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

Update: White House Responds to Washington Post's Adoration of Rahm Emanuel

Earlier today, Dissenting Justice examined a series of articles in which Washington Post writers Ezra Klein, Jason Horowitz, and Dana Milbank have lavished praise upon Rahm Emanuel and defended him from his liberal critics. Milbank notoriously argued that other senior White House staff were giving Obama shoddy advice and that Emanuel was the only skilled politician within the group. Horowitz repeated many of Milbank's arguments and portrayed Emanuel as the reasonable -- yet misunderstood and ignored -- member of Obama's staff.

Now, the White House has denied allegations of discord among Obama's senior advisers. According to The Hill, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs dismissed the Washington Post articles. Gibbs said "I don't subscribe to all of it or a lot of [the reports]" and that Emanuel has the full confidence of the President.

Just a Little Note: People Closer to Obama -- Not the Clintons -- Are Calling Liberals "Insane" and "Irrational"

Although President Obama chose a lot of people from the Clinton administration to fill his Cabinet and staff positions, these individuals have not paraded around calling liberals "insane" and "irrational." Before his election, many liberals incorrectly believed that Obama, not Clinton, was a liberal dream-come-true. But during the first epic battle of his presidency, some of his closest allies, including David Axelrod, Robert Gibbs, and Rahm Emanuel, have ridiculed liberals who oppose the pseudo-reform bill that passed in the Senate. Uncritical belief in a politician never pays off.

Liberals Battle White House Over Healthcare Reform

The New York Times has now covered an issue that many liberal bloggers have discussed for several days -- the White House's anger directed toward progressives who oppose the Senate healthcare bill. Several liberals have criticized the bill because it does not include a public plan option or a Medicare buy-in.

Many Democrats -- including President Obama -- previously argued that such measures, particularly the public plan, could provide competition for insurers and reduce the cost of insurance premiums. Indeed, one of the strongest arguments in support of a universal mandate -- which the bill contains -- is that the public plan would reduce costs and make insurance affordable for the uninsured.

Under orders from the White House, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid deleted the public plan and Medicare buy-in from the healthcare bill. This move has angered liberals, who rightfully point out that Obama is betraying promises from his own very recent presidential campaign. Howard Dean, a medical doctor and former head of the DNC, has advocated that Senators "kill" the bill and craft a new measure that offers "real reform." Furthermore, Senator Bernie Sanders, who actually prefers a single-payer system, announced yesterday that he was not committed to voting for the legislation in its present format.

As Dissenting Justice has already reported, White House officials have moved to attack and discredit liberals who oppose the Senate bill. White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, for example, said that Dean was acting irrationally. Also, White House Senior Advisor David Axelrod said that liberal opponents of the Senate bill are "insane." The White House response has only enhanced anger among liberals.

Axelrod conducted a conference call with liberal bloggers on Wednesday, and he faced numerous questions regarding the White House response to progressive opponents of the Senate bill. One blogger asked Axelrod whether the White House would respond with similar anger to Ben Nelson, the moderate Democrat who also announced his opposition to the Senate bill because he wants tougher provisions related the delivery of abortion services. According to The Nation, during the conference call, Axelrod tried to back away from the harshness of his previous comments regarding liberals:

"I'm not professionally qualified to judge insanity and maybe I should have used a different word," Axelrod said, and he noted that "everybody's a little on edge at this point" in the long legislative battle. He also stressed his respect for allies in the "progressive community," but reiterated his view that it would be "wrongheaded" to squash all of health care reform at this point, which is "infinitely better" than the status quo.

My Take: I suspect that liberals will remain disappointed. The White House did not describe Lieberman, Mary Landrieu or Bill Nelson as "insane" or "irrational" when they threatened to vote against or filibuster the proposed legislation. Instead, the White House moved to appease them.

Liberal activists, many of whom worked to elect Obama, feel betrayed by the White House's angry response to their legitimate complaints. Furthermore, this is not the first time liberals have felt let down by the White House. On issues as diverse as gay rights and the Afghanistan War, liberals believe that President Obama has not taken their interests into account or that he has moved away from his campaign promises. These types of feelings do not vanish easily.

See also: Rahm Emanuel Tells Liberals To Kiss His Arse

White House Shows Its True Colors on Healthcare Reform

After appearing asleep at the wheel during much of the healthcare debates, the White House is now passionately advocating passage of a Senate bill that betrays many of President Obama's campaign promises. The bill, if passed, would force people to purchase health insurance. The bill, however, does not contain measures like the public plan option or a Medicare buy-in that Democrats -- including Obama -- have long advocated as ways of increasing competition and making health insurance affordable.

According to several media reports, Rahm Emanuel instructed Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to remove the public option and Medicare buy-in to appease Senator Joe Lieberman, who threatened to filibuster the bill. Lieberman, however, is probably a scapegoat.

Left Critiques of the Senate Bill
Several liberals commentators have condemned the Senate bill. Howard Dean, a medical doctor and a veteran advocate of healthcare reform, wrote an op-ed for the Washington Post which contends that the watered-down bill does not represent "real reform." Dean criticizes the removal of the public plan and Medicare buy-in provisions because he believes that the measures could reduce insurance premiums. Although Dean says he would not vote for the bill in its current format, he believes that Senators can improve it.

Furthermore, while many political commentators have focused on Lieberman's filibuster threats, Bernie Sanders, a Senator from Vermont, has threatened to withhold support for the Senate bill as well. Sanders, who, like Lieberman, is an Independent, says that the removal of the public plan option caused him to oppose the measure.

White House Bashes Liberals
With liberals voicing strong opposition to the measure, the White House, which has often appeared indifferent on the specifics of healthcare reform, has heated up its rhetoric. Yesterday, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said that Dean was not acting rationally by opposing the bill. Today, White House Senior Advisor David Axelrod (who also ran Obama's presidential campaign) said that liberal opponents of the Senate bill are "insane."

Axelrod's argument, like Gibbs' claim, rests on an erroneous conclusion. Both men apparently believe that the public must either accept the watered-down Senate bill or abandon healthcare reform altogether. But liberals seek a viable alternative option -- pursuing more substantive and rational reform than the current bill offers.

My take: Liberals were actually "irrational" and "insane" for believing that the Obama Administration would deliver dramatic liberal reforms. I have made this argument repeatedly on this blog (see here, here, here and here, for example). To date, the administration of "change" has given hundreds billions of dollars to banks and corporate America and is about to offer a boon to insurance companies by mandating individual coverage without increasing competition and reducing costs. The more things change, the more they look the same.

See also: Rahm Emanuel Tells Liberals To Kiss His Arse

Irrational Robert Gibbs Says Howard Dean Is Irrational

For liberals who wondered why President Obama did not pick Howard Dean to serve as the Secretary of Health and Human Services, I think it is safe to conclude (as many of us did at the time) that ideology influenced the decision. Dean, who is a medical doctor, passionately supports the creation of a public plan as a dimension of healthcare reform. President Obama also strongly supported the idea during his presidential campaign.

The White House, however, has only tepidly advocated the public plan since the election. And recently, several media outlets have reported that White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel instructed Harry Reid to drop the public plan and a Medicare buy-in from pending legislation in order to appease Senator Joe Lieberman. Lieberman, who represents the state of Connecticut, has received over a million dollars from the insurance industry in campaign donations. His wife is also an insurance industry lobbyist.

Dean has apparently angered the White House by arguing that Democrats should "kill" the gutted/watered-down bill pending in the Senate and start over again. Dean most recently expressed this position in a very cogent op-ed in the Washington Post.

The White House, however, believes that Dean is behaving irrationally. Responding to questions about Dean's position, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs had very harsh words for the former presidential candidate and DNC Chair:

I don't know what piece of legislation he is reading," said Gibbs.

"I would ask Dr. Dean, how better do you address those who don't have insurance: passing a bill that will cover 30 million who don't currently have it or killing the bill?" he added. "I don't think any rational person would say killing the bill makes a whole lot of sense at this point."

Asked if Dean was acting irrationally, Gibbs replied: "I can't tell what his motives are, to be honest with you."

Gibbs Is Irrational -- Not Dean
Gibbs' argument is irrational because it reduces the public's options to either expanding coverage under the terms of the pending bill or killing this bill. Another option, which Dean advocates, would involve expanding coverage with more sensible legislation.

One of the most irrational aspects of the pending measure involves the individual mandate -- which I have defended repeatedly as within the powers given to Congress by the Constitution. Imposing a mandate without providing a lower-cost alternative to private insurance or without increasing market competition which could reduce the price of private insurance is unsound.

The Democrats have long advocated an individual mandate alongside some type of public plan. Discarding this at the last minute (whether pre-planned or otherwise) is irrational -- not Dean's argument rejecting this unwise decision:

In Washington, when major bills near final passage, an inside-the-Beltway mentality takes hold. Any bill becomes a victory. Clear thinking is thrown out the window for political calculus. In the heat of battle, decisions are being made that set an irreversible course for how future health reform is done. The result is legislation that has been crafted to get votes, not to reform health care.

Dean's argument is abundantly rational.

Really? Gibbs Says Obama Demanded Lieberman Make Compromises Too

Joe Lieberman's opposition to the public plan and Medicare buy-in options led to the removal of these provisions from pending healthcare reform measures. Several news sources have reported that the White House instructed Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to delete the measures in order to appease Lieberman. Facing criticism and questions from liberals regarding President Obama's stance toward Lieberman, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said that the president has demanded that Lieberman make compromises as well:

Asked if Obama is as demanding of Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn), whose opposition to a public option and Medicare buy-in provision led to their removal, as he has been of progressives like Sens. Sherrod Brown (D-OH) and Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), both staunch supporters of a public plan, Gibbs affirmatively replied: "Yes."

"The president was clear with members of the democratic caucus, including independents who caucus with the Democrats," he said.

Several commentators, myself included, view this statement with skepticism. Sam Stein of the Huffington Post, for example, argues that:

[Gibbs'] depiction of the legislative process would likely come as a surprise to liberals both in and outside of office, many of whom point to the various, watered-down versions of reform to which they agreed in hopes of winning Lieberman's vote. One of those liberals, former DNC Chair Howard Dean, said on Tuesday that the leadership had acquiesced too much to win moderate votes and called on the party to "kill the bill."

MY TAKE: Unless Lieberman wanted to privatize Medicare and Medicaid and begin a new war in the Middle East, it is unclear what legislative compromises he has recently made.

Is President Obama's Position on Public Plan Really "Unclear"?

MSNBC reports that President Obama's position on having a "public plan" option compete with private insurance remains unclear two days before his speech on healthcare reform. White House political advisor David Axelrod addressed the issue during an interview with the Associated Press (reported by MSNBC):

The president "believes it should be in the plan, and he expects to be in the plan, and that's our position," Axelrod told The Associated Press.

Asked if that means a public plan has to be in the bill for Obama to sign it, Axelrod responded: "I'm not going to deal in hypotheticals. ... He believes it's important."

The president "believes the public option is a good tool," said Axelrod. "It shouldn't define the whole health care debate, however."

White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs also recently addressed the issue:

[]Gibbs . . . said the president believes a government plan would be "a valuable tool." But Gibbs danced around the question of whether it has to be in the final legislation.

Asked if Obama would sign legislation that lacked a government plan, Gibbs responded: "We're not going to prejudge what the process will be when we sign a bill, which the president expects to do this year."

Asked if Obama would say in his speech that he'd veto a bill without a government plan, Gibbs responded: "Well, I doubt that we're going to get into heavy veto threats on Wednesday."

I am not sure that this position is ambiguous. I think Axelrod and Gibbs are saying that Obama will "support" a public plan option, but that he will sacrifice it in order to pass other components of the legislation.

What Voters Need to Hear About a Public Plan
Voters need an honest discussion of the public plan -- not sensational discourse about socialized medicine and death panels. They need to know how the public plan relates to overall reform objectives (cost savings, expanding access to medicine, etc.). They also need to consider whether and how it will impact the delivery of medicine and whether these changes, if any, are good or bad for patients.

Voters also need to hear realistic opinions regarding the cost of the public option. Although the government certainly would have to fund it initially, the White House says that the plan would become self-sustaining due to premiums paid by policyholders. Republicans actually buttress this assertion when they argue that private insurers cannot compete with a public plan. If the public plan attracts millions of insured individuals from private insurance, then there is a greater chance that premium payments can sustain it.

If the public option does not win support, voters needs to consider whether other aspects of healthcare reform should advance without it. I wonder, for example, whether it is wise or fair to mandate coverage without a viable alternative that reduces the overall cost of health insurance.

What Voters Need to Hear About the Status Quo
If voters are truly worried about fiscal policy, they need to consider the budgetary impact of the status quo. Federal and state governments heavily subsidize "private" employer-sponsored health plans by not treating the benefits to employees as income and allowing employers to deduct contributions as business expenses.

The subsidization of employer health plans, which is the largest of all federal "tax expenditures," substantially reduces tax revenue collected by federal and state governments. The "tax break" is also regressive because a greater percentage of higher income earners have employer-sponsored health plans than low-income workers.

Presently, universal, public plans are available for the elderly (Medicare), the extremely poor (Medicaid), and children in certain households (SCHIP). The government also substantially funds healthcare for workers -- largely those in big companies. I would love to hear a justification for covering or assisting these groups but denying coverage for the 47 million uninsured Americans, who include millions of workers and their children.

THIS IS NOT CHANGE

As much as some political commentators try to dismiss the role of race (and gender) in the 2008 presidential election, the facts say otherwise. Obama won the election on the strength of women, black and Latino voters. McCain won a majority of white votes nationally, as has every other Republican candidate starting with the 1968 election.

During his campaign, Obama tried to downplay and market his race simultaneously. He ran as the "historic" candidate, which subtly referenced his racial background. He also ran as the post-racial candidate, in order to avoid being racialized and dismissed as the "black" candidate. Despite its sometimes subtle presence, race played a very powerful role in Obama's candidacy, message and election victory.

Although Obama relied upon identity politics for his electoral success, the White House is instructing GLBT, Latino and women's groups to kill the identity talk. Several GLBT, Latino and women's civil rights groups have urged the president to pick a candidate who will enhance the Court's diversity. No openly gay or Latino person has ever sat on the Supreme Court. Only two women (both white) have occupied a seat on the Court. And two black men have also served on the Court.

I agree that the candidate should not look like a "token" hire, but there are many persons of color, women, and GLBT lawyers who would make excellent Supreme Court justices. There is absolutely nothing wrong with considering diversity as a factor among evenly talented candidates. Reagan appointed the first woman, and gender played an explicit role in the selection process. Bush I appointed the second black justice only after the first black justice retired. Perhaps that was a mere coincidence.

Despite this history, White House officials sound more like Republicans picking a justice than Democrats. They are falling for the utterly hypocritical, ahistorical, and self-serving conservative rhetoric that condemns the consideration of ideology in the appointments process. Apparently, Alito, Roberts, and Scalia are coincidentally conservative.

Now the White House is doing its best to toss aside the very identity-based movements and politics that won the election for Obama. Press Secretary Robert Gibbs says that: "I don’t think that the lobbying of interest groups will help. . . .I think in many ways lobbying can – and will –be counterproductive." Of course, Gibbs never identifies the dangers the groups create by stating their preference for diversity. Also, it seems odd that Gibbs would disparage "special interest" groups, when labor, civil rights, feminist, pro-choice, anti-war, glbt, and many other "interest groups" are essential components of the Democratic Party. Without their support, neither Obama nor Gibbs would have a job at the White House.

This is not change.

Yup. . . What He Said

Slate writer Christopher Beam has written an essay that persuasively analyzes the GOP effort to construct an "alternative" budget. Beam argues that the Republicans fell for the Democrats' "bait" and rushed to do something that opposition parties rarely do: Produce full budgets of their own even when their proposals have absolutely no chance of mustering votes outside of the opposition party. The reviews of the GOP budget have been almost universally bad.

Recently, I had a conversation with a good friend during which I made very similar arguments as Beam does in his essay. I had initially planned to elaborate my ideas on the subject, but thanks to Beam, I can focus on other things.

Here is a clip from Beam's essay:

Opposition parties typically present an alternative—sometimes more than one—to the administration's budget. But it's by no means required. And for good reason: If the party doesn't control Congress, the budget stands little chance, anyway, making it more important as a rhetorical device than as a fiscal blueprint. And when the process is rhetorical, the minority generally does better when forcing the majority to defend its position rather than explaining its own. . . .

Yet somehow Obama managed to goad the opposition into producing its own full-blown alternative. First it was the DNC, labeling the GOP the "party of 'no.' " Obama joined in at his press conference last Tuesday: "[T]here's an interesting reason why some of these critics haven't put out their own budget. . . .And the reason is because they know that, in fact, the biggest driver of long-term deficits are the huge health care costs that we've got out here that we're going to have to tackle."

The Republicans took the bait, and the results have not been pretty. The first draft—more a statement of principles than a budget—was widely mocked. . . .It also allowed White House press secretary Robert Gibbs to twist the knife on prime time: "The party of 'no' has become the party of no ideas."

The second draft, released Wednesday, is substantive but does little more than reiterate familiar GOP policies. It cuts entitlement spending, extends the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003, simplifies the tax system so people pay either 10 percent or 25 percent on income, and imposes a five-year spending freeze. . . .

Related Reading on Dissenting Justice: GOP Releases Problem-Laden Alternative "Budget" Preview

Rush: The New Bush

It didn't take long for the White House to begin distancing itself from the Democrats' effort to smear the GOP by attacking Rush Limbaugh. Yesterday, Politico.Com -- indisputably an Obama-friendly zone -- published a very persuasive article that links the recent flurry of discourse surrounding Limbaugh to a strategy orchestrated by Democratic Party operatives, including Paul Begala, James Carville and Stanley Greenberg.

White House: Part of the Limbaugh Strategy
The Politico article also concludes that the White House embraced the Limbaugh strategy. Specifically, White House senior adviser David Axelrod, Deputy Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer, and Press Secretary Robert Gibbs agreed to utilize it.

On Sunday, White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel described Limbaugh as "the voice and the intellectual force and energy behind the Republican Party." Tuesday, Gibbs snidely commented on Michael Steele's "apology" to Limbaugh (which Steele only offered after taking the Democrats' bait and condemning Limbaugh during a CNN interview). And yesterday, the Washington Post published a 2-page op-ed by David Plouffe, Obama's presidential campaign manager, which describes Limbaugh as the "Minority Leader."

By the end of the day, however, the White House attempted to distance itself from the flap it helped to create. Gibbs for example, stated at a press conference that his criticism of Limbaugh and other media personalities was "counterproductive."

Why Beat Up Limbaugh?
Limbaugh is not a politician, but he is an influential voice among the rightwing. The GOP needs conservative voters, but it also needs to make its image more moderate in order to win national and state elections. The Democrats want to complicate this task by portraying the party as extremely conservative and "out of touch" with Americans.

During the last eight years, Bush -- and Cheney/Rumsfeld/Rove/Rice -- served as the poster child for Democratic anger. Disappointment with Bush helped Obama and other Democrats win their respective elections. The Democrats realize that creating a political "enemy" can allow them to energize and organize voters to support the party and its candidates.

Why I Do Not Like This Strategy
There's a greater likelihood that Obama will invite me to the White House to "live-blog" his daily activities than there is a chance that Limbaugh and I will agree on any important social issue. I find Limbaugh and his views distasteful, hypocritical, and [insert many other negative adjectives]. But I vehemently disagree with this strategy, despite its potential effectiveness in helping Democrats. Here's why.

Distraction
First, this strategy fuels sensationalism and detracts from very important social issues. Rather than discussing deep social problems, the Democrats are creating a new poster child of evil to bash and demonize. Meanwhile, unemployment is soaring (especially in communities of color), people still lack health care, the stock market is plunging, the country is fighting two costly and deadly wars, and Osama bin Laden is somewhere tiptoeing through the tulips.

Despite this terrible reality, Rush Limbaugh, rather than complex social issues, captivates the Democrats and media. That is absolutely indefensible, and it betrays voters who thought they were getting change, rather than "more of the same."

Party versus Policy
Second, this strategy elevates the Democratic Party, not liberal policy. One could argue (as some readers have) that beating up Limbaugh empowers Democrats, which will lead to the passage of liberal reform. I disagree with this idea. Instead, I believe that beating up Limbaugh empowers Democrats, which will lead to the reelection of Democratic politicians, which will allow them to increase their own political and economic power.

Electing Democrats does not guarantee that liberal reform will take place. This is particularly true when party officials convince voters to treat politics as a battle of personalities rather than a battle over policies and principles. Both sides are guilty of this (think, "slimy neocon rightwinger" versus "looney tree-hugging liberal"). With many liberal voters and social movements fixated upon beating up Republicans and cheering for Democrats, Democratic politicians can avoid implementing true liberal reform and can even get away with continuing practices that progressives condemned during the Bush administration (such as rendition).

Democrats will only "support" enough liberal issues to secure their reelection. If they can improve their party's "brand" and their own election prospects by bashing Limbaugh and other Republicans, then this is an easier and less-expensive route to political success. It is certainly easier than planning and implementing strategies that address entrenched social problems.

Makes the Other Party Look Good
Finally, the Democrats' demonization of Limbaugh risks making the GOP look better in the eyes of voters. At a minimum, it allows Republicans to claim a higher moral ground and, perhaps, to mend their image.

Today, the Washington Post contains an op-ed written by Representative John Boehner, the House Minority Leader. Although I highly doubt that Boehner and I agree on many social issues, I prefer his analysis much more than the anti-Limbaugh lunacy emerging from my own party. The Democrats' foray into dirt allows Boehner to take the moral high ground, which he does when he offers the following sober analysis:

In the first two months of 2009, the Democratic Congress and the White House have spent more money than the combined cost of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars and the response to Hurricane Katrina. After they doled out taxpayer dollars at such a blistering pace, the instinct of many inside the Beltway is to do what's most convenient: desperately try to change the subject by creating straw men -- called "the party of no" -- to rally against.

And in a carefully calculated campaign, operatives and allies of the Obama administration are seeking to divert attention toward radio host Rush Limbaugh, and away from a debate about our alternative solutions on the economy and the irresponsible spending binge they are presiding over. This diversionary tactic will not create a single job or help a single family struggling in today's economic crisis. And that is where our focus should be.

Boehner, a politician, contends that Republicans offer better solutions for today's problems. I disagree with this assertion, but I certainly prefer his analysis over Limbaughmania.