David Waters, who writes the "Under God" blog for the Washington Post's "On Faith" site, attacks Rep. Patrick Kennedy for having the audacity to argue that church leaders should support health care reform.
The backstory, in a nutshell: some Catholic bishops support universal health care, but say they'll oppose health insurance reform legislation that doesn't bar any government funds from being used to pay for abortions. Kennedy has criticized that as "an absolute red herring and I don't think that it does anything but to fan the flames of dissent and discord and I don't think it's productive at all" and said "If the church is pro-life, then they ought to be for health care reform because it's going to provide health care that are going to keep people alive."
In response, Waters writes:
Kennedy's comments do seem to ignore some crucial facts: Most importantly -- as Georgetown/On Faith blogger Thomas J. Reese points out -- U.S. Catholic bishops for decades have been at the forefront of the campaign for health-care reform. "The bishops are appalled that more than 46 million people do not have health insurance," Reese wrote.
Well, no. Kennedy's comments don't "ignore" the "crucial fact" that the bishops say they are appalled at the number of people without health insurance. Kennedy's comments are in response to the bishops prioritization of abortion over health care. People may agree with the bishops on that prioritization, but Waters is wrong to claim that Kennedy is "ignor[ing] some crucial facts." In fact, Waters is missing the nature of the disagreement between Kennedy and the bishops, which is not about whether it is appalling that people lack health insurance, but about whether the bishops should oppose legislation that would insure them because it doesn't ban federal funds from indirectly paying for abortions.
Now, keep in mind, the question at hand isn't whether abortion should be legal -- that has literally nothing to do with the current debate. Nothing in the health care bill would have any effect on that.
The question, then, is whether to sacrifice what Waters describes as "a basic human right" that "Catholic bishops have spoken out consistently and courageously for" -- universal health care -- so as to avoid the possibility that public funds indirectly pay for abortions that are, regardless, quite legal.
Waters is so intent on siding with the Catholic Bishops and against Kennedy -- and on defending the Bishops for being "consistent" -- that he misses the real question. It isn't whether the Bishops have long held the same position -- that's a standard that could be used to defend any number of unfortunate policy positions. It's whether it is wise to sacrifice what you believe is a "basic human right" for the sake of what is essentially an accounting issue. It's a question about the choices the bishops make when two long-stated priorities are in apparent tension.
At one point, Waters does acknowledge the question of priorities, but he treats it as a side issue:
You can argue about whether Catholic bishops are putting too much emphasis on abortion in this case -- especially given the Administration's assurances that laws prohibiting federal funding of abortions will remain in place. No doubt some bishops have politicized the issue of abortion to the point of becoming partisan shills. But as a group, Catholic bishops have spoken out consistently and courageously for universal health care -- especially on behalf of the poor -- as a basic human right.
The question of whether the bishops are putting too much emphasis on abortion in this case isn't, as Waters portrays it, a side question. It's the whole issue. Waters is essentially arguing that we should ignore the question of what the bishops actually do to bring about universal health care and how they prioritize health care, because they've spoken "courageously" in favor of the concept of universal health care. He has it exactly backwards. (Waters, of course, does not explain what is "courageous" about speaking in favor of health care. The answer, particularly when you aren't willing to make any difficult choices in order to make universal health care more likely, is "nothing.")
And, by the way, that's true no matter where you come down on the question of priorities. Let's say you think it's more important for the church to take the symbolic stand against abortion than to help insure the "basic human right" of universal health care. Now: if the bishops supported health care reform legislation that explicitly expanded abortion rights, would your position be "oh, well, the bishops have spoken out consistently and courageously against abortion, and that's what's important"? Of course not.
The whole question is about prioritization. That much is clear, no matter what you think the priority should be. And it's clear that's what Kennedy is talking about. Waters, however, seems to think how you prioritize goals and values isn't important, as long as you pay lip service to both of them. In Waters' approach a politician who says he supports universal health care but votes against it because he doesn't like government should be given credit for supporting universal health care. It just doesn't make any sense.
US News & World Report's Washington Whispers blog has obtained a copy of The Persecution of Sarah Palin: How the Elite Media Tried to Bring Down a Rising Star, Weekly Standard staff writer Matthew Continetti's sob-story book on how the press was so incredibly mean to Palin. If you like really dumb arguments, this is apparently the book for you. From WW's post (emphasis added):
Liberal-leaning feminists, especially comic Tina Fey, the 30 Rock star who portrayed Palin on Saturday Night Live, were jealous of Palin. "Palin's sudden global fame rankled those feminists whose own path to glory had been difficult. To them, Palin was less a female success story than she was the beneficiary of male chauvinism," writes Continetti. He holds out Fey and her TV character for special criticism. "It was telling that Fey should be the actress who impersonated Palin. The two women may look like each other, but they could not be more dissimilar. Each exemplifies a different category of feminism. Palin comes from the I-can-do-it-all school. She is professionally successful, has been married for more than 20 years, and has a large and (from all outward appearances) happy family. And while Fey is also pretty, married, and has a daughter, the characters she portrays in films like Mean Girls and Baby Mama, and in television shows like 30 Rock, are hard-pressed eggheads who give up personal fulfillment-e.g., marriage and motherhood-in the pursuit of professional success," he writes. "On 30 Rock, Fey, who is also the show's chief writer and executive producer, plays Liz Lemon, a television comedy writer modeled on herself. Liz Lemon is smart, funny, and at the top of her field. But she fails elsewhere. None of her relationships with men works out. She wants desperately to raise a child but can find neither the time nor the means to marry or adopt. Lemon makes you laugh, for sure. But you also would be hard pressed to name a more unhappy person on American TV."
If you followed that, Continetti claims that Fey and Palin "could not be more dissimilar." Why? Well, Palin "is professionally successful, has been married for more than 20 years, and has a large and (from all outward appearances) happy family." On the other hand, Fey... well... is also apparently married with a daughter, but the CHARACTERS SHE PLAYS are not. In short, his evidence that Fey and Palin "could not be more dissimilar" is that Palin and LIZ LEMON are different. And that proves that Fey is the type of feminist purportedly out to get Palin because Fey is "rankled" that her own "path to glory" was more difficult.
In other news, Barack Obama and Will Smith could not be more dissimilar because Obama has yet to blow up an alien mothership.
More nonsense from the British press, although this is a narrative the Beltway Village is also fond of.
Breathless headline? Check:
Barack Obama sees worst poll rating drop in 50 years
Breathless lede? Check [emphasis added]:
Gallup recorded an average daily approval rating of 53 per cent for Mr Obama for the third quarter of the year, a sharp drop from the 62 per cent he recorded from April. His current approval rating – hovering just above the level that would make re-election an uphill struggle – is close to the bottom for newly-elected president. Mr Obama entered the White House with a soaring 78 per cent approval rating.
Complete absence of context? Check.
Not that anyone cares, but in October 1981, Ronald Reagan's job approval rating stood at almost the exact same point as Obama's today. And this was after Reagan enjoyed a huge spike in popularity following an assassin's attempt on the president's life.
In fact, in May of 1981, Reagan's job approval rating stood at very robust 68 percent. Then by October, it was down to 55 percent, according to Gallup. Obama? In May his job approval rating stood at a very robust 66 percent, now it's around 53 percent.
In other words, Obama is on the exact job approval path as Ronald Reagan, whom most Republicans and journalists claim to be among the most successful, and popular, presidents of the last half-century. The only twist is that for Obama, this is all very bad news. The press harps on the dip in Obama's job approval rating since the spring, but remains silent on the fact that Reagan's polling looked exactly the same.
And yes, there's a deep irony in watching former Reagan speech writer Peggy Noonan take shots at Obama's "falling poll numbers," while remaining mum about the fact that Obama's poll numbers precisely mirror the ones her GOP hero posted.
Under the header "What if George W. Bush had done that?" Politico's Josh Gerstein indulges the right-wing persecution complex by arguing Barack Obama is benefitting from friendlier media coverage than his predecessor got.
Are you kidding me?
George W. Bush wanted to go to war in Iraq, so he made up some phony reasons for it. And the media, rather than scrutinizing his case for war, helped him along. That was a damn war. That alone pretty much ends the discussion. (Gerstein gives Iraq a passing mention in paragraph 16.)
But lets take a closer look at Gerstein's silliness.
He opens with mention of Obama making a "four-hour stop in New Orleans, on his way to a $3 million fundraiser." Apparently, Gerstein wants us to think that seeming indifference towards, and botched handling of, a deadly natural disaster while it is still unfolding is no worse than stopping at the site of the disaster for four hours ... four years later.
Another: "Doing more fundraisers than the last president. More golf, too."
Bush spent 487 days at Camp David, and 490 days at his ranch in Crawford -- where, among other things, he neglected to read a certain Presidential Daily Briefing entitled "Bin Laden Determined to attack Inside the U.S." A month later, Bin Laden did. I trust Gerstein will let us know when Obama blows off a similar memo during a golf outting.
And quickly add, with a hint of jealousy: How does Obama get away with it?
"We have a joke about it. We're going to start a website: IfBushHadDoneThat.com," former Bush counselor Ed Gillespie said. "The watchdogs are curled up around his feet, sleeping soundly. ... There are countless examples: some silly, some serious."
George W. Bush's predecessor was hounded for years over a land deal in which he lost money, and impeached -- due in no small part to media hyperventilation -- because he lied about an affair. Bush lied about a war and the press helped him do it.
For a reporter to pretend that George W. Bush has gotten tougher treatment from the press than other presidents is laugh-out-loud absurd.
Media observers note that the president often gets kid-glove treatment from the press, fellow Democrats and, particularly, interest groups on the left - Bush's loudest critics, Obama's biggest backers.
There's only one word for that: Stupid.
Seriously, it's a newsworthy phenomenon that Democrats and liberal interest groups were harder on Bush than they have been on Obama? Uh, Josh? What about Republicans and conservative interest groups? Have they, by chance, been tougher on Obama than they were on Bush?
(The Atlantic's Marc Ambinder, by the way, has argued "the left has held Barack Obama's feet to the fire way more than the right ever did to George W, Bush." That concept is missing from Gerstein's little essay.)
Don't they have editors at Politico?
Only Dana Milbank could write an entire column about the "proposal" Harry Reid laid out at yesterday's press conference without explaining what Reid actually proposed: That the health reform bill he is sending to the CBO will include a public option giving the states the choice to opt-out. Since that policy detail pretty much undermines his entire column, it's not surprising that he left it out. After all, Milbank's columns are about the story, not the facts. Here are a few bits of "color" Milbank includes from the press conference instead of mentioning, you know, what Reid actually proposed:
"Do you feel 100 percent sure right now that you have the 60 votes?" CNN's Dana Bash inquired. Reid looked down at the lectern. He looked up at the ceiling. He chuckled. He put his palms together as if in prayer. Then he spoke.
Instead of answering, Reid, with a Zen expression, looked to the back of the room to solicit a question from somebody else.
By this time, Reid's spokesman, Jim Manley, had one foot on the podium, as if he were ready to rush the stage and whisk his boss to safety.
More than 50 reporters jammed the Senate TV studio for the afternoon announcement. Photographers crawled on the floor, looking for a good angle. Reid's arrival was unusually punctual, and the usually free-form leader read from a typewritten speech.
Manley had heard enough. "Thank you!" he called out, lending a shoulder to his boss to help him off the stage.
So, basically the gist of Milbank's column is that in making his announcement (the one Milbank never gets around to explaining), Reid bowed before the "formidable power of liberal interest groups." In Milbank's world, Reid knows that he doesn't have 60 votes for the public option, but doesn't think he can win re-election without progressive support, so he caved to them in order to "keep his hero status on the left."
Here's another explanation: The Senate Finance Committee passed a bill with no public option. The Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee passed a bill with a public option. Reid's proposal is a compromise between the two. The "liberal interest groups" whose "formidable power" Reid trembles before originally wanted single-payer health care, then compromised to a strong public option pegged to Medicare rates, which is a long way from the "level-playing field" opt-out public option Reid proposed.
And, of course, there's the fact that a strong public option would lower health care costs and thus be good public policy. I mention that last point because Milbank grants anonymity to "Democratic aides" who say that Reid's proposal "had less to do with health-care policy than with Nevada politics," but provides no analysis whatsoever of the proposal's possible merits or flaws. I wonder if those aides are connected to the "half a dozen moderates" Milbank says Reid "shift the public pressure" to from himself? I guess we'll never know.
The following images are posted in FoxNews.com's slideshow of "[s]ometimes funny, sometimes serious" images "of President Obama and the health care debate":
FoxNews.com states of its slideshow:
Today's topic -- images on the Web of President Obama and the health care debate. Sometimes funny, sometimes serious these images say it with pictures instead of words. Want to be a part of 'Photo Op'? Send us your photo op-ed to firstname.lastname@example.org. None of the images shown here were created by Fox News.
Don't these tsk-tsking media elite columns pretty much write themselves at this point? (No wonder they're so popular!) Proving it's never to late to say exactly what everyone else has already said, Meacham does just that. And yes, it reads like a parody, and yes Meacham never even hints that Fox News ought to change its behavior or be held responsible for the wildly irresponsible programming it sponsors.
For elites like Meacham, this "debate" is all about the White House.
Laugh along as you read Meacham's description of Fox News:
Still, to many liberals, Murdoch and Ailes are the scary Wild Things of the last decade or so in American politics, the men on whom many of the evils of the world can be blamed. For these progressive true believers, the White House's recent attack on the channel as a partisan machine is a welcome signal of a feisty, fighting Obama administration.
That's it for the whole column. Can Meacham play any more dumb about the "talented and influential" Roger Ailes? I suspect not. Does Fox news constantly air falsehoods under the guise of journalism? Did it recently lead a homophobic smear campaigns against administration official? Does it traffic in violent, insurgency rhetoric. Does it act as a propaganda arm of the RNC?
Newsweek readers have no idea because Meacham doesn't devote one sentence to actually describing that Fox News' programming looks like. (Does the Newsweek editor actually watch Fox News? I suspect not.) Meacham couldn't care less about the White House allegation that Fox News isn't legitimate and Meacham never gives it a second thought. The column, like every other MSM column on this topic, isn't about Fox News. It's never about Fox News or its constant crimes against journalism.
Instead, it's about the White House. And tactics. And politics. And process. (Meacham claims to know the real motive for the White House's attacks on Fox News.)
The Nation's Eric Alterman got it dead right last week when he wrote:
It's a sad symbol of the state of contemporary American journalism that the White House communications office is doing more to maintain the honor of the profession than are many journalists.
The White House is trying to spark a debate about journalism in this country; it's trying to shine a light on the Fox News. But status qua-loving media elites like Meacham don't want anything to do with that debate.
From William Kristol's October 27 Washington Post column:
Obviously, many Republicans and conservatives -- and lots of moderates and independents -- will be grateful to Mitch McConnell if he can stop ObamaCare, and to Jon Kyl if he can induce the president to embrace a stronger foreign policy. But it's unlikely that the minority party in Congress will be the source of bold new conservative leadership over the next three years. Even if Republicans pick up the House in 2010, the party's big ideas and themes for the 2012 presidential race will probably not emanate from Capitol Hill.
The center of gravity, I suspect, will instead lie with individuals such as Palin and Huckabee and Gingrich, media personalities like Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh, and activists at town halls and tea parties. Some will lament this -- but over the past year, as those voices have dominated, conservatism has done pretty well in the body politic, and Republicans have narrowed the gap with Democrats in test ballots
From Chuck Norris' October 27 column, "Obama's One-World Government":
Halloween just got scarier -- much scarier.
Flying deep under Washington's radar is an upcoming (December) global climate change conference in Copenhagen, the "United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change."
It all sounds pretty politically benign, doesn't it? Not according to Christopher Monckton, who was a science policy adviser to Margaret Thatcher. Monckton spoke to the Minnesota Free Market Institute.
"I have read that treaty," Monckton said, "and what it says is this: that a world government is going to be created. The word 'government' actually appears as the first of three purposes of the new entity. The second purpose is the transfer of wealth from the countries of the West to Third World countries in satisfaction of what is called, coyly, 'climate debt' -- because we've been burning CO2 and they haven't. And we've been screwing up the climate and they haven't. ... And the third purpose of this new entity, this government, is enforcement. How many of you think that the word 'election' or 'democracy' or 'vote' or 'ballot' occurs anywhere in the 200 pages of that treaty? Quite right, it doesn't appear once."
Monckton then warned that if Obama were to sign the treaty, he would be flushing U.S. sovereignty down the global toilet. He further pointed out that even though ratification of our president's signature on that treaty would need 67 votes in the Senate, it could pass via a simple majority as an amendment to the cap-and-trade bill.
PolitiFact (as well as many left-leaning blogs) quickly criticized Monckton's conclusions as conspiratorial and climate-skepticism rhetoric, based upon the notion that the treaty is a draft and not a finalized document. The apologetic of PolitiFact leaves the impression that the current draft is the roughest of cuts, but in reality, it is the result of seven sessions of deliberations and revisions from several subgroups, including representatives from developed and developing countries "with a view to modifying it in the direction of consolidation and convergence."
As I myself read through the latest draft of the 181-page treaty, I noticed many lines that could warrant Monckton's and others' concerns. Phrases such as "creation of new levels of cooperation," "a shift in global investment patterns," "adjust global economic growth patterns," "integrated system of financial and technology transfer mechanisms," "new agreed post-2012 institutional arrangement and legal framework," "new institutional arrangement will provide technical and financial support for developing countries," "global fund," etc., are messages that make one wonder how far this political body's arm would reach into our country and force our hands into others.
Then there are red-flag statements such as these:
--"Ensuring that global crises, such as the financial crisis, should not constitute an obstacle to the provision of financial and technical assistance to developing countries in accordance with the Convention." (Page 11)
--"The scheme for the new institutional arrangement under the Convention will be based on three basic pillars: government; facilitative mechanism; and financial mechanism, and the basic organization of which will include the following: ..." (Page 18)
--"Particular effort should be taken to enhance cooperation amongst intergovernmental organizations." (Page 47)
--"A special fund shall be established: (a) For the economic and social consequences of response measures. ... (b) To assist countries whose economies are highly dependent on income generated from the production, processing and export, and/or on consumption of fossil fuels." (Page 138)
Now, if that isn't one powerful intergovernmental or global-governmental group overseeing and manipulating America's and others' economic and political conditions, I don't know what is.
And does anyone doubt that our president, as a Nobel Peace Prize laureate who believes he can negotiate with terrorists and dictators, has a global desire for international coalescence? Or should it not concern us that at the G-20 conference, he pushed for world leaders to reshape the global economy?
From The Washington Times' October 27 editorial, "Green World Government":
Environmental alarmism is being exploited to chip away at national sovereignty. The latest threat to American liberties may be found in the innocuous sounding Copenhagen Climate Treaty, which will be discussed at the United Nations climate-change conference in mid-December. The alert was sounded on the treaty in a talk given by British commentator Lord Christopher Monckton at Bethel College in St. Paul, Minn., on Oct. 14. Video of the talk has become an Internet sensation.
The treaty's text is not yet finalized but its principles are aimed at regulating all economic activity in the name of climate security, with a side effect that billions of dollars would be transferred from productive countries to the unproductive.
The control lever is the regulation of carbon emissions, which some purport are causing global warming. The treaty would establish a Carbon Market Regulatory Agency and "global carbon budget" for each country.
In effect, this would allow the treaty's governing bodies to limit manufacturing, transportation, travel, agriculture, mining, energy production and anything else that emits carbon - like breathing.
Treaty supporters market the agreement through fear. Even though mean global temperatures have been on a downward spiral for several years after peaking in 1998, we are told that catastrophe is imminent. "The world has already crossed the threshold beyond which it is no longer possible to avoid negative impacts of anthropogenic climate change," says proposed treaty language being circulated by Greenpeace, the World Wildlife Fund and other groups. It is critical that they cultivate a sense of impending doom to justify the sweeping restrictions and new powers enshrined in the treaty. The sky is falling and they want us to act now, act swiftly, act before it is too late - but don't read the fine print.
We look forward to headlines about record cold temperatures during the December climate summit, and to hearing desperate speeches about stopping irresistible global warming during the signing ceremony, held during a blizzard.