December 15, 2009
QUOTE OF THE DAY.... After hearing Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) insist that health care reform would offer no benefits until 2014 -- a claim that's demonstrably false -- Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) took to the floor with a charitable interpretation.
"I stand here day after day after day and hear my colleagues, my good friends from the other side, say things that are not based on fact. [...]
"Senator Thune did say that none of the benefits started next year. He just, I guess, hasn't read the bill.... I do find that many of my colleagues who I'm very friendly with, haven't read the bill and are not very familiar with it."
Right. It's not that opponents of health care reform are lying shamelessly, in the hopes of deceiving anyone within earshot, it's that they're not particularly "familiar" with the legislation. Got it.
Likewise, over the weekend, when Thune told CNN's audience that the Congressional Budget Office found that the Democratic reform plan would "bend the cost curve up" -- a claim that's the exact opposite of reality -- it's not that Thune is some kind of brazen liar, it's that he went on national television to talk about policy details he knows nothing about.
I'm reminded of Ruth Marcus' reaction to the House debate about a month ago, when she marveled at the "appalling amount of misinformation being peddled" by Republicans.
I don't mean the usual hyperbole about "a children-bankrupting, health-care-rationing, freedom-crushing, $1 trillion government takeover of our health-care system," as Texas Republican Jeb Hensarling put it. Or the tired canards about taxpayer-funded abortion or insurance subsidies for illegal immigrants. Or the extraneous claims about alleged Democratic excesses....
I mean the flood of sheer factual misstatements about the health-care bill.... You have to wonder: Are the Republican arguments against the bill so weak that they have to resort to these misrepresentations and distortions?
Senate Republicans, by some measures, have been even more pathological.
Unless, that is, we accept Franken's gentle chiding at face value. Congressional Republicans, the argument goes, aren't the hopelessly dishonest hacks they're made out to be; they're just hopelessly confused, attacking a policy they don't understand with talking points they haven't thought through.
That's one way of looking at it.
—Steve Benen 11:25 AM
Permalink
| Trackbacks
| Comments (18)
"Kidding on the square," he used to call it.
Posted by: Grumpy on December 15, 2009 at 11:30 AM | PERMALINK
Well, Franken is a bit confused as well...
As of yesterday, it is not a health care reform bill. It's a insurance reform bill and not a very good one at that, seeing as how the insurance company CEOs are deliriously praising the name of United States President Joey Lieberman...
Posted by: neill on December 15, 2009 at 11:42 AM | PERMALINK
Bush's lies about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction and Saddam Hussein's links to al Qaeda signaled it was OK for Republicans to lie if it got them what they wanted.
Posted by: pj in jesusland on December 15, 2009 at 11:44 AM | PERMALINK
"Bush's lies ... signaled it was OK for Republicans to lie if it got them what they wanted."
Oh, they have known that for years or more. "I hold in my hand a list of 215 known Communists in the State Department," etc.
Ed
Posted by: Ed Drone on December 15, 2009 at 11:50 AM | PERMALINK
Politicians have told lies forever, but in the US these were the exceptions, especially after WW2. So when did lying become completely acceptable for the Republicans? I would guess Reagan, but am not sure. When did lying become the Republican fashion? I would guess Lee Atwater working for Bush Sr. Again, not sure. And when will Americans wake up to the fact of Republican lies, and begin to discount what they say?
Posted by: keith on December 15, 2009 at 12:01 PM | PERMALINK
Al Franken is probably correct. The Cons haven't read the bill. Their friends the Insurance Lobbyists have, and they tell the Cons what to say.
Posted by: JWK on December 15, 2009 at 12:21 PM | PERMALINK
Keith,
The interesting thing (to me) about Atwater was that on his deathbed, he expressed regret for what he had done: (stealing from Wikipedia)
In a February 1991 article for Life magazine, Atwater wrote:
My illness helped me to see that what was missing in society is what was missing in me: a little heart, a lot of brotherhood. The '80s were about acquiring — acquiring wealth, power, prestige. I know. I acquired more wealth, power, and prestige than most. But you can acquire all you want and still feel empty. What power wouldn't I trade for a little more time with my family? What price wouldn't I pay for an evening with friends? It took a deadly illness to put me eye to eye with that truth, but it is a truth that the country, caught up in its ruthless ambitions and moral decay, can learn on my dime. I don't know who will lead us through the '90s, but they must be made to speak to this spiritual vacuum at the heart of American society, this tumor of the soul.
The modern GOP operatives, modeled after Karl Rove, seem absolutely incapable of feeling regret over anything other than losing.
Posted by: Daryl McCullough on December 15, 2009 at 12:26 PM | PERMALINK
My first thought was a flash to Mark Antony's speech in Shakespeare's Julius Caesar, "But Brutus is an honorable man." I think Franken just wanted to say that Thune is an honorable man.
Posted by: Marlon F. Swanger on December 15, 2009 at 12:27 PM | PERMALINK
Can someone tell me a source that refutes Thune's claim about "bending the cost curve" ?
I've seen a few places that dismiss it, but I'm looking for a real refutation, rather than simply an assertion that Thune is wrong.
Thanks!
Posted by: A DC Wonk on December 15, 2009 at 12:30 PM | PERMALINK
Losing the public option and Medicare buy-in sucks, but there is a silver lining. The GOP has lost its favorite boogeyman: single payer. They should be careful about what they were wishing for.
They have invested so much political capital into claiming to support health care reform if it didn't have the "single payer" component, that they will have a hard time fighting a bill that doesn't have it. Should be fun to watch them come up with something.
Posted by: danimal on December 15, 2009 at 12:38 PM | PERMALINK
It's most likely a violation of Senate rules to call another senator a liar during debate. Rule XIX, section 2 says: "No Senator in debate shall, directly or indirectly, by any form of words impute to another Senator or to other Senators any conduct or motive unworthy or unbecoming a Senator." Saying that a senator is lying, that is deliberately stating a falsehood, rather than being uniformed, would likely cross this line.
Posted by: Jeff R. on December 15, 2009 at 12:43 PM | PERMALINK
Franken is a good example of how much the senate can change a man for the worse when it comes to critical thinking.
The obvious cannot be true...it must be something else we just aren't seeing...we certainly can't believe our lying eyes...that might cause us to anger our friends on the other side of the isle.
and btw...Lieberman isn't taking orders from the WH either...and yes estelle...you can google who was Obama's mentor when he first came to the senate...who he supported for re-election in Conn...and how he finally got the torture photos from being released when the courts would not do it for him...Good ole Joe.
Posted by: bjobotts on December 15, 2009 at 12:46 PM | PERMALINK
The "we're not evil, we're just morons" defense has worked pretty well for them so far.
Posted by: Sarcastro on December 15, 2009 at 12:47 PM | PERMALINK
For all the Republican buffonery, the party of tea leaves has managed to destroy health care and allowed the insurance and pharma companies to reign. The Dems for lack of interest in fighting to get legisltation done have refused to use all the tools to win legislation. Lieberman has the senate over a barell and is winning everything the right wing wants. Whom are the democrats helping? Not Americans just fellow politicians. Obama has failed Americans with his politics rather than principle mode.I vote and it won't be for Republicans or Democrats or Lieberman
Posted by: mljohnston on December 15, 2009 at 1:05 PM | PERMALINK
I think that politicians are definitely rewarded for being generally ignorant. Many demonstrate such ignorance that they are clearly unqualified to serve. Some demonstrate such ignorance that they are clearly bad egoistical people whose refusal to do their job imposes great costs on others and is immoral indecent and sociopathic.
However, the journalistic convention is that honest mistakes don't demonstrate bad character, while deliberate lies do.
I was thinking about this after reading the latest abuse of Al Gore. I think part of his problem with the press (and part of both Clinton's problems) is that they are all obviously knowledgeable. This means that any error is interpreted as a lie.
Ronald Reagan got away with many false claims because people assumed he didn't know the truth. To reward ignorance as protection of proof of bad character is to attempt national suicide. This is not because it combined with the choice to seek high office is, as noted above, proof of bad character, but just because ignorant politicians lead us to ... well where we are.
Posted by: Robert Waldmann on December 15, 2009 at 1:25 PM | PERMALINK
I think the lies and distortions are their policy. The more crap they throw the harder it is to know what is factually true. It also makes it harder to call out any individual for lying. It also makes life easier if you don't have to know things. You can say any old thing that enters your mind.
Ed Drone: Thanks for the quote. I remember that clearly. Senator John Iselin complains he couldn't remember how many communists there were in the Defense Dept. so Mrs. Iselin (Angela Lansbury) looking at a ketchup bottle tells him that there are 57 candidates. Always 57.
Posted by: JohnK on December 16, 2009 at 12:54 AM | PERMALINK
No, after listening to Republicans for the last several years, I have come to the conclusion that they are hopelessly dishonest hacks. I could fill the page with examples.
Posted by: Bart on December 16, 2009 at 10:48 AM | PERMALINK
The interesting thing (to me) about Atwater was that on his deathbed, he expressed regret for what he had done...
==========================
Maybe yes, maybe no.
I'm fairly sure I remember reading that "his" article in Life (expressing remorse for having been an amoral, lying SOB) was ghosted, and that Atwater himself was too far gone to know what he had purportedly written.
Sometimes I hope there isn't a hell, sometimes I hope there is.
Posted by: Fleas correct the era on December 16, 2009 at 9:57 PM | PERMALINK