Jews And Israel And One Republican

A Protestant minister once told me, as well as I can remember, "Conservatives dislike Jews and love Israel."    In today's context, the remark may seem a mere observation- but it was made 25-30 years ago.

Mitt Romney has not been sparing in his fulsome support of the tiny Mideast nation.  While the Administration maintains its "capital should be determined in final status negotiations between parties," Romney contended in an interview last month on CNN "A nation has the capacity to choose its own capital city, and Jerusalem is Israel's capital... I think it's long been the policy to ultimately have our embassy in the nation's capital of Jerusalem."

In October of last year Romney, who views the President's support of Israel as unacceptably lukewarm, remarked "I believe our relationship with Israel, a nation which shares our values and is our best friend in the Middle East, should be of support and confidence rather than criticism and blame."   Taking another swipe at Obama, the presumptive GOP nominee while in Jerusalem last month argued "We cannot stand silent as those who seek to undermine Israel voice their criticism. And we certainly should not join in that criticism.  Diplomatic distance in public between our nations emboldens Israel's adversaries." 
  
Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak, defending in late June Israel's right to attack Iran to prevent it from developing nuclear weapons, praised President Obama and noted "several years ago the (2007 U.S. National Intelligence Estimate) raised some questions.  Now there are no differences between our intelligence."   Nevertheless Romney, coyly slamming Administration's policy, said in Jerusalem "we must not delude ourselves into thinking that containment is an option."   A senior foreign policy aide stated "If Israel has to take action on its own, in order to stop Iran from developing the capability, the governor would respect that decision."

The backing granted Israel by the former Massachusetts governor is convenient, given that his biggest financial supporter is casino mogul, likely criminal, and radical Likud supporter Sheldon Adelson, who has pledged to spend at least $100 million to elect the GOP nominee.   Still, it has been, at least rhetorically, all-encompassing, while his fondness for the people of Israel is questionable.    BuzzFeed found that at a fund-raiser in Chicago after his return from the Holy Land, Romney contended 

It’s individuals and their entrepreneurship which have driven America.  What America is not a collective where we all work in a Kibbutz or we all in some little entity, instead it’s individuals pursuing their dreams and building successful enterprises which employ others and they become inspired as they see what has happened in the place they work and go off and start their own enterprises.

David Nir of DailyKos comments

For a lot of American Jews, especially those who've had the chance to visit one themselves, the kibbutz is a special cultural touchstone. Though its origins date from before the Second World War, kibbutzim are a vibrant symbol of the pioneering, selfless spirit that allowed the state of Israel to rise from the ashes of the Holocaust. To attack the institution of the kibbutz is to attack something very close to the heart of many Jews.

Romney's statement hardly qualifies as anti-semitism, unlike use of an ethnic epithet or application of the term "Holocaust" to women's reproductive freedom, not uncommon with some on the cultural right. Still, his consistent advocacy for the nation of Israel, coupled with an undisguised distaste for an institution intrinsic to the maintainance of the Jewish state, suggests that, a quarter of a century later, many conservatives remain far fonder of Israel than of Jews.

Share |

Paul Ryan, For It Before He Was Against It


Bill in Portland, Maine, a regular at Daily Kos, quips

John McCain chose as his running mate a mama grizzly. Mitt Romney chose as his running mate a papa weasel.

He doesn't explain what he means by "papa weasel" but the Urban Dictionary defines "weasel" as a "shifty, schemeing (sic) person that will do whatever they need to to escape whatever they fear in the moment."

That'll do just fine.   Los Angeles Times' blogger Michael Finnegan recently wrote

Ryan’s plan to revamp Medicare – which included Obama’s $716 billion in cuts to the projected growth of Medicare – was a central feature of a federal budget proposed by the congressman and passed by the Republican-controlled House in April. Romney has said he would sign it as president. The voucher system would begin in 10 years...

On August 15, though, the presumptive vice-presidential nominee argued "what I don’t think he’ll be telling people is that the president took $716 billion from the Medicare program — he raided it to pay for Obamacare.”

Actually, the President's cuts are Medicare savings rather than benefits to recipients.   They include primarily" reduced payments to hospitals, discounts on Medicaid prescription drugs, and pay cuts to private insurers under Medicare Advantage," according to Talking Points Memo's Salil Kapur.   Ryan's cuts would have been used to lower taxes further for the wealthy.   But now that the serious thinker from Wisconsin , the guy who was going to focus all of America's attention on Medicare funding, has joined the Romney team, he opposes the reductions, which had been central to his Medicare plan.   Obama has "raided it to pay for Obamacare," for luxuries such as prescription drugs (closing the doughnut hole) and preventive care (such as cancer screening).

Oh, but not just Medicare.    A year and a half ago, Representative Ryan teamed up with Representative Akin to propose "No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act."   Michelle Goldberg explained

Since 1976, under the Hyde Amendment, there’s been a ban on federal funding for abortion, which applies to Medicaid recipients as well as federal employees and military families. In 1993, though, Congress legislated an exemption for pregnancies resulting from rape or incest. Such pregnancies are not uncommon—according to the Guttmacher Institute, at least 9,100 women seek abortions after forced sexual intercourse each year. H.R. 3 would prevent many of these women from using their health insurance to pay for abortions, whether their plan is public or private.

Under H.R. 3, the only victims (sic) of “forcible rape" would qualify for federally funded abortions. Victims of statutory rape—say, a 13-year-old girl impregnated by a 30-year-old man—would be on their own. So would victims of incest if they’re over 18. And while “forcible rape” isn’t defined in the criminal code, the addition of the adjective seems certain to exclude acts of rape that don’t involve overt violence—say, cases where a woman is drugged or has a limited mental capacity. “It’s basically putting more restrictions on what was defined historically as rape,” says Keenan.

Recently, however, Mr. Akin has gotten into a bit of hot water- not for trying to bolster government control over women's bodies- but for an absurd comment, including suggesting that victims of "forcible rape" are unlikely to get pregnant.   So the Political Editor of KDKA in Pittsburgh had a little conversation with Akin's ideological blood brother:

Delano: “You sponsored legislation that has the language ‘forcible rape.’ What is forcible rape as opposed…”
Ryan: “Rape is rape. Rape is rape, period. End of story.”
Delano: “So that forcible rape language meant nothing to you at the time?”
Ryan: “Rape is rape and there’s no splitting hairs over rape.”
As for the president’s claim that Romney-Ryan will restrict birth control, Ryan calls that ridiculous.
“Nobody is proposing to deny birth control to anybody,” says Ryan.
Ryan says women won’t fall for these side issues.
“And I don’t think they’re going to take the bait of all these distractions that the President is trying to throw at them

With little knowledge outside of the "pro-life" community, Paul Ryan once thought there was a)rape, and b)forcible rape, which apparently excluded women victimized by incest or a "date rape" drug.   Conveniently, now, "rape is rape and there's no splitting hairs over rape."    And adds with testosterone: "rape is rape, period.  End of story."

But it isn't only Medicare and abortion.    Last year, Representative Ryan threw in his lot with defense cuts, when, as Daily Kos' Joan McCarter describes, he

voted for the Budget Control Act, the law that sets up an automatic trigger, or sequester, to cut spending on defense and other domestic programs. The cuts were included in the act to try to force Congress to come up with alternative cuts through a bipartisan supercommittee. But House Republicans, including those on the supercommittee, have been so focused on abortion, repealing Obamacare, and naming post offices, they didn't actually succeed in coming up with those alternatives.

That was then, and this is now, and now that he is running for Vice-President, Ryan implies that he is opposed to defense cuts, blaming the planned reduction in Pentagon funding on the President and declaring  "national defense is the first priority of the federal government."

But it isn't only Medicare, abortion, and defense.   In January, 2002, he stated at a town hall meeting in his district "You have to spend to grow a little.  What we're trying to do is stimulate that part of the economy that's on its back."   On February 14, 2002 he was on the House floor when he defended President Bush's proposal for a stimulus package:

What we're trying to accomplish today with the passage of this third stimulus package is to create jobs and help the unemployed. What we're trying to accomplish is to pass the kinds of legislation that when they've passed in the past have grown the economy and gotten people back to work. We want to make it easier for employers to keep people employed. We want to make it easier for employers to invest in their businesses, to invest in their employee and hire people back to work...

and on top of it, for those people who have lost their jobs, we want to help them with their unemployment insurance and with health insurance. What we are trying to accomplish here is the recognition of the fact that in recessions, unemployment lags on even well after recovery takes place.

However, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, he piously intoned upon convening a meeting of the Budget Committee he currently chairs, is "out of the discredited economic playbook of borrow and spend Keynesian policies."   It was not so discredited, though, that he was deterred from writing the Department of Labor, and later the Department of Energy, to request stimulus funds for his congressional district.   Not to worry, however; Ryan recently denied asking the federal government for money.   Then when he was caught lying, the young Wisconsin congressman, bursting with integrity, blamed it on his staff:  "I didn't recall the letters earlier.  But they should have been handled differently..."   Classy, Paul.

All of this, of course, makes the House Budget Committee chairman a fitting help-mate to Mitt Romney.   One is tempted, further, to ask "will the real Paul Ryan please stand up?"  But the real Paul Ryan is probably more cunning and dangerous then he even has revealed.





Share |

Appears Stupid, Is Extreme



David Ferguson reports

On Tuesday’s edition of “Morning Joe,” host Joe Scarborough vented his frustration with Missouri Rep. Todd Akin (R)’s refusal to drop out of the race for U.S. Senate and said that he’s tired of his party being the “Stupid Party.” Akin is the Republican congressman who said in an interview earlier this week that a woman’s body can stop conception in the instance of a “legitimate rape,” thus obviating a need for exemptions from abortion restrictions for the victims of rape and incest.

On Monday, Scarborough said that Akin was evidence of a Republican party that had placed ideology ahead of actual electability and fitness to govern. On Tuesday, with Akin (thus far) refusing to get out of the race, Scarborough made it clear that, to his thinking, the mortally wounded Akin campaign could be spoiling the chances for Republicans to take the majority of seats in the Senate....

Scarborough said that he’s less interested in the question of whether or not the Republican Party should be a moderate or a conservative party, “I’m just tired of the Republican Party being the ‘Stupid Party!’” he said, “Stupid people saying stupid things and scaring off independent voters and swing voters!”

As the video (below) reveals, Scarborough exclaims "Do I want it to be a conservative party? Do I want it to be a moderate party?  I'm just tired of it being the stupid party.  I'm tired of us being stupid and saying stupid things and scaring off independent and swing voters."

Republican senatorial nominee Todd Akin is guilty of bad strategy, bad science, and bad politics.   But Scarborough's is less the stupid party than the party of extremism.    Last year, Representative Akin co-sponsored HR 212, the Sanctity of Human Life Act, by which Congress would declare

* The life of each human being begins with fertilization, cloning, or its functional equivalent, irrespective of sex, health, function or disability, defect, stage of biological development, or condition of dependency, at which time every human being shall have all the legal and constitutional attributes and privileges of personhood
*The Congress affirms that the Congress, each State, the District of Columbia, and all United States territories have the authority to protect the lives of all human beings residing in its respective jurisdictions

Conceivably, the bill would outlaw in-vitro fertilization, though more likely imperil its practice.  Bioethicist Art Caplan explains "it would not allow any destruction of embryos and since nearly all IVF depends on the overproduction of embryos the law would drastically alter how IVF is done, raising the cost of doing it and hugely decreasing the success rate."  Kevin Drum notes that the bill provides no exception for eggs fertilized by rapists or by your own father and therefore

has the plain intent of effecting a policy that allows states to ban abortion with no exceptions for rape or incest.

In fact, if this bill were passed and the Supreme Court upheld it, I'll bet that a rapist could go to court and sue to prevent his victim from getting an abortion.  He'd argue that the fetus was legally a human being, and the court has no power to discriminate between one human being and another.  He'd probably win, too.

Scarborough is aghast that the cat is out of the bag, that the reasoning and perspective behind the Sanctity of Human Life Act and personhood amendments proposed in a few states have been put on display.   Transparency can be so inconvenient, the consequence being numerous conservative Republicans calling for Akin to step down, with few repudiating his views.

Little harm will come because of such alleged stupidity, but much can come because of the policies Todd Akin advocates.   They are the policies of the Republican Party, which is set to approve a platform plank with comprehensive antiabortion language, including urging "legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment's protections apply to unborn children."   And they are especially the policies of presumptive vice-presidential nominee Paul Ryan, who co-sponsored HR 212 and has exhibited, absent scrutiny, a fanatical anti-choice record.

"Extremism in the defense of liberty," the late Arizona senator and presidential nominee Barry Goldwater once declared, "is no vice."   It may be no vice- but continue in that vein, and talk show hosts will brand you "the stupid party."

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Share |

Ignoring The Elephant In The Room


Chris Beneke and John Fea are academics, historians, and authors who recently penned (penciled? typed? e-mailed?) a commentary in The Philadelphia Inquirer examining the religious test for office in the U.S.A.

That would, of course, be a de facto, rather than de jure, test.     Article VI of the U.S. Constitution stipulates "no religious Test shall ever be required a a Qualifcation to any Office or public Trust under the United States."  Still, as Beneke and Fea point out, President-elect Eisenhower in 1952 argued "our form of government has no sense unless it is founded in a deeply felt religious faith, and I don't care what it is.... With us, of course, it is the Judeo-Christian concept, but it must be a religion with all men are created equal."     Accordingly, few people care that the current Vice-President of the United States is a Roman Catholic, either of the two men who will serve in that office the next four years is a Roman Catholic, or that of the nine sitting Supreme Court Justices, none is of the majority American religion, Protestantism.

Of course, no Muslims or atheists need apply.    Beneke and Fea conclude

So here's an update of our unofficial religious requirements for the presidency:   An unprecedented array of traditions, including Protestantism, Catholicism, Mormonism, and, probably to a slightly lesser degree, Judaism, now qualify candidates for the office.  But Eisenhower's Judeo-Christian criterion clearly abides.

This is not the founders' religious test for office, or even your parents'.   But it's a religious test all the same.

And so it is.   But Beneke-Fey could get great odds in Las Vegas betting on their suspicion "if recent eletions are any guide, Romney and Ryan  must maintain a steady drumbeat of God-fearing, Jesus-soaked expression until November."

While both Republicans will refer periodically to God, neither will allow his statements to be immersed in references to Jesus.   The Christian right will march in lockstep with the ticket anyway, less so because of a suspicion that Barack Obama is a Muslim than because Romney and Ryan pledge fealty to conservative policies.   And heaven forbid any candidate for national office even hint at a fear of God while appealing to voters, most of whom are convinced they're good people, have nothing to fear from God, and will be presented upon death with a deserved one-way ticket to heaven.

In particular, though, the religious views of Romney, once a Bishop in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, has presented a dilemma in his two presidential runs.    He could have publicly embraced his faith, asserting its importance to him in his family life and perspective toward politics and culture.  Or he could have, just as courageously, gone the JFK route, assuring the public that he would decide issues strictly on the basis of their merits, without regard to his religious affiliation or perspective.

We shouldn't be surprised that, faced with two options which would have boldly opened to discussion among the American people the role of religion in American life, Willard Mitt Romney has chosen neither.

Notwithstanding a speech during his campaign for the GOP presidential nomination in 2008, Romney has ignored the issue this cycle.    He has instead subtly raised the matter of religion, telling a town hall audience that the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence are "probably inspired"- i.e., directly or indirectly, likely emanating from God.

It's safe in a Repub primary to imply that our founding documents have received more than a divine vote of confidence.    It might come as a surprise to individuals stuck under a totalitarian government that rights come from God.   However, most of them aren't of a Christian denomination (nor are they Jewish, for that matter) and few conservatives would conclude that those folks are quite our equals, anyway.  With a figurative nod and a wink from Romney, most conservatives recognized what he was saying; others probably disregarded the remark. It was a clever way of injecting religion into politics, but in such a manner as to permit the candidate plausible deniability, if necessary.  Which it wasn't.

Presidential candidates are never shy in exploiting their background, especially their family, to create their own narrative as to how their lives have been shaped and their views come to fruition.  (This is especially true with Paul Ryan, now shamelessly using his mother to campaign with him.)   But Mitt Romney has temporarily forgotten his prior life with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.    Consequently, Helen C. Whitney, who produced the PBS series The Mormons, and Gregory Prince, a practicing Mormon who consulted on the documentary, have posed the following nine questions they believe Romney should address:

1. How have your early experiences within the Mormon Church -- particularly your two-year proselytizing mission to France and your service as Bishop and Stake President -- shaped your character and your worldview?

2. How does Mormonism's boundless optimism, which transcends even death in a manner unlike any other religion, shape your vision of America's present and future?

3. All religions have fabulous foundational stories. The Mormons are no exception. The difference is that their theology is younger and famously literal. It tells us that God has a body, that there is a plurality of Gods who eat and drink and mate as we do, that the golden plates were real, and that when we die there is a concrete and specific heaven where families are reunited. How has the singular physicality of your faith shaped your view of the world, not only as a private citizen but as a national leader?

4. When Mormons are asked about Joseph Smith's powerful final vision about man becoming God, "God-like" is almost always substituted for becoming God. But Mormonism's oft-quoted tenet is unambiguous: "As God is, man may become." Can you explain this core belief in a way that addresses the charge of blasphemy made by other religions?

5. Why do your new positions on immigration, social welfare, gay rights and abortion differ from official positions of the Mormon Church? Can you place these differences in a context that reassures Americans that Mormonism is not a philosophical monolith -- that indeed there is ample room within the label of "devout Mormon" for people as diverse as you and Senator Harry Reid?

6. What your church labels "sacred" is frequently termed by others "secret" or even "sinister," leading many to conclude that Mormons may not always be telling us what they truly believe. How can you assuage these suspicions by articulating your beliefs?

7. Given that your church's highest leadership councils consist entirely of white males, that it denies its lay priesthood to women and that it played the decisive role in the passage of California's Proposition 8, how can you assure the American public that the composition of your administration and the policies that you would pursue would be reflective of, and responsive to, the diversity that is the foundation of this nation's strength?

8. When asked about the part of his Baptist faith that meant most to him personally and as the nation's leader, President Clinton spoke movingly -- and in his words --about "the God of second chances." Human fallibility and the possibility of divine redemption -- these were Clinton's themes. What element of Mormon history or theology has had special resonance for you and has shaped your view of human nature, and of God?

9. Of all the misconceptions surrounding your religion, which one has offended you the most? Or, to interject a lighter note, what misinformation or stereotype has caused you to roll your eyes and even laugh when you are with your Mormon friends?

Whitney-Prince cite the candidate's "reluctance to be open about his religion" and assess a willingness to respond to the questions as "an opportunity for him to begin to emerge from obscurity."   Romney obviously will not address these, but he hardly can be blamed for not opening a Pandora's box that would likely lead to his defeat.   More importantly, the media will continue to please the presumptive Repub candidate by ignoring the issue.     This may not be a conscious attempt to favor the GOP but rather a skittishness at considering religion at all.   The media, however, play a major role in setting the terms of debate in an election.    And in  an electorate which knows far more about Reverend Jeremiah Wright than about Joseph Smith, those terms are lopsided.



Share |

The Republican Media- No. 35



Campaigning at The Villages, an enclave of elderly people and golf carts in Florida, Paul Ryan, campaigning with his mother, contended

What's worse is the president's campaign calls this an achievement.  Do you think raiding Medicare to pay for 'Obamacare' is an achievement? Do you think empowering a board of bureaucrats to cut Medicare an achievement? Neither do I. Medicare should not be used as a piggy bank for 'Obamacare.' Medicare should be used to be the promise that it made to our current seniors. Period. End of Story.

As The Incidental Economist explains, the Affordable Care Act creates the IPAB, a board of 15 full-time members who are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate.     The Patients' Choice Act, introduced by "small-government" advocate Ryan in May, 2009, creates not one, but two, boards.    The Health Services Commisssion consists of five full-time members, also appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate.   The Commission in turn would appoint a 15-member board to be called the Office of the Forum for Quality and Effectiveness in Health Care.

So Paul Ryan was against a board of bureaucrats before he was for them. The larger problem, however, is Ryan's claim that President Obama uses Medicare "as a piggy bank for Obamacare."   Add to that Ryan's claim "Our solution to preserve, protect, and save Medicare does not affect your benefits."   Then add the media, all agog over the hip and healthy congressman, buying the story uncritically.

Paul Ryan, Mitt Romney, and Romney-Ryan all have pledged to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act. While Romney charges President Obama with "robbing" elderly people with the reduction, Ryan terms the $700+ billion cut a "piggy bank for Obamacare."

Most of those savings, however, are plowed back into health care for the elderly, eliminating the prescription drug doughnut hole and providing preventive care without co-pays or deductibles.   Representative Ryan proudly maintained the same reduction in his own proposal. They would not bolster health care of the elderly, but rather, Ryan boasted, "extend its solvency" (destroying the village in order to save it).     He criticized the President's plan, saying it "takes that money from Medicare to spend on Obamacare"; "robbing" it, in his running-mate's words, to spend on health care for the elderly and for the poor, through an expansion of Medicaid.

Still, some in the media are, to be generous, confused.    Tim Curry of NBC News asks himself "If you are 65 years or older and now receiving Medicare beneifts, would Ryan's Medicare proposal affect you?  If so, how would it affect you?"

It's a good question but, remarkably, Curry replies to himself "No- if you're receiving Medicare benefits now, Ryan's proposal would not affect you."  But of course it would.   Ryan's proposal takes out the same money as does the ACA- and then makes sure it doesn't go to the elderly (or the poor).

These are confusing times.   A Democratic president enacts "historic" health care reform which builds upon a proposal of the Heritage Foundation.    Republicans then attack the legislation, in part for the cost controls it contains.    Their presumptive presidential candidate selects as his running mate a guy who ran interference for President Bush's Medicare privatization scheme, a boon for the high-stakes gamblers on Wall Street.   That same guy now pledges to "preserve, protect, and save" Medicare by slashing benefits for nearly all recipients except those now elderly.   It doesn't take a biased or liberal media to lay bare the dishonest claims of the GOP ticket.  Only an attentive one.



Share |

At Least He's For Smothering Regulators


Annie Lowrey of The New York Times writes


Much has been written about Mr. Ryan’s intellectual influences: canonical conservative thinkers like Friedrich von Hayek, the Austrian economist, and Ayn Rand, the novelist and philosopher. Mr. Ryan’s enthusiasm for themdates at least to his days as a precocious undergraduate at Miami University in Ohio.

But since first coming to Washington in the early 1990s, Mr. Ryan has been closely tied to an intellectual world more concerned with the political agenda of low taxes, light regulations and small government than philosophical ruminations on work and freedom.

There is no denying Paul Ryan, captive of the banking and  insurance industries, is fond of light regulations.   But as the chart below, from the Tax Policy Center indicates, the budget proposed (and passed by the House) by the House Budget Committee chairman would increase income taxes of households under $30,000 while reducing them 12.5% for households with income over $1,000,000.    On average, the latter would save $300.000.

Ryan's support for "small government" is even more selective than his support for "low taxes."    He voted for the Iraq War, TARP, the Medicare prescription drug benefit, the 2005 highway bill, and (this, at least, to his credit) the auto rescue plan.    According to the Center for American Progress, "From 2001 to 2008, Congress passed legislation that increased the national deficit by a total of $4 trillion- the number grows to $6 trillion if you add in how much those policies have cost through 2011.  Ryan voted for 90 percent of these deficit increasing bills."    Or as CAP illustrates it (immediately below) graphically from the CBO:

And of course the biggest factor in running up the deficit has been the Bush-era tax cuts, consistently a favorite of Representative Ryan, as illustrated by the graph above from Center for Budget and Policy Priorities.



Ryan is willing to compromise his principles for his larger, corporate-centric goals.   Nevertheless, his extremism still must be taken seriously.   As Digby, responding to the Times article, notes

But he's a politician with a radical agenda.  I think it makes good sense to take him at his word about what that agenda really is but for some reason the Villagers all want to believe that he's only posturing.  Sometimes I think the GOP cognoscenti who all love him so, believe that too.    He isn't.  He means it.


Share |

Salvation By Faith In Mitt Alone

Controversy seems to follow Michelle Obama.  On April 13, the First Lady had the nerve to proclaim

But this election is also a choice about the health of our families.  Now, the fact is that over the past century -- all right, 100 years -- there have been so many Presidents who have tried and failed to meet the challenge of health care reform.  But fortunately your President was determined.  Fortunately he was driven by the stories of people he'd met.  We all know these stories -- the grandparents who couldn't afford their medications; the families going broke because a child got sick; the woman dying of cancer whose insurance company wouldn't cover her care. And let me tell you something, that's what kept Barack going day after day.  That's why he fought so hard for this historic reform. 

Media Matters caught Fox News contributor Deroy Murdock alleging "We've got President Obama's supporters and even Michelle Obama saying that if you vote for the Republicans, people will get cancer."   Another Fox News contributor, syndicated columnist/author Michelle Malkin, claimed Mrs. Obama was suggesting "that somehow, if Republicans are elected to the White House, that all of these people are going to die, die, die."

Obviously, Mrs. Obama said nothing of the sort.    Murdock and Malkin act as if unaware that the Affordable Care Act closed the infamous prescription drug doughnut hole in Medicare, prohibited denial of coverage of children under 19 based on preexisting conditions, eliminated lifetime limits on insurance coverage, and prohibited insurance companies from rescinding coverage by choosing to deny services to a covered individual when he or she gets sick.   Mrs. Obama simply chose a more graphic means to demonstrate the impact of reforms such as these in the PPACA.

Malkin tried to draw a parallel between the Obama comment and the controversial ad produced by Priorities USA about the death from cancer of the wife of a worker who had lost his job because of Bain Capital.    No parallel between Michelle Obama's statement and any ad exists- but Malkin could have drawn a straight line between another of Obama's comments and one by the woman anxious to succeed her as First Lady.

During the last presidential campaign four years ago, Michelle Obama remarked "People in this country are ready for change and hungry for a different kind of politics and... for the first time in my adult life I am proud of my country because it feels like hope is finally making a comeback."     Accordingly, she brought down upon herself a torrent of abuse, presumably because she seemed proud of her country only because its people were considering electing to the presidency her husband.

Selective outrage is clearly prevalent in today's Republican Party.   Politicians, pundits, and others were simply aghast at Mrs. Obama's attitude.   There was no such outpouring of disgust, however, when  earlier this summer the heartthrob of the GOP Young Guns exclaimed "On Tuesday we save Wisconsin.   On November 6th we save America."

Nor has there been a backlash against Queen Ann Ann Romney, who in March said her husband "is the only one who can save America" an this week told NBC News' Natalie Morales (segment transcript, here)

We have a reason why we're running and it's because I believe in my heart that Mitt is going to save America. That economically we are in such difficult times and that he is the person that's gonna pull us through this. And it's propelled me through the negative criticism. And I am stalwart and steadfast and positive and confident that still to this day Mitt is the person who's going to save America and he's gonna get us back on track. 

As Bill Maher noted on HBO's Real Time in referring to Mrs. Romney's remarks, America does not need "saving."    The nation is not irretrievable, lost without the redemption that can come only by Willard Mitt Romney.    It need not be salvaged from the trash heap of Mrs. Romney's imagination, but instead will survive any Democratic, or Republican, administration without need of rescue.

Perhaps the increasing reference by conservatives to the need for the country to be "saved" comes from the religious impulse of many individuals in the Gas and Oil Party.   If so, it is an odd perversion of Christianity, seeing man (or woman, as long as she's a conservative Republican), rather than God, as savior.

Share |