Un-American is as un-American does.
“Un-American” definition here:
Un-American is a pejorative term of US political discourse which is applied to people or institutions in the United States seen as deviating from US norms.
Now pair the definition of un-American with with these key graphs from Adam Serwer’s sober take-down of Cheney, Kristol and McCarthy’s whacked out beliefs:
The “Gitmo Nine” aren’t terrorists. They weren’t captured fighting for the Taliban. They’ve made no attempts to kill Americans. They haven’t declared war on the United States, nor have they joined any group that has. The Gitmo Nine are lawyers working in the Department of Justice who fought the Bush administration’s treatment of suspected terrorists as unconstitutional. Now, conservatives are portraying them as agents of the enemy.
In the aftermath of September 11, the Bush administration tried to set up a military-commissions system to try suspected terrorists. The commissions offered few due process rights, denied the accused access to the evidence against them, and allowed the admission of hearsay — and even evidence gained through coercion or abuse. The Bush administration also sought to prevent detainees from challenging their detention in court. Conservatives argued that the nature of the war on terrorism justified the assertion of greater executive power. In case after case, the U.S. Supreme Court sided with the administration’s critics.
“These lawyers were advocating on behalf of our Constitution and our laws. The detention policies of the Bush administration were unconstitutional and illegal, and no higher a legal authority than the Supreme Court of the United States agreed,” says Ken Gude, a human-rights expert with the Center for American Progress, of the recent assault on the Justice Department. “The disgusting logic of these attacks is that the Supreme Court is in league with al-Qaeda.”
The attorneys who challenged the Bush administration’s national-security policies saw themselves as fulfilling their legal obligations by fighting an unconstitutional power grab. At heart, this was a disagreement over process: Should people accused of terrorism be afforded the same human rights and due process protections as anyone else in American custody? But rather than portray the dispute as a conflict over what is and isn’t within constitutional bounds, conservatives argue that anyone who opposed the Bush administration’s policies is a traitor set to undermine America’s safety from within the Justice Department.
“Terrorist sympathizers,” wrote National Review’s Andrew McCarthy in September, “have assumed positions throughout the Obama administration.”
Since Obama took office, the question of detention procedure has been reintroduced and more deeply politicized. The Bush-era military commissions turned out to be woefully ineffectual and were widely seen as skewed against the defendants. Yet they produced only three convictions during the entire administration, in part because the U.S. Supreme Court kept knocking them down for failing to meet minimal due process standards. Meanwhile, civilian courts tried more than a hundred terrorism cases. But much to the disappointment of human-rights advocates, the Obama administration, while choosing to try the alleged September 11 plotters in civilian court, has opted to continue many Bush-era policies, including reformed military commissions.
Nevertheless, McCarthy, a former assistant U.S. attorney, blamed the “al-Qaeda bar” — the attorneys who secured due process rights for detainees — for Bush-era setbacks. “The principal reason there were so few military trials is the tireless campaign conducted by leftist lawyers to derail military tribunals by challenging them in the courts,” McCarthy wrote in November. “Many of those lawyers are now working for the Obama Justice Department.” In December, an unsigned National Review editorial referred to the series of “pro-terrorist” rulings by the courts that affirmed rights for individuals accused of terrorism.
Justice Department lawyers aren’t the only ones who have represented accused terrorists. American military personnel have as well, often successfully. Major Eric Montalvo (retired), who acted as a defense counsel in the Guantanamo Bay military commissions, said that the accusation that lawyers who fought the Bush administration’s policies were “terrorist sympathizers” was absurd. “That’s not sympathy for a terrorist — that’s sympathy for the rule of law, the American way of doing business.”
I agree with the Major.
But that’s not Cheney, Kristol and McCarthy’s way of doing business.
Which is why those three are really the ones who are un-American.
Voters are PISSED (and rightfully so)! The writing was all over the wall last year.
So plan on recycling these headlines over again and again as we head towards 2010:
TOP STORY — THE CAPITAL CURSE – POLITICO’s Jonathan Martin in Driftwood, Tex.: “Gov. Rick Perry’s 21-point thrashing of Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison in Tuesday’s GOP gubernatorial primary offers the most vivid illustration yet of the potency of an anti-Washington message in an already volatile political environment. Perry, who will now run for his third full term against former Houston Mayor Bill White, lashed Hutchison as an earmark-and-bailout-loving Beltway creature while railing against a Democratic president he portrayed as a socialist bent on trampling states’ rights.”
– Jim VandeHei: “This is another wake-up call for all incumbents. You want bipartisanship? There is a bipartisan move to get rid of Republicans and Democrats from Washington. … Anybody’s job is at risk.”
–Houston Chronicle, “Perry to face showdown against White in November,” by R.G. Ratcliffe: “‘From Driftwood, Texas, to Washington, D.C., we are sending you a message tonight: Stop messing with Texas!’ Perry said. ‘It is clear the Obama administration and their allies already have Texas in their crosshairs,’ Perry said, referring to his expectations that national Democrats will support White. … Perry hammered on Hutchison’s Washington ties in his anti-federal government campaign.” http://bit.ly/b9c24A
Ray Buckley told me to yip. So I will yip.
Paul Ryan! Yip! Yip! Yip! Disaster! Yip! Yip! Yip! Anti-New Hampshire families! Yip! Yip! Yip! Radical Free Marketeerism! Yip! Yip! Yip!
“Granite Staters know that the Republican plan to privatize Social Security that Ryan outlined this weekend would be a disaster for our state and country,” said Derek Richer, press secretary for the New Hampshire Democratic Party. “Does Kelly Ayotte, Charlie Bass, Frank Guinta, Rich Ashooh and the other Republican candidates agree with Congressman Ryan and national Republicans? Or will they actually side with the people of New Hampshire?”
The irresponsible Republican plan to privatize social security that Congressman Ryan outlined would put the program at the whims of the market. In the aftermath of the worst recession since the Great Depression, it’s clear this idea would be a disaster for New Hampshire’s seniors.
“The Republican plan to slash Medicaid and Medicare is equally disturbing,” said Richer. “These irresponsible Republican plans would be devastating for New Hampshire families who are already struggling during these difficult economic times. Ayotte, Bass, Guinta, Ashooh, and the other Republican candidates need to stand with the people of the Granite State, not with these disastrous proposals.”
Boilerplate nonsense.
So what do smart people take seriously?
That our entitlement problem is very real.
That Paul Ryan actually has a detailed plan to do something about it.
And that his plan is a legitimate jumping off point for a discussion about how to bail out everyone in our country under the age of 40.
So my feeling is that the Democrats 20th century yipping points can go jump in a lake.
I attended Saturday’s Young Republican breakfast with Congressman Paul Ryan at Saint Anselm college.
Four points:
1. 200+ people came out to hear the Congressman hold forth on his plan to turn around America’s financial books. 200+. And in the crowd were several First-In-The-Nation Republican and Independent tastemakers.
2. Paul Ryan has a real reform plan. With details. And, agree with it or disagree with it (and there are points I disagree with), it’s a legitimate starting point that shows Ryan isn’t afraid to lead. Which is why I think he got a standing ovation at the conclusion of his speech.
3. Ryan is a terrific public speaker and was savvy enough to love all over former Senator Sununu, Senator Gregg and NH Primary Voters. Since his policy platform is essentially “You will pay more for less” he’s going to need every bit of that savvy to dance between the coming political raindrops.
4. I hope Ryan runs for President in 2012. This is not an endorsement. Yet. I just think that the Republican Party would be well served by having a smart, young and articulate candidate on the world’s biggest political stage who actually has the balls to say what he means and means what he says.
In the meantime, The Economist magazine has a write-up of Ryan’s plan:
A Congressman with a brave vision
IF REPUBLICANS are displeased with their image as the party of “No”, few of them have done much about it. One notable exception is Paul Ryan, a congressman from Wisconsin whose “Roadmap for America’s Future” offers an ambitious alternative to the Democratic agenda.
Mr Ryan’s roadmap takes as its starting point the CBO’s long-term budget forecast. By 2080 federal deficits are projected, if current policies continue, to grow to nearly 50% of GDP, while debt held by the public would rise to over 700% of the country’s annual output (in reality, of course, America would face bankruptcy long before the debt hit such levels). The red ink is driven by growth in entitlement spending, most of it on Medicare, the government’s health scheme for the elderly. Mr Ryan’s plan seeks to tackle the deficits produced by the growing health and pension costs of an ageing population, while limiting government spending as a share of the economy. He accomplishes the task by dint of a broad simplification of America’s tax code and health-care system.
Read More…
As a small business owner, I happen to love and appreciate free markets and profits.
And, as an independent minded individual, I happen to now believe that the Obama/Reid/Pelosi health care bill is pretty much an unmitigated disaster.
But the above two facts don’t change my opinion that health insurance companies, and their army of lobbyists, get away with absolute murder.
Via this morning’s Concord Monitor (emphasis mine):
Medical care is getting more painful – to the pocket.
Anyone with an Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield individual health insurance policy should prepare for a major rate increase. Parent company Wellpoint said last week that it is raising rates by 12 to 13 percent in New Hampshire. The company already increased premiums for small groups by 17 percent.
In a letter to Wellpoint’s CEO, Democratic Sen. Jeanne Shaheen pointed out that the company’s profits increased by 700 percent in the fourth quarter of 2009, compared with the previous year. “Year after year, families and small businesses across New Hampshire have faced increasing premiums, in some cases causing bankruptcy and job loss,” Shaheen wrote. “The people of New Hampshire cannot continue to bear the burden of these rate increases.”
Anthem spokesman Chris Dugan said that both the cost of medical services and the number of people using them contribute to the raised premiums. “Utilization and cost have never been higher,” he said.
Dugan said New Hampshire in particular pays low reimbursement rates for Medicaid and Medicare, which means costs are shifted to commercial insurance payers. With the recession, more people are using medical services because they fear losing their health benefits. And some healthy people are giving up coverage, which also drives up costs.
“At end of the day, the primary driver for premiums really are those health care costs,” Dugan said.
New Hampshire Insurance Commissioner Roger Sevigny, whose office approved the increase, said the reason is simple: “The cost of care is what drives the premium cost,” he said.
Sevigny said his office must determine whether the rate is reasonable, in order to generate enough money for the company to pay its claims; whether it’s not excessive, based on the market; and whether it’s not discriminatory based on factors like race. (Companies can adjust policies based on age and pre-existing conditions). The Anthem increase met the met the criteria, he said.
New Hampshire is not alone. Wellpoint recently raised rates for some California customers by as much as 39 percent.
Sevigny said the increase is part of a trend among all insurance companies, based on the increased cost of medical care. Other factors include rising use of medical care and the number of healthy people dropping coverage.
Jim Squires of the Endowment for Health said New Hampshire’s health care costs are already higher than the national average. Per capita spending on health care is now $6,500 a year, projected to rise to $11,000 by 2017, he said. Health care spending is now 18 percent of gross state product, projected to rise to 22 percent by 2017. If trends continue, Squires said, “It would make it basically impossible for the state and our economy to do anything other than pay for health care.”
It’s (now fairly commonplace) stories such as this that will make usually rational people pick up a brick and hurl it through a window.
The status quo will not hold.
Real political leadership in Concord and Washington will appreciate this fact. And move as swiftly as possible to correct our current course.
Time to start thinking outside of the box, ladies and gentlemen.
…and the Canadian Women’s Hockey Team won the gold.
So it’s their rules, gentlemen. And their party.
And well done ladies!
Who doesn’t love the Olympics?
