Romney's spin

Romney may have instituted a universal healthcare reform in the state of Massachusetts, but when it comes to explaining why he opposes the new healthcare reform in the country, he's at a slight loss for words. Although, in his defense, he does his best to try and nuance the distinction between the two.

The nytimes, while probably not on Romney's side, shows how he is trying to make the case against Obama's plan while defending his own actions back as Governor of Massachusetts. Currently he's on a book tour for his latest "Mitt Romney: No Apology". No sense either.

He clearly wants to woo the conservative republican base while not looking like a flip-flopper on his own policies. It's tough, and unfortunately, he's having trouble maneuvering out of this one. The best he can come up with? His was a state plan, whereas Obama's is a national plan. State sovereignty will always trump federal policy.
The media's not buying the spin though, at least not the nytimes. So I decided to check out how other papers are covering this, focusing mainly on conservative papers. I found this by the wall street journal. Basically, it's the same article as the times posted (they're both written by their own writers though), minus some of the harsher language used in the times. It's a clear hypocrisy, and it's nice to see not just one side recognizing it.

Fox News lied. To everyone.

Recently saw this article posted by mediamatters at the end of March. It details the progression of Fox News' advocation against Obama & the healthcare bill, and how the network actively sought to misinform, enrage, and then encourage citizens to go forth and do their bidding.

The power of journalism gone awry, in the most serious kind of way.

Fox News did the following:

1. Had their hosts denounce the healthcare plan (during both the "news" and "opinions" hours) and celebrated when Democrats faced setbacks or difficulties

2. Encouraged viewers to contact congress & state their opposition to the bill (stepping away from reporting and moving towards advocation)
3. Announced, publicized, and encouraged viewers to go to different protest rallies across the country. Then, they would broadcast these people on the network, creating a continuous stream of making news for themselves and influencing the behavior of their viewers.

4. Offered unequivocal support of Republican congressmen (including Scott Brown) and used the anger (that they created) to springboard their platform of bolstering Republican campaigns & election coverage. Also offered support to tea partiers who harassed Democratic congressmen & women. Furthermore, they solicited donations for Republicans and boasted about how much they raised.

5. Misinformed viewers copious times about the information in the bill, the implications of the bill, and the effects the bill would have, all in an effort to promote their own agenda.

Mediamatters really did their research here, and they have all the video & clips to back up their assertions. I don't doubt what they found is true. I'm not even shocked. I am saddened that a news network, who still continues to claim non-intervention and non-partisan coverage of issues (complete with the mantra "fair & balanced") could be so harmful to the practices of journalism as well as detrimental to the American people. Many Americans were outraged when they learned the Bush administration had lied to them. I wonder how they would feel if they learned the same of their beloved Fox news.

This is undoubtedly the media's power to influence the minds of Americans, at its worst.

Giuliani mentions 9/11, misunderstands everything else

Rudy Giuliani held the torch for the conservative right and came out to attack Obama's plan to cut back our nuclear arsenals by 30%. Crooks and liars, albeit a very left-wing blog, does some good in pointing out the hypocrisies of Giuliani's statements. Some highlights of Giuliani on Hannity:

1. Giuliani fails to see that what Obama is doing, is exactly what Reagan did in 1983
2. "The biological agents and chemical agents that are available can do incredible catast...kill thousands and thousands of people"
3. "To announce how we might respond seems entirely irresponsible and naive"
4. Claims smallpox is still a danger to society.
5. It took Giuliani less than 10 seconds to mention the words "9/11". Lol.

Ok,

1. When Reagan does it, it's good. When Obama does it, it's bad. Typical hypocrisy depending on who's in power.

2.If these weapons can do such damage to mankind, how is that an argument FOR continuing to maintain an arsenal?
3. Yes, the terrorists in North Korea (who the treaty doesn't apply to!) will now be able to craft an attack based on our plans not to use nuclear weapons.... Apparently Giuliani missed the clause of the new agreement that states we reserve the right to use nuclear force in defense (a.k.a when attacked)

4. Smallpox has been eradicated from the world.

5. 9/11.

As crooksandliars put it:

"Everything that comes out from most of the right wing these days has no basis in reality. They speak only for the purpose of scoring cheap political points."

Truth.

The healthcare debate lives on through bloggers

I recently started reading a blog by a man named Mario Piperni, who I originally found through another blog that was recommended by the nytimes. He's quite good, and he updates several times a day on different topics. He's leans a little to the left (like most bloggers) but he seems to have an even-temper in regards to political issues. Anyways, enough of a plug.

He recently wrote this post on the healthcare debate, and how a desire for what should be considered a human right has been turned into a highly politicized debate. He gets to the heart of the argument when he writes:

Tens of millions have no health insurance. Tens of millions of others have lost their insurance because they lost their jobs in the time of recession. The cost of health care in the United States is one of the highest in the world. I could go on here but you know the rest, I’m sure.

How is this acceptable to anyone regardless of their political persuasion? This is the point. As much as conservatives want to make this an issue of bigger government, it is not. It is about fiscal responsibility and respect and dignity for your fellow Americans.

He's right. Before all the chaos started in congress, before rational and ethical debates turned into mud-slinging and personalized attacks, and long before anyone began to discuss the merits of a public option, there was this: Healthcare is broken, it's not working for the citizens, and it needs to be fixed.

Piperni is correct here in asserting that reform had a higher calling than that of partisan arguments. Holding and valuing human life as equal to your own was the matter at stake. It was high time America stepped away from its narrow-view of promoting laissez-faire economics through all walks of life, and started caring about their fellow citizens. This wasn't about socialism/communism, or big government trying to expand its powers. It's about human rights.

It all comes back full circle

Read this gem in politico today as Obama signed the new nuclear arms agreement with Russia's President Vladimir Putin Dmitri Medvedev to cut back their arsenals by one third over the next seven years. The world is now a safer place, at least if you're in the Super Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty Justice League.

While the article is a little too rosy for my liking, writing beauties such as, "In a gilded hall here in a castle" (am I reading a fairy tale or a diplomatic meeting between two superpowers?) "Obama [...] seemed to be in good spirits heading into [...] a significant foreign policy accomplishment to build on his recent health care successes" (define success, then we'll talk) and then goes on to discuss a jocular encounter between Obama and Robert Gibbs.

I guess all is swell in negotiations to control this kind of power.

The cherry on top is that this new treaty was signed in Prague, where one year ago Obama made a speech declaring his dedication to a nuclear-free world. While this treaty is a start (no pun intended) it certainly is not the complete fulfillment of Obama's promise. I am interested to see how this plays out alongside Obama's goals in when & where nuclear combat can be used (see previous post).

On another note, If the media's role is to influence American perceptions about the state of affairs in the world (whether things are "good" or "bad") Politico is doing a great job in moving away from observational reporting and moving towards opinionated news.

Jon Stewart exposes hypocrisies, again.

Like most other young Americans, I like to watch The Daily Show. The other day one of my favorite people, Reza Aslan, was appearing, so I made sure to tune in. In the beginning of the show I caught this:

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Inethical Basterds
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Tea Party

Fast-forward to 3:46.

Jon Stewart explains how one doctor is already looking to not provide coverage to patients who voted for Obama. His reasoning for hating Obama & the healthcare reform? He found some stuff on the internet that told him hospices were going to be cut by 2012. Although this has no basis in reality, the man uses the Elizabeth Hasselbeck defense - he found it on the internet, and therefore it must be true.
He's a doctor.

He's supposed to be one of the brightest, most-educated individuals in the country. And yet, his mind has been clouded by the misinformation spewed by thedrudgereport, Rush Limbaugh, and Fox & Friends.

If this is the misunderstanding of a doctor, how can there be hope for the rest of the country?

START 2.0

I'd like to call to attention this article that I saw in the nytimes today. Following the announcement 2 weeks ago that Russia & the U.S. would cut their nuclear arsenals by about 30%, Obama has decided to revamp the current policies of where & when nuclear arms are acceptable to use.

As part of this new policy, Obama is limiting the terms under which the U.S. may use weapons in their stockpile, as well as ceasing development of any new weapons. However, this non-use of nuclear power is only valid for countries in compliance with the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, which is currently signed by U.S, England, France, Russia, and China.

In other words, Iran and North Korea are still fair game (if necessary).

As the nytimes notes, with this announcement Obama is making himself vulnerable to criticism from both the left and the right. Of course, I don't think Obama can do anything at this point without being criticized by both ends, as the hyper-partisan nature of politics right now almost demands it. For every two "Obama is soft on national defense" and "Obama is putting our children's safety at risk" there's at least one "Obama has failed to produce the necessary progressive policies for the 21st century". There is very little middle ground for him to tread.

From recent class discussions, I realize that Obama is trying to frame a new national discussion around nuclear weapons and national defense. Coming off of the breakthrough agreement with Russia, now is a good time to keep the idea of diplomacy between nations fresh in the minds of Americans (or at least try to). With the healthcare bill passed, Obama's new prerogative is to start checking off all the other items on his "to do" list*.

Furthermore, although the 2010 November elections are still far away, in political time they're quite close. The momentum is already starting to build for Republican candidates (with help from the ire over the healthcare bill). It seems Obama's current strategy is to try and counteract the negativity with a laundry list of other accomplishments. However, only time will tell how the voters in November will weigh these against each other. One thing the Democrats do have going for them is the few months grace between now and November, since time will tend to neutralize people's memories and emotions about the divisive healthcare bill. However, healthcare reform is so momentous that I'm not even sure time could heal the wounds.

* = not including DADT, because we can reform healthcare, repair US/Russia relations, and maybe even get new regulations for Wall Street, but God forbid we let homosexuals be soldiers.

Policy Concessions: Good or Bad?

A post on Ezra Klein's blog calls to attention an article written by David Roberts about the avoidance of Democrats from up-or-down votes. Republicans historically fall in line and follow out the orders from the upper echelons of the party. Democrats, on the other hand, don't follow in lockstep and instead, compromise and water down versions of bills.

Roberts argues that Democrats should be proposing maximally effective policies, get the Dems in line behind it, and worry about the politics later. The truth is, regardless of what the Democrats propose (it could even be a continuation of Bush's legacy!) the Republicans will be relentless in their opposition. This in itself is true.

However, as the author of the post writes, not all concessions are made equal. In his words:


But offering a minor concession to a vulnerable senator, who can then go home and say they only voted for the bill after having fought to make it better, doesn't make for a bad trade. Whipping members from ideologically diverse constituencies is tough enough with a leadership willing to broker deals; removing that tool would only make the process more difficult.

I agree here, but I still think that there has to be some sort of middle ground between the two ideas. Offering concessions to members within the own party does seem fair & rational, but if you look in the case of Bart Stupak, sometimes it's just a recipe for deadlock. Especially in issues as monumental as healthcare reform, compromises are what create more problems and difficulties, and divide a party even further.