IN THE NAME OF DECENCY, THERE SHOULD BE A BIGGER MARGIN OF VICTORY THIS TIME
I'm sure you know about this:
With the Senate working through an all-night session on a package of changes to the Democrats' sweeping health care legislation, Republicans early Thursday morning identified parliamentary problems with at least two provisions that will require the measure to be sent back to the House for yet another vote, once the Senate adopts it....
According to all reports, this isn't expected to be much of a stumbling block in the House. The vote on the package of fixes was 220-211, and it's assumed that the vote will be about the same this time.
But I think the margin should be much greater.
As I said on Sunday morning -- when the intimidation was just beginning, before the propane line was cut at the house of Congressman Tom Perriello's brother, before a coffin was placed on Congressman Russ Carnahan's lawn, before someone left a voicemail at a Congresswoman Louise Slaughter's office referencing "snipers," before Congressman Bart Stupak received many of his recorded death threats -- the ugliness and threats of violence should embolden more Democrats to vote for reform. It should be the declared reason some of them vote yes.
Why doesn't at least one former fence-sitter who ultimately voted no now stand up and say, "I was undecided, and then I voted against the bill and the package of changes, but now I'm voting yes -- I'm standing with Congressman Stupak and Congresswoman Slaughter and Congressman Perriello and Congressman Carnahan and with all the others who've been attacked and threatened and spat on. I'm taking a stand against the viciousness of the extremists in the opposition"?
In fact, this should be the declared reason every single Democrat votes for the package of fixes this time.
And if there were any honorable Republicans left in Washington, they'd vote for it, too, for the same reason.
Thursday, March 25, 2010
YES, BUT THE OTHER 299,999,700 AMERICANS ARE STILL FREE!
The wingnuttosphere went a bit crazy yesterday because Congressman John Dingell, in a radio interview, said it would take a while for health care legislation to, as he put it, "control the people." Wingnut reaction: Obviously he meant this literally! Obviously real human beings are unable to keep themselves from blurting out the sinister plans they hope to conceal, like the farcical Nazis hiding out in England in the classic Monty Python sketch "The North Minehead Bye-Election":
Himmler: ... I am retired vindow cleaner and pacifist, without doing war crimes (hurriedly corrects himself) tch tch tch, and am glad England win World Cup - Bobby Charlton, Martin Peters - and eating lots of chips and fish and hole in the toads, and Dundee cakes on Piccadilly line. Don't you know old chap I was head of Gestapo for ten years. Five years! No, no, nein, I was not head of Gestapo at all...I make joke....
Truly evil people can't help saying what they really mean! Just like Dingell!
But before we panic, let's go to the transcript and see what Dingell really said. Emphasis mine:
Let me remind you this has been going on for years. We are bringing it to a halt. The harsh fact of the matter is when you're going to pass legislation that will cover 300 American people in different ways it takes a long time to do the necessary administrative steps that have to be taken to put the legislation together to control the people.
And that's exactly what he said:
Well, obviously, if we're going to take "control the people" absolutely literally, we have to take to take "300 American people" -- rather than "300 million American people" -- absolutely literally as well. Clearly Dingell was referring to "control" of only a tiny fraction of the U.S. population. Maybe it's a small group of our millions of prisoners, or a few illegal aliens, or some jailed international terrorists -- but it sure as hell isn't the whole country if he didn't say "million." Clearly, all 299,999,700 million other Americans are still free citizens!
Feel better now, righties?
The wingnuttosphere went a bit crazy yesterday because Congressman John Dingell, in a radio interview, said it would take a while for health care legislation to, as he put it, "control the people." Wingnut reaction: Obviously he meant this literally! Obviously real human beings are unable to keep themselves from blurting out the sinister plans they hope to conceal, like the farcical Nazis hiding out in England in the classic Monty Python sketch "The North Minehead Bye-Election":
Himmler: ... I am retired vindow cleaner and pacifist, without doing war crimes (hurriedly corrects himself) tch tch tch, and am glad England win World Cup - Bobby Charlton, Martin Peters - and eating lots of chips and fish and hole in the toads, and Dundee cakes on Piccadilly line. Don't you know old chap I was head of Gestapo for ten years. Five years! No, no, nein, I was not head of Gestapo at all...I make joke....
Truly evil people can't help saying what they really mean! Just like Dingell!
But before we panic, let's go to the transcript and see what Dingell really said. Emphasis mine:
Let me remind you this has been going on for years. We are bringing it to a halt. The harsh fact of the matter is when you're going to pass legislation that will cover 300 American people in different ways it takes a long time to do the necessary administrative steps that have to be taken to put the legislation together to control the people.
And that's exactly what he said:
Well, obviously, if we're going to take "control the people" absolutely literally, we have to take to take "300 American people" -- rather than "300 million American people" -- absolutely literally as well. Clearly Dingell was referring to "control" of only a tiny fraction of the U.S. population. Maybe it's a small group of our millions of prisoners, or a few illegal aliens, or some jailed international terrorists -- but it sure as hell isn't the whole country if he didn't say "million." Clearly, all 299,999,700 million other Americans are still free citizens!
Feel better now, righties?
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
PAJAMAS MEDIA BLOGGER: THERE REALLY OUGHT TO BE MORE DEATH THREATS AGAINST DEMOCRATS
Politico reports:
House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer ... said more than 10 House Democrats have reported incidents of threats or other forms of harassment about their support of the highly divisive health insurance overhaul vote. Hoyer emphasized that he didn't have a specific number of threats and that was just an estimate.
In response to this, Pajamas Media blogger Stephen "Vodakapundit" Green writes,
What that last line tells you is, this Politico report is totally bereft of any actual facts. Generally, those are things I like to find at least one or two of in a news report, but let's set that aside.
Green may like to find facts of that kind, but not enough, obviously, to read the rest of the story, which notes that Democrats held a closed-door meeting with representatives of the FBI and the Capitol Police -- not something that I imagine usually happens when nothing is really going on -- and also points out that fuel lines were cut outside the home of Congressman Tom Perrinello's brother after his address was mistaken gives as that of the congressman on a right-wing blog. Not factual enough for Green, I guess.
But here's Green's conclusion:
The important part is this: If this abominable, unconstitutional, usurperous, injurious, unsustainable and ruinous new health care law has a mere ten legislatures afraid for their safety, then this country might already be too far gone to save itself.
Translation: fellow right-wingers, you're not terrorizing Democrats enough. What's wrong with you? If you were men and not mice, you'd be threatening even more of them, dammit.
When exactly did we cross this line? When was it decided that, in our system, criminal intimidation is just a vigorous form of hardball? Were you consulted on this rewriting of the rules of our political life? I sure wasn't.
Politico reports:
House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer ... said more than 10 House Democrats have reported incidents of threats or other forms of harassment about their support of the highly divisive health insurance overhaul vote. Hoyer emphasized that he didn't have a specific number of threats and that was just an estimate.
In response to this, Pajamas Media blogger Stephen "Vodakapundit" Green writes,
What that last line tells you is, this Politico report is totally bereft of any actual facts. Generally, those are things I like to find at least one or two of in a news report, but let's set that aside.
Green may like to find facts of that kind, but not enough, obviously, to read the rest of the story, which notes that Democrats held a closed-door meeting with representatives of the FBI and the Capitol Police -- not something that I imagine usually happens when nothing is really going on -- and also points out that fuel lines were cut outside the home of Congressman Tom Perrinello's brother after his address was mistaken gives as that of the congressman on a right-wing blog. Not factual enough for Green, I guess.
But here's Green's conclusion:
The important part is this: If this abominable, unconstitutional, usurperous, injurious, unsustainable and ruinous new health care law has a mere ten legislatures afraid for their safety, then this country might already be too far gone to save itself.
Translation: fellow right-wingers, you're not terrorizing Democrats enough. What's wrong with you? If you were men and not mice, you'd be threatening even more of them, dammit.
When exactly did we cross this line? When was it decided that, in our system, criminal intimidation is just a vigorous form of hardball? Were you consulted on this rewriting of the rules of our political life? I sure wasn't.
GLENN BECK, PINUP BOY?
Aimai has some thoughtful things to say about the new Quinnipiac poll, which says, among other things, that more women than men consider themselves members of the tea party movement. I'll just add a bit of speculation based on the focus-group interviews Greenberg Quinlan Rogers conducted with movement conservatives last fall. This is from the GQR report (PDF):
Several of the women particularly talked about becoming a sort of truth police, spending a great deal of their personal time and energy watching FOX to get the real stories, then turning to CNN, MSNBC, and the networks to document their failure to cover the "real truth." It was unclear what they did with this information once gathered, other than share it with others within this group....
Glenn Beck ... received nothing short of adulation from these voters, particularly the women. They believe he embodies the best of conservative media -- determination to unearth the stories the liberal media tries to bury, love of country, and refusal to be intimidated, even as the liberal media unleashes waves of attacks on his past and his credibility.
... [There] was a common fear among the women for his personal safety, a belief that his willingness to stand up to powerful liberal interests was putting his life, as well as the lives of those working with him, in danger....
How much of a factor is that -- the notion of Glenn Beck as a truth-telling, quivering-voiced cherub certain women just want to shield from harm?
(It should be noted that right-wing women also apparently have a disproportionate fondness for another chubby-cheeked, non-macho right-winger, Mike Huckabee. I guess not being a cigar-chomping blusterer a la Limbaugh goes a long way with female righties, as does the ability to seem deeply and profoundly concerned and troubled.)
****
By the way, this is a lousy poll for the Democrats. Republicans are up by 5 on the generic ballot question. Republican favorability is up 5 since November, while Democratic favorability is down 6 -- the parties are now even, at 33%. Yeah, the headline is "Tea Party Could Hurt GOP In Congressional Races" -- but that's only if you believe there'll be even an inch of daylight between Republicans and teabaggers by November. (I don't, at least not rhetorically.) If this poll is accurate, Democrats' best hope is that (a) legislative success will improve their numbers or (b) the GOP and wingnuts are just going to seem even crazier and more extreme and nihilistic by November. We'll see.
(Note that the poll was conducted March 16-21, March 21 being the day of the health care vote. If you believe that passage gives Dems a bump that won't dissipate, this could just be a low ebb for the party. As I say, we'll see.)
Aimai has some thoughtful things to say about the new Quinnipiac poll, which says, among other things, that more women than men consider themselves members of the tea party movement. I'll just add a bit of speculation based on the focus-group interviews Greenberg Quinlan Rogers conducted with movement conservatives last fall. This is from the GQR report (PDF):
Several of the women particularly talked about becoming a sort of truth police, spending a great deal of their personal time and energy watching FOX to get the real stories, then turning to CNN, MSNBC, and the networks to document their failure to cover the "real truth." It was unclear what they did with this information once gathered, other than share it with others within this group....
Glenn Beck ... received nothing short of adulation from these voters, particularly the women. They believe he embodies the best of conservative media -- determination to unearth the stories the liberal media tries to bury, love of country, and refusal to be intimidated, even as the liberal media unleashes waves of attacks on his past and his credibility.
I think he’s a patriot... I think he's passionate. You know they make jokes about him crying and all this kind of stuff; I think the man, I think the man feels it. I think he's genuine.
I think the guy's brilliant. No one goes after him because he does his homework. He checks, double checks, triple checks and he says he refuses to put it on the air unless it's been checked a hundred different times. So when you can't get at him, you start calling him names and start digging into his past.
He is a firecracker... He tells the truth... He is also a person who says what he thinks... He gets emotional, but if you can past the emotion and follow his logic, he makes some really good points.
I get angry when I watch his show because I get angry that no one is listening to this and how come regular media is not airing it.
... [There] was a common fear among the women for his personal safety, a belief that his willingness to stand up to powerful liberal interests was putting his life, as well as the lives of those working with him, in danger....
How much of a factor is that -- the notion of Glenn Beck as a truth-telling, quivering-voiced cherub certain women just want to shield from harm?
(It should be noted that right-wing women also apparently have a disproportionate fondness for another chubby-cheeked, non-macho right-winger, Mike Huckabee. I guess not being a cigar-chomping blusterer a la Limbaugh goes a long way with female righties, as does the ability to seem deeply and profoundly concerned and troubled.)
****
By the way, this is a lousy poll for the Democrats. Republicans are up by 5 on the generic ballot question. Republican favorability is up 5 since November, while Democratic favorability is down 6 -- the parties are now even, at 33%. Yeah, the headline is "Tea Party Could Hurt GOP In Congressional Races" -- but that's only if you believe there'll be even an inch of daylight between Republicans and teabaggers by November. (I don't, at least not rhetorically.) If this poll is accurate, Democrats' best hope is that (a) legislative success will improve their numbers or (b) the GOP and wingnuts are just going to seem even crazier and more extreme and nihilistic by November. We'll see.
(Note that the poll was conducted March 16-21, March 21 being the day of the health care vote. If you believe that passage gives Dems a bump that won't dissipate, this could just be a low ebb for the party. As I say, we'll see.)
More Female Tea Partiers than Male? I'm Not Surprised:
TPM has the new poll up showing that slightly more disgusted Republican women self identify as Tea Partiers than Republican Males. I have some ideas about this. For one thing I think that the Tea Party movement enables women to self express, politically, in a way that has been largely thwarted by men in the Republican party. If you were a feminist, there were lots of avenues to power in the new Democratic Party--but if you were basically conservative you were largely limited to a supporting role in the Republican Party. That means two things: One, you have had lots of experience in Church and in the Community in a supporting role: licking envelopes, organizing food drives, car-pooling. Two, that experience is actually fairly high powered: these aren't women who are uneducated or who were always at home. They are women who returned to the home by choice, or force, after having a life outside it. The Republican party is full of women like my Sister-in-Law who used to have fairly high powered jobs but retired into the home and the church for their childbearing years. The thwarted managerial talent in their playgroups has to be seen to be believed. Fundraising and networking for the PTA was a major outlet for their job skills. Its not surprising that a bunch of women like that would see the Tea Party as just another way to get active socially and politically without betraying their conservative female identities.
Upper class white women, like elderly medicare patients, have time, experience, and anxiety on their side in becoming politically active. On the left, such women are working and are not well networked in with churches and other such traditional loci of power and activism. On the right there were, until this new fake grassroots movement, lots of ways that women met and supported each other. I'd expect teabaggery, like left behind theology, quiverfull, porn hysteria and a host of other moral panics to sweep through this community with lightning speed.
aimai
TPM has the new poll up showing that slightly more disgusted Republican women self identify as Tea Partiers than Republican Males. I have some ideas about this. For one thing I think that the Tea Party movement enables women to self express, politically, in a way that has been largely thwarted by men in the Republican party. If you were a feminist, there were lots of avenues to power in the new Democratic Party--but if you were basically conservative you were largely limited to a supporting role in the Republican Party. That means two things: One, you have had lots of experience in Church and in the Community in a supporting role: licking envelopes, organizing food drives, car-pooling. Two, that experience is actually fairly high powered: these aren't women who are uneducated or who were always at home. They are women who returned to the home by choice, or force, after having a life outside it. The Republican party is full of women like my Sister-in-Law who used to have fairly high powered jobs but retired into the home and the church for their childbearing years. The thwarted managerial talent in their playgroups has to be seen to be believed. Fundraising and networking for the PTA was a major outlet for their job skills. Its not surprising that a bunch of women like that would see the Tea Party as just another way to get active socially and politically without betraying their conservative female identities.
Upper class white women, like elderly medicare patients, have time, experience, and anxiety on their side in becoming politically active. On the left, such women are working and are not well networked in with churches and other such traditional loci of power and activism. On the right there were, until this new fake grassroots movement, lots of ways that women met and supported each other. I'd expect teabaggery, like left behind theology, quiverfull, porn hysteria and a host of other moral panics to sweep through this community with lightning speed.
aimai
INTIMIDATORS, INTIMIDATOR-WANNABES, AND THE RACE CARD
Rachel Maddow did a terrific report last night on the rock and brick attacks -- five so far -- that have taken place in response to the health care vote:
As she notes (in the report and on her blog), an Alabama attention junkie named Mike Vanderboegh has taken credit for the attacks; he wrote a blog post on Friday telling "modern Sons of Liberty" that if they want to "send a message that Pelosi and her party cannot fail to hear," they should "break their windows."
Now Vanderboegh seems like a pathetic old punk, a guy who calls for insurrection but probably doesn't have the guts to attempt himself. However, as Maddow notes, he's scheduled to be a speaker at an "open carry" rally in Virginia on April 19 -- anniversary of the Waco conflagration and the Oklahoma City bombing. And, well, imagine my surprise when I go to a discussion thread recommending signs for the rally and I see, in addition to this one, which is not entirely unexpected....
...the following sign, which one attendee says he's planning to carry:
For easy reading, I'll type out a few of "founding principles for restoring the Confederacy":
1. Christianity is the predominant religion of the South, hence the South is a Christian nation....
3. English is the language of the South.
4. The South's culture, historically, was, and still is today, a Christian Celtic culture....
Yikes.
(Click the image to read the rest.)
Oh, and in Mr. Vanderboegh's "'Choose this day whom you will serve.': An Open Letter to American Law Enforcement," posted last month in an effort to encourage police officers to consider defying the government (also a goal of the tea party-linked Oath Keepers), we have this:
... The Justice Department's National Gang Intelligence Center estimated last year that there were over a million hard-core gang members in this country who were responsible for over 80% of the crimes in many communities. Other experts have suggested that when you add in the gangs' "extended families" and wannabes the number is closer to between five and ten million. As unemployment has increased, their numbers have likewise swelled....
What will happen when we are faced, God forbid, with some dislocating national disaster -- natural or man-made -- that makes Katrina look like a kindergarten playground?...
You -- ALL of you -- law enforcement officers, will then need us, the armed citizenry -- ALL of us willing and competent to muster -- to defend public order against the tide of chaos represented by five or ten million gang members and the tens of millions of panicked unprepared refugees or opportunistic criminals left unrestrained by a breakdown....
These folks worry about plenty of other things. But it's not surprising at all to me that fear of urban gangs and a desire to restore the Confederacy's "Celtic" culture are never far from their minds.
****
And just to show that right-wing crazies can play the race card several different ways, here's Instapundit linking a clip of white blogger Dana Loesch -- yeah, the Andrew Breitbart writer who compared the health care vote to 9/11 -- whining on Bill O'Reilly's show about African American members of Congress who reported racial epithets ... while wearing a Public Enemy shirt.
I assume that eventually a Caucasian member of this movement will say that the movement's members are society's new n***ers -- oh, wait, that happened already, didn't it?
Rachel Maddow did a terrific report last night on the rock and brick attacks -- five so far -- that have taken place in response to the health care vote:
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
As she notes (in the report and on her blog), an Alabama attention junkie named Mike Vanderboegh has taken credit for the attacks; he wrote a blog post on Friday telling "modern Sons of Liberty" that if they want to "send a message that Pelosi and her party cannot fail to hear," they should "break their windows."
Now Vanderboegh seems like a pathetic old punk, a guy who calls for insurrection but probably doesn't have the guts to attempt himself. However, as Maddow notes, he's scheduled to be a speaker at an "open carry" rally in Virginia on April 19 -- anniversary of the Waco conflagration and the Oklahoma City bombing. And, well, imagine my surprise when I go to a discussion thread recommending signs for the rally and I see, in addition to this one, which is not entirely unexpected....
...the following sign, which one attendee says he's planning to carry:
For easy reading, I'll type out a few of "founding principles for restoring the Confederacy":
1. Christianity is the predominant religion of the South, hence the South is a Christian nation....
3. English is the language of the South.
4. The South's culture, historically, was, and still is today, a Christian Celtic culture....
Yikes.
(Click the image to read the rest.)
Oh, and in Mr. Vanderboegh's "'Choose this day whom you will serve.': An Open Letter to American Law Enforcement," posted last month in an effort to encourage police officers to consider defying the government (also a goal of the tea party-linked Oath Keepers), we have this:
... The Justice Department's National Gang Intelligence Center estimated last year that there were over a million hard-core gang members in this country who were responsible for over 80% of the crimes in many communities. Other experts have suggested that when you add in the gangs' "extended families" and wannabes the number is closer to between five and ten million. As unemployment has increased, their numbers have likewise swelled....
What will happen when we are faced, God forbid, with some dislocating national disaster -- natural or man-made -- that makes Katrina look like a kindergarten playground?...
You -- ALL of you -- law enforcement officers, will then need us, the armed citizenry -- ALL of us willing and competent to muster -- to defend public order against the tide of chaos represented by five or ten million gang members and the tens of millions of panicked unprepared refugees or opportunistic criminals left unrestrained by a breakdown....
These folks worry about plenty of other things. But it's not surprising at all to me that fear of urban gangs and a desire to restore the Confederacy's "Celtic" culture are never far from their minds.
****
And just to show that right-wing crazies can play the race card several different ways, here's Instapundit linking a clip of white blogger Dana Loesch -- yeah, the Andrew Breitbart writer who compared the health care vote to 9/11 -- whining on Bill O'Reilly's show about African American members of Congress who reported racial epithets ... while wearing a Public Enemy shirt.
I assume that eventually a Caucasian member of this movement will say that the movement's members are society's new n***ers -- oh, wait, that happened already, didn't it?
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
NULLIFICATION: THE GIFT THAT KEEPS ON GIVING TO THE GOP?
I'm not the guy you want to turn to for an assessment of the legal chances of the nullification lawsuit being filed by a number of state attorneys general, but it seems to me that the key part of David Weigel's analysis isn't the part about the legal arguments -- it's this:
"I don't know what people are telling their donors," said Curt Levey, executive director of the conservative Committee for Justice, "but litigation is always lengthy especially where, as here, the final answer will likely come from the Supreme Court... Courts will typically move things along faster when a case is as important as this one, but it's unlikely that we would get a final decision from the Supreme Court before the 2011-2012 term."
Well, I don't know what people are telling their donors either, but I think I know what people are going to be telling their donors:
Please give. And give again. And again. And again.
Litigation will drag out for years? That's perfect -- perfect to keep the faithful alert and enraged, and the faithful's wallets open, possibly through two election cycles. (The same is true, by the way, for repeal efforts in Congress: even if Republicans were to win both houses of Congress in 2010, they'd need two-thirds majorities to be able to override a presidential veto -- and they're not going to have majorities anywhere near that. So if they can keep the rage going, they can prolong this fight, and collect checks on it, for years.)
Or it may just be that they'll shift strategy and just try to pick away at health care reform. The anti-abortion movement pioneered that approach: frustration at not being able to overturn Roe seems to have morphed into a recognition that always having one new piecemeal victory just in sight (banning late-term abortions! mandatory sonograms! mandatory practitioners' warnings based on dubious health claims!) keeps the movement alive. Same for the gunners -- they want concealed carry! Now they want open carry! Now they want guns in national parks! And guns on Amtrak! The demands never stop -- and, I'm sure, neither do the dollars.
So as long as the anger flames can be fanned, this could be a cash cow for the right. Fighting "fascism" could be the right's business -- and business could be (and remain) very, very good.
I'm not the guy you want to turn to for an assessment of the legal chances of the nullification lawsuit being filed by a number of state attorneys general, but it seems to me that the key part of David Weigel's analysis isn't the part about the legal arguments -- it's this:
"I don't know what people are telling their donors," said Curt Levey, executive director of the conservative Committee for Justice, "but litigation is always lengthy especially where, as here, the final answer will likely come from the Supreme Court... Courts will typically move things along faster when a case is as important as this one, but it's unlikely that we would get a final decision from the Supreme Court before the 2011-2012 term."
Well, I don't know what people are telling their donors either, but I think I know what people are going to be telling their donors:
Please give. And give again. And again. And again.
Litigation will drag out for years? That's perfect -- perfect to keep the faithful alert and enraged, and the faithful's wallets open, possibly through two election cycles. (The same is true, by the way, for repeal efforts in Congress: even if Republicans were to win both houses of Congress in 2010, they'd need two-thirds majorities to be able to override a presidential veto -- and they're not going to have majorities anywhere near that. So if they can keep the rage going, they can prolong this fight, and collect checks on it, for years.)
Or it may just be that they'll shift strategy and just try to pick away at health care reform. The anti-abortion movement pioneered that approach: frustration at not being able to overturn Roe seems to have morphed into a recognition that always having one new piecemeal victory just in sight (banning late-term abortions! mandatory sonograms! mandatory practitioners' warnings based on dubious health claims!) keeps the movement alive. Same for the gunners -- they want concealed carry! Now they want open carry! Now they want guns in national parks! And guns on Amtrak! The demands never stop -- and, I'm sure, neither do the dollars.
So as long as the anger flames can be fanned, this could be a cash cow for the right. Fighting "fascism" could be the right's business -- and business could be (and remain) very, very good.
WHY BECK'S INSULT TO JOHN LEWIS IS EVEN WORSE THAN IT SEEMS
It's bad enough that Glenn Beck insulted John Lewis, a veteran of the civil rights era and victim of a number of assaults during that period, for responding to racist attacks over the weekend by locking arms with fellow lawmakers, much as civil rights marchers locked arms half a century ago:
BECK: You know what this is? They locked arms, because they wanted to compare themselves to the civil rights activists. How dare you!
It becomes even more offensive when you realize that, almost since the start of the Obama presidency, and certainly since the health care debate heated up, Beck and other movement conservatives have described their own "victimization" in ways that -- unlike the comparison implied in Lewis's gesture -- are absurdly farfetched, undeserved, and self-aggrandizing.
Just in the past day or so, for instance, we have Jeffrey Lord of The American Spectator comparing the health care repeal movement to (among other historical precedents) the Montgomery bus boycott, Gandhi's Salt March, and the Solidarity's Gdansk shipyard strikes.
Fortunately, this is not the first time that Americans -- and those outside America -- have set out to undo an untenable status quo....
The Montgomery Bus Boycott, 1955 ... the tactic was simple: elementary non-compliance by refusing to ride buses. Period. Black men, women and children were all asked to voluntarily comply to somehow use other transportation, including walking if necessary.... Finally, the courts stepped in and sided with Dr. King. The boycott ended, the buses were integrated, and the moral stake of the aborning Civil Rights movement was held high.
The Salt March, 1930 ... in full view of the newsreel cameras, [Gandhi] knelt at ocean's edge and began collecting seawater, letting it evaporate and thus creating salt. Making salt was an illegal activity under the British Salt Tax. His actions captured the public imagination in India and massive civil disobedience set in, with millions making salt, making the Salt Tax virtually unenforceable -- which they did not have. India won its independence in 1948....
Do I really need to quote more of this?
And (via TBogg) I see that Dana Loesch at Andrew Breitbart's Big Government is making this comparison:
Yesterday was my son's 9th birthday and for his present, the government jacked his future....
The scene was an eerie replay for me; eight-and-a-half years ago that same boy sat in his bouncy seat while cooing and kicking his legs as his father and I watched the twin towers crumble to dust on live television. The feeling was the same.
Right -- an individual health insurance mandate is the moral equivalent of being under terrorist attack.
This is the main trope of the anti-Obama movement, used by Beck and virtually every other opponent: that health care reform (or the stimulus plan or the car bailout or whatever) is the tyranny of King George or Hitler or Stalin or name-your-favorite-oppressor. (For variety yesterday, Ben Stein, also at The American Spectator, invoked Trujillo -- who, of course, ordered the mass slaughter of Haitians in the Dominican Republic in 1937, which is just like imposing an excise tax for insurance noncompliance.) Comfortable rightists who aren't suffering persecution persist in donning mantles of oppression to which they've never been entitled and never will be -- and then they have the unmitigated gall to slam Lewis for facing down an angry mob and thinking he's seen that kind of anger before. Unlike the tyranny the righties think they see, what Lewis thought he was watching may yet actually turn vicious like its predecessor.
It's bad enough that Glenn Beck insulted John Lewis, a veteran of the civil rights era and victim of a number of assaults during that period, for responding to racist attacks over the weekend by locking arms with fellow lawmakers, much as civil rights marchers locked arms half a century ago:
BECK: You know what this is? They locked arms, because they wanted to compare themselves to the civil rights activists. How dare you!
It becomes even more offensive when you realize that, almost since the start of the Obama presidency, and certainly since the health care debate heated up, Beck and other movement conservatives have described their own "victimization" in ways that -- unlike the comparison implied in Lewis's gesture -- are absurdly farfetched, undeserved, and self-aggrandizing.
Just in the past day or so, for instance, we have Jeffrey Lord of The American Spectator comparing the health care repeal movement to (among other historical precedents) the Montgomery bus boycott, Gandhi's Salt March, and the Solidarity's Gdansk shipyard strikes.
Fortunately, this is not the first time that Americans -- and those outside America -- have set out to undo an untenable status quo....
The Montgomery Bus Boycott, 1955 ... the tactic was simple: elementary non-compliance by refusing to ride buses. Period. Black men, women and children were all asked to voluntarily comply to somehow use other transportation, including walking if necessary.... Finally, the courts stepped in and sided with Dr. King. The boycott ended, the buses were integrated, and the moral stake of the aborning Civil Rights movement was held high.
The Salt March, 1930 ... in full view of the newsreel cameras, [Gandhi] knelt at ocean's edge and began collecting seawater, letting it evaporate and thus creating salt. Making salt was an illegal activity under the British Salt Tax. His actions captured the public imagination in India and massive civil disobedience set in, with millions making salt, making the Salt Tax virtually unenforceable -- which they did not have. India won its independence in 1948....
Do I really need to quote more of this?
And (via TBogg) I see that Dana Loesch at Andrew Breitbart's Big Government is making this comparison:
Yesterday was my son's 9th birthday and for his present, the government jacked his future....
The scene was an eerie replay for me; eight-and-a-half years ago that same boy sat in his bouncy seat while cooing and kicking his legs as his father and I watched the twin towers crumble to dust on live television. The feeling was the same.
Right -- an individual health insurance mandate is the moral equivalent of being under terrorist attack.
This is the main trope of the anti-Obama movement, used by Beck and virtually every other opponent: that health care reform (or the stimulus plan or the car bailout or whatever) is the tyranny of King George or Hitler or Stalin or name-your-favorite-oppressor. (For variety yesterday, Ben Stein, also at The American Spectator, invoked Trujillo -- who, of course, ordered the mass slaughter of Haitians in the Dominican Republic in 1937, which is just like imposing an excise tax for insurance noncompliance.) Comfortable rightists who aren't suffering persecution persist in donning mantles of oppression to which they've never been entitled and never will be -- and then they have the unmitigated gall to slam Lewis for facing down an angry mob and thinking he's seen that kind of anger before. Unlike the tyranny the righties think they see, what Lewis thought he was watching may yet actually turn vicious like its predecessor.
ADAM NAGOURNEY MORAL EQUIVALENCE WATCH
Adam Nagourney in today's New York Times (emphasis added):
Passage of the health care legislation challenges the heart of the Republicans' strategy this year: To present a unified opposition to big Democratic ideas, in this case expressed in a stream of bristling anger and occasional mischaracterizations of what the bill would do.
Yeah, "occasional." I'd say the mischaracterizations of the bill have been "occasional" the way property damage from Katrina was "sporadic." But then, I'm not Adam Nagourney, so what do I know?
Posted under the link for the Nagourney article at Memeorandum right now is a story from the New York Daily News, which quotes Bruce Blakeman, a Republican who wants to challenge Kirsten Gillibrand for her Senate seat:
"This legislation is nothing more than a socialistic power grab of an estimated sixteen percent of our total gross domestic product and comes on the heels of federal intervention in the banking and automobile industries," Blakeman continued. "Where will it end?"
I don't even know why I'm quoting this. Some Republican or other says precisely this every few hours, and that's been true ever since health care legislation started to go through Congress last year. It would take less time to compile a list of Republicans who haven't mischaracterized the legislation this way than a list of who have.
But to Nagourney, the mischaracterizations are "occasional."
He has to say that. He needs to believe it. He couldn't live with himself if he didn't. He has to persuade himself, as do the vast majority of reporters and pundits in the mainstream press, that there's no real difference between the two parties in terms of honesty of rhetoric and willingness to demagogue, even though it seems impossible to imagine that he's unaware of the tsunami of lies we've heard for the past year about health care and other aspects of the Democrats' "socialist," "fascist" agenda.
Much easier to live in denial than to feel he might be under some vague obligation to report the plain truth.
****
Nagourney does give us this quote from David Frum, a skeptic with regard to his party's scorched-earth strategy:
"Politically, I get the 'let's trip up the other side, make them fail' strategy," he said. "But what's more important, to win extra seats or to shape the most important piece of social legislation since the 1960s? It was a go-for-all-the-marbles approach. Unless they produced an absolute failure for Mr. Obama, there wasn't going to be any political benefit."
I've been thinking that the Republicans' filibuster-everything strategy doesn't, in their eyes, represent nihilism, because they don't believe government does any good (apart from blowing up or locking up brown people), so they don't think they're doing much harm to the country by throwing sand in the government's gears. They believe in less government, and filibusters mean we get less government, so, while you and I don't agree with them, they're not doing intentional harm, at least by their lights.
But Frum reminds me that they refused the chance to help shape this legislation in a way that would have made it somewhat more right-wing -- a chance Democrats would have been happy to give them all through the process, and did give them for much of the process. This means they're not being refuseniks just to keep the government small -- they don't really give a crap what comes out of Washington as long as it leaves them in what they believe is a strong position going into the next election cycle.
With regard to health care, they could have stepped in at the eleventh hour and said, "Look, you're going to win, so do thus-and-such and you'll get a dozen Republican votes." And thus-and-such would have made the bill more Republican. And Democrats would have said yes. But Republicans care more about their electoral chances than about their political philosophy. You wonder if they care about their political philosophy at all, except as a useful posture.
Adam Nagourney in today's New York Times (emphasis added):
Passage of the health care legislation challenges the heart of the Republicans' strategy this year: To present a unified opposition to big Democratic ideas, in this case expressed in a stream of bristling anger and occasional mischaracterizations of what the bill would do.
Yeah, "occasional." I'd say the mischaracterizations of the bill have been "occasional" the way property damage from Katrina was "sporadic." But then, I'm not Adam Nagourney, so what do I know?
Posted under the link for the Nagourney article at Memeorandum right now is a story from the New York Daily News, which quotes Bruce Blakeman, a Republican who wants to challenge Kirsten Gillibrand for her Senate seat:
"This legislation is nothing more than a socialistic power grab of an estimated sixteen percent of our total gross domestic product and comes on the heels of federal intervention in the banking and automobile industries," Blakeman continued. "Where will it end?"
I don't even know why I'm quoting this. Some Republican or other says precisely this every few hours, and that's been true ever since health care legislation started to go through Congress last year. It would take less time to compile a list of Republicans who haven't mischaracterized the legislation this way than a list of who have.
But to Nagourney, the mischaracterizations are "occasional."
He has to say that. He needs to believe it. He couldn't live with himself if he didn't. He has to persuade himself, as do the vast majority of reporters and pundits in the mainstream press, that there's no real difference between the two parties in terms of honesty of rhetoric and willingness to demagogue, even though it seems impossible to imagine that he's unaware of the tsunami of lies we've heard for the past year about health care and other aspects of the Democrats' "socialist," "fascist" agenda.
Much easier to live in denial than to feel he might be under some vague obligation to report the plain truth.
****
Nagourney does give us this quote from David Frum, a skeptic with regard to his party's scorched-earth strategy:
"Politically, I get the 'let's trip up the other side, make them fail' strategy," he said. "But what's more important, to win extra seats or to shape the most important piece of social legislation since the 1960s? It was a go-for-all-the-marbles approach. Unless they produced an absolute failure for Mr. Obama, there wasn't going to be any political benefit."
I've been thinking that the Republicans' filibuster-everything strategy doesn't, in their eyes, represent nihilism, because they don't believe government does any good (apart from blowing up or locking up brown people), so they don't think they're doing much harm to the country by throwing sand in the government's gears. They believe in less government, and filibusters mean we get less government, so, while you and I don't agree with them, they're not doing intentional harm, at least by their lights.
But Frum reminds me that they refused the chance to help shape this legislation in a way that would have made it somewhat more right-wing -- a chance Democrats would have been happy to give them all through the process, and did give them for much of the process. This means they're not being refuseniks just to keep the government small -- they don't really give a crap what comes out of Washington as long as it leaves them in what they believe is a strong position going into the next election cycle.
With regard to health care, they could have stepped in at the eleventh hour and said, "Look, you're going to win, so do thus-and-such and you'll get a dozen Republican votes." And thus-and-such would have made the bill more Republican. And Democrats would have said yes. But Republicans care more about their electoral chances than about their political philosophy. You wonder if they care about their political philosophy at all, except as a useful posture.
Monday, March 22, 2010
MARK HALPERIN FEEDS THE RIGHT A PROPAGANDA POINT
At times in his career, Mark Halperin has been almost comically embarrassing in his efforts to curry right-wing favor ("Can I introduce you to my interns from Bob Jones University?" he said fawningly to Hugh Hewitt back in 2006), while insisting on his own neutrality. So it's no surprise that, in a Time piece on health care reform, he's feeding Republicans a talking point they're guaranteed to deploy.
Halperin writes:
Democrats will be joined in the fray by much of the press. For Republicans, this will seem like familiar ground, since generations of conservatives have complained that the so-called mainstream media have been biased against them. Well, get ready, Republicans, for deja vu all over again. The coverage through November likely will highlight the most extreme attacks on the President and his law and spotlight stories of real Americans whose lives have been improved by access to health care (pushed, no doubt, by Democrats from every competitive congressional district and state). The louder Republicans yell, the more they will be characterized and caricatured as sore losers infuriated by the first major delivery of candidate Obama's promise of "change." The focus on the weekend's alleged racial and gay-bashing verbal attacks by opponents of the Democrats' plan should be a caution to Republican strategists trying to figure out how to manage the media this year.
So if right-wingers actually shout racist and homophobic slurs at Democratic lawmakers, or spit on them, and it's reported -- that's media bias! If people get benefits and their lives are thereby improved and the press reports that -- that's liberal media bias too! I suppose if a teabagger takes a shot at someone and it makes the news, that'll be bias, too.
Right-wingers are going to run with what Halperin says here. They're going to say that "even the liberal Mark Halperin" "admits" that the press isn't going to play fair. They're going to blame any positive poll response to health care reform and the Democrats on sinister media propagandizing, just as Halperin described it. Halperin helps them argue to their base that the jackbooted fascists are being enabled by a propaganda army of a press.
They'd argue that anyway, but Halperin makes it just that much easier. And, of course he would -- he's the guy who told Hewitt in 2006:
... your listeners ... should read the book and what we say in The Way To Win about how the media's been liberally biased in presidential campaign coverage, what needs to be done to try to fix it, and why the current system may not be any better with new media. But to lump me in with everybody else, I think, is doing people a disservice, because most of my colleagues, as you know, are in denial about it, or blind to it.
After that interview, Hewitt called Halperin "very liberal." The suck-up didn't work. But Halperin's still sucking.
At times in his career, Mark Halperin has been almost comically embarrassing in his efforts to curry right-wing favor ("Can I introduce you to my interns from Bob Jones University?" he said fawningly to Hugh Hewitt back in 2006), while insisting on his own neutrality. So it's no surprise that, in a Time piece on health care reform, he's feeding Republicans a talking point they're guaranteed to deploy.
Halperin writes:
Democrats will be joined in the fray by much of the press. For Republicans, this will seem like familiar ground, since generations of conservatives have complained that the so-called mainstream media have been biased against them. Well, get ready, Republicans, for deja vu all over again. The coverage through November likely will highlight the most extreme attacks on the President and his law and spotlight stories of real Americans whose lives have been improved by access to health care (pushed, no doubt, by Democrats from every competitive congressional district and state). The louder Republicans yell, the more they will be characterized and caricatured as sore losers infuriated by the first major delivery of candidate Obama's promise of "change." The focus on the weekend's alleged racial and gay-bashing verbal attacks by opponents of the Democrats' plan should be a caution to Republican strategists trying to figure out how to manage the media this year.
So if right-wingers actually shout racist and homophobic slurs at Democratic lawmakers, or spit on them, and it's reported -- that's media bias! If people get benefits and their lives are thereby improved and the press reports that -- that's liberal media bias too! I suppose if a teabagger takes a shot at someone and it makes the news, that'll be bias, too.
Right-wingers are going to run with what Halperin says here. They're going to say that "even the liberal Mark Halperin" "admits" that the press isn't going to play fair. They're going to blame any positive poll response to health care reform and the Democrats on sinister media propagandizing, just as Halperin described it. Halperin helps them argue to their base that the jackbooted fascists are being enabled by a propaganda army of a press.
They'd argue that anyway, but Halperin makes it just that much easier. And, of course he would -- he's the guy who told Hewitt in 2006:
... your listeners ... should read the book and what we say in The Way To Win about how the media's been liberally biased in presidential campaign coverage, what needs to be done to try to fix it, and why the current system may not be any better with new media. But to lump me in with everybody else, I think, is doing people a disservice, because most of my colleagues, as you know, are in denial about it, or blind to it.
After that interview, Hewitt called Halperin "very liberal." The suck-up didn't work. But Halperin's still sucking.
WE'LL MEET AGAIN, DON'T KNOW WHERE, DON'T KNOW WHEN....
Wow.
(Spotted at Drudge. Ad paid for by the Senate Conservatives Fund, which clearly wants to preserve our purity of essence.)
Wow.
(Spotted at Drudge. Ad paid for by the Senate Conservatives Fund, which clearly wants to preserve our purity of essence.)
AFA'S FISCHER: WE MAY HAVE TO SHOOT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
Bryan Fischer, director of issues analysis at the American Family Association, last seen arguing for the explusion of all Muslims from the U.S. military, the recriminalization of homosexuality, and the stoning to death of a killer whale at Sea World, posted this at his AFA blog this morning, in response to the health care vote (emphasis added):
... The last remedy left -- other than bloodshed -- is the 10th Amendment, which reserves to the states any power not delegated to the federal government. The central government is exercising a power that it does not have, and can only exercise by usurping that power from the states.
State governments can legitimately and constitutionally decide not to cooperate with the central government on the legal ground that Congress has transgressed the boundaries marked out in our founding document. The central government is trespassing on the sovereign territory of the states, and the states have every right to throw them off their property.
Trespassers can be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Squatters can be evicted. If they won't leave, they can be tossed. And in the worst case scenario, if they won't surrender peacefully, they can be shot....
Charming.
Kyle at Right Wing Watch adds:
Do I need to point out that just last week, Fischer was featured on the Family Research Council's anti-health care reform webcast along with Rep. Tom Price, (R-GA), Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN), and Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN)?
Also there, as noted at the link, was Senator David Vitter.
Expect a denunciation by these members of Congress of Fischer's endorsement of armed insurrection against the government (hey, but only as a last resort!) in 5, 4, 3, ... um, never.
Bryan Fischer, director of issues analysis at the American Family Association, last seen arguing for the explusion of all Muslims from the U.S. military, the recriminalization of homosexuality, and the stoning to death of a killer whale at Sea World, posted this at his AFA blog this morning, in response to the health care vote (emphasis added):
... The last remedy left -- other than bloodshed -- is the 10th Amendment, which reserves to the states any power not delegated to the federal government. The central government is exercising a power that it does not have, and can only exercise by usurping that power from the states.
State governments can legitimately and constitutionally decide not to cooperate with the central government on the legal ground that Congress has transgressed the boundaries marked out in our founding document. The central government is trespassing on the sovereign territory of the states, and the states have every right to throw them off their property.
Trespassers can be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Squatters can be evicted. If they won't leave, they can be tossed. And in the worst case scenario, if they won't surrender peacefully, they can be shot....
Charming.
Kyle at Right Wing Watch adds:
Do I need to point out that just last week, Fischer was featured on the Family Research Council's anti-health care reform webcast along with Rep. Tom Price, (R-GA), Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN), and Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN)?
Also there, as noted at the link, was Senator David Vitter.
Expect a denunciation by these members of Congress of Fischer's endorsement of armed insurrection against the government (hey, but only as a last resort!) in 5, 4, 3, ... um, never.
YOU WOULDN'T HAVE HAD TO WASTE MONEY ON A HOSPITAL STAY IF YOU HADN'T MADE ME WANT TO MURDER YOU
I don't think this line of attack will develop much traction, except among the GOP base, but I think one of the next complaints we're going to hear from Republicans is that the White House and Democrats are wasting taxpayer dollars defending the health care bill (even though it's Republicans who are making this necessary):
New York Times:
... President Obama plans to open a new campaign this week to persuade skeptical Americans that the bill holds immediate benefits for them and addresses the nation's shaky fiscal condition....
The White House and Democrats were preparing to counter the legal arguments and coordinate a state-by-state response to any prospective challenges....
Washington Post:
... Reshaping the legislation's image will take place in three phases, White House aides said: the immediate aftermath; the seven months until the November midterm elections; and the several years that follow, during which many provisions in the measure will gradually take effect.
...In the coming days, Obama plans to take several trips across the nation to counter what Democrats expect will be an onslaught of criticism and misinformation about the overhaul.
Administration officials are also preparing talking points and fact sheets that lawmakers can take home with them on their Easter vacation, Obama advisers said. Those documents are being developed with Democratic leaders in the House and Senate, aides said....
I'm guessing the Murdoch media will try to tote up the costs of Obama's trips and to do "exposes" of those who (using your tax dollars!) are working on the talking points and fact sheets. Never mind the fact that the various national and state Republicans who'll be fighting the bill tooth and nail will also be doing it on your dime.
As I say, I don't think this line of argument will be a winner with swing voters -- except perhaps in a "lite" version with the mainstream media, which may be very willing to retransmit the argument that the White House is going into permanent campaign mode -- as if the GOP's repeal campaign isn't primarily about rousing the rabble so they'll vote Republican in 2010 and 2012.
I don't think this line of attack will develop much traction, except among the GOP base, but I think one of the next complaints we're going to hear from Republicans is that the White House and Democrats are wasting taxpayer dollars defending the health care bill (even though it's Republicans who are making this necessary):
New York Times:
... President Obama plans to open a new campaign this week to persuade skeptical Americans that the bill holds immediate benefits for them and addresses the nation's shaky fiscal condition....
The White House and Democrats were preparing to counter the legal arguments and coordinate a state-by-state response to any prospective challenges....
Washington Post:
... Reshaping the legislation's image will take place in three phases, White House aides said: the immediate aftermath; the seven months until the November midterm elections; and the several years that follow, during which many provisions in the measure will gradually take effect.
...In the coming days, Obama plans to take several trips across the nation to counter what Democrats expect will be an onslaught of criticism and misinformation about the overhaul.
Administration officials are also preparing talking points and fact sheets that lawmakers can take home with them on their Easter vacation, Obama advisers said. Those documents are being developed with Democratic leaders in the House and Senate, aides said....
I'm guessing the Murdoch media will try to tote up the costs of Obama's trips and to do "exposes" of those who (using your tax dollars!) are working on the talking points and fact sheets. Never mind the fact that the various national and state Republicans who'll be fighting the bill tooth and nail will also be doing it on your dime.
As I say, I don't think this line of argument will be a winner with swing voters -- except perhaps in a "lite" version with the mainstream media, which may be very willing to retransmit the argument that the White House is going into permanent campaign mode -- as if the GOP's repeal campaign isn't primarily about rousing the rabble so they'll vote Republican in 2010 and 2012.
REVERSE THE CURSE
(updated)
I know it's precisely what most observers predicted, but I guess I'm surprised by the muted, defeated tone of the Republicans' reactions to the health care vote. For instance, I sure expected something a hell of a lot angrier than this from the New York Post:
And even National Review's editorial begins,
"Nil desperandum" -- never despair.
That's "never despair," not "never surrender." And the tone of the rest of it is far more resigned than I would have expected:
We understand the odds against repeal. We understand, indeed, that complete repeal of every provision of the bill is impossible. The doughnut hole -- a gap in Medicare's prescription-drug coverage designed to encourage seniors to economize -- has been filled, and it is not going to be re-opened.
But the larger thesis seems as superficially plausible, and as ultimately convincing, as were earlier predictions that state socialism or secularization were our inevitable future. It is quite possible that the majority of America that rejects this legislation will get its way in the next few years -- if it is given the right leadership. And it is worth the effort to try.
I'm not backing down from my contention that Republicans aren't going to give up and let this legislation become law without a real fight -- being pro-nullification is clearly a litmus test for Republicans. (John McCain: "We'll challenge it every place we can. ... We'll fight everywhere.") The name of Virginia's pro-nullification attorney general, Ken Cuccinelli, is surely about to show up on cheaply made T-shirts with "for President" under it -- he's on Fox tonight:
But I think the Republicans are a bit gobsmacked precisely because Democrats have been so hapless for so long. Even despite 2006 and 2008, Republicans have mostly been the New York Yankees of politics for a long time, and the Democrats, for the past year, have seemed like the 1919-2003 Boston Red Sox. For all Republicans' talk of unchecked Democratic fascism, they had Dems pinned down time after time; the president was a lot more like Fred Armisen's Saturday Night Live "I've done nothing" guy than the jackbooted thug of GOP rhetoric. I think Republicans had really fallen for the notion that Obama and Nancy Pelosi and the rest were never going to be anything but stumblebums. (Sniping from over here on the left, my own included I suppose, surely reinforced this notion).
And then the cursed losers won. And Republicans seem to be somewhat in a state of shock. It won't last, but it's satisfying.
****
UPDATE: Though I do think tc in comments has this exactly right:
They had the same muted, resigned tone right after the 08 election, a feeling that the outcome was richly deserved. It took them about a month to start ginning up the apolcalypse again. It started with Rush Limbaugh saying he hoped Obama fails.
Same thing will happen this time, only quicker. My bet is, Rush Limbaugh will carve out some rage points today and tomorrow, and by the end of the week, they'll be happily talking about violent revolution again.
(updated)
I know it's precisely what most observers predicted, but I guess I'm surprised by the muted, defeated tone of the Republicans' reactions to the health care vote. For instance, I sure expected something a hell of a lot angrier than this from the New York Post:
And even National Review's editorial begins,
"Nil desperandum" -- never despair.
That's "never despair," not "never surrender." And the tone of the rest of it is far more resigned than I would have expected:
We understand the odds against repeal. We understand, indeed, that complete repeal of every provision of the bill is impossible. The doughnut hole -- a gap in Medicare's prescription-drug coverage designed to encourage seniors to economize -- has been filled, and it is not going to be re-opened.
But the larger thesis seems as superficially plausible, and as ultimately convincing, as were earlier predictions that state socialism or secularization were our inevitable future. It is quite possible that the majority of America that rejects this legislation will get its way in the next few years -- if it is given the right leadership. And it is worth the effort to try.
I'm not backing down from my contention that Republicans aren't going to give up and let this legislation become law without a real fight -- being pro-nullification is clearly a litmus test for Republicans. (John McCain: "We'll challenge it every place we can. ... We'll fight everywhere.") The name of Virginia's pro-nullification attorney general, Ken Cuccinelli, is surely about to show up on cheaply made T-shirts with "for President" under it -- he's on Fox tonight:
But I think the Republicans are a bit gobsmacked precisely because Democrats have been so hapless for so long. Even despite 2006 and 2008, Republicans have mostly been the New York Yankees of politics for a long time, and the Democrats, for the past year, have seemed like the 1919-2003 Boston Red Sox. For all Republicans' talk of unchecked Democratic fascism, they had Dems pinned down time after time; the president was a lot more like Fred Armisen's Saturday Night Live "I've done nothing" guy than the jackbooted thug of GOP rhetoric. I think Republicans had really fallen for the notion that Obama and Nancy Pelosi and the rest were never going to be anything but stumblebums. (Sniping from over here on the left, my own included I suppose, surely reinforced this notion).
And then the cursed losers won. And Republicans seem to be somewhat in a state of shock. It won't last, but it's satisfying.
****
UPDATE: Though I do think tc in comments has this exactly right:
They had the same muted, resigned tone right after the 08 election, a feeling that the outcome was richly deserved. It took them about a month to start ginning up the apolcalypse again. It started with Rush Limbaugh saying he hoped Obama fails.
Same thing will happen this time, only quicker. My bet is, Rush Limbaugh will carve out some rage points today and tomorrow, and by the end of the week, they'll be happily talking about violent revolution again.
Sunday, March 21, 2010
THAT'LL SHOW 'EM!
The folks at Free Republic plan to exact their revenge:
How's that census going? (The night Obamacare came forth from the ooze...)
Right now my census is on top the fridge not filled out. After losing our liberty today it's staying there.
****
I was thinking the same thing when it became clear this was going to pass.
****
Not surprised. Will take my sweet time filling mine's out.
****
I too was on the fence. No longer. This made my choice easy.
****
Me too!
****
...I threw mine in the trash last week. F-EM!
****
... The census form I "never got" is sitting on the bottom of my trash can.
****
Right now, Obama can $@@!%#% his #^%@%1 with ^$#@%@!# while taking his %#@#%# and shoving his #%!#% into his %#T!#T%>....
Wow -- maybe the recorded population of every red state in the union will plummet. If so, thanks! More federal dollars and seats in Congress for us up in here in Commie Land!
The folks at Free Republic plan to exact their revenge:
How's that census going? (The night Obamacare came forth from the ooze...)
Right now my census is on top the fridge not filled out. After losing our liberty today it's staying there.
****
I was thinking the same thing when it became clear this was going to pass.
****
Not surprised. Will take my sweet time filling mine's out.
****
I too was on the fence. No longer. This made my choice easy.
****
Me too!
****
...I threw mine in the trash last week. F-EM!
****
... The census form I "never got" is sitting on the bottom of my trash can.
****
Right now, Obama can $@@!%#% his #^%@%1 with ^$#@%@!# while taking his %#@#%# and shoving his #%!#% into his %#T!#T%>....
Wow -- maybe the recorded population of every red state in the union will plummet. If so, thanks! More federal dollars and seats in Congress for us up in here in Commie Land!
EVERYTHING IS OUR FAULT!
I know, on Health Care D-Day, I should be writing about nothing but Topic A, but I was just reading Michiko Kaukutani's piece in the New York Times Arts & Leisure section about the supposed evils of our blogging/remix/mashup/appropriation culture. There are a hundred things wrong with Kakutani's piece, prominent among them her apparent acceptance of the notion that mashups rather than original works dominate our culture (if there's a video mashup that's made a millionth of the money that the entirely non-mashed-up Avatar has made, or a verbal remix that's moved a .001% of the units sold by J.K. Rowling or Stephenie Meyer or James Patterson, I'm not aware of it). But I want to address one point Kakutani makes about our politics, which would probably lead many people to nod in agreement, even though there's plenty of reason to believe she's utterly wrong:
...the Internet's nurturing of niche cultures is contributing to what Cass Sunstein calls "cyberbalkanization." Individuals can design feeds and alerts from their favorite Web sites so that they get only the news they want, and with more and more opinion sites and specialized sites, it becomes easier and easier, as Mr. Sunstein observes in his 2009 book "Going to Extremes," for people "to avoid general-interest newspapers and magazines and to make choices that reflect their own predispositions."
... One result of this nicheification of the world is that consensus and common ground grow ever smaller, civic discourse gets a lot less civil, and pluralism ... comes to feel increasingly elusive....
What this doesn't explain is why the city I live in seems less balkanized than it did in a pre-Web age, as does the city I grew up in.
I lived through busing in Boston in the 1970s -- a time when no one was on the Internet and you watched TV with rabbit ears. I came to New York in 1976 and stayed through years of racial polarization, particularly in the mayoralties of Ed Koch and Rudy Giuliani.
There's much less racial anger in both cities now. Why? Why hasn't a balkanizing Internet culture increased the hatred?
I think it's because the ability of us online bloviators to fan the flames of resentment is nothing compared to the opinion-molding power of Big Media and demagogues who are in positions of real power. Mayors Mennino in Boston and Bloomberg in New York, whatever their faults, have sought to lower the temperature in their cities -- and it is lower. It helps in New York that Rupert Murdoch's focus is increasingly on national politics -- his New York Post double-teamed with both Koch and Giuliani to stir up fear and anger back in the day -- but I think the main factor here is what we get from real-world leaders.
That's not what you'd expect if you followed the cyberphobe analysis to its logical conclusion -- you'd think online rabble-rousers would be keeping race polarization alive, just because polarization is what we do. But it ain't happening.
We have tremendous polarization at a national level primarily because one entire political party, and one media operation whose home base is a'70s-era technology known as cable television, have sought to polarize us and keep us polarized. It's not the bloggers' fault -- even the right-wing bloggers. It's the fault of mainstream communicators with old-fashioned sources of clout.
I know, on Health Care D-Day, I should be writing about nothing but Topic A, but I was just reading Michiko Kaukutani's piece in the New York Times Arts & Leisure section about the supposed evils of our blogging/remix/mashup/appropriation culture. There are a hundred things wrong with Kakutani's piece, prominent among them her apparent acceptance of the notion that mashups rather than original works dominate our culture (if there's a video mashup that's made a millionth of the money that the entirely non-mashed-up Avatar has made, or a verbal remix that's moved a .001% of the units sold by J.K. Rowling or Stephenie Meyer or James Patterson, I'm not aware of it). But I want to address one point Kakutani makes about our politics, which would probably lead many people to nod in agreement, even though there's plenty of reason to believe she's utterly wrong:
...the Internet's nurturing of niche cultures is contributing to what Cass Sunstein calls "cyberbalkanization." Individuals can design feeds and alerts from their favorite Web sites so that they get only the news they want, and with more and more opinion sites and specialized sites, it becomes easier and easier, as Mr. Sunstein observes in his 2009 book "Going to Extremes," for people "to avoid general-interest newspapers and magazines and to make choices that reflect their own predispositions."
... One result of this nicheification of the world is that consensus and common ground grow ever smaller, civic discourse gets a lot less civil, and pluralism ... comes to feel increasingly elusive....
What this doesn't explain is why the city I live in seems less balkanized than it did in a pre-Web age, as does the city I grew up in.
I lived through busing in Boston in the 1970s -- a time when no one was on the Internet and you watched TV with rabbit ears. I came to New York in 1976 and stayed through years of racial polarization, particularly in the mayoralties of Ed Koch and Rudy Giuliani.
There's much less racial anger in both cities now. Why? Why hasn't a balkanizing Internet culture increased the hatred?
I think it's because the ability of us online bloviators to fan the flames of resentment is nothing compared to the opinion-molding power of Big Media and demagogues who are in positions of real power. Mayors Mennino in Boston and Bloomberg in New York, whatever their faults, have sought to lower the temperature in their cities -- and it is lower. It helps in New York that Rupert Murdoch's focus is increasingly on national politics -- his New York Post double-teamed with both Koch and Giuliani to stir up fear and anger back in the day -- but I think the main factor here is what we get from real-world leaders.
That's not what you'd expect if you followed the cyberphobe analysis to its logical conclusion -- you'd think online rabble-rousers would be keeping race polarization alive, just because polarization is what we do. But it ain't happening.
We have tremendous polarization at a national level primarily because one entire political party, and one media operation whose home base is a'70s-era technology known as cable television, have sought to polarize us and keep us polarized. It's not the bloggers' fault -- even the right-wing bloggers. It's the fault of mainstream communicators with old-fashioned sources of clout.
AND YET THIS STILL ISN'T ENOUGH TO GUARANTEE PASSAGE OF THE BILL
Choose whichever explanation you prefer: Democrats are so craven or our political culture is in such denial that even this isn't enough to ensure mass revulsion against the anti-reform forces, thus it's not enough to persuade wavering Democrats to switch to the "yes" side:
A staffer for Rep. James Clyburn (D-S.C.) told reporters that Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D-Mo.) had been spat on by a protestor. Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.), a hero of the civil rights movement, was called a 'ni--er.' And Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) was called a "faggot," as protestors shouted at him with deliberately lisp-y screams.
Or this:
Sometime early this morning, someone threw a brick through the front window of [Representative Louise Slaughter's] Pine Avenue office.
Or this:
ThinkProgress attended today’s rally and spotted a sign threatening violence if health care passes. The sign reads: “Warning: If Brown can't stop it, a Browning can,” referring to Sen. Scott Brown (R-MA) and a Browning firearm....
Why isn't this a tipping point? Are we so incapable of processing the plain, self-evident fact that at this moment in our history the Republicans and the antis are utterly crazy that even hate and threats and sociopathic acts aren't believed to be enough cover for a swing-district Democrat to stand with the non-crazies? Or are Democrats just too cowardly to declare themselves on the anti-crazy side?
*****
Oh, and there's this:
Among the demonstrators was Delane Stewart, 65, of Cookeville, Tenn., who had come with her husband, Jesse.
"You know what's coming next if this happens?" she said, referring to the health bill's passage. "They're going to come after gun control."
This is not a person who merely holds political opinions with which liberals disagree. This is a person who is delusional. This is a person who is part of a mass hysteria -- one that appears every time a Democrat is elected president, usual in the superstitious belief that Democrats seek to conduct house-to-house seizures of guns, and one that our political culture just allows to fester.
Obama is walking on eggshells with regard to firearms. He'll never, ever touch this man's gun collection. Our media needs to say that this is as preposterous as the belief that Jews used the blood of Christian babies in matzohs. But it's not being said.
Choose whichever explanation you prefer: Democrats are so craven or our political culture is in such denial that even this isn't enough to ensure mass revulsion against the anti-reform forces, thus it's not enough to persuade wavering Democrats to switch to the "yes" side:
A staffer for Rep. James Clyburn (D-S.C.) told reporters that Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D-Mo.) had been spat on by a protestor. Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.), a hero of the civil rights movement, was called a 'ni--er.' And Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) was called a "faggot," as protestors shouted at him with deliberately lisp-y screams.
Or this:
Sometime early this morning, someone threw a brick through the front window of [Representative Louise Slaughter's] Pine Avenue office.
Or this:
ThinkProgress attended today’s rally and spotted a sign threatening violence if health care passes. The sign reads: “Warning: If Brown can't stop it, a Browning can,” referring to Sen. Scott Brown (R-MA) and a Browning firearm....
Why isn't this a tipping point? Are we so incapable of processing the plain, self-evident fact that at this moment in our history the Republicans and the antis are utterly crazy that even hate and threats and sociopathic acts aren't believed to be enough cover for a swing-district Democrat to stand with the non-crazies? Or are Democrats just too cowardly to declare themselves on the anti-crazy side?
*****
Oh, and there's this:
Among the demonstrators was Delane Stewart, 65, of Cookeville, Tenn., who had come with her husband, Jesse.
"You know what's coming next if this happens?" she said, referring to the health bill's passage. "They're going to come after gun control."
This is not a person who merely holds political opinions with which liberals disagree. This is a person who is delusional. This is a person who is part of a mass hysteria -- one that appears every time a Democrat is elected president, usual in the superstitious belief that Democrats seek to conduct house-to-house seizures of guns, and one that our political culture just allows to fester.
Obama is walking on eggshells with regard to firearms. He'll never, ever touch this man's gun collection. Our media needs to say that this is as preposterous as the belief that Jews used the blood of Christian babies in matzohs. But it's not being said.
Saturday, March 20, 2010
KICK 'EM WHEN THEIR DOWN: THE PARTY OF BULLIES IN ACTION
I knew about the right-wing attacks on Marcelas Owens, an 11-year-old backer of health care reform whose mother lost insurance and then died in 2007 of pulmonary hypertension, but I wasn't aware of another bit of right-wing nastiness until I read the following about an undecided Democratic House member in a sidebar to a New York Times story published today:
Representative Kathy Dahlkemper of Pennsylvania won her district by just 2.5 percentage points. An anti-overhaul television ad questioned her commitment to fighting cancer, even after she lost both parents to the disease in the past month.
What's more, the ad, from the group Americans for Prosperity, blatantly twists the truth:
The ad features a breast cancer survivor who criticizes a federal advisory panel's recommendations that some women postpone routine mammograms until age 50.
The pending bill in Congress specifically rejects that recommendation. But the ad strongly suggests otherwise. "What are your odds if the government takes over your health care?" says the woman in the ad.
The nonpartisan group Factcheck.org denounced the ad for its "sheer number of falsehoods." Politifact, another independent group, gave the ad its lowest rating for truthfulness and accuracy: "Pants on Fire."
AFP has refused to pull the ad. And NewsBusters sneers at Dahlkemper for complaining ...
How dare citizens subject Members of Congress to political advocacy and arguments with which they disagree!
... and implies that an ABC news report featuring the story of her parents' death constitutes some sort of media bias:
Complete with a photo of her late parents, ABC's Jonathan Karl concluded his Friday night story on undecided Democratic House members by conveying the complaint of Pennsylvania's Kathy Dahlkemper, who contended a TV ad about how further government control of health care will lead to delays in cancer treatment as has occurred in Britain, is inappropriate because her parents recently died from cancer.
"Perhaps the most powerful personal story belongs to Pennsylvania's Kathy Dahlkemper," Karl intoned, pointing out "her father died of leukemia in February, and her mother died just two weeks ago, and now she finds herself among the undecided Democrats targeted by this ad." Viewers then saw a very brief clip of an ad from Americans for Prosperity in which a woman maintained: "If you find a lump, you could wait months for treatment and life-saving drugs can be restricted."
Karl relayed Dahlkemper's indignation: "She says the group that made the ad is wrong, and takes it personally."
Yeah -- the nerve of her!
Dahlkemper is politically vulnerable, but why this disgraceful attack doesn't provide her more than adequate cover to vote yes, I don't know. I'd say it's because the country is in a state of denial about the sheer viciousness of the modern right. It's as if we have a need to believe that "they're all alike" and no moral distinctions can be made between the sides in our politics.
But they can, and we have to start making them.
I knew about the right-wing attacks on Marcelas Owens, an 11-year-old backer of health care reform whose mother lost insurance and then died in 2007 of pulmonary hypertension, but I wasn't aware of another bit of right-wing nastiness until I read the following about an undecided Democratic House member in a sidebar to a New York Times story published today:
Representative Kathy Dahlkemper of Pennsylvania won her district by just 2.5 percentage points. An anti-overhaul television ad questioned her commitment to fighting cancer, even after she lost both parents to the disease in the past month.
What's more, the ad, from the group Americans for Prosperity, blatantly twists the truth:
The ad features a breast cancer survivor who criticizes a federal advisory panel's recommendations that some women postpone routine mammograms until age 50.
The pending bill in Congress specifically rejects that recommendation. But the ad strongly suggests otherwise. "What are your odds if the government takes over your health care?" says the woman in the ad.
The nonpartisan group Factcheck.org denounced the ad for its "sheer number of falsehoods." Politifact, another independent group, gave the ad its lowest rating for truthfulness and accuracy: "Pants on Fire."
AFP has refused to pull the ad. And NewsBusters sneers at Dahlkemper for complaining ...
How dare citizens subject Members of Congress to political advocacy and arguments with which they disagree!
... and implies that an ABC news report featuring the story of her parents' death constitutes some sort of media bias:
Complete with a photo of her late parents, ABC's Jonathan Karl concluded his Friday night story on undecided Democratic House members by conveying the complaint of Pennsylvania's Kathy Dahlkemper, who contended a TV ad about how further government control of health care will lead to delays in cancer treatment as has occurred in Britain, is inappropriate because her parents recently died from cancer.
"Perhaps the most powerful personal story belongs to Pennsylvania's Kathy Dahlkemper," Karl intoned, pointing out "her father died of leukemia in February, and her mother died just two weeks ago, and now she finds herself among the undecided Democrats targeted by this ad." Viewers then saw a very brief clip of an ad from Americans for Prosperity in which a woman maintained: "If you find a lump, you could wait months for treatment and life-saving drugs can be restricted."
Karl relayed Dahlkemper's indignation: "She says the group that made the ad is wrong, and takes it personally."
Yeah -- the nerve of her!
Dahlkemper is politically vulnerable, but why this disgraceful attack doesn't provide her more than adequate cover to vote yes, I don't know. I'd say it's because the country is in a state of denial about the sheer viciousness of the modern right. It's as if we have a need to believe that "they're all alike" and no moral distinctions can be made between the sides in our politics.
But they can, and we have to start making them.
Friday, March 19, 2010
IMPEACHMENT OP-ED IN THE WASHINGTON TIMES: AND SO IT BEGINS
Endorsed as the lead item at Fox Nation right now:
It's not in the editorial voice of The Washington Times, but it's an op-ed by a Times columnist, Jeffrey T. Kuhner (he's also a talk radio guy and right-wing think tanker). Given the widely agreed-upon fiction that the Times is a respectable newspaper, I'd say a line has been crossed:
... Mr. Obama is imposing a leftist revolution. Since coming to office, he has behaved without any constitutional restraints...
The Slaughter Solution is a poisoned chalice. By drinking from it, the Democrats would not only commit political suicide. They would guarantee that any bill signed by Mr. Obama is illegitimate, illegal and blatantly unconstitutional. It would be worse than a strategic blunder; it would be a crime -- a moral crime against the American people and a direct abrogation of the Constitution and our very democracy.
It would open Mr. Obama, as well as key congressional leaders such as Mrs. Pelosi, to impeachment. The Slaughter Solution would replace the rule of law with arbitrary one-party rule. It violates the entire basis of our constitutional government -- meeting the threshold of "high crimes and misdemeanors." If it's enacted, Republicans should campaign for the November elections not only on repealing Obamacare, but on removing Mr. Obama and his gang of leftist thugs from office....
You know what's the creepiest part of that? The argument that if deem-and-pass is used, henceforth "any bill signed by Mr. Obama is illegitimate, illegal and blatantly unconstitutional." Basically, here's The Washington Times preemptively declaring that we will not have a legitimate president -- essentially seconding Orly Taitz, if for different reasons -- and validating the messages frying the brain synapses of every crackpot Timothy McVeigh out there.
It sure would be nice if mandarins such as David Broder would express a tiny bit of alarm at language such as this in D.C.'s #2 paper, but I'm sure an effective declaration of the illegitimacy of the government doesn't seem as bad to the Dean as, say, someone making an unkind remark about Joe Lieberman.
And no, this is not the same as the left-wing response to the 2000 election. Many of us thought that outcome was a travesty of the electoral process, but I don't know of any major news organization that was willing to declare the government null and void as a result. I don't even know of any sane lefties who felt that every act undertaken under Bush could simply be ignored or reversed based on the circumstances of his election. We at least acted as if we had a real government, however sleazy the process by which it came to be. I'm not sure the righties are going to do the same.
Endorsed as the lead item at Fox Nation right now:
It's not in the editorial voice of The Washington Times, but it's an op-ed by a Times columnist, Jeffrey T. Kuhner (he's also a talk radio guy and right-wing think tanker). Given the widely agreed-upon fiction that the Times is a respectable newspaper, I'd say a line has been crossed:
... Mr. Obama is imposing a leftist revolution. Since coming to office, he has behaved without any constitutional restraints...
The Slaughter Solution is a poisoned chalice. By drinking from it, the Democrats would not only commit political suicide. They would guarantee that any bill signed by Mr. Obama is illegitimate, illegal and blatantly unconstitutional. It would be worse than a strategic blunder; it would be a crime -- a moral crime against the American people and a direct abrogation of the Constitution and our very democracy.
It would open Mr. Obama, as well as key congressional leaders such as Mrs. Pelosi, to impeachment. The Slaughter Solution would replace the rule of law with arbitrary one-party rule. It violates the entire basis of our constitutional government -- meeting the threshold of "high crimes and misdemeanors." If it's enacted, Republicans should campaign for the November elections not only on repealing Obamacare, but on removing Mr. Obama and his gang of leftist thugs from office....
You know what's the creepiest part of that? The argument that if deem-and-pass is used, henceforth "any bill signed by Mr. Obama is illegitimate, illegal and blatantly unconstitutional." Basically, here's The Washington Times preemptively declaring that we will not have a legitimate president -- essentially seconding Orly Taitz, if for different reasons -- and validating the messages frying the brain synapses of every crackpot Timothy McVeigh out there.
It sure would be nice if mandarins such as David Broder would express a tiny bit of alarm at language such as this in D.C.'s #2 paper, but I'm sure an effective declaration of the illegitimacy of the government doesn't seem as bad to the Dean as, say, someone making an unkind remark about Joe Lieberman.
And no, this is not the same as the left-wing response to the 2000 election. Many of us thought that outcome was a travesty of the electoral process, but I don't know of any major news organization that was willing to declare the government null and void as a result. I don't even know of any sane lefties who felt that every act undertaken under Bush could simply be ignored or reversed based on the circumstances of his election. We at least acted as if we had a real government, however sleazy the process by which it came to be. I'm not sure the righties are going to do the same.
WHO SAYS REPUBLICANS WOULDN'T DARE REPEAL POPULAR HEALTH BENEFITS?
You think Republicans in D.C. will be shy about getting rid of benefits from the health care bill if they seize power? They're doing that at the state level right now, in Arizona:
Arizona on Thursday became the first state to eliminate its Children's Health Insurance Program when Gov. Jan Brewer signed an austere budget that will leave nearly 47,000 low-income children without coverage.
... Ms. Brewer, a Republican, has warned that more cuts will be needed if voters do not approve a referendum in May to raise the sales tax by a penny for three years, to 6.6 cents per dollar.
... The Republican-controlled Legislature passed the budget last week, based largely on a proposal from the governor that included deep cuts to both health care and education. ...
There's a widespread belief on our side that if we can just pass a bill, all the rancor will dissipate and we'll all dance and sing and frolic in a lovely spirit of comity as we welcome the frisky new health care pony that we'll love to pieces and never, ever let anyone take away from us. Well, on the question of taking away benefits, Arizona Republicans don't seem to be hesitating one bit -- and as I poke around the Internet, I don't see any sign that doing this is regarded as political suicide for them. (The "political suicide" argument is the reason we're usually given for why the national GOP won't really go for repeal, isn't it?)
By the way, Governor Brewer is supporting a temporary increase in the sales tax -- a tax that hits the poor and middle class much harder than the well-to-do, because they need to use a much greater percentage of their money to buy necessities -- while apparently hedging on whether she'll support a package of tax cuts for business that's being proposed by the GOP-controlled legislature. Expect the D.C. Republicans to head in that direction as well if they gain control of one or both houses of Congress (and the White House in 2012).
You think Republicans in D.C. will be shy about getting rid of benefits from the health care bill if they seize power? They're doing that at the state level right now, in Arizona:
Arizona on Thursday became the first state to eliminate its Children's Health Insurance Program when Gov. Jan Brewer signed an austere budget that will leave nearly 47,000 low-income children without coverage.
... Ms. Brewer, a Republican, has warned that more cuts will be needed if voters do not approve a referendum in May to raise the sales tax by a penny for three years, to 6.6 cents per dollar.
... The Republican-controlled Legislature passed the budget last week, based largely on a proposal from the governor that included deep cuts to both health care and education. ...
There's a widespread belief on our side that if we can just pass a bill, all the rancor will dissipate and we'll all dance and sing and frolic in a lovely spirit of comity as we welcome the frisky new health care pony that we'll love to pieces and never, ever let anyone take away from us. Well, on the question of taking away benefits, Arizona Republicans don't seem to be hesitating one bit -- and as I poke around the Internet, I don't see any sign that doing this is regarded as political suicide for them. (The "political suicide" argument is the reason we're usually given for why the national GOP won't really go for repeal, isn't it?)
By the way, Governor Brewer is supporting a temporary increase in the sales tax -- a tax that hits the poor and middle class much harder than the well-to-do, because they need to use a much greater percentage of their money to buy necessities -- while apparently hedging on whether she'll support a package of tax cuts for business that's being proposed by the GOP-controlled legislature. Expect the D.C. Republicans to head in that direction as well if they gain control of one or both houses of Congress (and the White House in 2012).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)