I miss Keith O...
Countdown dissects the debt deal
Here's the link:
http://current.com/shows/countdown/videos/special-comment-the-four-great-hypocrisies-of-the-debt-deal
Showing posts with label Barack Obama. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Barack Obama. Show all posts
Tuesday, August 2, 2011
Tuesday, November 2, 2010
Top Ten Codewords from the Right-winged Playbook
It's important to understand the codewords the far-right uses in advertising, speeches and debates. The following top ten list serves as a reference guide for decyphering the real meaning behind Republican talking points.
1. Government Take-over. Any proposal that was thoroughly debated in the 2008 Presidential primary, and subsequently voted on and approved by the American electorate that manage to pass a Republican roadblock in Congress and be signed into law by the President of the United States… i.e. a law following the mandated will of the American electorate.
2. American. Anyone who supports far-right, conservative ideology. syn True American or True Patriot.
3. Patriot - A person who watches Fox News. 2. Anyone who stood with the Confederacy over the Union Army during the civil war. 3. Anyone not a person of color.
4. Nazi A derogatory term that should never be used to describe someone with whom you disagree -- unless they happen to be liberal or moderate. 2. Anyone who is not a Republican.
5. Partisan Politics. Any reasonable attempt to discuss issues and determine the best plan of action, especially if suggested by a Democrat.
6. Common Sense Solutions . 1. Any proposal put forth by a Republican that has already failed when tried previously. Also known as Reaganomics (80s), or supply-side economics. 2.Tax breaks for the richest 2 percent of the population.
7. Unconstitutional. 1. Any Constitutional amendment except the second amendment. 2. Having to do with any of the Constitutional amendments and provisions as outlined in the Bill of Rights beyond the second amendment. Most often seen in issues involving the fourth, fifth and sixth amendements, which insure the right of due process for those facing legal action, protect Americans from illegal search and seizure and forbid cruel and unusual punishment. For example: forbiding protestors from bearing arms during a presidential rally merits outrage for being unconstitutional. No similar protests are warranted when people are wiretapped, detained without charges and tortured in secret detention camps .
8. Entitlement program. 1. Any program that benefits average American citizens over big corporations. 2. The percent of the Federal Budget remaining after military spending. Also known as Medicare, Social Security or Unemployment Insurance.
9. Activist judge. Any judge who supports the 14th amendment or Roe versus Wade.
10. Wasteful Spending (sometimes called Government Waste.) The 12 percent or less of the national budget remaining after earmarks to the military…also known as entitlements. 2. The Federal Budget dollars remaining after Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthy are subtracted.
1. Government Take-over. Any proposal that was thoroughly debated in the 2008 Presidential primary, and subsequently voted on and approved by the American electorate that manage to pass a Republican roadblock in Congress and be signed into law by the President of the United States… i.e. a law following the mandated will of the American electorate.
2. American. Anyone who supports far-right, conservative ideology. syn True American or True Patriot.
3. Patriot - A person who watches Fox News. 2. Anyone who stood with the Confederacy over the Union Army during the civil war. 3. Anyone not a person of color.
4. Nazi A derogatory term that should never be used to describe someone with whom you disagree -- unless they happen to be liberal or moderate. 2. Anyone who is not a Republican.
5. Partisan Politics. Any reasonable attempt to discuss issues and determine the best plan of action, especially if suggested by a Democrat.
6. Common Sense Solutions . 1. Any proposal put forth by a Republican that has already failed when tried previously. Also known as Reaganomics (80s), or supply-side economics. 2.Tax breaks for the richest 2 percent of the population.
7. Unconstitutional. 1. Any Constitutional amendment except the second amendment. 2. Having to do with any of the Constitutional amendments and provisions as outlined in the Bill of Rights beyond the second amendment. Most often seen in issues involving the fourth, fifth and sixth amendements, which insure the right of due process for those facing legal action, protect Americans from illegal search and seizure and forbid cruel and unusual punishment. For example: forbiding protestors from bearing arms during a presidential rally merits outrage for being unconstitutional. No similar protests are warranted when people are wiretapped, detained without charges and tortured in secret detention camps .
8. Entitlement program. 1. Any program that benefits average American citizens over big corporations. 2. The percent of the Federal Budget remaining after military spending. Also known as Medicare, Social Security or Unemployment Insurance.
9. Activist judge. Any judge who supports the 14th amendment or Roe versus Wade.
10. Wasteful Spending (sometimes called Government Waste.) The 12 percent or less of the national budget remaining after earmarks to the military…also known as entitlements. 2. The Federal Budget dollars remaining after Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthy are subtracted.
Sunday, September 26, 2010
So The Tea Party Wants to "Take Back America:" Dissecting the Sound Bites
Around the country, "Take Back America" is the rallying cry for thousands who align themselves with the Tea Party movement. Problem is they want to take the country away from the millions more in this country who already voted against their politics, policies and ideas.
Remember Joe, the Plumber? In the weeks before the election, then-candidate Obama debated Republican John McCain over ending Bush-era tax cuts for the richest 3 percent of Americans, i.e. people who make more than 250,000 a year.
We debated, debated and debated again. Obama advocated for going back to the tax rates of the Clinton administration. McCain, in contrast, advocated continuing the Bush tax breaks, which were set to expire this year. Other issues debated include health care reform and Wall Street oversight, particularly regulating the lending policies that created the financial meltdown.
In November 2008, people made their choice and spoke out by an overwhelming majority, by voting for President Obama.
Why then, in 2010 do Republicans now say the President is going against the will of the people? Or that a majority of Americans are against these policies? Why are issues the country overwhelmingly supports and already voted for still being debated and labeled controversial?
Reporting on the 2008 presidential campaign, NBC reported: | (http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2008/10/18/4431760-will-the-real-virginia-please-stand-up)
Was it? Or was it an early glimmer of what would rise as the constant Republican strategy of positioning any Obama supporter, in fact any liberal voter as somehow "unAmerican" or even worse, "anti-American."
Unfortunately when Republicans say a majority of voters, they only mean a majority of Republican voters. The same innuendo holds for the word "patriot." Only Republicans are "true patriots."
The President aptly noted this effort to divide the country into good voters and bad voters during his 2004 Democratic National Committee speech focusing on separating the country into red and blue states.
Unfortunately there's more to Republican double-speak than meets the eye. This is even more true when one analyzes the rhetoric of the Tea Party.
Republicans claim they are "fiscal conservatives." The Tea Party ratchets this claim up a notch, by claiming not only to stand for fiscal responsibility, but also for constitutionally limited government and a free market.
Sounds good, doesn't it? But understanding the nuance behind the sound bite is the part many supporters and even TV pundits overlook.
Let's face it; everyone wants to keep government off our backs. But what does it really mean when Tea Party Republicans say it?
For the most part, smaller government means less government regulation. Historically speaking, under Republican administrations going back to Ronald Reagan, that means a rollback of government oversight of food safety, schools, energy and big business. Even the way we communicate with each other got a major overhaul.
What it means to you is government continuing to roll back regulatory provisions that keep big companies like say BP Oil, in check. That means expanding the types of policy that bought us the recent Gulf Oil disaster and massive food recalls - policies that make us less safe and secure in the end.
Stay tuned for more on how their term rolling back government and free market includes privatizing such popular programs as Medicare , Social Security and health care provided to Veterans through the Veterans Administration. I will spend a full column to illustrate how pervasive this philosophy is among the far right.
But now, back to the Tea Party. Try as they might, the Tea Party also wants you to think it's not partisan. Asked to define the movement on Sunday’s CBS Face the Nation, Tea Party candidate Marco Rubio states: “Washington is broken. Both parties are to blame.”
Ok. If that’s true why are Tea Party candidates only challenging moderate Republicans in the mid-term?
And what about fiscal responsibility?
Ken Buck, who calls himself the “grassroots choice for Colorado” further highlights the faulty thinking of Tea Party candidates. Also on Face the Nation this week, Buck claims to favor such "common-sense" solutions to our budget crisis as "Keeping [government] spending under control."
Buck states: “I think we need to look at some sort of constitutional balanced budget amendment -- or spending limit -- and some formula that keeps spending under control. We are clearly heading off a cliff. The Tea Party movement, the grassroots movement in Colorado, recognizes that Republicans are every bit as much to blame for where we are right now as Democrats. But we have to find some discipline from outside of Washington DC, and impose it on our Congress and executive branch.”
Sounds good right? Yet, when pressed, Buck announces he supports efforts to leave the Bush-era tax cuts in place, which are responsible for the bulk of the country's current budget imbalance. Buck says he favors tax cuts for all, even the most wealthy companies and individuals, i.e. the richest two percent of Americans.
He tells host Bob Schieffer: I don’t see it as tax cuts. They talk about extending the Bush tax cuts. We have a tax rate right now. Increasing that tax rate to me is a tax increase. Also, I think you have to look at where do families cut, if we don’t maintain our tax rates where they are right now? What do families have to give up in order to pay for government spending -- the overspending that’s going on -- in the federal government? I come down on the side of low taxes because I think it’s going to generate jobs in this economy.
Where do families cut? Brings to mind images of the average family, maybe even your family, who is struggling in this economy.
But remember we are really talking about people that make more than 250,000 a year, which is less than two percent of the entire population. Similarly deceptive in Republican-speak is "small business." On the right, small business is defined to encompass huge, privately-owned multi-billion dollar companies like Price Waterhouse and the Chicago Tribune. The Republican definition of the word even includes wealthy individuals who incorporate as a tax shelter, like some actors and athletics, and people like J. Howard Marshall, the wealthy hubby of Ana Nicole Smith.
Buck fails to acknowledge those temporary tax cuts for the wealthy that were passed by Bush in 2001 cut more dollars from the federal budget than the health care and stimulus packages combined. They were passed by the legislature as an effort by Bush to jump start the economy and create jobs.
Instead we lost jobs and we all know the economy tanked.
Real common sense recognizes if you have a balanced budget, then willingly cut more than half the income that supports it, you wind up with a debt crisis. That’s not called living beyond your means. That’s called deliberate sabotage. Is it no wonder our economy is in the toilet?
Earlier in the day, CBS Sunday morning ran an excellent overview on why the Bush tax cuts don't trickle down to help the middle class and in fact hurts job growth in this country. It’s a gamble that didn’t work, and one that has failed historically time and again.
Remember Joe, the Plumber? In the weeks before the election, then-candidate Obama debated Republican John McCain over ending Bush-era tax cuts for the richest 3 percent of Americans, i.e. people who make more than 250,000 a year.
We debated, debated and debated again. Obama advocated for going back to the tax rates of the Clinton administration. McCain, in contrast, advocated continuing the Bush tax breaks, which were set to expire this year. Other issues debated include health care reform and Wall Street oversight, particularly regulating the lending policies that created the financial meltdown.
In November 2008, people made their choice and spoke out by an overwhelming majority, by voting for President Obama.
Why then, in 2010 do Republicans now say the President is going against the will of the people? Or that a majority of Americans are against these policies? Why are issues the country overwhelmingly supports and already voted for still being debated and labeled controversial?
Reporting on the 2008 presidential campaign, NBC reported: | (http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2008/10/18/4431760-will-the-real-virginia-please-stand-up)
It's no secret to native Virginians that the parts of the state inside the Washington DC beltway aren't representative of the entire Old Dominion. That's probably the point that McCain advisor Nancy Pfotenhauer was trying to make when she told NBC's Kevin Corke today that the northern and mostly suburban part of the state doesn't represent "real Virginia."
Was it? Or was it an early glimmer of what would rise as the constant Republican strategy of positioning any Obama supporter, in fact any liberal voter as somehow "unAmerican" or even worse, "anti-American."
Unfortunately when Republicans say a majority of voters, they only mean a majority of Republican voters. The same innuendo holds for the word "patriot." Only Republicans are "true patriots."
The President aptly noted this effort to divide the country into good voters and bad voters during his 2004 Democratic National Committee speech focusing on separating the country into red and blue states.
Unfortunately there's more to Republican double-speak than meets the eye. This is even more true when one analyzes the rhetoric of the Tea Party.
Republicans claim they are "fiscal conservatives." The Tea Party ratchets this claim up a notch, by claiming not only to stand for fiscal responsibility, but also for constitutionally limited government and a free market.
Sounds good, doesn't it? But understanding the nuance behind the sound bite is the part many supporters and even TV pundits overlook.
Let's face it; everyone wants to keep government off our backs. But what does it really mean when Tea Party Republicans say it?
For the most part, smaller government means less government regulation. Historically speaking, under Republican administrations going back to Ronald Reagan, that means a rollback of government oversight of food safety, schools, energy and big business. Even the way we communicate with each other got a major overhaul.
What it means to you is government continuing to roll back regulatory provisions that keep big companies like say BP Oil, in check. That means expanding the types of policy that bought us the recent Gulf Oil disaster and massive food recalls - policies that make us less safe and secure in the end.
Stay tuned for more on how their term rolling back government and free market includes privatizing such popular programs as Medicare , Social Security and health care provided to Veterans through the Veterans Administration. I will spend a full column to illustrate how pervasive this philosophy is among the far right.
But now, back to the Tea Party. Try as they might, the Tea Party also wants you to think it's not partisan. Asked to define the movement on Sunday’s CBS Face the Nation, Tea Party candidate Marco Rubio states: “Washington is broken. Both parties are to blame.”
Ok. If that’s true why are Tea Party candidates only challenging moderate Republicans in the mid-term?
And what about fiscal responsibility?
Ken Buck, who calls himself the “grassroots choice for Colorado” further highlights the faulty thinking of Tea Party candidates. Also on Face the Nation this week, Buck claims to favor such "common-sense" solutions to our budget crisis as "Keeping [government] spending under control."
Buck states: “I think we need to look at some sort of constitutional balanced budget amendment -- or spending limit -- and some formula that keeps spending under control. We are clearly heading off a cliff. The Tea Party movement, the grassroots movement in Colorado, recognizes that Republicans are every bit as much to blame for where we are right now as Democrats. But we have to find some discipline from outside of Washington DC, and impose it on our Congress and executive branch.”
Sounds good right? Yet, when pressed, Buck announces he supports efforts to leave the Bush-era tax cuts in place, which are responsible for the bulk of the country's current budget imbalance. Buck says he favors tax cuts for all, even the most wealthy companies and individuals, i.e. the richest two percent of Americans.
He tells host Bob Schieffer: I don’t see it as tax cuts. They talk about extending the Bush tax cuts. We have a tax rate right now. Increasing that tax rate to me is a tax increase. Also, I think you have to look at where do families cut, if we don’t maintain our tax rates where they are right now? What do families have to give up in order to pay for government spending -- the overspending that’s going on -- in the federal government? I come down on the side of low taxes because I think it’s going to generate jobs in this economy.
Where do families cut? Brings to mind images of the average family, maybe even your family, who is struggling in this economy.
But remember we are really talking about people that make more than 250,000 a year, which is less than two percent of the entire population. Similarly deceptive in Republican-speak is "small business." On the right, small business is defined to encompass huge, privately-owned multi-billion dollar companies like Price Waterhouse and the Chicago Tribune. The Republican definition of the word even includes wealthy individuals who incorporate as a tax shelter, like some actors and athletics, and people like J. Howard Marshall, the wealthy hubby of Ana Nicole Smith.
Buck fails to acknowledge those temporary tax cuts for the wealthy that were passed by Bush in 2001 cut more dollars from the federal budget than the health care and stimulus packages combined. They were passed by the legislature as an effort by Bush to jump start the economy and create jobs.
Instead we lost jobs and we all know the economy tanked.
Real common sense recognizes if you have a balanced budget, then willingly cut more than half the income that supports it, you wind up with a debt crisis. That’s not called living beyond your means. That’s called deliberate sabotage. Is it no wonder our economy is in the toilet?
Earlier in the day, CBS Sunday morning ran an excellent overview on why the Bush tax cuts don't trickle down to help the middle class and in fact hurts job growth in this country. It’s a gamble that didn’t work, and one that has failed historically time and again.
Saturday, August 21, 2010
Fear of "the Other." The Religious Right Wraps Bigotry in the Guise of Christianity
CULTURAL DIVERSITY: Keith Olbermann and Michael Eric Dyson from Georgetown University call the religious right to the carpet for their bigoted, un-Christian and un-charitable attitudes toward President Obama, who is a Christian.
The pair discussed the recent CNN appearance by Franklin Graham, the son of evangelist Billy Graham who was uninvited from the National Prayer Breakfast for his less-than-charitable attitudes towards people of other faiths, specifically Muslims.
Graham was speaking on speculation about the President's faith, specifically if Mr. Obama was secretly Muslim. Mr. Grahams observations were exceedingly troubling, filled with nonsensical, repugnant references to the "seed" of the President's father, who was an atheist.
Shades of Rosemary's Baby and the "Demon Seed." Franklin's father Billy was exposed as virulently anti-Semitic. Does that say something about inherited "seed?"
Some of the more poignant thoughts from Dyson:
More from Dyson:
And later:
Finally, what probably amounts to the most profound statement regarding who is or is not Christian, at least for me:
Featured Newsclip. August 20: Franklin Graham, son of evangelist Billy Graham spews his anti-christian venom on CNN.
Here's the direct link, in case the video segment doesn't appear on your screen | http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/38793108%2338793108
The pair discussed the recent CNN appearance by Franklin Graham, the son of evangelist Billy Graham who was uninvited from the National Prayer Breakfast for his less-than-charitable attitudes towards people of other faiths, specifically Muslims.
Graham was speaking on speculation about the President's faith, specifically if Mr. Obama was secretly Muslim. Mr. Grahams observations were exceedingly troubling, filled with nonsensical, repugnant references to the "seed" of the President's father, who was an atheist.
Shades of Rosemary's Baby and the "Demon Seed." Franklin's father Billy was exposed as virulently anti-Semitic. Does that say something about inherited "seed?"
Some of the more poignant thoughts from Dyson:
The racial subtext here can't be ignored. We're trying to "otherize" him....The jumble of epitaphs that are being hurled with lethal intensity against Mr. Obama are nothing but the made-over bigotry of people trying to find new-fangled ways to dress up old-fangled bigotry.
More from Dyson:
Mr. Graham is on horrible ground here. If we're looking at people's Christianity the Bible tells us to "judge them by their fruit.' We don't want to get into slinging accusations about who is Christian and who is not.
And later:
The President is fighting an uphill battle. He's got racial issues, he's got religious issues, he's got issues of American citizenship.
Finally, what probably amounts to the most profound statement regarding who is or is not Christian, at least for me:
Another way [to fight the bigotry] is for members of religious communities, of Christian communities, to step out on their faith and say look, let's top haranguing this man,' let's stop berating him...Jesus said a lot of people who call my name will not ultimately be in the kingdom with me. So it's not what you say out of your mouth it's what you perform in your heart....I can't discern any credible connection between the God I worship, who is about justice and mercy and truth and love, and the judgmental, harshly indifferent to the plight of the poor God that Mr. Graham seems to worship. I'd rather be with those who perform the realities of the faith, than who simply claim it out of their mouths.
Featured Newsclip. August 20: Franklin Graham, son of evangelist Billy Graham spews his anti-christian venom on CNN.
Visit msnbc.com for a direct link to this segment, other world news, and provocative discussion about today's toxic political environment
Here's the direct link, in case the video segment doesn't appear on your screen | http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/38793108%2338793108
Saturday, May 1, 2010
Jeff Neuman-Lee: Fighting for Peace in the Current American Civil War
A friend passed on this article to me and I'm reposting it largely because I think it summarizes my feelings on the right-wing hate-filled misinformation campaign currently sweeping the country. Here's why:
When I hear the radical right use deliberately provocative language, i.e. "death panels" and "Armageddon," to describe a perfectly reasonable point of view, or label someone who happens to disagree as "confused" or "un-American" or "un-Patriotic," or refer to our duly elected government and its officials as "Hitler" or "Nazi" or "the Regime" --- it makes me cringe. Now, with zealous abandon, any disagreement with GOP can and will be met by a personal attack.
If childhood bullying is on the up-swing, we need only look as far as the antics of the Republican party as the reason.
And it didn't start with George W Bush and his infamous "you're either with us or against us" ideology. For the last 20 years or so, the GOP has resorted to fear-mongering and hate speech to attack people it disliked.
It started with the push to impeach Bill Clinton, who incidentally, I didn't vote for and whose policies I disagreed with for most of his time in office.
When Hillary spoke of a "vast, right-wing conspiracy," many laughed. But I knew exactly what she was referring to. The Right attacked the Clintons with such a ferocity, it prompted some in the Black community to refer to Bill as the first "Black President" more due the manner in which Clinton was treated than for any affinity with him as a sympathizer of issues of relevance to African Americans.
Polls show most of the American people were against trying to impeach a sitting President for what amounted to personal issues of morality. While most didn't like what Clinton did, they felt that was best dealt with between the Clintons. Most felt a marital affair did not rise to the level of "high crimes and misdemeanors" against the country. Yet the Right insisted the country push on with a public spectacle of an impeachment hearing.
Soon anyone that challenged the Republican misinformation machine wound up targeted in some way, largely by hateful name-calling or some lie created about them - think John Kerry and the Swift boat incident.
Now we're in the middle of a war - a bitter war between the right and the left -- in a battle built largely by right-winged media strategists and their unethical use of misinformation and highly emotional words chosen more for their impact than their honest portrayal of the subject at hand. Now instead of legislators, the radical right has become a hate-mongering lie-machine, a tool of Republican pollster Frank Luntz, and his highly researched wordsmithing designed to incite more anger than it describes any real issue.
As a media person, I see clearly how we got here. What is less clear is how we can ever hope to get out, without some legal regulation of not only the broadcast industry but also the public relations profession. Both the article and its link are posted below:
Jeff Neuman-Lee: Fighting for Peace in the Current American Civil War
Fromt he Huffington Post : http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeff-neumanlee/fighting-for-peace-in-the_b_549605.html?ref=fb&src=sp#sb=647059,b=facebook
Fighting for Peace in the Current American Civil War
I get mad, just like anyone else, when I see lies, distortions, and simple obstruction. The other night I watched Rachel Maddow report on the real, uncensored video from the ACORN case in California. Looks like the folks who lost their jobs because of this were actually doing their jobs; the videos were presented by FOX News in such a way as to bear false witness against them, charging them with encouraging child prostitution. FOX, as a shill for the my-money-is-more- important-than-humans-crowd, holds prime responsibility for this "bearing false witness" (Exodus 20:17 and Deuteronomy 5:20).
It's not the only incidence, of course. When the self-proclaimed clown Glenn Beck calls my kind of faith a communistic, Nazi faith because I see the Biblical undergirding of what is loosely known as "social justice"; when I hear the formerly esteemed Charles Grassley of Iowa blatantly lie about "death panels" and killing Grandma; when I see the unprepared, off-the-cuff, divisive Sarah Palin given any sort of regular public pulpit; when I hear obvious lies about the efficacy of government as though it is not part of the "real" economy and automatically corrupts anyone ever engaging with it; when I hear Beck's ahistorical diatribes that miseducate uneducated and ahistorical people; when the outrage of calling creationism in any form "scientific"...
Well I could go on. I've let myself be mad.
And it has a corrosive effect on us all. It's divisive in the worst way: the intent is not to find truth together, but to subjugate some to other's will. Controversy and conflict are normal and good, but the folks who have been creating this division offer no way out of this other than the rest of us to resign in conformity to their ideas. It's pretty clear that they want to win and dominate me, and that makes me want to win! But I don't want to be like that; getting others to be in lockstep with my ideas is not my sort of victory.
However, I would be glad if both of us could use the same sort of open, empirical, and dialogical process I admire. But the real battleground may be over the process. It adds up to the effect that they don't want to (or perhaps don't understand how to) have a conversation, a real conversation, because even if I listen and change my mind about some position or another that they like, I still win by having the conversation with them.
A second, obvious corrosive effect of all this division is that it confuses and exhausts a lot of people. So many people who would be part of a real conversation allow themselves to get discouraged and drop out. Which is great for the my-money-is-more-important-than-humans-crowd because the main constraint on them is people who recognize that money has limited importance and who simply are themselves and engage the world. If we get discouraged, we acquiesce to the money power. They are glad when we drop out.
It feels like war. The problems seem so intractable. It seems so very us-against-them. And the stakes are so high. There are real winners and losers. People die in this undeclared war; from soldiers and the tens of thousands of innocents in the war of choice in Iraq to the poor who lived below the levies or had no building codes when the earthquake hit or had no insurance when it was time to take the tests. Tell the victims that this is not war. Tell those who jobs evaporate in the wake of class war-fare waged from the top this is not a war.
But there I go again, I got mad. I have a problem with just getting mad. It solves nothing and we have really enormous problems to be solved. The pressures of population on resources and pollution by themselves threaten to break any hope of a world where all men and women are equal in respect and opportunity. These pressures could even break down civilization and lead to a massive die-off.
So how do we be at peace with our enemies? Jesus calls us to love our enemies. It's been done so little by the people who call themselves Jesus' church, but we are not without models or people who today take this admonition seriously. Still, it has been taken as utopian or impossible or truly impractical.
However, consider these political and cultural leaders whose successes are legendary and whose sentiments clearly reflect Jesus' call to love the enemy:
"Am I not destroying my enemies when I make friends of them?" Lincoln.
"Love is the only force capable of transforming an enemy into friend." King.
"It is easy enough to be friendly to one's friends. But to befriend the one who regards himself as your enemy is the quintessence of true religion. The other is mere business." Gandhi.
An interesting selection of men. All three faced horrifying injustice inflicted on their
neighbors, if not themselves. One, Lincoln, uses violence and gets caught up in an unforeseen maelstrom; the other two intentionally provoke violence. Their attempts to make friends of enemies kills them all. Yet, all three wind up furthering the progressive liberation of humanity.
How do we make peace in times like this? This is the question I raise to anyone who might push the Huffington Post religion button. I hope we ask the basic questions. I hope that we refrain from jumping to conclusions before we ask and listen. No matter our background, we each will move back and forth from our different metaphors to the actual physical ground. I doubt we all will agree. I can't even imagine that we would even fully understand each other. But I think that we all can be encouraged to the very necessary work of making peace in this time of the continuing American Civil War
When I hear the radical right use deliberately provocative language, i.e. "death panels" and "Armageddon," to describe a perfectly reasonable point of view, or label someone who happens to disagree as "confused" or "un-American" or "un-Patriotic," or refer to our duly elected government and its officials as "Hitler" or "Nazi" or "the Regime" --- it makes me cringe. Now, with zealous abandon, any disagreement with GOP can and will be met by a personal attack.
If childhood bullying is on the up-swing, we need only look as far as the antics of the Republican party as the reason.
And it didn't start with George W Bush and his infamous "you're either with us or against us" ideology. For the last 20 years or so, the GOP has resorted to fear-mongering and hate speech to attack people it disliked.
It started with the push to impeach Bill Clinton, who incidentally, I didn't vote for and whose policies I disagreed with for most of his time in office.
When Hillary spoke of a "vast, right-wing conspiracy," many laughed. But I knew exactly what she was referring to. The Right attacked the Clintons with such a ferocity, it prompted some in the Black community to refer to Bill as the first "Black President" more due the manner in which Clinton was treated than for any affinity with him as a sympathizer of issues of relevance to African Americans.
Polls show most of the American people were against trying to impeach a sitting President for what amounted to personal issues of morality. While most didn't like what Clinton did, they felt that was best dealt with between the Clintons. Most felt a marital affair did not rise to the level of "high crimes and misdemeanors" against the country. Yet the Right insisted the country push on with a public spectacle of an impeachment hearing.
Soon anyone that challenged the Republican misinformation machine wound up targeted in some way, largely by hateful name-calling or some lie created about them - think John Kerry and the Swift boat incident.
Now we're in the middle of a war - a bitter war between the right and the left -- in a battle built largely by right-winged media strategists and their unethical use of misinformation and highly emotional words chosen more for their impact than their honest portrayal of the subject at hand. Now instead of legislators, the radical right has become a hate-mongering lie-machine, a tool of Republican pollster Frank Luntz, and his highly researched wordsmithing designed to incite more anger than it describes any real issue.
As a media person, I see clearly how we got here. What is less clear is how we can ever hope to get out, without some legal regulation of not only the broadcast industry but also the public relations profession. Both the article and its link are posted below:
Jeff Neuman-Lee: Fighting for Peace in the Current American Civil War
Fromt he Huffington Post : http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeff-neumanlee/fighting-for-peace-in-the_b_549605.html?ref=fb&src=sp#sb=647059,b=facebook
Fighting for Peace in the Current American Civil War
I get mad, just like anyone else, when I see lies, distortions, and simple obstruction. The other night I watched Rachel Maddow report on the real, uncensored video from the ACORN case in California. Looks like the folks who lost their jobs because of this were actually doing their jobs; the videos were presented by FOX News in such a way as to bear false witness against them, charging them with encouraging child prostitution. FOX, as a shill for the my-money-is-more- important-than-humans-crowd, holds prime responsibility for this "bearing false witness" (Exodus 20:17 and Deuteronomy 5:20).
It's not the only incidence, of course. When the self-proclaimed clown Glenn Beck calls my kind of faith a communistic, Nazi faith because I see the Biblical undergirding of what is loosely known as "social justice"; when I hear the formerly esteemed Charles Grassley of Iowa blatantly lie about "death panels" and killing Grandma; when I see the unprepared, off-the-cuff, divisive Sarah Palin given any sort of regular public pulpit; when I hear obvious lies about the efficacy of government as though it is not part of the "real" economy and automatically corrupts anyone ever engaging with it; when I hear Beck's ahistorical diatribes that miseducate uneducated and ahistorical people; when the outrage of calling creationism in any form "scientific"...
Well I could go on. I've let myself be mad.
And it has a corrosive effect on us all. It's divisive in the worst way: the intent is not to find truth together, but to subjugate some to other's will. Controversy and conflict are normal and good, but the folks who have been creating this division offer no way out of this other than the rest of us to resign in conformity to their ideas. It's pretty clear that they want to win and dominate me, and that makes me want to win! But I don't want to be like that; getting others to be in lockstep with my ideas is not my sort of victory.
However, I would be glad if both of us could use the same sort of open, empirical, and dialogical process I admire. But the real battleground may be over the process. It adds up to the effect that they don't want to (or perhaps don't understand how to) have a conversation, a real conversation, because even if I listen and change my mind about some position or another that they like, I still win by having the conversation with them.
A second, obvious corrosive effect of all this division is that it confuses and exhausts a lot of people. So many people who would be part of a real conversation allow themselves to get discouraged and drop out. Which is great for the my-money-is-more-important-than-humans-crowd because the main constraint on them is people who recognize that money has limited importance and who simply are themselves and engage the world. If we get discouraged, we acquiesce to the money power. They are glad when we drop out.
It feels like war. The problems seem so intractable. It seems so very us-against-them. And the stakes are so high. There are real winners and losers. People die in this undeclared war; from soldiers and the tens of thousands of innocents in the war of choice in Iraq to the poor who lived below the levies or had no building codes when the earthquake hit or had no insurance when it was time to take the tests. Tell the victims that this is not war. Tell those who jobs evaporate in the wake of class war-fare waged from the top this is not a war.
But there I go again, I got mad. I have a problem with just getting mad. It solves nothing and we have really enormous problems to be solved. The pressures of population on resources and pollution by themselves threaten to break any hope of a world where all men and women are equal in respect and opportunity. These pressures could even break down civilization and lead to a massive die-off.
So how do we be at peace with our enemies? Jesus calls us to love our enemies. It's been done so little by the people who call themselves Jesus' church, but we are not without models or people who today take this admonition seriously. Still, it has been taken as utopian or impossible or truly impractical.
However, consider these political and cultural leaders whose successes are legendary and whose sentiments clearly reflect Jesus' call to love the enemy:
"Am I not destroying my enemies when I make friends of them?" Lincoln.
"Love is the only force capable of transforming an enemy into friend." King.
"It is easy enough to be friendly to one's friends. But to befriend the one who regards himself as your enemy is the quintessence of true religion. The other is mere business." Gandhi.
An interesting selection of men. All three faced horrifying injustice inflicted on their
neighbors, if not themselves. One, Lincoln, uses violence and gets caught up in an unforeseen maelstrom; the other two intentionally provoke violence. Their attempts to make friends of enemies kills them all. Yet, all three wind up furthering the progressive liberation of humanity.
How do we make peace in times like this? This is the question I raise to anyone who might push the Huffington Post religion button. I hope we ask the basic questions. I hope that we refrain from jumping to conclusions before we ask and listen. No matter our background, we each will move back and forth from our different metaphors to the actual physical ground. I doubt we all will agree. I can't even imagine that we would even fully understand each other. But I think that we all can be encouraged to the very necessary work of making peace in this time of the continuing American Civil War
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
Speaking Truth to Talking Point - Rachel Maddow Fact Checks Right
Rachel Maddow fact checks the right-wing's "blame the Democrats" philosophy on her February 18 show on MSNBC.
Rachel Maddow Show (air date 2/182010)
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/#35470419
Rachel Maddow Show (air date 2/182010)
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/#35470419
Watch the Rachel Maddow Show for fair and impartial analysis of world news, and news about health care reform
Friday, December 18, 2009
Health Care Reform Dirty Tricks
Health insurance companies are using the popular Facebook game, Mafia Wars to generate anti-health care reform letters to Congress from unsuspecting players. MSNBC's Rachel Maddow explains.
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Radical Right-winged Rhetoric Gets Scarier and Scarier
MSNBC's Rachel Maddow exposes more hateful tactics from the radical "religious" right.
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
Thursday, October 29, 2009
House Announces Health Care Bill
Sigh. The House-sponsored health care bill does not include a "robust" public option. In fact, an estimated 90 percent of people won't be able to use it.
The bill does, however, mandate that everyone must carry health insurance. Since the poor already have a "public option," Medicaid, that means the Middle Class, who are already struggling.
I have to ask: Why is it I can choose not to have a credit card that charges me 30 percent interest but now I'll be forced to buy insurance that takes 30 percent off the top --- $$$ that feed the pockets of corporate executives, with no provisions to make sure those companies are kept open, honest and keep costs low.
Just like during the Iraq war, the Democracts have sold their constituents down the river, bowing to the vocal few rather than standing up for what they believe.
I believe the President sincerely wants change. I'm just not sure the rest of the party supports it.
The bill does, however, mandate that everyone must carry health insurance. Since the poor already have a "public option," Medicaid, that means the Middle Class, who are already struggling.
I have to ask: Why is it I can choose not to have a credit card that charges me 30 percent interest but now I'll be forced to buy insurance that takes 30 percent off the top --- $$$ that feed the pockets of corporate executives, with no provisions to make sure those companies are kept open, honest and keep costs low.
Just like during the Iraq war, the Democracts have sold their constituents down the river, bowing to the vocal few rather than standing up for what they believe.
I believe the President sincerely wants change. I'm just not sure the rest of the party supports it.
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
A High Honor, The Nobel Peace Prize. Congratulations to the President
Congratulations to President Barack Obama for winning the Nobel Peace Prize and single-handedly returning the US to a place of admiration and respect around the world.
From the Nobel Committee: Obama has as President created a new climate in international politics. Multilateral diplomacy has regained a central position, with emphasis on the role that the United Nations and other international institutions can play. Dialogue and negotiations are preferred as instruments for resolving even the most difficult international conflicts. The vision of a world free from nuclear arms has powerfully stimulated disarmament and arms control negotiations. Thanks to Obama’s initiative, the USA is now playing a more constructive role in meeting the great climatic challenges the world is confronting.
From the Nobel Committee: Obama has as President created a new climate in international politics. Multilateral diplomacy has regained a central position, with emphasis on the role that the United Nations and other international institutions can play. Dialogue and negotiations are preferred as instruments for resolving even the most difficult international conflicts. The vision of a world free from nuclear arms has powerfully stimulated disarmament and arms control negotiations. Thanks to Obama’s initiative, the USA is now playing a more constructive role in meeting the great climatic challenges the world is confronting.
Monday, October 12, 2009
White House Calls Out Fox News For Lies
From Politico.com
http://www.politico.com/blogs/michaelcalderone/1009/Dunn_slams_Fox_opinion_journalism_masquerading_as_news.html?showall
Dunn slams Fox: 'Opinion journalism masquerading as news'
When the official White House blog recently called out “Fox lies,” I noted that it was unusual for the Obama administration to so strongly condemn a news organization.
Apparently, that's part of the new White House strategy.
Time White House correspondent Michael Scherer writes that in the face of criticism from the right, "the White House decided it would become a player, issuing biting attacks on those pundits, politicians and outlets that make what the White House believes to be misleading or simply false claims.”
White House Communications Director Anita Dunn has been leading the charge, Scherer notes, and while consuming conservative media, she's become a “fierce critic of Fox News.”
"It's opinion journalism masquerading as news," Dunn says. "They are boosting their audience. But that doesn't mean we are going to sit back." Fox News's head of news, Michael Clemente, counters that the White House criticism unfairly conflates the network's reporters and its pundits, like Glenn Beck, whom he likens to "the op-ed page of a newspaper."
http://www.politico.com/blogs/michaelcalderone/1009/Dunn_slams_Fox_opinion_journalism_masquerading_as_news.html?showall
Dunn slams Fox: 'Opinion journalism masquerading as news'
When the official White House blog recently called out “Fox lies,” I noted that it was unusual for the Obama administration to so strongly condemn a news organization.
Apparently, that's part of the new White House strategy.
Time White House correspondent Michael Scherer writes that in the face of criticism from the right, "the White House decided it would become a player, issuing biting attacks on those pundits, politicians and outlets that make what the White House believes to be misleading or simply false claims.”
White House Communications Director Anita Dunn has been leading the charge, Scherer notes, and while consuming conservative media, she's become a “fierce critic of Fox News.”
"It's opinion journalism masquerading as news," Dunn says. "They are boosting their audience. But that doesn't mean we are going to sit back." Fox News's head of news, Michael Clemente, counters that the White House criticism unfairly conflates the network's reporters and its pundits, like Glenn Beck, whom he likens to "the op-ed page of a newspaper."
Sunday, October 11, 2009
Keith countdowns health care debate
Keith Olbermann dedicates an entire hour discussing health care reform after disclosing his own struggles with father's illness.
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
Saturday, October 10, 2009
The DNC fights Back....finally
This from the Huffington Post
UPDATE: Either sensing an opening to cast the Republican Party as actively rooting against America, or just fed up with the stream of negative responses, the Democratic National Committee put out an unusually blunt statement Friday morning. The gist: that the GOP sides with the terrorists.
"The Republican Party has thrown in its lot with the terrorists -- the Taliban and Hamas this morning -- in criticizing the President for receiving the Nobel Peace prize," wrote DNC Communications Director Brad Woodhouse. "Republicans cheered when America failed to land the Olympics and now they are criticizing the President of the United States for receiving the Nobel Peace prize -- an award he did not seek but that is nonetheless an honor in which every American can take great pride -- unless of course you are the Republican Party. The 2009 version of the Republican Party has no boundaries, has no shame and has proved that they will put politics above patriotism at every turn. It's no wonder only 20 percent of Americans admit to being Republicans anymore - it's an embarrassing label to claim."
FURTHER UPDATE: The progressive outlet Media Matters puts out a telling compilation of the conservative outrage...
Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/09/obamas-nobel-prize-inspir_n_315167.html
UPDATE: Either sensing an opening to cast the Republican Party as actively rooting against America, or just fed up with the stream of negative responses, the Democratic National Committee put out an unusually blunt statement Friday morning. The gist: that the GOP sides with the terrorists.
"The Republican Party has thrown in its lot with the terrorists -- the Taliban and Hamas this morning -- in criticizing the President for receiving the Nobel Peace prize," wrote DNC Communications Director Brad Woodhouse. "Republicans cheered when America failed to land the Olympics and now they are criticizing the President of the United States for receiving the Nobel Peace prize -- an award he did not seek but that is nonetheless an honor in which every American can take great pride -- unless of course you are the Republican Party. The 2009 version of the Republican Party has no boundaries, has no shame and has proved that they will put politics above patriotism at every turn. It's no wonder only 20 percent of Americans admit to being Republicans anymore - it's an embarrassing label to claim."
FURTHER UPDATE: The progressive outlet Media Matters puts out a telling compilation of the conservative outrage...
Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/09/obamas-nobel-prize-inspir_n_315167.html
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
That Representative Speaks My Mind
Republicans shocked by own tactic
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/vp/33110896#33110896
Sept. 30: Rep. Alan Grayson, D-FL, joins Rachel Maddow to talk about his tongue-in-cheek criticism of Congressional Republicans for failing to produce a health care reform plan.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/vp/33110896#33110896
Sept. 30: Rep. Alan Grayson, D-FL, joins Rachel Maddow to talk about his tongue-in-cheek criticism of Congressional Republicans for failing to produce a health care reform plan.
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
Senator Tom Carper votes "no" on health care public option
Delaware Senator Tom Carper votes on the wrong side of health care reform.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/#33080785
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/#33080785
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
Saturday, September 12, 2009
Tim Wise Discusses the Racial Undertones of Health Care Reform
Tim Wise talks about the "elephant-in-the-room" in health care reform debate, as he discusses a woman dragged from a town hall meeting when her Rosa Parks poster is destroyed.
Thursday, September 3, 2009
Standing Up Against Big Drug Companies
Taking a principled stand is seldom easy, but just...
From Reuters: Pfizer whistleblower's ordeal reaps big rewards
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Pfizer-whistleblowers-ordeal-rb-1977940162.html?x=0&.v=1
In the Army I was expected to protect people at all costs," Kopchinski said in a statement. "At Pfizer I was expected to increase profits at all costs, even when sales meant endangering lives.
From Reuters: Pfizer whistleblower's ordeal reaps big rewards
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Pfizer-whistleblowers-ordeal-rb-1977940162.html?x=0&.v=1
... whistleblowers must endure, often for many years, after complaints within the company go unheeded...it's no secret that it's an industry that can blackball former employees," Kelton said, "encourage people to step forward."
Sunday, August 23, 2009
Things that make you go hmmmm....
When thinking about the health care debate, it's important to note that the Republican right fought against Medicare and Social Security in the 60s, calling them "socialist." Some even want to end those popular, government-run programs today. Fed Ex and UPS are in competition with the government-run post office and seem to do quite well.
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
Busting the Myths
The real danger of lies now being planted into the health care debate by the radical right in partnership with big insurance company interests, is that the public can't make informed decisions about what is best for them. Case in point:
A man from Doniphan, Neb. asks the following question at a recent AARP gathering:
Here's the response by David Certner, AARP legislative policy director at AARP:
Responding to this question from Arizona, Certner goes on to talk about the real "death panels" out there: Exclusion of coverage by insurance companies for pre-existing conditions.
Cernter responds:
There you have it. No matter how many times the Rush Limbaughs and Sean Hannity's of the world falsely claim it, the government WILL NOT have a say in private health care decisions with the proposed public health care option. The proposed plan will run like Medicare currently, and the loophole in Medicare part D, the so-called doughnut hole, (or coverage gap) will be closed in the provision now included in the House bills. The proposed legislation also eliminates refusal of coverage for pre-existing conditions.
From the Washington Post
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2009/08/18/DI2009081802851.html
A man from Doniphan, Neb. asks the following question at a recent AARP gathering:
Who will decide which tests, procedures, and medications are wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary? In my opinion, these decisions must be made by the physician and patient. Third party interference is rationing. To say that Medicare spending will be cut by 10 per cent WITHOUT rationing is a BIG FIB.
Here's the response by David Certner, AARP legislative policy director at AARP:
We completely agree that decisions should be made by the patient and the doctor -- without the interference of government or your insurance company. Rationing is not a part of these bills, and if it were, AARP would reject it. We do believe -- and our members who have had experience with the health care system generally agree -- that health care is delivered inefficiently today, with too many wasted tests and procedures that not only do not improve health, but often harm it.
Responding to this question from Arizona, Certner goes on to talk about the real "death panels" out there: Exclusion of coverage by insurance companies for pre-existing conditions.
Mr. Certner: Do your loyalties lie with seniors' best interests or with AARP's insurance sales? I had a very bad experience with United Healthcare in 2000 when they kicked out individual policy holders. (7,500 of us in Arizona alone!) As a breast cancer survivor, I could not buy health insurance at any price. For several years I had to be without insurance -- SCARY! Needless to say, I'm extremely thankful for Medicare and I am hoping that we will pass STRINGENT regulations against discriminating for previous disease AND that we will have a public option. Without regulation, the insurance companies will stick the government with all of the "risky" people.
Cernter responds:
AARP is driven by its members best interests, as it is with every debate. We have both those who are on Medicare, and who are looking to strengthen the program, including looking to lower their costs, keep their doctors, and get better drug coverage. And as you note, we have members who are not yet eligible for Medicare, who either want to keep the insurance they have, or who are desperately trying to find insurance in the individual market. About 1 of every 4 60-year-olds can't even get insurance because of a pre-existing medical condition -- and we agree with you that this must change.
There you have it. No matter how many times the Rush Limbaughs and Sean Hannity's of the world falsely claim it, the government WILL NOT have a say in private health care decisions with the proposed public health care option. The proposed plan will run like Medicare currently, and the loophole in Medicare part D, the so-called doughnut hole, (or coverage gap) will be closed in the provision now included in the House bills. The proposed legislation also eliminates refusal of coverage for pre-existing conditions.
From the Washington Post
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2009/08/18/DI2009081802851.html
Liberals Sick of Health Care Compromises
By CHARLES BABINGTON and RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR
AP
WASHINGTON (Aug. 19) - Frustrated liberals have a question for President Barack Obama and Democratic lawmakers: Isn't it time the other guys gave a little ground on health care? What's the point of a bipartisan bill, they ask, if we're making all the concessions?
A case in point:
Sen. Charles Grassley, a key Republican negotiator on health care, was on a winning streak as Congress recessed for August, having wrung important concessions from Democrats, including an agreement not to tax employer-provided health insurance and a limit to demands on drug companies.
How did Grassley reciprocate? With an attack that struck Democrats as stunning and baseless. Grassley told an Iowa crowd he would not support a plan that "determines when you're going to pull the plug on Grandma." The remark echoed conservative activists who wrongly claim a House health care bill would require Medicare recipients to discuss their end-of-life plans with doctors.
For liberals supporting far-reaching changes to the nation's health care system, it was another sign that months of negotiations have been a one-way street. It's time to move on without Republicans, they say.
On Tuesday, liberals were fuming over Obama's recent remarks suggesting he might also yield on the federally run insurance option he's been promoting. Many saw it as a huge concession that could leave them with nothing more than watered-down insurance cooperatives.
But the Senate's second-ranking Republican, Jon Kyl of Arizona, dismissed even such co-ops as a "Trojan horse" leading to government control of health care.
Many liberals are fed up.
"It is clear that Republicans have decided 'no health care' is a victory for them," Andy Stern, president of the Service Employees International Union, said in an interview. "There is a point at which bipartisanship reaches a limit, and I would say it's reaching that limit."
The growing liberal unhappiness sets a difficult stage for Obama this fall. Political pragmatists want him to keep seeking a middle ground that will attract at least a few Republican lawmakers as well as moderate Democrats who could prove crucial to passage in the House and Senate. Even modest achievements, such as preventing insurers from refusing to cover pre-existing medical conditions, would allow Obama to claim a victory and perhaps try for more later, they say.
Liberal activists say there's no point in the Democrats winning the House, Senate and White House unless they use their clout to enact the major measures that Obama campaigned for — with or without some Republican support.
For now, Obama seems on the defensive. He spent valuable time this month knocking down claims that Democratic plans could lead to euthanasia of the elderly. And his chief spokesmen spent much of Monday and Tuesday insisting that Obama still supports a government-run health insurance option despite mixed signals from the administration.
On Saturday, Obama told a Colorado crowd: "The public option, whether we have it or we don't have it, is not the entirety of health care reform. This is just one sliver of it."
While liberals are discouraged, the endgame remains unclear. Some still hope that Obama and congressional Democratic leaders will use all their parliamentary powers — which could prove especially divisive in the Senate — to pass a far-reaching bill that would include a public option for health insurance and more palatable consumer costs for prescription drugs and other needs.
The pivotal decisions will be made this fall, with administration officials saying the debate cannot lapse into the midterm election year of 2010.
What seems clear is that the room for compromise between Republicans and Democrats is shriveling to almost nothing. Some Democrats found Kyl's remarks particularly galling. Even if Democrats manage to produce a health care bill that won't increase the federal deficit over 10 years, Kyl said, "that doesn't mean Republicans would support it."
And Grassley has said he's uninterested in a compromise that draws only three or so Senate Republicans' votes.
The continued outreach to Republicans, meanwhile, is testing Democrats' unity. This week, more than 50 House Democrats issued a letter saying, "Any bill that does not provide, at a minimum, for a public option with reimbursement rates based on Medicare rates — not negotiated rates — is unacceptable."
Some of them told House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., in a conference call Tuesday that discussions with Republicans are pointless.
White House spokeswoman Linda Douglass played down the intraparty fuss, noting that it's far from clear how the final legislation will turn out. She said negotiations involving Obama have led drug manufacturers to agree to reduce costs for the nation's health care system by $80 billion over 10 years, while hospitals have agreed to an additional $155 billion.
Those concessions will carry weight with lawmakers as they "look at enacting reform that will lower costs and increase stability and security," Douglass said in an interview.
But such concessions cut several ways. Pharmaceutical industry leaders say the $80 billion agreement should end efforts to allow the government to negotiate lower prices for prescription drugs used in Medicare and other programs.
Liberals say such price reductions are precisely the type of change Obama called for in his presidential campaign. And now, they say, is the time to turn those promises into reality.
EDITOR'S NOTE — Charles Babington and Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar cover the White House and health policy for The Associated Press.
AP
WASHINGTON (Aug. 19) - Frustrated liberals have a question for President Barack Obama and Democratic lawmakers: Isn't it time the other guys gave a little ground on health care? What's the point of a bipartisan bill, they ask, if we're making all the concessions?
A case in point:
Sen. Charles Grassley, a key Republican negotiator on health care, was on a winning streak as Congress recessed for August, having wrung important concessions from Democrats, including an agreement not to tax employer-provided health insurance and a limit to demands on drug companies.
How did Grassley reciprocate? With an attack that struck Democrats as stunning and baseless. Grassley told an Iowa crowd he would not support a plan that "determines when you're going to pull the plug on Grandma." The remark echoed conservative activists who wrongly claim a House health care bill would require Medicare recipients to discuss their end-of-life plans with doctors.
For liberals supporting far-reaching changes to the nation's health care system, it was another sign that months of negotiations have been a one-way street. It's time to move on without Republicans, they say.
On Tuesday, liberals were fuming over Obama's recent remarks suggesting he might also yield on the federally run insurance option he's been promoting. Many saw it as a huge concession that could leave them with nothing more than watered-down insurance cooperatives.
But the Senate's second-ranking Republican, Jon Kyl of Arizona, dismissed even such co-ops as a "Trojan horse" leading to government control of health care.
Many liberals are fed up.
"It is clear that Republicans have decided 'no health care' is a victory for them," Andy Stern, president of the Service Employees International Union, said in an interview. "There is a point at which bipartisanship reaches a limit, and I would say it's reaching that limit."
The growing liberal unhappiness sets a difficult stage for Obama this fall. Political pragmatists want him to keep seeking a middle ground that will attract at least a few Republican lawmakers as well as moderate Democrats who could prove crucial to passage in the House and Senate. Even modest achievements, such as preventing insurers from refusing to cover pre-existing medical conditions, would allow Obama to claim a victory and perhaps try for more later, they say.
Liberal activists say there's no point in the Democrats winning the House, Senate and White House unless they use their clout to enact the major measures that Obama campaigned for — with or without some Republican support.
For now, Obama seems on the defensive. He spent valuable time this month knocking down claims that Democratic plans could lead to euthanasia of the elderly. And his chief spokesmen spent much of Monday and Tuesday insisting that Obama still supports a government-run health insurance option despite mixed signals from the administration.
On Saturday, Obama told a Colorado crowd: "The public option, whether we have it or we don't have it, is not the entirety of health care reform. This is just one sliver of it."
While liberals are discouraged, the endgame remains unclear. Some still hope that Obama and congressional Democratic leaders will use all their parliamentary powers — which could prove especially divisive in the Senate — to pass a far-reaching bill that would include a public option for health insurance and more palatable consumer costs for prescription drugs and other needs.
The pivotal decisions will be made this fall, with administration officials saying the debate cannot lapse into the midterm election year of 2010.
What seems clear is that the room for compromise between Republicans and Democrats is shriveling to almost nothing. Some Democrats found Kyl's remarks particularly galling. Even if Democrats manage to produce a health care bill that won't increase the federal deficit over 10 years, Kyl said, "that doesn't mean Republicans would support it."
And Grassley has said he's uninterested in a compromise that draws only three or so Senate Republicans' votes.
The continued outreach to Republicans, meanwhile, is testing Democrats' unity. This week, more than 50 House Democrats issued a letter saying, "Any bill that does not provide, at a minimum, for a public option with reimbursement rates based on Medicare rates — not negotiated rates — is unacceptable."
Some of them told House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., in a conference call Tuesday that discussions with Republicans are pointless.
White House spokeswoman Linda Douglass played down the intraparty fuss, noting that it's far from clear how the final legislation will turn out. She said negotiations involving Obama have led drug manufacturers to agree to reduce costs for the nation's health care system by $80 billion over 10 years, while hospitals have agreed to an additional $155 billion.
Those concessions will carry weight with lawmakers as they "look at enacting reform that will lower costs and increase stability and security," Douglass said in an interview.
But such concessions cut several ways. Pharmaceutical industry leaders say the $80 billion agreement should end efforts to allow the government to negotiate lower prices for prescription drugs used in Medicare and other programs.
Liberals say such price reductions are precisely the type of change Obama called for in his presidential campaign. And now, they say, is the time to turn those promises into reality.
EDITOR'S NOTE — Charles Babington and Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar cover the White House and health policy for The Associated Press.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
