Liberal Democrats have done their share, and compromised, and compromised, and comprised for the sake of reform; when will President Obama and the rest of the Democratic leadership make Blue Dogs Democrats and conservative Democratic Senators do the same?

Saturday night's vote in House of Representative on health care reform, while milestone in many respects, was a dire wake up call to liberals and progressives who worked hard during the past election cycles to give Democrats control of both houses in the Congress and the White House in 2008. The bill passed the House, though just barely: needing 218 to pass the House the bill managed to gather 219 Democrats and one Republican Congressman, Rep. Anh "Joseph" Cao from Louisiana. Thirty-nine Democrats voted no on the bill. (See Why Some Democrats Voted Against the House Health Bill)

The focus now shifts to the Senate, which has a reputation of being much more conservative than the House. Many Senators such as Republican Senator Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) have already openly stated that the House bill or anything like it is "dead on arrival" in the Senate. And the Democratic Whip in the Senate, Sen. Richard Durbin (D-IL), has implied that the Senate might even have to delay legislation until 2010 because the votes are currently not there for the bill Senate Majority Leader Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) recently released. Meanwhile Republicans in both houses continue to demonize reform and conservative Democratic Senators continue to either threaten reform in general or demand further concessions from leadership.

All of this seems to suggest that in the end if we are to get any kind of reform passed that it will be a quasi-Republican bill with no Republican support that hinges on leadership requiring progressive Democrats to bite the bullet to satisfy conservative Democrats once again.

When pro-choice Democratic congressmen left Speaker Pelosi's office infuriated about the decision to put the Stupak amendment up for a vote they knew that while they were free vote against the amendment when it came to a vote for the overall bill that they were expected to put aside their principles and values and vote "Aye" for the Democratic bill. When will SpeakerPelosi, Majority Leader Reid, and President Obama make their conservative colleagues do the same?

From the beginning progressives understood their place in the debate and were willing for the sake of the party, because they knew that all Democrats would rise or fall on the issue of health-care reform, to vote for a bill were some aspects of the bill went against issues they deeply cared about. They understood that inspirational speeches from the President were never directed towards them, but rather their colleagues that were willing hold up reform simply to get what they wanted. In the early days of the debate almost all progressives gave up on single payer, even though it would be undoubtedly better than what we will ever end up with, and settled for a diluted public-option, because leadership told them they would have to. They stood by as their leader, President Obama, transitioned from a fierce advocate for change to a shrewd politician seemingly willing to sacrifice everything for the sake of simply passing a bill. 

Progressives understood that in this debate, and all the ones previous in the Obama Era, and seemingly all the ones from here on out, that they would have to be the grown-ups in the Congress and do for the American people what conservative Democrats are refusing to do: compromise for the sake of the greater good. 

Meanwhile Blue Dog Democrats in the House and conservative Democrats in the Senate have blatantly made it clear that they are willing to hold up reform so long as it takes for leadership to give them what they want. They have largely been successful in their efforts, because many of them come from conservative districts/states, and leadership has determined that in order to hold on to majority status that it would be in their best interest to succumb to these leaders rather than side with the majority of their caucus. This adds another layer of frustration among progressives, as the majority of the caucus in both chambers are supportive of provisions such as the public option or disapproves of such measures like the Stupak amendment. 

To make matters worse, President Obama has consistently refused to put significant pressure on conservative Democrats to vote for a bill that the majority of the caucus (and the American people) supports, while the base that elected him (and undoubtedly the same base that will be responsible for re-electing him) has seen him remain silent on the substantive issues, such as a woman's right to choose, and the public option.

The president and the Democratic leadership's actions so far do not come to a surprise to many. Throughout the debate over health-care reform the President spent much of his time with conservative Democrats trying to craft the various bills to meet their favor assured that progressives would be with him no matter what. With all eyes on the Senate now many political observers have noted that while the majority of the Democratic caucus, some thirty-plus Senators, are in favor of the Public Option the decision as to whether or not the Senate will even pass a bill with such a provision it has been determined to be in the hands six senators (Bill Nelson (D-NE), Blanche Lincoln (D-AR), Mary Landrieu (D-AR), Joe Libermann (D-CT), Evan Bayh (D-IN), Kent Conrad (D-ND)), all of whom have gone on the record as being opposed to the public option. 

Both the president and Majority Leader Sen. Reid have publicly stated their support for the public option (the president most staunchly in July 2009), both have hinted that if push comes to shove they might be inclined to remove the public option in order to get the support of the six conservative Democrats who currently are holding up reform. 

While many, including President Obama, have stated that the nature of politics is to compromise, it is worth pointing out that what has taken place here during the health-care reform debate has not been compromise but rather a political hostage situation. 

Progressives have begun to fight back in some areas. Particularly in the House of Representatives where after the passage of the health-care reform bill on Saturday with the Stupak Amendment included, Rep. Diane DeGette (D-CO) submitted a letter to the leadership containing the list of forty pro-choice Democrats in the House who vow to vote against the final bill after it goes through conference if it includes the Stupak amendment. 

Quick to make their intentions also clear forty anti-choice Democrats have stated that they will vote against any bill that comes from conference without the Stupak amendment. 

House leadership and the president will have to side with one of the opposing groups. Conventional wisdom suggests that President Obama and the House leadership will maintain the double standard and force Rep. DeGette and other pro-choice Democrats to vote for the bill in exchange for other assurances; however, what remains to be seen is whether or not Rep. DeGette and the other pro-choice Democrats will succumb to the pressure and let through legislation that sets women's right back thirty years for the sake of appeasing the minority of their caucus.

With the passage of the House of Representatives' health-care bill with the Stupak Amendment, the debate over women's reproductive right is likely to reemerge as one of the front burner issues in the upcoming congressional races in 2010, particularly in swing states among social-conservative Republican challengers for current Democrat held seats.

Among anti-choice proponents there is a sense that this is their opportunity to push through their agenda. And it might very well be. Recent Gallup polling revealed for the first time that more Americans identify themselves as "pro-life" since Gallup first asked the question in 1995. Based on Gallup's survey the current break down is 51% self-identified as "pro-life" and 42% self-identified as pro-choice, which almost the complete inverse of the previous year where the break down was 50%-44% with pro-choice advocates being in the majority.

While it has always been my inclination to take what all polls say with a grain of salt, let us presume that Gallup's survey of "1,015 Americans, aged 18 and older," is truly reflective of Americans attitude toward women's reproductive rights. 

So what?

Since 1973 after Roe v. Wade the Supreme Court has ruled that a woman's right to choose what to do with her body was not a matter of popular opinion but rather a constitutional right. Therefor while anti-choice Americans are more than free to object to the procedure and advocate that women not have an abortion the final decision (with limitations based on various state laws) would left to each individual woman to make on her own.

While anti-choice proponents in government and in media have made it a point to make it clear the ideological shift that is taking place across the country, pro-choice proponents must make it an objective to remind Americans that the issue at the heart of the debate is not where we place ourselves on the ideological spectrum on this issue, but rather why we as a society of free people should not impose our own beliefs about what we should do with our bodies on others.

Proponents of anti-choice measures gain nothing in their effort to deny women their right to decide for themselves, and ultimately only escalates the instances were women seek the procedure in unsafe conditions. However, as far as anti-choice proponents are concerned the less abortion procedures that take place on the books the better they can sleep at night. Ignorance truly is bliss. 

In a last ditched effort to whip the necessary votes to pass the House of Representative's health-care reform bill last night, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi allowed Rep. Bart Stupack's amendment, which would go further than any piece of legislation since the Hyde amendment to take away the choice of American woman to decide for themselves what to do with their bodies, to go up for a vote. After days of deliberation and whipping votes of her caucus, the Speaker came up short on votes because anti-choice Democrats, under pressure from Catholic Bishops, made it clear that they would vote "no" on overall health-care bill if the Stupak amendment was not put up for a vote.

Pro-choice Democrats reports The New York Times left the Speaker's office furious when it became clear that the amendment would get the vote on the floor, which made it almost a certainty that it would pass.

Pro-choice Democrats made their way to the floor to voice their opposition to amendment before the vote took place. Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-CT) said on the floor, "Abortion is a matter of conscience on both sides of the debate. This amendment takes away that same freedom of conscience from America's women. It prohibits them from access to an abortion even if they pay for it with their own money. It invades women's personal decisions." But perhaps the most damming criticism of the amendment came California Congresswoman Rep. Barbara Lee who gave a rousing speech as to why the amendment should be voted against.

Ultimately though their plea to guarantee a woman's right to choose whilst maintaining the provisions that would bar any federal funds from directly paying for abortion procedures were not fruitful. The amendment passed 240-194.

Republicans supported the measure, but Minority Leader, Rep. John Boehner (R-OH), made it clear that while him and his caucus would vote for the amendment they would vote against the final vote on the health-care bill (which they did, with one Republican, Rep. Joseph Cao, voting with the Democrats). Thus the Republican strategy was simply to vote for the amendment to make choice effectively impossible for poor American women while they continued to play politics by opposing the final vote knowing that it would pass without their support.

As a result anti-choice Democrats facilitated setting back women's rights by decades and ultimately failed to covert any support from their ideological allies on the other side, with exception of Rep. Joseph Cao, when and where it really mattered.

For pro-choice progressives there is still a chance that the amendment might be stripped form the final bill during conference; however, depending on how much anti-choice Democrats are able to put on the conferees the amendment might endure the conference committee.

The extent of the Stupak amendment is far reaching and goes well beyond what was necessary to ensure that the Hyde amendment remained the law of the law. Blogger for FireDog Lake Jon Walker explains how the amendment's effect would be carried out in the exchanges:

If the insurance companies offering plans on the exchange are not allowed to turn down any costumers, it means no basic insurance plan on the exchange could cover abortion. There would be no way to prevent that at least one of the plan's costumer would be be using affordability tax credits to help purchase the plan. So the effect is no plan sold on the exchange could offer abortion coverage as part of its basic package.

Anti-choice proponents are no-doubt celebrating that the amendment passed and made its way into the final House bill. However, in their jubilation it is worth pointing out that the loser from this battle was the American woman, who once again has had her autonomy chipped away by people who have made their intention to impose their beliefs on other one step closer to becoming law.

While abortion remains a controversial issue for many Americans, one thing that we have learned over the years is that making it (effectively) illegal has never stopped women seeking an abortion from having one. Instead what these legislative measures have done is merely make the procedure unsafe, being conducted in unsafe environments, which potentially put the life of the mother and the unborn in danger.

In the meantime, while the Senate works on its version of the bill, pro-choice proponents can call representatives to make a final stanch for women's reproductive rights when the bill comes back around to the House. The is no reason for there to be health-care reform if it comes at the expense of women's rights.

It is obvious that since coming to Fox News Glenn Beck has sucked much of the hot air out of many radical-right commentators, like Ann Coulter, Michele Malkin, Rush Limbaugh, who now in the Beck Era are mere shells of their former selves. This of course is understandable, in the course of his one hour broadcast Glenn Beck provides viewers with their daily dose of demagoguery that former right-wing commentators needed a whole day to dispense. 

Well, right-wing commentators are not sitting down accepting defeat (unlike many Congressional Democrats and their desire for a public option). They are stepping up their game and bringing out the extreme rhetoric to show to their fan base that in the world of right-wing pundetry they are still relevant. 

Ann Coulter, the former star of the radical-right's ideological camp, in an attempt to outdo Beck's "progressives were once called 'slave-owners'" like comments and sell more copies of her book Guilty: Liberal "Victims" and Their Assault on America made a stunning declaration in a recent segment for The Joy Behar Show. "Every presidential assassination or attempted presidential assassination was committed by some kind of left-wing loon, communist, anarchist, communitarian, or they had no politics at all." She said delightfully. 

Behar, who is not a fan of social-conservatives (and I am sure the feeling is mutual), did not waste any time bouncing back, accusing Coulter of making illogical connections between liberals, murderers, and terrorists. 

Coulter's guilt by association argument is not a new, and has been used by social-conservatives over the past decades to assualt liberals and progress not based on their ideas but rather intangible associations. Possibly most famously articulated in Jonah Goldberg's book Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning. Of which as Eric Alterman of The Nation notes that the entire book is based on questionable ties between today's liberals and "progressives" like Hitler. Alterman writies, "Some fascists were vegetarians; some liberals are vegetarians; ergo... Some fascists were gay; some liberals are gay... Fascists cared about educating children; Hillary Clinton cares about educating children. Aha! ... This is a book that argues that Woodrow Wilson 'was the twentieth century's first fascist dictator' and that it is 'impossible to deny that the New Deal was objectively fascistic.'"

While scholars continue to debate whether or not one can accruately define fascism and figures as Adolf Hitler as extreme-left or extreme-right, right-wing pundits have had no trouble with making these associations to contemporary progressism with little regard for historical accuracy. The truth of the matter is while historical figures like Hilter or Mao Zedong have described themselves as forward-leaning for their time their ties to contempory maintstream progressivism in this country exist only in the minds of right-wing pundits like Glenn Beck. 

It is a clever strategy. Right-wing punidts know that they cannot win an argument on ideas, such as cleaner energy, better schools, reproductive choice, health-care for all, equal-rights for all Americans; and as a result must rely on misinformation and deception to scare voters into thinking that the contempary progressive movement is a political effort to finish the work of the 20th century worst war criminals and dictators. Rather than debunking the tenants of contemporary progressism right-wing pundits have tried to smear the movement with falsehoods in an attempt to turn the word progressive effectively into a political bad-word. And they have largely been successful in this charge. However, despite this when we take a look at the issues more Americans are agreeing with more progressive views than before. 

Coulter, like Beck and other prominent right-wing mainstream pundits, is not likely to stop the campaign to label every liberal proposal as a Marxist-communist-socialist-fascist take over anytime soon--it has been too profitable--however, their arguments which until Glenn Beck arrived merely hinged on the absurd has dived right in, and as a result more Americans are becoming tired of the illogical hyperbole rather than solutions. 

The White House has shifted the stragety of trying to rize above the fray to directly addressing the radical right's rhetoric, specifically Fox News and conservative commentators like Rush Limbaugh. Conservative leaders, and strangely many liberal-moderate commentators, have begun to criticize the White House for its decision to, as many have described it, launch a war against Fox News. 

The story of Obama's war on Fox News has been one of the leading stories on Fox News, which has used it as a means of justifying their claim that there are the lone voice of "fair and balanced" news in all of media as well the only outlet willing to criticize the president. Glenn Beck devoted much of his recent episodes to the story, leaving of course enough time for his latest Obama conspiracy theories: volunteering.

Conventional Washington politics said that president Obama should have stayed the course and not directly addressed Fox News' faux-news coverage, and continue to childish practice of ignoring the pink elephant in the room; whilist ideologues like Limbaugh and Beck continued their onsualt against not just the president policies but the president himself. The argument goes that when the White House engages in such a direct attack it diminishes the respect for the Office of the President; however, such an argument is, frankly, conservative bulls--t. 

For many observers of Fox News there is little to no respect for the current president, in fact many passionately believe that he does not belong in the White House, or the country for that matter. 

More importantly it is important for the established media that is criticizing the White House for addressing what Fox News has been for a long to acknowledge that Fox News has propped itself up as the talking-point machine for the conservative conspiracy-theorists. And this had a clear impact on the president efforts so far. Not in terms of advancing the discussion by including true conservative ideals into the legislation, but rather by obstructing both progressive and conservative ideals about the role of government in the health-care from being discussed. 

It is impossible for the nation as a whole to engage in a civil discussion about Obama's policies if Fox News and its cohorts have deceived a vocal portion of the electorate into believing that proponents of health-care reform want to kill our nation's elderly. The policy of simply sticking our heads into the sand and hoping the scary voices will go away has not worked--and historically never has, and likely never will. 

In the age of the 24hr news cycle, twitter, and thanks to Sarah Palin, Facebook, every moment that the administration allows the message to drift off course into the realm of conservative paranoia is a moment that the administration has not only wasted but also likely allowed conservative paranoia to derail reform. 

Obama made it clear earlier this year that he would call out those who mislead the public with falsehoods and fear. The established media should not be surprise that the administration now has finally decided to put those words to action. Then again this is Washington, D.C., so maybe being susprised to find a Democratic with some backbone is a bit unconventional. 

The voice from the fringe conservative right, Rep. Joe Wilson of South Carolina yelled "You lie" to the president during the president's speech to both houses of Congress, when the president reiterated the fact that illegal immigrants will not get covered under any of the legislation that is currently in the various committees.

The assertion that illegal immigrants will get coverage is a common assertion made by conservatives to rally their base, along with "Death Panels" and cuts in Medicare. While some Republicans might agree with Rep. Wilson most knew better than to scream at the President of the United States. Well, Rep. Wilson did not and he might have actually helped the president more so than he could imagine.

The notion is of course false, like so much of the recent Republican rhetoric against health-care reform. Legislation in the works in the house goes so far to state specifically that no money is to go to undocumented residents

Regardless of your ideological position, and unless you are one the few Americans that believe that President Obama should be arrested and deported to Kenya, there is a certain level of respect for the Office of the President that permeates throughout the country. And Rep. Wilson clearly articulated that it he was one that did not.

Unlike other foreign governments where such outbursts might be customary, the House of Commons in Britain for example, stateside we generally like to put on a good face. (When we throw dirt we like to do it behind the person's back.)

For independents and moderates watching the speech the incident it exemplifies what the debate has really been like since the Congress began working on health-care reform: the president advocating for reform that would help all Americans with facts and the opposition simply shouting fallacies.

Progressives have latched on to Wilson already and likely will make him out to be the new poster-boy of the opposition as a clear example of Republican obstruction to be contrasts to the president's continued willingness to listen to the other side.

Both Houses of Congress are set to get back to work in the coming days, and get back to work on health care reform, but in reality it does not seem as if they ever really left. Cable news has been following the issue heavily, almost giving health-care reform as much attention as Michael Jackson's departure from the world of living; primarily focused on the few disruptive town hall meetings.

After a month off, which should have ideally been used to inform the electorate about what is in the various bill that will be voted on in the coming days, we really have not advanced the discussion much. The potency of buzz phrases like "Death Panels" has seemed to die down, which is a great step forward; however, conservatives critics still largely cling to positions that do not advance the discussion, such as referring to the president as a Socialist (which even if he was should not make him on equal voting to Darth Vader), insinuating that health care reform is a secret Democratic attempt to further disadvantage pregnant women, children, veterans, old people, etc.

These conservatives, especially the elected ones, have essentially gotten away with it too thanks to the established news media reluctance to call them out on their hypocrisy. Sen. Chuck Grassley, a supposed ally of health care reform, was caught red-handed simultaneously saying that he is in favor of health-care reform while he said he is purposely trying to derail the report to reform health care. (See here)

Now that our elected officials are about to head back to the capital, (Progressive) Democrats must be ready to fight the rhetoric that has been used by Republicans to give themselves a free pass on passing health care reform for decades now. The current system was not made over night, but rather progressively building up until it became unequivocally clear that if the status quo does not change it would bankrupt the country.

The simple fact is that for seven of the last eight years of the previous administration Republicans were in control and passed sweeping legislation on education, military spending, and national security. If they had any sincere intention of reforming health care to help the small business owner, they claim the Obama administration is out to over tax and send into bankruptcy, they choose not to do so and the American people need to be reminded of that.

As Rachel Maddow pointed out in an elaborate skit earlier last month, Republicans (and some Democrats) have tried and to a certain degree succeeded in getting the American people to believe that they really have their constituents best interests in mind, rather than the corporate lobbyists that line their pockets.

The only people who will win in the long run if the status quo is allowed to stay in place are the Insurance Industrial Complex CEOs who have reaped billions off sick people. Their reluctance to embrace reform that would lower the cost for their customers and hold them accountable for what they said they would do is the best indication that we are on the right track. 

This entry is cross-posted from Clips N' Chips.

During President Obama's most recent town hall meeting in Grand Junction, Colorado, the president acknowledged that he and his administration were in fact loosing the battle over health care, when he downplayed the importance of having the so-called "Public Option" in the final legislation. The president's statements that the government plan that would be available for all Americans would not be necessary for him to consider the overall package a success, is an indication that the President is at this point reaching for whatever he can get. 

While President Obama is correct in that the Public Option is just one part of his ideal health care package, it is a crucial part in providing health care to the insured, keeping insurance companies from running monopolies like many do now (with some companies holding up to 70% of the policies in some states), and ultimately saving Americans who would choose to keep private insurance money. 

Nevertheless, the administration seems now poised to go ahead and pass legislation without the Public Option, which still is not likely to corral much Republican support. 

The administration has failed to comprehend the Republican strategy of derailing any and all legislation proposed by this administration, in hopes of watering down the bill(s) and/or stopping it outright, for the sake of scoring political points with the base and in effect running the agenda in Washington de facto despite having lost the previous election by significant margins. It is what happened with the stimulus package, what Republicans tried to do with the budget, and where Republicans almost succeeded in doing with the defense appropriations bill that cut funding for the F-22 Fighter Jet. 

Heath care is likely to be the straw that breaks the camel's back for the Obama administration, if he cannot press forward and come out ahead of the Palin like rhetoric that is spewing from the political Right. President Obama has spent several months talking up health care reform, not to mention putting huge amounts of political capital on the line to garner public support for this piece of legislation that is decades, almost generations overdue. To see his plan go up in smoke, especially over such folly like the suggestion of "Death Panels" being included in the bill, will cast doubt--if it has not already--in the president's supporters who initially saw his administration as one that could transcend conventional Washington politics. 

Maybe it is the fact that the president filled much of his inner circle with former Clintonites that are permanently scarred from the last Democratic attempt to reform health-care,  or possibly the fact that the president is or was, as Paul Krugman suggested in his opt-ed last week for the New York Times, too naive when he entered office thinking that Republicans would be ready to work with the new administration; in either case we have seen the current health care debate derailed by farcical rhetoric from the conservative right. As a result President Obama now finds himself on the defense for what should be an open and shut case. 

The American health care system is bust. While conservative pundits religiously repeat the poll numbers that show that a majority of Americans enjoy their private insurance, no American enjoys paying higher premiums for the same amount of care, and not having a choice in what care they can receive if one insurance company has a monopoly in their state. 

The fact that the president and Democrats in Congress have failed to properly frame the debate over health-care reform is an indication to their inability to control the message, an apparent inherent Democratic defect. Even if the President gets a bill passed that does not include the Public Option, which would put him at odds with his strongest supporters, in hopes of getting something passed this year; significant damage has already been done to his presidency and creditability. 

The President's town hall in Grand Junction was a great step in combating the misconceptions and lies circulating throughout the press, and played to the President's strength in talking directly to the public rather than through the White House Press Corps; however, it baffles the mind why the administration sat on its fingers while the conservative talking point machine was able to do its job for so long. 

If the Republicans in Congress can defeat or derail health care reform long enough as the President's window of opportunity to pass this legislation closes it is likely to put the administration and Obama's presidency into a position where he does not have a majority of the public's support. Not because they believe what is coming out of conservative pundits and elected officials mouths, but because they will doubt his ability to execute his initiatives properly. Doubt and fear have become the Republicans main tools in attacking the president. 

In trying so hard to not become just another partisan president, President Obama may very well put himself into a position where he cannot implement his agenda because he gave Republicans in Congress too much wiggle room. If that happens it will open the door to a Republican take over during the midterm elections, which would ultimately only compound the difficulties. 

Since Republicans are out of power, they are absolved of any responsibility in the public's eye (and they continue to repeat that they are in the minority to ensure the public sees it that way), but yet continue to have a seat at the table. As a result fringe like Republican ideology has become a parasite to the civic process; and the administration has allowed it to corrupt the system for too long. 

President Obama cannot tackle the problem of unruly Republicans by himself, Democrats in Congress must also stop playing defense and allowing conservative pundits like Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich to set the agenda. Despite having won the past two elections, Democrats still behave as if they are in the minority; and that is only likely to get worse once the campaign season for midterm elections get kicked into high gear, as we all know Democrats, with the exception of those from very safe districts, become more conservative almost overnight. 

The message President Obama should be sending to both the American people and Democratic leaders who are on the fence about healthcare reform if he wants to be truly successful is, "if not now, when?". For Americans to make the point that our current system will lead to ultimately a far worse scenario if we do nothing; and to Democratic Congressmen to drive home the fact that they were put into office to make these changes and that Republican, who have had years to reform healthcare when the economy was doing well but chose not to, have demonstrated no interest in fixing the errors. 

The lead up to Sarah Palin's resignation in July became the top story across the press. Networks gathered pundits from every direction to debate, dissect and interpret the ex-governor's words and actions as the day drew nearer. When the day finally arrived, it was as if the rest of the world stood still as the Republican Vice-Presidential candidate that failed to win the election for her party resigned from her job as governor abruptly, not even having served two years in that post.

Everyone argued about what exactly would become of the governor after she left office. Many suggested that the governor would disappear from the national spotlight, while she worked to build up her portfolio, we assume to run for the presidency in 2016, educate herself on the issues which she showed that she had little knowledge of during the campaign, and pay off her mounting debt from legal fees she accrued as governor of Alaska.

However, the governor has remained in the spotlight, and in fact has played a large part in shaping the national discussion on healtcare despite being out of the governorship and away from the Alaska press corps that would follow her as governor. Her new medium has been her Facebook page, and her audience, aside from her at last checked 777,825 Facebook supporters, has been the news media, which has decided to become Sarah Palin's Facebook paparazzi.

You can be sure that this entry is not about Sarah Palin. Listening or watching a Sarah Palin speech is as intellectually stimulating as watching turkeys drown in rain, as a country we have far more important issues to discuss than listening to someone who has clearly demonstrated the inability to produce a coherent argument. This entry is about the news media's obsession, to the point of obstruction, with the ex-governor.

Sarah Palin has become a lighting rod in American politics and Washington beltway journalism, because those in journalism have decided to exalt her to such a position. Sen. McCain, the actual head of the Republican ticket last November and still a current Republican Senator, has been all but forgotten in the political arena; whereas his running mate has managed to dominate the news. As we have seen with the recent rhetoric about "Death Panels", triggered by Sarah Palin via Facebook, the press has turned debate over health care reform largely into a Sarah Palin and her supporters v. Barack Obama.

Such a scenario is an absurd equivalence that the media must take responsibility for and correct.

Sarah Palin like every American has the right to voice her opinions on the issues, whether via Facebook or an opt-ed in a newspaper; and should if she wants to act as a medium for her ideological base. If the media chooses to pick up the story it should be kept in context and reported in conjunction with the facts. Sarah Palin does not need the assistance of Washington journalists to spread her message. That's what her Facebook page is for after all.The fact that like everyone who can read at a fourth grade level, the news media knew that there was no mention of anything close to the "Death Panels" that the governor mentioned in her status update last week, and yet continued to circulate the story throughout the press is indicative of the type of media irresponsibility that we have come so accustomed to.

If the news media chooses simply report a story rather than reporting the facts that go along with it, it makes the news media no more reliable that traditional tabloid journalism, and should be grouped as such.

Sarah Palin and those like her continue to be a thorn in side of American intellectualism and civil discourse, because the powers that be have given people like her the soap box to stand on and spread their ideology and rhetoric, which does not have to be supported by the facts. As a result we have seen our discussion on health-care derailed by illogical comments such as "government wants to pull the plug on grandma", "Obama is a socialist-Marxist-fascist", and "I don't want government-run health care. I don't want socialized medicine. And don't touch my Medicare."

We can have an intelligent discussion about the role of government in providing health care to its citizens. We can have a enlightened conversation about making the tough decisions, such as end of life care, and what role the government should have, if any, in that. We can have a civil debate about the role of government in terms of spending and controlling the deficit. However, to do so we must put aside the rhetoric, which in this debate has become akin to a cancer; and the media's role in that is separating the pure political rhetoric (from both sides) from the discussion as it presents the news to its viewers.

In their continual onslaught to delegitimize the President, his administration, and his policies conservatives pundits from Rush Limbaugh to members of the Republican caucus have turned the Anti-Obama rhetoric up to critical. No longer content with calling the President of the United States a racist, "reverse-racist", socialist, or an "community-organizer" conservative pundits have jumped to the next best thing to rally their troops: calling Barack Obama a Nazi.

We saw a preview of this towards the end of the 2008 campaign at McCain and Palin rallies; however, now the Nazi rhetoric has come back in full force to attack the President's agenda at Democratic congressmen's town hall meeting during the August recess. 

It is being stoked by folks like Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck, who are the de facto poster boys for the new fringe conservative movement, that is chasing away moderates at an alarming rate and shows no sign of stopping. 

In 1990 Mike Godwin coined what is commonly referred to as Godwin's Law, which states, "As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1." While initially developed to describe what Godwin had observed on the Internet, social conservatives have made it clear that Godwin's Law applies both online and offline.

The folks at Stuff White People Like also weighed in on this classic political tactic, 

Comparing people to Hitler is an easy way for white people to get a strong point across to the less enlightened, or the insufficiently white. Everyone knows who Adolf Hitler was. And everyone knows that Hitler was very, very bad. Therefore, if a white person really, REALLY, doesn't like something or someone, he or she may angrily say something to the effect of, "This is exactly the same kind of thing that Hitler used to do!" accompanied by varying levels of profanity based on blood-alcohol content. No matter what your gut reaction may be at that point, do not disagree with that white person. Otherwise, well, you love Hitler.

(Read the complete entry here)

There is no doubt that playing "the Nazi card" provokes some response from observers, and in a starved for ratings news media news is always good news, no matter how incoherent the comparison. 

While Glenn Beck has been beating the drums of "Fascism is here" for a while, it is his ideological predecessor Rush Limbaugh who takes home the gold for stirring up the radical fringe of conservative movement with his speech to his followers this week on the apparent--though only his followers seem to think so--connections between President Obama and Adolf Hitler. 

Needless to say, it is a nonsensical comparison, one which even those that like to believe that the Masonic Order is behind everything we do would have trouble believing. The most laughable thing about the rhetoric so far is that in comparison to what progressives and liberal Democrats have been advocating for throughout the years the proposals on the table are more aligned to something Milton Freedman would propose as opposed to Che Guevara. 

This rhetoric which is being herald by some as the "average middle-class person standing up for freedom" is an obstruction to civil discourse, and does not at all advance the discussion of health care reform, regardless of anyone's ideological position. Which explains why it is being propped up by insurance companies and lobbying groups that enjoy, in fact thrive, in the current system and want to maintain the status quo. 

To a certain extent I pity those working/middle-class voters that interrupt town hall meetings and force their children to hold up signs that say "No to Fascism, No to Obama." As they stand their shouting the insurance companies continue to roll hundreds of American families off their plans in an effort to make more money, while American families continue to struggle through an economic recession generations in the making. Who will they yell at when finally pushed by the forces of the free market, their insurance company decides to no longer cover them? Will they blame the government for not being there when they needed it most, and will their icons like Limbaugh forget about them and move onto the next issue to boost his ratings?

This entry is cross-posted from Clips N' Chips

After loosing two consecutive election cycles the mainstream of the Republican Party has decided to forgo any kind of strategy to grow the base, and as instead decided to go down with the ship, so to speak; and embraced the Southern Elderly White Conservative-Evangelical stranglehold that has kept the party from growing for years now. 

In past the South has proved itself to be the Republican home turf, and allowed the Republicans to take over the Congress in the 90s, and effectively remained in control until January 20th, 2009. However, Republican pollsters and strategist have since failed to see the writing on the wall, and have resumed the Southern Strategy despite all evidence pointing to the fact that in 2010 and likely all years thereafter it is a strategy bound to loose seats not gain any.

The Republican Party has all but given up on trying to expand the base on racial lines. Their greatest effort so far to woo Black voters as been to put in place as the party chairmen Michael Steele, who has so far only served as an embarrassment to African-Americans and Republicans alike--so in that sense maybe they are beginning both groups together. As for Latino voters, the Republican backlash against Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court has all but made it painstakingly clear to Latino voters, the fast growing voting block in America, that they are not welcomed within the GOP.

To add to all of this in the midst of the worst recession in history since the Great Depression the GOP has taken the stance publicly to put politics over policy on issues critical to American families that are suffering, whether it be on health care reform, education, or the housing crisis. Republicans on the Hill have decided to simply beat the drums of "Government is the problem" until everyone decides to stop listening. And poll after poll suggests that reality is much closer than we all had previously thought.

Because individual Republican Congressmen care only about getting re-elected and come from districts that are more like to vote for Lucifer himself before they vote for a Democrat, they have used their time in Congress to cater to their ideological bedfellows, which represent a smaller and smaller portion of the electorate, and have become increasingly extreme and paranoid than ever before.

Some Republicans have seen where the party is heading and have begun to speak up about it; however, Pandora's Box has already been opened, and as many have observed it might be "too little, too late" to save the current Republican Party from marching off the cliff. With Republican leaders suggesting now that Democrats want to kill old people and that the country elected an illegal-alien, what is there left to save?

Conservative intellectualism, which today sounds like an oxymoron, has all but vanished from the Republican Party. The party has become nothing more than a hoard of empty ideologues, who control an even greater hoard of Proles who passionately follow orders no matter how unfounded.

Nevertheless, progressives and Democrats should not whimsically brush off the new GOP as something without any sway in Washington. Republicans, with what little power they have in the Congress, can still obstruct the necessary progress that is needed to move the country forward. As we have seen with the recent spread of misconceptions about health care reform, now called "health insurance reform", the Republican Party and its backers will stop at nothing to derail reform efforts. It is much easier for them to win this debate, because they resort to lies and fear-tactics.

Democrats on recess should as others have suggested create a game-plan to deal with the Republican hoards at their town meetings and effectively squash this obstruction before the mainstream media spreads it via the airways and allows it to fester.

Hopefully if Democrats are able to do that they can render the GOP ineffective while it continues its death spiral into become a relic of history.

Last night while standing in for Keith Olbermann on Countdown, David Shuster had Charles Peirce on to discuss Liz Cheney's reluctance to say Obama is a citizen when she was pressed on her thoughts when she appeared on Larry King this week.

It was clear, as Nicolas Graham of the Huffington Post pointed out (see here), that Shuster wanted to turn the segment into a beat-up on Liz Cheney and the Birther movement; however, Peirce, a journalist for a newspaper, quickly changed the discussion to the mainstream media's tendency to give people like Liz Cheney and other conservative pundits the soap to stand on.

Shuster was not having any of it. See here.

Shuster seemingly fails to comprehend that each day media outlets like MSNBC or CNN go about talking about the Birther movement they are giving it validity and inadvertingly allowing it to continue and spread. There is no need to invite Cheney 2.0 or any other wingnut to defend an irrational position, whether it is the Birther movement or "government take over of healthcare" .

And yet for three days now the topic of Obama's birth has been a recurring segment on Hardball with Chris Matthews.

The obsession of the traditional media outlets to cover and dedicate precious time to these kind of stories is just further evidence that these outlets have forgotten their responsibility to provide news, and have instead settled on providing entertainment for a segment of their ideological base.

To a certain extent we are all at fault. I enjoy the occasional ideological beat down of a Republican congressperson on cable television every now and again; however, with healthcare reform about ready to be put back on the shelf for who knows how long, it is not the time to engage in meaningless cable chatter.

After days of speculating and the White House has confirmed on that on Monday June 29th, the President will host a Pride Reception in the White House; and has invited a several prominent leaders from the queer-community to attend the event, as well as families with gay parents, and other Queer-Americans in celebration of the Stonewall Riots. The White House also confirms that the President plans to attend the event.

All of this is a very welcomed symbolic gesture by the President and his administration to what has been nothing short of a tremendously rocky relationship with the queer--community since the President took office in January, in fact since he announced Rev. Rick Warren would be speaking at his inauguration last year. However, is it "too little, too late" to repair the damage that was done?

It has been difficult to discern how supportive of an ally the President wants to be, as we have been receiving nothing but mix signals from him and his administration. Like Americans general support for the President and his policies, there is a stark difference between the two for Queer-Americans.

At the rhetoric end of things the President has maintained his stance that he is committed to fulfilling his campaign process, and displayed public supportive for Queer-Americans, such as declaring June LGBT Pride Month, inviting gay-families to the annual White House egg hunt, and saying that he maintained committing to repealing both the Defense of Marriage Act and the controversial Don't Ask, Don't Tell.

However, on the policy end things have been quite difference, which has fueled the hostilities, that are only now showing signs of cooling down. While many debate whether or not the President should have defended the DOMA case, all generally agree that the rhetoric used to defend the law was not becoming of a supportive ally. The President has also gotten some heat from progressives and queer-advocates because he has yet to make a substantial move on Don't Ask, Don't Tell, and deflected responsibility on that issue to Congress.

There are now signs that things are changing, both the policy and rhetorical end; and it could not have come any sooner for Democrats, who were losing important donors for the annual fundraiser. The President has expanded some rights to federally employed same-sex couples (though not as much as many had hoped for or initially thought), expanded some benefits to Trans-Americans, will allow married same-sex couples to carry their married name on their passports, called on Congress to pass legislation to repeal the DOMA.

While many have simplified the President's actions to him primarily trying to stay in good favor with a loyal voting and donating block of the Democratic Party, which surely played some part of the political calculation, these changes still represent a significant step forward for Queer-Americans.

When the President signed the executive memorandum last week Wednesday expanding some rights to federally employed same-sex couples, he made his desire known that he wants Congress to provide him with the legislation on DOMA (and presumably DADT as well) sooner rather than later. It was that part of the ceremony that most observers were closely watching.

Until that point other than simply reaffirming his commitment to the Queer community--which at that point had become rather trite--the President had not publicly said anything directed at the Congress to send him legislation on gay-rights to sign. The President's silence was a fact that many contributed to the snail like pace the current legislation in the Congress has making its way through the House and to the Senate, such as Rep. Ellen Tauscher bill, the Military Readiness Enhancement Act, which would repeal the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy.

The President remains a polarizing figure in the Queer community. His ambiguousness as to how supportive of an ally he considers himself, and how that translates to getting through the necessary legislation, has left many befuddled and confused. While he is the most queer-friendly President for any president that has had to deal with the gay-issue his track record is marred with policy and political decisions that have angered and frustrated many.

While the President has yet to strike out, he is coming up from behind. Monday's Pride Reception will likely be an important opportunity for the President to reset his relationship with the queer community if he handles it well. If he simply treats the event as nothing more than a political photo opt, he is likely to get berated by many as trying to procrastinate even further; however, if he can lay the foundation for the road ahead he just maybe might have done the impossible yet again.

Late last night news broke that the President would be signing an memorandum to extend many benefits to federally employed same-sex couples. The exact extent of the memorandum remains sketchy as I am writing this piece. And there is the possibility the reason the President is signing this is to avoid these changes from coming into conflict with the Defense of Marriage Act, which the administration chooses to defend in court--despite saying on the campaign that the President would repeal the amendment. 

Some gay advocates and observers, who have been able to get their hands on some of the details are already suggesting that the memorandum does not go far enough for same-sex federal employees, implying that some of the benefits will still be denied to them. That remains to be seen. (There is also speculation that there is some legal difference between a "memorandum" and "executive order", which might also impact how influential this move is for advancing queer-rights.)

What are Queer-Americans suppose to make of this? Many have astutely pointed out that this is primarily a political move to appease Queer-Americans again, who have grown increasingly frustrated with the President's silence and in some cases flip-flopping, rather than actual advancing his agenda for Queer-Americans. And if it turns out that this memorandum does not go all the day, and ensures that the DOMA can remain on the books, the President is likely to dig himself further in the whole with the queer and progressive community. 

Many believed that repealing DOMA or DADT would have been one of the President earliest achievements once he was in office; however, over the past months it has become painstakingly clear that the administration does not want to touch any queer-rights issues with a ten-foot poll. It has reached the point that several prominent gay fundraisers have decided to opt out of a annual fundraiser for the Democratic Party--which many have seen as a direct correlation to the President making this move. 

Looking at the glass as half-full, if the President is serious about advancing gay-rights--and that seems less and less likely as the days go by--he is likely trying to avoid a contentious battle with Republicans on the Hill on gay-rights as a distraction to the economic and other domestic issues the President must face. And then there is also the sad possibility that the President intends to drag his feet on gay rights throughout his first term. The later is becoming a unrealistic expectation.Queer-Rights groups and Queer-Americans have been adamant that the President must live up to his promises made during the campaign or seek support elsewhere. 

Hopefully in his speech on extending the benefits, the President will layout his agenda and timeline for Same-Sex couples for the rest of the year, or first term. The administration cannot and should not expect to be able to treat such a devoted demographic the way it has. Throughout the first months of the administration, on policy matters the President has shied away from queer-issues as much as politically possible, while continuing the supportive rhetoric from the campaign trail. These conflicting messages have reached a boiling point in the queer and ally community, and it seems that they have forced Obama's hand. 

This morning as I got ready to head out to work I heard the bleeping sound my iPhone makes to alert me of a new email or message. Unsure of what the message could be (after all so much has had over the past holiday weekend) I quickly grabbed my phone and punched in the password to find four new messages to be read in my Inbox. They all essentially read the same: "Breaking News: Obama to Announce Supreme Court Pick at 10:15AM" was the generic headline. I immediately went into Politico mode, trying to remember who all of the suspected candidates were; however, I did not have to think long as NPR sent out an email blast notifying subscribers that Obama was going to nominator Judge Sonia Sotomayor.

I became instantly ecstatic. Judge Sotomayor was my leading favorite for the post. She came across as wise jurist with a good head on her shoulder, an amazing legal background, and a personal background as American as Apple Pie. I wondered how exactly Republicans could possibly oppose such an amazing and qualified candidate for the position.

I should have known better.

It did not take long for the conservative talking-heads, such as Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck, to find and dust off their How to Oppose a Democrat Judicial Appointee For Dummies manual and come up with a game plan on how to try and convince Americans that Sotomayor was not qualified for the position. This time it seems obvious that the conservative is opting out to engage in a model civil debate over Sotomayor judicial record and go straight for the crazy none-sense they have been known for over the past couple of months.

Rush Limbaugh called her a reverse racist--along with the President--and said he wanted her to fail--along with the President. Glenn Beck insinuated that she was an "affirmative action pick", when he referred to her as a "Hispanic Chic", and got the nomination because of her ethnicity and sex; and not the fact that she was the 2nd top graduating student at Yale Law School when she graduated, has served on the Appeals Court for several years, worked within the District Attorney's Office of New York City, and worked in the private sector.

It would seem obvious to most that Judge Sotomayor is more than qualified to justify her nomination to the post, after all as pointed out by conservative and liberal pundits alike she has a far greater judicial background than most Justices on the Court at the time of their nomination. Realizing this conservatives have apparently based their entire case against her on two statements she has made, that seemingly justify former Presidential Candidate Tom Tancredo calling her a racist--barring any skeletons in her closet, which would undoubtedly come up during her vetting process by Republicans on the Hill and conservative lobbying groups.

The first being a comment she made at Duke University in 2006 about the Appeals Court being a body that makes policy, which she quickly realized was not the politically-correct thing to say--especially since they were being taped--and jokingly tried to backtrack. To conservatives this confirms that she is an "activist judge", a judge that believes it is their role to create laws, and thus strip that right from the legislature. The only problem with this tried and tested (and somehow successful) tactic is that it is terribly misleading, as anyone who has read the constitution realizes that through the process of ruling on a case the Court can, and has, changed public policy. In some case for good, such as the Brown v. Board of Education case, and sometime not so good, like in the famous Dred Scott decision.

The Founding Fathers and authors of our constitution realized that if the Judicial Branch was to be any kind of effective body of government it would be necessary for court rulings not just to be legal theory on pieces of paper that is held up because the legislature cannot, or refuses to, take action but rather rulings that carry the full weight of the law.

For conservatives to imply that  a liberal or moderate-leaning left Judge (as they are the only one ever criticized for judicial activism) does not have a right explicitly given to them by the constitution implies not just a lack of appreciation for our constitution but also a lack of simple comprehensive skills. Proponents of Sotomayor's nomination, and future Supreme Court, or lower court nominations, would do well to silence this ideologically fallacy once for and for all.

Sotomayor's second controversial comment resolves around one she made about being able to come to better decisions because she is a Latin-American woman. On the surface we might be inclined to agree with conservatives on this point, I do think their is some truth to what she says. While historically White male justices, which have disproportionately occupied the Court throughout our nation's history, we have also come down on the right side of the law and history, we have to realize that our individual background will inform our inform our interpretation of the law. Imagine if there were an African-American justice on the Court during the Dred Scott case, or a woman on the court during the Minor v. Happersett case.

To play Devil's advocate, I believe when Judge Sotomayor made that statement she was implying that because of her background her decisions as it relates to the issues that effect people like her, whether they be cases involving those that are disabled, a minority, or cases involving gender, such as Roe v. Wade--if that case should ever come up to the Court again.

Of course at the end of the day, like so much in Washington, this issues comes down to money and attention. While the GOP waits to see whether or not the President's recovery package works or if there is another attack on American soil by foreign terrorist, there is a need to find some red meat to keep their voters satisfy that they being as effective as possible at derailing the President's agenda. Knowing full well that Republicans lack the votes to stop this vote from happening, and are on the record suggesting that filibustering a judicial nominee is an abuse of the system, Republicans and their henchmen in the press have no reason to go about opposing Sotomayor in a civil manner. All options are on the table.

Politically we are in for a fun summer, as everything Sotomayor has done on the bench or off will likely be dug up and dragged through the press in an effort to cast doubt on an otherwise qualified candidate.