One Man's Opinion

The fundamental progressive failure

2011-04-10T19:34:00.000-07:00

In the wake of the agreement that prevented the federal government, the Obama Administration has planned an address this week to lay out fundamental entitlement reform. Progressives have been loudly disappointed by the deal that prevented the shutdown, particularly the appearance of President Obama cheering the historic cuts the deal involved. Thus there is little enthusiasm for Obama's speech among core progressives, even if he calls for the "grand bargain" which would raise taxes on the wealthiest Americans to shore up Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. (Whether that "bargain" is necessary is a whole other subject).

But no matter what the immediate causes and reactions to these events are, they represent a fundamental failure of progressives. The most important economic issue being debated is not jobs, or income inequality, or even basic societal fairness, but rather the federal deficit. The most urgent issue for the future is not climate change, whose effects are approaching the point at which they will be irreversible, but the federal debt, which is reversible by a growing economy and some policy adjustments.

Essentially, the progressive view of the world which prioritizes a growing economy, greater economic opportunity for more people, and a future where we aren't faced by catastrophic climate effects, has been trumped by a worry about government debt. And what is the real worry about the government debt? That we won't we will have to have radical cuts in the social safety net because of that debt. And what's the solution to that problem? Radical cuts in the social safety net.

Are there structural impediments to making our case? Yes. But right now, even progressives tend to buy the frame around which these arguments take place. And that's a failure of persuasion.

We figure out a way to get people who don't already agree with us to listen to and believe in our arguments.

Three takes on the events in Tucson

2011-01-10T06:36:00.000-08:00

I want to highlight three items that usefully analyze the events in Tucson.

James Fallows at The Atlantic, "The Cloudy Logic of Political Shootings"

We don't know why the Tucson killer did what he did. If he is like [Sirhan] Sirhan, we'll never "understand." But we know that it has been a time of extreme, implicitly violent political rhetoric and imagery, including SarahPac's famous bulls-eye map of 20 Congressional targets to be removed -- including Rep. Giffords. It is legitimate to discuss whether there is a connection between that tone and actual outbursts of violence, whatever the motivations of this killer turn out to be. At a minimum, it will be harder for anyone to talk -- on rallies, on cable TV, in ads -- about "eliminating" opponents, or to bring rifles to political meetings, or to say "don't retreat, reload.

George Packer at The New Yorker, "It Doesn't Matter Why He Did It"

This relentlessly hostile rhetoric has become standard issue on the right. (On the left it appears in anonymous comment threads, not congressional speeches and national T.V. programs.) And it has gone almost entirely uncriticized by Republican leaders. Partisan media encourages it, while the mainstream media finds it titillating and airs it, often without comment, so that the gradual effect is to desensitize even people to whom the rhetoric is repellent. We’ve all grown so used to it over the past couple of years that it took the shock of an assassination attempt to show us the ugliness to which our politics has sunk.

Peter Daou, "Gabrielle Giffords and the rightwing hate machine (on the bogus equivalence between right/left extremism)"

The deeply-etched themes that run through American politics reflect the right’s successful framing: Democrats and liberals are wimps, Republicans and conservatives are gun-toting patriots; Democrats and liberals despise their country, Republicans and conservatives are the only ones willing to protect it; Democrats and liberals want to intrude on your freedom, tax you and bankrupt the nation, Republicans and conservatives want to give you freedom, liberty and wealth. The current of eliminationism infusing the right’s worldview is an inevitable outcome of such contorted impressions – it’s a natural impulse to want to destroy that which is (supposedly) destroying you.

Those who foist the false right/left equivalency ignore this reality. Their definition of extremism is necessarily warped, since they have to stretch logic to fabricate a sense of balance. If you want single-payer health care, you’re a liberal extremist, but if you deny global warming, you’re simply a conservative skeptic. As the national discourse moves further and further right, only the most unhinged rightwingers are tagged as extreme, while all it takes for a liberal to be labeled an extremist is to espouse a policy position that is out of the mainstream. That is not to say there are not violent individuals and extremists on the left, but that it is absurd to argue that left and right are comparable in the language of violence and incitement.

When center becomes right and right becomes far right, conservatives can get away with wilder and weirder behavior. Exhortations from radio blatherers to bash liberals are dismissed as “entertainment.” Glenn Beck’s bizarre rantings barely get a yawn.

Five Things That Were True Before The Shootings In Tucson

2011-01-09T19:38:00.000-08:00

Since the horrific shooting in Tucson that wounded Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and killed 6 others, a number of conversations have commenced about the extreme rhetoric that has emerged in the current political culture. Many on the right are angry that they are being blamed for the creating the context under which the shootings took place, especially since its become clear that shooter was an unstable, but not politically active, individual. Understand that, let me point to five facts that are true, whether or not the shooting ever took place.

Fact #1: In August of 2009, a protestor at a Giffords event dropped a gun that he had carried to it.

Fact #2: The day that the health care reform bill passed, Giffords' congressional office had a window either shot out or broken out.

Fact #3: Gabby Giffords' 2010 opponent held a campaign event shooting an automatic M-16, saying "Get on Target for Victory. Help remove Gabrielle Gifford from office."

So, to be clear, there were multiple instances of threats and violent rhetoric in Arizona's 8th Congressional District over the past two years. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords had mentioned her concern over these incidents. So when a violent shooting incident nearly takes her life, it is incumbent upon those who don't think this history is relevant to tell us why, not on those of us who think this rhetoric creates a climate where attacks like this can occur.

Fact #4: Sarah Palin had a map of 20 Democrats who voted for health care reform targeted for defeat. Their districts, including Rep. Giffords, were placed under crosshairs. Palin later referred to them as "bullseyes."

Fact #5: On March 25, 2010, appearing on MSNBC, Rep. Giffords mentioned the crosshairs ad, saying," ...for example, we're on Sarah Palin's targeted list, but the thing is that the way that she has it depicted 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."

White Flight From The Democrats

2011-01-07T06:04:00.000-08:00

Ron Brownstein, writing in National Journal has a profoundly interesting, detailed, and, for Democrats, ominous piece about exit polling numbers illustrating that Democrats are at a historical nadir among white votes. In the column, we get a number of explanations for why white voters have rejected Democrats.

Dick Wadhams, the head of the Colorado GOP, says that white voters reject Obama's view of government. "The voters who went with Obama in 2008 did not know what they were going to get with that vote. Now that they’ve seen the health care bill, the stimulus bill, the bailout, the cap-and-trade proposal—issue after issue, they don’t like what they see." Democratic pollster Mark Mellman echoes this type of argument, saying, "People felt government did a lot of big things that were inappropriate. They felt government took care of the big guys—and not me." Presidential advisor David Axelrod says that these are the voters who have born the brunt of the recession, so its understandable that they have moved away from Democrat. Jeff Bell, a conservative strategist argues that these voters have become part of a larger, permanent conservative coalition.

So, what's missing from this analysis? Well, in the over 4000 words of the column, the following words do not appear together "first," "black," and "president." In an article about white flight from the Democratic party.

To be clear, Brownstein has written an insightful piece that I recommend. But it does illustrate a fundamental failure of the dialogue in our political culture - that even in an article about racial voting patterns, race is a secondary issue.

On reading the Constitution

2011-01-06T20:02:00.000-08:00

So, the newly sworn-in House of Representatives provided for a reading of the Constitution today. This was an interesting civic ritual, and I'm disappointed that it was the damn Republicans that came up with this.

Why?

Because the Constitution is not a document wholly owned by 21st century conservatives. But the tea partiers and the right-wingers who run the Republican party have appropriated the Constitution symbolically as their exclusive provenance. Just like they've done with 9/11.

Here's the thing. The Constitution, the American Revolution, World War II, 9/11, etc. are shared American experiences. Liberals and conservatives shared them and continue to share them. Allowing them to be appropriated for by only one set of partisans is un-American.

We on the left can not allow this to happen. We should embrace the ritual and fight to take back ownership of the symbolism.

Republicans whine about Pelosi talking about accomplishments

2011-01-06T06:01:00.000-08:00

In the ongoing quest to deny Democrats legitimacy, a bunch of whining, sniveling House Republicans are angry about Nancy Pelosi's speech on the opening day of the new Congress. Apparently, Pelosi had the temerity to offend the sensitive ears of Republican House members by....touting Democratic accomplishments in the last Congress.

Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL) said that Pelosi's speech, “trying to convince her own caucus of what great things they had done. Had it been me, I would have given a shorter speech." No, what Ros- Lehtinen probably would not have touted her most recent accomplishment - killing a bill to stop children from being forced into marriage.

Rep. Tom Price (R-GA) griped that Pelosi's speech "crystallized" why voters opposed Democrats in the recent elections. Yes, this is the same Tom Price who claimed that forcing BP to pay for its share of the cleanup of the Gulf caused by its oil spill a "shakedown."

Rep. Billy Long, a freshman from Missouri. thought the speech ungracious, saying, "I think it’s rather apparent. I’d have handled it differently." Well, Billy Long would handle a lot of things differently - like electing Senators. Long supports repealing the 17th amendment to the Constitution which provides for direct election of Senators.

So to these fine Republicans whining because Nancy Pelosi decided to speak about how she helped make lives better for Americans, I say, with my best Jersey accent, from the bottom of my heart...

Fuck You!

Our opponents don't think we have the right to make decisions

2011-01-05T18:12:00.001-08:00

In a piece about a dubious interpretation that that filibuster is unconstitutional that he's received emails from conservatives that

convince me that the perception that the Obama administration isn't just liberal, but is unconstitutional in a way that's actively dangerous, has more traction on the right than I'd realized.

This is actually a fairly critical insight that I don't think get pointed out enough in liberal political circles. What Ezra is writing is that he is hearing from conservatives who don't just disagree with Obama and liberals and Democrats, but think that they don't have a right to be a position to make decisions for the country.

Fundamentally, we are illegitimate, and therefore nothing is off-limits in the effort to stop us.

Seen through this prism, Two-Time Car Thief Darrel Issa's attack the Obama administration as "corrupt" because of government spending on TARP, the stimulus, and health care reform, makes sense. The policies that the Democrats and Obama support are inherently corrupt because the people who hold those position are allowed to be in a position to act on them. Its a clever maneuver because it both makes compromise impossible, while insulating those Republicans who suddenly find themselves opposing the exact positions they supported before the Democrats took over from the charges of hypocrisy.

Understanding this is the first step to understanding how to change the way we fight them. When we try and fight these attacks on the basis of assuming our opponents goodwill, we inevitably lose. We need to understand that when the other side doesn't grant you standing to even be involved in an argument, you can't grant them an assumption good faith. We need to understand the contempt in which they hold us - and react accordingly.

NYT Public Editor undermines the idea of objective journalism

2010-02-08T07:34:00.000-08:00

Clark Hoyt, the public editor of the New York Times, wrote a very disturbing piece on Sunday. In it, he called for the reassignment of Ethan Bronner, the Times’ Jerusalem Bureau chief, because his son has joined the Israel Defense Forces. I can only assume that by dealing with a very narrow question, Hoyt avoided the implications of his answer for the larger question of journalism. So let me post a few questions that Hoyt ignored.

1. Would Hoyt have asked a similar question of a reporter whose son or daughter was serving in Iraq or Afghanistan? More importantly, would the question have even come up?

2. Did Hoyt realize that he tainted EVERY report the Times ever publishes from Israel, because now the Times agrees it is legitimate to attack a reporter because of his ties to Israel?

3. Did Hoyt understand that he essentially precluded any Israeli journalist from writing news stories about the conflict for the Times, since every Israeli serves in the military for fixed period of time and then serves until in the reserves until his or her mid-40’s? And that many of them have children who also serve?

4. Unwittingly, Hoyt undermines the very idea of journalistic objectivity. Whether you believe in it or not, reporters argue that they put their personal feelings aside to cover the news without allowing their views to come into play. Hoyt’s column undermines that very idea for every Times reporter. It’s ironic, because Bronner’s professionalism doesn’t come into question in Hoyt's piece.

5. The New York Times Executive Editor Bill Keller responded forcefully to Hoyt’s suggestion. Keller demonstrates in his response that Hoyt never asked these questions of other Times reporters who could be as deeply conflicted as Hoyt seems to assert Bronner to be.

Simply put, the Hoyt piece legitimizes any attacks on any piece in the New York Times if one can find a connection to the reporter to any part of the issue being reported. It undermines the entire newspaper. But it's hard to believe that the fact the issue in question is the Palestine/Israel conflict didn't color the answer here.

Shmuel Rosner of the Jerusalem Post weighs in on this "controversy" with a some other ideas that argue against the Public Editor's suggestion. Ron Kampeas of JTA and Jeffrey Goldberg weigh in also.

Random Thoughts on the Election

2009-11-04T06:40:00.000-08:00

It was a dark and stormy night....

Ok, so a Peanuts joke more appropriate would be Lucy pulling the football away from Charlie Brown. It was only a year ago that we had th historic election of Barack Obama and overwhelming victories in Congressional races and seemed poised to enter an era of progressive change. Last night losses seem to be a pull back from that great hope. Without some recriminations that are certain to follow, here are two thoughts for going forward.

No Honeymoons. When Barack Obama won an unprecedented victory last year, the GOP leadership said the right things about working with him, and then basically went on strike, refusing to engage in constructive debates about real issues. In fact, they did the reverse, fighting a lost cause recount in MN, leaving it without a Senator for 6 months, stalling a ridiculous number of Obama appointments, and not even pretending to put together real plans for legislation about the key problems of energy, health care, and financial services.

In NJ and VA what Democrats need to do is oppose strongly the new Governor's where they are wrong. Do not let them get their feet underneath them. Make them fight for their nominees. NJ elected its most conservative governor in history - let's lay that bare. The last Governor of NJ promised tax cut, and was only able to avoid fiscal catastrophe by using a series on one-shot budget gimmicks, leaving the clean up for her Democratic successors during two recessions. We've paid that price now.

Oh, and assume the Republicans are going to claim overarching mandates. when George W. Bush was sworn in, everyone assumed that he would try and work with the middle so his margins were so thin. We know how well that worked. An argument can be made that posture eventually cost the Republicans the Congress and Presidency, but Bush's first term in office was when he implemented the policies that helped make the current economic crisis worse.

Persuade the base. As Democrats, we tend to view persuasion and motivation separately. We need to stop that. We lost because our base is depressed and the Republican base is fired up. We need to counter that not just through our field and organizational structures, but through messaging. And assuming that the base has nowhere else to go is a failed assumption. They can stay home. That's how in just one year in Virginia an electorate the voted for Barack Obama becomes an electorate that voted for John McCain.

Joe Biden on Ted Kennedy

2009-08-26T09:02:00.000-07:00

Make fun of Joe Biden all you want, but this speech he made today is exactly the right tone.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

R.I.P., Senator Edward M. Kennedy

2009-08-26T07:47:00.000-07:00

From the eulogy he gave for his brother Robert F. Kennedy:

My brother need not be idealized, or enlarged in death beyond what he was in life; to be remembered simply as a good and decent man, who saw wrong and tried to right it, saw suffering and tried to heal it, saw war and tried to stop it.

Those of us who loved him and who take him to his rest today, pray that what he was to us and what he wished for others will some day come to pass for all the world.

As he said many times, in many parts of this nation, to those he touched and who sought to touch him:

"Some men see things as they are and say why.

I dream things that never were and say why not."

From his Democratic Convention Speech in 1980:

A fair prosperity and a just society are within our vision and our grasp, and we do not have every answer. There are questions not yet asked, waiting for us in the recesses of the future. But of this much we can be certain because it is the lesson of all of our history: Together a President and the people can make a difference. I have found that faith still alive wherever I have traveled across this land. So let us reject the counsel of retreat and the call to reaction. Let us go forward in the knowledge that history only helps those who help themselves.

There will be setbacks and sacrifices in the years ahead; but I am convinced that we as a people are ready to give something back to our country in return for all it has given to us.

Let this -- Let this be our commitment: Whatever sacrifices must be made will be shared and shared fairly. And let this be our confidence: At the end of our journey and always before us shines that ideal of liberty and justice for all.

...

For all those whose cares have been our concern, the work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream shall never die.

Sweden and the blood libel

2009-08-24T11:15:00.000-07:00

Recently, a dust up has occurred in, of all things, Israeli-Swedish relations. A leading Swedish daily newspaper, Aftonbladet, alleged last week, that Israeli soldiers stole organs from the bodies of dead Palestinians. The article caused create consternation in Israel, and even prompted by the Swedish Foreign Minister defending freedom of speech.

Israelis jumped hard on this article, because it represents a variation on one of the oldest and most dangerous anti-Semitic cards- the blood libel . Basically, the blood libel against the Jews argues that Jews kill non-Jews to use their blood in religious rituals. The exact charge made by the Swedish newspapers doesn't exactly charge that Jews use non-Jewish blood to bake matzah, but its gives the idea a modern tweak but connecting the allegation to the recent indictment in New Jersey of an Orthodox Jews who smuggled body parts.

As disturbing as the article is on its fact, the reaction by the Swedish newspaper is even more disturbing. The reaction also illustrates something about how some anti-Israel sentiment easily morphs into anti-semitism, without people even knowing.

First, according to the Jerusalem Post, the author, Donald Bostrom, told Arab media site Menassat , that there was "no conclusive evidence" that organ harvesting was a systematic IDF practice, but rather a "collection of allegations and suspicious circumstances." So first, we know that the author has made an allegation that he can not prove.

Second, the editor of the newspaper, Jan Helin wrote an op-ed defending the piece, saying ""I'm not a Nazi. I'm not anti-semitic." Further, he defended the article in an interview with Ynetnews.com saying that he didn't check out the story with the IDF because, "This is not a news report, but the opinion of a reporter who looked at the situation and held a debate on what he thought. Organ trafficking is a question he thought worth investigating. It may be considered a good or bad idea, but it's not anti-Semitic propaganda." So, the editor of the newspaper is ok with the idea of a false report being printed, based on the idea that "questions-are-being-raised.

But Helin goes further and this is the most disturbing part. He attacks right-wing Israeli politicians for causing the problem, saying "I was saddened to see extreme rightist populists using this article as vulgar propaganda." He also used the "some of my best friends are Jewish" defense, saying "I was naïve. I thought Israel was democratic. I have many Jewish friends and I see Jewish culture as very positive."

What we have is an unproven report that traffics in a variation of thousand-year-old anti-semitic charge that is defended by editor of the newspaper who published it. The editor the goes on the attack those who were offended by the piece, claiming that is is only one the right wing politician who are offended it and expresses shock that he could be anti-semitic because he has Jewish friends.

What this illustrates is that a traditional anti-semitic charge somehow can rattle around legitimately among the press as long as its about Israel.

A few points need to be made to Mr. Bostrom and Mr. Helin. The charge made is anti-semitic. It doesn't make you a Nazi - it makes you a disciple of a far older strain of anti-semitism. And defending yourself by saying saying you have Jewish friends is a laughably absurd idea.

Simply put, I didn't believe that anti-semitism was the right charge here at first. Now I'm no so sure.

The ADL and Rush Limbaugh

2009-08-10T19:56:00.000-07:00

Last Friday, the Anti-Defamation League put out a press release criticizing Rush Limbaugh for comparing Barack Obama, the Democratic Party, Nancy Pelosi, and the Democratic health care plan to the Nazi. (For examples, just look at this Media Matters compilation of Limbaugh’s Nazi analogies)

In the release, Executive Director Abe Foxman called Limbaugh’s comments "outrageous, deeply offensive and inappropriate.” Excellent. That’s what the ADL needed to do. So what’s the problem?

Well, The ADL’s release came almost a day after Limbaugh’s commentary had become a focal point of the health care debate, even prompting White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs to comment on it. By the time the ADL had released its statement it had already been taken to task by Adam Serwer of The American Prospect’s TAPPED blog, who said, “[T]here's a part of this that really bothers me, and that's the silence of Abraham Foxman, who has repeatedly thrown himself into the fray to advance right wing interests in his role as head of the Anti-Defamation League.”

Question abound.

First, does the ADL deserve the criticism for “throwing itself into the fray to advance right-wing interests?” Well, in this case, the ADL deserves criticsm that they get. What irritates progressives is that when, in 2004, Moveon.org sponsored a contest that asked activist to put together an ad about then President George W. Bush, and a couple of them submitted ads comparing Bush to Nazis, Foxman was quick to issue a press release condemning Moveon.org, asserting that Moveon “made an irresponsible decision that has given legitimacy to the exploitative manipulation of images in a campaign season.” So when a random guy on the internet enters a contest by submitting an ad that makes Nazi analogies Foxman makes a stronger statement more quickly then when the most prominent right-wing talk show host in America compares the President of the United States to a Nazi

Does it matter? Absolutely. On inappropriate uses of the Nazi analogies, the ADL is the first place many people look. When they are slow to condemn a really prominent example, it might appear that factors other diminishing the meaning of the Holocaust is in play. It might, in fact, look as though the ADL was more willing to criticize progressive than conservatives.

So why does that matter? It matter a lot because the ADL still does the best work of any group of identifying and push back on anti-Semitism and other types of hatred. It is particularly important because the ADL had been particularly vigilant in pointing out when criticism of Israel bleeds into straight up anti-Jewish bias. Unfortunately, this is, at the moment, a greater affliction of the left then of the right (the right has its own particular problems with Jews). But because of the ADL’s softness on the right, progressives trust the ADL less and less on the issues on which they are correct. That is why it’s problematic. The ADL needs to criticize the right because otherwise, important criticism of the left goes unheeded.

If you are going to read 3 things today….

2009-08-07T12:14:00.000-07:00

…you should read the columns by Jamison Foser of Media Matters, Steve Pearlstein of the Washington Post and Paul Krugman of the New York Times. Read together they provide a good sense of how the current political debate over health care is not actually about reforming health care policy.

Jamo’s piece focuses on how the media’s fixation with covering the politics of health care reform actually provides less clarity on what the debate is actually about. With polls providing conflicting opinions about what people want and stand alone results without comparison, while visually compelling but unrepresentative protests dominate the airwaves reporting on health care reform conforms to a pre-existing narrative of conflict, but never explains what the conflict is about. Jamo writes:

If news organizations want to produce health care reporting that actually has some value, some utility to their readers and viewers, they'll forget about the polls and the protests and the politics and focus on making the actual facts about health care, and efforts to change the system, as clear as they can.

I know what many journalists will say: This is how things are. Political intrigue, controversy, polling, strategy, demonstrations -- these are the things the media cover. That's how it works.

No. That's how it doesn't work. That's how we have a public that is so badly confused about health care reform that polling on the topic is basically a useless bundle of contradictory results. That's how we have a situation in which more than half of the Republican Party doesn't know Barack Obama was born in the United States. And how is this approach working for the media? Public trust in and respect for journalists is not exactly strong -- and, as I'm sure most reporters have noticed, news organizations across the country are shedding employees in a desperate struggle to stay afloat.

Steve Pearlstein, an economics columnist for the Washington Post who writes interestingly, insightfully and rarely polemically on economic and business issues writes a full-throated condemnation of falsehoods being propagated by the anti-health care reform GOP. Pearlstein writes that the GOP has “given up any pretense of being the loyal opposition. They've become political terrorists, willing to say or do anything to prevent the country from reaching a consensus on one of its most serious domestic problems.” Pearlstein’s point is that the obvious distortion of the health care debate exists primarily to NOT solve the problem. He concludes:

Health reform is a test of whether this country can function once again as a civil society -- whether we can trust ourselves to embrace the big, important changes that require everyone to give up something in order to make everyone better off. Republican leaders are eager to see us fail that test. We need to show them that no matter how many lies they tell or how many scare tactics they concoct, Americans will come together and get this done.

Paul Krugman focuses on the disruptions that opponents of health care reform have brought to town hall meeting on the topic, such as the violence that erupted at a Tampa town hall and the arrests that occurred in St. Louis. Krugman focuses on an incident at town hall meeting with Rep. Gene Green of Texas when Green gets almost all hands raised when he asks attendees whether they oppose “socialized medicine” and almost half raise their hands when he asks if they are on Medicare. Krugman raises an important and potentially incendiary point (emphasis added).

Now, people who don’t know that Medicare is a government program probably aren’t reacting to what President Obama is actually proposing. They may believe some of the disinformation opponents of health care reform are spreading, like the claim that the Obama plan will lead to euthanasia for the elderly. (That particular claim is coming straight from House Republican leaders.) But they’re probably reacting less to what Mr. Obama is doing, or even to what they’ve heard about what he’s doing, than to who he is.

That is, the driving force behind the town hall mobs is probably the same cultural and racial anxiety that’s behind the “birther” movement, which denies Mr. Obama’s citizenship. Senator Dick Durbin has suggested that the birthers and the health care protesters are one and the same; we don’t know how many of the protesters are birthers, but it wouldn’t be surprising if it’s a substantial fraction.

By reading these three pieces together, it is possible to see how the health care debate has become badly distorted. A press corps focused on politics and public opinion polls doesn’t bother to report on what the actual policy issues surrounding health care reform are. Cynical political opponents feel unconstrained to make false and misleading claims about health care reform knowing that the press will report the conflict but not focus on the accuracy of the claims. Folks predisposed to dislike President Obama and his supporters are then organized to protest something nominally about policy but really about dislike for who is proposing the policy.

These three columns provide a roadmap to explain how we got from debating level of subsidies for the uninsured and public option plan to arrests and death threats at town hall meetings.

An introduction

2009-08-05T19:55:00.000-07:00

I was an early adopter of the blogosphere, remembering discovering Eschaton and Daily Kos when they came on line in 2002. But I never committed to blogging on my own...until now.

This blog will be my brain dump on things that I care about. What are those things? Progressive politics, how the media covers politics and policy, the Middle East conflict, NCAA hoops focusing on Duke, baseball and a whole bunch of stuff that pricks my interest.

Anything to start an argument.