Are Liberals Fed Up With President Obama?

A pair of news articles portray growing discontent with President Obama among liberals. First, Politico reports that the Congressional Black Caucus -- the most liberal coalition in Congress -- believes that the Obama Administration has snubbed the group. One incident reported in the article describes conflict between Obama and Representative John Conyers (a senior black member of Congress). Conyers has voiced deep criticism of Obama on healthcare and Afghanistan. According to Politico, President Obama called Conyers and told him that his critiques were "demeaning."

President Obama's response to Conyers has ruffled some feathers:

That report [regarding Conyers and Obama] didn’t sit well with many African-American lawmakers, aides and lobbyists, who revere Conyers as an elder statesman.

"Conyers has been in Congress longer than Barack Obama could spell," said a black strategist close to both the White House and Congress. "If he’s making a complaint, it’s a shot across the bow, and you might want to pay attention to that."

Some of the battles, however, sound like "turf warfare." For example, CBC members complain that Obama met with Ben Jealous (head of the NAACP) and Reverend Al Sharpton although they are still waiting to meet with the President.

Perhaps that meeting with Jealous and Sharpton has translated into political support. Recently, Jealous and Sharpton both passionately defended Obama against criticism by some black politicians who say that he is not doing enough to address the concerns of poor people and blacks.

Coincidentally, these are the exact same allegations that Sharpton has made repeatedly against other presidents and politicians -- including Democrats. Now, Sharpton argues that it is ridiculous to expect Obama to push a "black agenda." It is probably immature to expect any president to advance something narrowly described as a "black agenda." But promoting equal economic opportunity and equality are not "black agendas"; these are universal concerns that liberals expect Democrats to pursue.

A second article, in USA Today, suggests that Obama is losing his liberal base. Although liberals still support Obama in great numbers, there are growing signs of discontent. On issues ranging from national security to healthcare reform, Obama has faced conflict with progressives.

Donna Brazile, an Obama supporter, says that: "The energized base which transformed the nation and elected our first black president [is] now disengaged. . . If this was September, I would hit the panic button." Although liberals have criticized the President, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs says that the notion that Obama has taken liberals for granted is "silly." Note to Gibbs: The flip dismissal of liberal concerns will not do much to alleviate existing tensions.

Shame on You, Landrieu: Senator Opposes Public Health Plan

The Associated Press reports that several Democratic Senators might vote against any proposed healthcare measure that contains a public plan. The article quotes Senator Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, who says that she is "not for a government-run, national, taxpayer-subsidized plan, and never will be."

I respect ideological independence, and I acknowledge and am comfortable with the fact that many Democrats are moderates. Landrieu's position, however, does not reflect intellectual consistency or honesty.

Louisiana: Abundance of Poverty, Scarcity of Health Care
Among the 50 states, Louisiana has the second highest percentage of people living in poverty. Landrieu's position on government-sponsored healthcare does not respond to the needs of poor individuals who live in her state.

Because of the high rate of poverty in Louisiana, many residents of the state already receive healthcare through a "government-run, national, taxpayer-subsidized plan" -- which Landrieu supposedly opposes. Despite this taxpayer-sponsored coverage, many of the state's residents remain uninsured and unhealthy.

Louisiana Ranks as Nation's Least Healthy State
According to the 2008 America's Health Rankings survey -- an annual report issued by the United Health Foundation -- Louisiana ranks as the nation's least healthy state. The report considers many individual and community statistics.

As for specific health categories, Louisiana ranks 49 in infant mortality, cancer deaths, and premature deaths; 48 in preventable hospitalizations; 47 in prevalence of obesity; 45 in cardiovascular deaths; and 41 in smoking

27% of Louisianan Residents Enrolled in Medicaid
According to the most recent data reported by the Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals (LDHH), a whopping 27% of state residents are enrolled in Medicaid. Medicaid is a government-run, national, taxpayer-sponsored health plan for indigent people.

21% of Louisiana Adults Are Uninsured
According to the most recent data reported by the LDHH, 21% of Louisiana's non-elderly adults lack health insurance. This exceeds the national rate of 16%.

The high cost of insurance precludes most of the state's uninsured individuals from purchasing coverage. Landrieu's opposition to a public plan is shocking in light of this group's unmet medical needs.

Per Patient Medicare Expenditure Highest in Louisiana
Although Landrieu despises government-run healthcare, per patient Medicare expenditures in Louisiana rank higher than in any other state. Unfortunately, the state also has the lowest quality outcomes for Medicare patients.

Children's Health Insurance Rate Has Increased -- Due to Government-Run Health Insurance
Only one bright spot appears in Louisiana's health statistics. The percentage of uninsured children has fallen dramatically over the last decade. The rate has decreased for one reason alone: the federal government created and expanded participation in SCHIP -- the State Children's Health Insurance Program.

A 10-year analysis of Louisiana's uninsured population by the LDHH makes the following conclusion: "The child uninsured rate decreased 12.9 percentage points from 1998 to 2007. This large reduction in the rate of uninsured children is attributable to the introduction of [Louisiana's SCHIP plan] and its rapid expansion." SCHIP -- which is undeniably a government-run, taxpayer sponsored health plan -- has provided necessary medical services to tens of thousands of children in the State of Louisiana.

It is also worth noting that, while Landrieu was not a Senator in 1997 when Congress enacted SCHIP, when the program came up for reauthorization in 2007, she voted in favor of the legislation. Bush vetoed this measure and a second one that Congress passed. In 2009, however, Congress again passed legislation to extend and expand SCHIP. Landrieu voted for that measure, which Obama signed into law.

What Is Going On With Landrieu?
Landrieu is clearly playing politics. She is taking a position that is ultimately unhelpful for many people in her state because Louisiana conservatives (many of whom apparently vote against interest) could cause her to lose her job if she votes for a public plan. The "reading" public, however, should not allow Landrieu to place her career above the indigent residents of her state without exposing the terms of her gamble. Consider this as notice.

Hypocrisy Alert: Protesting "Big Government" While Using "Socialized" Transportation and Medicine

Representative Kevin Brady (R-Tex) wrote a letter to the DC Metro system complaining about what he describes as less than a "basic level of transit":

These individuals came all the way from Southeast Texas to protest the excessive spending and growing government intrusion by the 111th Congress and the new Obama administration. . . .These participants, whose tax dollars were used to create and maintain this public transit system, were frustrated and disappointed that our nation’s capital did not make a great effort to simply provide a basic level of transit for them.

Oh, boo hoo. Rapid transit is a wonderful service "up here" in Northern cities. But this isn't really the hotbed of Tea Party activity challenging government programs that improve society -- rather than those which start unnecessary wars.

Hypocrisy Alert: Protesting "Big Government" While Using "Socialized" Subway Transportation and Medicine
Brady also laments the fact that elderly marchers -- including veterans -- had to take taxis. But isn't this better than using socialized subway transportation? As David Kurtz at TPM observes, the taxi users were simply relying on "free market solutions." I guess the personal isn't political after all.

Also, why are elderly people who are (very likely) on Medicare and TRICARE (government healthcare for seniors and veterans) protesting government-sponsored healthcare while demanding more services from a government-run transportation system? Perhaps they oppose big government unless they need big government.

Finally, Brady voted against the stimulus, which included money to make improvements to the DC Metro system. The irony, contradictions and hypocrisy continue!

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."

Anti-Government Fervor Among Healthcare Protestors Is Riddled With Contradictions

In an earlier blog post, I questioned the sudden concern about the perils of "big government" among healthcare reform protestors. Many of these individuals undoubtedly failed to contest (and probably supported) governmental excess that led to "senseless wars, government regulation of uteruses, police intrusion into the bedrooms of consenting same-sex adults, and the maddening state and federal governmental effort to make sure that Terry Schiavo remained in a persistent vegetative state." Today, an article distributed by the Associated Press confirms my original understanding of the protestors' opposition to big government: It is selective and contradictory.

Big Government for You, But Not for Me!
Although the Associated Press article does not analyze the irony of the protestors' positions, it nonetheless presents a factual basis for concluding that many of the activists suffer from selective opposition to big government. Consider the following passage:

Nancy Snyder says she kept quiet when abortion was legalized and prayer in schools was eliminated. Not this time.

"They did it for prayer, they did it for abortion, and they're not going to do it for our health care," the 70-year-old nurse from Philipsburg, Pa., said Wednesday as she and her husband Robert, 74, a retired coal miner, waited in a long, snaking line for Democratic Sen. Arlen Specter's town hall meeting.

Apparently, Snyder believes that it is perfectly fine for the government to dictate the reproductive choices of women and to force kids to pray in school. Expanding the availability of healthcare is outlandish. All of these situations, however, involve big government.

Big Government for Me, But Not for You
Ironically, many of the people whom the article portrays as fuming over "socialized medicine" probably have state-sponsored health plans. Accordingly, if the protestors actually applied their anti-government rhetoric to their own lives, many of them would lose health insurance coverage or would have to spend a fortune to obtain it.

One protestor is a public school teacher, who undoubtedly has a public-sponsored health plan and pension (along with his salary). In other words, the individual is living on the taxation of others. Another person has a 74-year old husband, who is likely on Medicare -- the largest government-sponsored health plan. Even if these individuals have "private" plans provided by their employers, the public still pays for roughly 1/3 of the costs of these plans through favorable tax treatment (for further discussion, see here and here).

According to recent a recent Gallup report, only 13.3 percent of Americans with health insurance purchase their policies on the open market. The remaining individuals are enrolled in either in state-sponsored plans or in employer plans that are heavily subsidized by state and federal tax policy. The notion of a free market in health insurance is a myth for the vast majority of Americans.

Big Government for Bush, But Not for Obama
It also seems like many of the protestors have conveniently repressed their memories of George Bush's expansion of government, including his role in the expensive bailouts of the financial sectors and of the auto industry. Bush and Paulson proposed the bailout and ushered it through Congress. Bush also structured a $17.4 billion bailout for the auto industry, claiming authority to do so pursuant to the financial sector legislation. Despite this very recent history, the protestors apparently blame Obama exclusively:

For many opponents the health care overhaul amounts to the final straw. After seeing Obama bail out banks and car dealers, push a major energy bill and pass a $787 billion economic stimulus package that hasn't driven down unemployment,
overhauling the $2.5 trillion U.S. health care system is a step too far.

Certainly, the fact that Bush accelerated public spending and cut taxes simultaneously should have concerned these proud stewards of the national treasury, but only Obama's spending has caused them to mobilize. The protestors are acting, to use Ron Paul's language, like "born-again fiscal conservatives." If Obama is wrong for spending more during an economic downturn, Bush was wrong for spending more while intentionally taking in less.

Final Comment: The Associated Press should be ashamed of this article's complete lack of "analysis."

PS: After I wrote this article, Republican Senator Grassley (Iowa) became an even bigger hypocrite on the issue of healthcare reform. See: Today's Shameless Hypocrite Award Winner: Senator Charles Grassley.

Sarah Palin Is Latest Heartless Person to Attack Protestors

Sarah Palin has told healthcare reform protestors to use their words. Palin joins a chorus of individuals who believe that the recent protests at public meetings held to discuss healthcare reform were, ironically, unhealthy. Writing on her Facebook page, Palin says:

There are many disturbing details in the current bill that Washington is trying to rush through Congress, but we must stick to a discussion of the issues and not get sidetracked by tactics that can be accused of leading to intimidation or harassment. Such tactics diminish our nation's civil discourse which we need now more than ever because the fine print in this outrageous health care proposal must be understood clearly and not get lost in conscientious voters' passion to want to make elected officials hear what we are saying. Let’s not give the proponents of nationalized health care any reason to criticize us (boldface added).

In an earlier blog post, I criticized liberal and conservative protestors. Despite distributing my criticism across the ideological spectrum, a hearty discussion is taking place in the discussion section of that post which portrays the essay as a mean-spirited attack on conservatives. Palin, however, seems to be speaking exclusively to her constituents ("us"), who are overwhelmingly conservatives. I wonder whether this means she is an evil elitist attacking the people who are simply trying to speak. Tune in!

Recently, Palin herself provoked criticism after she said that Obama's proposals would allow the government to kill her developmentally disabled son. The claim is patently false.

Finally, for those of you who will likely reject this essay, on the grounds that I undoubtedly suffer from "Palin Derangement Syndrome" and only listen to her now because she has criticized conservatives [insert filler], take a look at these links:

Is Liberal Sexism Against Palin OK? No!

Washington Post Proclaims That "Sarah Palin Picks Ferraro as Favorite Vice President." Shocking -- Yes. Truthful -- No.

Palin's Neiman Marcus Run a Drop in the Bucket: 2008 Is Most Expensive Election Ever

CNN and CBS Release Highly Misleading Polls Regarding VP Debate

Palin: A Roveian Strategy?

Madness from the Left and Right: Obama's Birth and Palin's Divorce

The Democrats' Palin Strategy: A Bridge to Nowhere!

Like a Moose Caught in the Headlights? How Will Sarah Palin Do Tonight?

November Surprise Regarding Troopergate: Palin Did Not Break Any Laws, Alaska Board Finds.

By my count, I have defended Palin more than many conservative commentators! Also, I wrote most of these essays during the Presidential campaign, when every self-respecting kneejerk liberal was in "promote Obama" mode. So, let go of the conspiracy theories and let's all address each others' arguments.

OK, Kids: Protests = Good; Disrupting Meetings, Punching People, Hurling Racial Slurs, Etc. = Bad

Just added: Sarah Palin Is Latest Heartless Person to Attack Protestors.

I want to have a heart-to-heart conversation with the Left and the Right. Last week was truly one of those moments when shocking behavior by others made me feel like I was stuck in some horrific episode of the Twilight Zone (the ones where some unsuspecting person suddenly loses the ability to communicate with others).

The spooky feeling resulted from the headline story of the week: The, um, passionate behavior occurring at various healthcare reform forums. I blogged about the highly unsatisfactory nature of the public discourse even before the Tampa/St.Louis outbursts occurred. The same day, the Pew Center released a study demonstrating that 70% of the public believed that media coverage was poor or fair. That night, "the people" took to the streets in Tampa and St. Louis.

The Messy Details
The news from Tampa, Florida (my home state) emerged first. Apparently, opponents of the Democrats' healthcare proposals, many of whom are conservative, stormed a townhall meeting conducted by Representative Kathy Castor, a Democrat. As soon as she started speaking, protestors shouted and made it impossible for others to hear what she was saying.

Responding to my harsh criticism of the circus, several of my loyal conservative readers defended the protestors on free speech grounds. Today, the immensely popular and very open-minded Glenn Reynolds (of Instapundit), mockingly reminded commentators that "protest" was a form of patriotism, a line often employed by anti-war activists to justify their protests against charges of treason and demands that they "support the troops."

News from St. Louis arrived later (much of it after I had analyzed the Tampa mayhem). Apparently, Democratic operatives and Democratic voters sparked much of the madness in St. Louis. In response to the anticipated presence of conservative protestors, liberals mobilized and brought out their supporters. During the meltdown, a black conservative was assaulted. Liberal media have not really covered this aspect of the event, although though they have portrayed conservative protestors as racists. And while many conservatives have used the racial assault in St. Louis to stigmatize liberals, a lot of these same commentators very recently decried "race cards" and vigorously dismissed allegations of racism by blacks themselves as nonsense and as continued victimology.

Hello, Kids. Today's Lesson Is. . . .
Since people are acting like kids and because I feel that meeting them on their own terms is probably more helpful, I will break things down in mental-age appropriate language for both liberals and conservatives.

1. Racism = Wrong. Racism is a pathology. Nevertheless, our society has denied its existence or the harms it causes even during slavery and Jim Crow (see Racial Exhaustion). But current events demonstrate that it persists.

Being liberal does not excuse a person of his or her racism, nor does it mean that other liberals should refrain from criticizing the person. In addition, being conservative does not mean that it is fine only to acknowledge or see racism when it impacts conservative people of color. If liberal racism exists (which it does), then so does conservative racism. Condemn it on all sides and assist, rather than impede, causes that seek to rid the country of racism and racial inequality.

2. Protest = Good; Disruptive Behavior and Violence = Bad. The First Amendment guarantees the right of individuals to engage in speech and to come together for expressive purposes. And while this includes a right to engage in boisterous speech, the constitutional guarantee of free speech is not absolute. Instead, so long as the government is not attempting to alter the content of speech, it can nonetheless regulate the "time, manner and place" of the speech (that takes place in a public forum).

Making governmental venues or other public spaces available for a townhall discussion is not the same thing as permitting groups to hold marches, parades, rallies, carnivals or other expressive activities. The townhall discussion requires a back-and-forth between participants. This can only occur when participants listen while others are speaking. This is not what the conservative protestors did in Tampa. This is not what liberals did in St. Louis. Both sides were wrong.

Commentators who attempt to justify the protestors' disruptive behavior by calling it "speech" are missing the point. Yes -- the protestors were engaging in speech, but their speech silenced the expression of others. The Constitution does not give us a private right to silence participants in a public political debate.

I have always been consistent on this issue. In fact, unlike many liberal bloggers, I never condemned the "tea party" movement. Granted, I found the groups' protests peculiar because their sudden concern for fiscal soundness seemed unprincipled -- or as Ron Paul would say, it made them look like "born-again fiscal conservatives." Nevertheless, the tea party protestors have the right to organize, mobilize, protest and criticize fiscal policy -- even in a way that is unprincipled -- until they collapse from exhaustion. The protests, however, were self-contained; they took place in locations where they did not silence the speech of others; the groups did not seem to break any laws with their activities. Rather than flooding local government and shouting down proceedings, they staged their rallies in appropriate venues and brought public attention to their cause. That is a model of advocacy. I do not agree with the advocacy, but the form in which it occurred is sound! The healthcare protestors used a different and unacceptable model.

Final Thoughts
I invite people to toss aside partisanship for a moment and actually begin the process of having a real discussion about healthcare reform. Due to lack of space, I will not delve deeply into the substantive issues of healthcare reform, but I will isolate two things that bother me on the Left and the Right.

First, when conservatives condemn the Democratic plans as "socialism," they are making a "nonargument." First, the assertion is purely descriptive -- and, given the definition of socialism espoused by people like, say, Karl Marx, the description is grossly inapplicable to this setting. Even if the liberal reform amounted to a "socialist" policy, this alone does not tell us whether the plan is desirable or not. Conservatives could replace the word socialist with "crazy," "zany," "liberal," "bad," "harmful," or "nasty," but these adjectives do not provide details. Instead, they simply seek to stigmatize the plans.

Second, to my fellow liberals, I share the opinion of those of you who want a public plan option (this is not the same as a "single payer" regime that eliminates private insurance altogether). The public plan option would likely reduce costs. I have not seen any reliable literature that disputes this. In fact, much of the conservative opposition to new public sponsorship assumes that a public plan would reduce costs and make private insurance nonviable.

Although I believe that conservatives are overstating their position, there are other implications of a public plan that warrant debate. In particular, the mix of services under a public plan seems highly relevant to these talks, but liberals do not want to engage this issue. Part of the cost reduction under a public plan would result from the government using its power to negotiate cheaper care from providers. Cost reductions will also occur if uninsured people begin to receive preventive care and, rather than obtaining expensive emergency room treatment of their illnesses, visit a primary care physician who can attend to their health needs.

Some of the cost reductions, however, could (and perhaps should) involve a changed mix in covered services. Congress could diminish this tradeoff potentially if it reduced its enormous subsidization of employer-sponsored (supposedly "private") plans. Nevertheless, the mix of services subject to governmental financing seems like a legitimate subject for these debates. Liberals have run from this issue, but evading an issue by running is as unhelpful as evading it by yelling. Liberals have also neglected to get input from nurses, who could play a much larger (and less expensive) role in the delivery of health care.

Here's hoping for a better week.

Media Gets Low Grade for Coverage of Healthcare Debates

Earlier today, I wrote an essay that criticizes the media's coverage of healthcare reform. Apparently, I am not alone in my criticism. According to a new study released by the Pew Center, 7 in 10 Americans rank the media coverage of healthcare talks as either poor (40%) or fair (32%). Well, now they can become defensive, rather than substantive.

One point: The "debate" has been pretty bad too.

Healthcare "Debates": Ugly, Non-Substantive

During the Democratic primaries and after the presidential election, many commentators argued that President Obama would do a much better job advancing healthcare reform than Hillary Clinton, whose efforts failed miserably in the early 1990s. Many political observers argued that Obama's graceful style and "unifying" approach would guarantee favorable results. Today, with all of the emotional divisions over this issue, that discussion seems very dated.

While Clinton certainly made missteps during her healthcare initiative, I have always believed that if Obama had an easier time, this would happen because nearly two decades after Clinton's failure, the political landscape has changed significantly. Healthcare costs have continued to rise sharply, which has created the incentive for change among businesses and voters. Also, even though Clinton "failed," government sponsored healthcare expanded, in the form of new programs like SCHIP and the expansion of Medicare. Furthermore, even John McCain included healthcare reform in his political platform. Accordingly, passage of some type of reform seemed inevitable.

Nevertheless, I have also doubted much of the hoopla surrounding the supposed "new left" movement in the United States -- purportedly demonstrated by the election of Obama. On many important social issues, the country remains solidly centrist or center-right. Apparently, voters are divided on healthcare. Although many voters want reform, they are have different ideas about how these changes should look.

In Search of Real Debate
The public desperately needs real debate over these issues. The mainstream media, adhering to its obsession with sensationalism -- has offered utterly weak coverage. For some time now, most of the media coverage has primarily monitored public opinion and discord, rather than discussing the implications of various proposals. As usual, theatrics supplant substance.

I believe (and it seems rather obvious) that many members of the corporate media do not want a public plan option (and certainly not a single-payer provision). Their inability to get beyond this disagreement and engage in actual reporting on this subject has been tremendously disappointing. During the Democratic primaries, members of the media bashed Clinton as a policy wonk -- someone with immense knowledge and intellect but who was boring and uninspiring. Being an academic, I actually find facts, knowledge and intelligence inspiring, but apparently, that makes me an oddball.

The healthcare debates could really use a generous dose of facts and analysis. Instead, the nation's leaders are playing games with each other, and many people are engaging in loud and theatrical protests. I certainly believe in freedom of expression, but passionately expressing an idea does not guarantee that the idea has merit or that it contributes to a debate. It is time for real discussion.

Is Ted Kennedy "Bitter" Towards Hillary Clinton?

The New York Daily News dropped a doosey today, reporting that Clinton declined an offer to chair the Senate Appropriations Committee in order to pursue the position of Secretary of State (which she will reportedly receive tomorrow). The same article reports that Ted Kennedy declined a request by some Democrats that he create a Senate subcommittee to deal with health care legislation; under the "deal," Clinton could have chaired the subcommittee. The New York Daily News article says that Kennedy rejected this arrangement due to lingering anger over Clinton's presidential campaign.

When I first read the article, I viewed Kennedy's "behavior" as a throwback to the way he reacted after losing the Democratic primaries to Carter in 1980. After Carter won, instead of helping to unify the Democrats as Clinton did, Kennedy remained as bitter as a gun-toting, Bible-clinging, homo-/xenophobic disempowered American. But then sanity overtook me, and I conducted some research on the issue and discovered that the New York Daily News article likely presents a distorted view concerning an alleged Kennedy grudge. Well, the New York Daily News is a tabloid. Why let facts or nuance get in the way of reporting?

Apparently, even though Kennedy refused to create a subcommittee on health care for Clinton to lead, he offered her a position on his new Senate health care task force, which has three working groups. Clinton would have headed the section studying insurance coverage. The Los Angeles Times, Newsday, an official press release from Senator Tom Harkin (who also has an offer to sit on the task force), and many other sources (found with a simple Google News search) confirm that Kennedy picked Clinton.

Also, his refusal to form the subcommittee to deal with the health care legislation could result, as the Associated Press reports, from his own desire to monopolize the issue (at least in the Senate), rather than from a political grudge with Clinton. As Chair of the Senate Committee on Healthcare, Kennedy probably intends to conduct Senate hearings on health-care issues himself. Having Clinton leading a subcommittee on healthcare could diminish his own voice on the subject.

Furthermore, because Obama has appointed Daschle to head the Department of Health and Human Services and to serve as a Healthcare Czar, any role in Congress on this issue would probably have been too limiting for Clinton. Her expertise on healthcare dwarfs Daschle's, but Daschle and Kennedy endorsed Obama at critical moments during the primaries. As payment, they get to play leading roles on healthcare reform. Clinton did not land too lightly, however; as "compensation" for her general-election support of Obama, Clinton will become Secretary of State.

Wall Street Journal Has Acute Democrat-Phobia: Opinion Piece Warns of Possible "Liberal Supermajority"

The possibility of a Democratic sweep, including a filibuster-proof Senate, makes the Wall Street Journal's editorial board afraid -- very afraid. In a recent opinion piece, the newspaper examines changes that it believes a Democratic "supermajority" would implement. I have listed some of the policies below, mixing in my own snide editorial comments!



(1) Before getting detailed, the essay warns that a Democratic sweep "would mark the restoration of the activist government that fell out of public favor in the 1970s."

Reaction: Which part of the 1960s should we fear? The enactment of the Voting

Rights Act, legislation banning race, sex, and national origin discrimination in

employment, or laws prohibiting racial discrimination in places of public

accommodation?

(2) Medicare for all. The article points out that sneaky Democrats responded to the political defeat of "Hillarycare" by breaking it down into component parts, like Schip (State Children's Health Insurance Program). A liberal supermajority would "lay the final flagstones on the path to government-run health insurance from cradle to grave."

Reaction: "Government-run" health insurance? This is a mischaracterization of

Obama's health plan. Also, what chutzpah -- criticizing health care for indigent

kids!

(3) Green Revolution

Reaction: Personally, I do not fear having a healthy environment or stronger

efforts to make that a reality. What about you?

(4) "Free Speech and Voting Rights" (yes -- a quote!). Democrats would legislate "same-day" voter registration. "Acorn and the 'community organizer' left" support this. Also, DC residents would have representation in Congress. Plus felons would have the opportunity to vote.

Reaction: I am not sure pure conservatives would oppose enlarging "free speech

and voting rights." These rights strike at the heart of egalitarian democratic

participation. But the WSJ fears political participation by certain classes (felons, DC Democrats, who are largely black), not all. Also, several states -- red, blue, and purple -- now have same-day registration.

(5) "Special-interest potpourri" (my favorite heading in the essay). This section includes a laundry-list of feared policies, such as "intrusive regulation" of the Internet, the trial of "terrorists" in federal courts, watering down of "No Child Left Behind" standards, and the burdensome formation of new rights of action "sprinkled throughout legislation."

Reaction: Isn't No Child Left Behind watered-down by definition because it is

an unfunded mandate? Also, the lack of explicit "rights of actions" in some

federal legislation backfired on Republicans when the Supreme Court struck down

the injunction in the Ohio voter case. I really appreciate irony. Finally, the purpose of a criminal trial is to prosecute "suspected" terrorists (or other types of accused criminals). The assumption of guilt is probably the most loathsome and dangerous aspect of Bush's military tribunals. With all of the talk about "patriotism" we usually hear from conservatives, their willingness to abandon core American principles stated in the Bill of Rights sends a terribly mixed message. Conservative libertarians, however, value those rights. Ron Paul, for example, opposes the Patriot Act.