A Few Days Have Passed, Safe To Bring Up Ex-President Clinton Again

June 16 Editorial

Six days ago The Editorial Staff wrote a piece "Blame game: Just leave former president out of it" discussing how George W. Bush is no longer President, so therefore we should not hold him accountable for anything or complain about him anymore. I didn't even bother critiquing the piece.

Sure, I could have easily gone into the 2001-2008 archives and pulled out hundreds of editorials where they knock Clinton (I am NOT a fan of the man by the way) but one can only do so much and preserve their sanity.

I did consider briefly mentioning the bit I included in my "Empathy in the Bush Years" where I pointed out how they were ranting and raving about the Lewinsky scandal Ten Years later, but figured I would pass.

So today, The Editorial Staff figures their victims (readers) have such short memories that they can rant and rave about Clinton, and not recall how they were saying it isn't good to do so with past Presidents. Had one member of The Editorial staff ever paid attention in just one of the enumerable bible classes they attend, their is no way they would try and pull this garbage off.

Sadly, it is quite obvious that none have so Today we are blessed with a disgusting piece entitled "Mediscare II: Obama health plan evokes ’96 campaign". There are too many things to point out in this piece, and I will do my best to keep this short.

First, they state "..In some of the most shameless fear-mongering ever seen in Washington, Clinton drubbed the GOP for its plan to save $270 billion over seven years by holding Medicare growth to 6 percent instead of the projected 10 percent."

It is fairly safe to say the editors recall "Harry and Louise", the disgraceful ad campagn that ran during the Clinton years when he was trying to pass reforms. Note that Harry and Louise are back again to fight Obama's reforms, along with a cast of other characters, including the firm that ran The Swift Boat Campaign against John Kerry.

Now, putting aside the disgraceful partisanship of this newspaper, lets look at how things are in the real world. The Editors are screaming unfair that Obama is discussing cutting back on Medicare expenses. Their gripe is that when Gingrich proposed them, Clinton went bonkers and won the next election based on his gripes about what the Republicans wanted to do, backed by Gingrich. Ignore all other factors, this surely had to be the reason!

What the incompetent staff is incapable of understanding, is that it surely is a conditional thing he is proposing. Note the recent article on the Foxnews website, "Obama Praises 'Historic' $2 Trillion Health Care Savings Plan" that Health Care Industry hot-shots have promised him and the people a massive savings over the next ten years. Putting whether we believe they'll pull it off (I can't imagine shareholders will like them doing this very much), those of us who are interested in the real world can deduct that Obama "...who said Saturday that he wants to cut Medicare and Medicaid spending by $200 billion over the next 10 years..." will probably do so conditionally. And those conditions will be based on what is probably a delusion that the Health Care companies are not filthy, disgusting liars and will deliver on the $2trillion in cost-cuts.

Man I can not stand The Oklahoman editorial page/staff. What the hell is wrong with these people?

Empathy In The Bush Years

June 3 Commentary

It should be obvious to the casual observer the past few days, regarding Sotomayor coverage, that The Oklahoman editorial staff has been paying attention to the dear leaders of the far right (Rove, Armey, Limbaugh et. al.) more than usual.

In a fine piece entitled "Empathy, Sotomayor, and Democracy: The Conservative Stealth Strategy", George Lakoff explains quite clearly why the individuals from whom The Oklahoman Editorial staff get "their ideas" are saying what they are saying, and doing the things they are doing.

Before I get into the things Lakoff discusses in the article, I would like to share a blurb from an Oklahoma Editorial written right after the Iowa Primaries, when Mike Huckabee and President Obama won.

See change: Obama, Huckabee ride possibility politics
Published: January 6, 2008

"...Huckabee also defeated a better-funded opponent, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney. Huckabee's message of change was based on empathy for the concerns of real Americans — economic and cultural — which he communicated artfully. Voters liked Huck." and then the writers conclude, quite interestingly "Huckabee found a formula for big victories that others ignore at their own expense. They connected with voters on a different level, sensing something not satisfied by conventional themes or policy proposals."


Now to the Lakoff article. In the piece he states a number of things that make it quite clear why we are seeing this attack on the issue of "empathy" from the far right. Here are a few I will point out, and if you would like to read the whole article I have included a link up top.

"(the form of empathy Obama tries to embrace gives) ...a view of a government that cares about its citizens and has a moral obligation to protect and empower them. Protection includes worker, consumer, and environmental protection as well as safety nets and health care. Empowerment includes what is in the president's stimulus plan: infrastructure, education, communication, energy, the availability of credit from banks, a stock market that works...Empathy in this sense is a threat to conservatism, which features individual, not social, responsibility and a strict, punitive form of 'justice.' It is no surprise that empathy would be a major conservative target in the Sotomayor evaluation."

Lakoff goes on to write, agreeing with what The Oklahoman editors claimed was the reasons Iowan's chose Mike Huckabee "...President Obama has argued that empathy is the basis of our democracy. Why do we promote freedom and fairness for everyone, not just ourselves or the rich and powerful?" It is interesting that the editors spoke of Huckabee and his empathy, and how those he defeated "...ignore at their own expense". Now they are treating Obama in a manner that placing importance on empathy should be something that will cost him.

Before I go on, I want to address something that is quite an issue to The Oklahoman. I have pointed out they quite often play the "We are a Republic! Not a Democracy!" card many times, and always when it favors them (however they point to popular polls when it is an issue they side with quite regularly). The CIA World Factbook notes that our type of Government is: Constitution-based federal republic; strong democratic tradition. For those who might cringe when they read that Obama discusses things like the "basis of our democracy", they might consider whether or not they want to be like Pelosi and assume the CIA is giving us bad information.

Lakoff continues laying out his case that the far right is creating myths by portraying Obama's selection by reframing empathy to make it attackable by portraying it as "emotion and personal feeling" rather than his preferred "real empathy" which is the basis for what we should be as a functioning Republic (with a strong democratic tradition).

A case for empathy based on emotion and personal feeling, in my opinion, is one that the editors wanted France to embrace during the run-up to wars in Afghanastan and Iraq. War is a very serious thing, and not to be decided by people who rely on feelings. Pretty much anyone can tell you that, however, one would not know it by reading this December 17, 2001 piece:

Those Fickle French: Aid to Accused Terrorist Not Surprising
(article only available in archives)

In this editorial, the staff writes about "....France’s announcement that it would offer legal help to accused terrorist (French citizen of Moroccan birth) Zacarias Moussaoui (as we did with Timothy McVeigh)" and go on to explain how this action makes them feel how "... Frankly, we expect nothing less from France."

Continuing, the writers put themselves in a bind by saying "... Now, with the gesture toward Moussaoui and whispered concerns about the use of military tribunals in limited cases, France is showing once again that its empathy for America is somewhat fickle."

Now, we all know what has happened in the seven-plus years since this was written. Decisions to go into two wars (we will not win), and assuming that we will do well and others will back us based on emotion and personal feeling, is not a good thing. It is now perfectly clear that France made proper decisions, putting aside an immature form of empathy (the one the right so much wants to convince us Obama is after) and doing the right things.

Furthermore, an interesting article by William Pfaff entitled "As Smash-and-Grab Capitalism Collapses, the French Economy Shines" shows why the far right wants to make it appear as if Obama/Sotomayor are individuals who will make poor decisions, and bring about bad things for us:

“French household debt is half that in America, no bank has failed, none has been nationalized, executive pay is reasonable, and “the income gap between the top 10 percent and the bottom 10 percent is far smaller than in Britain or America.” The country is crisscrossed by 230-mph TGV trains, 80 percent of the power is nuclear (and more is exported), its auto producers are in reasonably good shape, Air France is the most profitable airline in the world, and French-dominated Airbus sells more planes than Boeing.”


Lakoff makes an interesting statement regarding another reason the far-right is playing this game. He writes "...In the last election, conservative populists moved toward Obama. Conservative populists are working people, mostly white men, who have conservative views of the family, of masculinity, and of the military, and who have bought into the idea of the 'liberal elite' as looking down on them. Right now, they are hurting economically, losing their jobs and their homes. Empathy is something they need." He brings up how dear leaders like Newt Gingrich are playing the race card with Sotomayor and explains this is because the charge "...has a political purpose, holding onto conservative populists. The overt form of the old conservative argument is made regularly these days: liberalism is identity politics. "

Politics are complex things, however if we embrace the reality that we are the freest country in the world, and that part of the freedom includes increadible access to facts and history, not just access to delicious taco salads 24/7, we can understand these things quite well. In a January 21, 2008 editorial, we read:

Public affair : 10 years later, Lewinsky scandal echoes

The writers confirm that things can be complicated by starting off their piece with "...The reverberations are still felt, a number of questions it raised (are) still unanswered." The piece is centered on Hillary and her campaign for the Presidency, and the write that she is where she is at that time due to the fact that "...The scandal arguably launched Hillary Clinton's solo political career, the wronged wife winning a Senate seat in 2000. Her fortunes can still see-saw on the Lewinsky scandal — empathy for the betrayal she suffered; suspicion that she, blaming the 'vast right-wing conspiracy,' was an enabler."

Note how they believe the dear leaders of the far-right and their ways, parlayed with empathy were the foundation for her rise. For the first time they tell us irrational empathy is bad, but fail to explain that perhaps a real "vast right-wing conspiracy" did exist, one that kept Bill in office despite his heinous crime, lying under oath (obviously a crime worse than the brutal Iraq sanctions, doing away with Glass-Stegal, pardoning Rich without blinking an eyelash in the general direction of Peltier, etc...), for had they Gore would more than likely have an easier go at it in 2000. But that is just a side-note here, what is important to note that psuedo-empathy brought someone like Hillary to power. Someone The Oklahoman likes less than Huckabee and this fancy CEO:

Finding empathy the hard way, By Rick Hudson
Published August 27, 2004

In this piece written by The CEO of R.L. Hudson & Co., a Tulsa-based supplier of seals and molded goods, Hudson tells his story of how his company "..recently built our new headquarters in Broken Arrow..." and during the course of the building they "...learned that all of the restrooms in the building had to accommodate people with disabilities. The washbasins could not be installed in cabinets; they had to be open and wheelchair accessible. And there were other considerations, such as a required elevator if we added upper floors. It involved a lot of extra cost."

This is relevant because Hudson was once a man who was a "...conservative businessman, and normally like as little government interference in my life as possible. I was suspicious about the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA), not because I’m against people with disabilities but because I’m afraid of the frivolous lawsuits and outright fraud that accompany far-reaching government programs."

He goes on to discuss having an accident, and seeing what it is like to be disabled for some time. Hudson essentially states that he is pleased the Supreme Court has shown sensible empathy to disabled folks (not irrational empathy that allows a man with a limp to bomb Afghani wedding parties to take out his anger at his plight), as is evident in the cases listed here. It is hard to imagine a piece like this being run in The Oklahoman at this time.


Concluding, Lakoff states that "...the attacks on Sotomayor work as attacks on Obama and progressive thought. They are also attacks on "moderate" conservatives, who think with progressives on many issues. The attacks activate radical conservative ideas in the brains of those who voted for Bush and the 47 percent of the voters who voted for McCain." and continue "...They have their message machine intact, with trained spokespeople booked on TV and radio shows all over the country (Folks like Dick Armey who spent increadible amounts of money, and explained this by saying "to the victor goes the spoils"). Attacking Sotomayor, even when they know she will win, allows them to rally their forces and get swing-voting conservatives thinking their way again." and he states what people who think this is wrong should do about all of this.

I will conclude with one more Bush era, pro "emotion and personal feeling" empathy pieces. And it is one many of the readers The Oklahoman preys upon consider important, and that is our relationship with Israel.

Shoulder to Shoulder: A Wounded Israel Needs U.S. Help

(article only available in archives 12.17.01)

I have written a few things about The Oklahoman's foolish opinions regarding this topic. If we assess their self-proclaimed "Friend of Israel" status, and see what results have come from people like these guys having a voice, we can learn something. One of which is quite obvious that like the dear leaders on the far-right, the gospels are something they know very little about.

In the late '01 editorial, the typical things are stated. They mention 9-11 a few times and truly awful things like a "..new terrorist suicide bombing attacks that left at least 26 Israelis dead in Jerusalem and Haifa over the weekend..." and conclude with "...Yes, how well we understand now. With new empathy, the United States must stand shoulder to shoulder with its friend Israel against terrorism — while demanding that Yasser Arafat declare his final loyalty. "

The Editor's cheered for emotional based empathy in dealing with Israel and it's issues and they got it. For those of us who know our recent history, in 2004 we decided the UN was not such a bad thing, and authored Resolution 1559 that required the disarmament of all armed groups in Lebanon. Two years later this gave Israel strong encouragement to go into the only war they have lost in a couple thousand years. The emotional, feeling-based empathy embraced by the Bush Administration and nice guys like John Hagee, Joel "Shining a light on the thief in the night" Rosenberg and all of the dear leaders was no doubt something, if embraced by Obama and Sotomayor, that would not a good thing.

It would be good if The Oklahoman could present more evidence on the subject of their rants, however all we have is a game from these people that says Obama and Sotomayor possess a harmful type of empathy rather than the real type needed for good governance. The evidence is quite clear that everything they accuse Obama and Sotomeyer of possibly being, they embraced during the Bush years. I do not think that I need to point out to you that this is wrong.

Surprise! The Oklahoman Is Not Being Fair/Balanced With Sotomayor!

June 1 Cartoon

The Oklahoman has started it's war on Sotomayor today with this infantile cartoon. It is no mystery that they are doing this, as it is no mystery that they will offer totally unbalanced coverage of the coming conformation.

For fun, lets look back at their coverage of Alito last go 'round. The paper ran five staff editorials during the run up, and all the typical elements of Oklahoman editorials are there. Hypocrisy, plagiarism, little detail to truth, etc.... :

1.8.06 Asking Alito : Qualifications should be hearings’ focus


WHEN U.S. Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito Jr. appears before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Monday, it will launch perhaps the most contentious confirmation battle on Capitol Hill since Robert Bork’s in 1987.
For those who don’t remember, the Bork confirmation became a donnybrook. Nominated by President Reagan, the former solicitor general’s outspoken conservatism was savaged by liberal special interest groups, and ultimately he was rejected by the Senate.
Conservatives have since been spoiling for a high-stakes showdown over judicial philosophy, and
they may get it with Sam Alito.
Since President Bush nominated Alito to succeed retiring Justice Sandra Day O’Connor in October, much has been made of Alito’s rulings as a federal appellate court judge and his positions as a young member of the Reagan administration.
Unlike new Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Alito has an extensive judicial paper trail from 15 years on the bench (compared with Roberts’ three). During the past two months, that record has been mined by some of the same groups that torpedoed Bork. Unlike the Roberts confirmation, opponents of judicial conservatism are planning a spirited fight against Alito.
Part of it is Alito’s length of judicial service, part of it is the politics of succeeding O’Connor. Whereas Roberts was seen as a conservative replacing another conservative (late Chief Justice William Rehnquist), Alito is seen as more conservative than O’Connor, who frequently was the high court’s swing vote in key cases. As a result, liberal groups have been saying that Alito would turn back the clock on women’s rights and civil rights. They’ve claimed he would endanger civil liberties because he has written about the need for a strong executive branch in our system of government.
Our sense is Judge Alito is a brilliant but careful jurist — in the sense he respects the Constitution’s original intent and is disinclined to turn it inside out looking for new rights. Last week he received the American Bar Association’s highest recommendation, “well-qualified,” the same as Chief Justice Roberts.
Alito has had a distinguished career and has demonstrated he would professionally interpret the law. Starting with Monday’s hearings, the Senate should examine his qualifications and judicial temperament, not positions on litmus-test issues.
That way the process, however tough, will remain fair.

1.12.06 Nothing personal : Alito displays deft touch in exchange

ASHORT exchange on the first day of questioning for U.S. Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito by the Senate Judiciary Committee highlighted a key philosophical divide over the proper role of judges in America.
Sen. Herb Kohl, D-Wis., tried Tuesday to shake the nominee from his position that judges should be neutral arbiters of the law. Kohl was present last fall during confirmation hearings for new Chief Justice John Roberts, when Roberts likened judges to baseball umpires calling balls and strikes.
Kohl suggested to Alito that judicial interpreters of the Constitution can’t always be as neutral or detached as Roberts said. He said a number of landmark decisions by the court to protect civil liberties resulted because judges would “look beyond rigid legal doctrines that prevailed at the times of those rulings.”
The senator said the cases wouldn’t have come out the way they did if judges remained neutral, and he asked Alito to agree with him that certain pivotal cases require judges who will apply a “more expansive, imaginative view of the Constitution.”
One reason we think Judge Alito will be a good Supreme Court justice is that he rejects the view judges may use their imaginations to divine one thing or another from the Constitution. That’s judicial activism, pure and simple, usually seen in judges acting as legislators at the state and federal level.
Alito politely batted away Kohl’s argument, saying judges must be wary of substituting their views and policy judgments for the Constitution’s. While judges may identify principles under the Constitution’s broader provisions, he said that’s not the same thing as judges injecting their personal opinions on the “direction in which society should be moving into the decisionmaking process.”
The task of legislating is the realm of elected representatives. Judges should stick to the job of measuring legislation against the Constitution. If confirmed, Alito would help keep the two branches of government working in their appropriate roles.

1.13.6 Unruffled : Smear efforts don’t faze Alito

SENATE Judiciary Committee Democrats may yet manage to seriously rough up U.S. Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito. But if the petty, smearing stuff they tried during his confirmation hearings is the worst they can do, then Alito is well on his way to joining the high court.
Alito proved himself intellectually sharp and personally humble while sparring with some of the committee’s Democrats during questioning, which ended Thursday. The nominee, rightfully so, consistently refused to be lured into discussing his views on key issues that might come before him as a justice, such as abortion.
On Wednesday this drew Democrats’ ire — even though Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, nominated by President Clinton, set the modern standard for unresponsiveness to questions about potential cases.
So some tried sliming Alito, suggesting his nominal membership in an oddball Princeton alumni group from 20 years ago makes him a racist and a misogynist. They accused Alito of always ruling against “the little guy” as an appellate court judge, even though several cases suggest otherwise.
The grilling and smearing eventually got to the judge’s wife, Martha. At one point she left the hearing room in tears — a vivid illustration of the toll the modern, no-holds-barred confirmation process can take on nominees and their families.
Alito remained unruffled. As apparently is his nature, the bookish judge calmly disavowed association with the Princeton group and its views and said he would keep an open mind.
Although the hearings were both nasty and dull, what emerged was that Samuel Alito has the brains, legal experience and judicial temperament to be a fine Supreme Court justice. That he can weather political assaults on his character is just more evidence he’s the right man for the court.

1.14.06 Foolish risk : Alito deserves up-or-down vote

IT’S GOOD to hear California Democrat Dianne Feinstein discounting the likelihood Samuel Alito’s U.S. Supreme Court nomination will be filibustered on the Senate floor. Still, after confirmation hearings last week established Alito’s intellect, legal expertise, judicial temperament and overall suitability for the highest court in the land, some Democrats weren’t ready to give up the fight.
Over the weekend New York’s Charles Schumer still talked as if there were more to learn about someone with a 15-year record as a federal appellate judge who’d just undergone a weeklong grilling. Schumer wouldn’t rule out a filibuster to block Alito’s nomination indefinitely.
We realize Schumer and others are being pressured by liberal interest groups to fight tooth and nail to defeat Alito. But enough is enough. Judge Alito’s mainstream conservatism isn’t cause for denying him an up-or-down vote in the Senate.
Democratic moderates sense this, as does Feinstein. Although she disagrees with Alito on a number of issues, Feinstein said Sunday such disagreement isn’t a reason to keep him off the court by any means available, including a filibuster.
Filibustering Alito would go well beyond the Senate’s constitutional role of advising and consenting on judicial nominations. Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., was right when he said a filibuster would be an attempt to hijack the last presidential election — won by President Bush after campaign promises to nominate conservatives to the judiciary.
If they filibuster a nominee with Alito’s credentials, Senate Democrats will trigger a backlash, with Americans seeing a well-qualified candidate blocked by a partisan gimmick. They also would invite Republicans to use the same tactics with the next Supreme Court nominee by a Democratic president.
The message Sunday from Feinstein is that it would be foolish for Democrats to risk both by trying to block someone as qualified as Samuel Alito.

1.27.06 Bloc party : Alito deserves better from Democrats

THE WAY some Democrats have behaved toward U.S. Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito, we suppose Alito should feel lucky his nomination probably won’t be filibustered on the Senate floor. Thank goodness for small favors!
Seriously, it’s to the Senate’s shame this well-qualified jurist and good man probably will be confirmed with not much better than a party-line vote.
There was a time when the Senate rose above a nominee’s perceived liberalism or conservatism and based its consent on his or her legal intellect, judicial temperament and general capacity to serve as a justice on the highest court in the land. Ruth Bader Ginsburg, nominated by President Clinton in 1993, won confirmation with 96 votes and no hint of a filibuster. Same thing the following year, when Clinton put forward Stephen Breyer and he was confirmed with 89 votes.
Alito’s thanks — for a distinguished career as a judge, federal prosecutor and government attorney — was a scrawny 10-8 party-line vote this week in the Judiciary Committee. Observers think he’ll be fortunate to get 60 votes from the full Senate. That’s more than enough for confirmation, but Alito deserves better.
The start of floor debate suggested party talking points and not clear, independent thinking are guiding too many senators. Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., said Alito “has voted to narrow (abortion rights), to restrict the rights that Americans hold dear.” Maryland Democrat Barbara Mikulski said Alito favors big business and the executive branch of government more than everyday Americans.
How unfortunate that opponents smear and distort trying to turn an honorable man into a caricature they can attack.
Majority Leader Bill Frist of Tennessee said Alito has a “respect for judicial restraint, an aversion to political agendas on the bench and a commitment to the rule of law and the Constitution.” That used to be more than enough to win broad, bipartisan support from the Senate. Sadly, no more.