Greg Sargent's analysis of how successful the Republican party's strategy was at painting Democrats and President Obama with broad strokes of "liberal" last year ignores one part: The abject failure of the press and broadcast media to expose it.

I think Sargent has nailed exactly why Republicans were so successful with their strategy in his update to the original post, where he explains more clearly:

What McConnell shrewdly recognized is that the public would read the absence of bipartisan cooperation with Obama as a sign of liberal extremism, and would perceive any bipartisan support for his agenda as a sign of moderation, regardless of the policy details. This is exactly what happened. Whe Obama was denied bipartisan support, people worried about liberal overreach. But his bipartisan successes have suddenly persuaded the public that he is more moderate.

What Sargent misses in his analysis is this: Their strategy worked because they were taken seriously by the DC press, who has the irritating habit of reporting even the most bizarre behavior as somehow acceptable. McConnell's strategy worked because he could count on the press pool to give weight to behavior that deserved no weight.

Take the town halls, for example. Over and over again we heard about how "angry" people were at these town halls. Anyone paying attention also knew they were full of tea party shills and paid pot-stirrers who weren't angry as much as they were greedy. Yes, there were people there who had legitimate concerns, but again, those concerns were stirred up by orchestrated propaganda campaigns.

The 'death panel' claim in the health care reform debate is a shining example. It was launched with tobacco shill Betsy McCaughey's nonsensical interview with Fred Thompson on July 14, 2009, the same day the House reported out their version of the bill. Concurrent with that interview, a set of specious claims about the House bill were published on a Liberty University website and sent out via email to create an intentional email chain. Senior citizens love email chains, believe them, and pass them on. They counted on that.

Within days, the 'death panel' claim took hold, along with several others. Sarah Palin then piled on with her version of it, claiming that her Downs Syndrome child would somehow be killed or denied treatment under the House version of the bill.

Where was the press in all this? Why, being very "balanced", of course. Here's a Fox News panel amplifying the claim:

DOWNLOADS: (1326)

PLAYS: (2370)

Embed

From Fox, it's expected. How about ABC News? As mainstream as they come, the kind of news people who pat themselves on the back about not paying attention to Fox News might be likely to watch. Well, in August, 2009 at the height of the town hall/death panel controversy, they reported this:

The House bill, H.R. 3200, also includes controversial “end of life care” consultations, which would reimburse doctors for discussing end-of-life arrangements with patients, but which some critics have characterized as “death panels.”

See how that works? Some critics? Not "some critics". OPPONENTS. But never, ever do they say that. They don't point out that the death panel lie emanated from and was spread by people who opposed the bill. They framed it as random opposition with no real organized center.

Over and over they do this. Just look at the reporting this week on the effort to repeal the Affordable Care Act. Never do they look at WHY this is being done, and their reporting actually suggests there might be credible reasons for wanting to repeal it.

Why hasn't one of them asked the questions Democrats have asked this week about why Republicans want us to go back to benefit caps and exclusion for pre-existing conditions? Why haven't they done in-depth reports on what happens when people are denied insurance for conditions like gingivitis?

By not asking these questions and calling lies outright lies, they enabled Republicans' goals and message. Greg Sargent pushes that enabling a little farther by giving them a pass and characterizing McConnell/GOP strategy as "brilliant".

I think this stands as another reminder that the strategy of Senate Republicans during the past two years was politically brilliant. As you may recall, Mitch McConnell got a lot of attention last month because he frankly acknowledged that Republicans made a calculated decision to deny Obama bipartisan support for his proposals in service of a grand political objective:

"We worked very hard to keep our fingerprints off of these proposals," McConnell says. "Because we thought -- correctly, I think -- that the only way the American people would know that a great debate was going on was if the measures were not bipartisan. When you hang the 'bipartisan' tag on something, the perception is that differences have been worked out, and there's a broad agreement that that's the way forward."

McConnell's victory is also our Fourth Estate's failure.

Bonus: Digby and I must be operating on the same wavelength today. Here's her post on Jon Stewart's "Big Lie Lie".

enlarge

Indeed, McConnell is signaling that the White House should be prepared in the new Congress to support Republican policies – not the other way around.

"If the president is willing to do things that we believe in, I don’t think we’re going to say, ‘No, Mr. President we’re not going to do this any longer because you’re now with us,’” McConnell told POLITICO in his ornate office across from the old Senate chamber. “Any time the president is willing to do what we think is in the best interest of the American people, we have something to talk about."

So let's see if I have this right. McConnell is saying that as long as the president does Republican things, they're down with it. Except President Obama has done Republican things and they're not down with it. Take the DREAM Act, for example. It was one of those Republican co-sponsored things. A bill where Republicans not only voted for it, but signed on as sponsors. And yet, it failed. Yes, it failed partially because of Democrats, but also because of Republicans who do Republican things. Like Orrin Hatch, for example, who was an original co-sponsor.

The individual mandate in the health care act? Republican thing. Where was McConnell? That's right. Not doing Republican things.

Original START treaty? Republican thing.

So really, let's just be real. McConnell just spewed a whole bunch of words that sound all tough and full of high-riding hubris, but they mean nothing. Fortunately, some Democrats get that.

To Democrats, McConnell’s comments confirm their suspicions: that his motivations are rooted first and foremost in politics on his desire to beat their party no matter the price. After McConnell’s comments last month that his top political goal was to make Obama a one-term president, frustrated Senate Democrats said in private meetings that their party needed to take a harder line against Republicans to counter the GOP leader.

“If McConnell is going to operate that his major first political goal is to make Obama a one-termer, I don’t know how the Senate operates well,” said Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio).

It's sad to me that McConnell views the death of the appropriations bill as a big win. As a Champion Porker himself, he managed to convince Senate Republicans to stand tall against...Republican Things.

But Democrats saw pure hypocrisy in McConnell’s stance, given the $113 million in pet projects that appropriators included at his request.

“It was really rich for Mitch McConnell to say that somehow that this was a Democratic plot that had been somehow hatched in a backroom, and they were standing up to stop it,” Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) said. “It really just was that a bunch of them thought they could have it both ways, and at the 11th hour, they thought that they couldn’t.”

Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.), a senior appropriator who has served with McConnell for 23 years, said she was “very bitter” that Republicans threw “us under the bus when we actually went for the mark that Sen. McConnell himself wants.”

Asked what her impressions of the Republican leaders were, Mikulski said: “I don’t know them anymore. … I’m really frustrated with this kind of temper tantrum politics that we have going on here.”

Temper tantrum politics. Perfect. Another Republican Thing.

Raw Story: Boehner comforts bankers

Obsidian Wings: The most powerful lobby in Washington. To Fred Kagan, Israel=the entire world!

They gave us a republic: "Stonewall" McConnell's peculiar view of democracy

The Consumerist: Health insurance company intentionally targeted, dropped HIV patients

Ed Cone: Ron Paul's son freaks out the KY GOP

Bitter Lawyer: 20 legal factoids about the coaches of March Madness

DOWNLOADS: (1025)

PLAYS: (2839)

Embed

(Here's video of Shelby being called out about his lack of ethics during the Auto rescue Plan by Carl Levin with Chris Wallace.)

Sen. Richard Shelby does his part to block all things Obama:

Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL) has put an extraordinary "blanket hold" on at least 70 nominations President Obama has sent to the Senate, according to multiple reports this evening. The hold means no nominations can move forward unless Senate Democrats can secure a 60-member cloture vote to break it, or until Shelby lifts the hold.

"While holds are frequent," CongressDaily's Dan Friedman and Megan Scully report (sub. req.), "Senate aides said a blanket hold represents a far more aggressive use of the power than is normal." The magazine reported aides to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid were the source of the news about Shelby's blanket hold.

Ms. McConnell didn't even know what Shelby was doing, but much of this is based on blocking business for Boeing. It's all about giving the business to a foreign corporation.

He just loves Airbus:

The key issue is that Shelby wants the Air Force to tweak an RFP for refueling tankers so that Airbus (partnered with Northrup Grumman) would win the bid again over Boeing. The contract had been awarded in 2008, but the GAO found that the Air Force had erred in calculating the award. After the Air Force wrote a new RFP in preparation to rebid the contract, Airbus calculated that it would not win the new bid, and started complaining. Now, Airbus is threatening to withdraw from the competition unless the specs in the RFP are revised.

If you remember, back in 2002, Shelby was the one who allegedly leaked NSA intercepts to Carl Cameron of FOX News and the media and then refused to take a lie detector test about it right after 9/11.

"A sharp disagreement ensued between the FBI and senior Justice Department officials overseeing the case, according to federal law enforcement officials. The FBI was convinced not only that Shelby leaked the information regarding the intercepts, but also that the senator might have misled the FBI when he was interviewed about his actions, according to sources. They advocated that Shelby be prosecuted." Read the whole article. Pat Roberts helps ruin the investigation.

He got off because Pat Roberts screwed up the investigation like he usually does. And he's the one on TV the most trying to force the auto industry to go belly up.

And we can't forget that he acted like Herbert Hoover during the Auto crisis by using a "filibuster."

CREDO has a petition going that says:

It's time for Democratic leadership to stand up to Republicans, starting with Sen. Shelby. Senate Majority Leader Reid should refuse to honor Shelby's "blanket hold" on more than 70 nominees. If Republicans want to block every single Obama appointee, they must filibuster them one-by-one and deal with the very public consequences of their obstructionism. Sen. Shelby should be ashamed -- but he is not.

Sign up if you can.

Don't know if you've seen this yet. It's an anonymous letter from a Hill staffer to Josh Marshall and it pretty much confirms our worst suspicions: They're "relieved" that they don't have to deliver on health care reform.

A wave election hit us in 2008 where we not only had overwhelming majorities of 59 seats in the Senate (once Republicans finally got around to letting us seat Franken) and 257 seats in the House (returning us to the same power level as when we ruled the House with inpugnity in 1992-3) but, most importantly, a President who was explicitly elected on an agenda of "change." It was a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to wrench the wheel away from the abyss and really deliver on our promises. It was disheartening when it seemed that Reid was allowing McConnell's disingenuous narrative of "it's always taken 60 votes to get anything done" to take hold, but we were later even saved from that when Specter switched. But it seems we've spent the entire year moving our own goalposts farther away. Things have gotten so bad that in roaming the halls today it feels exactly as if we lost the Majority last night.

The worst is that I can't help but feel like the main emotion people in the caucus are feeling is relief at this turn of events. Now they have a ready excuse for not getting anything done. While I always thought we had the better ideas but the weaker messaging, it feels like somewhere along the line Members internalized a belief that we actually have weaker ideas. They're afraid to actually implement them and face the judgment of the voters. That's the scariest dynamic and what makes me think this will all come crashing down around us in November.

I believe President Clinton provided some crucial insight when he said, "people would rather be with someone who is strong and wrong than weak and right." It's not that people are uninterested in who's right or wrong, it's that people will only follow leaders who seem to actually believe in what they are doing. Democrats have missed this essential fact.

The stimulus bill in the spring showed us what was coming. In the face of a historic economic crisis, Democrats negotiated against themselves at the outset and subsequently yielded to absurd demands from self-described "moderates" to trim the package to a clearly inadequate level. No one made any rational argument about why a lower level was better. It would have been trivial to write "claw-back" provisions if the stimulus turned out to be too much or we could have done a rescission this year to give these moderates their victory, but none of this was on the table. We essentially looked like we didn't know what the right answer was so we just kinda went for what we could get. This formula was repeated in spades in both the Climate and Health Care debacles.

This is my life and I simply can't answer the fundamental question: "what do Democrats stand for?" Voters don't know, and we can't make the case, so they're reacting exactly as you'd expect (just as they did in 1994, 2000, and 2004). We either find the voice to answer that question and exercise the strongest majority and voter mandate we've had since Watergate, or we suffer a bloodbath in November. History shows we're likely to choose the latter.

Although I realize this is far too long to publish, if you do decide to use any of it, please keep my anonymity. Just in case I'm wrong and there is more good to do yet.

The bad terrorist men are coming to get you! Oooga booga booga! Isn't it funny how Republicans have continually intoned they are the only ones able to keep us safe from the scary men, but when the Obama administration actually decides to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and five others for their terrorists acts, they turn--to a one--into the biggest WATBs at the thought of these Guantanamo detainees in a super-max prison standing trial through the American court systems. For all their jingoistic "We're #1" exceptionalism, these Republicans have remarkably little faith in our criminal justice system. And who better to represent these little p*ssified pseudo-toughs than Rudy "A Noun, A Verb and 911" Giuliani? He scored a trifecta of appearances, besting Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who only will be on two shows. Meanwhile, the Republicans aren't done scaring Americans about health care reform, and you can bet the Pete Hoekstra on Face the Nation, Newt Gingrich on Meet the Press and Mitch McConnell on Fox News Sunday will be amping up the rhetoric.

ABC's "This Week" - Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton; former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani.

CBS' "Face the Nation" - Rep. Peter Hoekstra, R-Mich.; Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt.

NBC's "Meet the Press" - Clinton; Education Secretary Arne Duncan; former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, R-Ga.; the Rev. Al Sharpton.

NBC's "The Chris Matthews Show" - Panel: Eugene Robinson, Katty Kay, Peggy Noonan, Michael Duffy. Topics: Will Obama Suffer Longterm Damage For Afghanistan and Health Care Delays? Will Sarah Palin's Book Tour Convert Her From Republican Rogue to Frontrunner? Meter Questions: Will President Obama Sign a Health Care Reform Bill This Year? YES: 5

NO: 7; Will Delays Over Afghanistan and Health Care Hurt Obama's Image Longterm? YES: 5 No: 7.

CNN's "State of the Union" - Giuliani; White House senior adviser David Axelrod; Sens. Kent Conrad, D-N.D., and Judd Gregg, R-N.H.; Gov. Brian Schweitzer, D-Mont.

CNN's "Fareed Zakaria GPS" - Fareed gives you a sneak peak into the HBO film he narrated entitled Terror in Mumbai. Plus, an incisive panel discussion on President Obama's first trip to China and the most important relationship in the world - between Beijing and Washington.

CNN's "Amanpour" - Amira Hass, Ha'aretz "Occupied Lands" correspondent, and Aaron David Miller, former diplomat who served six U.S. Secretaries of State discuss peace prospects in the Middle East.

"Fox News Sunday" - Giuliani; Sens. Jack Reed, D-R.I., and Mitch McConnell, R-Ky.; Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

So, what's catching your eye this morning?

For those of you who follow the inside baseball, National Journal has a look at the Republican strategy on healthcare reform: Delay, misinform, obfuscate... You know, the usual:

Grassley, the Finance Committee's ranking member, is the influential wild card among Senate Republicans, and he covets his reputation for independence. McConnell stays in close touch with the folksy Midwesterner, eager to keep him in the GOP fold. Many congressional observers have decided that Grassley is negotiating in good faith with Democrats to see if he can help get a reasonable bill out of Finance, but these sources expect him to reject a conference report later this year if it moves too far left.

In an interview, Grassley contended that Republicans should be delighted that he's on the job. "If they wonder whether or not our being involved [in the Finance talks] is doing any good, wouldn't you rather have a conservative Republican at the table than have nobody at the table?" he asked. "And secondly, hasn't our party, plus the grassroots of America, been pleading for time to study [legislation]? And suppose I was not at the table: There would be debate on the floor of the Senate, not in the Finance Committee."

Grassley said that Republican leaders asked him to block any Democratic moves to ration health services or implement a public option, although he tentatively supports a public cooperative that is not government-run. "So, the two things that Republicans are most concerned about -- the public option and rationing -- ain't going to be in it," he concluded.

Asked about his balancing act with Grassley, McConnell said that his colleague has been "very open" with the caucus. "I think it's been just fine," McConnell said of the Finance discussions. "I do read that some of the Democrats may not be that happy with it. But I don't think I have felt, nor do I think most of my members have felt, that they were trying to hide the ball on us."

Meanwhile, his "reputation for independence" is looking a little compromised. The New York Times:

"Some Republicans have begun to warn that Mr. Grassley should tread carefully on the health care bill if he wants to become the senior Republican on the Judiciary Committee."

Politico:

"The three Republicans on the Senate Finance Committee are under pressure from their leadership not to cut a deal too quickly .. and that message has been delivered frequently in recent weeks."

The Hill:

"Senator Chuck Grassley, the senior Republican on the Finance Committee, has assured his GOP colleagues that he will not sell them out and strike a private deal with Democrats on healthcare reform."

[...] On Wednesday morning Senator Grassley said, the group was "on the edge" of agreement. But later in the day he walked those comments back, saying, "I think we’re on the edge of getting something. Now, when I say ‘on the edge,’ that could be within a week. It could be within two weeks, or it might not be until we get back after Labor Day."

Awww. I think it's sweet that they let him think he's independent -- and that Max Baucus is playing along with it.

♫♪Vacation, all I ever wanted...Vacation, had to get away♫♪ I'm sure that there is some wistful whistling in the halls of Congress, however we're going to be amping up the pressure--bolstered by Nancy Pelosi and James Clyburn--to demand that Congress forgo their August recess to keep working on health care reform. Health care reform will be one of the topics of discussion this Sunday morning. Unfortunately, another topic will clearly be Henry Louis Gates' arrest, because the media will never pass up a shiny distraction in lieu of what really matters, like honest discussion of health care reform.

Instead, we'll have Mitch "Luntz's BFF" McConnell providing a lying counterpoint to Nancy Pelosi on State of the Union, and Sen. Jim "Hissy Fit" DeMint shouting over Sen. Kent Conrad on This Week. If that doesn't strike your fancy, David "Can't Carry Cronkite's Jockstrap" Gregory will be interviewing Secretary of State Hillary Clinton about her recent travels to India and Thailand, but you know he won't be able to keep himself from asking about some imagined insurrection by Clinton against Obama. Oh look, David, another bright shiny thing to distract you instead of the real life issues Americans deserve to know about.

ABC's "This Week" - Sens. Kent Conrad, D-N.D., and Jim DeMint, R-S.C.

CBS' "Face the Nation" - David Axelrod, White House senior adviser; Rep. Jim Cooper, D-Tenn.; Gov. Bobby Jindal, R-La.

NBC's "Meet the Press" - Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton.

NBC's "The Chris Matthews Show" - Panel: Howard Fineman, Michele Norris, Michael Duffy, Ceci Connolly. Topics: Was President Obama right to enter the fray over the Professor Gates arrest? What does the Libby pardon debate say about the Bush-Cheney relationship? Meter Questions: Will a handful of Senate Republicans vote for the final health care bill?

YES: 11 NO: 1; Will Obama sign a health care reform law this year? YES: 12 NO: 0.

CNN's "State of the Union/Reliable Sources" - House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.; Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky.; Axelrod.

CNN's "Fareed Zakaria GPS" - Trouble brewing in Iran: President Ahmadinejad defies the Supreme Leader in an unprecedented act, and Moussavi -- the candidate who might have actually won the June presidential elections -- announces he will create a large-scale social movement to oppose the government in power. Fareed has the rare opportunity to speak with someone on the ground in Tehran about what is really happening there.

"Fox News Sunday" - White House press secretary Robert Gibbs; Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz.

So, what's catching your eye this morning?

I really can't take watching the Sunday morning shows anymore. It's infuriating to watch hosts like Bob Schieffer (not to single him out) just ask basic questions about the issues, have no facts on hand and rarely ask a follow up. It's a talking points wonder. What's so frustrating is that the networks have the resources to really fact check and dig deep into policy like on the health care debate, but instead the McConnell's are just asked to comment on proposals or rumors.

Appearing on CBS' Face The Nation Sunday, McConnell told host Bob Schieffer that Mr. Obama's plan for a government health insurance plan would essentially crowd out other insurers from the private market, eliminating competition.

"We can make incredible improvements in American health care, but I don't think having more government — in effect putting Washington between you and your doctor — is the way to go."

Schieffer countered McConnell's contention that the Obama plan would choose (or deny) which treatments a covered individual may get; the White House is not proposing any kind of rationing board, he said. He also repeated the administration's assertion that a public insurance plan would give people another option. "If they want to keep their private insurance, that's OK," Schieffer said.

"I know they say that, Bob," McConnell countered, "but if the government is in the insurance business there won't be any other insurers, it's inevitable."

"All of that really ought to be put aside if we want to get a truly bi-partisan proposal," he said bluntly.

The Republicans and bought off Democrats don't want real competition in the Health Industrial Complex, period. If they love the free market so much then make the health insurance have to compete against something other than their brethren. Do you trust the HIC to actually come through on any of their promises?

How about if CBS puts a few of their crack reporters to work to explain why so many Americans go bankrupt because of health care issues with a large number of them already being covered? The American Journal of Medicine:

Results:

Using a conservative definition, 62.1% of all bankruptcies in 2007 were medical; 92% of these medical debtors had medical debts over $5000, or 10% of pretax family income. The rest met criteria for medical bankruptcy because they had lost significant income due to illness or mortgaged a home to pay medical bills. Most medical debtors were well educated, owned homes, and had middle-class occupations. Three quarters had health insurance. Using identical definitions in 2001 and 2007, the share of bankruptcies attributable to medical problems rose by 49.6%. In logistic regression analysis controlling for demographic factors, the odds that a bankruptcy had a medical cause was 2.38-fold higher in 2007 than in 2001.

Conclusions:

Illness and medical bills contribute to a large and increasing share of US bankruptcies.

Is that so hard? Health care is driving the country into ruin and all we get is a "no" to the public option while the "single payer" plan isn't even mentioned anymore. When conservatives like Mitch mention the word Bi-partisan, what he means is that they can only come together if Democrats do what they say. Has a major network taken the time to actually explain what the "public option" would mean at all? Instead we got the Grassley's and McConnell's saying that the public option will drive Insurance companies out of business. Why is that exactly? Viewers wouldn't know because they get no information. Here's The Mad Twitterer on the public option:

If 100 million people want to join the Public Option, what's the problem?

Chris Wallace asked the penetrating question to Sen Grassley:

Is it Senatorial to twitter like that?

Yes, Grassley twitters like a bozo and his attacks of Obama on twitter showed you the child-like mind of conservatives. When Bush asked Congress to start working on something, you didn't hear people complain that he actually asked them to do their damn jobs. But Grassley was offended.

And CNN's John King just blathered HIC (Health Industrial Complex) talking points repeatedly about health care.

John King fed them the conservative straight lines and they delivered the propaganda punch lines, one right after the other. If anyone stepped in with something provocative, like the guy who said that his doctor was making him pay $1500.00 per family member, on top of his insurance premiums, just to stay with him. King just blathered on about taxes as if that's this fellows biggest financial problem rather than the fact that he's getting it coming and going from the health care industry.

I'm so sick of the lot of them.

(Please donate to C&L's 2009 fundraiser if you can. We need your support.)

Chris Cillizza:

Kentucky: The biggest news of the night was in the Bluegrass State where former Lt. Gov. Steve Beshear (D) crushed Gov. Ernie Fletcher (R) 59 percent to 41 percent. Fletcher had long been seen as a dead man walking politically; ethics problems in his first four years in office had badly hamstrung his reelection chances. Beshear restores Democratic control to the Kentucky governorship, an office that the party has held for all but four years since 1967. Elsewhere on the ballot, state Auditor Crit Luallen (D) was reelected with 59 percent, a margin sure to stoke speculation of a challenge to Sen. Mitch McConnell (R) in 2008.

Virginia: Republicans appear to have lost control of the state Senate, as at least three Republican incumbents and a GOP-held open seat have gone to Democrats. The race we were watching most closely -- the 34th district battle between state Sen. Jeannemarie Devolites Davis (R) and Chap Peterson (D) -- turned into a rout, with the Democrat unseating the incumbent 56 percent to 44 percent. Democrats' gains are yet more evidence of the rapidly shifting demographics in the Commonwealth. Sen. Mark Warner (D) anyone?...read on

Kos says that the RNC is claiming victory!