanges, both establish minimum creditable coverage standards for insurers, and both require employers to contribute towards reform.

Romney implemented the Massachusetts plan as governor of the state, and Brown voted for it as a member of the state legislature. Romney apparently wants to run for president again, and he believes he must portray the Massachusetts reforms in a false light in order to appeal to Republicans. Brown is trying to score points with the GOP as well, and he is distorting history to achieve this goal as well. Their weak effort to distance their prior stances from highly similar Democratic proposals, however, is not fooling anyone. The record is too clear to deny.

Is "Tickling" Sexual?

Representative Eric Massa continues to provide interesting tidbits from his sexual harassment vault. During an appearance on Glenn Beck's show (conservatives welcomed him after he denounced Democrats), Massa said that his contact with his aides was not "sexual."

Massa, however, has admitted to stroking the hair of a staffer. And on the Beck show, he said that he relentlessly "tickled" another aide:

“Now they are saying I groped a male staffer,’’ he told Mr. Beck. “Yeah I did. Not only did I grope him. I tickled him until he couldn’t breathe and then four guys jumped on top of me. It was my 50th birthday. It was kill the old guy. You can take anything out of context.’’

Massa also shared a house with his male assistants. He conceded that his Chief of Staff warmed him not to do this, but he said he needed to do so because of the outrageous rents in Washington, DC. Massa is under investigation for reportedly groping several male aides.

NYT's Bob Herbert Blasts Democrats For Not Doing Enough to Create Jobs

While other analysts trace President Obama's woes to his senior staff, his lack of a "message" or his failure to bite off "small" policy initiatives, New York Times columnist Bob Herbert has a different explanation. Herbert, a staunch liberal and Obama supporter, contends that the Democrats have not done nearly enough to address unemployment and the economic woes that many Americans face.

Herbert does not have kind words for the Republican opposition, but he does let Democrats off the hook either. Here is a clip:

The talk inside the Beltway, that super-incestuous, egomaniacal, reality-free zone, is that President Obama and the Democrats have a messaging or public relations problem. We’re being told — and even worse, Mr. Obama and the Democrats are being told — that their narrative is not getting through. . . .

That’s just silly. People are upset because they are mired in economic distress and are losing faith that their elected representatives are looking out for their best interests. . . .

People know that the government that is supposed to be looking out for ordinary people — for working people and the poor — is not doing nearly enough about an employment crisis that is lowering standards of living and hollowing out the American dream. . . .

The Republican Party has nothing in the way of solutions to Americans’ economic plight. It is committed only to the demented policy of trying to ensure that President Obama and the Democrats fail.

But the fact that the Republicans are pathetic and destructive is no reason for the Democrats to shirk their obligation to fight powerfully and relentlessly for the economic well-being of all Americans. . . .

The many millions of new jobs needed to make a real dent in the employment crisis are not going to materialize by themselves. Mr. Obama and the Democrats don’t seem to understand that.

I agree that the Democrats have a "message" problem. I also vehemently agree that they have not done nearly enough for Main Street. As with the Republicans, saving the banks and big businesses are the priority for Democrats. There's the bipartisanship everyone claims to seek!

Rep. Massa: Lunatic or Victim of Diabolical Plot?

Last week, Representative Eric Massa announced that he would resign from Congress. Yesterday, Massa came out swinging against Rahm Emanuel and House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, accusing them of forcing him out of Congress to eliminate a possible Democratic vote against the healthcare bill.

Massa Speaks About the Alleged Sexual Harassment
The facts in this saga are still emerging, but here are some preliminary details. Massa has admitted to making a sexually laced comment to an aide at a New Year's Eve party/wedding. Apparently, Massa made the comments after drinking massive quantities of alcohol.

Massa admits to the following exchange, which he says was recorded by cameras:

"I said goodnight to the bridesmaid,” Massa continued. “I sat down at the table where my whole staff was, all of them by the way bachelors.”

“One of them looked at me and as they would do after, I don’t know, 15 gin and tonics, and goodness only knows how many bottles of champagne, a staff member made an intonation to me that maybe I should be chasing after the bridesmaid and his points were clear and his words were far more colorful than that,” Massa said. “And I grabbed the staff member sitting next to me and said, ‘Well, what I really ought to be doing is fracking you.’ And then [I] tossled the guy’s hair and left, went to my room, because I knew the party was getting to a point where it wasn’t right for me to be there. Now was that inappropriate of me? Absolutely. Am I guilty? Yes.”

Massa says that the person to whom he made the comments did not complain of any harassment, but that another aide made an ethics complaint.

Massa Accuses Emanuel and Hoyer of Pushing Him Out of Congress
Massa accuses Emanuel and Hoyer of trying to push him out of Congress in order to eliminate a possible "no" vote on healthcare reform. Massa says that he "was set up for this from the very, very beginning. . . The leadership of the Democratic Party have become exactly what they said they were running against."

Massa was especially critical of Hoyer. He says that Hoyer has been improperly discussing the details of the ethical complaint against him before an investigation has made any findings.

Massa is either a lunatic, a victim or both.

Tea Party Attempting Unconstitutional "Recall" of Democratic Senators

As much as Tea Party members whine that Congress is violating the Constitution, one would expect the group not to advocate clearly unconstitutional measures itself. Well, this logic has not influenced the Tea Party movement.

According to the Washington Times, the Tea Party movement is trying to "recall" several Democratic senators before their terms in office expire. The Washington Times reports that several states have "recall" measures that cover federal officeholders. There is a major problem with these laws: they violate the Constitution.

As the Supreme Court held in Powell v. McCormack, the Constitution establishes all of the requirements for members of the House and Senate. In Powell, the Court held that Congress could not alter those requirements. The House tried to block Adam Clayton Powell from taking his House seat on the grounds that he had engaged in financial impropriety. The Constitution, however, did not allow the House to block Powell, because he had met all of the requirements of office listed in the Constitution.

In US Term Limits v. Thornton, the Supreme Court extended Powell and held that states lacked the authority to alter the requirements of members of Congress as well. Thornton involved a challenge to an Arkansas law that established term limits for members of the House and Senate. The Court held that the law violated the Constitution. There is nothing unique about a "recall" statute that would make it permissible.

Nothing in the Constitution permits the recall of members of Congress -- although the Constitution does allow each house to "expel" a member. The only power that voters have over members of Congress comes through the normal electoral process. That process takes place every six years for members of the Senate and every two years for members of the House. The Tea Party crowd will have to wait until the targeted senators complete their terms. Yes -- the law applies to everyone.

Toyota Document Describes Democrats as "Not Industry Friendly"

Typically, I view Congressional hearings that force industry representatives or private individuals to testify as unnecessary moments of political grandstanding. The upcoming Toyota hearings will probably provide more of the same. The hearings, however, could take on an even more melodramatic tone if Democrats press Toyota regarding a document that labels the Obama administration as unfriendly to industry.

The document was included in a batch of materials subject to a Congressional subpoena. It appears to be a rather routine "slideshow" assessment of the new legal and business environment after shifts in power in Congress and the White House. Politico has a copy of the document and provides the following summary:

The “Activist Administration & Congress – increasing laws & regulations” is listed as one of “Toyota Challenges,” as is “Massive government support for Detroit automakers.”

The July 2009 presentation also says the Department of Transportation and National Highway Transportation Safety Administration “under Obama administration” is “not industry friendly,” and anticipates a “more challenging regulatory and enforcement environment.”

It says the NHTSA “new team has less understanding of engineering issues and are primarily focused on legal issues.”

“While the administration may have changed, the bureaucracy itself has not and we must ensure that government regulators give every possible consumer concern its due diligence,” said Republican Oversight spokesman Kurt Bardella.

On the surface, this document seems unrelated to the recall. Nevertheless, lawmakers could pay attention to it. Toyota's fear of regulation seems likely to invite questions -- given its need to recall 8 million cars across several different models. Stay tuned!

Bayh's Timing Does Not Help Republicans Either

The conventional narrative surrounding Evan Bayh's retirement from the Senate treats it as a downside for Democrats. Bayh represents Indiana, which is a Republican stronghold. Accordingly, many commentators believe that Republicans can extend their recent fortunes by picking up Bayh's seat.

But Bayh's timing brings risks to the GOP as well. Tuesday was the state deadline for candidates to submit paperwork indicating their intent to participate in the senate primaries. Bayh made his announcement on Monday. Republicans will have four (possibly even five) candidates in the primary who will battle each other ferociously for the nomination.

No Democrat, however, filed the required paperwork. Therefore, the Indiana Democratic Party will simply pick one candidate to run in the Senate election, bypassing an expensive and potentially mean-spirited primary.

According to The Hill, Republicans are "furious" and have asked Bayh to petition a court to extend the filing deadline. They hope that some Democratic candidates will come forward now that Bayh is out of the way. It is unclear, however, why Bayh, who is not seeking re-election, would have standing to petition a court to extend the filing deadline.

Democrats Offer Scathing Criticism of Obama's Senior Staff

Career Democrats (not just "outsider" liberal critics) are beginning to criticize President Obama's senior staff. The Hill, for example, reports that liberal and moderate Democrats in Congress blame Rahm Emanuel for the Obama administration's poor performance on healthcare reform.

Although both sides point to Emanuel, they do so for different reasons. Moderates fault Emanuel for only seeking the support of a narrow band of politicians, like Senators Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins. Liberals, on the other hand, argue that Emanuel gave Senator Max Bachus too much time to negotiate with Republicans, like Senator Charles Grassley (who shamelessly joined Sarah Palin to condemn the bill for promoting "death panels").

On some level the criticisms sound contradictory (too much outreach versus not enough outreach to Republicans). Nevertheless, they all single out Emanuel as a problem for Obama. They also attribute Emanuel's shortcomings to his lack of Senate experience (which raises the question: Where is Joe Biden?).

In addition to The Hill article, former Virginia Governor Douglas Wilder has written a scathing critique of Obama's senior staff in Politico. Wilder, who supported Obama over Hillary Clinton, argued that Obama needs to shake up his senior staff and remove Tim Kaine as Chair of the Democratic National Committee:

I am an admirer of Tim Kaine, whom I backed in his current position and as one of my successors as Virginia governor and even recommended for the vice presidency. But a spate of recent losses in races that Democrats should have won underscores what has been obvious to me for a long time: The chairmanship of the Democratic National Committee is the wrong job for him.

The changes must go much deeper. Obama’s West Wing is filled with people who are in their jobs because of their Chicago connections or because they signed on with Obama early during his presidential campaign.

One problem is that they do not have sufficient experience at governing at the executive branch level. The deeper problem is that they are not listening to the people.

Hearing is one thing; listening is another.

Although these recent critiques focus on Obama's staff, they implicitly raise questions regarding the extent to which Obama himself is responsible for his shortcomings. Admittedly, while Obama filled many policy positions with experienced individuals, a lot of his senior advisers in the White House are Chicago pals or people who endorsed him at critical stages of his campaign. Accordingly, Wilder's critique seems legitimate.

Nevertheless, some of the qualities that Democrats now demand -- experience and toughness -- are things they explicitly rejected in Hillary Clinton during the Democratic presidential primaries. Democrats said that they wanted a "fresh face," rather than "experience," and that they wanted a "unifier," rather than a "fighter."

Now, hearing Democrats demand that Obama become tougher or that he replace his staff with veteran Washington politicians reminds me of Clinton's famous campaign statement: "You campaign in poetry and govern in prose." At this point, no one can honestly debate these words.

Healthcare Hiatus

Congressional Democrats have tabled healthcare discussions -- according to major news outlets. The loss of a Massachusetts Democratic Senate position and growing public unease with the proposed legislation undoubtedly has caused Democrats to grow chilly towards one of President Obama's most important domestic policy proposals.

Washington Examiner's Byron York Bashes the Left

Byron York, a writer for the Washington Examiner, has written an article that blasts liberal bloggers and claims that their activism could harm the Democrats. Chicken Little lives!

My favorite part of York's article quotes an anonymous (of course) "Democratic strategist" who observes that:

These are the same people who have never participated in, much less won, a campaign, who have no idea what it takes to maintain a majority and keep a speaker of our party, who want Obama to kowtow to the loony Left, and then they're going to be the ones who say, 'What happened?' in November 2010, when we lose the House and possibly the Senate and maybe a lot of governorships.

Given the abysmal performance of Democrats in national politics since 1964 -- especially in the White House -- this so-called strategist could use a long look in the mirror. York's essay reads more like an attack on progressive political platforms -- rather than an honest effort to advocate more successful political strategies.

Rightwingnut John Perry Fantasizes About a "Military Coup" to Eliminate President Obama

Rightwingnut John Perry fantasizes has written a column about a possible "military coup" to remove President Obama from office. What terrible thing has Obama done to merit Perry's column? Perry lists a parade of horribles lies, including the patently false notion that Obama has "nationalized" "American institutions."

Some of Perry's grievances should have led to the ouster of President Bush. For example, Perry warns of the "horror of major warfare erupting simultaneously in two, and possibly three, far-flung theaters before America can react in time." Earth to Perry: Iraq + Afghanistan = Wars Bush started.

Perry also complains "that the economy — ravaged by deficits, taxes, unemployment, and impending inflation — is financially reliant on foreign lender governments." Earth to Perry: The economy became a severe problem long before January 2009.

Also, I suspect that most foreign lending comes from private investors. In addition, debt is debt regardless of whether foreign or domestic investors own it. The only thing that makes domestically owned debt more attractive is the relatively greater control the government has over the owner. Exercising that control, however, sounds like something Perry would call "Marxist."

What Happened to Elections?
Perry only contemplates a "nonviolent" or "bloodless" "military" coup (oxymoron?). Dr. King would be proud!

In an August 3, 2009 column, however, Perry advocated old-fashioned, democracy-based regime change. He argued that Republicans should endeavor to find candidates with the "qualifications and vision" to "outshine" Democrats. I wonder whether Perry believes this task remains attainable.

Finally, in the same August 2009 article, Perry lauded Sarah Palin as a possible presidential candidate for the GOP in 2012. This endorsement probably damns his political judgment more than his proposed fictional coup de tat:

Someone will emerge from the current funk and fog as the most-attractive Republican presidential nominee. If Sarah Palin can help boost enough conservatives into office by next fall, she will be well-along the road to the 2012 GOP nomination — regardless of whether or when she’s a declared candidate.

Right now, she appears to outclass other potential Republican candidates. Better than any, so far, she fits the formula for not reelecting Obama.

Palin for President? Precious.

UPDATE: A reader (Eric) notes that Newsmax has removed Perry's essay. Being too extreme for Newsmax is pretty extreme. If anyone finds a cached version of the page, please let me know.

UPDATE II: A rightwing website has reprinted the coup essay. See here.

A Mind Is a Terrible Thing to Waste: 62% of Repubs. Believe "Government Should Stay Out of Medicare"!

I have consistently reminded readers that Medicare is the largest public health plan in the nation. It is administered by the federal government, which acts as a single-payer of primary medical expenses for people over 65.

Many Republicans have blasted public plans as "socialized medicine," but they have simultaneously tried to scare seniors into believing that the Obama administration wants to hurt Medicare recipients. Last week, the GOP released a Healthcare Bill of Rights for Seniors that opposes government involvement in medical services, but which promises that the Republican Party will protect Medicare.

Believing the Impossible
Apparently, the contradictory rhetoric has impacted many Republican voters. According to a new PPP poll, 62% of Republicans, as opposed to 24% of Democrats and 31% of Independents, support the idea the the "government should stay out of Medicare." As TPM observes, this is a factual impossibility: The government cannot "stay out" of a government-run health plan. Apparently, a solid majority of Republicans either wants to abolish Medicare or believes that it is a private health plan. Oy vey!

Selective Outrage: Conservatives Invoked Reagan's Death to Promote Liberal Stem Cell Policies

Some conservatives are experiencing a meltdown because people close to Ted Kennedy have used the occasion of his death to promote one of his greatest passions -- universal healthcare. But many of the supposedly outraged conservatives have hypocritically invoked Kennedy's illness and death in order to argue against the very reforms that Kennedy favored during his life.

Conservatives' Selective Outrage Over Death and Politics
Conservatives are exhibiting "selective outrage" over the appropriateness of mixing death and politics. In 2004, the year that Ronald Reagan died from Alzheimer's disease, former First Lady Nancy Reagan, other members of the Reagan family, and many members of Congress -- including conservatives -- used his illness and subsequent death to encourage President Bush to adopt more liberal policies related to the use of stem cells. Some researchers believe that stem cell research could be useful in the search for a cure for Alzheimer's disease.

Nancy Reagan
Former President Reagan died on June 5, 2004. During the month prior to her husband's death, Nancy Reagan sensed that the end was near. So, she made a public plea for President Bush to loosen restrictions on the use of stem cells. The former First Lady said that:

Ronnie's long journey has finally taken him to a distant place where I can no longer reach him. . . .Because of this, I'm determined to do whatever I can to save other families from this pain. I just don't see how we can turn our backs on this.

Orrin Hatch
After Reagan died, 58 Senators, including 14 Republicans, sent Bush a letter urging him to ease restrictions on stem cell research. During a June 13 interview with the Times (UK), conservative Orrin Hatch, who signed the letter, specifically invoked Reagan's death in order to promote stem cell research:

Perhaps one of the smaller blessings of Ron's passing will be a greater opportunity for Nancy to work on this issue. If someone like Nancy Reagan cannot change the president's mind, I don't think anybody can.

Trent Lott
The same article quotes conservative Senator Trent Lott, who makes a similar appeal to Reagan's death. Lott said that:

I hope that affection for the Reagans and just plain human sympathy for the terrible ordeal that afflicted them both over the past 10 years will prompt some second thoughts in the administration. . . .I suspect there are many in the White House who hope that it just goes away. But I don’t think Nancy gives up anything that is close to her heart that easily.

Arlen Specter
Senator Arlen Specter (who at the time was a Republican) happily stated that Nancy Reagan would have a "profound effect" on the issue. Specter also signed the letter to President Bush.

What Is Wrong With Doing What Kennedy Wanted?
I only found one article (published on June 17, 2004 in the Chicago Sun-Times) that makes any substantial criticism of the political use of Reagan's death. This article, written by conservative commentator Robert Novak, criticizes Democrats for embracing Reagan for political gain. Novak, however, does not criticize conservatives who did the same thing.

Novak was trying to portray Democrats as hypocrites for embracing Reagan in death, but not in life. But if this is an accurate criticism, conservatives today should not express outrage towards Democrats who are using the moment of Kennedy's passing to bring attention to healthcare reform. Instead, they should attack conservatives who have cited to Kennedy's illness and death in order to distort the content of pending healthcare reform proposals and to undermine a central goal of Kennedy's political advocacy.

Shortly before his death, Kennedy wrote a letter to Duval Patrick, the governor of Massachusetts, urging him to appoint an interim Senator until the state could hold a special election to choose a replacement. Kennedy's aides said that he was concerned that Democrats would lack an important vote on healthcare reform unless his replacement was seated. In other words, during his last days, Kennedy himself encouraged his supporters to take the necessary steps to complete his unfinished business.

Democrats who remember Kennedy by advocating healthcare reform are simply implementing the Senator's last wishes. Republicans, however, are feigning outrage in order to defeat Kennedy's work on healthcare reform. I think it is abundantly clear which side is behaving inappropriately.

PS: Kennedy's supporters actually know that he shared their political goals. It is not clear -- but probably doubtful -- that Reagan would have supported very liberal stem cell policies.

BREAKING NEWS: GOP Proposal Would Abolish Military, Public Schools, Fire and Police Departments and the Entire Federal Government

The GOP has pushed its argument regarding the uselessness of government to the logical conclusion: It has adopted a political platform that urges the abolition of the United States military, public schools, fire and police departments and the entire federal government. Dissenting Justice has been investigating the details of this developing story for over two weeks. Today, the GOP has authorized Dissenting Justice to release information regarding the plan.

Chairman Steele Endorses the Plan
The dramatic development comes after weeks of Republican criticism of Democrats' efforts to nationalize the healthcare industry and to control all aspects of medical practice, including the delicate decision to pull the plug on grandma. RNC Chair Michael Steele lauded the decision, stating that:

I was starting to sound like a fucking idiot blasting socialized medicine while trying to defend other government services. If Obamacare sucks, then it is likely that all other government services suck too. This brilliant plan will keep those pinko Nazi liberals off my back while I continue bringing hip hop to the GOP.

The Plan's Architect: Senator John McCain
Senator John McCain disclosed to Dissenting Justice that he devised the no-government strategy. Since his unsuccessful election bid, McCain has struggled to compete with louder and more outlandish conservatives like Sarah "the Bloggacuda" Palin, Chuck "Over My Grandma's Dead Body" Grassley, Dick "Am I Still V.P." Cheney, and Rush "Please Hush" Limbaugh.

McCain believes that his provocative proposal could give him more prominence and stature among conservatives. If the plan does not work out as he intends, McCain says that:

I would either retire or move to the political center again. It doesn't really matter to me at this point. I'm getting up there in age, you know. But if Obamacare passes, the government would immediately order me to die. So, I cannot think about failure at this point.

When asked by Dissenting Justice why he would propose abolishing the government after a long career in Congress and less than one year after he tried to become president, McCain said: "I lost. Besides, I never claimed that I was entirely consistent."

When asked how he made the decision to abolish the military in which he served with valor, McCain said that:

Those crazy Democrats almost got me killed in Vietnam, which was unfair. The government should never choose who lives or dies. Only the private sector should make decisions like that. When the government gets involved, it's like communism, which was what we said we were fighting over there in Asia.

When Dissenting Justice reminded McCain that he volunteered to serve in Vietnam, he responded: "You guys really do your homework, don't you?" McCain also said that he "wonders whether the outcome of the Vietnam War would have differed if the private sector handled the situation." McCain seems to have a lot more faith in the private sector, concluding that: "Socialized national security systems are probably just as bad as socialized medicine or even Social Security."

Seniors Respond
Even though the GOP plan would cause the immediate end of Medicare and Social Security, some seniors applaud the Republican proposal. Bonnie Franklin, a 75-year-old retired nurse who lives in Milford, Connecticut, says the plan "proves that Republicans are more interested in the health of the nation than the Democrats." Franklin, who has no income other than Social Security, says that: "Democrats believe the government can do everything. Spend. Spend. Spend. When will it all end?"

When Dissenting Justice asked Franklin how she planned to survive without Social Security and Medicare, she did not reply. Instead, she looked very confused. Dissenting Justice then told Franklin that the federal government administers Social Security and Medicare and that the abolition of the federal government would end those programs. Upon hearing this information, Franklin abruptly stormed out of the interview, yelling: "I wasn't born yesterday, kid. You are just trying to be cute. Have fun interviewing me. Not!"

No Specific Details
Although the plan lacks any specific details, the Republicans promise to provide them later. "Don't get all concerned over minutiae," said Steele. Steele argued that:

The opposing party does not have to supply specifics. All we need to do is criticize. Get it? We are clearly going beyond the call of duty. I am so tired of the liberal media saying the same things over and over again. Get a real job people.

The next day, Steele called Dissenting Justice and apologized for making his comments. Steele said that he had "taken himself out of context."

The Deceit and Hypocrisy of Minister Mike Huckabee

Mike Huckabee -- Baptist minister and politician -- has some repenting to do. Huckabee joined a chorus of conservatives who warned Democrats not to politicize Kennedy's death during debates over healthcare reform. Apparently, unmoved by his own words, Huckabee then hypocritically suggested that under "Obamacare," Kennedy would have been urged to take his life:

Proponents deny that this bill will devalue older people’s lives or encourage them to except less care to save money. But it was President Obama himself who suggested that seniors who don't have as long to live might want to consider just taking a pain pill instead of getting an expensive operation to cure them. Yet when Sen. Kennedy was diagnosed with terminal brain cancer at 77, did he give up on life and go home to take pain pills and die? Of course not. He freely did what most of us would do. He choose an expensive operation and painful follow up treatments. He saw his work as vitally important and so he fought for every minute he could stay on this earth doing it. He would be a very fortunate man if his heroic last few months were what future generations remember him most for.

Huckabee is not alone in his hypocrisy.

Huckabee's comments are also deceitful. Patients have a constitutional right to refuse life-sustaining medical treatment (even conservative Supreme Court justices agree with this). Medical professionals already provide this information to their patients, but organizations like the American Medical Association have concluded that they should do so with even greater frequency.

When people refuse life-sustaining measures, medical professionals often give them palliative treatment to ease their pain and discomfort. I do not know what happened to Kennedy during his last months or days, but it is probably safe to assume he was given prescription painkillers following surgery and probably during the last days of his life. It is also likely that Kennedy's doctors told him at some point prior to his death that they could not do anything else to treat his cancer. It is also possible that they told him last year that surgery would only momentarily delay the inevitable consequences of the cancer.

The proposed healthcare reform would facilitate these types of healthy conversations between patients and medical providers, and President Obama has never stated anything to the contrary. The pending measure would not devalue seniors or urge them to end their lives, as Huckabee's comments suggest. The minister is simply exploiting the public's discomfort with issues related to death and dying for political purposes.

Huckabee, Death Panels and Rationing of Care
Finally, I find it appalling that Huckabee states that "most of us" would have elected the expensive surgery that Kennedy chose to undergo once he discovered he had cancer. It is abundantly clear that most people without health insurance would not have chosen the path that Kennedy followed. They would not have been able to pay for it.

Moreover, it is not even clear that most people with health insurance would have pursued this treatment option, given the stage and type of cancer Kennedy had. This is exactly why it is important for people to receive counseling concerning their medical options. Huckabee does not know how most Americans would have responded to the information that Kennedy's physicians gave him.

Kennedy strongly supported liberal healthcare reform. Although Huckabee discusses Kennedy's "heroic last few months," his distortion of the pending legislation undermines Kennedy's legacy. If conservatives block universal coverage, millions of Americans will continue to live without health insurance. When these uninsured individuals become severely ill, they will not have the ability to demonstrate their "heroic" drive to live. Medical care in the United States will remain drastically different for the "haves" and "have nots" (have = insured). If conservatives truly want to condemn people who support "death panels" and "rationing" of care, they need to look in the mirror.

Conservatives on Kennedy's Death: Do As We Say, Not As We Do

Before and after his death, Republicans invoked Ted Kennedy's illness to argue against healthcare reform. Now, they are warning Democrats of political warfare if they invoke Kennedy's name to rally support for healthcare reform.

Much of Kennedy's work as a Senator, however, involved the very type of reform that Democrats have proposed. I think it is abundantly clear who, if anyone, could appropriately invoke Kennedy's name regarding healthcare reform.

Media Matters has more details on this issue. Here's a snip:

Following Sen. Ted Kennedy's death, several conservative media figures -- including Rush Limbaugh -- have attacked Democrats for purportedly attempting to use his passing to stifle debate and enact health care reform legislation. But conservative media figures -- also including Limbaugh -- have used Kennedy's death to attack health care reform, baselessly suggesting that if reform passes, elderly cancer patients -- as Kennedy was -- will be "denied" treatments or that their treatments will be "rationed."

Here's the link: Conservative media attack Dems for playing "death card" while using Kennedy's death to attack health care.