Daily Caller Hit Piece on Media Matters Misses Target (UPDATED)

The conservative blog Daily Caller has published a "hit piece" on Media Matters.  Media Matters is a liberal watchdog that seeks to uncover inaccurate reporting in the media -- especially conservative media such as Fox News.

Tucker Carlson and Vince Coglianese wrote the hit piece. Relying exclusively on anonymous sources, they make several allegations about Media Matters and David Brock, its founder. Carlson and Coglianese portray Brock as someone who suffers from extreme paranoia, which leads to "erratic" behavior.  In particular, they allege that at times he has feared that someone wants to attack him.

Carlson and Coglianese also allege that Media Matters "coordinates" its activities with the White House.  To support this allegation, they claim that Media Matters staff participate in weekly media calls with White House staff, interact with persons from the White House (including former staffer Anita Dunn), and meet regularly with individuals from other liberal organizations to strategize about the framing of public policy. Allegedly, unnamed White House staff attend these policy meetings.

Assuming all of the allegations in the article are true, Carlson and Coglianese fail to do one important thing. They do not rebut or even attempt to rebut any of the reporting that Media Matters has made regarding inaccurate or misleading comments in conservative media. While Carlson and Coglianese obviously want to discredit Media Matters, their article falls far short of this goal. Instead, they only succeed in portraying themselves as disgruntled conservatives who lack the capacity for substantive engagement with Media Matters's reporting. This sensationalized article does more to discredit Carlson and Coglianese than Media Matters.

Finally, Carlson and Coglianese's portrayal of seemingly ominous meetings between staff from Media Matters  and the White House is laughable. That White House officials meet with members of nonprofits and supportive constituents is a longstanding feature of our republican form of government. It is not the sign of nefarious liberal plot. Elected officials meet with and represent the people of the United States -- including liberal organizations like Media Matters.  Lacing this part of the story with the word "coordinating" does not add anything of substance.

Even if these meetings could compromise the objectivity of Media Matters, Carlson and Coglianese have not demonstrated that they have. Instead, they have chosen to write a salacious story, rather than intelligent analysis.  Everyone knows that Media Matters is a liberal watchdog. Carlson and Coglianese, however, have not shown that it is an inaccurate watchdog.

UPDATE: Conservatives have responded to my arguments (on Twitter) with two points. Both arguments fail.

First, conservatives argue that Media Matters is a news website and as such, it should not meet with the White House to discuss policy matters and design the framing of public policy proposals. This response fails because Media Matters is not a news website. Instead, it analyzes conservative news reports for inaccurate commentary. The "about us" section of the Media Matters website clearly describes the organization's activities:

Media Matters for America is a Web-based, not-for-profit, 501(c)(3) progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media.

Launched in May 2004, Media Matters for America put in place, for the first time, the means to systematically monitor a cross section of print, broadcast, cable, radio, and Internet media outlets for conservative misinformation — news or commentary that is not accurate, reliable, or credible and that forwards the conservative agenda — every day, in real time.

Using the website mediamatters.org as the principal vehicle for disseminating research and information, Media Matters posts rapid-response items as well as longer research and analytic reports documenting conservative misinformation throughout the media. Additionally, Media Matters works daily to notify activists, journalists, pundits, and the general public about instances of misinformation, providing them with the resources to rebut false claims and to take direct action against offending media institutions.

Policy groups often meet with presidents and other elected officials. This is not inappropriate. As representatives of voters, presidents routinely meet with constituents and supporters to discuss policy matters. For example, President George Bush met with the NRA-ILA (the lobbying arm of the National Rifle Association) and other conservative organizations during his tenure.

Second, conservatives have endeavored to find meaning in the allegations the article makes regarding David Brock. While these claims might provide salacious enjoyment for some readers, they do not discredit the analysis that Media Matters compiles regarding inaccurate reporting by conservative media.

Susan G. Komen Foundation Marches Into Rightwing Camp

The Susan G. Komen For the Cure Foundation has cut funding to Planned Parenthood. Komen previously provided grants to fund breast cancer screenings by Planned Parenthood medical professionals.

Recently, however, Komen hired an anti-choice Vice President, Karen Handel, who was recently an unsuccessful candidate in the Georgia gubernatorial election. Handel actively campaigned on an anti-choice and anti-Planned Parenthood platform. She also received an endorsement from Sarah Palin.

Komen defends its decision by citing to a "new" rule it adopted that denies funding to groups under Congressional "investigation." Last year, House Republicans launched a partisan investigation to determine whether Congress should continue funding Planned Parenthood's non-abortion family planning and health services. That investigation, however, has not proceeded, due to opposition by Democrats. Because of this context, Komen's new rule seems plainly designed to target and justify the defunding of Planned Parenthood.  Furthermore, because liberals tend to support women's health issues and abortion rights, this decision could prove harmful to Komen.

Planned Parenthood has released a statement that criticizes Komen.  Planned Parenthood has also started a campaign to raise funds in order to continue providing breast cancer screenings for its indigent patients. Komen's decision is not based on good healthcare practices. Instead, it rests on partisan political ideology. Shame.

Robert Gibbs Tries to Walk Away From His Criticism of Liberals

Robert Gibbs' harsh criticism of liberals has drawn fire from progressive bloggers. Now, he has attempted to clean up his comments. Gibbs released a point of clarification to Washington Post blogger Greg Sargent. Gibbs says that his comments were "inartful":

I watch too much cable, I admit. Day after day it gets frustrating. Yesterday I watched as someone called legislation to prevent teacher layoffs a bailout -- but I know that's not a view held by many, nor were the views I was frustrated about.

So what I may have said inartfully, let me say this way -- since coming to office in January 2009, this White House and Congress have worked tirelessly to put our country back on the right path. Most importantly, to dig our way out of a huge recession and build an economy that makes America more competitive and our middle class more secure. Some are frustrated that the change we want hasn't come fast enough for many Americans. That we all understand. . . .

In November, America will get to choose between going back to the failed policies that got us into this mess, or moving forward with the policies that are leading us out.
So we should all, me included, stop fighting each other and arguing about our differences on certain policies, and instead work together to make sure everyone knows what is at stake because we've come too far to turn back now.

My Take
Gibbs' effort to clean up his comments will probably fail for two reasons. First, this is not the first time that senior White House officials have blasted liberals unfairly. Emanuel infamously called liberals "fucking retards." David Axelrod said that liberal critics of President Obama's failure to lobby for the public option were "insane." And Gibbs himself said that Howard Dean acted "irrationally" when he urged Congress to reject the moderate healthcare compromise originally proposed by a small group of moderate Senators.

Second, while the White House has had harsh words for liberals, it has not equally condemned moderates who have blocked or watered down favorable legislation. The White House seems to target liberals for criticism, while racing to make agreements with the center. Perhaps this is what the White House feels it needs to do to get Obama reelected. But this does not make liberal criticism of the White House unprincipled or unwarranted.

White House Criticizes Liberals. . . Again

The White House is voicing anger with liberal criticism. . .again. During an interview with The Hill, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs blasted liberal critics, whom he says fail to appreciate President Obama's accomplishments:

"I hear these people saying he’s like George Bush. Those people ought to be drug tested. . . . I mean, it’s crazy."

The press secretary dismissed the "professional left" in terms very similar to those used by their opponents on the ideological right, saying, "They will be satisfied when we have Canadian healthcare and we’ve eliminated the Pentagon. That’s not reality."
Of those who complain that Obama caved to centrists on issues such as healthcare reform, Gibbs said: "They wouldn’t be satisfied if Dennis Kucinich was president."

My Take
Obama has faced unfair criticism from the left and the right. To the extent that he and his staff are angered by unfair critiques, they have the right to vent.

Gibbs' comments, however, suggest that liberals have no basis to criticize Obama whatsoever. That is a preposterous notion. Not only has he fallen short in some policy areas (anti-terrorism, gay rights, etc.), but it is also the role of progressive social movements to push political leaders beyond their comfort zone.

Change does not come from politicians alone. Instead, engaged social movements press political officials for change. Furthermore, dissent is an essential ingredient for change. Gibbs' comments do not acknowledge this fact.

Note: I have blogged on this subject previously. See, e.g., Criticizing President Obama Is Pragmatic

UPDATE: Other liberals have responded very passionately to Gibbs.

AMERICAblog News: Gibbs: People who are upset with Obama don't live in real America, didn't help get Obama elected

Robert Gibbs attacks the fringe losers of the Left - Glenn Greenwald - Salon.com

Apparently, Nate Silver No Longer Believes Liberals Are "Batshit Crazy"

Ben Smith's essay which asserts that passage of the healthcare bill will vindicate Rahm Emanuel's dismissal of liberals has triggered responses from numerous bloggers (see mine here).  Nate Silver's reaction interests me because he once described liberals as "batshit crazy" who challenged White House weakness on progressive aspects of the bill.

Now, Silver describes liberal protest as a rational reaction to President Obama's constituents who want him to fight passionately for their interests (I made the same point a long time ago).  Silver still agrees that the Senate bill is better than "nothing," but he has retreated from his heavy-handed comments regarding progressive protest:

Personally, I think the reason for the increase in support is mostly this: the Democratic leadership, and particularly President Obama, are now fighting for this bill tooth and nail. They didn't necessarily have to do this; they could have thrown in the towel, passed off some bipartisan crap that didn't do much to help the uninsured, and called it a day. That's what Rahm Emanuel wanted to do, as Chris Bowers points out. But that isn't what Obama did: instead, he's gone all-in on the thing, potentially staking his Presidency on the outcome. Liberals like the idea of being the scrappy underdog -- being the fighter -- and Obama, after a strangely aloof performance on the health care bill throughout 2009, has been fighting the good fight. . . .

The lesson for the White House, I think, is that liberals (like any other voters) react as much to tone as to substance. A bill might not meet every objective on the liberal checklist, but so long as you're Fighting Like Hell for it, liberals are usually going to be willing to fight for you too.

My Take
Liberals, whom Silver previously described as "batshit crazy," always wanted more "fight" from the White House -- although I believe that Sliver overstates the role of this fight in shifting liberal support. Liberals have also compromised now that all other options have expired. That is an integral part of politics and social movement activity.

Ben Smith Argues That Liberal Support For Health Bill Vindicates Rahm Emanuel

Apparently, Rahm Emanuel's media buddies could not resist the urge to write another love piece. Today, Ben Smith of Politico asserts that a new poll which shows that liberal voters support healthcare reform vindicates Emanuel. Emanuel has argued that the White House should not make concessions to liberals because they would come around eventually.

Smith's article, however, is too simplistic as an analysis of contemporary politics. First, the passage of reform legislation cannot vindicate Emanuel since, as numerous articles report, he favored a much slimmer bill and feared that a large one would not pass. If anything, the passage of this bill -- though smaller than what many liberals wanted -- proves Emanuel wrong.  Emanuel argued that comprehensive reform would not pass; he -- not the liberals -- was wrong.

Second, Smith misunderstands the debate among liberals regarding healthcare reform. Liberals have always favored reform, and many liberals always favored the Senate bill. Many liberals, however, were angry that the White House did not do enough to support more progressive and sensible measures like the public plan option. The public plan represented the most rational argument regarding cost containment (other than a single-payer system). Although President Obama advocated it during the campaign, he never forcefully backed it as president. This angered liberals, causing some people to argue that Congress should abandon the Senate bill and start the process again.

But after the "kill" option evaporated, liberals -- contrary to the White House line -- accepted compromise. The fact that liberals now support this good yet flawed bill actually proves Emanuel and the White House wrong.  White House staff circulated a narrative that portrayed liberals as unforgiving and unwavering ideologues (also known as "fucking retards"). Obama, on the other hand, was portrayed as the smart pragmatist.  The mainstream narrative about liberals was clearly inaccurate.

Finally, Smith makes the mistake of equating one battle with an entire war. The struggle over healthcare reform has emboldened many liberals.  Labor unions have threatened moderate Democrats with primary challenges.  MoveOn has promised the same. Even Obama has shown some needed spunk and told on-the-fence Democrats that he would not raise money for them if they voted against the bill. Liberals have always wanted a fight. The fact that they accept this mixed victory does not vindicate Rahm Emanuel in any way, shape or form. It simply shows that liberals can cut their losses and move forward when appropriate. It does not mean, however, that they have become a doormat for the White House or Rahm Emanuel. Perhaps, Smith's analysis is merely wishful thinking.

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.

The Mount Vernon Manifesto: More Rightwing Hysteria

Yesterday, the economist Thomas Sowell echoed the rallying cry of Tea Party participants in an essay warning readers that "politicians" (i.e., Democrats) are robbing them of their freedom. Sowell, however, fails to identity any actual rights that politicians have stolen from the public.

Today, a group of conservatives has released a document called the "Mount Vernon Manifesto," which similarly asserts that the federal government is robbing people of individual liberty. The document, however, fails to specify any particular right that the government has infringed.

The document also contends that the federal government has exceeded the scope of its constitutionally delegated powers. The document, however, does not provide even one example of an unconstitutional exercise of federal authority.

Vague Allegations of Rights Infringement
Rather than providing specific examples of rights infringement, the Mount Vernon Manifesto argues in very vague and unsubstantiated terms that the government has improperly constrained individual liberty. This flaw makes the document read like a paranoid conspiracy theory, rather than a credible statement about the status of constitutional rights.

The document borrows from the Declaration of Independence as a blueprint for its analysis of liberty. In so doing, the document purportedly "asserts self-evident truths based on the laws of nature and nature’s God. It defends life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It traces authority to the consent of the governed. It recognizes man’s self-interest but also his capacity for virtue."

Neither the Declaration of Independence nor the conservative manifesto, however, supplies a concrete listing of specific liberty interests. Similarly, the Mount Vernon statement does not demonstrate how the government has denied such rights.

The Mount Vernon Manifesto Is Not Even Inherently "Conservative"
Although the Mount Vernon Manifesto repeatedly claims to advance conservative values, the document is not even inherently conservative. The substance of "self-evident" liberty interests will depend upon the perspective of the beholder.

Liberals believe that "liberty" and the "pursuit of happiness" extend to sexual freedom, autonomy over reproductive choices, and even to imposing affirmative obligations on the government to make liberty meaningfully accessible to all citizens. Social conservatives, however, do not believe in these rights. In other words, the same (ambiguous) text in the Constitution and Declaration of Independence can support a host of different values -- liberal or conservative.

This observation applies with equal force to the portion of the document that advocates limited government. Since the ratification of the Constitution, all commentators have agreed that the document limits the power of the federal government. The precise boundaries of those limits, however, have been subject to vigorous debate throughout American history.

Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson did not see eye to eye on this subject. Both intellectual camps that they represented made reasonable appeals to history, tradition, and to the text of the Constitution to support their arguments.

The Mount Vernon Manifesto, however, treats history in completely uncomplicated terms. It assumes -- incorrectly, that the Framers viewed the boundaries of federal power and individual rights in unified terms, but that modern politicians have corrupted the system of government. This is a deep and fatal inaccuracy.

Final Take
The Mount Vernon Manifesto is clearly a political document. It is not designed to approach U.S. history and the Constitution in the nuanced terms that an honest portrayal requires. The failure of the documents' authors to specify concrete governmental invasions of liberty or excessive and unconstitutional use of governmental power renders the document meaningless as a serious statement on the status of government and history. Apparently, the authors are in pursuit of other agendas.

UPDATE
At least one commentator agrees with my conclusion that the document is "meaningless" as a serious document regarding government policies and liberty. Daniel Larison, writing for the American Conservative Magazine, observes that:

The statement itself is so anodyne, unobjectionable and filled with stock phrases that no one to the right of Olympia Snowe could have that much to say against it. The statement was written specifically to be as inclusive, vague and undemanding as possible. It was done this way so that every movement faction could accept it without complaint. It reads like remedial instruction on civics from the Claremont Institute, and the actual politics of most of the signatories have about as much to do with “the Founding” as does Claremont’s distorted understanding of the same. If I thought it worth the time, I might pick apart some confused ideas about “the conservatism of the Declaration,” but as far as conventional movement conservative rhetoric goes this is unremarkable stuff.

There is no danger here of an unreasonable “purity test.” The standard being set by this statement is so low that anyone in the conservative movement could claim to agree with everything in the document and still merrily go about his way violating both the letter and the spirit of the principles to which he supposedly just subscribed. The statement is so generic and so divorced from any contemporary policy debate that everyone from Marc Thiessen to Ron Paul could endorse it without the endorsement having any effect on their current policy views. Any consensus this broad and unrelated to actual policy is pretty meaningless (emphasis added).

UPDATE II
Jesse Walker of Reason.com argues that:

[T]he manifesto's rhetoric. . .is so all-inclusive and platitudinous as to be practically meaningless. Even the plank on foreign policy is carefully phrased so that both hawks and doves can embrace it: The text supports "advancing freedom and opposing tyranny in the world" while adding that we should "prudently" consider "what we can and should do to that end," a resolution that depending on your concept of prudence could entail anything from cutting a few dictators' share of the foreign aid budget to invading China (emphasis added).

The Dubious Benefits of Obama's Political Compromises

President Obama continues to "reach out" to conservatives and moderates. The benefits of this approach, however, are dubious at best.

Ben Nelson
Obama, for example, secured support for healthcare reform legislation from Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska by giving his state millions of dollars in Medicaid assistance. Although Nelson finally overcame his opposition to patients in insurance exchanges receiving abortion servies, Obama's outreach did not create a new partnership between the two. Instead, Nelson has announced that he will join Republicans to filibuster the nomination of Craig Becker to sit on the National Labor Relations Board.

Republicans oppose Becker's nomination solely because he is pro-labor. They have not, by contrast, opposed pro-business nominees. Instead, the opposition is purely ideological. Nelson's move will probably kill the nomination.

Joe Lieberman
After he was elected, President Obama tried to smooth things out with Senator Joe Lieberman. Many Democrats wanted to deprive Lieberman of his seniority because he endorsed and openly campaigned for John McCain during the 2008 presidential election. Despite the wishes of many Democrats, Obama stepped in to make peace and told Senate Democrats not to punish Lieberman.

Lieberman, however, recently opposed Obama's healthcare proposals. Consequently, President Obama, in a controversial move, ordered Harry Reid to drop the public plan and Medicare buy-in options from the pending legislation.

Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe
President Obama has also struggled to define pieces of his legislative agenda, including the stimulus package and healthcare reform, around the political leanings of Susan Colins and Olympia Snowe. Neither of the two Senators from Maine, however, support his healthcare agenda. Furthermore, the stimulus package would have passed without the support of Collins and Snowe, but Obama made unnecessary concessions to obtain their votes.

Republicans Generally
Most recently, Obama has tried to warm up to Republicans. He debated House Republicans at a recent retreat, and he has offered to meet with Republicans to discuss bipartisanship regarding healthcare reform -- which seems doomed after the election of Republican Scott Brown as a Senator from Massachusetts. Republicans, however, have either resisted the idea or accepted it with major caveats.

Comprising With Moderates and Conservatives, Criticizing Liberals
Although Obama continues to reach out to and to make compromises with moderates, members of his administration have harshly criticized liberals. For example, responding to progressive criticism regarding healthcare reform, senior members of Obama's staff called liberals "irrational" and "insane." Rahm Emanuel has also stated that liberal critics of moderate and conservative Democrats are "fucking retards." The White House has clearly decided to isolate its liberal critics.

Final Take
While the Obama administration criticizes its base of support, it continues to chase down the approval of moderates and conservatives. If the latter approach paid off politically, then perhaps it would make sense. But to date, the benefits of this approach are dubious at best.

NYT's Adam Nagourney Peddles New White House Attacks on Progressives

Adam Nagourney has written an article that purports to analyze ideological divisions in the Democratic Party. But the "article," which reads more like an op-ed, narrowly and incorrectly frames Democratic Party divisions in the same flawed terms as the White House has done: Obama, the pragmatist, is dueling with unrealistic and impractical leftist ideologues.

Nagourney repeatedly portrays Obama's progressive critics as political "outsiders," which supposedly makes them naive about politics and intolerant of compromise:

It is not just that the left wing of the party thinks that its centrists hold too much sway and are too quick to cave when faced with pressure from the right. It is also that this White House, stocked as it is with insiders, people whose view of politics is shaped by the compromises inherent in legislating, is confronting a liberal base made up largely of outsiders to the lawmaking process who are asking why they should accept politics as usual (boldface added).

Nagourney's portrayal of Obama's critics, however, is highly simplistic and deceptive. The growing list of progressives who have criticized Obama includes veteran lawmakers such as John Conyers, Maxine Waters, Russ Feingold, and Louise M. Slaughter. And while some of the more passionate critiques have come from independent journalists and writers, who are not professional politicians, that does not make these individuals ignorant of the political process or unreceptive to compromise. Instead, it simply demonstrates that they are either more liberal or freer to speak honestly, without worrying about maintaining access to the White House -- something Nagourney must consider when he writes his own articles.

Nagourney, however, chooses to rest his entire article on a simplistic dichotomy. To Nagourney, Obama is a results-oriented pragmatist, while his critics, especially Howard Dean, are ideologues:

As much as Mr. Obama presented himself as an outsider during his campaign, a lesson of this battle is that this is a president who would rather work within the system than seek to upend it. He is not the ideologue ready to stage a symbolic fight that could end in defeat; he is a former senator comfortable in dealing with the arcane rules of the Senate and prepared to accept compromise in search of a larger goal. For the most part, Democrats on Capitol Hill have stuck with him.

By contrast, Mr. Dean, the former Democratic Party chairman who has long had strained relations with this administration, said the White House was slow to fight and quick to make concessions — particularly on creating a public insurance plan — and demanded that Democrats kill the Senate version of the health care bill.

To build upon this theme, Nagourney uncritically quotes Senior White House adviser David Axelrod:

"The president wasn’t after a Pyrrhic victory — he wasn’t into symbolism. . . .The president is after solving a problem that has bedeviled a country and countless families for generations."

Earlier this month, Axelrod called liberal opponents of the Senate bill "insane."

Last week, I wrote an essay that criticizes the Obama-as-pragmatist rhetoric, which has flourished in response to liberal critiques of the Senate healthcare bill. Nagourney cannot resist employing this flawed script. The pragmatism rhetoric rests on a false understanding of political change. Historically, liberal change has been incremental. It has involved compromise. And it has involved dealing with setbacks from successful countermovements. But liberal change has never occurred in the absence of open and vocal criticism of politicians from progressives. Participants in abolition, suffrage, the Civil Rights Movement, feminism and GLBT rights have all employed criticism (as well as compromise) to effectuate change.

The White House and Nagourney, however, continue to approach politics from an ahistorical perspective. Broad social change has only resulted from and can only occur with political pressure. Indeed, even the passage of the watered-down Senate bill occurred as a result of decades of activism on the issue of healthcare reform and from the political activism that secured Obama's election victory and Democratic majorities in Congress. The White House and Nagourney, however, portray the healthcare victory exclusively as the product of pragmatic politicians making deals.

Nagourney also accepts the White House's belief that liberal opposition will be irrelevant in November 2010. According to Nagourney, if progressives could not persuade one Senate Democrat to vote against the healthcare bill, then they cannot impact midterm elections. This is a simplistic understanding of politics from someone who believes he is educating his audience about the complexity of politics. Politics involves short-term defeats and victories. The passage of the Senate bill does not guarantee that the Democrats will not be vulnerable in 2010 (or 2012) to forces on the left or right. Senators undoubtedly supported the legislation for numerous reasons (party unity, etc). Their interests, however, do not determine the outcome of elections. Voters do.

Final Take: Nagourney's article falls far short from useful political analysis. Instead, it sounds like White House talking points designed to marginalize progressive critics.

Update: NYT's writer Ross Douthat continues the Obama-as-pragmatist rhetoric. His opinion essay, however, is far more intelligent and complicated than Nagourney's piece. Douthat considers the downsides of pragmatism and cutting deals, including the reality that: "sometimes what gets done isn’t worth doing. The assumption that a compromised victory is better than no victory at all can produce phony achievements — like last week’s 'global agreement' on climate change — and bloated, ugly legislation" (boldface added). I concur.

See also:

Criticizing President Obama Is Pragmatic

Rahm Emanuel Tells Liberals To Kiss His Arse

Liberals Battle White House Over Healthcare Reform

White House Shows Its True Colors on Healthcare Reform

Irrational Robert Gibbs Says Howard Dean Is Irrational

Salon's Glenn Greenwald Says: Blame Obama, Rather Than Lieberman

Why Is Obama Still Protecting Lieberman?

House Democrat Louise M. Slaughter: Scrap Senate Healthcare Bill

Obama Falsely Claims that the Senate Healthcare Bill Matches His Campaign Promises

Ezra Klein's "Pink=Blue=Colors" Logic Regarding Healthcare Reform

Rahm Emanuel Tells Liberals To Kiss His Arse

According to the Wall Street Journal, Rahm Emanuel has "shrugged off" liberal opposition to the Senate healthcare bill. Although one liberal senator (Bernie Sanders of Vermont) says he will not vote for the measure, Emanuel says "[t]here are no liberals left to get."

Emanuel's comment indicates that the White House will not lobby for the reinsertion of favored liberal provisions like the public plan and Medicare buy-in. According to many published reports, Emanuel himself instructed Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to remove the provisions from the bill under the guise of appeasing conservative Democrat Joe Lieberman. But as several commentators have argued, this position undoubtedly reflects the will of the White House, which could certainly explain why President Obama has remained stealth during most of the debates over healthcare reform.

Rahm's statement also declares "victory" against the political Left. He feels that he does not need to negotiate with liberals in Congress because they will not make the critical "mistake" of failing to support the healthcare bill. But Emanuel is forgetting one important thing about recent political events. Liberal members of Congress did not elect President Obama. Instead, liberal voters, along with a coalition of Independents, secured Obama's victory.

By reducing the struggle over healthcare reform to an internal Congressional battle, Emanuel ignores the very activists whose work was instrumental in Obama's election victory. If this behavior continues, Emanuel will probably have to dust off his resume in 2012. Arrogance is very ugly. Good luck!

For the record: I never trusted Emanel or Obama. I still do not.

Update: People have emailed me asking "what do you mean you did not trust Obama?" Here is what I mean.

I did not believe that hype that portrayed Obama as transcending politics. Instead, I viewed him as a politician. Rather than doing things calculated to achieve a liberal transformation of society, Obama would and has done things calculated to achieve his own reelection -- which means doing some things for his base, striving for the middle, and giving monetary prizes to corporate interests.

In the absence of sustained social movement and voter pressure, even liberal-leaning presidents will aim for the center or right. Obama is not different. So, I did not join the liberal mania that portrayed him as a folk hero of leftwing politics. I have written on this many times. See, e.g., here and here. That is what I meant about not trusting Obama.

I Wrote This In October 2008. . . .

On October 21, 2008, when Dissenting Justice was still getting started as a blog, I wrote the following essay reprinted below. I am republishing it because it seems highly relevant today. FYI: The article received many hits at the time and remains very popular among readers.

________________________________________________________________

2008 Is Not 1964: Why Liberal Mania and Conservative Panic Are Nothing But Melodrama

Keeping with the theme of this blog, I have decided to critique the dramatic commentary coming from liberal and conservative circles about the implications of a likely expanded Democratic majority in Congress and probable victory for Barack Obama. Democrats are getting ready to dance in the streets, while Republicans have assumed a "Red Scare" posture. On the sidelines, I watch with alternating amusement and astonishment. Both sides exaggerate the significance of a Democratic victory - particularly when they analogize it to the period of massive legal and social change in the 1960s.

Republicans Channel Paul Revere: "The Liberals Are Coming, the Liberals Are Coming!"
The editors of the Wall Street Journal set off a rallying cry last week, in an opinion piece predicting gloom and doom from a "liberal supermajority." The WSJ predicts that a Democratic Executive and Congress, including a filibuster-proof Senate, "would mark the restoration of the activist government that fell out of public favor in the 1970s." I guess it would also replace the activist government that fell out of public favor in 2008. I wrote about this opinion piece in a previous blog entry.

On the campaign trail, McCain and Palin have already insinuated that Obama's economic policy resembles European socialism. Now, as the San Francisco Chronicle reports, McCain's campaign has decided to raise the specter of full Democratic control of the national government as dangerous. Despite the fact that the Republicans have controlled Congress, the White House, and the Supreme Court for many years, they will shamelessly market the virtues of divided control. So, expect to hear more soundbites about the perils of the Obama-Pelosi-Reed triumvirate.

Democrats: We Believe We Can Fly!
The Democrats, on the other hand, are salivating from the implications of a clean sweep. For some time now, liberal commentators have gleefully predicted the demise of the Republicans and the establishment of a liberal utopia. Earlier this year, New York Times columnist Frank Rich wrote a eulogy, masquerading as political commentary, remarking on the death of the Republican Party. Rich opined that "the G.O.P. looks more like a nostalgic relic than a national political party in contemporary America. A cultural sea change has passed it by." Rich predicts that a "national rout in 2008 just may be that Republican Party’s last stand." Obama supporter Jonathan Alter of Newsweek has written a similar, but more guarded, column called "We're Heading Left Once Again," in which he asserts that Obama "would have a fighting chance to move the country to a new place, or at least one we haven't seen for a while. Leftward ho!" Finally, Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen has a "hot from the press" article entitled "Party Like It's 1964." Cohen argues that Bush and McCain have "constructed a mean, grumpy, exclusive, narrow-minded and altogether retrograde Republican Party." Accordingly, the GOP has earned its fate: life in the "political wilderness."

My Take: Both Sides Are Just Wrong
Republicans lament the advent of U.S. socialism, while Democrats prepare to build a new "Great Society." From both of these notions, I respectfully dissent. Despite all of the passionate predictions of an impending liberal takeover of the country, both sides overstate the significance of a Democratic presidential victory, even one connected to an expanded liberal majority in Congress. Here's why.

The Country Remains Right of Center
Despite the apparent resurrection of the Democratic Party as a contender for the White House, the Country remains right of center. And if you compare aspects of American social policy with other liberal democracies, the country's political core looks solidly conservative. If the Democrats want to get re-elected -- which is likely their paramount goal as politicians -- then they will have to operate within the constraints of that political reality. Any sweeping liberal change will receive stiff resistance. Certainly, any costly liberal policy proposal will receive even louder opposition. Bush and the Republicans engaged in excess, and they are paying for it. Smart Democrats like Obama will avoid this at all costs -- not by building a coalition for radical change -- but by aiming for the middle.

When Clinton was elected in 1992, my liberal colleagues were similarly exuberant about the possibilities of a liberal shakeup of the country, although with Obama, liberals have become absolutely ecstatic (translation: unbounded from political reality). But the nasty reaction to Hillary Clinton's vanguard effort to create a national health care system and the backlash -- led primarily by Colin Powell -- against Bill Clinton for attempting to lift the ban on gays and lesbians in the military -- gave people an early wakeup call. Merely electing a Democrat does not mean that the electorate has fundamentally changed with respect to political ideology.

Many commentators have also neglected to consider that Obama actually trailed or tied McCain in most polls until Lehman Bros. collapsed. When several other financial institutions imploded, Obama reclaimed the lead, which has only sharpened. This change in his fortune surely does not mean that the country has become suddenly left or center-left. Instead, non- or less-partisan voters are simply doing what they have done throughout American political history: They are blaming the incumbent and the incumbent party for poor economic conditions. On top of this historical skepticism towards incumbents during bad times, Obama has successfully blamed Bush for the financial crisis -- even though this is a major distortion (as FactCheck.Org documents). The economy -- not a new liberal electorate-- has placed Obama on top of the polls.

An Election Alone Is not a Social Movement
Obama's rallies are filled with thousands of supporters. Scores of new voters have registered as Democrats, many due to the appeal of both Democratic candidates during the primaries. Obama has formed a coalition of liberal/leftist elite whites, blacks (who were already the most faithful Democrats), women, young people, and some moderates. Several commentators have argued that these changes will lead to the implementation of much more liberal social policy -- just like in the 1960s. This is not necessarily true.

Many of the changes that occurred during the 1960s happened because of very sustained, sometimes even violent, political activism and unrest. Although Clinton was right in saying it took a president to sign the Civil Rights Act of 1964, she should have also cited her earlier work, because a very large "village" helped create the political conditions that ensured passage of the law.

The implementation of the 1960s legislation that prohibited discrimination in areas of employment, voting, the usage of federal money (the denial of which would have crippled segregated schools), and access to places of public accommodation, resulted from decades of social movement activity. It also resulted from a remarkable alignment of domestic leftist interests with the national government's need to project a good image into the international community. The U.S. justified its Cold War policing of foreign countries on the need to fight totalitarianism and fascism. News of racial terrorism and discrimination against U.S. blacks, which the Soviet Union rapidly distributed to other countries, disrupted the attainment of this latter goal.

Comparing the 1960s with the current situation does not reveal many parallels. Granted, young people are passionate and fed up with the current government (just like most other people). But many participants in the current Democratic resurgence have united in order to secure the defeat of Bush (Cheney-Rumsfeld-McCain-Rice-Powell*), rather than to accomplish a broad set of liberal social policies. During the primaries, the media joyfully reported Obama's victories in a string of red states, where he often secured the vast majority of white votes. But it remains unclear what beyond electing Obama and ending the war unifies white Democrats in Wyoming or Utah with blacks in Brooklyn, and gays and lesbians in San Francisco. These groups view the Democrats as a healthy alternative to the Republicans. But outside of ejecting the Republicans from leadership, wanting change is merely a political slogan, not a political movement. Desiring something new does not transform what already exists.

Obama Is Not Wildly Liberal Compared with Other Democrats
During the Democratic primaries, Obama supporters, especially blogs such as HuffingtonPost, Daily Kos, and Mother Jones, vehemently worked to distinguish Obama and Clinton ideologically. Clinton was just "more of the same." She was, gasp, almost a Republican. Her war vote, Obama said, showed a lack of judgment. To his supporters, it proved that she was a shameless hawk. Even when commentators like Paul Krugman said her health plan was more progressive than Obama's, his supporters said that she was lying anyway and would not work to achieve it. Some of them (and the Obama team as well) said that it would "force" people to participate, which sounded a lot like the Republican rejection of "Hillarycare."

Once the primaries ended and polls showed that many of Clinton's disgruntled supporters intended to vote for McCain or neither candidate, their rhetoric turned around completely. Instead of being a Republican in Democratic clothing, Clinton held the exact same position as Obama on all social issues. Accordingly, PUMAs would betray their party and preferred candidate's life work if they voted for McCain. So is Clinton now wildly liberal like Obama or is Obama less progressive than his supporters claimed? Probably a little of both.

Obama is a great politician and lawyer, which has led to much of his success. He knows how to embrace policies specifically enough to show commitment, but always leave room for nuancing his stance later. A lot of Democrats in the past, like Gore and Kerry, could not do this effectively. Bill Clinton, on the other hand, could. Part of it comes from being a lawyer and knowing that "is" can have multiple meanings.

Outside of abortion, where Obama has a very consistent record of progressive voting, it is unclear what other liberal area he is as far to the left as his supporters portrayed him during the primaries. For example, he is against the war, but so are most Americans. He believes in multilateral foreign relations, but this is hardly a novel idea for the U.S. He campaigned on universal health care, but so did all of the other Democrats, and it is unclear whether the electorate will support this policy under a time of economic hardship. He took the position that the Supreme Court should have authorized the death penalty in rape cases -- even though the history of applying capital punishment for sexual assault follows a horribly racist pattern. And he supported the Supreme Court's recent Second Amendment ruling, which found an individual right to bear arms sufficient enough to defeat Washington, DC's ban on handguns. Obama, like Bush and McCain, does not support same-sex marriage, but endorses local efforts to make it a reality. It appears that Obama can chase the center, middle, and right -- just like Bill Clinton, the original triangulator.

Furthermore, despite Obama's opposition to the war and his view that supporting it shows a lack of judgment, Obama selected Biden -- who voted for the war -- as a running mate. Despite his slamming of Clinton for supporting NAFTA, Biden actually voted for the legislation, which Obama himself says he will not seek to repeal. Biden also voted for the bankruptcy reform legislation, which Obama derided as showing a lack of compassion to consumers. Also, while Democrats blame (wrongfully) the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act for the current financial crisis, Obama has called upon Clinton's former Secretary of Treasury Ron Rubin for economic advice. Rubin supported Gramm-Leach-Bliley, and he is currently a Director of Citicorp, one of the largest beneficiaries of the legislation.

Finally, Obama recently accepted Colin Powell's endorsement, despite Powell having delivered one of the most compelling arguments to the United Nations for the war. Powell's dissertation on the war utilized forged materials, which purported to document Iraq's effort to obtain uranium from Niger. Powell also orchestrated political opposition to Clinton's effort to lift the ban on gays and lesbians in the armed forces, which gave us the terrible "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" compromise. Nevertheless, Powell's endorsement has received almost universal praise from Democrats. Obama's negotiation and acceptance of the endorsement is brilliant from a political perspective. But it does not fit with the narrative of a leftist politician who will fundamentally change the U.S and who hates all things related to Bush and his war.

Only White Old Heterosexual Males Are Predicting the Demise of White Old Heterosexual Male Power
Finally, I think it is worth mentioning that only white old heterosexual males have predicted the demise of white old heterosexual male power. Joining Rich, Alter, Cohen and McCain, Alec Baldwin recently asserted that Obama's election would neutralize racism and kill the civil rights movement. Most of the commentators and politicians I have seen who believe that November will usher in a leftist regime that will grip America and slay old white power are part of that demographic themselves, regardless of political affiliation. Why is that? Perhaps because women, people of color, the poor, and gays and lesbians know from personal experience that meaningful progressive change does not happen overnight. Perhaps it is because we know that creating equal opportunity still requires a lot of work. Maybe it is because having just witnessed a plenty of crude sexism, racism, and mocking of poor uneducated voters from so-called liberals during this election cycle, we cannot imagine a Democratic victory causing substantial progressive change. I hope our cynicism goes too far, but for now, I am sticking with history and my own instincts. Accordingly -- Republicans should: "Chill out!" You are down, but not done. And Democrats should: "Put down the pom poms and start doing the hard work of building effective social movement activity, which actually involves some very honest and open political debate and self-criticism.

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.

To Michael Moore: Absolutely Not!

Michael Moore's wife has convinced him that he was too harsh in his criticism of President Obama's Nobel Peace Prize. Moore has decided to share his born-again moment with other liberals by telling us to "Get off Obama's back." Well, here's my message to Moore: Absolutely not!

I remain highly skeptical of the Nobel Peace Prize committee's decision. My skepticism stems from Obama's continuation of policies that leftists -- including Moore -- criticized loudly, passionately, and relentlessly for the last 8 years. These policies include wars, troop surges, handouts to corporations, rendition, indefinite detention, denial of habeas corpus, military tribunals, state secrets, and a lack of positive action on GLBT rights. Moore's essay does not mention these things -- neither do the liberal defenses that have emerged which condemn progressives who question the prize committee's decision. If liberals truly hated these practices, then they should apply the same criticism to Obama. Otherwise, their criticism looks disingenuous and partisan.

Moore's essay also sets forth some very low standards for progressive politics. Why does Obama deserve the Nobel Peace Prize? He is "sane," "smart," wants world "peace," and was "elected." Add good looks to the list, and these traits could describe the winner of a Miss America pageant!

I believe that progressives can praise Obama when he is correct, criticize him when he is wrong, and act strategically at all times. The abolitionists did the same thing to Lincoln (whom Obama has symbolically emulated) and other moderate Republicans. The Civil Rights Movement criticized Kennedy. Today, progressives are told to be quiet and praise the establishment. History, however, means a lot more to me than sentimental political commentary.

For most of the last year, my liberal colleagues have told me (and others) to stop criticizing Obama. In a climate like this, I see no reason to heed their call. No progressive movement has accomplished its goals without criticism. Let the cheerleaders cheer and the cynics criticize. There is room for all voices -- and in this area, dissent is seriously underrepresented.

Update: Glenn Greenwald remains consistent on this issue as well, supplementing his prior commentary. See: Accusing Obama critics of "standing with the terrorists.

Vast Rightwing Conspiracy Theorists

Vast rightwing conspiracy theorists have taken over political discourse, and the results are absolutely disturbing. Rather than focusing on substantive matters, policymakers and analysts have expended precious time debunking the latest round of projectile vomiting over some imagined attempt by Obama/Pelosi/Democrats/Liberals/Communists/Socialists/Nazis to end life as "we" know it.

During the earliest part of Obama's presidency, Republicans lacked a coherent voice. They have found this voice, however, by organizing around rightwing conspiracy theories. Consequently, they have created some unity and garnered attention from the public. But they have accomplished these goals by embracing some of the most outlandish and deceitful "theories."

Here are just a few shameful items promoted by vast rightwing conspiracy theorists.

1. Obama is not a "natural-born citizen." The "birthers" are the only group of conspiracy theorists who can compete with the "truthers" (Bush knew about 9/11 before it occurred) in terms of utter creepiness. The birthers inexplicably and stubbornly believe that Obama is not a natural born citizen of the United States and that he does not meet the constitutional requirements for President of the United States.

The birthers' belief is immune to facts but highly accommodating of blatant lies and inaccuracies. For example, birthers recently experienced a collective orgasm after they received "smoking-gun evidence" that Obama was born in Kenya -- rather than the United States. There was a terrible problem with the evidence, however: It was a web-doctored Australian birth certificate created and sent to birthers by a conniving liberal blogger. Despite numerous letdowns and no proof, the birthers continue to spread their conspiracy theory and to search for new believers. They have also managed to garner support and sympathy from Republican politicians.

2. Obama = Socialist. During the presidential campaign, the McCain team floated the notion that Obama is a socialist. Rightwingers jumped on board, perhaps because nothing else was helping to improve McCain's campaign numbers. Since the election, this conspiracy theory has reemerged with great force.

Unfortunately, the socialism conspiracy theorists are just as bankrupt as the birthers. First, the group fails to offer a coherent definition of socialism. As with many economic theories, including capitalism, socialists embrace varying policy positions. Typically, however, socialism involves the advocacy of government and worker ownership of the means of production and centralized planning of output. Rather than proving that Obama is a socialist, current White House policies place Obama strongly within the capitalism camp.

Karl Marx would probably roll his eyes in his grave if he knew that socialism involved dumping a trillion dollars into the United States banking system in order to save global capitalism. In addition, if the banking or automobile bailout makes Obama a socialist, then Bush is a socialist as well because he proposed and lobbied for the passage of TARP and interpreted it as covering auto manufacturers.

Furthermore, if the creation of a public health plan to cover a specific slice of the population that lacks insurance qualifies Obama as a socialist, then he is simply carrying out the socialist policies of his predecessors. Medicare, Medicaid, the Veterans Administration and SCHIP are all public health plans for specific slices of the population. Moreover, because states co-administer Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP, then all 50 states are socialist economies as well. Also, because the GOP has been promising seniors that it will protect Medicare and the VA, then the GOP apparently supports socialism as well.

3. Death Panels. This idea has received a lot of respect from conservatives. The Bloggacuda Sarah Palin initiated this troubling discourse by attacking a provision in the House legislation that authorizes governmental reimbursement of end of life counseling for certain classes of people who hold public-sponsored health plans. The provision, however, only authorizes coverage; it does not mandate the counseling.

Medical groups -- including the American Medical Association -- endorse this type of counseling. Medical providers actually lobbied for the provision. Equating "coverage" of counseling with "mandatory" counseling is irrational and deceptive. Insurance policies list coverage of many procedures. Applying the logic of the death panel theorists, an insurance policy that covered abortion services would actually mandate abortion. But if the same policy covered childbirth services too, it would mandate childbirth and abortion for the same pregnancy! Perverse logic inevitably leads to perverse outcomes.

4. Government Is Taking Over Medicare. Conservatives have exploited Obama's proposed cuts in Medicare costs to scare some seniors into believing that the Democrats want to cut Medicare itself. This argument often gets collapsed into a general assertion that Obama wants to take over Medicare and make decisions on behalf of doctors and patients.

Ironically, this is one conspiracy theory that has some truth to it. The government does have its hands on Medicare. But there is a good explanation: Medicare is a government-run health plan! Despite spewing against the perils of "socialized medicine," Republicans have tried to portray themselves as the guardians of Medicare beneficiaries. These individuals, however, are covered by a public health plan -- which Republicans describe as socialism.

The Medicare conspiracy theories have led to some perverse results. For example, some angry conservative seniors have criticized "public plans," while benefiting from Medicare (the nation's largest public plan). Recently, a senior was violently injured (finger bitten off) while protesting healthcare reform. Although conservatives promoted the story as an example of the evils of socialized medicine/Obamacare, the injured man went to a hospital and received treatment. Ironically, the injured man was insured by Medicare, even though he came out to protest the creation of a public plan.

Furthermore, a recent poll shows that 62% of Republicans believe that the government should "stay out of Medicare," which is factually impossible. Facts and logic, however, are irrelevant to vast rightwing conspiracy theorists. To be fair, however, nutty leftwing conspiracy theorists do not prioritize facts either.

Final Take
This blog used to publish far more essays defending Republicans and criticizing liberals. But now that the Republicans have decided to embrace the partially successful -- yet intellectually bankrupt -- strategy of promoting rightwing conspiracy theories, I have had very little to offer in defense of Republicans. I suspect that if the public continues to shine light on these conspiracy theories and the media decides to tackle matters other than political strife, then the strategy will backfire. So long as these deceitful and factless theories define contemporary conservative discourse, serious analysts will not take conservatives seriously.

Many People Said Hillary Was a "Bitch," But Change Requires Combat!

As I watch the angry right spew distortions regarding healthcare reform, I am reminded of two things from 2008.

First, I remember the battles I had with other liberals who tried unsuccessfully to convince me that Obama's victory signaled a monumental shift in national politics. It has not. And before people accuse me of being too cynical, I love to approach the world with eyes wide open. Sobriety is a good thing.

Second, I remember other liberals saying that Clinton was being "negative" (i.e., a bitch) when she belittled the almost religious embrace of change among many Obama supporters. This article from Huffington Post is a good example. At times, many of them argued that all we needed to do was elect Obama. His gentle style would persuade the electorate to accept his positions. But today, Obama's positions remain unclear on some very important issues, and conservatives, predictably, are in full opposition mode (just as liberals were during the Bush administration).

Since Obama is not inspiring liberals on healthcare reform at the moment (maybe things will change on Wednesday), enjoy the following video footage:

Clinton, Edwards and Obama Talk Healthcare (Clinton does major smackdown starting at 9:04)



Clinton Healthcare Townhall



Clinton on Fighting

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.

Michael Steele Reduced to an Idiot on NPR; Accuses Interviewer of "Trying to Be Cute"

Michael Steele appeared on NPR Thursday in order to promote the highly deceptive and hypocritical GOP Healthcare Bill of Rights for Seniors. Earlier this week, Steele wrote an op-ed for the Washington Post that portrays the Democrats as opponents of Medicare and the Republicans as guardians of the plan. Steele also reiterates Republicans' disapproval of government-run healthcare. Of course, Steele's commentary fails to acknowledge that Medicare (and the Veterans Administration and Medicaid) is a government-run, public health plan. Republicans, however, typically demonize public health plans as "socialized medicine."

Suddenly, Republicans Hate Government-Health Plans -- Except for Medicare
NPR's Steve Inskeep questioned Steele about the Republicans' hypocritical denouncement of government-run health plans and their blatant effort to scare seniors by portraying the Democrats as hostile to Medicare. Steele could not provide a good answer to this line of questioning:

INSKEEP: I'm still having a little trouble with the notion that you're going to write that you're going to protect Medicare, that you're going to preserve this program to make sure that this government-run health care system stays solid in the long term...
Mr. STEELE: Let's get it to run right.
INSKEEP: ...and yet you are opposing, quote, government-run health care.
Mr. STEELE: Exactly. Well, wait a minute. Just because, you know, I want to protect something that's already in place and make it run better and run efficiently for the senior citizens that are in that system does not mean that I want to automatically support, you know, nationalizing or creating a similar system for everybody else in the country who currently isn't on Medicare.

None of the proposals for healthcare reform would "nationalize" healthcare or create a "system for everybody else in the country who currently isn't on Medicare."

Doctors and Patients
Inskeep also challenged the Republican argument that Democrats want to come between patients and their doctors. Steele conceded that private insurance companies already do this. He also conceded that insurance companies are not perfect:

[T]here are issues in the insurance market that we can regulate a little bit better and that we can control better to maximize the benefits to the consumers. That's something that, yeah, we can rightly reform and fix.

At this point, Inskeep pointed out the contradiction in Steele's desire for regulation and the drumbeat of criticism by conservatives who say that Democrats want to invade the private sector. Steele appeared very confused by the reality of his conflicting positions:

INSKEEP: Wait a minute, wait, wait. You would trust the government to look into
[fixing insurance companies]?
Mr. STEELE: No. I'm talking about the - I'm talking about private - I'm talking about...
INSKEEP: Who is...Mr.
STEELE: ...citizens. I'm talking about...
INSKEEP: You said that's something that should be looked into. Who is it that should look into that? Mr.
STEELE: I'm talking about those who - well, who regulates the insurance markets?
INSKEEP: That would be the government, I believe.

Apparently lacking a good response, Steele attacked Inskeep:

Mr. STEELE: Well, and so it - wait a minute, hold up. You know, you're doing a wonderful little dance here and you're trying to be cute, but the reality of this is very simple. I'm not saying the government doesn't have a role to play. I've never said that. The government does have a role to play. The government has a very limited role to play.

Medicare Cuts: Costs or Services?
Republicans have repeatedly argued that Obama's plan to cut costs associated with Medicare would lead to service reductions. After tough questioning by Inskeep, Steele endorsed cost-saving measures himself:

INSKEEP: So you would be in favor of certain Medicare cuts?
Mr. STEELE: Absolutely. You want to maximize the efficiencies of the program. I mean, anyone who's in the program would want you to do that, and certainly those who manage it want you to that.

This is the exact position that Obama has taken. Furthermore, although Republicans constantly accuse Democrats of planning to cut Medicare costs by cutting services to seniors, they fail to acknowledge that John McCain proposed to cut $1.3 trillion from Medicare and Medicaid. Mitt Romney endorsed cuts to Medicare as well. And for the purpose of full disclosure, Obama argued that McCain's proposal would cut services -- which is the same argument that the GOP is now making with respect Obama's plan.

PS: Here is the transcript of Steele's NPR interview.

I have defended Steele in the past, but I will not defend his distortion and hypocrisy.