Sunday talk show highlights, August 1, 2010

After a long and fairly eventful summer, we’re back on track with our “Sunday talk show highlights.”  We’re off to a slow start though… This Monday: This Week.

On This Week, Christiane Amanpour made her hosting debut and showed off a new music theme, a new color theme (more red and black, less blue and gray), and a more international approach. First of all, whereas the old intro included the following line: “From the heart of our nation´s capital…”, the new intro includes the following: “From all across our world, to the heart of our nation´s capital…” Furthermore, towards the end of the “In Memoriam” segment, Amanpour states: “We remember all of those who have died in war this week, and the Pentagon released the names of ….”. The old line simply  read “this week, the Pentagon released the names of…”

Onto the actual events of Amanpour’s debut show. The show’s headliners were House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Defense Secretary Robert Gates. Pelosi seemed nervous throughout the interview, but she did a pretty good job of sticking to her talking points.

Focusing on the polarized nature of American politics going into the mid-term elections, Amanpour asked Pelosi the following question:

What is it you can do for the people in this highly polarized situation?

To which Pelosi responded with a cocktail of Democrat=good-Republican=bad-framing:

Well first of all, what you … describe as a highly polarized situation is a very big difference of opinion. The Republicans are here for the special interests, we’re here for the people’s interests. The president said we will measure our progress, our success, by the progress that is made by America’s working families. That is our priority. That is not their priority.

This isn’t about inter-party bickering. This is about a major philosophical difference as to whose side you’re on. You don’t like to think that. We come here to find our common ground. That’s our responsibility. But if we can’t find it, we still have to move. I’ve never voted for a perfect bill in my life. I don’t think anyone has. I wish it were not so stark. I wish the elections weren’t so necessary for us to win. I really do, because … there should be more common ground. Are we unhappy that … the job creation has not gone as fast as we would like? Well, we were digging out of a very deep hole. But we will continue to fight.

Reality isn’t that black and white. However, it’s a politically expedient sales pitch during campaign season.

Laughable line 1:

“This isn’t about inter-party bickering.”

Laughable line 2:

“I wish the elections weren’t so necessary for us to win. I really do, because … there should be more common ground.”

In other parts of the interview, Pelosi uttered her confidence that the Democrats will keep their majority in the House. Why? Because they have, in Pelosi’s words, more “money” and “the best sales persons” out there. According to her choice of words, it sounds as if Pelosi is confident that the  American people will buy the Democratic product this fall. It would be nice to hear Pelosi talk about “the best solutions”, “the brightest ideas” and “unselfish and principled civil servants”, instead of “the most money” and “the best sales persons.” However, such framing would be misleading, since marketing is the name of the game these days. In marketing, as we all know, slogans and packaging rule.

In Amanpour’s interview with Defense Secretary Robert Gates, Gates talked about the wikileaks by referring to two types of “culpability”:

My attitude on this is that there are two areas of culpability. One is legal culpability. And that’s up to the Justice Department and others. That’s not my arena. But there’s also a moral culpability. And that’s where I think the verdict is guilty on WikiLeaks. They have put this out without any regard whatsoever for the consequences.

On the topic of the war in Afghanistan and the much talked about month of July 2011:

AMANPOUR: The president has clearly said that the summer of 2011 is a period of transition. And many people are interpreting that in all sorts of different ways, as you know. The Taliban is … trying to run out the clock. Let me put something up that David Kilcullen, the counter-insurgency expert, a former adviser to General Petraeus, said about the timetable. “They believe that we had stated a date certain, that we were going to leave in the summer of 2011. And they immediately went out and spoke to the population and said, the Americans are leaving in 18 months, as it was then. What are you doing on the 19th month? Who are you backing? Because we’ll still be there and they won’t be.”

…. My question to you is this, what can General Petraeus do to defeat the Taliban at their own game? What can he do now in Afghanistan to avoid this deadline that they’re setting for themselves?

GATES: Well, first of all, I think we need to re-emphasize the message that we are not leaving Afghanistan in July of 2011. We are beginning a transition process and a thinning of our ranks … and the pace will depend on the conditions on the ground. The president has been very clear about that. And if the Taliban are waiting for the nineteenth month, I welcome that, because we will be there in the nineteenth month and we will be there with a lot of troops. So I think that —

AMANPOUR: But what is a lot of troops?

GATES: Well, first of all, I think that — my personal opinion is that — that drawdowns early on will be of fairly limited numbers. And as we are successful, we’ll probably accelerate. But, again, it’s — it will depend on the conditions on the ground.

It’s going to be interesting to see how the so-called “drawdowns” are going to play out in the 2012 presidential election cycle. Depending on the situation, Obama can either go with “we’re drawing down our troop levels because…”, or, “we’re not pulling out because…” Drawing down and pulling out might essentially be the same thing, but in politics, as always, the wrapping matters.

After playing a video clip of Vice President Joe Biden’s remarks to NBC earlier this week, in which he stated that the United States isn’t in Afghanistan “to nation-build”, the following exchange followed:

AMANPOUR: Is that it?

GATES: That’s good.

AMANPOUR: Is that the war?

GATES: I agree with that. We are not there to take on a nationwide reconstruction or construction project in Afghanistan. What we have to do is focus our efforts on those civilian aspects and governance to help us accomplish our security objective. We are in Afghanistan because we were attacked from Afghanistan, not because we want to try and build a better society in Afghanistan. But doing things to improve governance, to improve development in Afghanistan, to the degree it contributes to our security mission and to the effectiveness of the Afghan government in the security arena, that’s what we’re going to do.

During the Roundtable discussion, George Will described the previously mentioned wikileaks as “redundant anecdotes about what we all knew from good journalism and honest government.” I guess the colleagues of the two Reuters journalists whose murder was brought to the light of day due to the video clip leaked by WikiLeaks.

On the topic of the upcoming mid-term elections, Paul Krugman had the following to say:

We’re not looking good going forward. This is very difficult. It’s very hard for an administration in power to run on the campaign slogan, “It could have been worse” … It actually could have been a lot worse, but that doesn’t sell very well.

In the end, who had the most memorable phrase this Sunday? No one. But at least Christiane Amanpour’s British accent stood out…

If it’s Monday, it’s Sunday talk show highlight time.

A Review of the Abortion Controversy in the Health Care Debate

Few issues are as contentious as the abortion issue. Since 1976, the Democratic Party Platform has been pro-choice, while the Republican Party Platform has been pro-life. The polling on abortion has been remarkably stable over the last 30 years (General Social Survey 1972/1977-2008 A, B, C) and a majority of the American public tilts toward the Democratic Party’s positioning on the issue. However, and this point is important, abortion opponents have been more outspoken – and dare one say better organized – than the pro-choice movement since the legalization of abortion with Roe v. Wade in 1973. The Republican Party can advocate a strict pro-life stance on abortion, even though a majority of Americans are opposed to such a position, because people with passionate pro-life views are generally more politically active than people with passionate pro-choice views (Strickler & Danigelis 2002: 200). In short, the GOP has more to gain on opposing abortion, than they have on supporting its legality.

This political backdrop ensures the metronomic regularity in which the abortion issue enters the political debate. The Democratic pro-choice and Republican pro-life pattern hinted at above is true on the level of the party platforms, but if you enter either of the big tents, you’ll find pro-life Democrats and pro-choice Republicans. You’ll bump into Representative Bart Stupak of Michigan in the Democratic tent, and Maine Senators Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins in the Republican tent.

During the prolonged health care debate, Representative Bart Stupak has skillfully extended his 15 minutes of fame into more than four months. Stupak became a household name in the political world when he led a group of conservative House Democrats in demanding a strict provision against public funding for abortions in the House’s health care bill. In order to meet the threshold needed to pass the bill in the House back in November, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) had to include what became known as the Stupak-Pitts Amendment. The amendment was almost identical to the one advocated by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) in the closing days of the debate. The purpose of the amendment was, in Stupak’s own words:

It applies current law (the Hyde Amendment), which bars federal funding for abortion except in the case of rape, incest or life of the mother, to the health care reform bill. The Hyde Amendment has been the law of the land on federal funding of abortion since 1977 and applies to all other federally-funded health care programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, the VA and the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP). My amendment is not new federal abortion policy but continues current law. My amendment has no impact on those individuals with private insurance who do not receive affordability credits and in no way prohibits any individual from purchasing a supplemental abortion coverage policy. Health insurance companies can still offer policies that cover abortion; insurance companies just can’t sell those policies to individuals using affordability credits to pay for the policy.

In the Senate, however, Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) and abortion opponent Senator Ben Nelson (D-NE) ended up with a similar, but differently voiced provision. This meant that the abortion provisions in the two bills would have to be sorted out in order for health care reform to become the law of the land. The Democrats faced a steeper climb to reform when Scott Brown won a surprising victory in the special election for Senator Kennedy’s vacant seat in the Senate (which Brown skillfully framed as “the people’s seat”). As a consequence, the Democrats lost their super majority of 60 votes, and they could no longer override Republican filibusters. Thus, the House would have to pass the Senate bill as it was written, because if the House changed anything in the Senate bill, it would need to go back to the Senate, where it would die on the floor due to Republican filibusters.

The brouhaha that followed, and which culminated on Sunday March 21, thrilled pundits and opponents of the bill, and added a few grey hairs to President Obama’s scalp. In the end, Representative Stupak reached a deal with the President, who agreed to sign an executive order in line with Stupak’s concerns. Following the agreement with the White House, Stupak held a highly anticipated news conference, in which he stated that he would support the bill on the grounds that:

The picture above is of PolitiFact’s (Truth-O-Meter) ruling on Stupak’s comment during the press conference. The St-Petersburg Times’ PolitiFact won the 2009 Pulitzer prize, and it is the most prominent among the fact checking sites, along with FactCheck.org. The ruling in question was based on the following considerations:

First of all, due to the Hyde Amendment – which must be renewed every year – ”abortion services are not provided in health care plans offered to federal employees and for active and retired military.” Because the health care reform bill portrays an exchange including private companies, abortion opponents began asking: ”Should private companies be allowed to offer abortion coverage (as most already do)? And what if the people buying policies are getting government subsidies to buy insurance?”

The Senate’s response:

The … language on abortion … would allow companies in the exchange to offer abortion services, even to people who get federal subsidies. But Nelson inserted measures to ensure abortion services would be paid through patient premiums, not federal subsidies. In order to accomplish that, the Senate bill requires that anyone who selects a plan that covers abortion must pay $1 a month toward a segregated fund that would pay for abortion services. One plan in every state exchange must offer coverage that does not include abortions, so there would be an option for those who morally object to $1 of their premiums going toward abortion services. Legislators supporting the bill — along with President Obama — insist that segregation of funds stays true to the Hyde Amendment restriction on federal funds for abortions.

The Senate bill’s provision on abortion was met with criticism from both sides. NARAL Pro Choice America called the provision “unacceptable bureaucratic stigmatization (that) could cause insurance carriers to drop abortion coverage, even though more than 85 percent of private plans currently cover this care for women.” The National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) and the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) (which was instrumental in the creation of NRLC in 1974) argued that “if you send federal subsidies to a person who then chooses a plan that cover abortions, that’s federal funding of abortion”, and branded the plan as “nothing more than a bookkeeping scheme.”

Representative Stupak held the same position as NRLC and USCCB up until Sunday morning (March 21, 2010), when President Obama promised to sign an Executive Order reinforcing the language and intent of the Hyde Amendment. Although the Senate bill already included restrictions that would accomplish that federal funds didn’t go towards funding abortion, the executive order “went one step further” by “putting the president’s weight behind specific measures to ensure that funds are properly segregated.”

(Official White House photo by Pete Souza – Stupak stands to the left of Obama).

PolitiFact states that the executive order “mostly restates and reinforces the intent of the Senate bill” and that “it doesn’t fundamentally change the fact that people getting government subsidies for health care will be able to buy a policy on the exchange that covers abortions.”

Bottom line I:

Stupak’s issue all along was that if federal subsidies went to someone who could then choose a plan that covers abortions, that was federal funding for abortion. And that hasn’t changed. The president’s order spells out safeguards to ensure the funds are segregated. But if you thought that was a bookkeeping trick before, there’s nothing in the executive order that would change your mind.

Bottom line II:

The Senate bill states very clearly that public funding through tax credits and government subsidies for elective abortion services offered in the exchange is prohibited. But more than that, the bill sets up a mechanism to ensure that abortion services offered in the exchange are paid entirely from patient premiums, premiums paid by people who have chosen a private plan that covers abortion. The executive order puts the weight of the president’s word behind providing a way to ensure two checks go to insurers every month, so that abortion dollars and federal dollars are not co-mingled.

Bottom line III:

Since approximately 85 percent of the current private health insurance plans cover abortion, abortion opponents unwilling to let $1 of their money go to abortion coverage effectively have fewer available options to choose between. I’m surprised abortion opponents haven’t focused more of their energy on this point.

In the end, how did Stupak describe his own descision to support the Senate bill?

This Executive Order has the full force and effect of law and makes very clear that current law of no public funding for abortion applies to the new health care reform legislation. I have said from the start that my goal was to see health care pass while maintaining the principle of the sanctity of life. The president’s Executive Order upholds this principle that federal funds will not be used to subsidize abortion coverage. … This is an excellent Executive Order and a strong compliment to the health care reform legislation that was signed into law by President Obama Tuesday afternoon. I and other pro-life Democrats are pleased that we were able to uphold this important principle and vote for a health care bill that is pro-life at every stage of life.

On the floor of the House, Stupak stated that:

It is the Democrats who, through the president’s executive order, ensure that the sanctity of life is protected.

After casting his “yae”-vote together with 218 other Democrats, Stupak’s days as the pro-life movement’s hero came to an abrupt end. Congressman Randy Neugebauer (R-TX) yelled “it’s a baby killer” during Stupak’s speech on the House floor prior to the vote on the bill, and Stupak has received several death threats following his vote (check out this CBS-clip of some of the more disturbing messages left on Stupak’s answering machine). Some abortion opponents have apparently forgotten the essence of the “pro-life” mantra.

In closing, I’ve posted key Truth-O-Meter rulings on the abortion controversy (A & B):

Postscript I: In spite of PolitiFact’s ruling on the matter, and the arguments laid out above, the pro-life website LifeNews.com still argues that the Senate bill includes federal funding of abortion. In short, this controversy won’t die.

Update, March 29: Congressman Dan Lipinski (D-IL) was a member of the original Stupak dozen, but decided to split with Stupak when he reached his deal with Obama. LifeNews.com quotes from an interview with Lipinski published in the Chicago Tribune:

“People have asked me, ‘If it was good enough for Stupak, why wasn’t it good enough for you?'” Lipinski said. “The executive order most likely will be overturned by the federal courts. The order does not trump the law.”

In other words, the issue at hand isn’t the content of the executive order, but whether or not it will be overturned by the federal courts. True to the paranoid style, President Obama can’t be trusted. Ironically, when Presidents Reagan, Bush 41 and Bush 43 signed Executive Orders to please the pro-life movement, no one voiced similar concerns. Oh no, those Executive Orders were blessings in the skies, but Obama’s Executive Order is bound to be a political trick in disguise.

Update, April 9: Congressman Bart Stupak won’t be seeking reelection.

Getting to 216

Portrayed as the most important week in Barack Obama’s presidency thus far, with “the fate of his presidency” hinging on the up-coming health reform vote in the House, the big question remains: Does Nancy Pelosi have the votes?

Part A of that answer is “no she doesn’t”, but part B is “she’ll get there soon.”

Several “no” votes have already pledged that they’ll vote “yes” the next time around. The most prominent shift so far: Representative Dennis Kucinich (D-OH). Appearing on “Countdown with Keith Olbermann” on March 8, Kucinich stated that “without a robust public option that covers enough people to make a tangible market impact, it’s not worth making any effort to woo his vote” [paraphrased]. With that said, the wooing began, and after a one on one with the President, Kucinich stated on March 17 that:

This is a defining moment for whether or not we’ll have any opportunity to move off square one on the issue of health care. And so even though I don’t like the bill, I’ve made a decision to support it in the hopes that we can move towards a more comprehensive approach once this legislation is done.

While Kucinich has swallowed some pride and moved a few steps to the center (while at the same time getting a lot of press attention, some face time with the President and a demonstration of his political importance), the key opponents to the Senate bill remain on the right side of the political spectrum within the Democratic Caucus. Abortion opponents – led by Representative Bart Stupak (D-MI) – have pledged to oppose the Senate bill because it doesn’t, in their view, go as far as it should (i.e. the House bill). Stupak originally had about a dozen votes behind him, but he recently lost one of them when Representative James Oberstar (D-MN) stated that he would vote yes. Does this signal the beginning of the end of Stupak’s no-bloc, or are the ones remaining intent on sticking with the position on abortion originally advocated by the Catholic leadership?

In the end, the most important question isn’t “Does Nancy Pelosi have the votes?”, but “Who wants to be the single vote standing in the way of health reform?”

“Yae” or “nay”, Democrats running for re-election in November will have to deal with the bill no matter what. They either have to run with it, or run from it. It’s not yet clear which option is the best one.