Narrative Reboot

Yep, it's back:

Under the new policy, outlined in a Medicare regulation, the government will pay doctors who advise patients on options for end-of-life care, which may include advance directives to forgo aggressive life-sustaining treatment.

Congressional supporters of the new policy, though pleased, have kept quiet. They fear provoking another furor like the one in 2009 when Republicans seized on the idea of end-of-life counseling to argue that the Democrats’ bill would allow the government to cut off care for the critically ill.

The final version of the health care legislation, signed into law by President Obama in March, authorized Medicare coverage of yearly physical examinations, or wellness visits. The new rule says Medicare will cover “voluntary advance care planning,” to discuss end-of-life treatment, as part of the annual visit.

Under the rule, doctors can provide information to patients on how to prepare an “advance directive,” stating how aggressively they wish to be treated if they are so sick that they cannot make health care decisions for themselves.

While the new law does not mention advance care planning, the Obama administration has been able to achieve its policy goal through the regulation-writing process, a strategy that could become more prevalent in the next two years as the president deals with a strengthened Republican opposition in Congress.

Look for Sarah Palin's ghost-writer for her Facebook status updates to claim some form of ham-fisted vindication within the coming hours.

The only problem is that one of the modern conservative movements top bloggers - and Palin cheerleader - actually agrees with this idea.

There is nothing wrong with patients planning for contingencies through advance directives. There is also nothing wrong with doctors discussing those options with patients ahead of those decisions. As the spouse of a patient who has faced life-threatening circumstances on more than one occasion, I certainly understand why these conversations need to take place before the pressures of acute circumstances come into play. This new regulatory effort at least puts the conversation where it belongs, in routine wellness visits, rather than as a five-year set conversation. It also appears to make this a voluntary conversation (at least for now), one the patient can decline without any repercussions.

While Ed Morrissey does refer back to his talking points memo and express "concern" over the fact that there will be "incentives" to doctors to encourage end-of-life counselling sessions, one has to wonder why doctors wouldn't immediately do this on their own without dangling a metaphorical carrot in front of their nose.

I can clearly recall the moment when my uncle was told that he would not survive the cancer that had taken over his entire digestive system. Up until then, there had been limited conversations regarding what could happen, what treatments were available, and what the consequences were. That was left out of the "doctor patient conversation" until it was ultimately too late.

Why?

Have we entered a time and place where the part of the Hippocratic Oath to "first do no harm" has a payment prerequisite? It would seem so.

Nanny Versus Nitwit

Caught this the other night on Fox"News".

Fran gets in some great points that you can tell were getting to Hannity, as he did his best to talk over her.



Drescher came off as well informed, honest, and far too nice to Sean. Her last little jab at him is classic.

If It Isn't Astroturfing

.....then the ignorance of many of these people doesn't speak well for the conservative movement or the Republican party



John Amato @ Crooks and Liars has coined an interesting term regarding the cacauphonous context of the tea-bagging lexicon and how it is being used.

Beckerwocky (as I'm calling it) is the typical dialogue spoken by most of the teabaggers and the guy that Chris interviewed during the last half of this video is no different. They make up the majority of attendees along with the astroturfing crews. They are global warming deniers that yell "socialism" as much as they can and after a minute or so make no sense at all.

So what do we really have here? Are these people being actively fed misinformation and lies, being bussed in by various lobbying groups and healthcare industry types? Are these people reading from scripts and attempting to conflate information or just make up information on the spot? Or are these people truly concerned and motivated by the interests of their community. Well, perhaps it's both. I'm guessing a healthy does of the former blended with a pinch of the later.

And even though the vitriol, hatred, and ignorance that is pervasive within the conservative, tea-bagger, movement is very real, and in some instances tangible, it's interesting to find that there is moral moral equivalency drawn to this.

I’m sure we’ll be hearing passionate condemnations of unhinged talker Mike Malloy’s mob threat from Bobby Gibbs and Josh Marshall any second now.

Civility!

I honestly didn't know who Mike Malloy was.

Proving that liberal talk radio still has new frontiers of bad taste to explore, syndicated host Mike Malloy has openly called for FOX News Channel host Glenn Beck to commit suicide, something he hopes will occur live and on the air.

Heard during yesterday's Malloy program, it's the second time in a week that the former WLS/ Chicago talker has called for the death of one of his political opponents. Earlier, he said he hoped Rush Limbaugh would "choke to death".

To place this sort of ignorance on the same playing field as the likes of Micheal Savage, Rush Limbaugh, or even Glenn Beck himself is rather disingenuous. But to ignore hate and ignorance on within the talk radio realm that you identify with while decrying the opposition is rather hypocritical.

And who is this person that says one is equivalent to the other? Why none other than the woman that told the ladies of The View that drawing moral equivalency is sad - why none other than Michelle Malkin.

Disconnected With Her Own Movement

Never again will it suprise me to see (m)Ann Coulter attempting to marginalize and minimize the very real aspects of racism and nativism within her own party.



And, as a point of referece here, Media Matters really dropped the ball when titling this particular video. It reads "On Geraldo, Coulter proclaims Dobbs "wrong on this issue" of Obama's birth". The problem with the title is that it is very misleading. Once you watch the video, you realize that Coulter is saying the Dobbs is wrong simply because she is trying to claim that there is no racism or nativism within the conservative movement. As the foundation of her thesis, she says that this is the same as the "three people" that are still in the KKK. Really? Perhaps she should visit Western Kentucky to see exactly how out of touch she is with Republican voters around here.

I Feel Sorry For Whomever Was Typing Out The Closed Captioning

I didn't start watching this yesterday until the final 5 minutes of her speech. Having watched it now, I am completely agast at how this woman can function in a position of power.





As several of us discussed on Twitter yesterday, isn't it more than just a tad disingenuous that she is telling people to stand up and take action while she is abandoning her post as the elected Governor of Alaska.

One can but speculate what Palin has in store. Honestly, I'm of the mind that even she doesn't know what the hell she's going to be doing.

A Question Of Economics

Apparently Michelle Bachman's way of persuading the public to oppose the Obama administration's healthcare reform is to talk about how inexpensive it't going to be.

Approximately 114 million Americans are expected to leave private health insurance. Why? Their employers will drop the insurance because the taxpayer-subsidized plan will be 30 to 40 percent cheaper. This action will collapse the private health insurance market, and then the Federal Government will own the health provider game.

As stated before, I'm no economist. I took Micro Econ in college and made a solid B in the class, but that's it. However, I'm well away the first thing that you don't do when attempting to prevent someone from selling their product is telling their potential customer base that the new product is going to be less expensive.

Bachman's rationale appears to be that the higher the price, the better the care. This is about a valid a standpoint as saying that simply because Fox"News" has higher ratings that their reporting is proportionally more accurate and fair. The same excuses have been given in relation to the Bush administration's policies and how they have kept us "safe". I can take the standpoint that I have worn the same pair of shoes all year and haven't gotten cancer, so that must mean that Etnies prevent cancer in 100% of studies.

But lets postulate for a moment that all the hypothetical set that Bachman has mentioned are considering leaving their current provider for the government plan. Wouldn't that cause their current provider to lower their rates? Isn't this how businesses keep their customer base, incentives?

Weighted Against Her Position

You can often find the people at Fox"News" creating issues out of whole cloth. They love to pick people apart, find nuances that aren't even there, and generally take up a contradictory position to any and all things that don't bare the mark of the status quo conservative Republican.

Neil Cavuto is a master of the question that has no relevance to the situation. John Stewart has pointed out Cavuto's use of the question mark as the Cavuto Mark - is your mother a whore? Have you stopped beating your wife? You get the picture.

Now it seems that Cavuto is ready to take a stance against Obama's choice of Surgeon General. Not because she is less qualified than others. Not because she's a woman - well, maybe a little because of that. But it's because she's "fat". No, really.



Micheal Karolchyk appears to fit that stereotype of douche-master, weight trainer who take suppliments and drinks protien shakes three times a day. You've seen the type - guy that spends all his time in the gym talking about his 1% body fat, snapping wet towels on his friends bare asses in the locker room.

But more to the point, it appears that Cavuto set up a piece that he knew would get people talking and then realized that his guest was that oafish prick that has taken so many energy drinks that his dick has shriveled into a flacid string. Why else would he speak ill of a woman in power?

TPM has more.

Perhaps Karolchyk doesn't realize that a "lazy" person isn't exactly one that excells in the medical field, much less one that is going to be our new Surgeon General. I would think it's safe to say that this woman isn't running 10 miles every morning in favor of doing her job making sure that her patients are healthy.

So, is this the new vetting segment for conservatives? Your weight is directly related to how you can do your job? I'll have to look into how Reagan's SG was on the body mass index.

When You Get Schooled By Tom Arnold.....

....then you should know one thing - not all "hollywood types" are as ill-informed or as predictable as they may seems.



Arnold's manner of speaking when performing, his act, is simply that - an act. It appears that Sean Hannity has fallen into the trap of thinking that just because an actor is one way on screen then that must mean this is the way they are in real life.

I'm trying to find this whole segment on YouTube right now. I'm sure the panel and Hannity do quite a bit of squriming that we aren't seeing here.

Nicholl e Belle has a take on this at C&L:

00:58 – Blakeman says: We got Medicare and we got Medicaid, what did we get for it? We got abuse, fraud, and mismanagement.
01:11 Arnold replies: You don’t think the private sector has fraud and abuse (like the government)?

01:15 Blakeman replies: But not to the scale of government.

This whole exchange is laughable. The fact that Blakeman is even trying to claim that the private sector, which is strictly in business for profit, is not as corrupt as the government, is idiotic at best.

01:21 Blakeman asks: What’s your recourse if government provides you with substandard health care? What are you going to do, sue the government?

I would like to know what Mr. Blakeman thinks his recourse would be if he received substandard care from a private insurance company?

As for recourse if you are receiving substandard care from a public health plan, yes of course you can sue the government. Why would an American not be able to sue the government? It happens all the time.

But even before that, an American has a litany of contacts at their disposal in the form of public, elected officials that would act as the patient’s advocate, and they do it for free, and they would do it well because their job depends on making their constituents happy, and keeping their voters alive.

Blakeman has no idea what he is talking about.

From my own perspective on healthcare, it's costs, and what companies are doing to those that use their services, I heard something interesting today. A man that I work with took his wife to see a doctor that is directly across the street - they've been going there for quite some time and have suddenly their insurance has been denied. Not only is the doctor's office not accepting their insurance, but the proceedure and tests that the man's wife had done recently would not be paid for, even though they appeared on their statement and had paid the initial co-pay.

Now, this man is trying to drop his coverage but the provider, and our employer, aren't letting him.

How's that for the best healthcare in the world?

The Basic Human Right To Be Stupid

Conservative blogger and pundit Jillian Bandes seems to operate in the mode of Ann Coulter when it comes to discussing issues. When she was MSNBC to debate the cost of healthcare, money that is being spent on ads by the opposition as well as those for reform, and how many people are uninsured, she took a very Coulter-eque approach.



You know, everytime I hear any of the prattling, mouth-agape, conservative masses use the phrase "grass-roots effort" I want to scream.

That aside, Jillian's hamfisted attempt to validate her own canted perspective is something to marvel at. Personally, I am elidgible for healthcare through my employer, but it is entirely too expensive. I can try and find a plan that would fit my individual needs, but then again, the cost isn't much better.

According to the National Coalition on Healthcare:

The large majority of the uninsured (80 percent) are native or naturalized citizens.

So, playing devil's advocate for a moment, Jillian Bandes has a tiny point here. But even considering the very real fact that the 80% is still 37,600,000 doesn't seems to bother her.

Larry Elder has a piece up on Creators Syndicate ( where he cites stats that are over 3 years old ) that takes a simular course to Jillians by attempting to debunk the high number of uninsured by claiming that nearly half of the uninsured ( who are in their late 20s ) could afford and qualify for healthcare if only they had priorities:

These Gen Xers copped to dropping money on clothes, booze, nightlife, the latest tech gizmos and other things of interest to them. With a change in priorities, these young folks — far more representative of those without insurance than the forlorn husband and wife sitting on a porch swing — could both afford and qualify for health insurance. They simply consider it a low priority.

The problem with this line of thinking is that clothes, and tech items are priced radically lower than the overall costs of healthcare coverage. Consider the very real fact that if you get sick and have to stay in the hospital for even 2 nights, have tests done, maybe a CAT scan, then that's going to add up to more than just the cost of an iPod and case of Miller Light.

But let's get back to Jillians flippant arguement that food isn't a basic human right. To that, I would ask if she is fine with children starving? Is she going to be alright with the fact that 16,000 children around the world die every year from starvation? Is she comfortable with the fact that far too many children go to bed each night without food? Granted, there are a few cases where parents are neglecting their children, but it is certainly not a plurality.

The shear idiocy of this woman is beyond measure.

Think Progress has more.

Like A Finishing Move In Mortal Combat

Only you run away instead of ripping your opponents head off, watching the blood shoot up into the air all cartoonish like.

Palin spokesperson Meghan Stapleton called-in to Fox"News" and spoke with Stuart Varney ( who was obviously cranking-one-out under the desk hoping she would tell him that Palin would be running for President ) about what Palin's perculiar move really means.



So, quiting is the new fighting?

And who exactly is she going to be "campaigning" for? Who in their right mind would want someone who abandoned their post to speak for them? Well, I can think of a few.

Who Are These "Real" Americans Anyway

It's interesting to hear people like Brzezinski talk about who is and who isn't "real". Aside from the existential arguments that can stem from such a perculiar statement, this is part and parcel of the conservative movement - to quantify someone's patriotism and their very status as citizens of America based on what they believe in.

I think Palin is a completely vaccuous, willfully-ignorant, prude but she's still an American. She's even real. The very fact that she has the ability to say the obsurd things that she does is proof that she is a real American. Where else could you be this uninformed about the vast population of the country and still be elected as Governor?

Palin's standpoint on issues aside ( of which Mika could only mention "life" ) it's statements like who is and who isn't "real" that causes the conservative movement to continually loose ground with those in larger, metropolitan areas.

And it is rather humorous that Brzezinski would make such a laughable statement and be the very caricature of the silver-spoon, snobbish, elite that she pretends not to be. And when Scarborough pointe3d that out, it seemed that even Mike knew he was right.

But don't you think that both Mika and Joe really don't care about what Palin thinks or even what those in middle-America ( whom Mika claims to have met before ) think? Don't you get the feeling that they are just looking for that next soundbit to exploit, that new meme to try out just to see what sort of traffic follows?

Does He Really Expect To Be Taken Seriously?

That's the question I ask everytime John Zeigler is interviewed by anyone not affiliated with Fox"News".



When you see that creepy grin on Ziegler's face, you almost ask yourself if he's having a wank while talking about Sarah Palin or if he fancies himself as just clever and has this compulsion to smile all the time in spite of himself.

Regardless of the answer you come up with, John Ziegler's inability to contain his utter lust for Palin - and his ill-founded contempt for anyone outside the conservative media sphere of disinformation - is nothing short of intolerable.

Contessa Brewer had some rather relevant questions to ask of John, but he prefered to play the roll of stubborn frat-boy who's more concerned with propping up his own ego than answer a simple question. Come to think of it, that might just be an insult to all the bone-headed frat-boys I've ever come into contact with.

Ziegler's rabid fanboy posturing aside, don't you think that Palin would have been better off ignoring the Letterman bit rather than jumping on the cross and wailing for someone to come to her defense? After all, comedy isn't pretty all the time and being the camera-whoring public figure she is, Letterman's riff on her was tame compared to most.

I'm sure that Ziegler will go running to Fox and Friends tomorrow morning and whine like a little girl with a skinned knew about how he was mistreated.

Romney Takes The Hannity Approach

Mitt Romney's speech to the Heritage Foundation just may well be a signifier that he intends to run again in 2012:

I take issue with President Obama's recent tour of apology. It's not because America hasn't made mistakes -- we have -- but because America's mistakes are overwhelmed by what America has meant to the hopes and aspirations of people throughout the world.

The President also claimed on Arabic TV that America has dictated to other nations. No, America has sacrificed to free other nations from dictators.

This line of thinking is completely in line with what Sean Hannity does on any given night.

Although Romney mentions that America has made mistakes, he completely glosses over that very real fact with vague generalizations about the vast amount of wonderful things that America means to the rest of the world.

What are those things?

Surely Mitt would mention that we bring "freedom" and "hope", but I would dare say that any Iraqi who may be asked what America means to him/her that their response wouldn't please Mitt at all.

But, such is the mind of the rabidly ill-informed conservative Republican. Especially one that appears intent on gaining the Republican nomination for President in 2012.

I Know A Guy Who Knows A Guy

Once again, let us witness the bold-face lies of "Turd-Blossum"

We know from her record on the 2nd Court of Appeals that she's not a particularly effective colleague. I first got wind of this when Sam Alito, who was her colleague on the court while we were reviewing his record, it -- you know, people who were familiar with the workings of the court said that she was combative, opinionated, argumentative, and as a result, was not able to sort of help create a consensus opinion on important issues.

Sonia Sotomayor served on the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, Alito served on the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals.

I don't have a degree in Math, but the most rudimentary knowledge of such tells me that 2 and 3 aren't the same.

Well, I'm not going to comment on what he said about her, because I didn't hear him say anything specifically about her, but when I was talking to people about the 2nd Court of Appeals -- for example, look, as you know, justices circulate opinions and -- to their colleagues to get their feedback and to act as, you know, sort of a prompt for discussions when they meet in chambers.

Well -- in conference, excuse me -- what she would do is she would mark them up like she was your English school teacher and -- with your typos and misspellings and other words that she wanted to have changed, and send them back to her colleagues -- not exactly the best way to ingratiate yourself with your colleagues.

Of course he's not going to comment on this, he's making it up as he goes along.

To approach this topic from the perspective of the use of "anonymous sources", one has to also look at what other pundits, writers, and reporters have said in their various columns, blogs, and on-air reports that have also come from "anonymous sources".

From my perspective, the use of "anonymous sources" to create the bulk of your thesis statement tends to make readers less likely to believe your claims, unless you have a counterbalance of facts backed-up with "open" sources that can be verified by your readers.

Also, if the author has crediblity outside of the article where he/she is usging "anonymous" sources, the likelihood that their readership is going to believe what they read is increased.

However, with the continued onset of fierce, ideological, voices that are bent on pushing a "message" rather than facts, the use of "anonymous sources" by people like Karl Rove increases the likelihood that their subject matter is extremely by an exponentially large degree.

It is for this reason that any and all that read anything written by Rove or see an interview with him where he cites "anonymous sources" should question each and every point he makes. The problem is that so many have become numb to the use of unverifiable sources that they now lack that ability to question them. Also, if the reader has their own ideological bent to push, then facts be damned.

More from Media Matters

More from Media Matters.

Cap, Trade, And Spin

Recently, the RNC unleashed misleading info on Obama's proposed Cap-And-Trade program:

President Obama and the Democrats are planning to jack up energy prices and pass the cost on to you and your family...[C]an you and your family afford an additional $3,100 in higher energy taxes a year...if Obama and his liberal Democrat cohorts get their way, you and your family will be paying an additional $260 a month in energy taxes thanks to the Democrats' outrageous Cap & Trade legislation. That's $260 a month that you and your family should be allowed to spend, save or invest anyway you see fit.

The root problem with this misleading email is that the dollar figure is around

The information that the GOP is manipulating comes from a study done by MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change in 2007.

The study estimated that a cap-and-trade market for 2015 would be worth $366 billion in revenue. Republicans, figuring that that amount would be passed from the energy companies to consumers, calculated the average cost per household by dividing $366 billion by 117 million households (a population of 300 million divided into households of 2.56 persons) to get $3,128, or roughly $3,100.

The GOP has always had issues with science, and their interpretation of scientific studies is just as shining of an example of their inherent ignorance.

On April 1st, John Reilly ( Associate Director for Research at the MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change ) sent a letter to House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) stating that their findings had:

...been misrepresented in recent press releases distributed by the National Republican Congressional Committee.

The GOP email, as well as the current round of talking-points being diseminated, did not reflect Obama's proposed plan of a rebate to comsumers to cushion the effect of any increased prices.

[M]any of the proposals currently being considered by Congress and as proposed by the Administration have been designed to offset the energy cost impacts on middle and lower income households and so it is simplistic and misleading to only look at the impact on energy prices of these proposals as a measure of their impact on the average household.

In follow-up communication with Boehner, Associate Director Reilly showed that the actual, annual, increase in cost to consumers was estimated at around $800. This, however, did not stop the GOP from continuing with the thouroughly debunked line of "$3100 per year" in increased energy costs.

Boehner's website posted an "alert" that read in part:

An MIT professor has questions about the $3,100 figure but his letter makes assumptions that are factually inaccurate...[W]e all know that Democrats have no intention of using a cap-and-trade system to deliver rebates to consumers; they want the tax revenue to fund more government spending.

In this, anyone that read the "alert" was left with a choice - believe John Boehner or an Associate Director of Research @ MIT. The choice, to myself at least, is clear.

In stark contrast to Boehner's claims, one has but to read the proposed 2010 Budget to see where, in fact, the money from Cap-And-Trade is going to go.

[T]his program will fund vital investments in a clean energy future totaling $150 billion over 10 years, starting in Fy 2012. The balance of the auction revenues will be returned to the people, especially vulnerable families, communities, and businesses to help the transition to a clean energy economy.

However, the study done by MIT was 2 years ago and the Obama Adminstration's Budget Proposal for Fiscal 2010 was just this year.

We could not anticipate what he would propose, and frankly the details of any current proposal are not completely specified and will change as things go through the Congress.

Still, Director Reilly was able to respond to Boehner's outrageous claims and correct them. So, the fact that the study was done 2 years ago poses little to no inherent issues.

An alternate Cap-And-Trade program ( H.R.2454 ) introduced by Reps. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) and Edward Markey (D-Mass.) has recently passed in the House Committee on Energy and Commerce by a vote of 33 to 25.

More from Fact Check.

Under The Guise Of "Reporting"

Even though the video is entitled the "race to the bottom", I think they've been there for quite a long time. There's trying to see who can remain at the top of the pile the longest.



And isn't that quite the appropo image, Coulter, Limbaugh, Beck, and all their seething compatriots undulating and slithering around in a collective pile of excrenment and saliva.

But they feel safe in that steaming pile-up of flesh and talking-points. They feel as if they can't be touched in calling a woman who isn't white a racist because she takes pride in her heritage. To them, that is tantamount to deficating on the American Flag and then selling it on EBay for a quarter.

Having pride in yourself, your heritage, and your accomplishments, to the fringe-conservatives in America, is reserved only for whites that vote Republican. Then it isn't called pride anymore, it's not cloaked in a word that some religious groups consider a sin. To them, it's patriotism, even if they are the ones with truly racist intentions.

Hannity Hyperbole

When I watched this last night, all I could do was laugh.



The first thing in Hannity's show, as in most, is it's acceptance of willful ignorance. Pat Robertson is a perfect example of such.

He knows nothing of judicial practice, law, and rarely - if ever - speaks any truth to power about the religious sect that he claims to represent. And, in that respect, he is a perfect candidate for a guest on Sean Hannity's program.

But the part that really gave Hannity a tickle in his pants was the court case he cited last night. This case was also part of an "investigation" by on of the Fox"News" beauty-queen-reporters. The only problem with Hannity's commentary and the "investigation" of the firemen who were not promoted was the direct relation to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

From Newshounds:

As the New Haven Independent reported, the NAACP, the ACLU and the International Association of Black Professional Firefighters have come out in favor of the city, citing concerns that the case threatens to eviscerate laws — particularly Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 — that afford opportunities for African-Americans to advance. The vast majority of New Haven firefighters are white. The black firefighters union wants the city to “re-examine the promotional process and the results of the test” under the guidelines of Title VII. They point to an earlier federal ruling which noted that firefighting ability, not the ability to pass a test, is the most important factor in evaluating a firefighter's job performance.

Nothing piques Hannity's interest more than the hint that "the white man" is being picked on. So, what does Hannity do? He calls her a racist, of course.

But, who are these "mainstream Americans" that Hannity mentions in the opening of his program? Do they think as he does, that Judge Sotomayor is "racist", that she's this alleged "radical"? Are they Fox"News" viewers? Are they predominantly white? The later two are almost a guaranteed yes. The former is only likely should they not be able to make up their own minds and rely on people like Sean Hannity for their information.

Later in the program, Hannity had on two guests ( Ed Gillespie and Lanny Davis ) to discuss the "racial/sexual component" as it relates to Sotomayor's ability ( or from Hannity's perspective, her lack thereof ) to be a fair-minded member of the Supreme Court.



Never one to be able to accept or even attempt to understand a rational and honest answer like the one Lanny Davis gave, Hannity does his "throwing the hands up and whining" schtick.

The reality of the situation is that no one, no matter who it may be, that is nominated or offered a job by a Democrat will pass muster with people like Sean Hannity. They whine and cry about how they want to bring America together, but offer no plans to back these claims up. They speak about "mainstream Americans" but this general discription obviously doesn't include blacks, latinos, or any other ethnic group which conservatives claim to accept, they just aren't allowed to mention their heritage.

Sonya Sotomayor will be confirmed. Not simply because the Democrats have a 12 to 7 advantage on the Judiciary Committee, but because Sotomayor has a very moderate record. Her statements about "policy" as it relates to the Appelate courts are accurate and have been shown to not be controversial to anyone except those that are attempting to cast her in the roll as "radical", "racist", or "dangerous".

More from Media Matters and Newshounds.

The Reactions Of A Demagogue

Not suprisingly, the conservative fringe-Right have set off on their "any smear that sticks" campaign against Obama's nominee for the Supreme Court, Sonya Sotomayor.

They are using this 35 second clip of Sotomayor making comment on policy and the court of appeals:



To which, our example - Hot Air's court jester Ed Morrissey - reacts as one might think he would:

Not only do we have Sotomayor essentially admitting that she sees lawmaking as the purview of courts, but a speech given in 2001 makes Sotomayor sound like the kind of identity-politics hack that most people saw in Lani Guinier when her appointment in the Clinton administration went down to defeat.

If she’s that erudite in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee when answering this question, the Republicans won’t have to push hard to bounce Sotomayor out of the Supreme Court. She knew she’d overreached and couldn’t even explain herself in front of a friendly audience, who realized quite well that her backpedaling was entirely self-serving and incoherent.

The only problem with Morrissey's statement that this is somehow "controversial" is that it, in point of fact, isn't.

Stoney Brook University law professor Jefferey Segal sees Sotomayor's statement as completely within the bounds of the truth.

....the law is not always clear. And in clarifying those laws, the courts make policy.

Segal's statements are echoed by Hofstra University law professor Eric Freedman.

It is not a controversial proposition at all that the overwhelming quantity of law making work in the federal system is done by the court of appeals... It is thoroughly uncontroversial to anyone other than a determined demagogue.

One element of judging, obviously, is issuing precedent...But if the thing were squarely disposed of by existing precedent they probably wouldn't go to the court of appeals for it. Their lawyers would say, forget it... So this is where you get clarification for cases without precedent.

I would be surprised if you got a different opinion from a fair-minded observer in the legal world.

The conservative Right, as well as the whole of the GOP, could seriously shoot themselves in the foot if they attempt to block Sotomayor's appointment simply on the grounds that they can. The reason being, is that they greatly need the vote of the Hispanic community. But, Sotomayor shouldn't be accepted simply because of her ethic heritage. Considering we are speaking of a very reactionary group of politicos, I'm not going to be holding my breath waiting for them to ask honest questions during her confirmation.

Michelle Malkin takes a slightly different road, as she casts Sotormayor as an angry Hispanic prone to outbursts.

Substantial questions also persist regarding Judge Sotomayor’s temperament and disposition to be a Supreme Court justice. Lawyers who have appeared before her have described her as a “bully” who “does not have a very good temperament,” and who “abuses lawyers” with “inappropriate outbursts.

Malkin, as well as her equally reactionary compatriots, are citing a case in which a panel that Sotomayor sat on affirmed a dismisal of claims by white firefighters. This, coupled with the "angry latino" meme that Malkin is using, is used to further construct the point ( albeit flacid ) that Sotomayor will side against "whites".

At issue, claims that Sotomayor is dismissive and utterly inexperienced, are a bit to flimsy to actually take hold.

Tom Goldstein, of SCOTUSBLOG writes of the conservative-Right's claims, in particular the Ricci v. DeStefano case they are addressing:

The public neither understands nor cares about the publication practices of the courts of appeals. It also is easily able to accept a judge’s recognition of the lawmaking effects of her decisions and the influences of her background. There just isn’t any remotely persuasive evidence that Judge Sotomayor acts lawlessly or anything of the sort.

The "angry hispanic prone to outbrursts that doesn't like white people" meme falls completely apart even with the most minimal of review efforts.

Fox"News" and conservative pundits have been on the offensive against Sotomayor even before she was chosen.



Matt Yglesias at Think Progress points out that, as is standard with conservatives, many on the Right seem to have a problem with a woman in power.

I recall a lot of issues being raised during the Samuel Alito confirmation fight, but at that time I don’t remember anyone raising questions about the intelligence of a Princeton/Yale Law graduate who’d done time on an Appeals Court.

And if you're looking for some "bottom-of-the-barrel" reaction to Sotomayor's pick, look no further than the place where people believe in the United States of America and its ideals.

I'm not going to fall over myself praising Obama for this pick, but her record is perfectly in line with other "liberal" judges that have served on the SCOTUS. There is little, if any, information that shows that she is going to be this alleged "radical" that the conservative Right is claiming she is. However, unless someone were to the Right or equal to Ronald Reagan, there is no satisfying anyone within the conservative movement.

When we are attempting to discuss something seriously, it's almost too much to ask them for even a shred of intellectual honesty.

A Bit Late To His Party's Game

It appears that Micheal Steele is a bit late to be a party of the Sean Hannity school of finge-conservative ideology.

The problem that we have with this president is that we don’t know [Obama]. He was not vetted, folks. … He was not vetted, because the press fell in love with the black man running for the office. “Oh gee, wouldn’t it be neat to do that? Gee, wouldn’t it make all of our liberal guilt just go away? We can continue to ride around in our limousines and feel so lucky to live in an America with a black president.” Okay that’s wonderful, great scenario, nice backdrop. But what does he stand for? What does he believe? … So we don’t know. We just don’t know.

Yawn.

Steele also stated recently that it "the end of the era of Republicans looking barckward".

Good luck on him convincing Sean Hannity that he's not allowed to mentioned Reagan anymore.

Judith Miller Knows Jailtime b/w Classic AC/DC Track

Judith Miller, a central figure in the Valerie Plame affair, and whom had a film made about her story, claims that the US knows how to house terrorists outside Guantanamo.

Her response was a reply to the dicussion on Fox And Friends about FBI Director Robert Mueller's statements to Congress:

...Mueller was asked what concerns the FBI has about the release of Guantanamo detainees.

"The concerns we have about individuals who may support terrorism being in the United States run from concerns about providing financing, radicalizing others," Mueller said, as well as "the potential for individuals undertaking attacks in the United States."

"All of those are relevant concerns," Mueller said.

More from Raw Story and Think Progress.

The "radicalization" arguement seems to be a bit far reaching. What of gang members that recruit other gang members during their time in jail?

And now, a little musical interlude that seems to fit the reactionary Right's "fears" of terrorists being housed in Supermax prisons.