Abortion- Or Gender- Politics

The House has approved its, albeit deeply flawed, version of health care legislation. Some blogs have been effectively pointing out (most recently inclusion of the Stupak anti-choice amendment) the various problems with the bill as passed in the lower chamber. There is, of course, Digby, as well as Susie Madrak of Crooks and Liars. And most prolific has been Firedoglake, where Jon Walker has repeatedly examined the amendment which apparently brought enough conservative Democrats to the (small “p”) party to ensure passage. And the site’s proprietor, Jane Hamsher, posted provocatively on this topic yesterday afternoon.

Hamsher notes- as she had previously- the failure of NARAL and Planned Parenthood to act aggressively to defend a woman’s right to terminate a pregnancy in light of their desire to participate in President Emanuel’s inner circle and notes, somewhat sarcastically (emphasis hers)

Wait…Planned Parenthood and NARAL are scoring the bill, right?

Laurie Rubiner, Planned Parenthood’s vice president of public policy, declined to say whether her organization would consider a vote in favor of the bill as a vote against abortion rights on its congressional scorecard.

Evidently “the organization must tread carefully to promote reproductive rights without sabotaging a health care bill they would otherwise find generally beneficial.”

They may be able to sell that in the weekly Common Purpose veal-pen roundup, but I’m not sure it’s going to go over so well with women who just lost control of their uteruses to Bart Stupak.

“David NYC” makes a (or two) particularly interesting, and cogent, point on, ironically, the blog (Daily Kos) run by the reflexively pro-Obama Markos Moulitsas, when he notes of NARAL and another pro-choice organization:

Instead, we've seen NARAL waste money on hopeless Republicans like Dede Scozzafava just to preserve their "bipartisan" cred. They also infamously endorsed Joe "Short Ride" Lieberman over Ned Lamont. Meanwhile, EMILY's List supported a primary challenger last year named Nikki Tinker against a Congressman with a spotless pro-choice record, Rep. Steve Cohen. To give you a sense of how effective that challenge was, Tinker ran ads which were so offensive that EMILY wound up condemning its own candidate. Combined, Scozzafava and Tinker wound up with 24% of the vote. Simply put, the priorities of pro-choice organizations like this need to change.

What could Dede Scozzafava, running in upstate New York a campaign nearly hopeless from the start and Nikki Tinker (whose ad was properly condemned by Keith Olbermann and Barack Obama), campaigning down in Tennessee, possibly have in common?

Don’t think too hard- the answer is the first you came up with.

It’s a disease, figuratively speaking, afflicting some-some- elements of the progressive left (and not only women), as it has in the past afflicted the right.

While if insight and readability are the two most important criteria in the quality of the blog, there is none better than Digby, she demonstrated this tendency recently when unfortunately remarking:

I would have to guess that if more than 17% of the congress were women, there would be a little bit less likelihood that women's rights would be so often used as a handy tool to placate neanderthals. That's just a guess. Habits are hard to break.

Unless, of course, those additional women were Republicans, 17 of 17 of whom voted for the Stupak amendment in the House (which, admittedly, Digby pointed out). Sure, only two of the 56 Democratic women in the House voted for the measure; but fewer than one-third of the men did so. The problem, Digby, is not primarily one of gender.

And then you have MSNBC’s Nancy Snyderman, after making a few good points and before making another, inexpicably claiming

A white man deciding a woman's…… a woman's responsibility in her own procreation. I mean I ... I find it infuriating. I mean, I really think it doesn't matter what side of the abortion issue or pro-choice issue you're on, the fact that they are now making health care harder and harder for women to navigate the system. I think it's outrageous—just outrageous.

A white man? How did that get in there? The problem, Dr. Snyderman, is not primarily gender, nor race at all.

There still are elements of gender (see Limbaugh, Rush) and racial (see Limbaugh, Rush) bigotry on the Repub right. But that is not cause to over-emphasize the issue of gender, or to invoke the issue of race, in abortion politics. That is one, among many, traits of the Republican Party not to emulate.

Pelosi and Obama, Triumphant

Before Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck have a chance to proclaim Saturday night's passage in the House of Representatives of a health care bill, sponsored by Democrat John Dingell of Michigan, a loss for President Obama (and perhaps his party), let us ponder the enormity of this political triumph.

It was a major political victory for the President and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi. Passage in the Senate of its own bill, though likely, is not certain; and the nearly almost progressive bill passed in the House thereafter probably will be eviscerated in conference. But if the forces of reform in the country (U.S. Representatives, the public, special interest groups) were on balance strongly arrayed in favor of improving health care, the victory would be unimpressive.

However, given opposition of the insurance industry and dependence of members of Congress upon its largesse, the narrowness of the favorable vote accrues even more to the credit of Mr. Obama and Mrs. Pelosi. The effective vote was nearly as close as possible. The bill officially passed 220 to 215. However, the lone Republican- Joseph Cao of New Orleans, Lousiana- approved the bill only when the vote was 218 to 213, passage was assured, and many House Democrats had erupted in applause. As Cao voted "aye" only after it was a "done deal," it appears he voted in the affirmative only because passage would have ensued even without his vote. Nevertheless, the Congressman's assent was a feather in the cap for both President Obama and chief-of-staff Emmanuel, both of whom had aggressively lobbied Cao for his support. And they got it, enabling them in the weeks ahead to claim reform a "bipartisan effort."

And it was a victory for the Speaker of the House for two reasons. Limbaugh and Politico may have scoffed at the victory Pelosi claimed at the election on Tuesday of pro-reform Democrats in House races in California and New York State, but these two individuals played an important part in passage. Garamendi in California replaced a liberal Democrat, Owens in California a Republican. Replace both with a Republican, the vote is 217-217, with the likelihood Cao would have cast the deciding vote against the legislation.

Additionally, Pelosi (and President Emanuel) won passage only by selling out abortion rights with the introduction, and passage, of the anti-choice amendment of Bart Stupak (D.-MI) earlier in the day. If the amendment (which went beyond the existing restrictions of the Hyde Amendment) had passed and then the bill itself had passed easily, Pelosi would have sacrificed her principles for.... nothing. Clearly, though, the bill would not have passed were it not for approval of Stupak's amendment.

Passage of health care reform came at a big price for the progressive Speaker, but she'll take the "W." It came at little cost for President Obama, who appears to be increasingly unconcerned with the actual content of whatever legislation is ultimately enacted. Saturday wasn't the Super Bowl (or the World Series, or the BCS national championship game) but it was the playoffs, and they weren't eliminated.

Holocaust, Again

It’s not that the poster reading “National Socialist Health Care Dachau Germany 1945” reflects the thinking or IQ of most of the participants in Thursday’s corporate-sponsored anti-health care rally in Washington, D.C. Most of the protesters, even the ill-informed majority, are neither anti-Semitic nor grotesquely ignorant.

Still, Representative Steve Israel (D.-N.Y.) is courageous, and has it mostly correct, when he (video below) referred to the right of free speech and noted

But with that right comes a responsibility by leaders to condemn that kind of expression. I just cannot believe that Congresswoman Bachmann sponsored and brought to the American people the use of images from the Holocaust, actual photographs of the skeletal remains of people from the crematoria, in order to make a point about the health insurance bill.

I can't believe that Congresswoman Bachmann would stand where she stood, and see those images, and not have the common decency to say, 'I disagree with the use of those images.' I think that she owes the memory of those who perished in the Holocaust an apology. She owes us all an apology. And I'm waiting. We're all waiting.

Clearly, use of holocaust imagery to score political points, as we’ve seen from the right previously in its hysterical opposition to health care reform, is reprehensible; and Rep. Israel is right to imply that Representative Bachmann has little sense of common decency. Certainly, she should denounce such expressions that are obviously offensive and politicians, media, and others need to call upon her to do so.

But Bachmann, as this summary from politifact.org graphically illustrates, has been completely unconcerned with the truth, and any apology would be empty and worthless.

Most extreme conservatives these days have no sense of shame or humility. One need only look at the race in the 23rd congressional district of New York. Avidly supported by Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, Bachmann, and much of the Republican right, Douglas Hoffman forced out of the race moderate Republican Dede Scozzafava and managed to lose a congressional seat Repubs have held since Adam and Eve. The day after, Limbaugh commented “Now, I'm telling you, the percentage of the vote that Hoffman got has put the fear of 2010 in the mind of every Blue Dog and in a lot of RINOs. This guy almost pulled it out with his own party running ads against him and endorsing a liberal Republican, and then praising her when she leads and then she endorses the Democrat. And all this is done in 30 days? “ Beck was even more boastful, even more adamant that his cause had triumphed.

There is, generally, no sense of humility and no sense of shame on the Republican right. They win, they gloat. They lose, they gloat.

So don’t expect an apology from the likes of Michele Bachmann- and don’t wish for one. There is no need for this hateful, dishonest creature to utter a banality such as “I apologize if anyone who misunderstood me was offended,” a fairly typical form of the modern “apology.” Her motives are clear, her tactics are clear, and her aims are clear. They are clear, and they are loathsome. And it’s up to the forces of decency in both parties to denounce the destructive radicalism she preaches.

In Case You Didn't Have Enough, More Election Analysis

There is only one thing certain about analysis of election results. Most will be wrong.

This post may be no different. Still, it’s fun, and easy, to criticize a post-mortem from an accomplished journalist which provides a two-fer: two major ideas- and both wrong, if not in letter, then in spirit.

In John Dickerson’s “What a Difference a Year Makes” posted on slate.com on November 4, the author states his themes in the opening sentence of two paragraphs in the middle of the article.

While undeniably technically true that “the evening was not a referendum on Obama,” such an assertion is misleading. There will never be a “referendum on Obama” other than his election on November 4, 2008 and (barring impeachment and conviction, a decision not to run for reelection, or that which is too horrible to contemplate) his reelection bid to be held on November 6, 2008. Short of that, however, this election was at least closer to a referendum on Obama than perceived by someone who could write (was it with a straight face?) “by clear majorities, voters in New Jersey and Virginia said they weren’t basing their decisions on the president. The 60% who said so in New Jersey….”

That leaves 40%, an awfully significant slice of the electorate. Many voters doubtless believe that admitting their vote was based on an estimation of someone not on the ballot would mark themselves as unsophisticated or petty. There is a reason voters frequently boast “I don’t vote for the party; I vote for the candidate.” Though it may indicate otherwise, it appears to identify that individual as someone contemplative who decides on the basis of issues. For upwards of 40 of the electorate to concede that their vote was not based on a thoughtful consideration of issues suggests that President Obama was a major, not minor, factor.

A red flag needs to come up when anyone says “Here’s more bad news for (insert name of candidate and party) in (insert next election year). “ Dickerson does not disappoint, remarking “Here’s more bad news for Obama and Democrats in 2010.” Perhaps it would be bad news for Obama and Democrats in 2010- if (in alphabetical order) it were not for abortion, Afghanistan, crime, energy policy, gas prices, gay rights, health care, immigration, Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, Palestine/Israel, the stock market. And that list omits the economy, generally something of a consideration when voters go to the polls. And, yes, the quality and likeability of the particular candidates.

Dickerson points out that despite visits to their state by the President, the party’s gubernatorial nominees in both New Jersey and Pennsylvania lost amid turnout of Democrats that “wasn’t very good." He contends “the president can explain that he has more influence over issues in the national conversation that will be part of the 2010 races- and that he wasn’t on the ballot anywhere in 2009.” He believes Tuesday’s results will make members of Congress, oradinarily “a nervous bunch…. more so.” They would be right, but not for any reason Dickerson observes: while Obama is a spectacular draw and good fundraiser, there is limited evidence that he has long coattails.

In his original (prior to the 11/4/09 update), Dickerson refers to a program which aired Monday night on HBO, in which

the images of Obama's promises of change seemed disconnected from the familiar small politics of this year's election cycle—and the big one to come next year. The change hasn't come. Perhaps the more helpful message was playing just a few channels away on PBS. On Nova, a program traced the story of the evolution of man more than 3.2 million years ago. The message: Change takes time.

But perceptions play a critical role in voting. And many voters, disinclined to give Obama and company ten months to make change, are going to be even even more incensed if change does not come in the twenty-two months from January, 2009 to November, 2008. After all, while evolution does take time, creationism, an article of faith with a healthy chunk of the electorate, takes far less.

In New Jersey, Not What You've Been Told

Given the adulation on MSNBC and progressive blogs, it appears mandatory to worship at the altar of Nate Silver.

The proprietor of fivethirtyeight.com does very good work analyzing elections, both before and after. Usually. Unfortunately, he writes this morning:

Obama approval was actually pretty strong in New Jersey, at 57 percent, but 27 percent of those who approved of Obama nevertheless voted for someone other than Corzine. This one really does appear to be mostly about Corzine being an unappealing candidate, as the Democrats look like they'll lose just one or two seats in the state legislature in Trenton. Corzine compounded his problems by staying negative until the bitter end of the campaign rather than rounding out his portfolio after having closed the margin with Christie.

On the plus side: Nate properly refers to "Obama approval" as "actually pretty strong in New Jersey," rather than the common portrayal of Obama's support in the state as very strong. But claiming "Corzine compounded his problems by staying negative until the bitter end of the campaign rather than rounding out his portfolio after having closed the margin with Christie," betrays a superficial understanding of this gubernatorial election.

In at least one part of the state, the southern portion, most of the incumbent's commercials in the closing weeks of the campaign were very positive. This was a hard sell, given that New Jerseyans already knew Mr. Corzine from his stint as U.S. Senator and Governor, and had concluded that he is not the warm and fuzzy fellow the ads tried to portray him as.

It's easy to understand Silver's impression of Corzine as having remained "negative until the bitter end of the campaign." Most of the national response to this campaign was formed over the ad run by the Corzine camp showing Chris Christie as is-rather rotund- and contending he "throws his weight around." This was undoubtedly a negative commercial, and of more interest to the national media than the theme of Chris Christie's late commercial blitz, falsely charging that his Democratic opponent had come out for tax increases. It is uncomfortable for so many of the journalistic elite to admit, but negative campaigning works, and it worked here for the challenger.

The media assured its audience during the latter half of the campaign that voters are shocked, shocked that an incumbent governor is accusing the challenger of undue influence. Less was made of the reason for the claim, Mr. Christie's penchant for driving poorly (surely a pardonable offense) and then making sure the police officer who stopped him was well aware of his position as U.S. Attorney (not so benign). Nor was it widely reported that Christie, during the election campaign, suddenly questioned the police report from one of the incidents. Nor that Christie flaunted the law by engaging in politics while serving as U.S. Attorney. Nor that he is the king of no-bid contracts and political cronyism (video of the unethical, negative, dishonest candidate/governor-elect below).

History is written by the victors, it is held. Reporting this morning on the Republican's victory, The Washington Post continued the pre-election theme, however misleading, of Corzine running a negative campaign while Christie was positive. The media, clearly, found in Chris Christie a Republican they could applaud- one who would never question powerful financial interests, but sophisticated enough, in its view, to downplay his opposition to gay and abortion rights.

The strategy proved successful, aided by a great and ever-more powerful American institution, professional sports. The New Jersey electorate already had formed an opinion, mostly negative, of its incumbent governor. It was Corzine's task to draw sufficient attention to the gubernatorial race for voters to form a more negative view of Chris Christie. This had been occuring, as Christie's negatives rose dramatically during the race.

But then entered postseason baseball, in which the New York Yankees, playing just beyond the northeastern border of the state, and the Philadelphia Phillies, playing just beyond the southwestern border of the state, featured prominently. This has been followed by the World Series, in which the two teams are featured more prominently. Most New Jerseyans (not only baseball fans) have had a rooting interest in the outcome. Not surprisingly, far more attention has been showered on their pennant drive, and now their matchup, than on any political contest in the state.

The impact would not have been as severe had there been one issue that could draw the attention of voters from baseball. But, alas, the main issue was property taxes, a perennial problem in New Jersey and issue in its politics, and the environment was custom-made for a challenger who offered few specifics about policy.

With the relatively quiet election season in N.J., and no cutting-edge difference between the two candidates capturing the attention of its voters , the major issue driving the votes of independents, which Christie won decisively, was the state of the state- and of the country. Voters may not know the details, and may not be ideologically driven, but they do know this: Democrats control Trenton and Washington, D.C.- and things are not good. For many people, in an election featuring the media's definition of a "good" Republican, that was enough.

"Victory?"

In an interview telecast (transcript from Think Progress) on Sunday's Fox News Sunday, Rush Limbaugh responded to a question about President Obama's Afghanistan policy from Chris Wallace by claiming

if he cared about victory — remember, he said about Afghanistan victory is not something he’s comfortable with, the concept. It reminds him of the Japanese surrendering on the USS Missouri. It made him very uncomfortable.

He wants to manage this rather than achieve victory. He says these things. I don’t know if people actually listen and have them register when he does.

Almost true- or almost almost true. On July 23, the President told ABC News "I'm always worried about using the word 'victory,' because, you know, it invokes this notion of Emperor Hirohito coming down and signing a surrender to MacArthur." But then he went on to clarify the aims of the U.S.A. in Afghanistan:

We're not dealing with nation states at this point. We're concerned with Al Qaeda and the Taliban, Al Qaeda's allies. So when you have a non-state actor, a shadowy operation like Al Qaeda, our goal is to make sure they can't attack the United States....

We are confident that if we are assisting the Afghan people and improving their security situation, stabilizing their government, providing help on economic development ... those things will continue to contract the ability of Al Qaeda to operate. And that is absolutely critical.

No, President Obama is not interested in calling something a "victory" while not achieving victory. Now, in determining the proper course of U.S. policy in central Asia, he remains far more concerned with "contract(ing) the ability of Al Qaeda to operate," largely "to make sure they can't attack the United States."

What would "victory" look like in Afghanistan(or in Pakistan, a nation Rush seldom acknowledges)? Wallace didn't ask him and wisely, Limbaugh never said. Obama's concept of success in the region, ironically but not surprisingly, looks a lot closer than Limbaugh's to that of General Petraeus, whom Rush claims to hold in high regard. Asked by the BBC in September, 2008 "Do you think you will ever use the word 'victory,' the General responded

I don't know that I will. I think that all of us at different times have recognized the need for real restraint in our assessments, in our pronouncements, if you will. And we have tried to be very brutally honest and forthright in what we have provided to Congress, to the press, and to ourselves.

Later elaborating, he explained

This is not the sort of struggle where you take a hill, plant the flag and go home to a victory parade...it's not war with a simple slogan.

It's not only on GOP TV, unfortunately. Limbaugh and politicians in his party routinely use the word "victory" without defining anything. The term is invoked to stop discussion, to imply their view is the only patriotic one. Rarely are they asked to clarify their statement or define their term, and all discussion stops. Mission Accomplished.

A Slippery Slope To Irrelevance

Health care. New cars. What’s the difference? Not much.

You’re looking to buy a new vehicle, perhaps a small SUV. Perhaps one built by an American manufacturer. You drive to a Ford dealership and ask about ordering a new Edge, whose MSRP (base model, or, before sexual inhibitions set in, “stripped”) is $26,920. Wisely, you say that you do not want to pay more than $25,190, and want it with the cargo accessory package, list price $290.

The salesman says that he (still a male-dominated profession) can give the vehicle to you for $25,975, but without the cargo accessory package- although he’ll throw in the all weather floor mats, listed at $75. After all, he urges, you’re still getting the car for (almost)$1000 off the sticker price, and is there really much difference from your original offer? You agree, at which point the salesman says it’s a “go”- as long as his manager agrees.

You know the rest. Returning, your salesman says the manager won’t approve the sale for under $26,200- but you still can get the floor mats. You recognize that you’re not getting exactly what you walked into the dealership expecting to get and are becoming concerned.

When you hesitate to agree to the deal, the salesman gently coaxes you. You came in for a new black Ford Edge, he notes, and here you’ll be getting one. And for several hundred dollars less than the car is worth. And wasn’t the point that you would leave the dealership as the owner of a new vehicle? Surely, you won’t walk away with nothing, all because of $225! Think of all that is at stake- the advantage of owning a new Ford for many years, something far superior to the heap you’re now driving.

There are credits, rebates, loan conditions, and other factors. So it’s an imperfect analogy. But in its broad outlines, this is what we progressives/liberals are being asked to accept.

We came in to the process hoping for a single payer system (unrealistic, but did you really expect to get the Edge at your original asking price?) However, instead of a single payer, we would get a government option in the health care exchange, even if it would cover less than 10% of the population. Then salesman Rahm Emanuel tells us this “robust” public option isn’t popular; the manager conservative Democrats just won’t accept it. So we’ll just have to accept an opt-in. It’s still a public option, we’re reminded- and if we can’t get exactly what we wanted, are we going to throw away the entire transaction effort merely because we can’t get everything? Won’t we still be better off than with our old vehicle current health care system?

But wait! Maybe this auto price public option isn’t available, either. Michael O’Brien of The Hill reports (10/30/09)

The Senate health bill is drifting toward ending up with an "opt-in" provision versus an "opt-out," one Democratic senator said Friday.

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) predicted that healthcare reform in the upper chamber would shift from its current construction, which allows states to opt out of a public option, to a version that forces states to opt into such a plan.

"I think it's falling into an opt-in, versus opt-out," Whitehouse said during an appearance on MSNBC. "You have a public option, but it's up to a state to take an affirmative act to take advantage of it."

Whitehouse suggested the opt-in as a potential compromise on the public option to win enough Democratic votes in the Senate, where Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) has said he will vote against a bill containing a public option, and several other centrist Democrats have been reluctant to support the current proposal.

Forgetting the first rule of purchasing a car, you encountered a problem because you fell in love with the Ford Edge before even entering the dealership. Liberal Democrats, justifiably, fell in love with the idea of health care reform. Legitimately, we fell in love with the idea of a health care reform bill. But, dangerously, we fell in love also with the idea of enacting a health care reform bill in the first year of the Obama presidency.

Now, if Whitehouse is typical, liberals/progressives are trapped in a web of their own making. Even someone as insightful as economist and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman appears to have defined health care reform down as a major admirer his, Paul Somerby, noted the other day:

But hasn’t this also become the moment for defining health reform down? We refer to something that seems to have changed as Krugman starts his column:

KRUGMAN (10/30/09): O.K., folks, this is it. It's the defining moment for health care reform.

Past efforts to give Americans what citizens of every other advanced nation already have—guaranteed access to essential care—have ended not with a bang, but with a whimper, usually dying in committee without ever making it to a vote.

But this time, broadly similar health-care bills have made it through multiple committees in both houses of Congress. And on Thursday, Nancy Pelosi, the speaker of the House, unveiled the legislation that she will send to the House floor, where it will almost surely pass. It's not a perfect bill, by a long shot, but it's a much stronger bill than almost anyone expected to emerge even a few weeks ago. And it would lead to near-universal coverage.

Let’s assume that the House bill would in fact “lead to near-universal coverage.” In the past, didn’t we also speak about giving people “access to affordable care?” In this column, “affordable” has largely made way for “essential” (see highlighted statement above)—except when the House bill “includes more generous subsidies than expected, making it easier for lower-income families to afford coverage.”

Alas! Presumably, those generous subsidies are necessary because the bill will do next to nothing about the astonishing cost of insurance premiums. And guess what? Employers and those persons who don’t qualify for subsidies will still have to grapple with those daunting costs. For the vast majority of consumers, Krugman’s column says little or nothing about the discarded matter of affordable costs.

And they have given no indication of seriously contemplating walking away from a bill which is developing into something radically different (and that’s not even considering the Administration’s deal with Pharma) than what was expected, let alone hoped for. (Even Somerby, counter-intuitively, still supports the bill/bills.)

President Obama has his own motive(s). But others of the left have been left in the lurch, stuck with a mere shell of health care reform. Apparently, they will vote for the eventual bill, whether because it’s better than nothing, a “foot in the door” with the possibility of leading to something much better, a chance to be part of “history in the making,” or simple reluctance to allow Obama to suffer his Waterloo.

For the left, this has been a process of compromising, then compromising some more, and then compromising some more until....?