The corporate media are in the tank for a Republican comeback in 2010, and the GOP may in fact pick up some seats in the Senate and the House, though if employment ticks up by the fall, not as many as some are implying. The corporate media made a big deal about two Democrats who are stepping down but not about 6 Republicans who are. But the long-term trends look good for the Democratic Party…
Read More –> Informed Comment: Why Republicans are Worried.
From Angie Drobnic Holan, published 18 December 2009:
Of all the falsehoods and distortions in the political discourse this year, one stood out from the rest.
“Death panels.”
The claim set political debate afire when it was made in August, raising issues from the role of government in health care to the bounds of acceptable political discussion. In a nod to the way technology has transformed politics, the statement wasn’t made in an interview or a television ad. Sarah Palin posted it on her Facebook page…
Read More ~ PolitiFact | PolitiFact’s Lie of the Year: ‘Death panels’.
Politifact’s treatment gives me occasion to crosspost my own assessment of the “Death Panel” meme, published Aug. 18, 2009, at Care2.com:
Conservative Dishonesty in the Health Care Reform Debate
So the opponents of health care reform are sticking with the “death panel” talking point and the mob tactics it inspires. Admittedly, the strategy has yielded some results for… well, it’s unclear what they want aside from railing against President Obama. Regardless, the anti-reform crowd finally landed a punch. Good for them, I suppose. Conservatives have been flailing wildly since Obama took office with little to show for it, save a lot of embarrassing You Tube clips. Despite this, there is reason to remain optimistic about getting a reform bill ready for Obama’s signature this year.
Among the ethically challenged Republicans maintaining the “Death Panel” myth are Newt Gingrich, Sarah Palin, and Iowa senator, Chuck Grassley. All three of them are political opportunists, frankly, playing upon the fears of their dwindling, radical constituencies. At this time and in this debate, it is a losing political strategy.
Grassley’s Folly:
Grassley’s jumping on the crazy train isn’t much of a surprise, but it was unnecessary. Representing one of the most aged state populations in the U.S., the senator must have felt safer stoking the fear, rather than rebutting it. However, during his recess town halls, Grassley has failed to mention he — along with many other Republicans — voted in favor of a similar measure in 2003.
From Amy Sullivan at TIME.com’s Swampland Blog, August 13, 2009:
Remember the 2003 Medicare prescription drug bill, the one that passed with the votes of 204 GOP House members and 42 GOP Senators? Anyone want to guess what it provided funding for? Did you say counseling for end-of-life issues and care? Ding ding ding!!
Let’s go to the bill text, shall we? “The covered services are: evaluating the beneficiary’s need for pain and symptom management, including the individual’s need for hospice care; counseling the beneficiary with respect to end-of-life issues and care options, and advising the beneficiary regarding advanced care planning.” The only difference between the 2003 provision and the infamous Section 1233 that threatens the very future and moral sanctity of the Republic is that the first applied only to terminally ill patients. Section 1233 would expand funding so that people could voluntarily receive counseling before they become terminally ill.
Palin’s Density:
As much as I would prefer not to mention Sarah Palin, her peculiar insistence upon furthering the “Death Panel” lie demands it. It is fitting, though, that her efforts are now publicized via Facebook rather than Governor’s Office press releases. Her August 7, 2009 post on the subject is the one that really gave the term “Death Panel” its legs within the mainstream media:
The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama’s “death panel” so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their “level of productivity in society,” whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil…
Palin followed up this lunacy with a call for civility during the health care reform town halls scheduled by Alaska’s representatives in an August 9 Facebook post. While it wasn’t a reversal of her previous post, it was a tacit admission that her rhetoric, at least in part, added fuel to the thuggish nonsense displayed by the right-wing at town hall discussions elsewhere.
Then she did something remarkably dense. Sarah Palin, following the above mentioned comments from Sen. Grassley, declared victory against the dreaded death panel legislation within her August 13 post:
I join millions of Americans in expressing appreciation for the Senate Finance Committee’s decision to remove the provision in the pending health care bill that authorizes end-of-life consultations (Section 1233 of HR 3200). It’s gratifying that the voice of the people is getting through to Congress; however, that provision was not the only disturbing detail in this legislation; it was just one of the more obvious ones.
Forget for a moment that Sarah Palin had, to put it kindly, a questionable record as Governor of Alaska when it came to elder care. Her above assertion displays a profound ignorance, not only of the present health care reform debate, but also of the basic mechanisms of the legislative process.
First, the Senate Finance Committee has nothing to do with HR 3200. The “HR” is for House of Representatives, of course, and HR 3200 is but one of five health care bills being considered by that body. Second, there is a Senate bill being considered by the Finance Committee, however both Houses of Congress are presently in recess. They are not presently “removing” provisions, or adding them for that matter.
Finally, Palin’s suggestion that the “provision was not the only disturbing detail in this legislation,” is simply another fear tactic. One she likely learned from her new mentor: Newt Gingrich.
Gingrich’s Hypocrisy:
Gingrich is supposed to be the conservative with the most formidable intellectual chops; yet, when he attempted to defend Palin’s comments on ABC’s August 9 broadcast of This Week, he complained about the bill’s length. “The bill is a thousand pages of setting up mechanisms,” he said. “You are asking us to trust turning power over to the government, when there are clearly people in America who believe in establishing euthanasia, including selective standards.”
Sounds scary, right? However, consider the former House Speaker’s own words from a July 2, 2009 article at The Washington Post:
More than 20 percent of all Medicare spending occurs in the last two months of life. Gundersen Lutheran Health System in La Crosse, Wisconsin has developed a successful end-of-life, best practice that combines: 1) community-wide advance care planning, where 90 percent of patients have advance directives; 2) hospice and palliative care; and 3) coordination of services through an electronic medical record. The Gundersen approach empowers patients and families to control and direct their care. The Dartmouth Health Atlas has documented that Gundersen delivers care at a 30 percent lower rate than the national average ($18,359 versus $25,860). If Gundersen’s approach was used to care for the approximately 4.5 million Medicare beneficiaries who die every year, Medicare could save more than $33 billion a year.
The emphasis added to the above — again, they are Gingrich’s words — describes, in general terms, what the current health care legislation-in-progress is designed to do. It is the same idea for reform. It is the same proposal which Sen. Grassley told his constituents they were right to fear, that Sarah Palin claimed victory for killing, and Newt Gingrich thought was such a good idea just a few short months ago.
Reasons For Optimism:
The “death panel” talking point has absolutely no basis in fact. It is a false argument, and its success is contingent upon fear: frightening the oldest among us into thinking their country wants to kill them. (Wow! I had to wash my hands after typing the preceding sentence… Stay classy, conservatives).
The hypocrisy, fear mongering, and intellectual dishonesty described above have been employed by conservatives for years. They are the same cynical strategies that have been employed in the fight against health care reform since the Truman administration. They are also the same tactics that were employed against Obama during the 2008 campaign. Obama’s election, then, is proof positive that this cynicism can be defeated.
Progressive advocates for health care, myself included, and members of the punditocracy have been highly critical of the president for pursuing this reform agenda in an bipartisan fashion. As Thom Hartmann often says, “We have to hope that Obama is playing chess and not checkers,” with this contentious issue. Without going into further detail, Obama doesn’t strike me as a checkers man.
In closing, it is important to note that, while optimism for health care reform is warranted, complacency is not. Tell your representatives you want meaningful reform by signing this petition: Support Historic Health Care Bill
Crossposted at Care2.com‘s Political Causes Blog – 18 August 2009
As you may have seen reported, in a perfect exclamation point to the obstruction we’ve seen all year, when the Senate adjourned last week, the Republicans objected to what is ordinarily a routine request to waive Senate rules and permit pending nominations to remain in the Senate confirmation pipeline. Without what’s called “unanimous consent,” under Senate rules, pending nominations must be returned to the President, who then has to re-nominate in the next session. In what has become a far too typical exercise by the “Just Say No” party, Republicans objected to three DOJ nominees who have been on the Senate’s calendar awaiting consideration for months: Dawn Johnsen, for the Office of Legal Counsel; Chris Schroeder for the Office of Legal Policy; and Mary Smith, for the Tax Division. They also objected to two pending federal District Court nominees (Edward Chen, for a seat on the Northern District of California and Louis B. Butler for a seat on the Western District of Wisconsin) and to Craig Becker for reappointment as a member of the National Labor Relations Board…
Follow the link below to read more:
via Dawn Johnsen and the GOP Obstruction Game | People For the American Way Blog.
Related on PiP:
How Right Wing Extremists Try to Paralyze Government Through Ideological Smears and Baseless Attacks
PFAW has assembled a nice, but alarming post, comparing the then & now of McCarthyism. Perhaps what’s most frightening about its present manifestation is that there aren’t any Republicans with the stones to stand up to the baseless fear mongering.
From People for the American Way, published December, 2009:
McCarthy’s campaign against supposedly widespread communist infiltration of the U.S. government brought down sitting Senators and intimidated even President Eisenhower (who loathed McCarthy) and his advisors. McCarthy’s campaign was boosted by conservative think tanks, media figures, and clergy, and abetted for years by the unwillingness of most of his colleagues to stand up against his false charges and clear abuses of power.
[snip]
Today’s McCarthyism has many faces and voices, including the household names of right-wing cable television, a plethora of radio hosts, Religious Right leaders, right-wing organizations and the bogus “grassroots” campaigns they generate – and Members of Congress and other Republican Party officials. Together they engage in character assassination and challenge the loyalty and patriotism of their targets…
Today, she’d know them as RINOs
(Cross-posted at Care2.com – Originally published 20 November 2009)“They love to engage in revisionist history,” Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-NC) said on the floor of the U.S. Congress, Nov. 19. She was referring to Democrats as she had risen to speak in opposition to an environmental protection measure intended to safeguard a 21-mile segment of Molalla River in Oregon. As she spoke, Foxx set about some blatant revisionism of her own.
Foxx’s began her objection with the bizarre suggestion that the GOP had been the champion of “good” environmental protection laws. Had she stopped there, her floor speech would have justifiably been dismissed as a bit of irony. Instead, Foxx went on to perpetuate the misconception that Republicans were also the champions of civil rights legislation in the 1960s, amid fervent obstruction from Democrats.
Upon the completion of Foxx’s remarks, she was passionately rebuked by Rep. Dennis Cardoza (D-CA). “I can’t believe my ears,” Cardoza said, and went on to assign credit for the Civil Rights Act (1964) and the Voting Rights Act (1965) to the efforts to the Democratic administration of Lyndon B. Johnson.
Here is video of the exchange on the House floor from the ThinkProgress.org Nov. 19 post on the subject. (continued below the clip)
Vodpod videos no longer available.
While Cardoza’s assessment was factually correct and his tone appropriate, his rebuke of Foxx would have been strengthened by informing her that the Republican Party of which she spoke no longer exists. Indeed, the Republicans whose votes were vital to passing civil rights legislation in the 1960s would be derided as RINOs – Republicans in Name Only – by Foxx and like minded, right-wing ideologues of today’s GOP.
That conservatives have sought to maintain this myth is nothing new. Paul von Hipple addressed it in a 2005 Alternet.org post responding to a taxpayer funded “Republican Freedom Calendar” which presented a one-sided representation of their Party’s historic role as advocates of civil rights. The evidence employed to prop up this argument relies upon the higher proportion of GOP votes for the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
It’s a far too narrow interpretation of history, as von Hipple indicated in his 2005 post:
In fact, Congressional votes on the Civil Rights Act did not break along party lines – they split along regional lines. In the North, both parties supported the Civil Rights Act; in the South, both parties opposed it. The difference was that the Republican Party had very little presence in the South, which had been dominated since the 1870s by the segregationist wing of the Democratic Party.
This period marks a historical turning point for both political parties. President Johnson and liberal Northern Democrats were ill prepared for the Southern white backlash that followed the passage of civil rights legislation. Of course, the legislation wasn’t the only factor, but it was during this time that the Democratic Party set on a path to shedding its racist elements. In doing so, Democrats lost the political grip on the South it had held since the Great Depression.
The path chosen by the Republicans was altogether different. Interestingly, the GOP underwent a schism, not unlike the one presently in progress.
Republican conservatives, sympathetic to the racist backlash among Southern whites, made their first political inroads in the South around this time. The most significant evidence for this trend was the GOP’s 1964 presidential nomination of Arizona Senator Barry Goldwater.
Before Goldwater’s nomination, the GOP’s regional strength was based in the American North-East. Their party leaders were inclined to support government investment in infrastructure. Having been decimated during their initial struggle against Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal (which they decried as “socialist,” sound familiar?) a moderate GOP persisted as a minority party, seeking to improve FDR’s legislation rather than rail against it.
Goldwater lost to LBJ in 1964, but having won his home state and four other Southern states in the contest, the GOP’s course was set. They abandoned their moderate positions — the mantle of which Foxx is presently attempting to claim — in pursuit of the racially divisive “Southern Strategy.”
This political strategy was neatly summarized by Sidney Blumenthal in a 2003 Salon.com post:
With the coming of the civil rights revolution, Democratic presidents John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson deployed the federal government to support social equality. In reaction, Republicans — from Barry Goldwater to Richard Nixon to Ronald Reagan — developed a Southern strategy to win over white voters in the region who felt betrayed. That strategy involved using widely understood code words going back to the Civil War like “states’ rights,” an updating of the well-worn strategy of Southern reactionaries to demagogue on race in order to keep poor and working-class whites divided from blacks on issues of common interest. Thus the party of Lincoln became the party of Reagan.
Indeed, Reagan’s ascendency is instructive. His rise was facilitated by the GOP’s rejection of its moderate voices. Just as Foxx mistakenly claimed the civil rights mantle on Nov. 19, Reagan did also. Yet his true feelings were betrayed by his policies and rhetoric.
From the above mentioned von Hibble Alternet post:
…Ronald Reagan, in his 1966 campaign to become governor of California, endorsed repeal of California’s Fair Housing Act, saying, “If an individual wants to discriminate against Negroes or others in selling or renting his house, it is his right to do so.”
Similarly, Foxx’s own statements over the past year illustrate her departure from the moderate positions of the kinder, gentler GOP of yore. She has more than made herself clear regarding the present-day civil rights issues, most notably in debates over the rights of homosexuals and health care reform.
My Care2 colleague Tracy Viselli understandably called for Foxx’s apology or resignation following her slanderous comments about Matthew Sheppard on the House floor while debating the hate crime legislation that bares his name. More recently, Viselli , rightly, took issue with Foxx’s declaration that the present health care reform proposals pose a bigger threat to America than “any terrorist from any country.” Add to this Foxx’s 2006 vote, along with 33 other Republicans, opposing the extension of the Voters Rights Act, and it becomes clear that any claim of civil rights advocacy exists only in her mind.
Further, these outrageous examples of Foxx’s true beliefs plainly illustrate that the North Carolina congresswoman has absolutely nothing in common with the Republicans who helped advance the cause of civil rights in the 1960s. Rather, Foxx is just another product of the cynical GOP which prospered by exploiting the societal divisions left after their passing.
Cross posted at Care2.com‘s Political Causes Blog
Dawn Johnsen, Barack Obama’s nominee to head his administration’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC), is potentially the most qualified candidate ever selected for the position. Nominated February 11 and approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee March 19, the Indiana University law professor has yet to be considered by the full Senate. What’s the hold up, you may ask? It appears that Johnsen is but another among many who has fallen victim to Republican obstructionism and the minority party’s ongoing misuse of the filibuster.
The Republican filibuster threat is only the most immediate cause for delay; forcing Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid (D-NV) to scramble for the 60 votes necessary for cloture, followed by an up or down vote which would undoubtedly result in Johnsen’s confirmation. The underlying causes behind GOP opposition to Johnsen stem from two ideological issues; one of which has been blown out of proportion by right-wing activists. The other, more significant reason for fighting Obama’s OLC nominee is grounded in GOP fear that she, unlike her Bush administration OLC predecessors, may actually follow the law.
Right-wing activist opposition to Johnsen pertains to her past work for NARAL, a pro-choice advocacy organization. More specifically, 
their objection pertains to a 1989 brief in which Johnsen’s organization — along with 76 others — argued against states having the right to prohibit abortions at public health institutions.
Johnsen’s critics have zeroed in on two sentences within a footnote, which they employ claiming the OLC nominee equated motherhood with “involuntary servitude.” It’s an assertion which Politifact declared, March 24, to be “false.”
Of course, right-wing pundits further afield have taken Johnsen’s words and maliciously converted them, as AmericanConservative.org did September 19, placing the Obama nominee as number 41 among 650 unpalatable administration officials as, “Dawn ‘Compared Pregnancy with Slavery’ Johnsen.” No matter how it’s stated, however, Johnsen’s pro-choice stance is and has always been remarkably mainstream.
“The real reason” for the GOP stance in opposition to Dawn Johnsen was imparted by Scott Horton, March 26, at The Daily Beast:
…Johnsen is committed to overturning the Bush administration’s policies on torture and warrantless surveillance, which would clip the wings of the imperial presidency. Even more menacingly (from their perspective), she is committed to shining a light on some of the darkest skeletons of the Bush years.
If this is correct, then Horton’s assessment lends credence to that of Glenn Greenwald, whose aptly titled post, “Dawn Johnsen’s belief in the rule of law disqualifies her from Senate consideration,” was published May 13 at Salon.com. Within his post, Greenwald emphasized the fact that the Senate’s scrutiny of Johnsen was tragically absent in its confirmation of some previous, ultimately dubious, past nominees:
The Senate that is refusing to confirm Dawn Johnsen is the same Senate that confirmed Gen. Michael Hayden as CIA Director — with overwhelming Democratic support — even after it was revealed that he oversaw Bush’s illegal NSA spying program. It’s the same Senate that confirmed Alberto Gonzales as Attorney General — with substantial Democratic support — even once everyone knew that he had played a key role in Bush’s torture program. It’s the same Senate that — thanks to Democrats Dianne Feinstein and Chuck Schumer — confirmed Michael Mukasey as Attorney General even after he refused to say whether waterboarding was torture and endorsed some of the most extremist presidential powers ever asserted in the U.S.
In other words, their covering their collective butts, and their doing so at the expense of a nation in desperate need of objective legal guidance.
Fortunately, there are those willing to tell their senators to quit stalling. A good example of this was a September 22 letter from the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, written behalf of several organizations, directing Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) to drop the stall tactics on Obama nominations.
The LCCR letter refers to Johnsen, specifically:
…Professor Johnsen has already served with distinction in the OLC, and is undoubtedly well-qualified for the position. Her nomination was approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee in March. The OLC plays a highly important role within the Administration, and the failure to confirm the President’s nominee to lead the office prevents the OLC from providing crucial legal advice on a wide range of issues currently confronting our nation.
I’ll include some additional links below, but if you agree with the sentiment of the above letter, contact your senators and tell them so. Additionally, consider signing THIS PETITION from NARAL-Pro-Choice America, calling on GOP senators to refrain from filibustering on the basis of any candidate’s pro-choice disposition.
See Also:
“A Legal Advisor Worthy of the Job,” New York Times Editorial Board, 26 March 2009.
Greg Sargent, “Key Dem Senator Likely to Vote Against Top Obama Legal Nominee,” ThePlumLine, 24 April 2009.
Scott Horton, “Are Republicans Blackmailing Obama?” TheDailyBeast, 5 April 2009.
HNN Breaking News AP @ Care2.com News Junkie – news, politics, & opinion AP’s FaceBook Shares Rachel Maddow This Day in World History
Past in Print Weblog 
The Death Panel Lie ~ Conservative Dishonesty in the Health Care Reform Debate
A couple of weeks after publishing this Care2 post, I was overjoyed to discover that Dickipedia.org linked to it on their Newt Gingrich page. Whoever did it, I offer my heartfelt gratitude.
Originally posted on Care2.com’s Political Causes Blog 16 August 2009:
So the opponents of health care reform are sticking with the “death panel” talking point and the mob tactics it inspires. Admittedly, the strategy has yielded some results for… well, it’s unclear what they want aside from railing against President Obama. Regardless, the anti-reform crowd finally landed a punch. Good for them, I suppose. Conservatives have been flailing wildly since Obama took office with little to show for it, save a lot of embarrassing You Tube clips. Despite this, there is reason to remain optimistic about getting a reform bill ready for Obama’s signature this year.
Among the ethically challenged Republicans maintaining the “Death Panel” myth are Newt Gingrich, Sarah Palin, and Iowa senator, Chuck Grassley. All three of them are political opportunists, frankly, playing upon the fears of their dwindling, radical constituencies. At this time and in this debate, it is a losing political strategy.
Grassley’s Folly:
Grassley’s jumping on the crazy train isn’t much of a surprise, but it was unnecessary. Representing one of the most aged state populations in the U.S., the senator must have felt safer stoking the fear, rather than rebutting it. However, during his recess town halls, Grassley has failed to mention he — along with many other Republicans — voted in favor of a similar measure in 2003.
From Amy Sullivan at TIME.com’s Swampland Blog, August 13, 2009:
Palin’s Density:
As much as I would prefer not to mention Sarah Palin, her peculiar insistence upon furthering the “Death Panel” lie demands it. It is fitting, though, that her efforts are now publicized via Facebook rather than Governor’s Office press releases. Her August 7, 2009 post on the subject is the one that really gave the term “Death Panel” its legs within the mainstream media:
Palin followed up this lunacy with a call for civility during the health care reform town halls scheduled by Alaska’s representatives in an August 9 Facebook post. While it wasn’t a reversal of her previous post, it was a tacit admission that her rhetoric, at least in part, added fuel to the thuggish nonsense displayed by the right-wing at town hall discussions elsewhere.
Then she did something remarkably dense. Sarah Palin, following the above mentioned comments from Sen. Grassley, declared victory against the dreaded death panel legislation within her August 13 post:
Forget for a moment that Sarah Palin had, to put it kindly, a questionable record as Governor of Alaska when it came to elder care. Her above assertion displays a profound ignorance, not only of the present health care reform debate, but also of the basic mechanisms of the legislative process.
First, the Senate Finance Committee has nothing to do with HR 3200. The “HR” is for House of Representatives, of course, and HR 3200 is but one of five health care bills being considered by that body. Second, there is a Senate bill being considered by the Finance Committee, however both Houses of Congress are presently in recess. They are not presently “removing” provisions, or adding them for that matter.
Finally, Palin’s suggestion that the “provision was not the only disturbing detail in this legislation,” is simply another fear tactic. One she likely learned from her new mentor: Newt Gingrich.
Gingrich’s Hypocrisy:
Gingrich is supposed to be the conservative with the most formidable intellectual chops; yet, when he attempted to defend Palin’s comments on ABC’s August 9 broadcast of This Week, he complained about the bill’s length. “The bill is a thousand pages of setting up mechanisms,” he said. “You are asking us to trust turning power over to the government, when there are clearly people in America who believe in establishing euthanasia, including selective standards.”
Sounds scary, right? However, consider the former House Speaker’s own words from a July 2, 2009 article at The Washington Post:
The emphasis added to the above — again, they are Gingrich’s words — describes, in general terms, what the current health care legislation-in-progress is designed to do. It is the same idea for reform. It is the same proposal which Sen. Grassley told his constituents they were right to fear, that Sarah Palin claimed victory for killing, and Newt Gingrich thought was such a good idea just a few short months ago.
Reasons For Optimism:
The “death panel” talking point has absolutely no basis in fact. It is a false argument, and its success is contingent upon fear: frightening the oldest among us into thinking their country wants to kill them. (Wow! I had to wash my hands after typing the preceding sentence… Stay classy, conservatives).
The hypocrisy, fear mongering, and intellectual dishonesty described above have been employed by conservatives for years. They are the same cynical strategies that have been employed in the fight against health care reform since the Truman administration. They are also the same tactics that were employed against Obama during the 2008 campaign. Obama’s election, then, is proof positive that this cynicism can be defeated.
Progressive advocates for health care, myself included, and members of the punditocracy have been highly critical of the president for pursuing this reform agenda in an bipartisan fashion. As Thom Hartmann often says, “We have to hope that Obama is playing chess and not checkers,” with this contentious issue. Without going into further detail, Obama doesn’t strike me as a checkers man.
In closing, it is important to note that, while optimism for health care reform is warranted, complacency is not. Tell your representatives you want meaningful reform by signing this petition: Support Historic Health Care Bill
- commentary
- Politics
on October 3, 2009 at 9:36 pm Leave a CommentTags: charles grassley, congress, conservative, death panel, debate, end of life, grassley, health care, health care reform, hr 3200, hypocrisy, medicare reform, newt gingrich, obama, political, Politics, republicans, sarah palin, section 1233, senator