Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
Rachel Maddow had an excellent segment last night pointing out that the same people who are lying - yes, lying; not exaggerating, not interpreting differently, just plain lying - about the provision in the healthcare reform bill to provide for counseling on end-of-life decisions have in the past taken the exact opposite position on the importance of such counseling. She catches Rush Limbaugh, Newt Gingrich and Sarah Palin and nails them dead to rights on the issue. Video below the fold.
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
Politics
Comments
... and the main point is that the media outlets apparently prefer to chase after the (oh, so juicy) lies than to actually report the truth.
Spending time uncovering lies only gives airtime and therefore (perversely) a level of credibility to the liar. Furthermore, when a lie becomes publicly accepted (even by a segment of the populace), then you have a situation in which the reporters feel like they have to report on the "controversy" (since we all like a little controversy). Lying and shouting those dog-whistle lies to the rafters works as the perfect bait for the 24hr news channels.
It's at times like this when I wish there were a better system of TV news coverage than the "We're reporting on what is happening right now" all day long without any substantive thought behind any of it, let alone investigations into why the events people are seeing actually are happening.
Posted by: Umlud | August 14, 2009 9:36 AM
She's also going to be on Meet The Press this Sunday opposite Dick Army. Should be good watchin'.
Posted by: Skip | August 14, 2009 9:36 AM
See also, Jon Stewart pulling Glenn Beck's card on Health Care in America on last night's daily show.
Posted by: Josh | August 14, 2009 9:43 AM
Yet for all their lies, it appears they might be winning, both at the grass roots level and by way of lobbying, in spite of overwhelming public support. Not that a bill won't be signed, but whether it will actually have the intended impact.
The Senate appears to have dropped end-of-life consultations from the bill. Far importantly, the public option, what is required for any authentic lasting reform in the industry, appears to be on very shaky ground.
Posted by: Michael Heath | August 14, 2009 9:44 AM
I went off on one of my conservative friends last night because he started in on the whole "deather" thing. He wasn't advocating it, as much as saying "If this is true..." I'm sort of regretting it, because I went off worse than I should rather than answering calmly. When they're getting their questions from the right-wing insano-hacks, rather than an actual understanding and concern about what's in the bill, it drives me nuts, because the insano-hacks are obviously driven by an agenda that has nothing to do with health care.
I'm going to say more today in a more calm manner, but my overall points were that it doesn't pass the sniff test at all, people just aren't that evil, nothing actually says that, etc.
There was someone over at PalMD's that started in with the same question, got several respectful, detailed answers (much less snark than usual, too), and ended up going off on us about one world government and the end of the world.
You can't win.
Posted by: Ranson | August 14, 2009 9:50 AM
Michael,
What we have to hope is that, following the break, congress comes back and basically tells the Republicans, "This is what we're going to do." And goes ahead with their majorities and passes the best reform we can get the votes for. When the Republicans who were "working with the Democrats" effectively (or literally) come out and say, "we were just stalling so you can disrupt the democratic process," it's time to tell them to get lost.
At this point it is a matter of lead, follow, or get out of the way. The Republicans are going to have to get the hell out of the way.
Posted by: dogmeatib | August 14, 2009 10:02 AM
I don't have conservative friends. Life is too short to spend it with assholes.
Posted by: Owen | August 14, 2009 10:08 AM
Stewart noting that Beck's hemorrhoid surgery was apparently unsuccessful as Beck is still talking out of his ass was good. . .
None of those asshats like Limbaugh and Beck are actually conservatives. They're unprincipled shills who will say and do anything as long as the money keeps flowing in their direction.
Posted by: Nan | August 14, 2009 10:22 AM
FLIP FLOPPERS!!!
Posted by: n | August 14, 2009 10:47 AM
I try not to be paranoid when it comes to the right but I think the fear machine is working all too well. Too many Americans are willing to believe any crazy, frightening or evil thing about Obama and the democratic administration. First you have the birthers and socialisim, health care reform and death panels. Now I hear they will start rounding up conservatives and putting them in FEMA camps. Swine flu vaccine is poisoned they say. Thirty thousand graves have supposedly been dug in Arizona for the comeing revolution. They have laid the groundwork for the gullable to come flocking to the polls so the kind and gentle republicans can save them from the boogeymen.
Posted by: petyD | August 14, 2009 11:14 AM
Your so cool owen!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: Louis B. | August 14, 2009 11:19 AM
@8 Nan:
What's the difference? This sounds like a no true Scotsman fallacy.Posted by: Chris Caprette | August 14, 2009 11:20 AM
Here is the best debate I've seen on health care. It's George Stephanopoulos hosting Howard Dean and Newt Gingrich.
The only point where I agree with Gingrich in this debate is on the same point where I may respectfully disagree with dogmeatib (not sure how he wants to get a majority vote).
The Senate can vote this as a certain type of budgetary measure that closes debate even if more than 40 Senators want to stall, meaning they'd only need 51 votes to pass Health Care, not 60 votes to have a vote. This rule refers to Dean's argument they only need 51 votes to pass Health Care and Gingrich's dissent that rule would be wrongly applied (Gingrich is technically correct).
This is how the GOP passed Bush's tax cuts, which goes to dogmeatib's observant point in another thread that GOP is more committed to winning than the Democrats. The negative to a bill passed leveraging this rule is there are expiration dates on such bills, which would require subsequent vote(s) several years from now; just like Bush's tax cuts are due to expire.
I'm a long-time proponent of super-majority rules in the Senate. What we need is the Democrats to stick together and do a far better job marketing this initative. I think they've failed miserably on both counts. I do think Howard Dean is a doing a great job of pushing their agenda and highly recommend you read his book, which I'll be writing a review for soon where I'll rate it at either 3 or 4 stars.
Posted by: Michael Heath | August 14, 2009 11:23 AM
Nan: Since you obviously seem like a conservative, you need to realize someone can share your views and still be an "unprincibled shill" about it. There are conservatives with their head screwed on right out there, but they're not the ones people are listening to.
Posted by: Louis B. | August 14, 2009 11:26 AM
The public overwhelmingly supports some sort of nebulous "reform" that they imagine will bring down costs and "cover" more people.
What they will get is some frankenstein bill riddled with corporate welfare that will most likely increase their overall costs, including taxes, while mandating payment from others.
Posted by: Juice | August 14, 2009 11:41 AM
I'm somewhat torn on the marketing thing. On the one hand I like the idea of the Dem strategy of discussing the substance of the bill, the data behind it, and the intended outcomes. I want to be part of an America where this sort of thing is addressed in townhall meetings, where people can have their questions answered by the legislators, a forum for public discussion and debate. So I appreciate the strategy for embodying my ideals.
On the other hand it’s not nearly as effective as playing the game. If the bill’s supporters really want to get people behind it they need concrete examples, people the public can identify with. They need a little old lady, whose husband’s health struggle before he died drained their retirement funds, leaving her without home or husband. They need a professionally successful person who lost everything when an illness took away their ability to work. Or a person who’s insurance dropped or failed them when they needed it most. Talking about the numbers, how much we pay, how little we get, how we’re falling farther and farther behind, lacks that emotional punch that truly motivates. Dems need their own Joe the Plumber of heath care reform.
I wish the current strategy was more effective, what a better world that would be. But I’m not sure the reality of human psychology will allow it.
Posted by: Abby Normal | August 14, 2009 12:03 PM
I have to agree, unfortunately, with Juice on this. The congress wants to take the time off to play CYA. I'm going to draft a letter to my congress critters right now, I'll post it here when I send it.
Posted by: democommie | August 14, 2009 12:04 PM
Dogmeatib,
Sadly, the Democrats will do no such thing. The Blue Dog Dems will insist on the inclusion of a certain amount of Republican leaning language, in order to protect their seats in districts that have historically voted Republican. National Democratic strategists will quietly applaud this approach, because it will ensure both a claim of victory in the reform battles, and a claim of majority in the Senate. In reality, of course, this means that the Republicans will get some of what they want in the bill, thus rendering it less then useful for most Americans.
Posted by: Philip H | August 14, 2009 12:11 PM
"None of those asshats like Limbaugh and Beck are actually conservatives. They're unprincipled shills..."
I've taken to calling them nihilist demagogues myself. I don't believe that this is necessarily a "No true Scotsman" argument -- and no, I'm not a conservative. I simply don't buy that they give a rat's ass about promoting any kind of conservative movement (much less the Republican party itself) except as rubes to exploit. All they do seem to care about is self-promotion for their own personal gain, both ego and financial.
Posted by: harmfulguy | August 14, 2009 12:28 PM
Juice @ 15 questioning my "overwhelming public support for a public option" statment:
I was under the assumption the 72% - 78% support for a public option that was being reported in June still held. A July 31st Time poll showed that number at 56%, so I concede my "overwhelming public support" overextends actual support.
However, I don't think however the majority support is "nebulous", here's a money quote from the relevant Time / poll results article:
To pile on to a repeated point by dogmeatib, if the Republicans were polling this strong on one of their items, they find a way to pass the bill. Let's see if the Democrats can do the same.
Posted by: Michael Heath | August 14, 2009 12:45 PM
Relisten to the Gingrich speech. What i find fascinating is not that he is arguing against the idea of old people choosing suicide rather than desperate last-minute life extension. He isn't. He's arguing that this is what old people will choose -- and that is where the savings will come from -- and that is the reason he is praising the program.
Posted by: Prup (aka Jim Benton) | August 14, 2009 12:50 PM
Forget to insert the Time article. Here it is: http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1913426,00.html
Posted by: Michael Heath | August 14, 2009 12:50 PM
harmfulguy @19:
Okay then, who is a "real conservative(TM)"? Hoover? Eisenhower? Nixon? Kissinger? Reagan? GHWB? GWB? Cheney? Will? Stein? Someone either has to define the term to encompass a particular set of criteria then apply it consistently or accept that the term's meaning evolves and that conservatives now are not the same, but are just as "real" as conservatives of the past. IMO the current popular self-identified conservatives are loud-mouthed bullies that succeeded in turning the word "liberal" into a pejorative resulting in "conservative" becoming an empty word meaning the negation of the equally empty word "liberal". In other words, the words "conservative" and "liberal" are loaded equivalents of "us" and "them". If your argument is that the term "conservative" has been co-opted by thuggish profiteers, well you're probably right, but those not wanting to be equated to Bill-O and his ilk had better come up with a different term because it is years too late to reclaim "conservative" for whatever benevolent meaning you think that it may have had.Posted by: Chris Caprette | August 14, 2009 1:02 PM
"They need a little old lady, whose husband’s health struggle before he died drained their retirement funds, leaving her without home or husband. They need a professionally successful person who lost everything when an illness took away their ability to work. Or a person who’s insurance dropped or failed them when they needed it most."
I don't disagree with you but isn't this just one of the premises behind the movie "Sicko?" The movie's out there, tons of people have seen it, I doubt rehashing it would change many minds. At least not many of these people:
http://bluehampshire.com/diary/8028/a-childs-garden-of-teabaggery
(about half way down the page there's a woman holding a sign that says "Keep your laws off my body." Who wants to bet she's pro-life?)
Posted by: Jonathan | August 14, 2009 1:17 PM
I'm simply saying that I suspect a difference between the mass of "true believers" who really buy into the conservative agenda (however it's defined), and a handful of predators who pay lip service in order to exploit them.
Posted by: harmfulguy | August 14, 2009 1:24 PM
This is the text of the letter I sent to my democratic congress critters. I don't consider my congressional district to be represented at the moment as the seat is held by John McHugh, a republican I don't much care for, who is Obama's nominee for Sec of the Army.
I also sent it to the NY Dem Party's HQ
If you agree with the sentiments and it will save you some time use it, or cut'n'paste what you like.
Text of Letter:
Dear (Congress critter):
This oath:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.",
if I have it right, is the one that all members of the U.S. Congress swear to when they are seated.
Many of your colleagues, on both sides of the aisle, are derelict in those sworn duties.
It is becoming apparent, once again, that the congress, one that is--theoretically, at least--controlled by your party is about to roll over and beg. Instead of doing for your constituents what you have promised, in taking your oath of office, to do, you are simply caving to public opinion, threats from the GOP and parties whose only intent in attending your "Town Hall Meetings" is to disrupt them. Stop it. Stop acting as if you don't know how to fight. Stop allowing paid health industry shills, agents provocateur and credulous dupes to dictate the rules of your conduct. Stop acting as if what they are saying has ANY merit whatsoever. Stop conceding defeat to the judases of the GOP and some in your own ranks that are, again, willing to screw not only their constituents, but yours, for their own political gain.
Do what is right. Tell the American people, your supposed bosses that you know that they need and deserve a genuine healthcare plan, not some cobbled together piece of useless verbiage that is filled with new ways to squander OUR money while doing nothing to alleviate the suffering of millions of uninsured or underinsured Americans in a time of great need. Stop wasting valuable time by allowing the "deathers" to derail the agenda of a meeting in order to keep any discussion, about the merits of the plan, from being pursued between you and those of us who want to know what the plan is and how it will be implemented.
That the GOP is like an asylum being run by its most dangerous inmates is glaringly obvious. I do not expect the party that voted in lockstep for virtually every boneheaded, illegal and immoral provision of the Bush regime's legislative agenda to change their ways; but, you people? For the sake of your constituents, if not your own self esteem, begin acting like men and women who have some faint notion of what true public service is. Stop looking for favorable poll numbers and listening to consultants tell you how you can weather the storm and get re-elected. You know what the truth is and you know what needs to be done. Find your self-respect, your courage and your integrity whether you've lost those qualities, sold them or you have simply discarded them. Earn your goddamned pay and a measure of genuine respect for your party and your office.
Do what is right. Help the American people, your supposed bosses; tell them that you know that they need and deserve a genuine healthcare plan, not some cobbled together piece of useless verbiage that is filled with new ways to squander OUR money while doing nothing to alleviate the suffering of millions of uninsured or underinsured Americans in a time of great need.
I will not apologize for the tone or the content of this letter. It is the truth and it is indicative of my anger at your party’s abandonment of their principals and their failure to uphold their oath of office on this issue. Don't bother to tell me what you are doing, just do it. Deliver to us, your employers, the service which you swore an oath to perform. Nothing less is acceptable.
Good day, to you, Sir.
Posted by: democommie | August 14, 2009 1:28 PM
And I won't apologize for having put the same things in their more than once.
"Do what is right. Help the American people, your supposed bosses; tell them that you know that they need and deserve a genuine healthcare plan, not some cobbled together piece of useless verbiage that is filled with new ways to squander OUR money while doing nothing to alleviate the suffering of millions of uninsured or underinsured Americans in a time of great need."
Even though it is redundant and verbose.
Sometimes you gotta hit the mule between the eyes with a 2 x4, more than just the oncet, to get its attention.
Posted by: democommie | August 14, 2009 1:33 PM
@Michael Heath, #13
That debate is very enlightening on the psychology of Newt, isn't it. He spends the first few minutes tossing out figures and factoids provided by his own hand-picked authorities, and then when George tells him it's not in the bill, look how he switches gears immediately to abstract, generalized anti-government fearmongering and vague assertions of "historically dangerous" words.
This man is not a "thinker" by any serious standard.
Posted by: JRQ | August 14, 2009 1:37 PM
We had that discussion 50 years ago, and Edward R. Murrow lost.
Posted by: D. C. Sessions | August 14, 2009 1:38 PM
Gingrich, who became irrelevant long ago, is trying to sell himelf as an IDEA PERSON who will WIN THE FUTURE when his most notable idea is wanting to use space weapons against a third-world dictatorship.
Posted by: Louis B. | August 14, 2009 1:48 PM
Interesting point Jonathan. But I think Michael Moore has too much (well deserved) negative baggage. I'm thinking more common-man, someone who can deliver sound bites for the news or appeal to your average Joe.
A television ad from a couple months back comes to mind. It was promoting the Democratic energy policy. It was an older man, salt of the earth farmer in a John Deere cap type guy. He’s talking to the camera about how building an alternative energy infrastructure creates domestic jobs, improves the economy and frees us from Middle-Eastern influence granted by their control of oil. He never once mentioned politics or parties. It came across as just a regular guy talking about how alternative energy supported his values. It struck me as a marvelously well-done ad that perfectly targeted moderates, especially those with conservative leanings.
I’m almost certain that in that example he was a paid actor. But I think the Dems need more of that type ad and, in the case of health care, they need real people telling their own story.
Posted by: Abby Normal | August 14, 2009 1:53 PM
Louis B.:
Newt want's this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_Star
Wow, no wonder we can't afford Unisocialist Healthcamps.
Posted by: democommie | August 14, 2009 1:54 PM
@ democommie
An excellent letter, that is. I'd steal it, were my Congresscritter less likely to be promoting the birfer bill or some such right now. Fortunately, he's not doing town halls. He's also distinctly unconcerned with anyone disagreeing with him, as the responses to my previous letters have indicated. He wins by a comfortable margin every couple of years, but he has to die, eventually.
@Jonathan
You make a good point, but I wouldn't even begin to use Sicko as an example to a general American audience. I'm fairly far left of center anymore, and even I consider Michael Moore to be a pompous gasbag of a propagandist. He's ham-handed, which is good for pointing out absurdity, but is shit for pathos and subtlety. Even when Moore is handing out accurate information, I don't trust him. Added to the fact that center-right to right people use his name as a curse word, you're not going to be hitting a lot of the target audience.
Posted by: Ranson | August 14, 2009 1:56 PM
democommie - thanks for sharing your letter. Thanks for writing such a letter. Also, for what's it worth, I'm predicting you distinguish yourself in this letter both in its clarity and the cogency of your argument relative to your opponents also sending your Congressman letters, faxes, or emails.
Posted by: Michael Heath | August 14, 2009 2:08 PM
It turns out that the Republican Party didn't have a problem with "death panels" six years ago:
http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2009/08/13/oh-those-death-panels/
Posted by: Orac | August 14, 2009 2:52 PM
To repeat a point above, in the speech Gingrich made, he obviously considers that end-of-life counseling will convince more elderly to opt for death rather than expensive prolongation of life -- and that he considers this a benefit, not a problem.
This is the only reason why extending the program he praises to all Medicare would save the money he forsees.
(I agree that it would have this result, and also consider it a benefit, but for 'death with dignity', not financial reasons.)
Posted by: Prup (aka Jim Benton) | August 14, 2009 3:17 PM
The Senate removing end-of-life bill provisions is likely a pragmatic move to defuse the right-wing hysteria created by Palin, Gingrich, Limbaugh, Hannity, et al., in the minds of seniors who apparently swallow their moronic ghost stories without question.
Too bad for them, these seniors apparently don't realize how they are being played like a cheap fiddle by the parties who claim to be looking out for their best interests.
Thus, make no mistake - fear and bullshit are a powerful combination.
It made Rush Limbaugh a millionaire.
Posted by: CHV | August 14, 2009 3:56 PM
@ 37 - while I agree, and also believe this item is a tiny feature within the whole bill, I also find it ironic.
While Republicans and anti-abortion zealots went ape-shit over Schiavo a few years back, even social conservatives who'd never vote anything but conservative went out en masse and obtained the very living will features this bill advocates.
A doctor friend of mine claimed that nearly all the ones he collected were filled out the same, end life-support where a conscious life was not viable without extraordinary measures. My extended family and I all used the same template obtained from our local hospital, same as the one this doctor used. Everyone in my family filled it out exactly the same. Then some of them went back to villifying Mr. Schiavo for doing exactly what they'd requested in their own living will.
Posted by: Michael Heath | August 14, 2009 4:35 PM
Michael Heath:
Thank you, for the kind words. I was going to reply to your comment about Mitt Romney in that earlier thread but by the time I got back to it, it was much too far down to make sense to anyone else who would read it. I'm glad you cleared that up. I remember my dad being a lifelong straight ticket democrat, until election day, then all bets were off. I'm guessing he voted for Nixon, Goldwater, Nixon, Nixon (if he had a ballot in the hospital--he died right after the 1972 election). A liberal he was not.
Posted by: democommie | August 14, 2009 5:00 PM
Ask the right question: who benefits if the health care plan does not pass BECAUSE...laymen will be afforded access to information that is VITAL to the decision making process in "end of life" orders.(which are legally binding). Why, really, are presumably intelligent people using "pull the plug on grandma" as a smoke screen to conceal the absolute importance of arming one's self with information which may or may not lead one to sign a D.N.R.? Who ultimately benefits? Talk to Gov. Dean and ask the medical questions and get the facts on possible ramifications and discover why it is soooooooo important to have this discussion FIRST!
Posted by: Bonni Sami | August 14, 2009 11:43 PM
Bonni Sami:
Can you say that in english?
Posted by: democommie | August 15, 2009 12:03 AM
The right will use anything to scare people, we've seen it a million times before. It doesn't matter if they believe it or not. They want this nation and this president to fail.
Living wills have been around for a long time. When I initially looked into it, it was with mixed emotions. It's not a fun thing to consider, however, for me, I found it even scarier that I might not have a say in my end of life decisions.
They've taken a hot, emotional issue to advance their own agenda. They could make love sound like a death threat.
Posted by: Kelly | August 15, 2009 2:21 AM
Cognitive dissonance and hypocrisy are the underpinnings of the conservative mindset. The party of Lincoln and Eisenhower and Teddy Roosevelt has devolved into a shrieking ball of fear, hate and blatant racism.
They have become for all intents and purposes the "Hate America First" party. And they LIKE it that way.
Posted by: Kenneth Mark Hoover | August 15, 2009 10:22 AM
Kelly@42:
>>>They've taken a hot, emotional issue to advance their own agenda.
You mean like when Tom Delay exploited Terri Schaivo on the House floor to score a few political points?
Perish the thought!
Posted by: CHV | August 15, 2009 1:20 PM
The latest news has it that the lying fucks who characterized the Obama plan as an excuse for euthenasia have had their way. Once again, for the narrow self interests of the insurance, big pharma and the For-nothing-but-profit "healthcare" business the the few, the proudly ignorant and the virulently stupid have sold us AND themselves down the river. Fuck the GOP and their lying shills--paid for or otherwise.
Posted by: democommie | August 16, 2009 2:28 PM