How come all the righties who drop by here and tell me to “read the bill” — very obviously haven’t read “the bill”?

For that matter, they seem unaware that there isn’t any one “bill” but several versions of bills floating around in Congress at the moment. However, the one being referred to as “the bill” is H.R. 3200, which I believe is the only version that’s advanced enough to have been published. It’s on the Thomas Library of Congress website.

The charge was that President Obama was lying about illegal immigrants not getting free health care. Rep. Wilson heckled the President on this point, and today a number of rightiebots are marching around saying “Obama lied read the bill … Obama lied read the bill… Obama lied read the bill.”

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you this bit from H.R. 3200:

SEC. 246. NO FEDERAL PAYMENT FOR UNDOCUMENTED ALIENS.

Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States.

So if H.R. 3200 is “the bill,” then it was Wilson who lied, not Obama.

Recently the Annenberg “Fact Check” site published “Twenty-six Lies About H.R. 3200,” which answers a viral email being spread by health care reform opponents. It’s a good resource. Of course, there’s nothing better than finding the precise wording in “the bill” itself to show the “read the bill” crowd that they ought to read the bill.

I watched on MSNBC and didn’t see what Dana Milbank saw:

Wilson was only the most flagrant. There was booing from House Republicans when the president caricatured a conservative argument by saying they would “leave individuals to buy health insurance on their own.” They hissed when he protested their “scare tactics.” They grumbled as they do in Britain’s House of Commons when Obama spoke of the “blizzard of charges and countercharges.”

When he asserted that “nothing in this plan will require you or your employer to change the coverage or the doctor you have,” there was scoffing and outright laughter on the GOP side. Rep. Jeb Hensarling (Tex.) shook his head in disbelief. Several Republicans shouted “What plan?” and Rep. Louis Gohmert (Tex.) waved at Obama a handwritten poster he made on a letter-size piece of paper: “WHAT PLAN?” Gohmert then took that down and replaced it with another handmade poster that said “WHAT BILL?”

The only part of this bad behavior that came across on MSNBC was Rep. Joe Wilson yelling “You lie!” (video below)

But while the majority of both parties’ lawmakers behaved as adults, the insolence by House Republicans stole the show. There was derisive laughter on that side of the chamber when Obama noted that “there remain some significant details to be ironed out.” They applauded as he spoke of “all the misinformation that’s been spread over the past few months.” They laughed again when he said that “many Americans have grown nervous about reform.”

When Obama addressed the charge that he plans “panels of bureaucrats with the power to kill off senior citizens,” someone on the GOP side shouted out “shame!” The president went on: “Such a charge would be laughable if it weren’t so cynical.” “Read the bill!” someone shouted back. Obama mentioned those who accuse him of a government takeover of health care. “It’s true,” someone shouted back.

Anyone else see this?

The antics continued when Obama urged opponents to “come to me with a serious set of proposals.” About 20 Republican members raised copies of the GOP health-reform proposal over their heads. They raised their props again when Obama criticized those who think “it’s better politics to kill this plan than improve it.”

Some GOP congresspersons were observed to be texting during crucial parts of the speech.

(Transcript at the New York Times)

Three take away thoughts. First, the most objectionable part of the speech is this:

It’s worth noting that a strong majority of Americans still favor a public insurance option of the sort I’ve proposed tonight. But its impact shouldn’t be exaggerated – by the left, the right, or the media. It is only one part of my plan, and should not be used as a handy excuse for the usual Washington ideological battles. To my progressive friends, I would remind you that for decades, the driving idea behind reform has been to end insurance company abuses and make coverage affordable for those without it. The public option is only a means to that end – and we should remain open to other ideas that accomplish our ultimate goal. And to my Republican friends, I say that rather than making wild claims about a government takeover of health care, we should work together to address any legitimate concerns you may have.

Translation: A strong majority of Americans want this, but it’s still expendable. Not happy. Without this, we’ll all be forced to buy insurance from the private insurance companies.

Second, Obama says his plan incorporates ideas from Republicans. For example:

This exchange will take effect in four years, which will give us time to do it right. In the meantime, for those Americans who can’t get insurance today because they have pre-existing medical conditions, we will immediately offer low-cost coverage that will protect you against financial ruin if you become seriously ill. This was a good idea when Senator John McCain proposed it in the campaign, it’s a good idea now, and we should embrace it.

and

I don’t believe malpractice reform is a silver bullet, but I have talked to enough doctors to know that defensive medicine may be contributing to unnecessary costs. So I am proposing that we move forward on a range of ideas about how to put patient safety first and let doctors focus on practicing medicine. I know that the Bush Administration considered authorizing demonstration projects in individual states to test these issues. It’s a good idea, and I am directing my Secretary of Health and Human Services to move forward on this initiative today.

There’s your “bipartisanship.” From here on the President and the Dems in Congress should stand firm and not give away anything else (unless hell does freeze over and the Republicans get serious). If the righties complain, point to these two elements and say the bill is “bipartisan” without them.

Finally, if the President follows up this speech with some arm twisting, and the Dems rally around the policy proposals outlined in the speech, I’ll think it was a great speech. If the Blue Dogs are unable to pull the bill further to the Right of what was presented toinght, I will think it was a great speech. If Congress falls back into squabbling about nonsense, it will not have been a great speech.

Those of you who missed the speech, here’s the part where Rep. Joe Wilson (R) of South Carolina disrupted the speech. Watch Nancy Pelosi.

I intend to live blog the President’s speech tonight, paying especially close attention to what he might say about a public option. However, a big part of me agrees with Timothy Noah — enough with the speeches already. Call in the Dems and bust chops.

Every other day I read a news story that says support for “the President’s health care proposal” is slipping. But in a way this is nonsense, because it’s really hard to tell what “the President’s health care proposal” is at the moment, so what, exactly, are people not supporting?

Right now, the country seems divided between two sets of people who are not on board with what they think the President is proposing. One group doesn’t like what they think the President is proposing because it doesn’t go far enough to genuinely reform the system. The other group doesn’t like what they think the President is proposing because it’s the President — you know, the black guy — proposing it.

The first group for the most part understands the major possible components of a potential health care bill being discussed in Congress, but they (me included) worry that the public option is being thrown under the bus for the sake of getting something passed. (See Mike Madden, “Is Something Better Than Nothing on Healthcare?“)

The second group for the most part has no more understanding of the major possible components of a potential health care bill than they understand quantum physics, which is to say they wouldn’t recognize any of it if it rose up out of the sidewalk and bit their butts. They are objecting robustly to straw man proposals presented to them by the moneyed special interests who want to stop reform because the system as it is now is a gravy train for them.

So people are objecting all over the place. But these are not objections to health care reform. Instead, the objections come from a sense of foreboding about a looming dreadful thing. The dreadful thing may be that genuine health care reform will be once again kicked forward into an unknowable future, or that or death squads will be coming to shoot grandma. Take your pick.

Even the reasonably rational objection one hears about cost — i.e., I want reform but I’m afraid it will cost too much — overlooks the tangible fact that not reforming the system will cost even more. However, I can’t blame people much for not understanding that, since one rarely hears it explained in mass media.

President Obama could have done a much better job keeping people focused on the Real Issues, I think, but he’s not really a fire-in-the-belly sort, is he? He’s more cerebral, which is a quality I appreciate. But in the real world, keeping your head when everyone else is losing theirs usually makes you the mob’s first target. Put another way, in the land of the blind a one-eyed man is not king. He’s a freak.

Well, we’ll see what he says tonight.

More to read:

Paul Krugman, “Why the Public Option Matters”

Paul Krugman, “Hoping for Audacity”

Patt Morrison, “The anti-healthcare-reformers’ plan? Little more than ‘keep your fingers crossed that you don’t get sick‘”

Alex Koppelman, “‘Public option’ inventor defends it”

Vincent Rossmeier, “Palin continues terror crusade”

Robert Reich, “Why a ‘trigger’ for the public option is nonsense“

Having tasted blood with the resignation of Van Jones, the Right is busily congratulating itself and looking for new victims.

The next target might be Ron Bloom, who will serve as senior counselor for manufacturing policy. Via Thers at Whiskey Fire, here is the dreadful truth about Bloom as unearthed by Jammie Wearing Fool:

Anyway, the name Ron Bloom is one that we need to start paying attention to. He has a long history of being the negotiating face of unions in a suit. He is a Harvard Business School graduate who has worked for the unions beginning with SEIU for decades. The most recent union he represented was the United Steel Workers (USW) before becoming a part of the automotive team that Obama put together.

Get that? He’s connected to unions. The sharks are zeroing in already.

Even to the casual observer it is impossible to miss the numerous connections between Barack Obama and the unions.

I’m not sure if the right music for this is Orff’s “O Fortuna” or Bach’s Toccata and Fugue in D minor.

The Fool notes that the United Auto Workers (UAW) got a “sweetheart deal,” which I assume means when GM was put through bankruptcy UAW members were not completely stripped of all pension and health care benefits and busted back to minimum wage. Although everyone took a hit, the final deal did favor workers over investors, which I guess proves Obama is a socialist. [Update: For the benefit of my more thick-headed readers — that was sarcasm.]

But you see the conspiracy so immense, etc. The implied allegation is of a quid pro quo — unions donate money to and endorse Democrats; Democrats tend to favor policies that are good for unions. This must not stand. Maybe Democrats and Unions are collaborating out of mutual concern for the well-being of workers? Naw, can’t be.

However, if corporate interests give money to Republicans and get favors from them in return, that’s OK.

The Right for some time has seemed to me nothing but a mindless attack machine; something like a school of hungry piranha. But it’s probably more accurate to think of them as an army of Joe McCarthys. It’s as if some secret laboratory has been making clones of Tail Gunner Joe all these years, and now the clones have taken over the nation.

Really, the Van Jones episode has been right out of McCarthy’s playbook. Find a target who can be smeared with “guilt by association” to groups and causes considered radical, and there you are. He’s a Communist. No, really. Charles Krauthammer actually said:

I’m not even disturbed that this guy is a communist. It is not the first time we had a communist in the U.S. government. And anyway, with the death of communism, it is a kind of a pathetic intellectual anachronism to remain a communist.

To which Andy McCarthy responded:

The Jones incident, moreover, does not indicate that “we had a communist in the U.S. government.” To the contrary, as I argued last night, we have a U.S. government in which Van Jones was quite consciously selected because his views are representative of the president who made him the “green jobs czar.” Van Jones isn’t Alger Hiss. There’s nothing covert about him. He didn’t snooker Obama into bringing him aboard. He is who he is, and that’s why Obama wanted him. Having a Communist in that job was perfect since the “green jobs” initiative is an important part of the hard Left’s agenda to use environmentalism as an additional justification for usurping command of the economy.

In fact, the death of the Soviet Union has actually been a boon for neocommunists. Now, Obama and his fellow travelers like Jones, Ayers, Wright, Klonsky, and ACORN, can spout all the same totalitarian, anti-American, central-planning ideas the hard Left has always pushed, but in the abstract — under such mushy labels as “social justice” and “green jobs.” That is, they are liberated from having to defend the Soviet Empire, which, until 1991, was a living, breathing, concrete example of how horrific these ideas are when put in practice.

According to Wikipedia, Jones declared himself to be a communist in 1992. Yes, the words echo through the ages — are you now, or have you ever been, a member of the Communist Party?

Joe McCarthy presided over a genuine reign of terror that was as totalitarian in nature as the communist governments he railed against. For a time, just to be subpoenaed by McCarthy’s Senate committee was a career-killer. McCarthy ruined so many careers in the State Department it created a huge knowledge and experience vacuum that hurt U.S. foreign relations for years. It is said one of the reasons the U.S. blundered into Vietnam is that McCarthy had cleaned the State Department of anyone who knew anything about Asia, for example.

The important thing to remember is that not one target of a McCarthy investigation was ever found guilty of espionage. And, right-wing myth to the contrary, not one of McCarthy’s targets was shown to be a Communist spy by the Venona Papers. Yes, there had been Soviet espionage going on in government, but by the time McCarthy began his rampage, U.S. intelligence already had broken up their operations. McCarthy was just targeting people he could get away with smearing. I understand J. Edgar Hoover was feeding McCarthy names, but the names were of people Hoover didn’t like personally, not people who were threats to the nation.

But what the Right is doing now is exactly what McCarthy did then — using half-baked “evidence” and guilt by association tactics to smear good people. And the “even the President is one of them” theme is pure Joe McCarthy.

YouTube link.

The Right Blogosphere is in a feeding frenzy after someone discovered that White House “green jobs” consultant Van Jones signed a “truther” statement in 2004. As I pointed out in the last post, the “truther” statement in question is not as insane as most truther statements are, so I’m not too concerned about it.

But now rightie blogger Gateway Pundit believes he found damning evidence that Van Jones was part of the Truther movement in its infancy. This is in the form of a document at Rense.com dated September 2, 2002, that announces a march in San Fransisco calling for a congressional inquiry into September 11. You know, like the 9/11 Commission that victims’ widows like Kristen Breitweiser had to fight the White House tooth and nail to get started.

People forget that in those days there were moderate elements of what came to be called the “truther” movement. These were not the hard core who insist 9/11 was an “inside job” and the WTC towers came down by controlled detonation. Rather, these were people who felt that what media had written about 9/11 didn’t add up, and believed the Bush White House was at least guilty of gross negligence for ignoring warnings about a terrorist attack.

In 2001 and 2002 the moderate truthers and the 9/11 families calling for a congressional commission were working together loosely and dragging around the same or a similar set of questions they wanted answered. Some of these questions eventually were passed on to and addressed by the 9/11 Commission.

If pushing for a 9/11 Commission makes someone a Truther, then I argue 9/11 Commission Chairs Tom Kean and Lee Hamilton must be Super Truthers.

If it turns out that Jones really does believe 9/11 was an “inside job,” then I’d be among the first to question his judgment. But so far I’m not seeing that.

Update: Although there was talk of an “inside job” on 9/11 almost immediately after the attacks, if I can believe my own archives, the Truther “inside jobers” didn’t completely swamp the “truth commission” movement until 2006. I had thought it was earlier than that, but maybe not.

Update: Chris Good reports, “This morning, ABC’s Jake Tapper reported that Jones was on the “organizing committee” of a 2002 march in San Francisco demanding a congressional inquiry into 9/11.” Wow, a congressional inquiry into 9/11. How shocking. Not. Am I the only one who remembers how people had to fight to get the White House to agree to the 9/11 Commission?