From The Washington Post -- January 17, 2012:
Palin's Egocentric Umbrage
By Eugene Robinson
In the spirit of civil discourse, I'd like to humbly suggest that Sarah Palin please consider being quiet for a while. Perhaps a great while.
At the risk of being bold, I might observe that her faux-presidential address about the Tucson massacre seemed to fall somewhat flat, drawing comparisons to the least attractive public moments of such figures as Richard Nixon and Spiro Agnew. I could go so far as to observe that Palin almost seemed to portray herself as a collateral victim. Surely a former governor of Alaska - who served the better part of an entire term - would never seek to give the impression that she views any conceivable event, no matter how distant or tragic, as being All About Sarah.
Yet this is the unfortunate impression that Palin's videotaped peroration seems to have left. I am at a loss to recommend any course of corrective action other than an extended period of abstinence from Facebook, Twitter and other social networking sites.
Palin doubtless understands by now that characterizing her alleged persecution by journalists and commentators with the term "blood libel" was a semantic faux pas. One must question, however, not only the tone of her complaint but the content as well. Did she, indeed, have a legitimate grievance? I must be frank: The evidence suggests not.
Days earlier, Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, a Democrat, had been shot while meeting with her constituents; six people were killed in the incident, including a federal judge, and more than a dozen others injured. It happens that Giffords' district, in southern Arizona, is passionately divided on just about every hot-button issue.
It also turns out that before last November's election, Giffords gave a television interview expressing her concern about the bitterness and rancor of our political debate. In the interview, Giffords cited a graphic that Palin had posted on Facebook - a map identifying congressional districts being targeted for Republican gains. The districts, including that of Giffords, were highlighted with an unfortunate symbol: the cross hairs of a rifle scope.
One of Palin's aides must have been trying to lighten a dreary week with a bit of humor when she claimed that the cross hairs were actually those of a surveyor's scope. Perhaps the ruse would have been more effective if viewers of Palin's "reality" television show hadn't recently watched her use a high-powered rifle, not a theodolite, to fell a caribou. Or, indeed, if Palin hadn't famously counseled fellow Republicans not to retreat but instead to "reload."
In her statement, Palin gave the impression of being appalled that journalists mentioned the cross-hairs graphic in the hours after the rampage in Tucson. She singled out reporters and pundits, not political activists who might bear partisan animus. Surely she must have anticipated that viewers who recall her course of collegiate study - journalism - would be baffled at this reaction.
In the days since, we have learned that the alleged gunman, Jared Lee Loughner, appears to be an unbalanced young man whose political views are confused and perhaps irrelevant. But at the time, nothing was known about the assailant or his motives. I am confident that at least one of Palin's professors must have taught her that in reporting about a shooting, the fact that the principal target felt threatened is highly relevant information, as is the specific nature of that threat.
It is also relevant that most of the violent political rhetoric that blights the public discourse is emanating from the far right - a constituency for which Palin speaks, often so colorfully. In the 1960s and '70s, this was not the case; anti-government invective and unsettling talk of "revolution" came primarily from the far left. Palin is perhaps too young to remember that era, but as a student of history she must have read about it - and must recognize the contrast between then and now.
For her to take such umbrage, then, at the reporting of evident, pertinent and factual information deepened the impression that she is - and I must be frank - astoundingly thin-skinned and egocentric.
The way Palin portrayed herself as not only a popular champion but also a martyr reminded me - not for the first time - of Eva Peron. If she chooses this unpromising route to higher political office, I suggest she find a suitable balcony from which to deliver her next address to the nation.
Or perhaps - solely in the interest of civil discourse - that there be no next address.
Wednesday, January 19, 2011
Tuesday, January 18, 2011
President Obama Will Sail to Re-Election in 2012
From The Washington Post -- January 18, 2011:
By Dan Balz and Jon Cohen
Speaking at the memorial service for those killed in the Tucson shooting, President Obama said, "Those who died here, those who saved lives here - they help me believe."
Evaluations of President Obama's handling of the Jan. 8 tragedy are highly positive across the political spectrum, with nearly eight in 10 giving him high marks for his response to the incident. A robust 71 percent of Republicans say they approve of his leadership following the shootings.
The strong reviews of the president's response to the Arizona incident - which included giving a prime-time eulogy at a memorial service for the victims - have helped boost Obama's overall approval rating to its highest point since last April. Fully 54 percent of all Americans now approve of the way he is handling his job as president, while 43 percent disapprove.
By Dan Balz and Jon Cohen
Speaking at the memorial service for those killed in the Tucson shooting, President Obama said, "Those who died here, those who saved lives here - they help me believe."
Evaluations of President Obama's handling of the Jan. 8 tragedy are highly positive across the political spectrum, with nearly eight in 10 giving him high marks for his response to the incident. A robust 71 percent of Republicans say they approve of his leadership following the shootings.
The strong reviews of the president's response to the Arizona incident - which included giving a prime-time eulogy at a memorial service for the victims - have helped boost Obama's overall approval rating to its highest point since last April. Fully 54 percent of all Americans now approve of the way he is handling his job as president, while 43 percent disapprove.
Thursday, January 13, 2011
Why TV News Is No News
From The Washington Post -- November 10, 2010:
Olbermann, O'Reilly and the death of real news
By Ted Koppel
To witness Keith Olbermann - the most opinionated among MSNBC's left-leaning, Fox-baiting, money-generating hosts - suspended even briefly last week for making financial contributions to Democratic political candidates seemed like a whimsical, arcane holdover from a long-gone era of television journalism, when the networks considered the collection and dissemination of substantive and unbiased news to be a public trust.
Back then, a policy against political contributions would have aimed to avoid even the appearance of partisanship. But today, when Olbermann draws more than 1 million like-minded viewers to his program every night precisely because he is avowedly, unabashedly and monotonously partisan, it is not clear what misdemeanor his donations constituted. Consistency?
We live now in a cable news universe that celebrates the opinions of Olbermann, Rachel Maddow, Chris Matthews, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly - individuals who hold up the twin pillars of political partisanship and who are encouraged to do so by their parent organizations because their brand of analysis and commentary is highly profitable.
The commercial success of both Fox News and MSNBC is a source of nonpartisan sadness for me. While I can appreciate the financial logic of drowning television viewers in a flood of opinions designed to confirm their own biases, the trend is not good for the republic. It is, though, the natural outcome of a growing sense of national entitlement. Daniel Patrick Moynihan's oft-quoted observation that "everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts," seems almost quaint in an environment that flaunts opinions as though they were facts.
And so, among the many benefits we have come to believe the founding fathers intended for us, the latest is news we can choose. Beginning, perhaps, from the reasonable perspective that absolute objectivity is unattainable, Fox News and MSNBC no longer even attempt it. They show us the world not as it is, but as partisans (and loyal viewers) at either end of the political spectrum would like it to be. This is to journalism what Bernie Madoff was to investment: He told his customers what they wanted to hear, and by the time they learned the truth, their money was gone.
It is also part of a pervasive ethos that eschews facts in favor of an idealized reality. The fashion industry has apparently known this for years: Esquire magazine recently found that men's jeans from a variety of name-brand manufacturers are cut large but labeled small. The actual waist sizes are anywhere from three to six inches roomier than their labels insist.
Perhaps it doesn't matter that we are being flattered into believing what any full-length mirror can tell us is untrue. But when our accountants, bankers and lawyers, our doctors and our politicians tell us only what we want to hear, despite hard evidence to the contrary, we are headed for disaster. We need only look at our housing industry, our credit card debt, the cost of two wars subsidized by borrowed money, and the rising deficit to understand the dangers of entitlement run rampant. We celebrate truth as a virtue, but only in the abstract. What we really need in our search for truth is a commodity that used to be at the heart of good journalism: facts - along with a willingness to present those facts without fear or favor.
To the degree that broadcast news was a more virtuous operation 40 years ago, it was a function of both fear and innocence. Network executives were afraid that a failure to work in the "public interest, convenience and necessity," as set forth in the Radio Act of 1927, might cause the Federal Communications Commission to suspend or even revoke their licenses. The three major broadcast networks pointed to their news divisions (which operated at a loss or barely broke even) as evidence that they were fulfilling the FCC's mandate. News was, in a manner of speaking, the loss leader that permitted NBC, CBS and ABC to justify the enormous profits made by their entertainment divisions.
On the innocence side of the ledger, meanwhile, it never occurred to the network brass that news programming could be profitable.
Until, that is, CBS News unveiled its "60 Minutes" news magazine in 1968. When, after three years or so, "60 Minutes" turned a profit (something no television news program had previously achieved), a light went on, and the news divisions of all three networks came to be seen as profit centers, with all the expectations that entailed.
I recall a Washington meeting many years later at which Michael Eisner, then the chief executive of Disney, ABC's parent company, took questions from a group of ABC News correspondents and compared our status in the corporate structure to that of the Disney artists who create the company's world-famous cartoons. (He clearly and sincerely intended the analogy to flatter us.) Even they, Eisner pointed out, were expected to make budget cuts; we would have to do the same.
I mentioned several names to Eisner and asked if he recognized any. He did not. They were, I said, ABC correspondents and cameramen who had been killed or wounded while on assignment. While appreciating the enormous talent of the corporation's cartoonists, I pointed out that working on a television crew, covering wars, revolutions and natural disasters, was different. The suggestion was not well received.
The parent companies of all three networks would ultimately find a common way of dealing with the risk and expense inherent in operating news bureaus around the world: They would eliminate them. Peter Jennings and I, who joined ABC News within a year of each other in the early 1960s, were profoundly influenced by our years as foreign correspondents. When we became the anchors and managing editors of our respective programs, we tried to make sure foreign news remained a major ingredient. It was a struggle.
Peter called me one afternoon in the mid-'90s to ask whether we at "Nightline" had been receiving the same inquiries that he and his producers were getting at "World News Tonight." We had, indeed, been getting calls from company bean-counters wanting to know how many times our program had used a given overseas bureau in the preceding year. This data in hand, the accountants constructed the simplest of equations: Divide the cost of running a bureau by the number of television segments it produced. The cost, inevitably, was deemed too high to justify leaving the bureau as it was. Trims led to cuts and, in most cases, to elimination.
The networks say they still maintain bureaus around the world, but whereas in the 1960s I was one of 20 to 30 correspondents working out of fully staffed offices in more than a dozen major capitals, for the most part, a "bureau" now is just a local fixer who speaks English and can facilitate the work of a visiting producer or a correspondent in from London.
Much of the American public used to gather before the electronic hearth every evening, separate but together, while Walter Cronkite, Chet Huntley, David Brinkley, Frank Reynolds and Howard K. Smith offered relatively unbiased accounts of information that their respective news organizations believed the public needed to know. The ritual permitted, and perhaps encouraged, shared perceptions and even the possibility of compromise among those who disagreed.
It was an imperfect, untidy little Eden of journalism where reporters were motivated to gather facts about important issues. We didn't know that we could become profit centers. No one had bitten into that apple yet.
The transition of news from a public service to a profitable commodity is irreversible. Legions of new media present a vista of unrelenting competition. Advertisers crave young viewers, and these young viewers are deemed to be uninterested in hard news, especially hard news from abroad. This is felicitous, since covering overseas news is very expensive. On the other hand, the appetite for strongly held, if unsubstantiated, opinion is demonstrably high. And such talk, as they say, is cheap.
Broadcast news has been outflanked and will soon be overtaken by scores of other media options. The need for clear, objective reporting in a world of rising religious fundamentalism, economic interdependence and global ecological problems is probably greater than it has ever been. But we are no longer a national audience receiving news from a handful of trusted gatekeepers; we're now a million or more clusters of consumers, harvesting information from like-minded providers.
As you may know, Olbermann returned to his MSNBC program after just two days of enforced absence. (Given cable television's short attention span, two days may well have seemed like an "indefinite suspension.") He was gracious about the whole thing, acknowledging at least the historical merit of the rule he had broken: "It's not a stupid rule," he said. "It needs to be adapted to the realities of 21st-century journalism."
There is, after all, not much of a chance that 21st-century journalism will be adapted to conform with the old rules. Technology and the market are offering a tantalizing array of channels, each designed to fill a particular niche - sports, weather, cooking, religion - and an infinite variety of news, prepared and seasoned to reflect our taste, just the way we like it. As someone used to say in a bygone era, "That's the way it is."
Olbermann, O'Reilly and the death of real news
By Ted Koppel
To witness Keith Olbermann - the most opinionated among MSNBC's left-leaning, Fox-baiting, money-generating hosts - suspended even briefly last week for making financial contributions to Democratic political candidates seemed like a whimsical, arcane holdover from a long-gone era of television journalism, when the networks considered the collection and dissemination of substantive and unbiased news to be a public trust.
Back then, a policy against political contributions would have aimed to avoid even the appearance of partisanship. But today, when Olbermann draws more than 1 million like-minded viewers to his program every night precisely because he is avowedly, unabashedly and monotonously partisan, it is not clear what misdemeanor his donations constituted. Consistency?
We live now in a cable news universe that celebrates the opinions of Olbermann, Rachel Maddow, Chris Matthews, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly - individuals who hold up the twin pillars of political partisanship and who are encouraged to do so by their parent organizations because their brand of analysis and commentary is highly profitable.
The commercial success of both Fox News and MSNBC is a source of nonpartisan sadness for me. While I can appreciate the financial logic of drowning television viewers in a flood of opinions designed to confirm their own biases, the trend is not good for the republic. It is, though, the natural outcome of a growing sense of national entitlement. Daniel Patrick Moynihan's oft-quoted observation that "everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts," seems almost quaint in an environment that flaunts opinions as though they were facts.
And so, among the many benefits we have come to believe the founding fathers intended for us, the latest is news we can choose. Beginning, perhaps, from the reasonable perspective that absolute objectivity is unattainable, Fox News and MSNBC no longer even attempt it. They show us the world not as it is, but as partisans (and loyal viewers) at either end of the political spectrum would like it to be. This is to journalism what Bernie Madoff was to investment: He told his customers what they wanted to hear, and by the time they learned the truth, their money was gone.
It is also part of a pervasive ethos that eschews facts in favor of an idealized reality. The fashion industry has apparently known this for years: Esquire magazine recently found that men's jeans from a variety of name-brand manufacturers are cut large but labeled small. The actual waist sizes are anywhere from three to six inches roomier than their labels insist.
Perhaps it doesn't matter that we are being flattered into believing what any full-length mirror can tell us is untrue. But when our accountants, bankers and lawyers, our doctors and our politicians tell us only what we want to hear, despite hard evidence to the contrary, we are headed for disaster. We need only look at our housing industry, our credit card debt, the cost of two wars subsidized by borrowed money, and the rising deficit to understand the dangers of entitlement run rampant. We celebrate truth as a virtue, but only in the abstract. What we really need in our search for truth is a commodity that used to be at the heart of good journalism: facts - along with a willingness to present those facts without fear or favor.
To the degree that broadcast news was a more virtuous operation 40 years ago, it was a function of both fear and innocence. Network executives were afraid that a failure to work in the "public interest, convenience and necessity," as set forth in the Radio Act of 1927, might cause the Federal Communications Commission to suspend or even revoke their licenses. The three major broadcast networks pointed to their news divisions (which operated at a loss or barely broke even) as evidence that they were fulfilling the FCC's mandate. News was, in a manner of speaking, the loss leader that permitted NBC, CBS and ABC to justify the enormous profits made by their entertainment divisions.
On the innocence side of the ledger, meanwhile, it never occurred to the network brass that news programming could be profitable.
Until, that is, CBS News unveiled its "60 Minutes" news magazine in 1968. When, after three years or so, "60 Minutes" turned a profit (something no television news program had previously achieved), a light went on, and the news divisions of all three networks came to be seen as profit centers, with all the expectations that entailed.
I recall a Washington meeting many years later at which Michael Eisner, then the chief executive of Disney, ABC's parent company, took questions from a group of ABC News correspondents and compared our status in the corporate structure to that of the Disney artists who create the company's world-famous cartoons. (He clearly and sincerely intended the analogy to flatter us.) Even they, Eisner pointed out, were expected to make budget cuts; we would have to do the same.
I mentioned several names to Eisner and asked if he recognized any. He did not. They were, I said, ABC correspondents and cameramen who had been killed or wounded while on assignment. While appreciating the enormous talent of the corporation's cartoonists, I pointed out that working on a television crew, covering wars, revolutions and natural disasters, was different. The suggestion was not well received.
The parent companies of all three networks would ultimately find a common way of dealing with the risk and expense inherent in operating news bureaus around the world: They would eliminate them. Peter Jennings and I, who joined ABC News within a year of each other in the early 1960s, were profoundly influenced by our years as foreign correspondents. When we became the anchors and managing editors of our respective programs, we tried to make sure foreign news remained a major ingredient. It was a struggle.
Peter called me one afternoon in the mid-'90s to ask whether we at "Nightline" had been receiving the same inquiries that he and his producers were getting at "World News Tonight." We had, indeed, been getting calls from company bean-counters wanting to know how many times our program had used a given overseas bureau in the preceding year. This data in hand, the accountants constructed the simplest of equations: Divide the cost of running a bureau by the number of television segments it produced. The cost, inevitably, was deemed too high to justify leaving the bureau as it was. Trims led to cuts and, in most cases, to elimination.
The networks say they still maintain bureaus around the world, but whereas in the 1960s I was one of 20 to 30 correspondents working out of fully staffed offices in more than a dozen major capitals, for the most part, a "bureau" now is just a local fixer who speaks English and can facilitate the work of a visiting producer or a correspondent in from London.
Much of the American public used to gather before the electronic hearth every evening, separate but together, while Walter Cronkite, Chet Huntley, David Brinkley, Frank Reynolds and Howard K. Smith offered relatively unbiased accounts of information that their respective news organizations believed the public needed to know. The ritual permitted, and perhaps encouraged, shared perceptions and even the possibility of compromise among those who disagreed.
It was an imperfect, untidy little Eden of journalism where reporters were motivated to gather facts about important issues. We didn't know that we could become profit centers. No one had bitten into that apple yet.
The transition of news from a public service to a profitable commodity is irreversible. Legions of new media present a vista of unrelenting competition. Advertisers crave young viewers, and these young viewers are deemed to be uninterested in hard news, especially hard news from abroad. This is felicitous, since covering overseas news is very expensive. On the other hand, the appetite for strongly held, if unsubstantiated, opinion is demonstrably high. And such talk, as they say, is cheap.
Broadcast news has been outflanked and will soon be overtaken by scores of other media options. The need for clear, objective reporting in a world of rising religious fundamentalism, economic interdependence and global ecological problems is probably greater than it has ever been. But we are no longer a national audience receiving news from a handful of trusted gatekeepers; we're now a million or more clusters of consumers, harvesting information from like-minded providers.
As you may know, Olbermann returned to his MSNBC program after just two days of enforced absence. (Given cable television's short attention span, two days may well have seemed like an "indefinite suspension.") He was gracious about the whole thing, acknowledging at least the historical merit of the rule he had broken: "It's not a stupid rule," he said. "It needs to be adapted to the realities of 21st-century journalism."
There is, after all, not much of a chance that 21st-century journalism will be adapted to conform with the old rules. Technology and the market are offering a tantalizing array of channels, each designed to fill a particular niche - sports, weather, cooking, religion - and an infinite variety of news, prepared and seasoned to reflect our taste, just the way we like it. As someone used to say in a bygone era, "That's the way it is."
Sarah Palin Puts Her Hoof In Her Mouth Again
From The Washington Post -- January 13, 2011:
Sarah Palin's effort to defuse controversy backfires with 'Blood Libel' comment
By Karen Tumulty and Peter Wallsten
The presidential-quality stagecraft was there: an American flag over Sarah Palin's left shoulder and another over her heart. So was the rhetorical polish, with its invocations of the Founding Fathers and the Constitution, God and Ronald Reagan.
And after four days of near silence, the timing guaranteed that Palin would be written into the story line of President Obama's visit to comfort grief-stricken Tucson after a massacre there.
But if the statement that Palin put out Wednesday was designed to tamp down the criticism of her incendiary style of politics, it turned out to have the opposite effect.
Within minutes of the video and its accompanying Facebook post going viral on the Internet, all of that was subsumed by a new furor over Palin's choice of two words to describe her critics in the media: "blood libel."
Her choice of that provocative phrase underscored the challenge and the contradiction that confront the Republican former Alaska governor as she undertakes a new strategy to retool her image and elevate her stature in preparation for a possible presidential run in 2012.
A presidential campaign would pit Palin's ambition against her impulses and test her ability to expand her reach beyond the narrow slice of the population that rallies behind her.
Palin has often invited controversy and helped to shape the national debate by using words as blunt instruments - such as her memorable accusation that Obama has made a practice of "palling around with terrorists" and her contention that his health-care law would include "death panels. " It has been a hallmark of her rise and source of her political star power.
Her statement Wednesday brought yet another visceral response, though this time, it was one Palin did not necessarily intend or expect.
"Journalists and pundits should not manufacture a blood libel that serves only to incite the very hatred and violence they purport to condemn," Palin said in the video. "That is reprehensible."
Blood libel - a phrase that other conservatives have also used in recent days - was her way of decrying liberal critics who had tried to draw a connection between Palin's campaign rhetoric and the Tucson shootings.
But it also has a specific, ugly historical context. Blood libel is the centuries-old anti-Semitic myth that Jews use the blood of Christian children for rituals such as baking unleavened bread during Passover. It was used to justify persecution of Jews.
Her choice of words immediately overshadowed the point she was trying to make.
"Her blessing is also her problem: When the spotlight comes easily, you don't get to make unforced errors," said Noam Neusner, who was a speechwriter and Jewish community outreach adviser to former president George W. Bush.
"A particularly heinous term," said David A. Harris, president of the National Jewish Democratic Council. It had additional resonance because the apparent target of the Tucson attacks was a Jewish congresswoman.
But the defense of her was also vehement, and from some unexpected sources.
Liberal Harvard University law professor Alan Dershowitz told the blog biggovernment.com that blood libel has taken on "broad metaphorical meaning" and said there was "nothing improper and certainly nothing anti-Semitic in Sarah Palin using the term to characterize what she reasonably believes are false accusations."
Although Palin has often been at the center of political storms over the two-and-a-half years since she emerged on the national scene, her allies say the onslaught she has faced since the Tucson shootings has shaken her like none before.
Palin officials confirmed a report by ABC News that Palin has received an unprecedented number of death threats since Saturday's shootings and has been in conversations with security officials about the matter. They declined to provide further details.
Much of the criticism has centered on a map that Palin put on her Web site during the 2010 elections, which used cross-hair symbols to depict the districts of 20 congressional Democrats she had targeted for defeat. One of those was a Tucson shooting victim, Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (Ariz.), who had said at the time that Palin's map was an invitation to violence.
However, as more facts emerged about the shooting suspect, Jared Loughner, it grew increasingly apparent that the demons that drove him had little, if any, connection to partisan politics.
On the video, Palin appeared more subdued than usual - drawn and older-looking, her eyes noticeably red.
"I've spent the past few days reflecting on what happened and praying for guidance," she said.
The tragedy in Tucson occurred as the former governor was diving into domestic and foreign policy issues in an effort to build a more substantive political identity. The strategy, in which Palin intends to step up her involvement in public policy debates and embark on overseas trips to nations such as Israel, is in its early stages.
Last month, she toured earthquake-ravaged Haiti with Franklin Graham, who runs a charity there, and whose father, evangelist Billy Graham, has been the counselor of presidents since Harry Truman.
Aides framed her new approach as a direct response to critics, particularly some Republicans, who in recent months have dismissed her as a celebrity and questioned her intellectual heft.
Palin's team, a small and discreet circle of advisers who have gained her trust, knows that she has a long way to go. They say she has been speaking out for months on substantive issues but has received little credit from Washington-based journalists and the Republican establishment.
Palin has been working to brand herself a "tea party hawk," meaning she supports shrinking government but argues against cuts at the Pentagon. In a time of economic turmoil and anger at Wall Street, she set out to promote free markets but criticizes big corporations that sought political power to tilt the playing field in their favor.
As an early experiment, when Palin delivered an address in Phoenix late last year on monetary policy, her team leaked excerpts to the conservative National Review. Her comments - criticizing a Federal Reserve bond-buying program intended to stimulate the economy - drew widespread attention, putting her in the middle of a complex policy debate. It also prompted some GOP strategists to recognize that even the lofty Fed could be a populist political issue.
Her Wednesday statement was another opportunity to demonstrate her seriousness and speak to those beyond her enthusiastic base. Instead, with two words, she wound up back in a familiar place.
"Whatever explanation she could give to use such a loaded term, the truth is she shouldn't have," Neusner said. "She doesn't have to turn the other cheek; she was, in fact, maligned in a gross and unfair way. But she could have said everything she said without that phrase.
"When people are trying to be leaders," he added, "they need to attract supporters, not repel them."
Sarah Palin's effort to defuse controversy backfires with 'Blood Libel' comment
By Karen Tumulty and Peter Wallsten
The presidential-quality stagecraft was there: an American flag over Sarah Palin's left shoulder and another over her heart. So was the rhetorical polish, with its invocations of the Founding Fathers and the Constitution, God and Ronald Reagan.
And after four days of near silence, the timing guaranteed that Palin would be written into the story line of President Obama's visit to comfort grief-stricken Tucson after a massacre there.
But if the statement that Palin put out Wednesday was designed to tamp down the criticism of her incendiary style of politics, it turned out to have the opposite effect.
Within minutes of the video and its accompanying Facebook post going viral on the Internet, all of that was subsumed by a new furor over Palin's choice of two words to describe her critics in the media: "blood libel."
Her choice of that provocative phrase underscored the challenge and the contradiction that confront the Republican former Alaska governor as she undertakes a new strategy to retool her image and elevate her stature in preparation for a possible presidential run in 2012.
A presidential campaign would pit Palin's ambition against her impulses and test her ability to expand her reach beyond the narrow slice of the population that rallies behind her.
Palin has often invited controversy and helped to shape the national debate by using words as blunt instruments - such as her memorable accusation that Obama has made a practice of "palling around with terrorists" and her contention that his health-care law would include "death panels. " It has been a hallmark of her rise and source of her political star power.
Her statement Wednesday brought yet another visceral response, though this time, it was one Palin did not necessarily intend or expect.
"Journalists and pundits should not manufacture a blood libel that serves only to incite the very hatred and violence they purport to condemn," Palin said in the video. "That is reprehensible."
Blood libel - a phrase that other conservatives have also used in recent days - was her way of decrying liberal critics who had tried to draw a connection between Palin's campaign rhetoric and the Tucson shootings.
But it also has a specific, ugly historical context. Blood libel is the centuries-old anti-Semitic myth that Jews use the blood of Christian children for rituals such as baking unleavened bread during Passover. It was used to justify persecution of Jews.
Her choice of words immediately overshadowed the point she was trying to make.
"Her blessing is also her problem: When the spotlight comes easily, you don't get to make unforced errors," said Noam Neusner, who was a speechwriter and Jewish community outreach adviser to former president George W. Bush.
"A particularly heinous term," said David A. Harris, president of the National Jewish Democratic Council. It had additional resonance because the apparent target of the Tucson attacks was a Jewish congresswoman.
But the defense of her was also vehement, and from some unexpected sources.
Liberal Harvard University law professor Alan Dershowitz told the blog biggovernment.com that blood libel has taken on "broad metaphorical meaning" and said there was "nothing improper and certainly nothing anti-Semitic in Sarah Palin using the term to characterize what she reasonably believes are false accusations."
Although Palin has often been at the center of political storms over the two-and-a-half years since she emerged on the national scene, her allies say the onslaught she has faced since the Tucson shootings has shaken her like none before.
Palin officials confirmed a report by ABC News that Palin has received an unprecedented number of death threats since Saturday's shootings and has been in conversations with security officials about the matter. They declined to provide further details.
Much of the criticism has centered on a map that Palin put on her Web site during the 2010 elections, which used cross-hair symbols to depict the districts of 20 congressional Democrats she had targeted for defeat. One of those was a Tucson shooting victim, Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (Ariz.), who had said at the time that Palin's map was an invitation to violence.
However, as more facts emerged about the shooting suspect, Jared Loughner, it grew increasingly apparent that the demons that drove him had little, if any, connection to partisan politics.
On the video, Palin appeared more subdued than usual - drawn and older-looking, her eyes noticeably red.
"I've spent the past few days reflecting on what happened and praying for guidance," she said.
The tragedy in Tucson occurred as the former governor was diving into domestic and foreign policy issues in an effort to build a more substantive political identity. The strategy, in which Palin intends to step up her involvement in public policy debates and embark on overseas trips to nations such as Israel, is in its early stages.
Last month, she toured earthquake-ravaged Haiti with Franklin Graham, who runs a charity there, and whose father, evangelist Billy Graham, has been the counselor of presidents since Harry Truman.
Aides framed her new approach as a direct response to critics, particularly some Republicans, who in recent months have dismissed her as a celebrity and questioned her intellectual heft.
Palin's team, a small and discreet circle of advisers who have gained her trust, knows that she has a long way to go. They say she has been speaking out for months on substantive issues but has received little credit from Washington-based journalists and the Republican establishment.
Palin has been working to brand herself a "tea party hawk," meaning she supports shrinking government but argues against cuts at the Pentagon. In a time of economic turmoil and anger at Wall Street, she set out to promote free markets but criticizes big corporations that sought political power to tilt the playing field in their favor.
As an early experiment, when Palin delivered an address in Phoenix late last year on monetary policy, her team leaked excerpts to the conservative National Review. Her comments - criticizing a Federal Reserve bond-buying program intended to stimulate the economy - drew widespread attention, putting her in the middle of a complex policy debate. It also prompted some GOP strategists to recognize that even the lofty Fed could be a populist political issue.
Her Wednesday statement was another opportunity to demonstrate her seriousness and speak to those beyond her enthusiastic base. Instead, with two words, she wound up back in a familiar place.
"Whatever explanation she could give to use such a loaded term, the truth is she shouldn't have," Neusner said. "She doesn't have to turn the other cheek; she was, in fact, maligned in a gross and unfair way. But she could have said everything she said without that phrase.
"When people are trying to be leaders," he added, "they need to attract supporters, not repel them."
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
The Two Faces of Eve and the Two Faces of Lying Two-Faced Fox News
From Media Matters for America -- January 12, 2011:
Fox Now Embraces Obama's Call To Avoid "Jumping To Conclusions" About Ft. Hood Shooter
In the context of the Arizona shooting, Fox News is now citing President Obama's call following the shooting at Fort Hood in 2009 to avoid "jumping to conclusions" about the causes behind the attack. However, following the Fort Hood shooting, Fox personalities immediately called for profiling of Muslims and attacked Obama.
In Context Of AZ Shooting, Fox Embraces Obama's Call Against "Jumping To Conclusions"
Special Report: Obama "Move[d] Swiftly To Rein In Speculation" About Ft. Hood, But Hasn't Sounded "Similar Alarms" About Tucson Shooter. From the January 10 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Bret Baier:
JAMES ROSEN (Fox News correspondent): A gunman opened fire, 13 innocents were dead, another 30 wounded. The scene, of course, was Fort Hood, where the alleged gunman turned out to be a Muslim, a fact that prompted leading liberals, from the president on down, to move swiftly to rein in speculation.
OBAMA [video clip]: We don't know all the answers yet, and I would caution against jumping to conclusions until we have all the facts.
ROSEN: But after the Tucson massacre, in which the alleged gunman turned out to be a disturbed young man with vaguely anti-federalist ideas, neither President Obama nor any other liberals sounded similar alarms. Quite the contrary, and starting with the sheriff on the case, a Democrat who instantly blamed, quote-unquote, "vitriol" from the right as a prime cause.
JUAN WILLIAMS (Fox News contributor): What you're seeing here is, I think, a double standard on the part of the left, that you'll say that when it comes to the Fort Hood shooter, oh, don't leap to any conclusions about the fact that he's a Muslim and that he has ties to people who have been advocating terrorist violent activity. But yes, when it comes to Loughner, look for any scintilla of evidence that would links him to right wing rhetoric. [Fox News, Special Report with Bret Baier, 1/10/11]
Hannity: After Ft. Hood, Obama Told Us Not To Jump To Conclusions, But With Tucson Shooting, The Left "Raced To Politicize This." From the January 10 edition of Fox News' Hannity:
DICK MORRIS (Fox News contributor): There was a very interesting point made -- I think it was by Dan Greenberg, the blogger. He said whenever there is a Muslim who kills somebody, there is an effort by the news media to characterize him as mentally unstable, deranged, bad childhood, blah, blah, blah, and to give causes other than Islamic terrorism for the act of terror. And whenever there's a non-Muslim doing the attack, the exact opposite takes place.
There's a focus on trying to see him as a creature of the conservative movement -- and it's just ridiculous. You go back to Lee Harvey Oswald and the guy who shot Reagan. These people are not motivated by ideology. They're crazy. They're nuts. And to attribute political motivation to it is ridiculous and really hypocritical.
SEAN HANNITY (host): You know, Dick, you're right, because, if anything, after the Fort Hood shooting, the media, the president, and everybody else on the left was lecturing everybody: Don't jump to conclusions. Now, I watched this whole thing unfold. I was watching the Fox News Channel all weekend, and as I -- I did flip over a couple of times to other media outlets. Within seconds, within hours, people are still fighting for their lives, you know, they raced to politicize this. [Fox News, Hannity, 1/10/11]
At Time Of Ft. Hood Shooting, Fox Attacked Obama and Muslims And Pushed For Profiling
Fox's Kilmeade Suggested That "It's Time For The Military To Have Special Debriefings" Of U.S. Soldiers Who Are Muslim. The day after the shooting, Fox & Friends co-host Brian Kilmeade asked: "Do you think it's time for the military to have special debriefings of Muslim Army civili-- officers, anybody enlisted?" He added: "Because if I'm going to be deployed in a foxhole, if I'm going to be sitting in an outpost, I've got to know that the guy next to me is not going to want to kill me." [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 11/6/09]
Fox's Carlson: "Could It Be That Our Military Is So Politically Correct ... To Be Careful About Treatment Of Muslims" That This Happened? Also on the day after the shooting, Fox & Friends co-host Gretchen Carlson asked: "[ Police] Commissioner Kelly here in New York City told us he's thwarted nine terrorist plots in New York City alone since 9-11. And here you have one of our own, a member of our own military, who by all accounts gave out tremendous red flags over the last six months. Could it be that our own military is so politically correct right now -- and I'm not denigrating them right now. I'm just saying -- so politically correct to be careful about treatment of Muslims that they would have allowed this to go by?" [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 11/6/10]
Hannity Concocts Theory To Blame Obama For Fort Hood Shooting. On November 9, 2009, Fox News host Sean Hannity speculated that "there is a chance our government knew all about" alleged Fort Hood shooter Nidal Malik Hasan "and did nothing because nobody wanted to be called an Islamophobe," and asked, "What does it say about Barack Obama and our government?" But there is no evidence that Obama was aware of the emails between Hasan and an imam with alleged ties to Al Qaeda; moreover, Hannity did not address what the incident says about President Bush, who was in office when the authorities reportedly first intercepted the emails. [Fox News, Hannity, 11/9/09]
Fox News Contributor Peters On Fort Hood Shooting: "It's Clear That The Problem Is Islam." Five days after the Fort Hood shooting, Fox News contributor Col. Ralph Peters (ret.) criticized Obama for saying the Fort Hood shooting was "incomprehensible." Peters said: "No, it wasn't hard to comprehend and it's not now. It was the act of an Islamist terrorist" who "believed he was doing the will of Allah in accordance with the Quran. Not hard to understand -- the evidence is there." Peters concluded: "It's clear that the problem is Islam." [Fox News, The O'Reilly Factor, 11/10/09]
Criticizing Statement That We Should "Not Rush To Judgment," Peters Said Fort Hood Shooter Was A "Protected Species." Peters also said that the Fort Hood Shooting has shown that "we've been a lot too politically correct." He later said: "If this nut case, this Mike Foxtrot in Army terms, had been a white supremacist, he would have been gone long ago as he should have been. But because he was a protected species, a sort of one-off Muslim psychiatrst officer, he got a pass again and again." Peters also said: "We're told not to rush to judgment. That, well it might really have nothing to do with Islam. It's not really terrorism. Give me a break." [Fox News, Your World with Neil Cavuto, 11/9/09]
Fox Now Embraces Obama's Call To Avoid "Jumping To Conclusions" About Ft. Hood Shooter
In the context of the Arizona shooting, Fox News is now citing President Obama's call following the shooting at Fort Hood in 2009 to avoid "jumping to conclusions" about the causes behind the attack. However, following the Fort Hood shooting, Fox personalities immediately called for profiling of Muslims and attacked Obama.
In Context Of AZ Shooting, Fox Embraces Obama's Call Against "Jumping To Conclusions"
Special Report: Obama "Move[d] Swiftly To Rein In Speculation" About Ft. Hood, But Hasn't Sounded "Similar Alarms" About Tucson Shooter. From the January 10 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Bret Baier:
JAMES ROSEN (Fox News correspondent): A gunman opened fire, 13 innocents were dead, another 30 wounded. The scene, of course, was Fort Hood, where the alleged gunman turned out to be a Muslim, a fact that prompted leading liberals, from the president on down, to move swiftly to rein in speculation.
OBAMA [video clip]: We don't know all the answers yet, and I would caution against jumping to conclusions until we have all the facts.
ROSEN: But after the Tucson massacre, in which the alleged gunman turned out to be a disturbed young man with vaguely anti-federalist ideas, neither President Obama nor any other liberals sounded similar alarms. Quite the contrary, and starting with the sheriff on the case, a Democrat who instantly blamed, quote-unquote, "vitriol" from the right as a prime cause.
JUAN WILLIAMS (Fox News contributor): What you're seeing here is, I think, a double standard on the part of the left, that you'll say that when it comes to the Fort Hood shooter, oh, don't leap to any conclusions about the fact that he's a Muslim and that he has ties to people who have been advocating terrorist violent activity. But yes, when it comes to Loughner, look for any scintilla of evidence that would links him to right wing rhetoric. [Fox News, Special Report with Bret Baier, 1/10/11]
Hannity: After Ft. Hood, Obama Told Us Not To Jump To Conclusions, But With Tucson Shooting, The Left "Raced To Politicize This." From the January 10 edition of Fox News' Hannity:
DICK MORRIS (Fox News contributor): There was a very interesting point made -- I think it was by Dan Greenberg, the blogger. He said whenever there is a Muslim who kills somebody, there is an effort by the news media to characterize him as mentally unstable, deranged, bad childhood, blah, blah, blah, and to give causes other than Islamic terrorism for the act of terror. And whenever there's a non-Muslim doing the attack, the exact opposite takes place.
There's a focus on trying to see him as a creature of the conservative movement -- and it's just ridiculous. You go back to Lee Harvey Oswald and the guy who shot Reagan. These people are not motivated by ideology. They're crazy. They're nuts. And to attribute political motivation to it is ridiculous and really hypocritical.
SEAN HANNITY (host): You know, Dick, you're right, because, if anything, after the Fort Hood shooting, the media, the president, and everybody else on the left was lecturing everybody: Don't jump to conclusions. Now, I watched this whole thing unfold. I was watching the Fox News Channel all weekend, and as I -- I did flip over a couple of times to other media outlets. Within seconds, within hours, people are still fighting for their lives, you know, they raced to politicize this. [Fox News, Hannity, 1/10/11]
At Time Of Ft. Hood Shooting, Fox Attacked Obama and Muslims And Pushed For Profiling
Fox's Kilmeade Suggested That "It's Time For The Military To Have Special Debriefings" Of U.S. Soldiers Who Are Muslim. The day after the shooting, Fox & Friends co-host Brian Kilmeade asked: "Do you think it's time for the military to have special debriefings of Muslim Army civili-- officers, anybody enlisted?" He added: "Because if I'm going to be deployed in a foxhole, if I'm going to be sitting in an outpost, I've got to know that the guy next to me is not going to want to kill me." [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 11/6/09]
Fox's Carlson: "Could It Be That Our Military Is So Politically Correct ... To Be Careful About Treatment Of Muslims" That This Happened? Also on the day after the shooting, Fox & Friends co-host Gretchen Carlson asked: "[ Police] Commissioner Kelly here in New York City told us he's thwarted nine terrorist plots in New York City alone since 9-11. And here you have one of our own, a member of our own military, who by all accounts gave out tremendous red flags over the last six months. Could it be that our own military is so politically correct right now -- and I'm not denigrating them right now. I'm just saying -- so politically correct to be careful about treatment of Muslims that they would have allowed this to go by?" [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 11/6/10]
Hannity Concocts Theory To Blame Obama For Fort Hood Shooting. On November 9, 2009, Fox News host Sean Hannity speculated that "there is a chance our government knew all about" alleged Fort Hood shooter Nidal Malik Hasan "and did nothing because nobody wanted to be called an Islamophobe," and asked, "What does it say about Barack Obama and our government?" But there is no evidence that Obama was aware of the emails between Hasan and an imam with alleged ties to Al Qaeda; moreover, Hannity did not address what the incident says about President Bush, who was in office when the authorities reportedly first intercepted the emails. [Fox News, Hannity, 11/9/09]
Fox News Contributor Peters On Fort Hood Shooting: "It's Clear That The Problem Is Islam." Five days after the Fort Hood shooting, Fox News contributor Col. Ralph Peters (ret.) criticized Obama for saying the Fort Hood shooting was "incomprehensible." Peters said: "No, it wasn't hard to comprehend and it's not now. It was the act of an Islamist terrorist" who "believed he was doing the will of Allah in accordance with the Quran. Not hard to understand -- the evidence is there." Peters concluded: "It's clear that the problem is Islam." [Fox News, The O'Reilly Factor, 11/10/09]
Criticizing Statement That We Should "Not Rush To Judgment," Peters Said Fort Hood Shooter Was A "Protected Species." Peters also said that the Fort Hood Shooting has shown that "we've been a lot too politically correct." He later said: "If this nut case, this Mike Foxtrot in Army terms, had been a white supremacist, he would have been gone long ago as he should have been. But because he was a protected species, a sort of one-off Muslim psychiatrst officer, he got a pass again and again." Peters also said: "We're told not to rush to judgment. That, well it might really have nothing to do with Islam. It's not really terrorism. Give me a break." [Fox News, Your World with Neil Cavuto, 11/9/09]
Monday, January 10, 2011
Glenn Beck -- My Goodness, It Pays to be Ignorant
From Media Matters for America -- January 10, 2011:
Historian: Beck's Defense Of Three-Fifths Clause "Completely Wrong"
According to experts, Glenn Beck's claim that the Founding Fathers included the three-fifths clause in the Constitution as a "way to take a step to abolish slavery" is incorrect. Indeed, when asked about Beck's statement, University of Pennsylvania history professor Rick Beeman wrote: "My Goodness -- Glenn Beck got it completely wrong."
Beck Defends Three-Fifths Clause
Beck: Three-Fifths Clause "Was A Way To Take A Step To Abolish Slavery." Discussing Republicans' decision not to allow parts of the Constitution that had been superseded by constitutional amendment to be read during a congressional session, Beck said:
BECK: Yesterday -- or was it today? I don't even know. It was yesterday that they read the Constitution in Congress. It was today? Read the Constitution in Congress. And it was -- no, it was -- they edited the Constitution, not for time, but because they didn't want to offend anyone. And parts of it were outdated. You got to be kidding me. This, we're getting from the Republicans. Hmm. Parts of it are outdated and parts of it are offensive.
The three-fifths clause was offensive, and so they didn't do it. This shows such a -- either lack of understanding of our history, who the Founders were, what the Constitution says, or it is just cowardice in Washington. Three-fifths clause. African-Americans: three-fifths in the South, three-fifths of a human being. That's an outrage, unless you know why they put that in there. They put that in there because if slaves in the South were counted as full human beings, they could never abolish slavery. They would never be able to do it. It was a time bomb.
Progressives should love that. It was a way to take a step to abolish slavery. It is a tremendous story about our Founders, about the genius of the Constitution -- but that might offend some people, so they skipped it. They skipped it. That's offensive to me. [Fox News' Glenn Beck, 1/6/10]
Experts Disagree With The Claim That Three-Fifths Clause Was Anti-Slavery
Beeman: "My Goodness -- Glenn Beck Got It Completely Wrong." In response to a Media Matters email about Beck's comments, Beeman wrote:
My goodness -- Glenn Beck got it completely wrong. They put [the three-fifths clause] there because delegates from the Southern states would never have agreed to the Constitution unless some weight was given to their slave populations in the apportionment of representation. They wanted slaves counted 100%, but when they saw that they could not get that, they settled for 3/5. The practical effect of that, far from making easier to abolish slavery, made it more difficult. It gave added weight to southern political power in Congress, it inflated Southern power in the apportioning of electoral votes, which led to a succession of Southern presidents. Ironically, the best thing that could have been done with respect to making it easier to abolish slavery would have been to have given slaves NO weight in the apportioning of representation.
Beck's comments are so depressingly typical of those who cite the Constitution to defend their views without having any understanding of the Constitution's history [emphasis added].
Beeman: Beck's Claim Is "Fundamentally Wrong." During a subsequent phone interview with Media Matters, Beeman also said of Beck's comment:
That was where Beck was fundamentally wrong. Going as far as giving slaves a status of three-fifths of a person gave the South far more power because slaves were not treated as full citizens. Slaves did not have any rights at all, including voting rights.
Law Professor Amar: Nineteenth Century Abolitionists Defended Three-Fifths Clause, But Their Argument Is Wrong. Yale University professor Akhil Reed Amar, who teaches constitutional law, wrote in his book, America's Constitution: A Biography:
In any event, the Constitution as drafted and ratified committed the new nation to perpetually credit slavery in the apportionment process. Confronting this harsh constitutional calculus, some antebellum antislavery leaders sought to construe three-fifths as a moral victory of sorts. On this view, anything less than five-fifths was an acknowledgment that slavery was constitutionally disfavored. The document's pointed refusal to use the S-word in the apportionment formula and elsewhere further evidenced the document's implicit antislavery stance, in the eyes of these apologists. Some theorists went so far as to claim that the Article I formula actually encouraged abolition: a state that freed its slaves could increase its share of the House by counting its blacks at five-fifths, thus avoiding the two-fifths slavery penalty.
This clever argument blinked the fact that states with large slave populations were hardly inclined to free slaves while encouraging freedmen to remain within the state as valued citizens. Dreams and schemes of colonization accompanied most serious proposals for widespread abolition. If emigration followed emancipation, a state would not rise from three to five-fifths, but rather would sink to zero-fifths as freedmen moved out. Contrary to apologists' rosy mathematics, a slave state would thus likely wield less congressional clout after emancipation. [Page 90, America's Constitution (2005), accessed 01/07/2011]
Yale Constitutional Expert: Three-Fifths Clause Gave South An Extra Incentive To Import Slaves
Amar: Because Of Three-Fifths Clause, "The More Slaves The Deep South Could Import ... The More Seats It Would Earn In The American Congress." From America's Constitution:
Once we envision the possibility of black bodies crossing borders, the extreme viciousness of the three-fifths clause comes violently into view. The more slaves the Deep South could import from the African continent -- innocents born in freedom and kidnapped across an ocean to be sold on auction blocks -- the more seats it would earn in the American Congress.
To make matters worse, despite the new Congress's general Article I, section 8 power over international commerce, section 9 barred Congress from ending the international slave trade before 1808. By that time, the Deep South hoped to have enough extra muscle in Congress, based on white migration and slave importation, to thwart any possible antislavery constitutional amendments and perhaps even to weaken any proposed ban on further slave importation. Unlike every other clause in the entire Constitution, the 1808 date itself was exempt from constitutional amendment under Article V.
Historian: Beck's Defense Of Three-Fifths Clause "Completely Wrong"
According to experts, Glenn Beck's claim that the Founding Fathers included the three-fifths clause in the Constitution as a "way to take a step to abolish slavery" is incorrect. Indeed, when asked about Beck's statement, University of Pennsylvania history professor Rick Beeman wrote: "My Goodness -- Glenn Beck got it completely wrong."
Beck Defends Three-Fifths Clause
Beck: Three-Fifths Clause "Was A Way To Take A Step To Abolish Slavery." Discussing Republicans' decision not to allow parts of the Constitution that had been superseded by constitutional amendment to be read during a congressional session, Beck said:
BECK: Yesterday -- or was it today? I don't even know. It was yesterday that they read the Constitution in Congress. It was today? Read the Constitution in Congress. And it was -- no, it was -- they edited the Constitution, not for time, but because they didn't want to offend anyone. And parts of it were outdated. You got to be kidding me. This, we're getting from the Republicans. Hmm. Parts of it are outdated and parts of it are offensive.
The three-fifths clause was offensive, and so they didn't do it. This shows such a -- either lack of understanding of our history, who the Founders were, what the Constitution says, or it is just cowardice in Washington. Three-fifths clause. African-Americans: three-fifths in the South, three-fifths of a human being. That's an outrage, unless you know why they put that in there. They put that in there because if slaves in the South were counted as full human beings, they could never abolish slavery. They would never be able to do it. It was a time bomb.
Progressives should love that. It was a way to take a step to abolish slavery. It is a tremendous story about our Founders, about the genius of the Constitution -- but that might offend some people, so they skipped it. They skipped it. That's offensive to me. [Fox News' Glenn Beck, 1/6/10]
Experts Disagree With The Claim That Three-Fifths Clause Was Anti-Slavery
Beeman: "My Goodness -- Glenn Beck Got It Completely Wrong." In response to a Media Matters email about Beck's comments, Beeman wrote:
My goodness -- Glenn Beck got it completely wrong. They put [the three-fifths clause] there because delegates from the Southern states would never have agreed to the Constitution unless some weight was given to their slave populations in the apportionment of representation. They wanted slaves counted 100%, but when they saw that they could not get that, they settled for 3/5. The practical effect of that, far from making easier to abolish slavery, made it more difficult. It gave added weight to southern political power in Congress, it inflated Southern power in the apportioning of electoral votes, which led to a succession of Southern presidents. Ironically, the best thing that could have been done with respect to making it easier to abolish slavery would have been to have given slaves NO weight in the apportioning of representation.
Beck's comments are so depressingly typical of those who cite the Constitution to defend their views without having any understanding of the Constitution's history [emphasis added].
Beeman: Beck's Claim Is "Fundamentally Wrong." During a subsequent phone interview with Media Matters, Beeman also said of Beck's comment:
That was where Beck was fundamentally wrong. Going as far as giving slaves a status of three-fifths of a person gave the South far more power because slaves were not treated as full citizens. Slaves did not have any rights at all, including voting rights.
Law Professor Amar: Nineteenth Century Abolitionists Defended Three-Fifths Clause, But Their Argument Is Wrong. Yale University professor Akhil Reed Amar, who teaches constitutional law, wrote in his book, America's Constitution: A Biography:
In any event, the Constitution as drafted and ratified committed the new nation to perpetually credit slavery in the apportionment process. Confronting this harsh constitutional calculus, some antebellum antislavery leaders sought to construe three-fifths as a moral victory of sorts. On this view, anything less than five-fifths was an acknowledgment that slavery was constitutionally disfavored. The document's pointed refusal to use the S-word in the apportionment formula and elsewhere further evidenced the document's implicit antislavery stance, in the eyes of these apologists. Some theorists went so far as to claim that the Article I formula actually encouraged abolition: a state that freed its slaves could increase its share of the House by counting its blacks at five-fifths, thus avoiding the two-fifths slavery penalty.
This clever argument blinked the fact that states with large slave populations were hardly inclined to free slaves while encouraging freedmen to remain within the state as valued citizens. Dreams and schemes of colonization accompanied most serious proposals for widespread abolition. If emigration followed emancipation, a state would not rise from three to five-fifths, but rather would sink to zero-fifths as freedmen moved out. Contrary to apologists' rosy mathematics, a slave state would thus likely wield less congressional clout after emancipation. [Page 90, America's Constitution (2005), accessed 01/07/2011]
Yale Constitutional Expert: Three-Fifths Clause Gave South An Extra Incentive To Import Slaves
Amar: Because Of Three-Fifths Clause, "The More Slaves The Deep South Could Import ... The More Seats It Would Earn In The American Congress." From America's Constitution:
Once we envision the possibility of black bodies crossing borders, the extreme viciousness of the three-fifths clause comes violently into view. The more slaves the Deep South could import from the African continent -- innocents born in freedom and kidnapped across an ocean to be sold on auction blocks -- the more seats it would earn in the American Congress.
To make matters worse, despite the new Congress's general Article I, section 8 power over international commerce, section 9 barred Congress from ending the international slave trade before 1808. By that time, the Deep South hoped to have enough extra muscle in Congress, based on white migration and slave importation, to thwart any possible antislavery constitutional amendments and perhaps even to weaken any proposed ban on further slave importation. Unlike every other clause in the entire Constitution, the 1808 date itself was exempt from constitutional amendment under Article V.
Put the Faces of Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh in Cross-Hairs
Now that a Black Man is in the White House, it's time for a new Civil War. Let's Take Our Country Back.
We have an educated, articulate, concerned, thinking Black Man in the White House.
We can't have that. Let's give our country back to the Yahoos and Hyenas who have been running it all these years -- and running it into the ground.
We have an educated, articulate, concerned, thinking Black Man in the White House.
We can't have that. Let's give our country back to the Yahoos and Hyenas who have been running it all these years -- and running it into the ground.
A Message from the Southern Poverty Law Center about the Right-Wing Lunatic Fringe
From The Southern Poverty Law Center -- January 10, 2011:
A year ago, we introduced a new school curriculum, Civil Discourse in the Classroom and Beyond, with this urgent call: "There is a pressing need to change the tenor of public debate from shouts and slurs to something more reasoned."
The tragedy in Tucson this weekend reminds us that it's a call that politicians and pundits would do well to heed.
We may never get a clear picture of what was going through the confused mind of the Tucson gunman. But as my colleague Mark Potok explained on NPR this morning, with all the vitriol on the airwaves, it's not surprising that someone has taken deadly aim at an elected official.
Tea Party darlings like Sharron Angle talk about using "second amendment remedies" to change the course of the country. The shameless Glenn Beck feeds the lunatic fringe with talk of the government herding Americans into FEMA concentration camps and of imminent violence from mysterious forces "from the left." Sarah Palin uses phrases like "don't retreat, reload" and shows the districts of various Democrats in Congress, including that of Tucson's Gabrielle Giffords, in the crosshairs.
The problem isn't so much a lack of politeness. We should expect sharp elbows and a healthy degree of ridicule to be thrown around by those in the political arena. The problem is the incendiary rhetoric, with its violence-laced metaphors, and the spinning of paranoid fantasies. The problem is the non-stop demonization one hears from political opportunists trolling for votes and their media allies trolling for ratings.
The sheriff in Tucson put it this way: "When you look at unbalanced people — how they respond to the vitriol that comes out of certain people's mouths about tearing down the government — the anger, the hatred, the bigotry that goes on in this country is getting to be outrageous."
With six dead and 14 wounded, the sheriff would have been justified in using much stronger terms.
Politicians of both parties have condemned the attack and begun to ask themselves questions about the overheated rhetoric that may have contributed to it. Speaker Boehner has postponed the normal business of the House for the week so that he and his colleagues can reflect on what should be done.
Let us all hope that the week of reflection is more than a brief interlude in what has become a vicious political season.
A year ago, we introduced a new school curriculum, Civil Discourse in the Classroom and Beyond, with this urgent call: "There is a pressing need to change the tenor of public debate from shouts and slurs to something more reasoned."
The tragedy in Tucson this weekend reminds us that it's a call that politicians and pundits would do well to heed.
We may never get a clear picture of what was going through the confused mind of the Tucson gunman. But as my colleague Mark Potok explained on NPR this morning, with all the vitriol on the airwaves, it's not surprising that someone has taken deadly aim at an elected official.
Tea Party darlings like Sharron Angle talk about using "second amendment remedies" to change the course of the country. The shameless Glenn Beck feeds the lunatic fringe with talk of the government herding Americans into FEMA concentration camps and of imminent violence from mysterious forces "from the left." Sarah Palin uses phrases like "don't retreat, reload" and shows the districts of various Democrats in Congress, including that of Tucson's Gabrielle Giffords, in the crosshairs.
The problem isn't so much a lack of politeness. We should expect sharp elbows and a healthy degree of ridicule to be thrown around by those in the political arena. The problem is the incendiary rhetoric, with its violence-laced metaphors, and the spinning of paranoid fantasies. The problem is the non-stop demonization one hears from political opportunists trolling for votes and their media allies trolling for ratings.
The sheriff in Tucson put it this way: "When you look at unbalanced people — how they respond to the vitriol that comes out of certain people's mouths about tearing down the government — the anger, the hatred, the bigotry that goes on in this country is getting to be outrageous."
With six dead and 14 wounded, the sheriff would have been justified in using much stronger terms.
Politicians of both parties have condemned the attack and begun to ask themselves questions about the overheated rhetoric that may have contributed to it. Speaker Boehner has postponed the normal business of the House for the week so that he and his colleagues can reflect on what should be done.
Let us all hope that the week of reflection is more than a brief interlude in what has become a vicious political season.
Sarah Palin and Republican "Cross-Hairs" are Turning the USA into a Banana Reppublic
From The Washington Post -- January 10, 2011
Gabby Giffords, a tragic prophet
By E.J. Dionne Jr.
Gabrielle Giffords, congresswoman from Arizona, shot in Tucson
Giffords (D-Ariz.) was shot in the head Saturday morning while hosting an event outside a grocery store. Six people died, and at least a dozen were injured.
There is one commentator whose words should enlighten us on the meaning of Saturday's shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and the savage murders that took the lives of, among others, a federal judge and a 9-year-old girl. The person is Giffords herself.
In an interview last March, the Arizona Democrat anticipated almost everything being said now and explained why what happened on Saturday is a violation of our national self-image as "a beacon." Our pride, she said, is that "we effect change at the ballot box" and not through "outbursts of violence."
She spoke on MSNBC after the front door of her Tucson office was destroyed. Giffords had strongly supported health-care reform, which made some of her constituents very unhappy.
Asked if leaders of the Republican Party should speak out more forcefully against violence, she replied that this task fell as well to Democrats and "community leaders."
"Look, we can't stand for this." There were problems with certain ways of "firing people up," she said, and then offered an example close to home.
"We're on Sarah Palin's targeted list," she said, "but the thing is that the way she has it depicted has the crosshairs of a gun sight over our district. When people do that, they've got to realize there's consequences to that action."
MSNBC's Chuck Todd pressed her then, noting that "in fairness, campaign rhetoric and war rhetoric have been interchangeable for years." He asked what she thought Palin's intentions were.
"You know, I can't say, I'm not Sarah Palin," Giffords replied evenly. "But what I can say is that in the years that some of my colleagues have served - 20, 30 years - they've never seen it like this. We have to work out our problems by negotiating, working together, hopefully Democrats and Republicans.
"I understand that this health-care bill is incredibly personal," she continued, "probably the most significant vote cast here for decades, frankly. But the reality is that we've got to focus on the policy, focus on the process, but leaders - community leaders, not just political leaders - have to stand back when things get too fired up and say, 'Whoa, let's take a step back here.' "
Can we please take that step back now?
Let's begin by being honest. It is not partisan to observe that there are cycles to violent rhetoric in our politics. In the late 1960s, violent talk (and sometimes violence itself) was more common on the far left. But since President Obama's election, it is incontestable that significant parts of the American far right have adopted a language of revolutionary violence in the name of overthrowing "tyranny."
It is Obama's opponents who carried guns to his speeches and cited Jefferson's line that the tree of liberty "must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
It was Sharron Angle, the Republican candidate against Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid in Nevada, who spoke of "Second Amendment remedies." And, yes, it was Palin who put those gun sights over the districts of the Democrats she was trying to defeat, including Giffords.
The point is not to "blame" American conservatism for the actions of a possibly deranged man, especially since the views of Jared Lee Loughner seem so thoroughly confused. But we must now insist with more force than ever that threats of violence no less than violence itself are antithetical to democracy. Violent talk and play acting cannot be part of our political routine. It is not cute or amusing to put crosshairs over a congressional district.
Liberals were rightly pressed in the 1960s to condemn violence on the left. Now, conservative leaders must take on their fringe when it uses language that intimates threats of bloodshed. That means more than just highly general statements praising civility.
In honor of Giffords, the effort to drain the rhetorical swamps should be as nonpartisan as she was in her interview. It is wrong, at any point on the spectrum, she said, to "incite people and inflame emotions."
There are, she said, "polarized parts of our parties that really get excited and that's where, again, community leaders, not just, you know, the political leaders, all of us have to come together and say, 'Okay, there's a fine line here." '
It is not misusing an overly invoked word to say it is tragic that a politician so attuned to the costs of political violence became its victim.
Gabby Giffords, a tragic prophet
By E.J. Dionne Jr.
Gabrielle Giffords, congresswoman from Arizona, shot in Tucson
Giffords (D-Ariz.) was shot in the head Saturday morning while hosting an event outside a grocery store. Six people died, and at least a dozen were injured.
There is one commentator whose words should enlighten us on the meaning of Saturday's shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and the savage murders that took the lives of, among others, a federal judge and a 9-year-old girl. The person is Giffords herself.
In an interview last March, the Arizona Democrat anticipated almost everything being said now and explained why what happened on Saturday is a violation of our national self-image as "a beacon." Our pride, she said, is that "we effect change at the ballot box" and not through "outbursts of violence."
She spoke on MSNBC after the front door of her Tucson office was destroyed. Giffords had strongly supported health-care reform, which made some of her constituents very unhappy.
Asked if leaders of the Republican Party should speak out more forcefully against violence, she replied that this task fell as well to Democrats and "community leaders."
"Look, we can't stand for this." There were problems with certain ways of "firing people up," she said, and then offered an example close to home.
"We're on Sarah Palin's targeted list," she said, "but the thing is that the way she has it depicted has the crosshairs of a gun sight over our district. When people do that, they've got to realize there's consequences to that action."
MSNBC's Chuck Todd pressed her then, noting that "in fairness, campaign rhetoric and war rhetoric have been interchangeable for years." He asked what she thought Palin's intentions were.
"You know, I can't say, I'm not Sarah Palin," Giffords replied evenly. "But what I can say is that in the years that some of my colleagues have served - 20, 30 years - they've never seen it like this. We have to work out our problems by negotiating, working together, hopefully Democrats and Republicans.
"I understand that this health-care bill is incredibly personal," she continued, "probably the most significant vote cast here for decades, frankly. But the reality is that we've got to focus on the policy, focus on the process, but leaders - community leaders, not just political leaders - have to stand back when things get too fired up and say, 'Whoa, let's take a step back here.' "
Can we please take that step back now?
Let's begin by being honest. It is not partisan to observe that there are cycles to violent rhetoric in our politics. In the late 1960s, violent talk (and sometimes violence itself) was more common on the far left. But since President Obama's election, it is incontestable that significant parts of the American far right have adopted a language of revolutionary violence in the name of overthrowing "tyranny."
It is Obama's opponents who carried guns to his speeches and cited Jefferson's line that the tree of liberty "must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
It was Sharron Angle, the Republican candidate against Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid in Nevada, who spoke of "Second Amendment remedies." And, yes, it was Palin who put those gun sights over the districts of the Democrats she was trying to defeat, including Giffords.
The point is not to "blame" American conservatism for the actions of a possibly deranged man, especially since the views of Jared Lee Loughner seem so thoroughly confused. But we must now insist with more force than ever that threats of violence no less than violence itself are antithetical to democracy. Violent talk and play acting cannot be part of our political routine. It is not cute or amusing to put crosshairs over a congressional district.
Liberals were rightly pressed in the 1960s to condemn violence on the left. Now, conservative leaders must take on their fringe when it uses language that intimates threats of bloodshed. That means more than just highly general statements praising civility.
In honor of Giffords, the effort to drain the rhetorical swamps should be as nonpartisan as she was in her interview. It is wrong, at any point on the spectrum, she said, to "incite people and inflame emotions."
There are, she said, "polarized parts of our parties that really get excited and that's where, again, community leaders, not just, you know, the political leaders, all of us have to come together and say, 'Okay, there's a fine line here." '
It is not misusing an overly invoked word to say it is tragic that a politician so attuned to the costs of political violence became its victim.
Sunday, January 9, 2011
Sarah Palin and Her Political Cross-Hairs Have No Place in America -- Palin Should Be Deported
From Credo Action -- January 9, 2010:
Violent threats have consequences. And they have no place in American democracy.
"Threats of violence have no place in our democracy. Renounce the use of shooting images in political rhetoric immediately, and stop using your platform to promote and validate violent calls to action on the right."
Sarah Palin has a special responsibility and opportunity in the wake of the attempted assassination of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords. For it was Sarah Palin and Sarah Palin alone who earlier put the crosshairs of a gun on Rep. Giffords. And so far, Palin's response has been Facebook prayers for the victims and an official denial that her widely distributed map involved gun sights at all. This is obscene duplicity at best.
Let us be clear. We do not know why the shooter targeted Rep. Giffords. Sarah Palin did not arm him or pull the trigger. We do not know if the shooter admired, loathed or ignored Sarah Palin. We will eventually know, and that will be a different accounting.
But only Sarah Palin put 20 Democratic members of Congress in her crosshairs, and only Sarah Palin bragged that 18 are now gone, leaving Rep. Giffords and Rep. Nick Rahall of West Virginia.
Someone has to say it. There has been an astonishing acceleration of violent right wing rhetoric. At the same time, the mainstream media has come to accept armed revolution (second amendment remedies) and violence as legitimate political discourse instead of calling it out as behavior that crosses a very dangerous line. In the past week alone, incendiary devices were received at the offices of the Democratic Secretary of Homeland Security and the Democratic Governor of Maryland.
This is what Sarah Palin and others like her have wrought with their violent and vitriolic rhetoric that literally places gun sights on people who don't agree with their extreme views.
Apologists on the right are already saying that while tragic, this event was simply the result of an isolated act by a deranged individual. There have always been deranged individuals. But they have not always had easy access to guns nor have they always lived in a 24-hour-a-day media machine that promotes a toxic soup of violent attacks on political opponents.
We are heartbroken by these events and our hopes and prayers are with the victims and their families. But prayers and broken hearts are not enough.
How can anyone not be haunted by the prophetic words of Rep. Giffords herself in March 2010, after her office was vandalized, threats received, and her name and district identified by Sarah Palin in her infamous crosshairs:
"Sarah Palin has the crosshairs of a gun sight over our district and when people do that, they've gotta realize there are consequences to that action."1
Will there be consequences?
Imagine the consequences if Palin were to apologize for her use of targeting imagery, pledge never to demonize her opponents in such a way again, call on all of her passionate followers to pledge to do the same, and promise that she will call out those in the media who do not follow her lead.
Will Sarah do more than offer her condolences? She might sell fewer books and have fewer Facebook fans. But the consequences would be enormous.
Tell Sarah Palin: Renounce use of shooting images in political rhetoric immediately, and stop using your platform to promote and validate violent calls to action on the right. Click here to automatically sign the petition.
What happened in Arizona yesterday was not an isolated incident, but rather the culmination of a long stream of threats and attacks, most in response to the Congresswoman's support for health care reform.
In November of 2009, a staffer fearing for Rep. Giffords' safety called authorities after a visitor dropped a handgun during another "Congress on your Corner" event at a local Safeway in her district.2
And on March 22, 2010, just hours after Rep. Giffords cast her vote in favor of health care reform, a vandal jumped a gate and smashed the glass front door of her Arizona office.3
It was just days later that the now infamous map featuring Rep. Giffords' district in the crosshairs was posted by Sarah Palin's PAC. In announcing the map, Palin issued a chilling tweet urging her supporters "Don't retreat. Instead — reload!"4 Incredulously, through a spokesperson, Sarah Palin is denying that the crosshairs on her map targeting 20 Democrats who voted against health care reform represents gun sights.5
As if the crosshairs weren't clear enough, Jesse Kelley, Rep. Giffords' Republican opponent in a hard fought race for reelection held an event two months later that makes the stakes all too clear. He asked supporters to donate $50 in order to "shoot a fully automatic M16" to "get on target" and help "remove Gabrielle Giffords."6 Sarah Palin subsequently praised Jesse Kelly on Fox Business News saying: "I don't feel worthy to lace his combat boots."7
Tell Sarah Palin: Threats of violence have no place in our democracy. End the use of shooting images in rightwing political rhetoric and stop validating political figures who use violent metaphors in their political calls to action. Click here to automatically sign the petition.
We agree with Keith Olbermann who said last night that "Violence, or the threat of violence, has no place in our democracy."8
Our hearts are heavy for the victims of this tragedy. We must put a stop to the escalating hate rhetoric of the right and its very specific calls to armed violent action. Lines of decency have been crossed.
Violent threats have consequences. And they have no place in American democracy.
"Threats of violence have no place in our democracy. Renounce the use of shooting images in political rhetoric immediately, and stop using your platform to promote and validate violent calls to action on the right."
Sarah Palin has a special responsibility and opportunity in the wake of the attempted assassination of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords. For it was Sarah Palin and Sarah Palin alone who earlier put the crosshairs of a gun on Rep. Giffords. And so far, Palin's response has been Facebook prayers for the victims and an official denial that her widely distributed map involved gun sights at all. This is obscene duplicity at best.
Let us be clear. We do not know why the shooter targeted Rep. Giffords. Sarah Palin did not arm him or pull the trigger. We do not know if the shooter admired, loathed or ignored Sarah Palin. We will eventually know, and that will be a different accounting.
But only Sarah Palin put 20 Democratic members of Congress in her crosshairs, and only Sarah Palin bragged that 18 are now gone, leaving Rep. Giffords and Rep. Nick Rahall of West Virginia.
Someone has to say it. There has been an astonishing acceleration of violent right wing rhetoric. At the same time, the mainstream media has come to accept armed revolution (second amendment remedies) and violence as legitimate political discourse instead of calling it out as behavior that crosses a very dangerous line. In the past week alone, incendiary devices were received at the offices of the Democratic Secretary of Homeland Security and the Democratic Governor of Maryland.
This is what Sarah Palin and others like her have wrought with their violent and vitriolic rhetoric that literally places gun sights on people who don't agree with their extreme views.
Apologists on the right are already saying that while tragic, this event was simply the result of an isolated act by a deranged individual. There have always been deranged individuals. But they have not always had easy access to guns nor have they always lived in a 24-hour-a-day media machine that promotes a toxic soup of violent attacks on political opponents.
We are heartbroken by these events and our hopes and prayers are with the victims and their families. But prayers and broken hearts are not enough.
How can anyone not be haunted by the prophetic words of Rep. Giffords herself in March 2010, after her office was vandalized, threats received, and her name and district identified by Sarah Palin in her infamous crosshairs:
"Sarah Palin has the crosshairs of a gun sight over our district and when people do that, they've gotta realize there are consequences to that action."1
Will there be consequences?
Imagine the consequences if Palin were to apologize for her use of targeting imagery, pledge never to demonize her opponents in such a way again, call on all of her passionate followers to pledge to do the same, and promise that she will call out those in the media who do not follow her lead.
Will Sarah do more than offer her condolences? She might sell fewer books and have fewer Facebook fans. But the consequences would be enormous.
Tell Sarah Palin: Renounce use of shooting images in political rhetoric immediately, and stop using your platform to promote and validate violent calls to action on the right. Click here to automatically sign the petition.
What happened in Arizona yesterday was not an isolated incident, but rather the culmination of a long stream of threats and attacks, most in response to the Congresswoman's support for health care reform.
In November of 2009, a staffer fearing for Rep. Giffords' safety called authorities after a visitor dropped a handgun during another "Congress on your Corner" event at a local Safeway in her district.2
And on March 22, 2010, just hours after Rep. Giffords cast her vote in favor of health care reform, a vandal jumped a gate and smashed the glass front door of her Arizona office.3
It was just days later that the now infamous map featuring Rep. Giffords' district in the crosshairs was posted by Sarah Palin's PAC. In announcing the map, Palin issued a chilling tweet urging her supporters "Don't retreat. Instead — reload!"4 Incredulously, through a spokesperson, Sarah Palin is denying that the crosshairs on her map targeting 20 Democrats who voted against health care reform represents gun sights.5
As if the crosshairs weren't clear enough, Jesse Kelley, Rep. Giffords' Republican opponent in a hard fought race for reelection held an event two months later that makes the stakes all too clear. He asked supporters to donate $50 in order to "shoot a fully automatic M16" to "get on target" and help "remove Gabrielle Giffords."6 Sarah Palin subsequently praised Jesse Kelly on Fox Business News saying: "I don't feel worthy to lace his combat boots."7
Tell Sarah Palin: Threats of violence have no place in our democracy. End the use of shooting images in rightwing political rhetoric and stop validating political figures who use violent metaphors in their political calls to action. Click here to automatically sign the petition.
We agree with Keith Olbermann who said last night that "Violence, or the threat of violence, has no place in our democracy."8
Our hearts are heavy for the victims of this tragedy. We must put a stop to the escalating hate rhetoric of the right and its very specific calls to armed violent action. Lines of decency have been crossed.
Friday, January 7, 2011
Tea Party Congress Proves that "Following the Framers' Original Intent" Is a Crock o' Hooey
From The Washington Post -- January 6, 2010:
Getting creative with the Constitution
House begins reciting Constitution
By Dana Milbank
It was a straightforward proposition: The new House Republican majority would lead the chamber in reading the Constitution. But nothing in Congress is straightforward, and the moment the lawmakers began the exercise Thursday morning, they bogged down in a dispute.
They couldn't agree on which version to read.
Now most Americans are of the impression that there isn't, say, a King James version of the Constitution and a New International version of the Constitution. There is only one version. But our leaders had other views.
"Will we be reading the entire original document without deletion?" inquired Rep. Jay Inslee (D-Wash.).
"Those portions superseded by amendment will not be read," declared Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.).
"We have not been able to review the exact language we will be reading," Inslee persisted.
This produced laughter on the GOP side.
"I don't take it very lightly," Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. (D-Ill.) retorted, that "before we begin the reading of our sacred document, [colleagues] are raising questions about what we will specifically be reading, what specifically will be redacted."
"They are not deletions!" Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Tex.) countered.
The right of the people's representatives noisily to assemble shall not be abridged.
In fact, there is only one version of the Constitution - and it wasn't what the lawmakers read aloud. What the Republican majority decided to read was a sanitized Constitution - an excerpted version of the founding document conjuring a fanciful land that never counted a black person as three-fifths of a white person, never denied women the right to vote, never allowed slavery and never banned liquor.
The idea of reading the Constitution aloud was generated by the Tea Party as a way to re-affirm lawmakers' fealty to the framers, but in practice it did the opposite. In deciding to omit objectionable passages that were later altered by amendment, the new majority jettisoned "originalist" and "constructionist" beliefs and created - dare it be said? - a "living Constitution" pruned of the founders' missteps. Nobody's proud of the three-fifths compromise, but how can we learn from our founding if we aren't honest about it?
The selective constitutional reading was the latest indication that, for all the talk of honoring the Constitution, Tea Party-infused lawmakers are more interested in editing it. Some have talked of repealing the 14th Amendment, which gives birthright citizenship and guarantees equal protection. The new majority leader has endorsed a constitutional amendment that would allow a group of states to nullify federal laws.
On Thursday, Republicans said the selective reading of the Constitution was approved by the Congressional Research Service, but it often seemed willy-nilly. Readers skipped right over the three-fifths compromise and the bit about escaped slaves. They neglected to cut a passage guaranteeing the vote to "male inhabitants" who are at least 21, but they lopped off the entire Prohibition amendment.
The reading at times had all the gravity of a high-school football game. When it came to the part stating that the president must be a "natural born citizen," a Birther in the public gallery screamed: "Except Obama! Except Obama! Help us, Jesus!"
Rep. Frank Guinta (R-N.H.) - endorsed by the National Rifle Association - was assigned the Second Amendment, the reading of which induced Gohmert to pump a fist in the air. The organizer of the reading, Goodlatte, saved for himself the plum 10th Amendment, giving power to the states; he botched the wording but Republicans applauded anyway.
Moments later, Democrats clapped when they heard the 14th Amendment. Both sides cheered Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.) when he read out the 13th Amendment outlawing slavery, but nobody hailed the 16th, creating the federal income tax.
The lawmakers began their task with enthusiasm. New Rep. Allen West (R-Fla.) arrived early and snagged a center-aisle seat. Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio), finding front-row seats full, squeezed into one already occupied by Rep. David Scott (D-Ga.). Minority leader Nancy Pelosi, assigned Article I, Section I, rose too soon, then tripped walking down the aisle for her constitutional star turn.
But before long, Reps. Phil Gingrey (R-Ga.) and Steve Chabot (R-Ohio) were yawning. A dozen others, including Reps. Ted Poe (R-Tex.), Mac Thornberry (R-Neb.), and Scott Garrett (R-N.J.), were typing on their BlackBerrys. Rep. Al Green (D-Texas) was paying so little attention that he read the same passage the guy before him had read. Various of his colleagues dropped or substituted words and phrases, or read too much - leaving five disappointed lawmakers still awaiting their turn when the reading ended.
No worries: If the new majority persists in its desire to rewrite the Constitution, there will be plenty of additional passages to read next time.
Getting creative with the Constitution
House begins reciting Constitution
By Dana Milbank
It was a straightforward proposition: The new House Republican majority would lead the chamber in reading the Constitution. But nothing in Congress is straightforward, and the moment the lawmakers began the exercise Thursday morning, they bogged down in a dispute.
They couldn't agree on which version to read.
Now most Americans are of the impression that there isn't, say, a King James version of the Constitution and a New International version of the Constitution. There is only one version. But our leaders had other views.
"Will we be reading the entire original document without deletion?" inquired Rep. Jay Inslee (D-Wash.).
"Those portions superseded by amendment will not be read," declared Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.).
"We have not been able to review the exact language we will be reading," Inslee persisted.
This produced laughter on the GOP side.
"I don't take it very lightly," Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. (D-Ill.) retorted, that "before we begin the reading of our sacred document, [colleagues] are raising questions about what we will specifically be reading, what specifically will be redacted."
"They are not deletions!" Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Tex.) countered.
The right of the people's representatives noisily to assemble shall not be abridged.
In fact, there is only one version of the Constitution - and it wasn't what the lawmakers read aloud. What the Republican majority decided to read was a sanitized Constitution - an excerpted version of the founding document conjuring a fanciful land that never counted a black person as three-fifths of a white person, never denied women the right to vote, never allowed slavery and never banned liquor.
The idea of reading the Constitution aloud was generated by the Tea Party as a way to re-affirm lawmakers' fealty to the framers, but in practice it did the opposite. In deciding to omit objectionable passages that were later altered by amendment, the new majority jettisoned "originalist" and "constructionist" beliefs and created - dare it be said? - a "living Constitution" pruned of the founders' missteps. Nobody's proud of the three-fifths compromise, but how can we learn from our founding if we aren't honest about it?
The selective constitutional reading was the latest indication that, for all the talk of honoring the Constitution, Tea Party-infused lawmakers are more interested in editing it. Some have talked of repealing the 14th Amendment, which gives birthright citizenship and guarantees equal protection. The new majority leader has endorsed a constitutional amendment that would allow a group of states to nullify federal laws.
On Thursday, Republicans said the selective reading of the Constitution was approved by the Congressional Research Service, but it often seemed willy-nilly. Readers skipped right over the three-fifths compromise and the bit about escaped slaves. They neglected to cut a passage guaranteeing the vote to "male inhabitants" who are at least 21, but they lopped off the entire Prohibition amendment.
The reading at times had all the gravity of a high-school football game. When it came to the part stating that the president must be a "natural born citizen," a Birther in the public gallery screamed: "Except Obama! Except Obama! Help us, Jesus!"
Rep. Frank Guinta (R-N.H.) - endorsed by the National Rifle Association - was assigned the Second Amendment, the reading of which induced Gohmert to pump a fist in the air. The organizer of the reading, Goodlatte, saved for himself the plum 10th Amendment, giving power to the states; he botched the wording but Republicans applauded anyway.
Moments later, Democrats clapped when they heard the 14th Amendment. Both sides cheered Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.) when he read out the 13th Amendment outlawing slavery, but nobody hailed the 16th, creating the federal income tax.
The lawmakers began their task with enthusiasm. New Rep. Allen West (R-Fla.) arrived early and snagged a center-aisle seat. Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio), finding front-row seats full, squeezed into one already occupied by Rep. David Scott (D-Ga.). Minority leader Nancy Pelosi, assigned Article I, Section I, rose too soon, then tripped walking down the aisle for her constitutional star turn.
But before long, Reps. Phil Gingrey (R-Ga.) and Steve Chabot (R-Ohio) were yawning. A dozen others, including Reps. Ted Poe (R-Tex.), Mac Thornberry (R-Neb.), and Scott Garrett (R-N.J.), were typing on their BlackBerrys. Rep. Al Green (D-Texas) was paying so little attention that he read the same passage the guy before him had read. Various of his colleagues dropped or substituted words and phrases, or read too much - leaving five disappointed lawmakers still awaiting their turn when the reading ended.
No worries: If the new majority persists in its desire to rewrite the Constitution, there will be plenty of additional passages to read next time.
Thursday, January 6, 2011
Conservatives Pontificate While America Disintegrates
From The Washington Post -- January 6, 2011:
Conservative advice for a Congress of professors
By E.J. Dionne Jr.
Edmund Burke, one of history's greatest conservatives, warned that abstractions are the enemy of responsible government.
"I never govern myself, no rational man ever did govern himself, by abstractions and universals," Burke wrote. "A statesman differs from a professor in a university; the latter has only the general view of society; the former, the statesman, has a number of circumstances to combine with those general ideas."
Alas for all of us and for American conservatism in particular, the new Republican majority that took control of the House on Wednesday is embarked on an experiment in government by abstractions. Many in its ranks pride themselves on being practical business people, but they behave as professors in thrall to a few thrilling ideas.
Their rhetoric is nearly devoid of talk about solving practical problems - how to improve our health care, education and transportation systems, or how to create more middle-class jobs.
Instead, we hear about things we can't touch or see or feel, and about highly general principles divorced from their impact on everyday life.
Their passion is not for what government should or shouldn't do but for "smaller government" as a moral imperative. During the campaign, they put out a nice round $100 billion in spending cuts from which they're now backing away. It is far easier to float a big number than to describe reductions for student loans, bridges, national parks or medical research.
Republicans promised they would "repeal and replace" President Obama's health-care law, but the only thing on the schedule is repeal. They provide no alternative.
A leadership that promised a more open process highhandedly slammed the door on any amendments to its repeal bill. Most Americans rather like the new law's ban on insurance discrimination against those with preexisting conditions and the provision allowing parents to keep children on their health insurance plans until age 26. But there will be no votes on those parts of the law because attention to those inconvenient "circumstances" Burke discusses would divert attention from the great, abstract scarecrow of "Obamacare."
There is nothing wrong with reading our Constitution as part of the new Congress's debut. It's a good Constitution. But note that conservatives would much prefer to pronounce various liberal initiatives "unconstitutional" - again, in the abstract - than to say whether they are for or against minimum-wage and environmental laws, Medicaid and a slew of other initiatives that never crossed the minds of those who wrote our foundational document. The Founders couldn't conceive of Facebook, either.
And that other perennial abstraction, "excessive regulation," is easier to assail than specific rules that make our air and water cleaner or financial transactions more transparent.
Intelligent legislators know that human beings sometimes cut corners. They recall what James Madison, another conservative hero, said in Federalist 51: "If men were angels, no government would be necessary." As Madison knew, men aren't angels, but the professors in Congress seem to believe that another great abstraction, "the free market," can obviate the need for messy and complicated statutes.
We hear much debate over how Obama and the Democrats should deal with the Republican House and beefed-up Republican ranks in the Senate. The primary task should be a relentless campaign to move the public discussion from the abstract to the concrete: from doctrine to problem-solving; from "smaller government" to the specifics of what government does; from "budget cuts" to the impact of reductions on actual programs.
And paradoxically, because Obama is a former professor himself, he may be especially well-suited to call the bluff of the new professoriate in Congress. He knows better than most the dangers posed by an excessive devotion to abstractions.
But the media also have a responsibility. If journalism in a democracy is about anything, it is about bringing the expansive rhetoric of politicians down to earth and holding them accountable for how their ideas translate into policies that affect actual human beings.
It may be easier to report windy speeches about "liberty" and "entrepreneurship" than to do the grubby work of examining budgets, regulations, programs and economic consequences. But journalists surely want to be more than stenographers.
Michael Oakeshott, another great conservative philosopher, declared: "It is the mark of all intelligent discourse that it is about something in particular." Let's encourage the new professors who would govern us to deal with particulars and not just their ideological dreams.
Conservative advice for a Congress of professors
By E.J. Dionne Jr.
Edmund Burke, one of history's greatest conservatives, warned that abstractions are the enemy of responsible government.
"I never govern myself, no rational man ever did govern himself, by abstractions and universals," Burke wrote. "A statesman differs from a professor in a university; the latter has only the general view of society; the former, the statesman, has a number of circumstances to combine with those general ideas."
Alas for all of us and for American conservatism in particular, the new Republican majority that took control of the House on Wednesday is embarked on an experiment in government by abstractions. Many in its ranks pride themselves on being practical business people, but they behave as professors in thrall to a few thrilling ideas.
Their rhetoric is nearly devoid of talk about solving practical problems - how to improve our health care, education and transportation systems, or how to create more middle-class jobs.
Instead, we hear about things we can't touch or see or feel, and about highly general principles divorced from their impact on everyday life.
Their passion is not for what government should or shouldn't do but for "smaller government" as a moral imperative. During the campaign, they put out a nice round $100 billion in spending cuts from which they're now backing away. It is far easier to float a big number than to describe reductions for student loans, bridges, national parks or medical research.
Republicans promised they would "repeal and replace" President Obama's health-care law, but the only thing on the schedule is repeal. They provide no alternative.
A leadership that promised a more open process highhandedly slammed the door on any amendments to its repeal bill. Most Americans rather like the new law's ban on insurance discrimination against those with preexisting conditions and the provision allowing parents to keep children on their health insurance plans until age 26. But there will be no votes on those parts of the law because attention to those inconvenient "circumstances" Burke discusses would divert attention from the great, abstract scarecrow of "Obamacare."
There is nothing wrong with reading our Constitution as part of the new Congress's debut. It's a good Constitution. But note that conservatives would much prefer to pronounce various liberal initiatives "unconstitutional" - again, in the abstract - than to say whether they are for or against minimum-wage and environmental laws, Medicaid and a slew of other initiatives that never crossed the minds of those who wrote our foundational document. The Founders couldn't conceive of Facebook, either.
And that other perennial abstraction, "excessive regulation," is easier to assail than specific rules that make our air and water cleaner or financial transactions more transparent.
Intelligent legislators know that human beings sometimes cut corners. They recall what James Madison, another conservative hero, said in Federalist 51: "If men were angels, no government would be necessary." As Madison knew, men aren't angels, but the professors in Congress seem to believe that another great abstraction, "the free market," can obviate the need for messy and complicated statutes.
We hear much debate over how Obama and the Democrats should deal with the Republican House and beefed-up Republican ranks in the Senate. The primary task should be a relentless campaign to move the public discussion from the abstract to the concrete: from doctrine to problem-solving; from "smaller government" to the specifics of what government does; from "budget cuts" to the impact of reductions on actual programs.
And paradoxically, because Obama is a former professor himself, he may be especially well-suited to call the bluff of the new professoriate in Congress. He knows better than most the dangers posed by an excessive devotion to abstractions.
But the media also have a responsibility. If journalism in a democracy is about anything, it is about bringing the expansive rhetoric of politicians down to earth and holding them accountable for how their ideas translate into policies that affect actual human beings.
It may be easier to report windy speeches about "liberty" and "entrepreneurship" than to do the grubby work of examining budgets, regulations, programs and economic consequences. But journalists surely want to be more than stenographers.
Michael Oakeshott, another great conservative philosopher, declared: "It is the mark of all intelligent discourse that it is about something in particular." Let's encourage the new professors who would govern us to deal with particulars and not just their ideological dreams.
Conservatives Say the United States Constitution is Unconstitutional
From The Progress Report -- January 6, 2010:
CONGRESS
Unconstitutional Conservatism
Today, one of the first acts of the new Republican majority will be to read the entire U.S. Constitution from the floor of the House of Representatives. While the GOP explains they are reading the document because they feel that Congress has strayed from the country's founding principles, a reading of the entire Constitution is "something that has never been done in the chamber's 221 year history." The reading will lead off Thursday's floor schedule, and will be run by Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-VA), who said the reading "shows that the new majority in the House truly is dedicated to our Constitution and the principles for which it stands." While some have lampooned the plan as mere political theater -- a New York Times editorial called it "a presumptuous and self-righteous act" -- Vanity Fair estimated the reading will cost $1.1 million -- it nonetheless offers an opportunity for freshmen and senior Republicans alike to actually study the text of the founding document they claim to hold so dear. They might not like what they hear. In their effort to co-opt the radical tea party movement, Republicans have attempted to wrap themselves in the document and use the Constitution like a bludgeon against progressives. In reality, conservatives consistently ignore, distort, and pervert the Constitution in order to force it to fit their political goals and ideology. As the Center for American Progress Action Fund's Ian Millhiser wrote, "the GOP's agenda is nothing less than a direct assault on America's founding document."
'UNCONSTITUTIONAL' PARTS OF THE CONSTITUTION: In an op-ed in the right-wing American Spectator, Fox News' senior judicial analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano asked a remarkable question for someone who describes himself as a fierce "constitutional conservative": "Is any part of the Constitution unconstitutional ?" "Yes," Napolitano concluded. Napolitano's absurd claim reflects a startlingly widespread conviction among conservatives. While claiming to defend the Constitution, conservatives are really only interested defending the parts they agree with, and are equally committed to dismantling the parts they do not. For example, a Progress Report analysis found that at least 130 GOP members of the 111th Congress -- including their Senate leader, former presidential candidate, and numerous House leaders -- want to "review" or dismantle the 14th Amendment and the right to birthright citizenship it guarantees. The text of the amendment could not be more clear: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States." The conservative plot to end birthright citizenship eerily reflects the vision of citizenship articulated by the Supreme Court's infamous pro-slavery decision in Dred Scott v. Sanford . It has no place in the 21st century. Meanwhile, a number of prominent tea party politicians, including Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) and Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX), have called for repealing the 17th Amendment, which allows state citizens to directly elect their senators. Indeed, as the Atlantic's Marc Ambinder noted in May, "It's become a part of the Tea Party orthodoxy, now." Why would the so-called constitutionalists of the tea party seek to maim the Constitution to make America much less democratic? "Supporters of the plan say that ending the public vote for Senators would give the states more power to protect their own interests in Washington (and of course, give all of us "more liberty" in the process.)" On top of that, conservatives seek to further dismantle the Constitution by undoing the 16th Amendment, which enables the income tax. Paying taxes is never popular, but it would be impossible to function as a nation if America lacked the power to raise the money it needs to "provide for the common Defense," among other things that the Constitution charges the government with providing.
CONSERVATIVE DISTORTIONS: While seeking to remove whole parts of a document they call "sacred," conservatives also work to subvert the meaning of other parts. The Constitution gives Congress broad authority to "provide for yet a growing movement of right-wing "tenthers" want to squelch this and other authorities to render the federal government almost powerless. This is particularly evident in the slew of lawsuits against President Obama's health care reform law, and the judgment of conservative-activist-turned-federal-judge Henry Hudson striking down the law's individual insurance mandate. The Constitution clearly grants Congress the authority to enact the law through the "Commerce Clause," which allows Congress to regulate the national economy, and the "Necessary and Proper Clause," which grants Congress the power "to make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution" this power to regulate the economy. Even George Washington University Law Professor Orin Kerr, who was a recent constitutional adviser to Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX), wrote that Hudson committed a "fairly obvious and quite significant error" by completely ignoring the "Necessary and Proper Clause" in his decision. Kerr's colleague, Jonathan Adler, a leading opponent of environmental regulation, agrees that Hudson's opinion "cannot be right." Even House Speaker John Boehner's (R-OH) own lawyer Carrie Severino wrote in the conservative National Review that Hudson's opinion renders that entire provision of the Constitution "meaningless." Meanwhile, as Millhiser noted yesterday, today's conservative movement's distorted interpretation of the Constitution would send the country back a century, allowing illegal activities like child labor, whites only-lunch counters, and gender discrimination. And a growing number of conservative "tenthers" believe Social Security, Medicare, and the minimum wage are unconstitutional (Goodlatte himself said this week that he didn't know if the minimum wage is constitutional).
THE PROGRESSIVE VISION: The Constitution is a progressive document, and has always been and remains central to progressive thought. The progressive view of the Constitution simply calls for embracing the whole Constitution -- including the Bill of the Rights and the amendments ratified by "We the people" over the past 220 years -- not just the fragments that happen to align with conservative ideology. Progressives recognize that the Constitution is the most enduring government charter in world history precisely because it was designed to be improved and adapted to the times, so these changes cannot be ignored in an attempt to return to some mythical earlier era to which conservatives constantly refer. Tea party conservatives often accuse progressives of undermining the text or abandoning its principles, when in fact it is progressives who must repeatedly defend the document and its emphasis on social justice, expanded franchise, and equality for all from conservative attacks. While conservatives accuse progressives of "judicial activism," it is conservatives who increasingly legislate from the bench, such as in overturning decades of campaign finance law in the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision. Progressives recognize that the Constitution sees "We the people" as the source of political power and legitimacy, and that it grants the federal government broad powers to better the nation, separates church and state, enshrines basic human and civil rights, promotes free and fair markets, and broadly protects the right to vote. Hopefully conservatives will see this as well when the document is read on the House floor.
CONGRESS
Unconstitutional Conservatism
Today, one of the first acts of the new Republican majority will be to read the entire U.S. Constitution from the floor of the House of Representatives. While the GOP explains they are reading the document because they feel that Congress has strayed from the country's founding principles, a reading of the entire Constitution is "something that has never been done in the chamber's 221 year history." The reading will lead off Thursday's floor schedule, and will be run by Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-VA), who said the reading "shows that the new majority in the House truly is dedicated to our Constitution and the principles for which it stands." While some have lampooned the plan as mere political theater -- a New York Times editorial called it "a presumptuous and self-righteous act" -- Vanity Fair estimated the reading will cost $1.1 million -- it nonetheless offers an opportunity for freshmen and senior Republicans alike to actually study the text of the founding document they claim to hold so dear. They might not like what they hear. In their effort to co-opt the radical tea party movement, Republicans have attempted to wrap themselves in the document and use the Constitution like a bludgeon against progressives. In reality, conservatives consistently ignore, distort, and pervert the Constitution in order to force it to fit their political goals and ideology. As the Center for American Progress Action Fund's Ian Millhiser wrote, "the GOP's agenda is nothing less than a direct assault on America's founding document."
'UNCONSTITUTIONAL' PARTS OF THE CONSTITUTION: In an op-ed in the right-wing American Spectator, Fox News' senior judicial analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano asked a remarkable question for someone who describes himself as a fierce "constitutional conservative": "Is any part of the Constitution unconstitutional ?" "Yes," Napolitano concluded. Napolitano's absurd claim reflects a startlingly widespread conviction among conservatives. While claiming to defend the Constitution, conservatives are really only interested defending the parts they agree with, and are equally committed to dismantling the parts they do not. For example, a Progress Report analysis found that at least 130 GOP members of the 111th Congress -- including their Senate leader, former presidential candidate, and numerous House leaders -- want to "review" or dismantle the 14th Amendment and the right to birthright citizenship it guarantees. The text of the amendment could not be more clear: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States." The conservative plot to end birthright citizenship eerily reflects the vision of citizenship articulated by the Supreme Court's infamous pro-slavery decision in Dred Scott v. Sanford . It has no place in the 21st century. Meanwhile, a number of prominent tea party politicians, including Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) and Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX), have called for repealing the 17th Amendment, which allows state citizens to directly elect their senators. Indeed, as the Atlantic's Marc Ambinder noted in May, "It's become a part of the Tea Party orthodoxy, now." Why would the so-called constitutionalists of the tea party seek to maim the Constitution to make America much less democratic? "Supporters of the plan say that ending the public vote for Senators would give the states more power to protect their own interests in Washington (and of course, give all of us "more liberty" in the process.)" On top of that, conservatives seek to further dismantle the Constitution by undoing the 16th Amendment, which enables the income tax. Paying taxes is never popular, but it would be impossible to function as a nation if America lacked the power to raise the money it needs to "provide for the common Defense," among other things that the Constitution charges the government with providing.
CONSERVATIVE DISTORTIONS: While seeking to remove whole parts of a document they call "sacred," conservatives also work to subvert the meaning of other parts. The Constitution gives Congress broad authority to "provide for yet a growing movement of right-wing "tenthers" want to squelch this and other authorities to render the federal government almost powerless. This is particularly evident in the slew of lawsuits against President Obama's health care reform law, and the judgment of conservative-activist-turned-federal-judge Henry Hudson striking down the law's individual insurance mandate. The Constitution clearly grants Congress the authority to enact the law through the "Commerce Clause," which allows Congress to regulate the national economy, and the "Necessary and Proper Clause," which grants Congress the power "to make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution" this power to regulate the economy. Even George Washington University Law Professor Orin Kerr, who was a recent constitutional adviser to Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX), wrote that Hudson committed a "fairly obvious and quite significant error" by completely ignoring the "Necessary and Proper Clause" in his decision. Kerr's colleague, Jonathan Adler, a leading opponent of environmental regulation, agrees that Hudson's opinion "cannot be right." Even House Speaker John Boehner's (R-OH) own lawyer Carrie Severino wrote in the conservative National Review that Hudson's opinion renders that entire provision of the Constitution "meaningless." Meanwhile, as Millhiser noted yesterday, today's conservative movement's distorted interpretation of the Constitution would send the country back a century, allowing illegal activities like child labor, whites only-lunch counters, and gender discrimination. And a growing number of conservative "tenthers" believe Social Security, Medicare, and the minimum wage are unconstitutional (Goodlatte himself said this week that he didn't know if the minimum wage is constitutional).
THE PROGRESSIVE VISION: The Constitution is a progressive document, and has always been and remains central to progressive thought. The progressive view of the Constitution simply calls for embracing the whole Constitution -- including the Bill of the Rights and the amendments ratified by "We the people" over the past 220 years -- not just the fragments that happen to align with conservative ideology. Progressives recognize that the Constitution is the most enduring government charter in world history precisely because it was designed to be improved and adapted to the times, so these changes cannot be ignored in an attempt to return to some mythical earlier era to which conservatives constantly refer. Tea party conservatives often accuse progressives of undermining the text or abandoning its principles, when in fact it is progressives who must repeatedly defend the document and its emphasis on social justice, expanded franchise, and equality for all from conservative attacks. While conservatives accuse progressives of "judicial activism," it is conservatives who increasingly legislate from the bench, such as in overturning decades of campaign finance law in the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision. Progressives recognize that the Constitution sees "We the people" as the source of political power and legitimacy, and that it grants the federal government broad powers to better the nation, separates church and state, enshrines basic human and civil rights, promotes free and fair markets, and broadly protects the right to vote. Hopefully conservatives will see this as well when the document is read on the House floor.
House Republican Hypocrites Need to Give Up Their Own Government-Sponsored Health Care Plans
From CREDO Action -- January 6, 2010:
For two years, GOP leaders in Congress fought tooth and nail to oppose health care reform. They did their best to keep tens of millions without coverage, decrying any effort to help citizens as "socialist," "fascist" or some other equally baffling "ist."
Incredibly, now that they are the majority, their first act will be to vote to repeal health care reform that gives affordable care to 32 million Americans.
And yet, when it comes to their own coverage, Republicans in Congress are not only using government-sponsored health care, they even whined about having had to wait for it.1
As the Republicans are gearing up to appease corporate-sponsored Tea Party extremists and vote to repeal health care reform for Americans who need it, Senator Chuck Schumer is calling the GOP on their hypocrisy, and calling on them to give up their government-sponsored health care:
"It was a central value to us when we passed health care, and a central value to the American people, that members of Congress should get the same health care as everyone else. It seems unfair that house Republicans want to deprive middle-class Americans of the same health care as members of Congress but to keep it for themselves."
"Will Eric Cantor urge every Republican who is going to be for repeal to not take government health care themselves and to drop their existing health care?"
For two years, GOP leaders in Congress fought tooth and nail to oppose health care reform. They did their best to keep tens of millions without coverage, decrying any effort to help citizens as "socialist," "fascist" or some other equally baffling "ist."
Incredibly, now that they are the majority, their first act will be to vote to repeal health care reform that gives affordable care to 32 million Americans.
And yet, when it comes to their own coverage, Republicans in Congress are not only using government-sponsored health care, they even whined about having had to wait for it.1
As the Republicans are gearing up to appease corporate-sponsored Tea Party extremists and vote to repeal health care reform for Americans who need it, Senator Chuck Schumer is calling the GOP on their hypocrisy, and calling on them to give up their government-sponsored health care:
"It was a central value to us when we passed health care, and a central value to the American people, that members of Congress should get the same health care as everyone else. It seems unfair that house Republicans want to deprive middle-class Americans of the same health care as members of Congress but to keep it for themselves."
"Will Eric Cantor urge every Republican who is going to be for repeal to not take government health care themselves and to drop their existing health care?"
Wednesday, January 5, 2011
Corporate America Is Plunging America Into the Sewer -- Where are the Tea Party Patriots?
From The Washington Post -- January 5, 2010:
Corporate America, paving a downward economic slide
By Harold Meyerson
The city on a hill and the last, best hope of mankind has entered a new period in its history. We are now America, the downwardly mobile.
The problem isn't due to the recession. Would that it were. The decade just concluded is the first in which Americans, on average, have seen their incomes decline. Median household income increased by about $4,000 per decade in the 1980s and '90s: from $42,429 in 1980 to $46,049 in 1990 to $50,557 in 2000 (in 2007 dollars). In 2009, the most recent year for which we have figures, it had declined to $49,777 - but 2009, of course, was a year of deep recession. If we go back to the peak year of the last decade, 2007, we find that median household income was just $50,233- roughly $300 less than it had been in 2000.
Until the housing and financial bubbles burst, of course, we enjoyed the illusion of prosperity through the days of wine and credit. Now we stand on unfamiliar terrain in which almost all the signs of long-term economic health point downward. Our private sector isn't creating jobs at a rate commensurate with our increasing population, much less at a level to significantly reduce unemployment. The share of our civilian population employed has dropped to 58.2 percent - the lowest level since the early '80s, when far fewer women had entered the workforce.
The social pathologies long associated with the inner-city poor - single-parent households, births out of wedlock, drug and alcohol abuse - now stalk the white working class in rural and post-industrial regions far removed from big cities. The middle is falling. Rich Lowry, editor of the conservative National Review, has noted that as wages and employment levels have fallen for the Americans who have graduated high school but not college, their level of out-of-wedlock births (44 percent) has approached that of Americans who haven't completed high school (54 percent). Americans with college diplomas or more, by contrast, have a rate of just 6 percent.
The great sociologist William Julius Wilson has long argued that the key to the unraveling of the lives of the African American poor was the decline in the number of "marriageable males" as work disappeared from the inner city. Much the same could now be said of working-class whites in neighborhoods that may not look like the ghettos of Cleveland or Detroit but in which productive economic activity is increasingly hard to find.
This grim new reality has yet to inform our debate over how to come back from this mega-recession. Those who believe our downturn is cyclical argue that job-creating public spending can restore us to prosperity, while those who believe it's structural - that we have too many carpenters, say, and not enough nurses - believe that we should leave things be while American workers acquire new skills and enter different lines of work. But there's a third way to look at the recession: that it's institutional, that it's the consequence of the decisions by leading banks and corporations to stop investing in the job-creating enterprises that were the key to broadly shared prosperity.
Our multinational companies still invest, of course - just not at home. A study by the Business Roundtable and the U.S. Council Foundation found that the share of the profits of U.S.-based multinationals that came from their foreign affiliates had increased from 17 percent in 1977 and 27 percent in 1994 to 48.6 percent in 2006. As the companies' revenue from abroad has increased, their dependence on American consumers has diminished. The equilibrium among production, wages and purchasing power - the equilibrium that Henry Ford famously recognized when he upped his workers' pay to an unheard-of $5 a day in 1913 so they could afford to buy the cars they made, the equilibrium that became the model for 20th-century American capitalism - has been shattered. Making and selling their goods abroad, U.S. multinationals can slash their workforces and reduce their wages at home while retaining their revenue and increasing their profits. And that's exactly what they've done.
Our economic woes, then, are not simply cyclical or structural. They are also - chiefly - institutional, the consequence of U.S. corporate behavior that has plunged us into a downward cycle of underinvestment, underemployment and under-consumption. Our solutions must be similarly institutional, requiring, for starters, the seating of public and worker representatives on corporate boards. Short of that, there will be no real prospects for reversing America's downward mobility.
Corporate America, paving a downward economic slide
By Harold Meyerson
The city on a hill and the last, best hope of mankind has entered a new period in its history. We are now America, the downwardly mobile.
The problem isn't due to the recession. Would that it were. The decade just concluded is the first in which Americans, on average, have seen their incomes decline. Median household income increased by about $4,000 per decade in the 1980s and '90s: from $42,429 in 1980 to $46,049 in 1990 to $50,557 in 2000 (in 2007 dollars). In 2009, the most recent year for which we have figures, it had declined to $49,777 - but 2009, of course, was a year of deep recession. If we go back to the peak year of the last decade, 2007, we find that median household income was just $50,233- roughly $300 less than it had been in 2000.
Until the housing and financial bubbles burst, of course, we enjoyed the illusion of prosperity through the days of wine and credit. Now we stand on unfamiliar terrain in which almost all the signs of long-term economic health point downward. Our private sector isn't creating jobs at a rate commensurate with our increasing population, much less at a level to significantly reduce unemployment. The share of our civilian population employed has dropped to 58.2 percent - the lowest level since the early '80s, when far fewer women had entered the workforce.
The social pathologies long associated with the inner-city poor - single-parent households, births out of wedlock, drug and alcohol abuse - now stalk the white working class in rural and post-industrial regions far removed from big cities. The middle is falling. Rich Lowry, editor of the conservative National Review, has noted that as wages and employment levels have fallen for the Americans who have graduated high school but not college, their level of out-of-wedlock births (44 percent) has approached that of Americans who haven't completed high school (54 percent). Americans with college diplomas or more, by contrast, have a rate of just 6 percent.
The great sociologist William Julius Wilson has long argued that the key to the unraveling of the lives of the African American poor was the decline in the number of "marriageable males" as work disappeared from the inner city. Much the same could now be said of working-class whites in neighborhoods that may not look like the ghettos of Cleveland or Detroit but in which productive economic activity is increasingly hard to find.
This grim new reality has yet to inform our debate over how to come back from this mega-recession. Those who believe our downturn is cyclical argue that job-creating public spending can restore us to prosperity, while those who believe it's structural - that we have too many carpenters, say, and not enough nurses - believe that we should leave things be while American workers acquire new skills and enter different lines of work. But there's a third way to look at the recession: that it's institutional, that it's the consequence of the decisions by leading banks and corporations to stop investing in the job-creating enterprises that were the key to broadly shared prosperity.
Our multinational companies still invest, of course - just not at home. A study by the Business Roundtable and the U.S. Council Foundation found that the share of the profits of U.S.-based multinationals that came from their foreign affiliates had increased from 17 percent in 1977 and 27 percent in 1994 to 48.6 percent in 2006. As the companies' revenue from abroad has increased, their dependence on American consumers has diminished. The equilibrium among production, wages and purchasing power - the equilibrium that Henry Ford famously recognized when he upped his workers' pay to an unheard-of $5 a day in 1913 so they could afford to buy the cars they made, the equilibrium that became the model for 20th-century American capitalism - has been shattered. Making and selling their goods abroad, U.S. multinationals can slash their workforces and reduce their wages at home while retaining their revenue and increasing their profits. And that's exactly what they've done.
Our economic woes, then, are not simply cyclical or structural. They are also - chiefly - institutional, the consequence of U.S. corporate behavior that has plunged us into a downward cycle of underinvestment, underemployment and under-consumption. Our solutions must be similarly institutional, requiring, for starters, the seating of public and worker representatives on corporate boards. Short of that, there will be no real prospects for reversing America's downward mobility.
Tuesday, January 4, 2011
Republicans Breathe When They Lie and Lie When They Breathe
From Media Matters for America -- January 4, 2010:
Coming Right-Wing Smear: Common Legislative Procedure Is "Chicanery"
HotAir.com's Ed Morrissey is the first of what will no doubt become a flood of right-wing media figures falsely characterizing a proposal for Senate Democrats to extend the first legislative day of the session in order to build support for filibuster reform as them using "chicanery" to "change the definition of a day." But the legislative day "usually does not correspond" to the calendar day, instead lasting "from days to weeks, or even months."
The debate rests around a series of proposals put forward by several Democrats, including one by Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.), who says that the Constitution gives the Senate ability to set its rules -- and that on the first legislative day, such changes can be made by a simple majority of 51 senators. Since rule changes typically require support from two-thirds of the Senate, Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) is facing new pressure to simply extend the first legislative day by recessing the chamber at the close of business -- rather than adjourning. That move could extend that first legislative "day" for several weeks and could give Democrats more time to build support for their proposal.
Sixty-seven votes would be needed to change Senate rules, a highly unlikely scenario in a polarized chamber where Democrats hold a 53-47 majority. But the Constitution allows each house of Congress to set its own rules, and on the first day of the new Senate, a simple majority of 51 senators may be allowed to vote to change Senate rules after parliamentary rulings are made by the presiding officer, Vice President Joe Biden.
Udall, the New Mexico Democrat, has long planned to push on the first day of the new Congress what he calls the "constitutional option" -- to allow future rule changes to be made by a simple majority vote. That would allow for subsequent changes to the filibuster rule to be made if Democrats limit their defections to just two members. [Politico, 1/4/11]
Morrissey: Dems Pushing "Posterior-Protecting Absurdities, Like Insisting That A Day Can Last For Weeks." Morrissey commented on the Politico article (emphasis added):
Surprise! Despite the clamor on the Left to "reform" the filibuster now that Democrats have lost most of their Senate majority, some Democrats have looked ahead to the next election and balked at making the majority omnipotent. A flurry of proposals to change the rules to end or neuter the filibuster have clogged the process, with none of them gaining a consensus. "Reform" backers have become so desperate that they want to change the definition of a day in order to get more votes:
Why, that's exactly what voters had in mind during this past midterm election! They turned out in droves to vote for even more chicanery and posterior-protecting absurdities, like insisting that a day can last for weeks. That has an additional, practical complication; it would appear to require Joe Biden to continuously preside over the Senate, as the Vice President does on the first day in a session. It's not as if Biden is especially busy, of course -- Wreckovery Summer is long over -- but even Senators can only take so much of Sheriff Joe. [HotAir.com, 1/4/10]
Extending The Legislative Day Is "Not A New" Tactic, It's Been "Done Hundreds Of Times"
Congressional Experts Say Proposal to Extend Legislative Day "Not Improper," "Done Hundreds Of Times."
AEI's Ornstein: "Unconventional, But Not Improper." American Enterprise Institute congressional scholar Norm Ornstein: "the Senate has often defined a legislative day to last more than one day. This is unconventional, but not improper."
Washington University In St. Louis' Smith: "Both Parties" Have Used Procedure "With Great Frequency." Steven Smith, a congressional expert and political science professor at Washington University in St. Louis: "It has been done hundreds of times, it is not improper, and it is done in order for the convenience of the Senate. ... The rules allow for a certain number of activities that occur in each Senate day, and a recess continues the legislative day from one calendar day to the next. That happens with considerable frequency. Both parties have availed themselves of that option with great frequency." [Media Matters, 1/4/11]
Senate.gov: A Legislative Day "May Extend Over Several Calendar Days Or Even Weeks And Months." From Senate.gov:
Legislative day - A "day" that starts when the Senate meets after an adjournment and ends when the Senate next adjourns. Hence, a legislative day may extend over several calendar days or even weeks and months. [Senate.gov, accessed 1/4/11]
House Document: "The 'Legislative Day' Usually Does Not Correspond To The 24-Hour Period Comprising A Calendar Day." According to "How Our Laws Are Made," a document "prepared by the Office of the Parliamentarian of the U.S. House of Representatives in consultation with the Office of the Parliamentarian of the U.S. Senate" and published in 2003, when both houses were controlled by Republicans:
In the Senate, the term ''legislative day'' means the period of time from when the Senate adjourns until the next time the Senate adjourns. Because the Senate often ''recesses'' rather than ''adjourns'' at the end of a daily session, the legislative day usually does not correspond to the 24-hour period comprising a calendar day. Thus, a legislative day may cover a long period of time--from days to weeks, or even months. ["How Laws Are Made," 7/20/03]
NY Times: Tactic "Not A New One," Record "Legislative Day" Lasted 162 Calendar Days. From The New York Times:
The tactic of defying the calendar and keeping the Senate in the same legislative day is not a new one. According to the Senate Historical Office, Senator Robert C. Byrd of West Virginia, then the majority leader, set the record of 162 days in 1980 when he kept the Senate in the same legislative day from Jan. 3 to June 12 over filibuster changes. [The New York Times, 1/3/11]
Conservatives Have Repeatedly Mischaracterized Democratic Procedural Tactics.
Right-Wing Media Falsely Claimed Reconciliation Was "The Nuclear Option." After progressives began calling on Democrats to pass health care reform using the budget reconciliation process, right-wing media figures began falsely refer to the tactic as the "nuclear option" and characterized Democrats who previously opposed the "nuclear option" as hypocrites. In fact, "nuclear option" is a term coined by former Sen. Trent Lott (R-MS) to refer to a procedure that would be used to change Senate rules; reconciliation requires no rule changes and was used repeatedly by Republicans during the Bush administration.
Right-Wing Media Falsely Claimed "Self-Executing Rule" Would Pass Health Care Without A Vote. In March 2010, right-wing media falsely claimed that, in the words of Fox's Bill Hemmer, the House was considering a "self-executing rule that does not require a single vote" to pass health care reform. In fact, implementing the proposed procedure would have required a majority vote.
Coming Right-Wing Smear: Common Legislative Procedure Is "Chicanery"
HotAir.com's Ed Morrissey is the first of what will no doubt become a flood of right-wing media figures falsely characterizing a proposal for Senate Democrats to extend the first legislative day of the session in order to build support for filibuster reform as them using "chicanery" to "change the definition of a day." But the legislative day "usually does not correspond" to the calendar day, instead lasting "from days to weeks, or even months."
The debate rests around a series of proposals put forward by several Democrats, including one by Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.), who says that the Constitution gives the Senate ability to set its rules -- and that on the first legislative day, such changes can be made by a simple majority of 51 senators. Since rule changes typically require support from two-thirds of the Senate, Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) is facing new pressure to simply extend the first legislative day by recessing the chamber at the close of business -- rather than adjourning. That move could extend that first legislative "day" for several weeks and could give Democrats more time to build support for their proposal.
Sixty-seven votes would be needed to change Senate rules, a highly unlikely scenario in a polarized chamber where Democrats hold a 53-47 majority. But the Constitution allows each house of Congress to set its own rules, and on the first day of the new Senate, a simple majority of 51 senators may be allowed to vote to change Senate rules after parliamentary rulings are made by the presiding officer, Vice President Joe Biden.
Udall, the New Mexico Democrat, has long planned to push on the first day of the new Congress what he calls the "constitutional option" -- to allow future rule changes to be made by a simple majority vote. That would allow for subsequent changes to the filibuster rule to be made if Democrats limit their defections to just two members. [Politico, 1/4/11]
Morrissey: Dems Pushing "Posterior-Protecting Absurdities, Like Insisting That A Day Can Last For Weeks." Morrissey commented on the Politico article (emphasis added):
Surprise! Despite the clamor on the Left to "reform" the filibuster now that Democrats have lost most of their Senate majority, some Democrats have looked ahead to the next election and balked at making the majority omnipotent. A flurry of proposals to change the rules to end or neuter the filibuster have clogged the process, with none of them gaining a consensus. "Reform" backers have become so desperate that they want to change the definition of a day in order to get more votes:
Why, that's exactly what voters had in mind during this past midterm election! They turned out in droves to vote for even more chicanery and posterior-protecting absurdities, like insisting that a day can last for weeks. That has an additional, practical complication; it would appear to require Joe Biden to continuously preside over the Senate, as the Vice President does on the first day in a session. It's not as if Biden is especially busy, of course -- Wreckovery Summer is long over -- but even Senators can only take so much of Sheriff Joe. [HotAir.com, 1/4/10]
Extending The Legislative Day Is "Not A New" Tactic, It's Been "Done Hundreds Of Times"
Congressional Experts Say Proposal to Extend Legislative Day "Not Improper," "Done Hundreds Of Times."
AEI's Ornstein: "Unconventional, But Not Improper." American Enterprise Institute congressional scholar Norm Ornstein: "the Senate has often defined a legislative day to last more than one day. This is unconventional, but not improper."
Washington University In St. Louis' Smith: "Both Parties" Have Used Procedure "With Great Frequency." Steven Smith, a congressional expert and political science professor at Washington University in St. Louis: "It has been done hundreds of times, it is not improper, and it is done in order for the convenience of the Senate. ... The rules allow for a certain number of activities that occur in each Senate day, and a recess continues the legislative day from one calendar day to the next. That happens with considerable frequency. Both parties have availed themselves of that option with great frequency." [Media Matters, 1/4/11]
Senate.gov: A Legislative Day "May Extend Over Several Calendar Days Or Even Weeks And Months." From Senate.gov:
Legislative day - A "day" that starts when the Senate meets after an adjournment and ends when the Senate next adjourns. Hence, a legislative day may extend over several calendar days or even weeks and months. [Senate.gov, accessed 1/4/11]
House Document: "The 'Legislative Day' Usually Does Not Correspond To The 24-Hour Period Comprising A Calendar Day." According to "How Our Laws Are Made," a document "prepared by the Office of the Parliamentarian of the U.S. House of Representatives in consultation with the Office of the Parliamentarian of the U.S. Senate" and published in 2003, when both houses were controlled by Republicans:
In the Senate, the term ''legislative day'' means the period of time from when the Senate adjourns until the next time the Senate adjourns. Because the Senate often ''recesses'' rather than ''adjourns'' at the end of a daily session, the legislative day usually does not correspond to the 24-hour period comprising a calendar day. Thus, a legislative day may cover a long period of time--from days to weeks, or even months. ["How Laws Are Made," 7/20/03]
NY Times: Tactic "Not A New One," Record "Legislative Day" Lasted 162 Calendar Days. From The New York Times:
The tactic of defying the calendar and keeping the Senate in the same legislative day is not a new one. According to the Senate Historical Office, Senator Robert C. Byrd of West Virginia, then the majority leader, set the record of 162 days in 1980 when he kept the Senate in the same legislative day from Jan. 3 to June 12 over filibuster changes. [The New York Times, 1/3/11]
Conservatives Have Repeatedly Mischaracterized Democratic Procedural Tactics.
Right-Wing Media Falsely Claimed Reconciliation Was "The Nuclear Option." After progressives began calling on Democrats to pass health care reform using the budget reconciliation process, right-wing media figures began falsely refer to the tactic as the "nuclear option" and characterized Democrats who previously opposed the "nuclear option" as hypocrites. In fact, "nuclear option" is a term coined by former Sen. Trent Lott (R-MS) to refer to a procedure that would be used to change Senate rules; reconciliation requires no rule changes and was used repeatedly by Republicans during the Bush administration.
Right-Wing Media Falsely Claimed "Self-Executing Rule" Would Pass Health Care Without A Vote. In March 2010, right-wing media falsely claimed that, in the words of Fox's Bill Hemmer, the House was considering a "self-executing rule that does not require a single vote" to pass health care reform. In fact, implementing the proposed procedure would have required a majority vote.
Make My Day -- The GOP Is About to Show All Americans the Benefits of Obamacare
From The Washington Post -- January 4, 2011:
A health-care fight Democrats should welcome
By Eugene Robinson
If the incoming Republican leadership in the House of Representatives is serious about trying to repeal health-care reform, there's only one appropriate Democratic response: "Make my day."
Democrats should hold their ground.
Just to be clear, there's no earthly chance that a bill repealing the landmark health-care overhaul could make it through Congress and be signed into law. Even if Republicans managed to hold together their new majority in the House, they would face the inconvenient fact that Democrats still control the Senate. And even if a repeal measure somehow sneaked through the Senate, President Obama would veto the thing faster than you can say "preexisting conditions."
So this exercise in tilting at windmills can't even be described as quixotic, since that would imply some expectation of success, however delusional. The whole thing is purely theatrical - and woefully ill-advised.
Yet Republicans promise to stage a vote on repeal before Obama delivers his State of the Union address, expected late this month. "If we pass this bill with a sizable vote, and I think that we will, it will put enormous pressure on the Senate to do perhaps the same thing," Rep. Fred Upton, who will be chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, said on "Fox News Sunday." "But then, after that, we're going to go after this bill piece by piece."
This sounds fine, until you actually look at the pieces. Already in effect are parts of the reform package that no self-interested politician is going to vote to take away.
No child can be denied insurance coverage because of a preexisting condition. Coverage can no longer be canceled when the policyholder gets sick. Insurance companies can no longer impose annual or lifetime limits on payments for care. Adult children can remain on their parents' policies until they turn 26. Policyholders cannot be charged extra for seeking urgent care at an emergency room that is not in the insurance company's approved network of providers.
Those measures took effect in September. Another set of provisions became law on Saturday: requirements that insurance companies spend a certain percentage of the premiums they collect on care; a discount on prescription drugs for some seniors covered by Medicare; a rule that gives seniors free screening for cancer and other diseases.
Republican leaders aren't dumb enough to explicitly propose taking all these benefits away. But Democrats can, and should, force them to have that debate.
The GOP strategy is to go after the less popular elements of the reform package. These include a requirement that businesses do a lot more paperwork for the IRS, a measure allowing federal money to pay for abortions in the case of rape or incest, and the mandate compelling individuals to buy health insurance. "We will look at these individual pieces to see if we can't have the thing crumble," Upton said.
But these are fights that Democrats should welcome.
The tax-reporting measure, which requires businesses to file a 1099 form with the IRS for every expenditure over $600, really has nothing to do with health care; many Democrats are as eager to get rid of it as Republicans. As for abortion, the provisions of the reform package are fully in keeping with existing law - and with public opinion.
It seems likely that the constitutionality of the individual mandate will ultimately be decided by the Supreme Court. It takes nothing more than simple arithmetic, however, to calculate that in order to make possible the other parts of the reform package - prohibiting denial of coverage because of preexisting conditions, keeping kids on their parents' policies, all those goodies - it's necessary to bring as many people as possible into the insurance pool. Otherwise, only sick people would buy coverage. Rates would inevitably skyrocket.
I suppose you could call it a "tax" or a "user fee" instead, but a debate about the unpopular mandate is really a debate over rescinding the popular, consumer-friendly measures that are already bringing peace of mind to millions of American families.
Maybe the new House leadership believes it needs to stage this fight to keep the Tea Party types from going rogue. Smart Republicans must know, however, that they won their public-relations advantage on health-care reform by framing it as a big, amorphous beastly thing labeled "Obama-care."
All along, what Democrats really wanted was for Americans to look closely at the details. Now it looks as if the GOP is ready to oblige.
A health-care fight Democrats should welcome
By Eugene Robinson
If the incoming Republican leadership in the House of Representatives is serious about trying to repeal health-care reform, there's only one appropriate Democratic response: "Make my day."
Democrats should hold their ground.
Just to be clear, there's no earthly chance that a bill repealing the landmark health-care overhaul could make it through Congress and be signed into law. Even if Republicans managed to hold together their new majority in the House, they would face the inconvenient fact that Democrats still control the Senate. And even if a repeal measure somehow sneaked through the Senate, President Obama would veto the thing faster than you can say "preexisting conditions."
So this exercise in tilting at windmills can't even be described as quixotic, since that would imply some expectation of success, however delusional. The whole thing is purely theatrical - and woefully ill-advised.
Yet Republicans promise to stage a vote on repeal before Obama delivers his State of the Union address, expected late this month. "If we pass this bill with a sizable vote, and I think that we will, it will put enormous pressure on the Senate to do perhaps the same thing," Rep. Fred Upton, who will be chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, said on "Fox News Sunday." "But then, after that, we're going to go after this bill piece by piece."
This sounds fine, until you actually look at the pieces. Already in effect are parts of the reform package that no self-interested politician is going to vote to take away.
No child can be denied insurance coverage because of a preexisting condition. Coverage can no longer be canceled when the policyholder gets sick. Insurance companies can no longer impose annual or lifetime limits on payments for care. Adult children can remain on their parents' policies until they turn 26. Policyholders cannot be charged extra for seeking urgent care at an emergency room that is not in the insurance company's approved network of providers.
Those measures took effect in September. Another set of provisions became law on Saturday: requirements that insurance companies spend a certain percentage of the premiums they collect on care; a discount on prescription drugs for some seniors covered by Medicare; a rule that gives seniors free screening for cancer and other diseases.
Republican leaders aren't dumb enough to explicitly propose taking all these benefits away. But Democrats can, and should, force them to have that debate.
The GOP strategy is to go after the less popular elements of the reform package. These include a requirement that businesses do a lot more paperwork for the IRS, a measure allowing federal money to pay for abortions in the case of rape or incest, and the mandate compelling individuals to buy health insurance. "We will look at these individual pieces to see if we can't have the thing crumble," Upton said.
But these are fights that Democrats should welcome.
The tax-reporting measure, which requires businesses to file a 1099 form with the IRS for every expenditure over $600, really has nothing to do with health care; many Democrats are as eager to get rid of it as Republicans. As for abortion, the provisions of the reform package are fully in keeping with existing law - and with public opinion.
It seems likely that the constitutionality of the individual mandate will ultimately be decided by the Supreme Court. It takes nothing more than simple arithmetic, however, to calculate that in order to make possible the other parts of the reform package - prohibiting denial of coverage because of preexisting conditions, keeping kids on their parents' policies, all those goodies - it's necessary to bring as many people as possible into the insurance pool. Otherwise, only sick people would buy coverage. Rates would inevitably skyrocket.
I suppose you could call it a "tax" or a "user fee" instead, but a debate about the unpopular mandate is really a debate over rescinding the popular, consumer-friendly measures that are already bringing peace of mind to millions of American families.
Maybe the new House leadership believes it needs to stage this fight to keep the Tea Party types from going rogue. Smart Republicans must know, however, that they won their public-relations advantage on health-care reform by framing it as a big, amorphous beastly thing labeled "Obama-care."
All along, what Democrats really wanted was for Americans to look closely at the details. Now it looks as if the GOP is ready to oblige.
Monday, January 3, 2011
Do Obama "Birthers" Care One Whit About Evidence?
From Sodahead -- January 3, 2011:
Will Evidence Make Obama 'Birthers' Finally Give Up?
You’d think that after two years in office and a slew of historic legislation aimed at getting the country back in the black that the Obama birthers would give up their pursuit of proof that the president was not born in the United States.
And while solid evidence to the contrary hasn’t swayed them yet, Democratic Hawaiian governor Neil Abercrombie is determined to shut down the movement once and for all. ABC News reported that just three weeks into his first term, Abercrombie said that ending the conspiracy theories about Obama’s birthplace is one of his priorities.
A friend of Obama’s late parents, Abercrombie has said in a number of interviews that he has a personal interest in closing the debate, which is why he’s instructed the state attorney general and health department director to look for ways to let the facts about Obama's birth prove his origin once and for all.
"It's an emotional insult. It is disrespectful to the president; it is disrespectful to the office," Abercrombie told The New York Times. "There's no reason on earth to have the memory of his parents insulted by people whose motivation is solely political. ... Let's put this particular canard to rest."
One reason the so-called birther debate has had such long legs is that long-form birth certificate for Obama with the name of the hospital and the doctor, his or her signature, the baby's birth weight, and the national origin of the parents has never been made public. During the 2008 campaign, the Obama camp released a short-term copy of a "certification of live birth,” which has the same legal weight as the longer one.
Birthers weren’t swayed by that, though, complaining that the document – which has the embossed seal of authenticity from the Department of Health -- only listed the date, hour and location of Obama's birth and the names and race of his parents. They are convinced that the withholding of the original birth certificate is part of a conspiracy to cover up the president’s ineligibility to hold the nation’s highest office.
Whether you’re the president or a sun-kissed surfer nobody, Hawaiian state law prohibits the release of original birth records to persons without a "direct and tangible interest” and only the president, his wife, children, relatives, parents or lawyers have such an interest, according to the text of the law. And so far, none of them have given their consent for the document to be made public. Regardless, the Health Department reports getting dozens of requests in November for the document and up to 50 in one month earlier this year, many apparently from the same person using different aliases.
Like the lingering false information about Obama’s religion, the birther debate has been sticky, with a recent ABC News-Washington Post poll finding that 14 percent of Americans saying they think Obama was born in another country.
Do you think Abercrombie’s actions will end birther debate?
Well, as someone has said, Evidence is for agnostics -- not for ignorant, racist zealots.
Will Evidence Make Obama 'Birthers' Finally Give Up?
You’d think that after two years in office and a slew of historic legislation aimed at getting the country back in the black that the Obama birthers would give up their pursuit of proof that the president was not born in the United States.
And while solid evidence to the contrary hasn’t swayed them yet, Democratic Hawaiian governor Neil Abercrombie is determined to shut down the movement once and for all. ABC News reported that just three weeks into his first term, Abercrombie said that ending the conspiracy theories about Obama’s birthplace is one of his priorities.
A friend of Obama’s late parents, Abercrombie has said in a number of interviews that he has a personal interest in closing the debate, which is why he’s instructed the state attorney general and health department director to look for ways to let the facts about Obama's birth prove his origin once and for all.
"It's an emotional insult. It is disrespectful to the president; it is disrespectful to the office," Abercrombie told The New York Times. "There's no reason on earth to have the memory of his parents insulted by people whose motivation is solely political. ... Let's put this particular canard to rest."
One reason the so-called birther debate has had such long legs is that long-form birth certificate for Obama with the name of the hospital and the doctor, his or her signature, the baby's birth weight, and the national origin of the parents has never been made public. During the 2008 campaign, the Obama camp released a short-term copy of a "certification of live birth,” which has the same legal weight as the longer one.
Birthers weren’t swayed by that, though, complaining that the document – which has the embossed seal of authenticity from the Department of Health -- only listed the date, hour and location of Obama's birth and the names and race of his parents. They are convinced that the withholding of the original birth certificate is part of a conspiracy to cover up the president’s ineligibility to hold the nation’s highest office.
Whether you’re the president or a sun-kissed surfer nobody, Hawaiian state law prohibits the release of original birth records to persons without a "direct and tangible interest” and only the president, his wife, children, relatives, parents or lawyers have such an interest, according to the text of the law. And so far, none of them have given their consent for the document to be made public. Regardless, the Health Department reports getting dozens of requests in November for the document and up to 50 in one month earlier this year, many apparently from the same person using different aliases.
Like the lingering false information about Obama’s religion, the birther debate has been sticky, with a recent ABC News-Washington Post poll finding that 14 percent of Americans saying they think Obama was born in another country.
Do you think Abercrombie’s actions will end birther debate?
Well, as someone has said, Evidence is for agnostics -- not for ignorant, racist zealots.
Sunday, January 2, 2011
Fox News' Incessant Coverage of the Black Panthers Case Has Nothing to Do with the Black Panthers but Rather How This Case Can Be Used to Topple Obama
From Media Matters for America -- January 1, 2011:
GOP Commissioner Said Investigation Into NBPP Case Is An Effort To "Topple" Administration. Politico reported that Abigail Thernstrom, the Republican vice chairman of the Civil Rights Commission, said that the commission's investigation into the New Black Panther Party case "doesn't have to do with the Black Panthers, this has to do with their fantasies about how they could use this issue to topple the [Obama] administration." Politico also reported that Thernstrom said: "My fellow conservatives on the commission had this wild notion they could bring Eric Holder down and really damage the president."
GOP Commissioner Said Investigation Into NBPP Case Is An Effort To "Topple" Administration. Politico reported that Abigail Thernstrom, the Republican vice chairman of the Civil Rights Commission, said that the commission's investigation into the New Black Panther Party case "doesn't have to do with the Black Panthers, this has to do with their fantasies about how they could use this issue to topple the [Obama] administration." Politico also reported that Thernstrom said: "My fellow conservatives on the commission had this wild notion they could bring Eric Holder down and really damage the president."
Fox News Pals Edit Tapes to Meet Their Agendas
From Media Matters for America -- January 1, 2011:
Investigations Have Cleared ACORN Of Criminal Wrongdoing
New York City Prosecutors "Cleared ACORN Of Criminal Wrongdoing" Because O'Keefe And Giles "Edited The Tape To Meet Their Agenda." A March 1 New York Daily News article entitled, "B'klyn ACORN cleared over giving illegal advice on how to hide money from prostitution," reported:
Brooklyn prosecutors on Monday cleared ACORN of criminal wrongdoing after a four-month probe that began when undercover conservative activists filmed workers giving what appeared to be illegal advice on how to hide money.
While the video by James O'Keefe and Hannah Giles seemed to show three ACORN workers advising a prostitute how to hide ill-gotten gains, the unedited version was not as clear, according to a law enforcement source.
"They edited the tape to meet their agenda," said the source. [New York Daily News, 03/01/10]
Independent Review Found "No Evidence That Action, Illegal Or Otherwise, Was Taken By Any ACORN Employee On Behalf Of The Videographers." In his December 7, 2009, "Independent Governance Assessment of ACORN," former Massachusetts Attorney General Scott Harshbarger (D), who was hired by ACORN to conduct an inquiry in part into the videos, wrote:
While some of the advice and counsel given by ACORN employees and volunteers was clearly inappropriate and unprofessional, we did not find a pattern of intentional, illegal conduct by ACORN staff; in fact, there is no evidence that action, illegal or otherwise, was taken by any ACORN employee on behalf of the videographers.
Instead, the videos represent the byproduct of ACORN's longstanding management weaknesses, including a lack of training, a lack of procedures, and a lack of on-site supervision. [Independent Report, via Proskauer.com 12/07/09]
CA Attorney General: "[S]ome Members Of" ACORN "Engaged In 'Highly Inappropriate Behavior,' But Committed No Violation Of Criminal Laws." In an April 1 press release, then-California Attorney General Jerry Brown said that the videos show "some members of the community organizing group ACORN engaged in 'highly inappropriate behavior,' but committed no violation of criminal laws." The press release added: " 'A few ACORN members exhibited terrible judgment and highly inappropriate behavior in videotapes obtained in the investigation,' Brown said. 'But they didn't commit prosecutable crimes in California.' [CA Attorney General's Office, 04/01/10]
Investigations Have Cleared ACORN Of Criminal Wrongdoing
New York City Prosecutors "Cleared ACORN Of Criminal Wrongdoing" Because O'Keefe And Giles "Edited The Tape To Meet Their Agenda." A March 1 New York Daily News article entitled, "B'klyn ACORN cleared over giving illegal advice on how to hide money from prostitution," reported:
Brooklyn prosecutors on Monday cleared ACORN of criminal wrongdoing after a four-month probe that began when undercover conservative activists filmed workers giving what appeared to be illegal advice on how to hide money.
While the video by James O'Keefe and Hannah Giles seemed to show three ACORN workers advising a prostitute how to hide ill-gotten gains, the unedited version was not as clear, according to a law enforcement source.
"They edited the tape to meet their agenda," said the source. [New York Daily News, 03/01/10]
Independent Review Found "No Evidence That Action, Illegal Or Otherwise, Was Taken By Any ACORN Employee On Behalf Of The Videographers." In his December 7, 2009, "Independent Governance Assessment of ACORN," former Massachusetts Attorney General Scott Harshbarger (D), who was hired by ACORN to conduct an inquiry in part into the videos, wrote:
While some of the advice and counsel given by ACORN employees and volunteers was clearly inappropriate and unprofessional, we did not find a pattern of intentional, illegal conduct by ACORN staff; in fact, there is no evidence that action, illegal or otherwise, was taken by any ACORN employee on behalf of the videographers.
Instead, the videos represent the byproduct of ACORN's longstanding management weaknesses, including a lack of training, a lack of procedures, and a lack of on-site supervision. [Independent Report, via Proskauer.com 12/07/09]
CA Attorney General: "[S]ome Members Of" ACORN "Engaged In 'Highly Inappropriate Behavior,' But Committed No Violation Of Criminal Laws." In an April 1 press release, then-California Attorney General Jerry Brown said that the videos show "some members of the community organizing group ACORN engaged in 'highly inappropriate behavior,' but committed no violation of criminal laws." The press release added: " 'A few ACORN members exhibited terrible judgment and highly inappropriate behavior in videotapes obtained in the investigation,' Brown said. 'But they didn't commit prosecutable crimes in California.' [CA Attorney General's Office, 04/01/10]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
