Where Have Republicans Been for Fifty Years on Health Care and Why Aren't Democrats Getting More Credit

Most white Americans think health reform benefits the poor and uninsured, not people like them

On the long climb to health care reform that ended with this week's momentous signing ceremony, President Obama aimed many of his arguments at a different audience from the one targeted by predecessors who faltered on the same steep hill.

Compared with earlier presidents, Obama focused his case less on helping the uninsured and more on providing those with coverage greater leverage against their insurers. That shift was especially evident in his final drive toward passage.

And yet, polling just before the bill's approval showed that most white Americans believed that the legislation would primarily benefit the uninsured and the poor, not people like them. In a mid-March Gallup survey, 57 percent of white respondents said that the bill would make things better for the uninsured, and 52 percent said that it would improve conditions for low-income families. But only one-third of whites said that it would benefit the country overall -- and just one-fifth said that it would help their own family.

"The goal is to make this a middle-class health care bill." --Rahm Emanuel

In both that Gallup Poll and the latest monthly survey by the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation, nonwhite respondents were much more likely than whites to say that the bill would help the country and their own families. Those responses reflect not only experience (African-Americans and Hispanics are more likely than whites to lack insurance) but also minorities' greater receptivity to government activism. By meeting a tangible need in these communities, health reform is likely to solidify the Democratic hold on the one-quarter (and growing) minority share of the electorate, especially if Republicans define themselves around demanding repeal.

But whites still cast about three-quarters of votes. And if most remain convinced that health reform primarily benefits the poor and uninsured, Democrats could find themselves caught in an unusual populist crossfire during this fall's elections.

Obama has already been hurt by the perception, fanned by Republicans, that the principal beneficiaries of his efforts to repair the economy are the same interests that broke it: Wall Street, big banks, and the wealthy. The belief that Washington has transferred benefits up the income ladder is pervasive across society but especially pronounced among white voters with less than a college education, the group that most resisted Obama in 2008. Now health care could threaten Democrats from the opposite direction by stoking old fears, particularly among the white working class, that liberals are transferring income down the income ladder to the "less deserving."

In the Kaiser poll, even fewer noncollege than college-educated whites said that the plan would benefit the country. In one sense, that's ironic: Census figures show that noncollege whites are more than twice as likely to lack health insurance as whites with a degree. But these working-class whites have grown more skeptical than better-educated whites that government cares about their needs.

The right-wing propaganda machine works twenty-four/seven so it is going to be tough for Democrats - who do not have a disinformation channel like Fox - to undue the damage that has been done, but there is time until the 2012 mid-terms. History says that expanding the safety net for the middle-class - once the public gets familiar with it, benefits Democrats, Republicans adopting Alf Landon's losing stratagy from 1936

Today Dana Milbank points out that the Republican Party is repeating a mistake of monumental proportions that the G.O.P. made 74 years ago following the passage of Social Security. This strategy of attacking a popular program as a reason for electing Republicans failed miserably for the next three election cycles that the G.O.P. continued to cling to it as a central plank in their platform.

Health reform and the specter of Alf Landon

By Dana Milbank

"This is the largest tax bill in history," the Republican leader fumed. The reform "is unjust, unworkable, stupidly drafted and wastefully financed."

And that wasn't all. This "cruel hoax," he said, this "folly" of "bungling and waste," compared poorly to the "much less expensive" and "practical measures" favored by the Republicans.

"We must repeal," the GOP leader argued. "The Republican Party is pledged to do this."

That was Republican presidential nominee Alf Landon in a September 1936 campaign speech. He based his bid for the White House on repealing Social Security.

The Biggest Threat to Democracy? Conservative Interpretations of the Constitution

Undermining the Bill of Rights: The Bush Administration Detention Policy

The U.S. Supreme Court is poised to hear two major challenges to the Bush Administration’s detention policy in the war on terror and its designation and handling of “enemy combatants.” This policy violates fundamental principles enshrined in our Constitution - such as the separation of powers and due process of law – and actually threatens progress in the war on terror and America’s campaign for greater freedom and democracy around the world. These cases will define the scope of presidential powers and the Bill of Rights for years to come.

At its broadest formulation, the Administration’s anti-terror policy confers on the executive branch unparalleled powers that may not be reviewed, questioned, or checked by Congress or the courts. In effect, the President and the Department of Defense claim to be the sole arbiters of due process of law for anyone they detain, including American citizens, both in the United States and around the world in the war on terrorism.

Specifically, the detention policy allows the President to designate anyone, even an American citizen arrested on American soil, as an “enemy combatant” and shields that decision and the reasons behind it from meaningful review. It presupposes that the government can deny even a U.S. citizen constitutional rights such as access to counsel and due process of law, and may detain him indefinitely in violation of U.S. law. The policy includes procedural rules for military “trials” of suspected terrorists that even U.S. military lawyers call unjust, and which would allow the government to continue to detain those found innocent.

This attack on the Constitution was during the Bush administration. Where were these tea baggers than. No protests. Nope one assumes they were at home using their government Medicare and cashing their Social Security checks.

Conservative zealots have yet again lied about and distorted the history of the man accused of threatening Eric Serial Liar Cantor to shift blame to Democrats. In a desperate attempt to distract from the violent and racist rhetoric at their rallies, What To Make of Norman Leboon?

The initial portrait emerging of the man charged with threatening to kill Eric Cantor and his family suggests he's made similar, if not criminally actionable, threats on dozens of occasions against an ideologically diverse array of public figures.

According to the federal complaint against him, Norman Leboon of Philadelphia has admitted making some 2,000 videos that contained threats. A sampling of his "work" reveals rambling incoherent videos that mix pseudo-religious incantations with random warnings and threats. In one video he addresses President Obama, Vice President Biden, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid by name and says, "Your punishment is coming, the swine, it will be severe, and you will beg for mercy to your god, it will be severe, you will know god's swine, god has warned you."

Conservative's Rationalize Immoral Values. Ignorant Tea baggers and the economy

First, Fox's Trotta Joked About Killing Obama, Now She’s Accusing The Left Of Exaggerating Health Care Threats

On the America’s News HQ show which is, presumably, one of the “fair and balanced” news programs on Fox and not an opinion show, host Shannon Bream brought out Fox News contributor Liz Trotta yesterday (3/27/10) to discuss “media responsibility” in its coverage of threats to the administration and members of Congress after the health care vote. You may recall that in 2008, Trotta joked about assassinating then-presidential candidate Barack Obama right there on Fox News.


More on Republicans either making threats or dismissing concerns expressed about threats made to Democratic officials, Living Dangerously: Republicans' Most Incendiary Rhetoric on Health Care Reform

Conservative Republicans and tea baggers are the same thing. The same right-wing anti-American zealots that are as ignorant and hypocritical as ever, Conservatives on government assistance

UNAWARE OF THE CONTRADICTION.... There's an old joke that goes something like this: my neighbor went to public schools before joining the military. He went to college on the G.I. Bill, bought his first home through the FHA, and received his health care through the V.A. and Medicare. He now receives Social Security.

He's a conservative because he wants to get the government off his back.

I mention the joke because a surprising number of right-wing activists don't seem to appreciate the humor. We talked the other day, for example, about a radical libertarian activist who encourages his allies to throw bricks through the windows of Democratic offices to protest the Affordable Care Act. He hates government involvement in the lives of citizens -- but his main income is taxpayer-financed disability checks sent to him every month by the federal government.

This is not uncommon. The NYT reports today on some of the well-intention folks who've been caught up in the Tea Party nonsense. Take Tom Grimes, for example.

In the last year, he has organized a local group and a statewide coalition, and even started a "bus czar" Web site to marshal protesters to Washington on short notice. This month, he mobilized 200 other Tea Party activists to go to the local office of the same congressman to protest what he sees as the government's takeover of health care. [...]

"If you quit giving people that stuff, they would figure out how to do it on their own," Mr. Grimes said.

When Grimes lost his job 15 months ago, one of his first steps was contacting his congressman about available programs that might give him access to government health care. He receives Social Security, and is considering a job opening at the Census Bureau. But in the meantime, Grimes has filled the back seat of his Mercury Grand Marquis with literature decrying government aid to struggling Americans.

The same article noted the efforts of Diana Reimer, considered a "star" right-wing activist in her efforts against government programs, a campaign she describes as her "mission." Reimer, of course, currently enjoys Social Security and the socialized medicine that comes with Medicare.

So tea baggers, conservatives, republicans or right-wing nuts are not against government programs that act as a vital safety net for people during hard times and retirement. They're against that assistance for everyone, but the conservative elite.

Tea Bagger Freaks and Conservative Kooks

The Rage Is Not About Health Care

There’s nothing entertaining about watching goons hurl venomous slurs at congressmen like the civil rights hero John Lewis and the openly gay Barney Frank. And as the week dragged on, and reports of death threats and vandalism stretched from Arizona to Kansas to upstate New York, the F.B.I. and the local police had to get into the act to protect members of Congress and their families.

How curious that a mob fond of likening President Obama to Hitler knows so little about history that it doesn’t recognize its own small-scale mimicry of Kristallnacht. The weapon of choice for vigilante violence at Congressional offices has been a brick hurled through a window. So far.

No less curious is how disproportionate this red-hot anger is to its proximate cause. The historic Obama-Pelosi health care victory is a big deal, all right, so much so it doesn’t need Joe Biden’s adjective to hype it. But the bill does not erect a huge New Deal-Great Society-style government program. In lieu of a public option, it delivers 32 million newly insured Americans to private insurers. As no less a conservative authority than The Wall Street Journal editorial page observed last week, the bill’s prototype is the health care legislation Mitt Romney signed into law in Massachusetts. It contains what used to be considered Republican ideas.

Yet it’s this bill that inspired G.O.P. congressmen on the House floor to egg on disruptive protesters even as they were being evicted from the gallery by the Capitol Police last Sunday. It’s this bill that prompted a congressman to shout “baby killer” at Bart Stupak, a staunch anti-abortion Democrat. It’s this bill that drove a demonstrator to spit on Emanuel Cleaver, a black representative from Missouri. And it’s this “middle-of-the-road” bill, as Obama accurately calls it, that has incited an unglued firestorm of homicidal rhetoric, from “Kill the bill!” to Sarah Palin’s cry for her followers to “reload.” At least four of the House members hit with death threats or vandalism are among the 20 political targets Palin marks with rifle crosshairs on a map on her Facebook page.

When Social Security was passed by Congress in 1935 and Medicare in 1965, there was indeed heated opposition. As Dana Milbank wrote in The Washington Post, Alf Landon built his catastrophic 1936 presidential campaign on a call for repealing Social Security. (Democrats can only pray that the G.O.P. will “go for it” again in 2010, as Obama goaded them on Thursday, and keep demanding repeal of a bill that by September will shower benefits on the elderly and children alike.) When L.B.J. scored his Medicare coup, there were the inevitable cries of “socialism” along with ultimately empty rumblings of a boycott from the American Medical Association.

But there was nothing like this. To find a prototype for the overheated reaction to the health care bill, you have to look a year before Medicare, to the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Both laws passed by similar majorities in Congress; the Civil Rights Act received even more votes in the Senate (73) than Medicare (70). But it was only the civil rights bill that made some Americans run off the rails. That’s because it was the one that signaled an inexorable and immutable change in the very identity of America, not just its governance.

The apocalyptic predictions then, like those about health care now, were all framed in constitutional pieties, of course. Barry Goldwater, running for president in ’64, drew on the counsel of two young legal allies, William Rehnquist and Robert Bork, to characterize the bill as a “threat to the very essence of our basic system” and a “usurpation” of states’ rights that “would force you to admit drunks, a known murderer or an insane person into your place of business.” Richard Russell, the segregationist Democratic senator from Georgia, said the bill “would destroy the free enterprise system.” David Lawrence, a widely syndicated conservative columnist, bemoaned the establishment of “a federal dictatorship.” Meanwhile, three civil rights workers were murdered in Philadelphia, Miss.

Mr. Rich suggests that America's fascist-lite crowd - otherwise known as conservatives or tea baggers, would have gone ballistic at the passage of any major legislation. He is probably right. America rabid right-wing hasn't changed much since they were on the side of slave owners.

Conservatives are reliable in a sick kind of way. We can always rely on them not to take responsibility for their actions. Right-wing blogs trivialize threats against Democrats

Right-wing blogs have responded to reported threats against Democrats who voted for the health care reform bill by trivializing the threats or suggesting that the reports are false, condemning the threats but making excuses for them, suggesting that Democrats themselves are to blame for receiving the threats, or suggesting other acts of violence that people could commit against their congressional representative.

This too is a tired old right-wing point of view - blame the victim.

What Planet are Conservatives From. Hate and Smears is all Conservatism Stands for

The Undying Shame

I'm not sure John Boehner(R-OH) making a generic statement that violence, threats and vandalism aren't legitimate parts of the Health Care Reform debate really cuts it. Especially when his own congressional campaign committee is actively downplaying the importance of violent incidents and even blaming them on the victims.

Thankfully, no one has been injured or killed. But this didn't come from nowhere and it can't be pawned off on a few cranks. Everything that's happened over the last five days has grown from a pattern of incitement going back almost a year -- wildly hyperbolic statements, coded appeals to menacing behavior, flippant jokes about bringing firearms to political events and all the rest. Now Eric Cantor (R-VA) is going on the attack, claiming that who's really to blame here is the Democrats for making a big deal about these acts of violence against them.

Republicans are trying to avoid blame for encouraging violence. What a shocker. These are the people that would like to have a replay of the Civil War - so they can bring back the good old days of slavery ( a state's right), women knew their place and could not vote and poor whites knew their place - working for low waging and going no where.

Republicans Block Bills Ensuring Continuation Of Military Health Care

As ThinkProgress reported earlier today, some military families have been concerned about how the new Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act will affect their health care. Fears about the legislation have been fueled, in part, by lawmakers like Rep. Brian Bilbray (R-CA), who has claimed that “now their programs are going to be administered like welfare programs, rather than earned military benefits.”

There is another piece of misinformation floating around that’s important to clear up. The new law has an individual responsibility requirement, meaning that every person must have health coverage (or receive an affordability waiver), otherwise he/she will be subjected to a fee. The Affordable Care Act doesn’t explicitly state that TRICARE — the military’s health program — will meet the individual responsibility requirement. So on Saturday, lawmakers — out of an abundance of caution — passed separate legislation affirming that TRICARE will not be affected. As House Armed Services Committee Chairman Ike Skelton (D-MO) stated when the legislation was unanimously approved:

While beneficiaries of these programs will already meet the minimum requirements for individual health insurance and will not be required to purchase additional coverage, the TRICARE Affirmation Act would provide clarification by changing the tax code to state it in law.

Though out history the totalitarians on the far left and far right have relied on dispensing false information -propaganda - to win over public opinion. Republicans are following the same recipe to the letter.

No surprise that Harris poll finds Republicans believe GOP smears of Obama

A Harris poll released on March 24 found that a majority of Republican respondents believe that President Obama "is a socialist," "wants to take away Americans' right to own guns," "is a Muslim," "wants to turn over the sovereignty of the United States to a one world government," and "has done many things that are unconstitutional." The findings follow a year of such smears and attacks on Obama by conservatives.
Republicans have bought into right-wing smears of Obama

According to the Harris poll, conducted of 2,320 adults between March 1 and March 8, a majority of Republicans believe Obama is a socialist (67 percent), wants to take away Americans' right to own guns (61 percent), is Muslim (57 percent), wants to turn over the sovereignty of the United States to a one-world government (51 percent), and that he has done many things that are unconstitutional (51 percent). Large minorities also believe Obama was not born in the United States and is therefore ineligible for the presidency (45 percent), is a racist (42 percent), and is doing many things Adolf Hitler did (38 percent).

In the past two years, conservatives in the media have advanced many of these false claims, including that Obama is in fact a Muslim and not a Christian, wants to take away Americans' guns, and was not born in the United States. They have also advanced numerous smears that Obama is a socialist, a racist, and has policies and beliefs similar to Hitler's.

The only major attacks America has had on its constitutionally guaranteed freedoms - the liberal based Bill of Rights - has been by the Bush and Reagan administration. Where were these crazy right-wing tea baggers and conservatives then? They were claiming that Reagan and Bush had the right to trample over every citizen's right in the name of supposedly keeping America safe. What terrible thing did President Obama do. He saved tens of thousands of lives with the passage of health care reform and took measures to save the economy that conservative policies caused to crash.

Democrats Help the Middle-Class. Republicans Draw Rape Cartoons

What do you do in the wake of a crushing political defeat?

If you’re Jeff Goldstein, you declare yourself to be way cooler than everyone else; if you’re Darleen Click, you draw a cartoon in which the President rapes a woman, then tells her that he and friends will be back to rape her again later. In the clinical sense, Click is the more interesting case because she thinks that the only problem with her cartoon is that it’s racist. I repeat: she drew a cartoon in which the punch line is a gang rape and the only potential problem with it she can see is that it might be racist. Don’t misunderstand me: it’s plenty racist—plays into tropes as old as slavery and everything—but the punch line is that the President and his associates are going to gang-rape the Statue of Liberty with, I kid you not, immigration reform.

In service of the cheapest of laughs, Click asserts that the statue that symbolizes America’s commitment to the tired, poor, huddled masses of the world is about to be raped because of the President’s commitment to those selfsame masses-yearning-to-be-free. Talk about your industrial grade ideological incoherence—and I would, except for the fact that Goldstein, never one to be upstaged on his own blog, told a woman that the only way she would ever be cool was if someone raped her with an icicle.

Republicans give a lot of lip service to the words freedom and liberty, now we know what they really mean. The freedom to act like sleazy cretins while whining about historic legislation that will help tens of millions of American families.

Wyden: Health Care Lawsuits Moot, States Can Opt Out Of Mandate

Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) has a message for all the attorneys general and Republican lawmakers who are threatening lawsuits and claiming that an individual mandate for insurance coverage is unconstitutional: You don't have to abide by it -- just set up your own plan.

The Oregon Democrat isn't inviting opponents to defy the newly-enacted health care law. Instead, he's pointing out a provision in the bill that makes moot the argument over the legality of the individual mandate.

Speaking to the Huffington Post on Tuesday, Wyden discussed -- for one of the first times in public -- legislative language he authored which "allows a state to go out and do its own bill, including having no individual mandate."

It's called the "Empowering States to be Innovative" amendment. And it would, quite literally, give states the right to set up their own health care system -- with or without an individual mandate or, for that matter, with or without a public option -- provided that, as Wyden puts it, "they can meet the coverage requirements of the bill."

Conservatism is Dead. Only the Extreme Right-wing Remains

An open letter to conservatives

Dear Conservative Americans,

The years have not been kind to you. I grew up in a profoundly Republican home, so I can remember when you wore a very different face than the one we see now. You've lost me and you've lost most of America. Because I believe having responsible choices is important to democracy, I'd like to give you some advice and an invitation.

First, the invitation: Come back to us.

Now the advice. You're going to have to come up with a platform that isn't built on a foundation of cowardice: fear of people with colors, religions, cultures and sex lives that differ from your own; fear of reform in banking, health care, energy; fantasy fears of America being transformed into an Islamic nation, into social/commun/fasc-ism, into a disarmed populace put in internment camps; and more. But you have work to do even before you take on that task.

Your party -- the GOP -- and the conservative end of the American political spectrum has become irresponsible and irrational. Worse, it's tolerating, promoting and celebrating prejudice and hatred. Let me provide some expamples -- by no means an exhaustive list -- of where the Right as gotten itself stuck in a swamp of hypocrisy, hyperbole, historical inaccuracy and hatred.

If you're going to regain your stature as a party of rational, responsible people, you'll have to start by draining this swamp:

Hypocrisy

You can't flip out -- and threaten impeachment - when Dems use a prlimentary procedure (deem and pass) that you used repeatedly (more than 35 times in just one session and more than 100 times in all!), that's centuries old and which the courts have supported. Especially when your leaders admit it all.

You can't vote and scream against the stimulus package and then take credit for the good it's done in your own district (happily handing out enormous checks representing money that you voted against, is especially ugly) -- 114 of you (at last count) did just that -- and it's even worse when you secretly beg for more.

You can't fight against your own ideas just because the Dem president endorses your proposal.

You can't call for a pay-as-you-go policy, and then vote against your own ideas.

Are they "unlawful enemy combatants" or are they "prisoners of war" at Gitmo? You can't have it both ways.

You can't carry on about the evils of government spending when your family has accepted more than a quarter-million dollars in government handouts.

You can't refuse to go to a scheduled meeting, to which you were invited, and then blame the Dems because they didn't meet with you.

You can't rail against using teleprompters while using teleprompters. Repeatedly.

You can't rail against the bank bailouts when you supported them as they were happening.

You can't be for immigration reform, then against it .

You can't enjoy socialized medicine while condemning it.

You can't flip out when the black president puts his feet on the presidential desk when you were silent about white presidents doing the same. Bush. Ford.

You can't complain that the president hasn't closed Gitmo yet when you've campaigned to keep Gitmo open.

You can't flip out when the black president bows to foreign dignitaries, as appropriate for their culture, when you were silent when the white presidents did the same. Bush. Nixon. Ike. You didn't even make a peep when Bush held hands and kissed (on the mouth) leaders of countries that are not on "kissing terms" with the US.

You can't complain that the undies bomber was read his Miranda rights under Obama when the shoe bomber was read his Miranda rights under Bush and you remained silent. (And, no, Newt -- the shoe bomber was not a US citizen either, so there is no difference.)

You can't attack the Dem president for not personally* publicly condemning a terrorist event for 72 hourswhen you said nothing about the Rep president waiting 6 days in an eerily similar incident (and, even then, he didn't issue any condemnation). *Obama administration did the day of the event.

You can't throw a hissy fit, sound alarms and cry that Obama freed Gitmo prisoners who later helped plan the Christmas Day undie bombing, when -- in fact -- only one former Gitmo detainee, released by Dick Cheney and George W. Bush, helped to plan the failed attack.

You can't condemn blaming the Republican president for an attempted terror attack on his watch, then blame the Dem president for an attemted terror attack on his.

You can't mount a boycott against singers who say they're ashamed of the president for starting a war, but remain silent when another singer says he's ashamed of the president and falsely calls him a Moaist who makes him want to throw up and says he ought to be in jail.

You can't cry that the health care bill is too long, then cry that it's too short.

You can't support the individual mandate for health insurance, then call it unconstitutional when Dems propose it and campaign against your own ideas.

You can't demand television coverage, then whine about it when you get it. Repeatedly.

You can't praise criminal trials in US courts for terror suspects under a Rep president, then call it "treasonous" under a Dem president.

You can't propose ideas to create jobs, and then work against them when the Dems put your ideas in a bill.

You can't be both pro-choice and anti-choice.

You can't damn someone for failing to pay $900 in taxes when you've paid nearly $20,000 in IRS fines.

You can't condemn critizising the president when US troops are in harms way, then attack the president when US troops are in harms way , the only difference being the president's party affiliation (and, by the way, armed conflict does NOT remove our right and our duty as Americans to speak up).

You can't be both for cap-and-trade policy and against it.

You can't vote to block debate on a bill, then bemoan the lack of 'open debate'.

There is a lot more at the link. The full version also has links within it to document examples of what he asserts. Maybe one day back before most of us were born there was a real Republican Party. Now the party that goes under that name seem to be a collection of loons that do not stand for much of anything except hate and stopping progress.

Health Care and Progress - Conservatives Have Always Been on the Wrong Side

Limbaugh Calls The Passage Of Health Care Reform "The Destruction Of America As Founded"

In the wake of the House of Representatives passing historic health care reform last night, Rush regurgitated his old fearmongering talking points today, as he scrambled to convince his audience that reform (or, as Rush likes to call it, the "utter disaster,") spelled the downfall of the country as we know it:

LIMBAUGH: We really are facing the prospect that our country will never be the same, if this stands. It will never be the same. And a majority of the American people understand it and know it and are outraged by this.

The Limboracle then prophesized that banning insurance companies from dropping Americans with pre-existing conditions will "bring down the health care system" because it "mandates the destruction of the private health care industry." He added that the bill is "simply the insurance companies being taken over by the government for the express purpose of putting them out of business," just in time to implement the public option that is waiting in the wings.

Limbaugh also couldn't resist repeating the tired falsehood that there is "federal funding for abortions in this bill." The only person who can properly sum our sentiments on this falsehood, is Limbaugh himself: "The lies that we have been told about what is in this bill and what's not in this bill, it is an utter disaster."

Limbaugh is never right about anything. Maybe because he has mental problems or maybe it is connected to his abuse of alcohol and drugs over the years. Never the less his listeners are little sheeple that hang on every word he says without checking the facts. Just a small sample of things LimBo swore was true but were either lies of figments of his deeply disturbed imagination:

LIMBAUGH: "You know the Clintons send Chelsea to the Sidwell Friends private school.... A recent eighth grade class assignment required students to write a paper on 'Why I Feel Guilty Being White". '... My source for this story is CBS News. I am not making it up." (Radio show, quoted in the Chicago Sun-Times, 1/16/94.)

REALITY: When Richard Roeper of the Chicago Sun-Times called CBS, the network denied running such a story. Ellis Turner, the director of external affairs for Sidwell Friends, told Roeper: "There is no legitimacy to the story that has been circulating.... We're anxious to let people know that this story is not true." The essay topic would be particularly difficult for the 28 percent of the school's student body that is not white.

LIMBAUGH: Quotes President James Madison: "We have staked the future...upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God." (Told You So, p. 73)

REALITY: "We didn't find anything in our files remotely like the sentiment expressed in the extract you sent to us," David B. Mattern, the associate editor of The Madison Papers, told the Kansas City Star (1/16/94). "In addition, the idea is entirely inconsistent with everything we know about Madison's views on religion and government."

REALITY: Walsh won indictments against 14 people in connection with the Iran-Contra scandal including leading Reagan administration officials like former Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger and former national security advisers Robert McFarlane and John Poindexter. Of the 14, 11 were convicted or pleaded guilty. (Two convictions were later overturned on technicalities--including that of occasional Limbaugh substitute Oliver North.)

LIMBAUGH: Explaining why the Democrats wanted to "sabotage" President Bush with the 1990 budget deal: "Now, here is my point. In 1990, George Bush was president and was enjoying a 90 percent plus approval rating on the strength of our victories in the Persian Gulf War and Cold War." (Told You So, p. 304)

REALITY: In October 1990, when the budget deal was concluded the Gulf War had not yet been fought.

Conservatives like the late Ronald Reagan, who Republicans venerate as though he was a god said this about Medicare,

Ronald Reagan taped anti-Medicare message saying:

"One of the traditional methods of imposing statism or socialism has been by way of medicine." He urged his listeners to write to Congress opposing Medicare and warned, "If you don't do this, one of these days you and I are going to spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was like in American when men were free."

This spot was paid for by AMA and AMPAC, and played at Operation Coffee Cup coffees put on by doctors' wives.

Medicare continues to be a vital safety net for America's elderly and disabled. So much for fears of the big bad gov'mint taking over health care.

Conservatives during the Great Depression warned that Social Security would, like the passage of President Obama's health care reform, be the end of America,

Rep. James W. Wadsworth (R-NY), 1935:

This bill opens the door and invites the entrance into the political field of a power so vast, so powerful as to threaten the integrity of our institutions and to pull the pillars of the temple down upon the heads of our descendants.

Social Security, like Medicare has become an integral part of the safety net that protects average Americans. The people that conservatives pay a lot of lip service to, but never actually do anything to protect their interests.

Anti-Health Care America Hating Conservative media smear Democrats with allegations of "special deals" in health bill

Anti-Health Care America Hating Conservatives media smear Democrats with allegations of "special deals" in health bill

Right-wing media have repeatedly attacked health care reform and smeared Democrats with baseless allegations that the Obama administration has attempted to buy votes or has cut "special deals" or "bribes" for health care reform.

Smear: Rep. Gordon traded his vote for NASA administrator job

Human Events reports "rumor" that Rep. Gordon was promised a NASA job. In a March 17 article, Human Events reported that there was a rumor that Rep. Bart Gordon "has been promised the job of NASA administrator":

"Most interesting rumor from the Hill yesterday: Rep. Bart Gordon (D-Tenn.) who announced his retirement from Congress has been promised the job of NASA administrator in exchange for his vote."

The article did not cite a source for the rumor.

Gordon: "If it was offered to me, I would not accept." According to The Hill, Gordon denied that any offer was made, reportedly saying: "If it was offered to me, I would not accept."
Smear: Tennessee received special funding for Medicaid treatments to bribe Gordon

Fox repeats GOP claim that "Gordon changed his vote ... after he got $100 million for Tennessee hospitals that treat the poor." On the March 19 edition of Fox News' Special Report, correspondent Brian Wilson said: "Deals still alive for the moment? Well, Republicans claim that Democrat Bart Gordon changed his vote from 'yes' -- from 'no' to 'yes' after he got $100 million for Tennessee hospitals that treat the poor."

Under bill, $100 million would go to Medicaid hospital reimbursements that TN -- unlike most other states -- would otherwise be deprived of. A March 19 Nashville Business Journal article reported that Tennessee's entire House delegation -- consisting of both Democrats and Republicans -- sought a $100 million fix to replace Medicaid disproportionate share hospital (DSH) reimbursements that Tennessee would otherwise not receive. The article reported:

The imbalance has existed since Tennessee gave up its payments when it created TennCare in the 1990s -- and it has been similarly addressed by lawmakers in the past. Early last year, a $32.8 billion bill to insure poor children included a provision extending DSH payments to Tennessee hospitals by $30 million a year for two years.

In a May 2009 letter to the House Energy and Commerce Committee requesting the DSH funding, Tennessee's congressional delegation stated that the state "is one of only two" with "no DSH payment."

Changes to Senate bill would give DSH payments to states that otherwise would receive no payments after FY2011. The House Rules Committee summary of the changes describes Sec. 1203:

Sec. 1203. Disproportionate share hospital payments. Lowers the reduction in federal Medicaid DSH payments from $18.1 billion to $14.1 billion and advances the reductions to begin in fiscal year 2014. Directs the Secretary to develop a methodology for reducing federal DSH allotments to all states in order to achieve the mandated reductions. Extends through FY 2013 the federal DSH allotment for a state that has a $0 allotment after FY 2011.

Smear: Nebraska will get a "new" VA hospital in exchange for health vote

Wash. Times: Health-vote ally Nelson to get new VA hospital for Nebraska. The Washington Times reported that "the Obama administration has delivered another budget plum to Democratic Sen. Ben Nelson and the state of Nebraska, adding more than a half-billion dollars for a new veterans hospital in Omaha," and falsely claimed that the "Veterans Administration made the budget switch during internal deliberations in 2009 at a time when the White House was wooing the moderate Democrat to vote for President Obama's health care overhaul bill."

Omaha World-Herald: VA was "signaling a new hospital" in Omaha "months before the critical health care votes in the Senate." On March 20, the Omaha World-Herald reported that August 2009 Senate testimony from Donald Orndoff, director of the office of construction and facilities management for the Veterans Administration, "directly contradicts a report in Friday's Washington Times that VA officials had told the Senate during that month that they were recommending a renovation of the existing Omaha hospital, not a much more costly new one," and that "it indicates that VA officials were signaling a new hospital was likely to be funded months before the critical health care votes in the Senate."
Smear: Connecticut hospitals get special funding under health bill

Fox cited Connecticut provision as a "special deal" that is "still in the bill." Fox News has repeatedly claimed that the health care reform legislation includes a "hospital handout" that Sen. Chris Dodd inserted as a "special deal" that is "still in the bill" for Connecticut hospitals.

Connecticut would reportedly have to compete for the hospital funds. The Hartford Courant reported that Connecticut would have to compete for the funds, and Dodd reportedly said that at least 14 other states could apply for the grant. Text of the Senate health bill as passed states that the $100 million grant for "infrastructure to expand access to health care" "may only be made available by the Secretary of Health and Human Services upon the receipt of an application from the Governor of a State" that meets certain requirements.

Proposed UConn hospital part of Republican Gov. Rell's health care proposal. Connecticut Gov. M. Jodi Rell, a Republican, has reportedly proposed a $352 million University of Connecticut Health Center that would rely on $100 million in federal funds that Connecticut would have to compete for under the provision inserted by Dodd.
Smear: "Louisiana Purchase" was a "corrupt" deal

Right-wing media call the Louisiana Medicaid fix "corrupt." Following the inclusion of a provision that provided funding for Louisiana's Medicaid program, right-wing media outlets portrayed it as "corrupt," while the AP called it one of "a rash of ethics lapses" which "has given Democrats an election-year headache."

Fix urgently needed to fix state's Medicaid problems, a result of Hurricane Katrina, and state's GOP lawmakers say fix is necessary. The Times-Picayune reported on January 22 that "[Sen. Mary] Landrieu [R-LA] secured a provision, which she priced at $300 million, to fix the Federal Medical Assistance Percentage [FMAP] for Louisiana." The article explained that the "FMAP refers to the percentage of a state's payments under Medicaid that are covered by the federal government. Louisiana usually gets a higher match because of how poor the state is, but because of all the recovery and rebuilding money that poured in after Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, state per capita income spiked long enough to throw the formula out of kilter and threaten to blow a hole [in] the state budget."

Moreover, Louisiana Republican Gov. Bobby Jindal's fiscal year 2010-2011 budget proposal says that the "Louisiana state government faces significant, multi-year budget challenges, compounded by a faulty federal FMAP formula that, if not corrected in Washington, D.C., will cost the state approximately $500 million a year in Medicaid funding, impacting services for the poorest in our state, and often those who need care the most."
Smear: Right-wing media baselessly allege Obama admin. "bribed" Dems with water allocation

Right-wing media outlets claim Obama "bribed" California Dems for votes. The Wall Street Journal claimed that an Interior Department decision to increase water allocations to California's Central Valley was "apparently the price for Democrats Dennis Cardoza and Jim Costa to vote something other than their consciences" on health care reform. Glenn Beck claimed the Democrats are "so far past the line of evil," they are "using water as a weapon" to get health care votes, while Sean Hannity said, "I'm guessing" the health care vote and water allocation announcement "are closely linked."

Right-wing allegations of bribery ignore reporting that the allocation increase is due to more winter rain. In a March 17 article, the Journal noted that California's Central Valley had been experiencing severe drought, and that, according to Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, the "increase is made possible in part because winter rains have helped replenish the state's biggest reservoir, Lake Shasta, which now stands at 81% of capacity, compared with 55% a year ago." The article further reported that Salazar "said he moved up the announcement by a week or so 'because people on the ground and farming need to have certainty.' " The Journal reported that Salazar's announcement "further eas[ed] drought concerns in a state where El Niño rains have raised the mountain snowpack after three severely dry years."

Both representatives have denied allegations of bribery. Both Cardoza and Costa have denied allegations that their votes were influenced by water allocations: Costa called the accusations "laughable, and certainly false," and Cardoza stated that he is "not satisfied with the water allocation."
Smear: Obama bribing Rep. Matheson by appointing his brother to appeals court

Weekly Standard's McCormack, others accuse Obama of "selling judgeships for health care votes." A March 3 Weekly Standard post by John McCormack was headlined "Obama Now Selling Judgeships for Health Care Votes? Obama names brother of undecided House Dem to Appeals Court." Hot Air blogger Allahpundit headlined a post on the subject "Brother of Democrat who's undecided on ObamaCare nominated for federal judgeship." The post further stated, "His exact words this afternoon: 'I will do everything in my power to make the case for reform.' And so he will, so he will." In a March 3 post headlined "If You Can't Beat 'Em, Bribe 'Em: Obama Now Trading Judgeships For Votes," RedState's Lori Ziganto wrote, "Chicago-style politics once again coming home to roost."

WH, Judge McConnell and Sen. Bennett debunk Matheson smear. Noting that McCormack's "report raises the question but doesn't answer it," Politico's Chris Frates reported that Rep. Matheson's spokeswoman "called the question 'patently ridiculous,' saying there was no deal made between her boss and the president that guaranteed Scott Matheson's nomination in exchange for Rep. Matheson's vote." Frates later noted that a "White House official calls the charge 'absurd.' 'Scott Matheson is a leading law scholar and has served as a law school dean and U.S. Attorney. He's respected across Utah and eminently qualified to serve on the federal bench,' the official said." Likewise, a spokesman for Republican Sen. Robert Bennett (UT), and former Judge Michael McConnell -- an appointee of former President Bush -- who last occupied the seat to which Scott Matheson has been named, definitively debunked the smear.
Smear: WH "threatening to close" Offutt Air Force Base "to extort" Ben Nelson's vote

Goldfarb promotes "presumably pretty well sourced" senators' call for investigation. The Weekly Standard's Michael Goldfarb's wrote that "[t]wenty Republican senators have requested that the Senate Armed Services Committee launch an investigation into reports that the Obama White House threatened to close Nebraska's Offutt Air Force base unless Nebraska Senator Ben Nelson fell into line on health care. Those reports first appeared on this blog. In the letter to Senators [Carl] Levin and [John] McCain, the committee chairman and ranking member, the 20 ask that 'a hearing be held as to whether the BRAC [Base Realignment and Closure] process has been compromised."

Nelson spokesman and White House: "The rumor is not true." The Omaha World-Herald reported on December 15 that Nelson spokesman Jake Thompson said, "The rumor is not true," and, "This misinformation is coming from inside-the-Beltway partisans who only want to derail health care reform." Moreover, in a December 15 blog post, White House Communications director Dan Pfeiffer stated:

Proving that they will leave no stone unturned in their efforts to undermine health reform, some blogs opposing reform are now trafficking an absurd rumor that Nebraska's Offutt Air Force Base is being threatened over Senator Ben Nelson's vote on the Senate reform bill.

To be perfectly clear: these rumors are completely baseless and false.

Thanks for your time.

Smear: Bank of North Dakota given special exemption to ensure passage of health care reform

Wallace cites "one deal for the one bank in North Dakota as a "special deal" that is "still in the bill." A March 19 Power Line post stated, "Although the package nationalizes the student loan system, one bank -- the state-owned Bank of North Dakota -- would be allowed to continue making student loans. Such a deal for North Dakota's Democratic congressional delegation facing massive opposition to Obamacare back home." On the March 21 edition of Fox Broadcasting Co.'s Fox News Sunday, Wallace asked Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL), "[D]idn't Speaker Pelosi end up using a lot of taxpayer money to buy votes for this bill?" Wallace listed what he claimed were "special deals" that would ensure passage of the health care reform bill, citing as an example "the one deal for the one bank in North Dakota."

Manager's amendment removed state-owned bank provision. A proposal that would have exempted state-owned banks from a provision to eliminate federal subsidies for private lenders -- originally contained on Page 145 of the reconciliation bill -- was removed from the reconciliation bill that will be voted on by the House. From the manager's amendment:

Page 145, beginning on line 18, strike section 2213 (and redesignate the succeeding section accordingly).

Politics Daily: "Special Provision for North Dakota Bank Removed From Health Bill." A March 18 Politics Daily article reported that "Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) Thursday sought the removal of a special provision he had written into the package of fixes to the Senate health care bill that would have applied only to the Bank of North Dakota. The provision would have allowed the Bank of North Dakota to continue to originate and service student loans even though a pending overhaul says that all such loans will originate through the U.S. Department of Education, beginning July 1."

Conservative Backed Billed Pushes U.S. Further Toward Being a Police State

McCain and Lieberman's "Enemy Belligerent" Act Could Set U.S. on Path to Military Dictatorship

On March 4th, Senators John McCain and Joe Lieberman introduced a bill called the "Enemy Belligerent Interrogation, Detention, and Prosecution Act of 2010" that, if passed, would set this country on a course to become a military dictatorship.

The bill is only 12 pages long, but that is plenty of room to grant the president the power to order the arrest, interrogation, and imprisonment of anyone -- including a U.S. citizen -- indefinitely, on the sole suspicion that he or she is affiliated with terrorism, and on the president's sole authority as commander in chief.

The Act begins with the following (convoluted) requirement:

Whenever within the United States, its territories, and possessions, or outside the territorial limits of the United States, an individual is captured or otherwise comes into the custody or under the effective control of the United States who is suspected of engaging in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners through an act of terrorism, or by other means in violation of the laws of war, or of purposely and materially supporting such hostilities, and who may be an unprivileged enemy belligerent, the individual shall be placed in military custody for purposes of initial interrogation and determination of status in accordance with the provisions of this Act.

In other words, if at any point, anywhere in the world, a person is caught who might have done something to suggest that he or she is a terrorist or somehow supporting a terrorist organization against the U.S. or its allies, that person must be imprisoned by the military.

For how long?

As long as U.S. officials want. A subsequent section, titled "Detention Without Trial of Unprivileged Enemy Belligerents," states that suspects "may be detained without criminal charges and without trial for the duration of hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners." In a press conference introducing the bill earlier this month, Sen. Joe Lieberman said, "I know that will be -- that may be -- a long time, but that's the nature of this war."

As constitutional expert Glenn Greenwald has pointed out, "It's basically a bill designed to formally authorize what the Bush administration did to American citizen Jose Padilla -- arrest him on U.S. soil and imprison him for years in military custody with no charges." What happened to Padilla, a notorious perversion of justice in a country that claims to be a democratic standard-bearer, would thus go from being an exception to the rule itself.

As "war on terror"-era legislation goes, Greenwald calls the Enemy Belligerent Interrogation, Detention, and Prosecution Act "probably the single most extremist, tyrannical and dangerous bill introduced in the Senate in the last several decades, far beyond the horrific, habeas-abolishing Military Commissions Act." This is a sobering statement, especially given the intense controversy the MCA generated at the time of its passage, in the heady weeks preceding the 2006 midterm elections. Then-Senator Obama was one of only 34 senators who voted against it, calling it "sloppy," and expressing his wish that "cooler heads … prevail after the silly season of politics is over."

Now, however, as president, Obama has helped pave the way for such radical legislative efforts as the one introduced by McCain and Lieberman, by embracing -- and re-branding -- the military commissions he once opposed.

"Belligerents" are the new "Combatants"

Three years after Obama eloquently opposed the Military Commissions Act, the now-president signed a Military Commissions Act of his own, as part of the 2010 Defense Authorization Bill. The law, which sought to overhaul the discredited Bush-era military commissions for "alien enemy combatants," introduced what is apparently turning out to be an important new term to the counterterror lexicon: Unprivileged Enemy Belligerent, defined as "an individual who: 1) has engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners; or 2) has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners."

Months before, in March of 2009, the Obama administration announced that it was phasing out the term "alien enemy combatant," even as it held on to the authority to hold terror suspects indefinitely. "Unprivileged Enemy Belligerent," then, was its replacement.

As Human Rights Watch attorney Joanne Mariner wrote last fall, "this is a cosmetic change, not a real improvement, which mirrors the administration's decision to drop the enemy combatant formula in habeas litigation at Guantanamo Bay."

What overshadows all of these differences is, however, a key similarity with the Bush-era definition. Just as, in the Guantanamo habeas litigation, the Obama administration has adopted the Bush-era position of claiming that persons who provide support to hostilities can be treated just like persons who engaged in hostilities, the new law's "unprivileged enemy belligerent" definition takes the same tack."

In other words, it is as expansive a definition of "terrorism" as possible.

In Obama's defense bill, the word "alien" preceded the term "unprivileged belligerents," in defining who can be held before a military commission. For McCain and Lieberman's purposes, omitting the word "alien" apparently means the label can apply to U.S. citizens, while, politically, the word "unpriviliged" provides a useful connotation: terror suspects will not be coddled like common criminals!

What's Sleazy and a Coward? Fox's Glenn Beck

Why is FOX funding research to discredit an American minister?

If Fox is about opinion, then let Beck have his opinion and make his case for it in a sane, civil manner – to say nothing of in a “fair and balanced” manner.

Contrary to what Fox apologists like to claim, the channel’s advertising has always strongly implied that their “Fair and Balanced” slogan applies to the channel as a whole – not to the “hard news” alone. Would it not be fair, then, to allow Pastor Jim Wallis to appear on Beck’s program to discuss Beck’s charges against him, and against the churches who preach the gospel of social justice? Would it not provide balance? Can any of the staunchest defenders of Fox News come up with one good reason why Beck should not debate Wallis?

Beck always dictates the conditions, persons and rules of his debates. Could it be that he is so afraid of those with more knowledge of social policy and U.S. history - combined with his personal insecurities - that he is incapable of having a debate where he has to adhere to proper rules of debate (no ad hominem attacks for instance).

Obama health overhaul cuts US deficit: Congress

President Barack Obama's historic health overhaul legislation would cut 130 billion dollars from the US budget deficit through 2019, according to figures provided by Democratic lawmakers.

The independent Congressional Budget Office (CBO) predicts that the bill, Obama's top domestic priority, will cost about 940 billion dollars over the same period, but cut 1.2 trillion in its second ten years, they said.

So much for those blatant lies espoused by Republicans and their tea bagger dorks that health care reform will bankrupt the country.

John Boehner (R-OH) Makes the Conservative Aligned Tea Baggers Look Like the Fake Populists They Are

John Boehner (R-OH) makes the Conservative Aligned Tea Baggers Look Like the Fake Populists They Are

This week, Senate Banking Committee Chairman Chris Dodd (D-CT) released the latest version of his financial regulatory reform bill, which aims to correct the deficiencies in the financial system that led to 2008’s economic crisis. The House of Representatives has already passed a comprehensive regulatory reform bill, and now that Dodd has given up on negotiating with recalcitrant Republicans, he is moving on an expedited timeline, with a markup scheduled for Monday.

It’s taken the Senate a year and a half after the financial crisis to even get to this point, but House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) told “an enthusiastic crowd of bankers” today that, even if the Senate passes a bill, reconciling it with the House version will take another year. “If the Senate is able to produce a bill, I think it’s just as likely that we’ll be talking about the same issue a year from now as we are right now,” Boehner said at the American Bankers Association government relations summit.

Boehner then added that the bankers should be standing up for themselves against “those little punk staffers” trying to write new regulations:

“Don’t let those little punk staffers take advantage of you and stand up for yourselves,” Boehner said. “All of us are hearing from our friends and constituents on lack of credit, you can’t get a loan, the more your government takes and taxes, the more regulations you have to comply with the more cost you have there and less amount you are going to have available to loan to customers.”

The fact that he’s willing to let another year lapse without putting in place new rules for Wall Street shows exactly where Boehner’s priorities lie. But it should come as no surprise, considering what Republicans have been up to this year.

In February, Boehner met “over drinks” with JP Morgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon, where he “made a pitch” for Wall Street support by explaining that “Republicans had stood up to Mr. Obama’s efforts to curb pay and impose new regulations.” Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX), chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, “said he visited New York about twice a month to try to tap into Wall Street’s ‘buyers remorse’” with Democrats. These pitches had some effect too; last year, “major Wall Street players began sending an increasing share of their donations to Republicans.”

Prior to Boehner’s speech, American Bankers Association President Edward Yingling urged delay in the financial reform effort, because “every day that passes gives more leverage to [Banking Committee Ranking Member Richard Shelby (R-AL)].” In his career, Boehner has received $3.4 million from the financial services industry, which is $1.2 million more than he’s received from any other industry.

Boehner and conservatives continue to show their real stripes - their future agenda is simply recreating the conditions of crazed unregulated financial shenanigans that lead to the Bush/Republican Great Recession. Maybe he and his tea bagger supporters are enjoying America's misery so much they just want to do it again and again.

Fox Chief Coward and conspiracy monger Glenn Beck Dodges Debate Over His Social Justice Attacks

Republicans Go Into Raving Loon Mode Over Health Care Reform

Right-wing media set sights on family of 11-year-old who spoke about his mother's death at health care event

Right-wing media have recently targeted 11-year-old Marcelas Owens and his family for attacks after he appeared at a health care reform event to speak about his mother, who reportedly died after losing her health insurance. These attacks follow a history of media conservatives attacking or mocking the uninsured, and previous attacks by right-wing media on the family of a 12-year-old who spoke in support of SCHIP.

11-year-old spoke about mother's death at health care reform event

Marcelas' mother reportedly "died of pulmonary hypertension ... after losing her health insurance because she could no longer work." According to a New York Times report, Marcelas Owens appeared at a March 11 press conference with Senate Democrats and spoke about his mother's death. The Times reported that Marcelas' mother, "Tiffany Owens, died of pulmonary hypertension in 2007 at age 27 after losing her health insurance because she could no longer work. Ms. Owens had been an assistant manager at a Jack in the Box restaurant." CNN.com further reported that Marcelas said at the event, "I came out here for health care, I got involved because my mom was a health care activist, she testified and participated in rallies. She wanted people to have health care and not wait till management level to be offered health care."

....Gateway Pundit (a Republican internet pundit and self described expert on everything from national security to kool-aid) attacks Slaughter's "sappy lib sob story of the day, hands down." On his Gateway Pundit blog, Jim Hoft linked to a video clip of Slaughter telling the story about the dentures under the headline, "Horror! Lib Dem Claims Her Constituent Wore Dead Sister's Teeth (Video)." After declaring the account the "sappy lib sob story of the day, hands down," Hoft wrote: "Will Obamacare buy me glasses and contacts? Will Obamacare buy me a gold tooth in the front of my mouth with a little heart on it?"

If Deem and Pass or “self-executing rule” is Unconstitutional Why Have Republicans Used it So Often

Fairly Unbalanced Fox Promotes Texas School Board Nuts Revisonist History

Steve Doocy And Texas Board Of Education Right Winger, Cynthia Dunbar, Advance “Textbook” Propaganda!

Republican Cynthia Dunbar represents the extreme views of the conservatives on the Texas Board of Education. Her contention that liberals have unduly influenced the curriculum is a Texas sized cow chip because last year’s changes to the Texas science curriculum were done as a result of the conservatives who control the Board of Education. The National Center for Science Education deemed them a “setback for science education.” She homeschooled her children because she believes that education is “tyrannical” and “unconstitutional” and "a subtly deceptive tool of perversion." On the other hand, she believes that government should be guided by a “biblical litmus test.” She believes that Obama sympathizes with terrorists. She also doesn’t believe that the Founders wanted the separation of church and state. One of the new changes, approved by Dunbar and her Christian conservatives (not noted by Doocy) is to “question whether the Founders sought a separation of church and state.” Ergo, students will be taught that the government can show preference for one religion over the other. (That neither the Constitution nor the Federalist papers mentioned God is lost on these Texas Christians!) As noted by Brian Thevenot, of the Texas Tribune, Friday’s Texas School Board vote is a “hijacking of history.” The overwhelming reaction, by the non Texas reality based community (read educators – not creationist theocrats) has been swift and sharp. As noted by the NY Times (not mentioned by Doocy) one of the approved amendments says “that students should study “the unintended consequences” of the Great Society legislation, affirmative action and Title IX legislation.” Joe McCarthy has been rehabilitated and the Bible will be part of the hisotry curriculum. And let’s talk “white wash” – literally – of history. Texas has a large Hispanic population; but references to Hispanics are now being kept at a minimum. There will be no teaching about Dolores Huerta, co-founder of the United Farm Workers of America, because Dunbar’s pals say she is a socialist. Jeff Schneider has written an excellent debunking of the whole thing here.

In the never ending quest to find a Conservative with actual values, well sorry but today is another disappointment. In new "social justice" smear, Beck attacks mother of uninsured woman who died

Bush's Brain Karl Rove Rewrites History on Book Tour

Karl Rove brings his misinformation tour to Meet the Press

Rove falsely claimed it "was not" Bush policy "to go into Iraq and take their" oil revenues "to pay for the cost of the war"

Fact: Bush administration officials said "the bulk of the funds for Iraq's reconstruction will come from Iraqis," including "oil revenues"

Rumsfeld: "[T]he bulk of the funds for Iraq's reconstruction will come from Iraqis," including "oil revenues." In an October 2, 2003, news briefing, then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld discussed President Bush's request for $87 billion in funding for the "global war on terror," $21 billion dollars of which Rumsfeld declared was "to help Afghanistan and Iraq secure their nation's freedom." Rumsfeld added: "The $20 billion the president requested is not intended to cover all of Iraq's needs. The bulk of the funds for Iraq's reconstruction will come from Iraqis -- from oil revenues, recovered assets, international trade, direct foreign investment, as well as some contributions we've already received and hope to receive from the international community."

Wolfowitz: "We're dealing with a country that could really finance its own reconstruction." As Think Progress noted, then-Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz testified before Congress on March 27, 2003, that "the oil revenues of that country [Iraq] could bring between 50 and 100 billion dollars over the course of the next two or three years. Now, there are a lot of claims on that money, but that's --- we're not dealing with Afghanistan that's a permanent ward of the international community. We are dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction and relatively soon."

Fleisher: Iraq "is a rather wealthy country" that has the "means" to "shoulder much of the burden for their own reconstruction." As Think Progress also noted, in a February 18, 2003, press conference, then-White House press secretary Ari Fleischer said of reconstruction costs: "Iraq, unlike Afghanistan, is a rather wealthy country. Iraq has tremendous resources that belong to the Iraqi people. And so there are a variety of means that Iraq has to be able to shoulder much of the burden for their own reconstruction."

State Department suggested Iraqi "oil revenue" could "finance reconstruction with development itself, given its oil revenue." In an October 4, 2002, press briefing then-Assistant Secretary of State for Public Affairs Richard Boucher was asked whether the Iraq "working groups ... include[d] a financial component on how it would be funded and talks about whether that would be something the US would fund or the donor community." He replied, "I'm sure as they face each of these challenges they have to talk about the financing challenges, and obviously in some areas it's more likely Iraq would be able to finance reconstruction with development itself, given its oil revenue; in some areas, there might be needs."

Rove also lied about health-care reform and the reconciliation process claiming is was not "normal". Which makes Rove a lying hypocrite since Republican used the reconciliation process more than Democrats ever have to pass major legislation.

Republicans Have Lied About Health Care Reform. Their Perverse Values Cannot Stand the Light of Honest Debate

The bogus Republican claim that Obamacare is a government takeover of one-sixth of

the economy.

There have been lots of absurdities in the debate—such as it is—about health care reform. There's the hypocrisy of people

dependent on government-run health care complaining about government-run health care. And now comes the Republican canard that

the current health care reform proposal constitutes a government takeover of one-sixth of the economy. Here are Rep. Steve Buyer of

Indiana, Rep. John Fleming of Louisiana, and Sen. Jim DeMint of South Carolina making precisely that argument.


First, the proposed health care reform does not take over the system in any sense. Much to

the chagrin of progressives, the bills under consideration don't contain a public option and don't provide for a single payer. In fact,

they provide subsidies for millions of people to purchase private insurance.

Second, such statements reveal how pathetically little many of our policymakers and pundits understand American health care

spending. We're already halfway toward socialized medicine, but not because of Obamacare. (Here's a column I wrote about this in December 2006.)

Over the last couple of decades, as the private sector has done a miserable job controlling costs, as employers have felt less and

less compelled to offer health care benefits as a condition of employment, as the population has aged, and as the government

created new health care entitlements, the government has been slowly assuming a higher portion of health care spending in the United

States—or "taking it over."

Check out Table 123 in the CDC's big annual report. In 1990, health care

expenditures in the United States were split, 60-40, between the private and public sectors. By 2000, the ratio had fallen to 55.9-44.1.

In other words, in the 1990s, a period in which Republicans controlled the House for six years, the share of health spending

controlled by the government rose by 10 percent. The trend continued in the period from 2000 to 2008, when Republicans controlled

the White House and largely controlled Congress. The recession boosted the poverty rate, making more people eligible for Medicaid,

and led to the reduction of millions of payroll jobs, which led to losses in job-related insurance.* By 2008, according to the Centers

for Medicare and Medicaid Services, private health care expenditures had fallen to 52.7 percent and public had risen to 47.3

percent. In pretty much every year of the Bush administration, the government "took over" a greater

chunk of the health care sector. And many of the Republicans who are complaining about reform proposals today didn't utter a

peep. In fact, they helped the process along by voting for the Medicare prescription drug benefit in 2003. (Hat tip to Jonathan

Cohn of The New Republicfor the references.)

CMS also notes that thanks to these trends, public spending will soon outpace private spending—even in the absence of significant

reform. "As a result of more rapid growth in public spending, the public share of total health care spending is expected to rise from

47 percent in 2008, exceed 50 percent by 2012, and then reach nearly 52 percent by 2019."

So, to reiterate, we're already half way toward fully socialized medicine. The government has already taken over one-twelfth of the

economy—and more every day. That's the status quo the opponents of reform are defending.

Daniel Gross is also the author of Dumb Money: How Our Greatest Financial Minds Bankrupted the

Nation and Pop!: Why Bubbles Are Great For The Economy.

Conservative Torture Fetish Freak Marc Thiessen Makes Excuses for Stalinist Policies

Conservative Torture cheerleader Marc Thiessen Makes Excuses for Stalinist Policies

One op-ed, by former Attorney General Michael Mukasey, supports both sets of lawyers, and denounces the Liz Cheney "Keep America Safe" conspiracy theories about them. The other, by Washington Post columnist and torture cheerleader Marc Thiessen, enthusiastically backs Cheney's character assassinations. For Mukasey, criticizing either set of lawyers "is all of a piece, and what it is a piece of is something both shoddy and dangerous" -- criticizing lawyers for the arguments they make on behalf of clients. Thiessen, rejecting the charge that Cheney's group are McCarthyites, asks "Where was the moral outrage when fine lawyers like John Yoo, Jay Bybee, David Addington, Jim Haynes, Steve Bradbury, and others came under vicious personal attack?" Thiessen has no use for moral equivalence: for him, torture lawyers are good and detainee lawyers are the equivalent of mob lawyers. But, like Mukasey, he sees a parallel between the two sets of criticisms, and agrees that those who criticize the torture lawyers but not the detainee lawyers are using a double standard, probably for illicit political reasons.

That would include me, since I called the Cheney attacks McCarthyism and have criticized the torture lawyers for years.

But in fact, the parallel is completely bogus. What makes the Cheney attacks McCarthyism is guilt by association, wrapped in innuendo, and cynically appealing to paranoia: Because you represented a detainee, you very likely sympathize with Al Qaeda, and we need to smoke you out.

Nobody ever criticized the torture lawyers because of who they represented, and nobody questioned their loyalty. The criticisms were on three completely different grounds: first, that they made frivolous arguments to get around the law; second, that they violated their ethical and constitutional obligation to give candid, independent advice to the president; and third, that they facilitated a misbegotten plan to torture captives.

Lawyers, Treason, and Deception: A Response to Andrew McCarthy

Consider McCarthy’s basic argument that lawyers who represented detainees “aided the enemy in wartime,” and should normally be guilty of treason. If that’s true, isn’t the federal judiciary, and aren’t the Justices of the Supreme Court, also guilty of treason? In fact, aren’t the judges the kingpins of this treasonous plot to “hurt the war effort”? After all, lawyers only make arguments to judges. It doesn’t actually help detainees to make argument courts reject. It’s up to the judges to rule one way or the other. If the lawyers are aiding the enemy, they’re only minor players: It’s the judges, and especially the Justices, who are the real guilty parties, as they’re the ones that actually help the detainees by ruling in their favor. Does McCarthy think the Justices of the Supreme Court are guilty of aiding the enemy, and that (if we treat them like everybody else) they should be “indicted for coming to the enemy’s aid during wartime”?

Second, McCarthy’s claims about the right to counsel strike me as just wrong. The Bush Administration had initially taken the view that Yaser Hamdi, detained as an enemy combatant, did not have a right to counsel. The Administration caved when the case got to the Supreme Court, though, and the Supreme Court had this to say about Hamdi’s right to counsel:

Hamdi asks us to hold that the Fourth Circuit also erred by denying him immediate access to counsel upon his detention and by disposing of the case without permitting him to meet with an attorney. Brief for Petitioners 19. Since our grant of certiorari in this case, Hamdi has been appointed counsel, with whom he has met for consultation purposes on several occasions, and with whom he is now being granted unmonitored meetings. He unquestionably has the right to access to counsel in connection with the proceedings on remand. No further consideration of this issue is necessary at this stage of the case.

Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507 (2004) (emphasis added). Hamdi was a U.S. citizen, but lower courts have concluded that Gitmo detainees who are citizens of other countries also have the right to counsel. See, e.g., Al-Joudi v. Bush, 406 F.Supp.2d 13 (D.D.C. 2005) (ordering the government to inform detainee counsel about information relating to Guantanamo detainees in light of the detainees “right to counsel, which requires that counsel be able to communicate with them”).

Wacky Glenn Beck Thinks Social Justice is a Devious Plot

Socially conscious Christians take the fight to Glenn Beck

Socially conscious Christians take the fight to Glenn BeckTalk show host Glenn Beck has made some enemies in a corner of American society where most Fox News pundits would prefer to have friends: The Christian community.

Beck has upset the socially-conscious, activist side of the Christian movement with comments last week that listeners should "run" from churches that talk about "social justice" because they are espousing ideas that came from communists and Nazis.

On his radio show last week, Beck told his audience that churches which use the expression "social justice" are following an extremist agenda.

"I'm begging you, your right to religion and freedom to exercise religion and read all of the passages of the Bible as you want to read them and as your church wants to preach them ... are going to come under the ropes in the next year," Beck said. "I beg you, look for the words 'social justice' or 'economic justice' on your church Web site. If you find it, run as fast as you can. Social justice and economic justice, they are code words. Now, am I advising people to leave their church? Yes!"

Then, on his Fox News TV show, Beck explained why he felt so strongly about the issue.

"Both the communists, who are on the left -- they say -- you know, these are communists. And the Nazis are on the right," Beck said. "That's what people say. But they both subscribed to one philosophy, and they flew one banner. One had the hammer and sickle; the other was a swastika. But on each banner read the words, here in America, of this -- 'social justice.' They talked about economic justice, rights of the workers, redistribution of wealth, and surprisingly -- I love this -- democracy."

Beck's linking of socially conscious churches to communism and Nazism hasn't sat well with some Christian groups.

Bread for the World, a Christian group devoted to eradicating world hunger, has started a petition to demand that Beck stop spreading "misinformation and fear" through his radio and TV broadcasts.

"Economic and social justice are central to the gospel of Jesus Christ," the petition reads. "Quit using your bully pulpit to spread misinformation and fear by comparing faithful Christians who care 'for the least of these' to Nazis and communists."

The New Evangelical Partnership for the Common Good, a group advocating -- among other things -- nuclear disarmament and responsible environmental policies, has started a campaign to raise money towards a video rebuking Beck's assertion.

"We are launching a campaign to reclaim love of neighbor, especially the least, last, and lost, as an Evangelical Christian value. We believe love is central to everything Jesus taught, and we think Glenn Beck needs to hear about it," the group stated on its Web site.

Beck has been railing against "progressive" churches for some time now. Last December, he said churches where preachers supported health care reform had been "infiltrated" by un-American ideas.

"If you see things that are now being preached about from the puplpit in many churches about health care, warning. Warning. Many churches have been infiltrated with this line of thinking that is absolutely against the freedoms that our founding fathers designed," Beck said.

Like most modern Conservatives Beck has a perverse view of history and the struggle of the common man for justice - social, judicial and economic. He would have everyone believe that the communists and the Nazis were a movement for social justice. That is without a doubt a sick demented view of history. Liberals, or progressives if one likes, were the ones that defeated Hitler and whose policies of containment eventually toppled the old Soviet Empire.