Meet Benedict's bishops

Today we meet Walter Mixa. He was heretofore best known for saying the Holocaust had to be looked at in context, since the number of abortions exceeded the number of dead Jews. Mixa is German.

Mixa was a longtime ally of Cardinal Ratzinger. When Ratzinger became Benedict XVI, he moved Mixa to Augsburg, Germany, where he installed him as the bishop in charge. Mixa, it will come as no surprise, was made a bishop by John Paul II.

When news of child sexual abuse reached Rome, both John Paul II and Cardinal Ratzinger saw it not as a crisis but as a political opportunity. By blaming pedophilia on the increasing social acceptance of homosexuality, they were able to strengthen John Paul II's hand in dealing with the only policy obsession he had, one that was greater even than the removal of Communism from his native Poland: sex.

The primary goals of his nearly 30 year papacy can be neatly summarized.

1) To deify heterosexual marriage. This had a number of benefits. It made the Church more sex-friendly, thus allowing it to compete more effectively against Protestantism and Islam. The condemnation of homosexuality was necessary in order to maintain a competitive playing field with these religions, which are even more patriarchal and dogmatic in sexual matters.

In the end, however, it was simply a policy preference of both John Paul II and Ratzinger. And this obsession with homosexuality and abortion slowly became an obsession of the papacy. Future researchers may thus come to find a greater percentage of repressed homosexuals coming to the priesthood under John Paul than under the previous three popes combined.  This is particularly true given that so many new priest were formed by more conservative organizations that are overly interested in sexuality, such as John Paul II's beloved Legionaries of Christ, whose founder Marcial Maciel has already been accused of repeated child rape, and Opus Dei.

2) A corollary of the obsession with sexuality was an obsession with abortion, never the focus of any papacy until John Paul II.

3) To radically de-emphasize the Church's "social teaching," and to purge its proponents. Liberation theology would be squelched throughout Latin America. John Paul II had to remain loyal to previous popes' teachings on social policy. So whenever it was required, he would say a few words about the poor or against war. But he never put the political power of the Church behind it.

Politicians throughout the democratic world came to understand that John Paul's appointed bishops would criticize them only if they opposed him in matters of human sexuality. Therefore, they understood that loyalty to his primary goal would permit them to engage in war, genocide and the wholesale transfer of government power to the hands of the wealthy.

The most consequential such case in terms of world affairs was, of course, George W. Bush. Although John Paul II did declare his absolute opposition to the war in Iraq, Bush understood perfectly well that what really mattered was his willingness to use the power of the U.S. government to back the Pope's sexual teaching.

Bush would be proved correct, for in 2004, well after the invasion of Iraq that John Paul II claimed to oppose, the president succeeded in having the Pope command Cardinal Ratzinger to write a letter to American bishops demanding the denial of communion to pro-choice politicians. These types of not-so-subtle messages to American Catholics probably determined not only the 2004 election but the 2000 election as well.

4) To free his native Poland of communism and to turn it into the primary laboratory for his sexual policies. No matter how much John Paul's politically interested hagiographers insist that his papal rallies changed Poland forever, there is simply no question that the Soviets could have crushed dissent in Poland. Gorbachev was the single greatest cause of the peaceful liberation not just of Poland but of Europe in its entirety.

5) To aggressively evangelize in the Third World, where lower education levels guaranteed little opposition to his radical agenda. As their proportion in the Church increased, the Pope could legitimately say that his transformation of the Church now represented the majority of Catholics.

Walter Mixa of Augsburg was a loyal soldier in the sexually obsessed battles of John Paul II and his latest benefactor, fellow countryman Benedict XVI. So we shouldn't be surprised that as soon as the allegations of widespread sexual abuse appeared in Germany, the Holocaust-rationalizing bishop would tell Der Spiegel that the sexual revolution, and not the toxic internal policy of the Church, was the cause. This is the standard Church line, one that has been repeated endlessly by everyone from Vatican spokesmen to Russ Douthat of the New York Times.

Mixa, however, was no child of the 1960's. Born in April, 1941, his spiritual formation occurred during the conservative glory days of Pius XII, conservative and true friend of the Vaterland. One could accuse him of being a fascist sympathizer, one would be expected to think, but surely not a pervert.

Today, the other shoe dropped. This report appears in the Times of London, a Rupert Murdoch publication:

One of the Pope's closest conservative allies in Germany, Bishop Walter Mixa, has been accused of brutally beating and flogging children in his care.

The Bishop of Augsburg, 68, denies the claims by five former pupils at a Catholic-run orphanage and care facility. But they will be a source of deep embarrassment and concern in the Vatican: Bishop Mixa is part of a conservative axis in Pope Benedict XVI's native Bavaria that has always backed the pontiff in his most controversial decisions, from criticising the violence of Islam in Regensburg cathedral, to rehabilitating the Holocaust-sceptic Bishop Richard Williamson.

Although there are no accusations of sexual abuse at the home – where the bishop was a visiting priest in the 1970s and 1980s – it is clear that Mr Mixa is in trouble.

"Once he took a wooden cooking spoon and beat me until it broke," sais Markus Tagwerk, now 41, who was in the Catholic home between 1972 and 1982.

"Then he used his hand. He would shout, 'Take this punishment, child of God!' and 'I'll soon drive Satan out of you!'". The beatings were regular and always brutal.

"At least fifty times Mr Mixa pulled down my trousers and beat me on the bottom with a stick, five or six whacks each time," Mr Tagwerk added.

The name Markus Tagwerk is a pseudonym, because the man making the allegations is a teacher.

But others have decided to give their real names and all five accusers have officially notarised their statements.

"It was a terrible blow for me when I saw that Pope Benedict had promoted Mixa to be the Bishop of Augsburg," Hildegard Sedlmair, 48, said.

"He used to rip me out of bed and beat me on the upper arm with a clenched fist."

She and another former pupil, Monika Bernhard, 47, allege that the then priest, backed up by nuns, introduced a "climate of fear".

The blows were always administered in places where the bruising could be hidden – high up on the arm or on the bottom.

One of the victims, a man who is now 44, reports being flogged with a carpet beater, 35 strokes each time.

Angelika Knopf, the pseudonym of a sales assistant in Augsburg, said she was struck as a young teenager ten times with the future bishop's balled fist. "After every punch I fell on to the bed. Mr Mixa demanded that I stand up immediately and would throw another punch," she said.

This is the legacy of John Paul II and Benedict XVI. What the Church's own scribes have to say about their papacies doesn't even matter anymore. Historians will have more than enough evidence to render their verdict.

Poor Charlie Crist

As decent a politician as one can be in an extremist part, he was on the verge of a big endorsement by the crazy wing of the party, without whose support his already diminishing chances a Senate nomination fall to zero. Then this happened: 

Gov. Charlie Crist proudly announced the endorsement of Col. Bud Day, the Vietnam veteran beloved by conservatives for his membership in the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. Then Colonel Day complicated matters.

He apparently couldn’t help but link the skin color of one foe of the right – President Obama – with that of Mr. Crist’s opponent in the Florida Senate Race, Marco Rubio, who is the son of Cuban immigrants. Here’s what Colonel Day told the Northwest Florida Daily News, his local paper in the Panhandle:

“You know, we just got through (electing) a politician who can run his mouth at Mach 1, a black one, and now we have a Hispanic who can run his mouth at Mach 1. You look at their track records and they’re both pretty gritty.”

Colonel Day continued, making clear that he didn’t think much of either man for their fast-talking or use of teleprompters. “You’ve got the black one with the reading thing,” he said. “He can go as fast as the speed of light and has no idea what he’s saying. I put Rubio in that same category.”

More:

Day said he questions Rubio’s spending when the former state House speaker was carrying a Republican Party of Florida credit card. He said the credit card use, widely reported in South Florida, has been ignored in this region.

“His financial dealings are a major issue with me,” Day said.

It's Karl Rove's greatest legacy to American politics: take a candidate's greatest strength and turn it into his greatest liability. A well educated minority is thus called "glib" or "shady." The vast majority of Florida's Republican voters aren't Cuban but white. Crist can't get the Cubans, and he can't get the Republicans who are angry at his embrace of Obama's stimulus spending in Florida. There are only so many factions among GOP primary voters. By reminding the racist faction of the party of Rubio's ethnicity, Day may have done Crist a big favor.

UPDATE: No surprise, Bud Day is a veteran of a different kind, a true child of Rove:

Before yesterday, Day was perhaps best known for appearing in a "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" and opposing 2004 Democratic presidential nominee, Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.).

Yikes

Looks like the Vatican strategy of blaming victims and the news media for abuse revolutions just ran into a giant brick wall:

A man who says he was among some 200 deaf boys allegedly molested by a priest in Wisconsin said Monday the Vatican's defensive responses to revelations about the case make him feel like he did when he was 12, when no one would listen to him about the abuse.

Arthur Budzinski, 61, said at a news conference outside the Cathedral of St. John the Evangelist that Pope Benedict XVI is trying to protect himself against criticism of his handling of the Wisconsin case against the Rev. Lawrence Murphy. Murphy was accused of molesting some 200 boys at the St. John's School for the Deaf outside Milwaukee from 1950-1975. He never was defrocked.

"It's 2010. I'm not trying to hurt the pope," Budzinski said. "The pope should do something. I'm just telling my story. That's all I'm doing," said his 26-year-old daughter Gigi Budzinski, who interpreted his sign language.

Top Roman Catholic officials are rubbing salt "into the already deep wounds of those who have been victimized and disillusioned by the Catholic church" by criticizing those speaking out about the Vatican, said Mary Guentner, a spokeswoman for the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests.

Guentner, who says she was abused by a nun in a different school, said victims should be praised, thanked and welcomed but instead have been vilified, mischaracterized and insulted for speaking out.

"It's ludicrous to claim that these hundreds of once-trusting, devout Catholics are somehow conspiring to hurt the world's most powerful religious figure," she said. [...]

The Vatican newspaper recently said there was a "clear and despicable intention" to strike at Benedict "at any cost."

Several victims held signs at the Monday news conference that read "Stop attacking us!" and "I'm not despicable." [...]

She also responded to comments made Sunday by former Milwaukee Archbishop Timothy Dolan, who is currently the New York Archbishop. He said the pope was suffering some of the same unjust accusations once faced by Jesus.

"(It) seems a little extreme to me," [Guentner] said. "I think that seems a little extreme to all of us. We are now feeling persecuted from the response of the Vatican."

Moving to Republocatholics' other hero, this comes from the AP report on Pope Benedict XVI's commemoration of his predecessor, John Paul "Santo Subito" II:

Immediately after John Paul's death, faithful were clamoring for his sainthood. But this anniversary comes amid some doubts that a miracle needed for his saint-making will stand up to scrutiny. And there have been questions about John Paul's record in combatting pedophile priests.

"That's why cops support Tax Cannabis 2010"

This is one of the sharper political movements in recent memory. Don't miss the radio ad.

How does "repeal and replace" poll?

Not that well! Jed Lewison at Daily Kos:

CNN has an interesting new poll out in which they test the GOP's disingenuous (but Frank Luntz approved) "repeal and replace" slogan against the alternatives of "leaving the bill as it is" and making "additional changes to increase the government's involvement in the nation's health care system."

The results? 50% believe support leaving the bill as it is (23%) or expanding it (27%) while 47% support "repeal and replace."

Keep in mind that CNN didn't just test repeal -- they tested the GOP's preferred formulation, "repeal and replace." Nonetheless, the Republican argument falls short: more people support the Democratic approach (maintain and/or expand) than the GOP's path (repeal and replace).

I'd be willing to wager that 47% will be at or close to the high-water mark for the GOP position. As we move forward and people become more familiar with the law, anyone serious about efforts to improve the new reform legislation will be offering ideas for incremental expansion or change, not full-scale overhaul.

Think about it this way: if we were talking about Social Security or Medicare, how do you think "repeal and replace" would poll? It would poll terribly, because it sounds like a bunch of nonsense. That's the same challenge Republicans will begin to face. They are starting out from behind with a strategy that is destined to fail. It's not an enviable position to be in.

That's not all. When asked whether or not their families would be better under the plan, 22% said they would be better. 39% said worse. But a full 37% said it would make no difference. In short, 59% of Americans have no particular reason to be opposed to the bill. That's no mandate for drastic change in the form of the repeal.

Similarly, when asked if they approved of the bill, 15% did so without reservations, while 27% approved but thought it "didn't go far enough." That is, among the 42% who approve, a majority would like to see a more progressive bill. 25% oppose the bill in its entirety. But then there is a large block, 31%, that disapproves of the bill but would like to retain some of its provisions. That's 56% disapproval, yes, but it's also 73% approval of portions of the bill.

This electorate is volatile, but the good news is that well over 40% of the electorate favors the bill, and 50% opposes repeal. That isn't a landslide in the making. If the President stays in happy warrior mode between now and November (and don't forget, there is likely to be a pitched Supreme Court nomination battle this summer) Democrats should be as motivated as the teabaggers. The waning of the enthusiasm gap is the worst news of the year over at GOP central command. Unless they are too distracted by the lesbian dominatrices to notice.

Frank Rich is right

As he often is:

But there was nothing like this. To find a prototype for the overheated reaction to the health care bill, you have to look a year before Medicare, to the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Both laws passed by similar majorities in Congress; the Civil Rights Act received even more votes in the Senate (73) than Medicare (70). But it was only the civil rights bill that made some Americans run off the rails. That’s because it was the one that signaled an inexorable and immutable change in the very identity of America, not just its governance.

Elements of right wing media ready to throw John Paul II under the bus?

If that's what it takes to save Benedict's papacy, they'll do it. Note this piece from The Telegraph.

Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger tried to persuade Pope John Paul II to mount a full investigation into a cardinal who abused boys and young monks, one of the Church’s most senior figures revealed yesterday. But Ratzinger’s opponents in the Vatican managed to block the inquiry. As the future Benedict XVI put it: “The other side won.”

The pervert cardinal was the late Hans Hermann Groer, removed as Archbishop of Vienna in 1995 following sex allegations. The source for the story is Groer’s successor in Vienna, Cardinal Christoph Schoenborn, an intellectual whom some commentators have tipped as a possible future Pope.

That’s quite a revelation, in my book – but it doesn’t fit the script that the Benedict-hating media have written, so we’re not hearing too much about it. Also, I suspect that former advisers to John Paul would rather not remind us that the late Pope didn’t do enough to curb sex abuse and cover-ups. Safer to blame Benedict, eh?

Here’s the quote from a report by Philip Pullella of Reuters:

Vienna’s Cardinal Christoph Schoenborn, in defence of the pope, told ORF Austrian television on Sunday that Benedict wanted a full probe when former Vienna Cardinal Hans Hermann Groer was removed in 1995 for alleged sexual abuse of a boy.

But other Curia officials persuaded the then Pope John Paul that the media had exaggerated the case and an inquiry would only create more bad publicity.

“[Ratzinger] told me, ‘the other side won’,” Schoenborn said.

The other side. I suspect he was referring to a Vatican old boys’ club that Cardinal Ratzinger never joined, and which didn’t want sex abuse cases to “damage the good name of the Church” (ie, disturb their back-slapping suppers in favoured trattorie).

And the irony is that the journalists who have written lazy and hate-filled articles about Benedict XVI – such as this dreadful piece by India Knight, someone I’d previously admired – are unwittingly providing protection to the really compromised figures in the Vatican and bishops’ conferences. [...]

He’s facing a terrible situation, no doubt about it; and no doubt also he made mistakes himself: the fact that he was far more vigilant than other cardinals doesn’t mean he was vigilant enough.

But history will show that it was Benedict XVI, not John Paul II, who initiated the “purification” of the Church to remove its “filth” – his words, and uttered long before this current crisis arose.

The most *interesting* American politician of the moment?

Probably Bart Stupak. Having gone from being the darling of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops to its whipping boy in just a few days, he's ready to strike back.

Stupak also said he suspected groups such as the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, the National Right to Life, and others were actually "just using the life issue to try to bring down health-care reform."

"I question,did they want to protect the sanctity of life, or did they want to defeat health care?" he said.

Mark Silk adds: "The Tea Partiers in his district say they're coming after him. I'm betting on him."

Edward Luce

A hopeful piece from a Financial Times reporter who has already proven he's unafraid to burn his bridges with potential sources in the Obama Administration.

More is known about Mr Obama today than a few weeks ago. As was the case during his campaign, he can drift for long patches. Then something happens - Hillary Clinton crowns herself the inevitable winner in the primaries, or Benjamin Netanyahu, Israeli prime minister, insults the administration once too often - and a more purposeful Mr Obama emerges.

The Vatican finally calls in the cops

Finally, finally! The Church realizes that it's time to get law enforcement professionals to handle the problem of child sexual abuse.

Clerical Whispers reports on the momentous news.

And with all this scandal swirling around the church, a small event in Rome almost went unnoticed.

Four American victims of priestly sex abuse were detained by police just outside St. Peter's Square while protesting what they call a "Vatican cover-up" of clergy pedophilia. The arrests reflect a growing voice of anger within the Catholic Church and the police response suggests a growing concern about security at the Vatican.

Barbara Blaine, Peter Isely, John Pilmaier and Barbara Dorris from the Chicago-based Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests (SNAP) had summoned journalists for a “sidewalk news conference” just a few meters from the unmarked border between Italy and the Vatican City, the smallest independent country in the world.

They were holding signs reading “Stop the Secrecy Now” and childhood photos that showed them at the age they were first abused.

They challenged the Vatican to open up the archives of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the arm of the Vatican that upholds matters of doctrine and the place of power from which the current pope, then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, served Pope John Paul II for more than 20 years. Bishops from all over the world must report priests accused of sex crimes to that body. [...]

After about 15 minutes, plainclothes Italian policemen approached the news conference and began asking attendees for identification. After about 20 minutes the police urged the activists to end their improvised press conference. Then the activists were taken into unmarked police cars and driven to a nearby police station, where they were held for two hours.

“They wouldn't tell us why, at first. In the end, they told us that it was illegal to hold an unauthorized press conference,” Dorris said. “They took our passports and didn't let us use our phones.” Their photos and signs were also confiscated.

E.J. Dionne on the Church

Sober, sensitive, and, above all else, sad.

But while this was a step in the right direction, apologizing for the misbehavior of individual priests will never be enough. The church has been reluctant to speak plainly about the heart of its problem: In handling these cases, it put institutional self-protection first.

The church needs to show it understands the flaws of its own internal culture by examining its own conscience, its own practices, its own reflexives when faced with challenge. As the church rightly teaches, acknowledging the true nature of our sin is the one and only path to redemption and forgiveness.
[...]

[D]efensiveness and institutional self-protection are not Gospel values. "For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me will find it."

The church needs to cast aside the lawyers, the PR specialists and its own worst instincts, which are human instincts. Benedict could go down as one of the greatest popes in history if he were willing to risk all in the name of institutional self-examination, painful but liberating public honesty, and true contrition.

Marco Politi

He's one of the most legendary Vaticanologists. While there are several such experts working in the European media, there are none in the United States, which is why media coverage of religious matters in the U.S. is so incredibly dumb.

“He is at a crossroads,” said Marco Politi, a veteran Italian Vatican journalist. “What’s extraordinary is that the scandal has reached the heart of the center of the church. Up to now it was far away — in the States, in Canada, in Brazil, in Australia. Then it came to Europe, to Ireland.

“Then it came to his motherland,” Mr. Politi added of Benedict’s native Germany. “Then it came to his diocese, and now it’s coming to the heart of the government of the church — and he has to give an answer.”[...]

Mr. Politi said the pope in his letter had “set a very rigorous line: The search for truth, full transparency, listening to victims, punishing guilt and deference to state courts. The issue now is how he will handle the past.” [...]

“Now he has to decide: either he goes ahead with a policy of transparency, or he goes back to an old line, saying that these are old cases, that not punishing the perpetrators is an act of mercy,” Mr. Politi said.

Sinead O'Connor on the Pope

Getting the last laugh.

Benedict, then known as Joseph Ratzinger, was a mere cardinal when he wrote that letter. Now that he sits in Saint Peter's chair, are we to believe that his position has changed? And are we to take comfort in last week's revelations that, in 1996, he declined to defrock a priest who may have molested as many as 200 deaf boys in Wisconsin?

Benedict's apology states that his concern is "above all, to bring healing to the victims." Yet he denies them the one thing that might bring them healing -- a full confession from the Vatican that it has covered up abuse and is now trying to cover up the cover up. Astonishingly, he invites Catholics "to offer up your fasting, your prayer, your reading of Scripture and your works of mercy in order to obtain the grace of healing and renewal for the Church in Ireland." Even more astonishing, he suggests that Ireland's victims can find healing by getting closer to the church -- the same church that has demanded oaths of silence from molested children, as occurred in 1975 in the case of Father Brendan Smyth, an Irish priest later jailed for repeated sexual offenses. After we stopped laughing, many of us in Ireland recognized the idea that we needed the church to get closer to Jesus as blasphemy.

To Irish Catholics, Benedict's implication -- Irish sexual abuse is an Irish problem -- is both arrogant and blasphemous. The Vatican is acting as though it doesn't believe in a God who watches. The very people who say they are the keepers of the Holy Spirit are stamping all over everything the Holy Spirit truly is. Benedict criminally misrepresents the God we adore. We all know in our bones that the Holy Spirit is truth. That's how we can tell that Christ is not with these people who so frequently invoke Him.

Irish Catholics are in a dysfunctional relationship with an abusive organization. The pope must take responsibility for the actions of his subordinates. If Catholic priests are abusing children, it is Rome, not Dublin, that must answer for it with a full confession and a criminal investigation. Until it does, all good Catholics -- even little old ladies who go to church every Sunday, not just protest singers like me whom the Vatican can easily ignore -- should avoid Mass. In Ireland, it is time we separated our God from our religion, and our faith from its alleged leaders.

Almost 18 years ago, I tore up a picture of Pope John Paul II on an episode of "Saturday Night Live." Many people did not understand the protest -- the next week, the show's guest host, actor Joe Pesci, commented that, had he been there, "I would have gave her such a smack." I knew my action would cause trouble, but I wanted to force a conversation where there was a need for one; that is part of being an artist. All I regretted was that people assumed I didn't believe in God. That's not the case at all. I'm Catholic by birth and culture and would be the first at the church door if the Vatican offered sincere reconciliation.

As Ireland withstands Rome's offensive apology while an Irish bishop resigns, I ask Americans to understand why an Irish Catholic woman who survived child abuse would want to rip up the pope's picture. And whether Irish Catholics, because we daren't say "we deserve better," should be treated as though we deserve less.

Republicans declare war on college students

By voting against the reconciliation package, the party has also turned its back on the Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act. The act saves US taxpayers $60 billion by simply taking loans out out of the hands of predatory banks. The savings are reinvested into educating American college students. If we had a responsible opposition, the vote on this would be unanimous. Sadly, we don't. There wasn't a single GOP vote in the House to back this measure, which saved American taxpayers $10 billion yet earned them $60 billion in benefits. The details of the Act, which include over $36 billion in Pell grants, are here.

Pity Charlie Crist

If he'd only switched parties a year ago, he'd have a shot at being the next U.S. Senator from Florida. He didn't, and he's about to be drummed out of state politics forever. He doesn't have a chance in the GOP primary after extremist Marco Rubio's ad campaign:

After a week this great

We all need to do the Futterwacken.



(But don't watch it if you haven't seen Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland as yet).

American Jews and Israel

Proof once again that Republican foreign policy choices regarding Israel are all about evangelicals, not American Jews.

J Street has just released a new poll on American Jewish attitudes. Most of the questions are leading ones, designed to create the impression of support for J Street's pro-peace agenda. By a 71-29 margin, American Jews think the American government should exert pressure on both Israel and the Palestinians to make peace. Whoda thunk? But the following question is more interesting:

A majority of all American Jews, 52-48 percent, still support an active role even if the United States were to publicly state its disagreements with only Israel. American Jews are evenly split on support for exerting pressure on only Israel, a notion that J Street opposes.

This does seem to be evidence of the genuine split in American Jewish attitudes described by Jacob Weisberg in Slate. Liberal American Jews (the majority, that is) have never been comfortable with Israel's settlements in the West Bank, with its weird subsidies and protected status for Orthodox Jews who live as a virtual state within a state, or with the general philosophical conundrum of support for a state with an explicitly religious-ethnic character. That discomfort has, in many cases, turned into outright condemnation since Israel's deliberate destruction of the Palestinian Authority in 2001-03, its construction of the West Bank barrier, and its punishing offensives against Lebanon in 2006 and Gaza in 2008, with their horrifying Palestinian civilian casualties. Many American Jews have, like Thomas Friedman, become convinced that Israel has become a "drunk driver" that needs to be restrained by its friends abroad, lest it destroy itself. The Netanyahu government's defiance of the Obama administration's call for a settlement freeze has reinforced this conviction. [...]

It's no wonder Israelis react warily to American Jews. The fact of the matter is that Israel is driving itself off a cliff with its refusal to stop building settlements. But it's an open question whether there's any way to get them to listen to the back-seat drivers, even if they happen to be right.

Yes We Can! "No You Can't."

See? Republicans can be responsible for the creation art! Inadvertently, anyway.

Rachel Maddow for Senate?

Not a bad idea. No, not at all.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Israeli democracy

If you ever doubted it was alive and well, this analysis of Bibi Netanyahu by Meretz MP Tzvia Greenfield will convince you. Emphasis added, not that it's needed. Those words jump off the screen.

Netanyahu's belief that occupation and messianism would serve Israel better than rational pragmatism is worrying, but not surprising.

Netanyahu's ideological preferences are known. It is still surprising, however, that once again he has emerged as a failing schlemiel of a politician. He cannot read the new global map and is incapable of evaluating his real chances of surviving as prime minister of a radical right-wing cabinet opposite the new administration in Washington.

In opting against a centrist-pragmatist coalition with Livni, Netanyahu kept moderate people out of his government who could speak in a language acceptable to Barack Obama. This would have saved Netanyahu's cabinet from moments of tension and disagreement with the Americans. [...]

But Netanyahu did not accept Livni's terms to join the government and instead got himself into an impossible situation.Now he has thrown Israel into a dangerous, insufferable collision course with the United States and will apparently have to pay for it with his post.

Netanyahu could have been expected to understand the meaning of Obama's election as U.S. president and to prepare accordingly. Obama was elected without really needing the Jewish vote. He came to power on the back of a clear, enthusiastic agenda to make a fundamental break with all the previous administration's principles.

The era of Jewish and evangelist pressure in America is over, and a renowned Americanologist like Netanyahu should have seen that his lunatic politics would raise strong objections in the United States and endanger Israel and its future.

Ms. Greenfield is a bit too optimistic about American politics, but she sure can write.   Israel, with its rich tradition of debate, remains one of the three or four richest, most vibrant democratic polities in the world.

I am shocked. Shocked!

74% of teabaggers are Republicans or Republican-leaning independents. 82% of them have a negative view of the Democratic Party. 88% are white (not sure what the remaining 12% are. Off white, perhaps. They aren't very educated, as the last year has made abundantly clear.

And they have one other characteristic: they are Palin Republicans. 75% view her favorably, as opposed to just a third of the electorate at large.

Dwight Pelz

He is the Chair of the Washington State Democratic Party. Today the state's governor, Christine Gregoire, stood up against her Republican Attorney General, who is part of the loony group attacking health care reform.

What's interesting about Mr. Pelz isn't that backed his governor.

No, it's that he went there, to that place many Democrats in the Midwest, Northeast and West need to start going.

Washington State Democratic Party Chair Dwight Pelz today filed a Public Records Request with the office of Attorney General Rob McKenna for "all documents relating in any way to your decision to join in bringing or threatening a lawsuit challenging some or all of the historic health-care legislation approved by the House of Representatives on March 21, 2010 ("Health Care Legislation")."

"The public has a right to know whether McKenna generated this idea himself or whether he is acting on behalf of the National Republican Party or the Insurance Industry," said Pelz. "We need to know more about his communication with the Southern Attorneys General and the Florida-based Republican law firm that has been hired to spearhead this effort."

The best way, long run, to discredit the Republican Party is to ally it with the most extreme elements of the South. That would, under ordinary circumstances, be immoral. But we are living under an extraordinary circumstance: the most extreme elements of the South have, indeed, taken over the Republican Party. The party has been all-white, with the usual telling exceptions, for going on half a century now. But few Americans realize the degree to which it's completely dominated by the most conservative element of the Confederacy. It's time to tell the truth.

Democratic candidates don't have to make that that critique the center of their campaigns. But there's no reason not to slip it in as a line in every speech. There are large parts of the country that recoil at the excesses, both historical and current, of Southern conservatism. Republicans have tied Democrats and Speaker Pelosi to "San Francisco liberalism," which, presumably, means the tolerance and existence of homosexuality. It is high time for Democrats in about 20 states to talk about Alabama Republicans, whose racism, homophobia, sexism, hatefulness and violence are antithetical to the values of independent voters in most of the rest of the country (and, in fairness, 35-40% of their own states). The slow rebranding of these non-Southern states' Republican parties could yield great benefits in the long run.

Retiring Republican Senator George Voinovich of Ohio pointed the way himself in July:

The GOP’s biggest problem? “We got too many Jim DeMints (R-S.C.) and Tom Coburns (R-Ok.). It’s the southerners. They get on TV and go 'errrr, errrrr.' People hear them and say, ‘These people, they’re southerners. The party’s being taken over by southerners. What they hell they got to do with Ohio?’”

He's right. Democrats need to recognize the truth and highlight it where it's strategically helpful to do so.

UPDATE: Here's a lovely dissent by Sally Jenkins, which was widely published in newspapers throughout the South, where Voinovich's criticisms hit a bit too close to home. Jenkins is right: many things, certainly, have gone right in the South, and there is a lot of hypocrisy regarding race elsewhere in the country. Still, and sadly, only 35-40% of the Southern electorate (and only 10-25% of the white Southern electorate)'s voting behavior reflects tolerance, which is emerging as a consensus value in much of the rest of the country.

Edward Kennedy

Moving.

Photo by John Dicker, published in the Washington Post

The political odyssey of health care reform in many ways is the story of Ted Kennedy, and as President Obama signed the historic bill into law Tuesday, Kennedy's gravesite was a place of quiet celebration and poignant reflection.

The late senator's widow, Vicki Reggie Kennedy, spent hours on Sunday at the simple white cross at Arlington National Cemetery marking where her husband was laid to rest only seven months ago. Ted Kennedy's youngest son, Rep. Patrick J. Kennedy (D-R.I.), visited on Monday morning and left a hand-written note that read: "Dad, the unfinished business is done."

And on a dreary Tuesday morning, dozens of school children and health care advocates paused at Kennedy's tombstone to commemorate the man who for decades made overhauling the nation's health-care system his life's mission. [...]

"I remember seeing Ted walk through that door in a summit in this room a year ago, one of his last public appearances, and it was hard for him to make it, but he was confident that we would do the right thing," Obama said.

When Obama sat to sign the bill, Patrick and Vicki Kennedy stood behind him. Finally, Ted Kennedy's dream became the law of the land.

Cameron: 3-D craziness has got to stop

About 3-D:

“After Toy Story, there were 10 really bad CG movies because everybody thought the success of that film was CG and not great characters that were beautifully designed and heartwarming,” Avatar’s James Cameron told me recently. "Now, you’ve got people quickly converting movies from 2D to 3D, which is not what we did. They’re expecting the same result, when in fact they will probably work against the adoption of 3D because they’ll be putting out an inferior product.”

And so is Michael Bay, even though his statement practically begged for snark:

Bay investigated shooting at least some Transformers 3 footage with 3D cameras, but found them too heavy and cumbersome for the fast pace action scenes he shoots. Bay feels the process of sending out 2D film for 3D conversion is more problematic and pricey than studios are admitting. Too often, companies selling 3D retrofitting services arrive with a sharp demo reel, but leave with a deer-in-the-headlights look when Bay gives them his own footage to convert, on a tight deadline.

“I am trying to be sold, and some companies are still working on the shots I gave them,” Bay said. “Right now, it looks like fake 3D, with layers that are very apparent. You go to the screening room, you are hoping to be thrilled, and you’re thinking, huh, this kind of sucks. People can say whatever they want about my movies, but they are technically precise, and if this isn’t going to be excellent, I don’t want to do it. And it is my choice.”[...]

Said Bay: “I’m used to having the A-team working on my films, and I’m going to hand it over to the D-team, have it shipped to India and hope for the best? This conversion process is always going to be inferior to shooting in real 3D. Studios might be willing to sacrifice the look and use the gimmick to make $3 more a ticket, but I’m not. Avatar took four years. You can’t just shit out a 3D movie. I’m saying, the jury is still out.”

The Vice President is right.

This is a big f*****g deal.

Marcelas Owens

Tavis Smiley spent the weekend trying to convince African Americans, in Barack Obama's hometown of Chicago no less, that the president wasn't doing enough for black people. His efforts coincided with the triumph of the most important social legislation in nearly half a century. Conservatives are as thrilled with Smiley's efforts as they are disgusted with Marcelas Owens'.

That little boy standing at President Obama’s right hand as he signed health care reform legislation into law is, somewhat improbably, one of the nation’s preeminent reform advocates. Marcelas Owens, 11, has been sharing the story of his mother since she died in 2007, uninsured and unable to afford treatment for pulmonary hypertension, the Seattle Post-Intelligencer reports. “I'm signing it for 11-year-old Marcelas Owens,” Obama said of the bill.

“In her memory he has told her story across America so that no other children would have to go through what his family has experienced,” the president continued as Marcelas looked on. The White House website describes the Seattle fifth-grader as “a nationally recognized spokesperson for health care reform,” according the Seattle Times.

Tavis Smiley's bedfellows, are, predictably, furious:

Conservative talk show hosts and columnists have ridiculed an 11-year-old Washington state boy's account of his mother's death as a "sob story" exploited by the White House and congressional Democrats like a "kiddie shield" to defend their health care legislation.

Marcelas Owens, whose mother got sick, lost her job, lost her health insurance and died, said Thursday he's taking the attacks from Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and Michelle Malkin in stride.
"My mother always taught me they can have their own opinion but that doesn't mean they are right," Marcelas, who lives in Seattle, said in an interview.

Marcelas' grandmother, Gina, who watched her daughter die, isn't quite so generous.

"These are adults, and he is an 11-year-old boy who lost his mother," Gina Owens said. "They should be ashamed."

After the signing, Marcelas said “It's tough not having my mom around. But she's been with me in spirit every time I talk. I hope I've made her proud.”

That, he surely has.

But... but... it's original intent!

Adam Serwer of the American Prospect on Stevens, Sotomayor, Scalia and SCOTUS. Yes, today's post is brought to you by the letter "S."

Sotomayor's invocation of her experience as a Latina woman rankled conservatives, who want you to believe that there's an objective way to read the law that isn't colored by personal experience. This is why conservatives believe that the rulings they like are legitimate and the ones they don't are "judicial activism". The easy response of course, is that one couldn't imagine black judges ruling the way white judges did in a case like Plessy v. Fergueson.

While the argument isn't settled, it's plain that Sotomayor and Stevens are right that personal experience affects the way a judge rules, and that denying this, as Scalia would prefer, wouldn't prevent the kind of judicial tyranny Scalia thinks he's avoiding by telling everyone he's focused on the "Founder's intent". For example, in one recent First Amendment case, Scalia suggested that Christian crosses are appropriate memorials to the dead of other faiths:

"I don't think you can leap from that to the conclusion that the only war dead that that cross honors are the Christian war dead. I think that's an outrageous conclusion," Scalia said, clearly irritated by the exchange.

As the attorney in the exchange pointed out, It's patently obvious from the fact that people of other religions don't put crosses in their cemetaries that crosses are not universal symbols honoring the dead. They are Christian symbols that, in this case, honor dead Christians. Scalia is a Christian and obviously can't imagine it done any other way.

My ouija board skills aren't that great so I won't pretend to know what the "Founder's intent" was, but the Founders "intended" someone of my background to be property even as the ideas that underpin the Bill of Rights would suggest the opposite conclusion. Still, it's pretty clear that Scalia, for all his distaste of Stevens' invoking his "experience" in his opinions, does exactly the same thing. Except he and his supporters deny that he does it, which makes the danger that Scalia's reading of the law will be a matter of "whim" that much more likely. As long as those whims are right leaning, they're fine with it.

"One person, one vote offends their sensibilities"

Via Digby, the GOP explained.

They assume, if they don’t state it outright, that large numbers of American voters shouldn’t have the right to vote. That’s the implicit argument when Sarah Palin praises white rural voters as “Real Americans”, when Birthers obsess over the idea that the first black President simply can’t be eligible for office, when tea baggers yell racist and homophobic slurs at politicians, and when they insist that you eliminate black voters from the count if you want to find out how popular a politician “really” is. When Bart Stupak laughed out loud at the very idea that nuns have opinions worth listening to---and listed a bunch of men whose opinions were the ones that counted---you had a similar sentiment being expressed. Universal suffrage seems like a fundamental part of democracy to liberals, but it appears that conservatives think it de-legitimizes the results of elections. And that if you do something without Republicans on board, you’re eliminating those who represent the only people who count.

The irony here is that Republicans are already way overrepresented in Congress. Because of the constitutional rules that give every state two Senators, no matter how underpopulated the state, you see rural, white-dominated areas having way more representation than they deserve. [...]

Republicans are way overrepresented, and yet they act like someone stole their cookies. This is par for the course when it comes to conservative thinking, where entitlement is considered normal and fairness an encroachment on what’s right and just in the world. So a social contract where people who create wealth through labor are allowed some of the spoils is considered “socialism”, and certain forms of work are not considered work at all, because they’re performed by people who don’t count in the Republican hierarchy. (Thus, conservatives brag about how they’re “producers” while denying that people who provide labor in various low-paying jobs produce anything, even though our society would come to a grinding halt without them.) Or think of the gay marriage debates. When you boil it down, the whining about “protecting traditional marriage” is nothing more than suggesting that straight people deserve a cookie for being straight, and that’s it. You can continue in this vein, but I think the point is clear---a one person, one vote system offends their sensibilities, and conservatives think your vote should count significantly less and possibly not at all if you belong to a group they dislike. Maybe knock 25% of its value if you’re gay, 25% off if you’re not white or not male, another 25% off if you live in an urban area, and small percentages off for each violation of the culture war codes.

Yup.

More front pages here.

Here's an argument for doing immigration reform this year

Counterintuitive to me, but very interesting:

Let's move beyond health care for a moment. Today, the White House welcomed faith-based groups who are demanding a vote on immigration reform. Congressional leaders don't know whether one will be in the offing by November, but the debate is certain to flare up. And the business lobby, which had united against health care reform, will suddenly find itself split: the same would be the case if the president were to try and use his political capital to push through climate change legislation. Doubtful he would, but he if he did, there would be many megaphones at work.

Democrats assume that the immigration debate will open the curtain on the Tea Party movement; health care will be child's play compared to the tantrums over the prospect of earned legalization and other measures. The overlap between the Tea Partiers and ethnocentric immigration restrictionists is huge, and even many Republicans worry that the embedded nativism in the movement, whether or not it is also racialized (as a proxy for being against Obama and his ilk) will come to the fore in a way that once again diminishes the fervor of right-leaning independents and energizes Hispanics.

Let us thank Pelosi. Let us thank Obama.

And let us thank the Republican Party:

We should also, however, spare a thought for the unsung hero of comprehensive reform, McConnell and his GOP colleagues, who pushed their “no compromise” strategy to the breaking point and beyond. The theory was that non-cooperation would stress the Democratic coalition and cause the public to begin to question the enterprise. And it largely worked. But at crucial times when wavering Democrats were eager for a lifeline, the Republicans absolutely refused to throw one. White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel and other key players at various points wanted to scale aspirations down to a few regulatory tweaks and some expansion of health care for children. This idea had a lot of appeal to many in the party. But it always suffered from a fatal flaw—the Republicans’ attitude made it seem that a smaller bill was no more feasible than a big bill. Consequently, even though Scott Brown’s victory blew the Democrats off track, the basic logic of the situation pushed them back on course to universal health care.

Today, conservative anger at the Democrats is running higher than ever, and for the first time in years the GOP leadership’s blanket opposition has won them the esteem of their fanatics. But in more sober moments in the weeks and months to come, my guess is that the brighter minds on the right will recognize that their determination to turn health reform into Obama’s Waterloo sowed the seeds of their own destruction. Universal health care has been attempted many times in the past and always failed. The prospects for success were never all that bright. Many of us, myself included, at one point or another wanted to try something more moderate. But the right wing, by invariably indicating that it would settle for nothing less than total victory, inspired progressive forces to march on and win their greatest legislative victory in decades.

More on the Catholic Bishops' monumental failure

The best analysis so far comes from David Gibson at Politics Daily.Here's a particularly delicious part:

The victory of Republican Scott Brown in the Massachusetts special election to fill the Senate seat of the late Ted Kennedy stunned not only the Democrats but also meant that the Catholic bishops would have little opportunity to press for a change in the Senate bill. That's because Brown -- a supporter of abortion rights -- had vowed to vote against health care reform and thus gave the GOP 41 votes and the ability to block the legislation from coming to the floor again.

That in turn revealed another serious political weakness for the bishops -- namely, their inability to convince even one Republican in the Senate to allow the bill to go to a vote even if only to toughen the abortion language. For decades the bishops have pointed to the Republican Party as representing the pro-life position in American politics, and the Democrats the "party of death," as many of them put it. Yet when the chips were down and the bishops needed a vote, they could not summon a single Republican to support them, either in the Senate or, in the end, in the House.

More:

Steadily, inexorably, pro-life Democrats who had been against the Senate bill over the abortion issue began to peel away from the opposition forces, and at the same time Pelosi and the White House continued courting Stupak and the few holdouts whose votes would be critical to passage.

At the same time, however, the Catholic bishops kept digging in their heels. They began coordinating their efforts more obviously with the Family Research Council and other conservative groups close to the Republican right wing, to the extent that it wasn't clear whether the point was to oppose the abortion provisions in the Senate bill, or the bill itself.

His conclusions are accurate:

Their run as political dealmakers was cut short by their own miscalculations, and within the church they did little to burnish their already strained credibility. Politically conservative Catholics were already angry that the bishops supported such a repellent idea as universal health care in the first place, and many blame them for not succeeding in killing the bill altogether. The more liberal members, including pro-life elements, of the church, on the other hand, saw the greater (and common) good of health care reform as so obvious that they just shrugged the bishops off.

"Catholic members of Congress showed that they will not bow to the bishops when it comes to something that is outside their area of expertise -- namely the interpretation of legislative language," said Father Thomas Reese, a Jesuit priest and longtime observer of politics both inside the church and the Beltway.

And in the background, of course, is the other dominant Catholic story line of the last decade, that of the sexual abuse of children by clergy, which is emerging again in Europe and even the Vatican, doing the reputation of the hierarchy no favors.

Next big battle for conservatives

Immigration reform, which, if the President is smart, he'll leave for 2011-12. The GOP base is preparing its battle against their biggest ally on health care reform: the US Conference of Catholic Bishops.

[A] personal representative of the Bishops explained during a conference call in favor of health care legislation and "comprehensive immigration reform" that it was all about money. Kevin Appleby, director of the Bishops' Office of Migration Policy and Public Affairs, said the Bishops wanted a national health care plan funded by taxpayers to pick up the costs associated with covering the illegal aliens coming to the Catholic hospitals.

It's impossible to believe, in the final analysis, that Stupak betrayed the Bishops. Catholic Church lobbyists were working hand-in-glove with Stupak from the start.

German newspapers react to the Pope's letter

Looks like blaming reporters for child sexual abuse committed by priests didn't work very well as a media strategy in Germany.

This comes from Die Tageszeitung:

The central issues of the scandal will remain. Now, as before, and despite all his warm words for the victims, the pope shies away from any debate about sexual morality in the church. And one can only hope that his public silence about the abuse cases in Germany, is not because the pope himself was unhappily involved in such a case when he was the archbishop of Munich.

To put it delicately, what the pope writes in his pastoral letter also applied back then -- in the gospel according to John (John 8:31-32): "the truth will set you free." Even though, in his letter, he only seeks to apply the principle to others."

Süddeutsche Zeitung:

[T]he letter is not going to rescue the church from the crisis it is currently enmeshed in. The letter will not do this because it is addressed to the Irish church only. The letter localizes a problem that actually affects the church throughout the world.

And the pope's letter is also problematic when it tries to come to grips with the reasons for the abuse. Benedict XVI suggests that these problems arose because of a moral laxness in the clergy and church that arose after the reforms of the Second Vatican Council (eds note: the 1960s reforms that the church brought about in acknowledge of the changing modern world). The pope says these were mistakenly interpreted as a softening of moral standards. With respect, this is nonsense. Many of the cases from the more distant past, which are currently coming to light, demonstrate this.

Pope Benedict XVI is merely viewing the abuses from his own belief system. And this is the real and far-reaching weakness of his well-intentioned words. According to this view, the abuse of children and youths is a result of a relativism of values, which has also crept into the church. This is, however, at odds with the real world."

From Die Welt, a conservative daily:

His call for the church to be subject to the law of the land is an unmistakable instruction to all who abide by the church's rules. But his pastoral letter will not dispel all of the dark clouds hovering over the Catholic church. Nor will it put to rest the debate over celibacy, that so many in the church find so troubling."
The church has a long road ahead of it, during which it must explain a lot as well as renew itself spiritually. And that counts for Ireland, Germany and the rest of the world. The church must travel this road with courage, so that doubts about men of the cloth and any negative impressions of a religious elite are dispelled. Traveling this path timidly will help as little as blaming the media of a plot against the church.

"He has been the president, and even more than my father could have ever imagined."

Patrick Kennedy reflects on his father's legacy and yesterday's triumph.

Right the first time, Mr. Gingrich

A correction at the bottom of Paul Krugman's postscript to yesterday's health care triumph:

This column quotes Newt Gingrich as saying that “Lyndon Johnson shattered the Democratic Party for 40 years” by passing civil rights legislation, a quotation that originally appeared in The Washington Post. After this column was published, The Post reported that Mr. Gingrich said his comment referred to Johnson’s Great Society policies, not to the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

Republicans didn't use Medicare to bash the Democratic Party for forty years. They used Southern white resentment over black empowerment. This powered the party to victory after victory in the Electoral College, and, by the 1990's, in congressional elections as well. Southern Republican whites don't resent Medicare. They resent black people. Anyone who knows the region's politics realizes the former speaker was right the first time. And anyone who knows Mr. Gingrich knows that he's savvy enough to recognize the moment to lie about it.

Obama... so far from toast

Josh Marshall, who I suspect is right about the political and electoral impact of this monumental victory.

To that end, Frum's first point was, who cares if the Republicans take back Congress? Majorities come and go. But reform is permanent. For conservatives it's a catastrophic development and if they'd actually been part of the dialog they probably could have gotten a bill much more to their liking. The second point is political, though he's less clear in this case. Republicans, he says, are probably overestimating their chances this fall in any case.

I'm far from wanting to hazard a prediction. But I've thought for a while that this is right. Seven months is always a long time in politics. But this seven months particularly could be very long indeed.

I was in DC last week. And I was again struck, as I used to be when I lived there (1999-2004), by the powerful group-think that affects the place. It's really no different than you'd see in any other company town. But it's pervasive and hard to escape. When I was training down I read an update from a campaign watcher whose work I normally greatly respect. And he clearly believed that Health Care Reform was not only a catastrophe for Democrats but that the actual passage of the bill would have no political effect and that we're on pretty much a straight line between today and the November elections.

Again, I don't want to paint any rosy pictures. And, as I said, I don't want to hazard any predictions. But I think this conventional wisdom is quite mistaken. Hard fought victories don't deplete political capital; they build it. And political wins themselves often have a catalyzing effect that shapes political opinion far more than we realize.

Make no mistake, it's a genuinely historic moment, a realization that only now seems to be dawning on people. And expect to have political repercussions far greater than people expect. But as I wrote earlier, even if they lose their majorities in November, they'll be able to say: This is what we used these majorities to do. And it was worth it.

E.J. Dionne: "Yes they made history"

Published minutes ago:

Yes, we did.

Finally, President Obama can use those words. The passage of health-care reform provided the first piece of incontestable evidence that Washington has changed.

Congress is, indeed, capable of carrying through fundamental social reform. No longer will the United States be the outlier among wealthy nations in leaving so many of its citizens without basic health coverage.

In approving the most sweeping piece of social legislation since the mid-1960s, Democrats proved that they can govern, even under challenging circumstances and in the face of significant internal divisions. [...]

That's exactly true of the reform Congress enacted Sunday night. It does not quite cover everyone -- Social Security didn't, either -- and that must be taken care of. There will be years of wrangling over the system's costs and how it works in practice. Every successful health system in the world confronts such arguments. This new law will not end all our health-care problems (no law could), but it does a great deal for access, and it makes solving other problems a little easier. Above all, it puts us on a new path.

For Obama, this struggle was transformative. He began his administration full of hope that his campaign pledge to achieve concord across party lines was a realistic possibility. But when faced with implacable Republican opposition, he jettisoned the happy talk and came out fighting.

If bipartisanship is more fashionable than partisanship, partisanship with a purpose is infinitely preferable to paralysis. Obama has made clear that he will reach out when he can, and do battle when he must.

By temperament, the president is more a consensus builder than a warrior. But he is also a practical man who wants to accomplish big things. On Sunday, he did just that on health care, and he earned a place in history.

Wonkette's caption

To today's video of the Speaker and John Lewis:

HAHAHAHAH. Nancy Pelosi loves pissing off teabaggers. Here she is linking arms with John Lewis, just like in the Selma march, to remind America of how teabaggers chanted “nigger” at John Lewis fifteen times yesterday. And if anyone gets in her way, she will smash their skulls into sandhills of calcium with her Weapon, the “1965 Medicare gavel,” forged by ancient socialist hobbits in a distant epoch, as a paean to Thor.

Wonkette's headline: "Nancy Pelosi Shall Overcome, With Her Mallet."

Kos headline linking to the piece: "Damn You Nancy Pelosi.... Why Are You So Fly!"

Bad night for John Boehner!

Photo courtesy of Talking Points Memo.

The rest of the tweets

1. 
   
   So far: Yes: 184. No: 160.1 minute ago via Twitterrific
   

What he said

JUSIPER, January 18, 2010:

There are, however, some silver linings. The first is that in certain ways not having a filibuster-proof majority is politically advantageous to the President. If you have 60 votes, the pressure is on you to deliver every single one of them. If you have 59, the pressure is suddenly on the minority party not to be obstructionist. Remember, Obama may be unpopular, but he's way more popular than the Republican Party as a brand. Republicans are doing well in these elections because the economy is creating an anti-incumbent wave, not because people like them. [...]

Today comes even better news. If Coakley loses, the House may pass the Senate version in exchange for a promise to use reconciliation to expand health care. It will take 60 senators to repeal the new law; it will only take 50 to expand it.

The use of reconciliation following passage of a health care bill was always progressives' dream scenario. It's about to be foisted on us... by the teabaggers.

JUSIPER, January 21, 2010:

If Ted Kennedy found out that the first results of Martha Coakley's loss were 1) the House sending healthcare to the President's desk, followed by reconciliation to sweeten it, 2) the White House bringing back Paul Volcker and announcing sweeping banking reform, 3) a straight up condemnation of the Supreme Court by the Obama Administration and 4) the death of the Bernanke nomination, he'd be pritty, pritty happy.

Passage of the bill was only possible as long as conservative Senate Democrats thought they had the last word, which they did thanks to the filibuster. That is, their original 60 votes for the health care bill were contingent on reconciliation being off the table. This bill is much more generous because Democrats could no longer get the bill through the House without reconciliation. It would never have happened if Democrats had the 60 votes; reconciliation, from the beginning, was deemed too uncivil a move for the clubby Senate, not least when they had to pass the primary bill with those 60 votes.

And that's why we owe Massachusetts teabaggers big time, for bringing our President back from a nine month slumber, and for destroying the filibuster's magical hold on semiprogressive senators. All the ethnic and sexual slurs in the world can't undo Barack Obama's signature on the biggest piece of domestic legislation since Medicare.

Trifecta!

Republican activists, also known as teabaggers, didn't stop with African Americans and gays. Today comes word that a third group was insultworthy. Their identity will surprise no one acquainted with the GOP since 2005: Hispanics.

Looks like black and gay lawmakers aren’t the only ones being pelted with vicious slurs by folks who oppose the health reform proposal. Add a Hispanic lawmaker to the list. Trifecta!

Rep. Ciro Rodriguez of Texas has confided to colleages that he was hammered by ethnic slurs by people opposed to reform passing, one of those colleagues tells me.

Rep March Kaptur told me in the hallway today that Rodriguez privately told her he’d been called “some names” back in his district. She confirmed that they were ethnic slurs, but declined to elaborate.

Photo of the day

Courtesy of reader G.

Now the greatest Speaker of the House in generations, Nancy Pelosi marches to the Capitol today while carrying the gavel used when Medicare was passed. She is flanked by Reps. Van Hollen, Hoyer, and congressman John Lewis, the civil rights icon who was racially slurred by Republican protesters yesterday. 

JUSIPER tweets on health care vote

Last hour:

They betrayed Hispanics and lied about #hcr abortion clauses. You have to wonder if the US Bishops Conf. are more Republican than Catholic.

By buying ads against #hcr,US Cath Bishops proved their concern for life only until birth. By losing Stupak 8, they proved their impotence.

With Stupak 8 following President's executive order banning federal money for abortion, there are 222 Dems for #hcr, 6 more than necessary.

RT @markos Loretta Sanchez might vote "no"? Is she really that stupid?

Russert: Obama executive order will reiterate the Hyde Amendment. If so, US Catholic Bishops lose in every possible way.Hooray for the nuns!

Per @JoeTrippi, corrupt election commission in Iraq won't do a recount. I guess they imitated us too well #corruptsupremecourt #2000 #gore

RT @Taniel Another big get Dem leadership seemed genuinely worried about. RT @ddayen: Solmon Ortiz will vote Yes.

RT @chrismatth "I'm sorry, but I'd rather spend money to save 40,000 lives than start another war. Thanks." #HCR

Why didn't Marcy Kaptur wait for the executive order? Was it a break with Stupak or is she telegraphing that the deal's already done? #hcr

RT @Taniel: Very big news: Marcy Kaptur is now a yes! First real Stupak ally to break with his bloc.... #hcr

Last two hours:

If you vote against health care for the already born, never again can you claim to be pro-life. #hcr

Stupak must realize he could lose a primary if he votes "no" on #hcr. He needs a deal on the executive order more than the President does.

Luke Russert: Dems he spoke to say they have 214 votes. Need 216. #hcr

RT @peterdaou Unreal: this morning, both WaPo.com and CNN.com featuring college hoops as prominently or more prominently than #hcr

Hoyer per MSNBC: Votes needed "in the single digits." Duh, we already knew that. #hcr #uselessinformation

Stupak: Dems don't have votes for #hcr. He should be primaried no matter which way he ends up voting. Send some cash to Connie Saltonstall!

Chairman of the Democratic caucus, Rep. John Larson of Connecticut: "We have the votes now. As we speak" for #hcr. http://bit.ly/9OoOvB

Steny Hoyer on shocking displays of Republican hate

The statement from the House Majority Leader:

Today’s protests against health insurance reform saw a rash of despicable, inflammatory behavior, much of it directed at minority Members of Congress. According to reports, anti-reform protestors spat on Rep. Emmanuel Cleaver, yelled a sexual slur at Rep. Barney Frank, and addressed my dear friend, Rep. John Lewis, with a racial slur that he has sadly heard far too many times. On the one hand, I am saddened that America’s debate on health care — which could have been a national conversation of substance and respect — has degenerated to the point of such anger and incivility. But on the other, I know that every step toward a more just America has aroused similar hate in its own time; and I know that John Lewis, a hero of the civil rights movement, has learned to wear the worst slurs as a badge of honor.

America always has room for open and spirited debate, and the hateful actions of some should not cast doubt on the good motives of the majority, on both sides of this argument. But Members of Congress and opinion leaders ought to come to terms with their responsibility for inciting the tone and actions we saw today. A debate that began with false fears of forced euthanasia has ended in a truly ugly scene. It is incumbent on all of us to do better next time.

From Bob Shrum's No Excuses

p. 288: When I saw [John] Edwards, he said he was amazed that Clinton had pulled [the post-Lewinsky State of the Union Speech] off. But I would never do what he did, Edwards commented. Maybe he didn't do it, I answered. Edwards was skeptical.

It is time to pass health care reform

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you Barack Obama, in the greatest, and most consequential, performance of his young presidency.

The last third is one long coda. Worth listening to in its entirety.

Aravosis

On the innumerable slurs by Republican activists today:

Holy crap, Teabagger protesters reportedly also called African-American Rep. John Lewis, a civil rights hero, the n-word.

Unbelievable. Let's see if the media bothers to cover this. If we had any real gay groups, they'd be demanding the Teabaggers apologize, and any member of Congress and movie star who supports them.

Melissa Harris Lacewell

The Princeton political science professor, so rarely insightful in her TV appearances, writes a few interesting tweets on today's protests:

I'll be interested to see how racist heckling is covered by MSM.

I'm still uncomfortable w/ assuming that shouting N-word is most salient expression of racism. It's too simplistic.

Focusing on racial outbursts obscures far more damaging realities of institutional and structural racism.

On the other hand these outbursts are revealing about many of the underlying anxieties & biases that fuel opposition.

I'm waiting for this logic: teabaggers can't be racist.Clarence Thomas' wife is one.And she is *married* to a black man.

Ha @profblmkelley you and I had same thought at same time! Tavis is like a black, slightly more civil version of TeaParty.

Republican protesters didn't stop with the N-word

Statement from Congressman Emanuel Cleaver:

Many of the members of the CBC like John Lewis and Cleaver who worked in the civil rights movement, and Mr. Frank who has struggled in the cause of equality, this is not the first time they have been spit on before during turbulent times.

This afternoon, the Congressman was walking into the capitol to vote, when one protester spat on him. The Congressman would like to thank the capitol police officer who quickly escorted the other members and him into the capitol, and defused the tense situation with professionalism and care. After all the Members where safe, a full report was taken and the matter was handled by the capitol police. The man who spat on the Congressman was arrested, but the Congressman has chosen not to press charges. This is not the first time the Congressman has been called the “n” word and certainly not the worst assault he has endured in his years fighting for equal rights for all Americans. That being said, he is disappointed that in the 21st century our national discourse has devolved to the point of name calling and spitting. He looks forward to taking a historic vote on health care reform legislation tomorrow, for the residents of the Fifth District of Missouri and for all Americans. He believes deeply that tomorrow’s vote is, in fact, a vote for equality and to secure health care as a right for all. Our nation has a history of struggling each time we expand rights. Today’s protest are no different, but the Congressman believes it is worth fighting for.

Al Sharpton on Tavis Smiley

Nice:

Sharpton, who told The Post he attended a meeting at the White House this week, questioned black leaders who now criticize president. "We all have to deliver to our constituencies, but they keep saying we have to go back the streets and march, but they were never in the streets," he said. "They keep saying, 'Let's hold Obama's feet to the fire,' but did they do that with Bush or Bill Clinton? When were they marching? Let's hold to the same standard."

Clyburn on teabag hate

Sam Stein reports for the Huffington Post:

A staffer for Rep. James Clyburn (D-S.C.) told reporters that Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D-Mo.) had been spat on by a protestor. Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.), a hero of the civil rights movement, was called a 'ni--er.' And Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) was called a "faggot," as protestors shouted at him with deliberately lisp-y screams. Frank, approached in the halls after the president's speech, shrugged off the incident.

But Clyburn was downright incredulous, saying he had not witnessed such treatment since he was leading civil rights protests in South Carolina in the 1960s.

"It was absolutely shocking to me," Clyburn told the Huffington Post. "Last Monday, this past Monday, I stayed home to meet on the campus of Claflin University where fifty years ago as of last Monday... I led the first demonstrations in South Carolina, the sit ins... And quite frankly I heard some things today I have not heard since that day. I heard people saying things that I have not heard since March 15, 1960 when I was marching to try and get off the back of the bus."

"It doesn't make me nervous as all," the congressman said, when asked how the mob-like atmosphere made him feel. "In fact, as I said to one heckler, I am the hardest person in the world to intimidate, so they better go somewhere else."

Asked if he wanted an apology from the group of Republican lawmakers who had addressed the crowd and, in many ways, played on their worst fears of health care legislation, the Democratic Party, and the president, Clyburn replied:

"A lot of us have been saying for a long time that much of this, much of this is not about health care at all. And I think a lot of those people today demonstrated that this is not about health care... it is about trying to extend a basic fundamental right to people who are less powerful."

John Lewis speaks about hate incident

Shocking, even from Republicans, even considering this is the base of their party.

Civil Rights legend Rep. John Lewis has confirmed that demonstrators at the Capitol yelled the word “nigger” at him repeatedly at him, his Chief of Staff, and Rep. Andre Carson of Indiana, about an hour and 45 minutes ago as the three walked from the Cannon House Office Building and crossed Independence Avenue to the U.S. Capitol.

Rep. Lewis was softspoken and low key when 6 reporters questioned him on the incident as he left a meeting where President Obama spoke to House Democrsts on health care. He answered a few questions but clearly wasn’t looking to talk at length.

“It’s OK. I’ve heard this before in the 60s. A lot of this is just downright hate.” When asked if the N word was used Lewis answered in a low voice, “Yes, repeatedly.”

A large tea party demonstration is taking place on the West Front of the Capitol,the lawn on the Washington Monument side. But about 200 demonstrators swung around to the side of the Capitol to confront members leaving the Longworth and Cannon House office Buildings.

Lewis was coming from his office in 343 Cannon with his Chief of Staff and Rep. Andre Carson was coming from 425 Cannon when they exited Cannon to cross Independence heading to the Capitol to vote when the incident happened.

Two tweets from Nate Silver

Otherwise known as @fivethirtyeight.

1. Yes votes starting to roll in again: Carney, Cuellar, DeFazio. Everything back on track.

2. Next couple hrs could be interesting. 2-3 more on-the-record statements and I think we go from being pretty sure to very sure on #hcr.

National Organization for women backs Stupak challenger

Yay. Now Connie Saltonstall will have some cash to back her effort. With luck, she can defeat him. And even if she doesn't, he'll be vulnerable to primary challenges from here on out.

NOW President Terry O'Neill told POLITICO her organization intended to mobilize its chapters in Michigan to support former Charlevoix County Commissioner Connie Saltonstall, who announced a challenge to Stupak last week as the congressman threatened to block a health care bill due to concerns about its language governing funding for abortion.

"Bart Stupak, colluding with the Catholic bishops, is trying to shut down women's access to a very important form of health care," O'Neill said Wednesday, describing Saltonstall as a potential ally on a host of issues. "She will work with us to repeal the Hyde Amendment. She will work to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act. She supports the Equal Rights Amendment."

O'Neill said defeating Stupak was her "highest priority," along with supporting a challenger to Rep. Joe Pitts (R-Pa.), who worked with Stupak to craft an amendment that would have imposed strict limits on abortion funding.

Announcing her campaign against Stupak last week, Saltonstall issued a statement saying she objected most strongly to Stupak's willingness to scuttle his party's proposed health care overhaul.

"I believe that he has a right to his personal, religious views, but to deprive his constituents of needed health care reform because of those views is reprehensible," Saltonstall said.

The Detroit Free Press notes that Saltonstall is still in the process of collecting her 1000 signatures to make the ballot.