Sanctimonious Authoritarian Prick Cheered On By Serial Health Care Liar

Betsy McCaughey we know.

So Who Is Judge Henry E. Hudson?


Anyone remember the Michael Vick case?

Along the way, he was the chairman of a pornography study commission appointed by President Ronald Reagan's attorney general, Edwin Meese, and the director of the U.S. Marshals Service.

Hudson's 2,000-page report on pornography became known as "Uncle Sam's Dirty Book," and was a best seller for the U.S. Government Printing Office at $53 per copy. His leadership of the Marshals Service included early decisions in the attempt to arrest Randy Weaver at Ruby Ridge, the greatest disaster in the history of federal law enforcement, a fiasco that led to a grand jury investigation (Hudson was called to testify) and misconduct charges against 12 federal agents.

...

If Hudson is tough on gambling, drugs and massage parlors, nothing shows his approach to crime and punishment better than the case of David Vasquez, a 30-year-old McDonald's worker whom Hudson and two detectives suspected of a brutal rape and murder in January 1985.

...

The focus on Vasquez was dubious from the beginning. Vasquez was mentally slow. Some experts described him as retarded. He was at work at McDonald's 30 miles from the crime scene on the mornings before and after the murder. He cannot drive, and there is no public transportation between his home in Manassas and Arlington.

He also was a small man, and both the detectives and Hudson knew he could not have overcome, raped, strangled and hung the victim, a large woman, by himself.

But nothing stopped Hudson and the detectives in their pursuit of Vasquez. The detectives interrogated him three times before finally, with Hudson's agreement and approval, charging him with murder. In the questioning, they fed him details of the crime and lied to him, claiming they found his fingerprints at the scene. Hudson acknowledges that the fingerprints lie was "a hardball tactic," but explains "the use of such deception is both legal and widely accepted as an interview strategy."

...

Soon after Vasquez went to prison, another woman was discovered raped and murdered in her home near the killing blamed on Vasquez. The crimes were virtually identical. Another detective, Joe Horgas, knew something was wrong. He pursued the case and other killings for months and found a serial killer who was responsible for several murders including the killing that Hudson pinned on Vasquez. The serial killer, Timothy Spencer, who was later executed, worked alone.

When detective Horgas and Helen Fahey, the prosecutor who succeeded Hudson, decided to seek a pardon for Vasquez, they invited Hudson back to the office to hear their story. Hudson listened to the detective's presentation, a compelling array of evidence that showed conclusively that Vasquez had been in prison five years for a crime he could not have committed.

Hudson listened to the presentation. In his book, he offered his response to the news that he had zealously pursued the wrong guy: "I certainly wish him the best and regret what happened. However, I offer no apologies."

How about apologizing for the woman who was raped and murdered by the guy you didn't pursue while you were railroading a patsy, you sanctimonious right wing prick?
~

Screw the Poors!

Father Morris pushes "federal funding for abortion" falsehood to suggest Obama is untrustworthy:



Furthermore, it's high time we cut the top marginal tax bracket again. And how come we have to take care of sick people? Buncha parasites!!!!

And don't get Jebus started on teh death tax...
~

This pest is a danger to your health care reform!

~

Fair and Balanced and such as

UPDATE!


~

Holy Joe Lieberman Pledges To Filibuster Public Option

Via Think Progress:





P.S. There were 39 Democrats who voted against The Affordable Health Care for America Act today, including Dennis Kucinich. Dennis Kucinich voted against it because it did not adopt single-payer.

On the other hand, there were 23 cobags who voted for the odious Stupak amendment and then voted against the Health Care Act even after their stupid amendment was added:

Jason Altmire (PA-04)
John Barrow (GA-12)
John Boccieri (OH-16)
Dan Boren (OK-02)
Bobby Bright (AL-02)
Ben Chandler (KY-06)
Travis Childers (MS-01)
Artur Davis (AL-07)
Lincoln Davis (TN-04)
Bart Gordon (TN-06)
Parker Griffith (AL-05)
Tim Holden (PA-17)
Jim Marshall (GA-08)
Jim Matheson (UT-02)
Mike McIntyre (NC-07)
Charlie Melancon (LA-03)
Collin Peterson (MN-07)
Mike Ross (AR-04)
Heath Shuler (NC-11)
Ike Skelton (MO-04)
John Tanner (TN-08)
Gene Taylor (MS-04)
Harry Teague (NM-02)

~

Dear Corporate Whores

Max Baucus (DINO - Montana)


Blanche Lincoln (DINO - Arkansas)


Kent Conrad (DINO - North Dakota)


These three prostitutes voted against Senator Jay Rockefeller's robust public option and against Senator Chuck Schumer’s meh public option today.

Rockefeller outlined more than $500 billion in government subsidies written into the bill that he said would ultimately go to the nation's insurers with little being asked in return. “They have never followed the rules,” Rockefeller charged, referring to the private-payer community. He added: “Which comes first, the insurance companies or the American people?”

Senator Cobag from Montana answers “As I've said before, I see a lot to like in a public option. But my first job is to get this bill across the finish line.” Baucus said that the public option could not pass the Senate as is, adding that it would “jeopardize meaningful healthcare reform” if left in the package.

Right, because cobags like Max Baucus would prevent the Senate and its 60 Democrats from passing such an option "that I see a lot to like".

They can ESAD.

UPDATE:

Here's a link to Glenn Greenwald suggesting Jim Cooper as a primary challenge target.

Max Baucus was just reelected, so he is free to ignore the majority of Montanans who want a public health insurance option. Kent Conrad was reelected in 2006.

Blanche Lincoln reliably sucks up to Walmart while ignoring her constituents (In Arkansas, about 505,000 people, or 17.8 percent, had no health insurance in 2008). In spite of this, she is likely to lose to some old white Repuke who Walmart would prefer. Her only chance would be to actually do some good for the people of Arkansas, but she doesn't have the common sense of a farm-raised turkey. Good riddance to you, Blanche.
~

The Baucus/WellPoint Health Care Bill - Markup with Dethklok

The Baucus - WellPoint Wealthcare plan is out.

You can get details from the ladies at Swampland.

Or trust the shorter:


~

Fred Hiatt is concerned.

Fred Hiatt has recently published op-eds from Dick Cheney warning us of the dangers of avoiding torture, John Bolton warning of the dangers of negotiating with foreign countries, and David J. Kramer warning of the dangers of discontinuing an expensive missile defense program that doesn't work.

For a change, he's got Jim Sleeper warning liberals that they need to take the teabaggers seriously.

The WaPo's hands are not clean in the health care debate.

A flier describing the events, which Ms. Weymouth said had been issued by the marketing department and had never been vetted by her, had promised corporate sponsors conversation ("Spirited? Yes. Confrontational? No."). Sponsors were asked to pay $25,000 to attend an event, or underwrite a series of 11 for $250,000.

The July 21 event, focusing on health care reform, had "guaranteed" a "collegial evening" with health industry advocates, Post journalists covering the field and administration officials involved with its policies.

Just for the halibut, I've submitted my own question for Mr. Sleeper:

Hi Jim,

You say "Racism is only one of many factors driving the backlash against the president in town hall meetings and in demonstrations on Capitol Hill." You then mention the example of the swiftboaters.

The link between these two things is that both were ginned up and funded by GOP operatives. FreedomWorks and American for Prosperity ("Patients United") are behind the teabagger protests, and along with FOX News promoted the 9/12 event.

Fish got to swim, birds got to fly, and Republicans scare seniors with lies about health care. Why do should we talk about these confused protesters at all? The corporate media happily ignored far larger protests against the war in Iraq. Not only were those anti-war protesters more focused, they were actually right on the facts.

Focusing on the astroturfing serves only the interests of the corporations that have a stake in the status quo. We ought to be talking about the fact that we spend more than any other country per capita on health care, yet are only 37th in terms of results.
~

UPDATE: Jim Sleeper took my question, and here is his answer:

Jim Sleeper: Well, here's the rub, as I feel it: On the one hand, you're right to say that we should pay more attention to the skilled demagoguery that gets at people's hurts and fears and riles them up. And there's little question in my mind that that's mainly what FOX News exists to do and what certain media personalities there and elsewhere love to do.

On the other hand, the hurts and fears are real. They pre-existed FOX and even the WW II media demagogue Father McCloughlin and, later, Senator Joe McCarthy. So we have to concentrate more on what makes people so vulnerable to the snake-oil salesmen in the first place. My column was an attempt to warn us not to focus on the symptoms (even though they're often deep and powerful) but on the even-deeper causes. The rabble-rousers actually arrive rather late in all this, I think.

It seems we are talking a bit at cross purposes here. I'm saying we should dismiss the astroturfing for what it is. We should take careful note of the importance that the Washington Post attaches to it, and examine how the paper is otherwise covering the healthcare debate.

I should clarify who the cobag tag refers to in my post: Fred Hiatt.


Jim Sleeper seems to be a decent guy.

Jim Sleeper: I'm not conservative (I'd like a single-payer, universal health care system, like Canada's!), and neither I nor other liberals had any role in the silence of the President of the United States.

This issue of race in politics is one of his specialities.

Fred Hiatt, on the other hand, is as subtle and sharp as a sledgehammer. We don't see mention of the actual numbers that matter in the healthcare debate on the pages of the Washington Post. Or how other countries do it better. I've gotten more information about health care in other countries from my own comments section than I have from the WaPo.

But an editorial saying don't dismiss the teabaggers? Fred Hiatt will publish that in a D.C. Villager minute. Not to mention, an ad from FOX accusing its rivals of failing to adequately hype FOX's own astroturfing.

UPDATE II: Correction!

This was my comment in response to Jim Sleeper's correction. But I suppose it should be above the fold, and such as. I don't think you can pull up this post and not see the comments, but here it is:

Thanks for stopping by with correction, Jim. I don't get the hard copy edition of the Post, and assumed that anything listed under Opinions fell into Hiatt's bailiwick.

I grew up in D.C. reading the Washington Post, and I find it immensely disappointing these days. Ultimately, responsibility for the paper goes to the publishers, Donald Graham and now Katharine Weymouth.

In light of K.W.'s ham fisted attempt to sell access, it doesn't appear as if things are improving anytime soon.

To add to this, I have probably tended to overstate Fred Hiatt's power at the Post. And he wouldn't be there doing his thing if the publishers didn't want him to.

And here's more Somerby: Less than half what we spend, despite the therapy—and the baby-sitters! Does anyone have any idea how that works? We read the Post and the Times every day. We’ve never seen the slightest attempt to work through this giant conundrum.
~

Goldman Sachs - Boeing 2012!

I don't see how we're ever going to get this cat back into the bag.

I see a 2012 election between Goldman Sachs-Boeing and United Health Care-Archer Daniels Midland. Guns and money versus health insurance and corporate farming.

May the greediest and most corrupt win (as usual)!

P.S. If the above wasn't entirely clear, I blame the hour and the headache. What I'm saying is with representation like this, why not just give up the pretense that our Senators and such as do anything besides serve the corporations that purchased their souls.

Anyways, here's TIME magazine, seeking to improve my day!


If you get your information from liberal sources, the crowd numbered about 70,000, many of them greedy racists. If you get your information from conservative sources, the crowd was hundreds of thousands strong, perhaps as many as a million, and the tenor was peaceful and patriotic.

Take it away, Glennzilla
~

The health care debate and our corporate media

Bill Moyers, via Glenn Greenwald:

And I think the reason for that is -- in the time since I was there, 40 years ago, the Democratic Part has become like the Republican Party, deeply influenced by corporate money.
...
Money has flowed in such a flood into both parties that the Democratic Party gets a lot of its support from the very interests that -- when the Republicans are in power -- financially support the Republicans.

Bill doesn't mention that these same interests also own the mainstream media in our country. Our MSM which has become increasingly concentrated in a small number of hands over the last 40 years.

Here's Joe Klein at Time, regarding the public option:

Meanwhile, I never had much interest in a public option. I think the perils of government-delivered (as opposed to funded) services are obvious and immense. Sarah Lyall had an excellent piece in the Times today about her dealings with the British National Health System, which has some very real strengths, but also some terrifying weaknesses.

As is immediately pointed out by the common taters, Joe K. is being foolish. But he knows the corporate line, and he's going to toe it.

Newsweek's Howard Fineman gives Ben Nelson a tongue bath, and in the process mentions:

If and when the Democrats get to 60, the party's core liberal-progressive interests are likely to demand prompt action on a host of topics. But if every action requires 60—and that's becoming the norm in the Senate—the ironic result will be to empower the party's centrist wing.

Anyone remember when the Republicans had a Senate majority?

Howard Fineman: Silly Democrats, let our President save us from the terror!

Jamison Foser: The media's health care filibuster

This is the role of Howard Finemans and Joe Kleins: to define the left edge of the Overton window. Past here, unserious liberals be. More to the point, unemployable liberals, at least in the corporate media. Stay with the herd, it's safe there!

And that is my point: the tycoon class doesn't just buy our politicians directly (the carrot), they also wield the media that they own (as a stick or as a carrot).

Want a public option? On the right, Rush Limbaugh, FAUX, and the WSJ are all opposed. On the other hand, you have Joe K. and Howard F. Freedom from Choice!

Want to see Bush, Cheney, and company brought to justice for torturing people?


On the right, Rush Limbaugh, FAUX, and the WSJ are all opposed. On the other hand, here's Joe Klein. Freedom from Choice!

Remember our spectacular success in Iraq when we freed the Iraqi people (from food, homes, limbs, and lives)?

Time Magazine's Joe Klein, for instance, last week claimed he has "been opposed to the Iraq war ever since 2002." Readers were expected to forget about his nationally televised declaration in late February 2003 -- the critical days just before the invasion was ordered. "War may well be the right decision at this point," Klein told NBC's Tim Russert. "In fact, I think it probably is."

"We had controversial wars that divided the country. This war united the country and brought the military back."
(Newsweek's Howard Fineman--MSNBC, 5/7/03)

I post at Swampland occasionally. I've seen Joe Klein occasionally respond to comments. I think I'll try to get him to anwer this one:

Remember those dirty fucking hippies who turned out to be completely correct about Iraq, in sharp contrast to yourself? Do you think it might be possible that those same DFHs are correct about a public option for health care insurance and prosecuting Bush Administration officials for torture?



UPDATE:

This has created an imbalance that requires a Fox-like network that is as liberal as Fox is conservative. MSNBC seems to be trying to fill this role, but very half-heartedly for reasons I am unclear about.

That would be Bruce Bartlett, a veteran of the Reagan and H.W. Bush administrations, in an email to Steve Benen.

I think he is missing the point, deliberately or else because his ideological blinders prevent him from seeing it.

NBC doesn't want to be liberal. The fact that FAUX nooze crazies allow them to present their right wing, corporate friendly spin as "liberal" is a perfect circumstance for their parent, GE.

This is what manufacturing consent is all about.

UPDATE II: BEYOND THE PADDLEWHEEL

Twice in the past month, my private communications have been splashed about the internet. That such a thing would happen is unfortunate, and dishonorable, but sadly inevitable, I suppose. I ignored the first case, in which a rather pathetic woman acolyte of Greenwald's published a hyperbolic account of a conversation I had with her at a beach picnic on Cape Cod. Now, Greenwald himself has published private emails of mine that were part of a conversation taking place on a list-serve. In one of those emails, I say that Greenwald "cares not a whit for America's national security."
...
I am not a religious reader of Greenwald--he does go on, and on--and it's possible that I missed extensive posts in which he praises the Armed Forces or makes positive suggestions about how to track possible communications between terrorists abroad and their confederates here. But I sort of doubt that.What I have seen from him, ad nauseum, are intemperate attacks in which he questions the character of--no, it's worse than that: he slimes--anyone who has the temerity to disagree with him.

"...private emails of mine" and "a conversation taking place on a list-serve". OK, Joe. I guess it's like that rule of law thing for the rest of us, but not the important people in the Village.




I didn't realize Glenn Greenwald was training an army of Amazon Warrior Priestesses. But I guess it makes sense.
~

It's Godwin Month!

Rush Limbaugh, via GG

Van the Loon at S,N!

Barney Frank responds to the B.S.:



P.S. This post has been sitting around for a while (i.e. the S.N! post was not 8 hours ago). But the Barney Frank response finally provided motivation.

UPDATE: J— posted in the comments, just before I went to work (late as usual...was busy editing my blog!)

This Barren Country - Barney Frank: Land Without Bread Hero
~

The GOP wants to kill Social Security and Medicare

REP. ARMEY: This, this, this defies logic.

MS. MADDOW: This is a really important point. The anti-healthcare reform lobby thinks that Medicare is tyranny, OK?

REP. ARMEY: I did—I said...

MS. MADDOW: This is an—I mean, you said in 1995 that “Medicare is a program I would have no part of in a free world.”

REP. ARMEY: Right. Absolutely right.

MS. MADDOW: You said in 2002, “We’re going to have to bite the bullet on Social Security and phase it out over a period of time.”

Meet the Press, 8/16/2009

For the pithier version, See Culture of Truth

These asshats are running around scaring seniors with talk about "Death Panels". They used the same lies and scare tactics in 1993-1994.

It's time we pointed out the truth: There is a party that wants to eliminate Social Security and Medicare. It's the Republican Party.

UPDATE:

Conservatives push Reagan's 1961 attacks on "socialized medicine" but ignore that he was criticizing Medicare

I like Media Matters, they do a good job.
~

Health insurance companies want you to die

(But only after they take all your money.)

Screen cap from the forthcoming issue of Harper's:



Cue Rhonda Hackett:

Myth: Canada's health care system is a cumbersome bureaucracy.

The U.S. has the most bureaucratic health care system in the world. More than 31 percent of every dollar spent on health care in the U.S. goes to paperwork, overhead, CEO salaries, profits, etc. The provincial single-payer system in Canada operates with just a 1 percent overhead. Think about it. It is not necessary to spend a huge amount of money to decide who gets care and who doesn't when everybody is covered.

P.S.
AND WHILE YOU'RE AT IT, CONSTITUTIONAL SCHOLARS, WHERE DOES IT INDICATE THAT HEALTH CARE FOR ALL IS UN-CONSTITUTIONAL?

Update: In response to Another Kiwi, I thought I'd post something from Digby's comments.

I would only say this:

It’s politically smart to go after the leaders. It’s politically dumb to name-call the people who get fooled by the leaders.

It’s also hard to defend on the merits. We liberals get fooled by our leaders all the time. How many people really believe that our leaders are currently trying to address the fundamental lunacy of our health care “system,” including the vast wells of profit which make our level of spending so crazy?

I don’t believe that our leaders are trying to do that. But our leaders keep saying they are. Most of us implicitly believe them. Does that mean that we’re stupid too?
bob somerby | 08.15.09 – 12:40 pm |

It's not yet clear what is happening here, to me at least. (Unlike the era from 2001-2008, in which we were all relentlessly lied to by the most incompetent and evil Administration in history.)

But I have to respect Bob's opinion, he's been right about the right for a long time.
~

Looking at the Right

Looking at the Left decides to look the other way.

I see a need for health care. Lots of it.




Free Market Solutions™?

Tort Reform?

The Right. Wrong as usual.

UPDATE

This is central to my point:


~

Click For Your Medicine

Sometimes I make fun of Bob.

But overall, I think he's indispensable.

Bob Somerby on the Washington Post and health care

First off, you can go to any site populated by the wingnut crowd and find them Blar-Har-Harring over the WaPoo pay for access scandal.

Ha Ha Libs!

But a sober analysis of what was going on there shows, as Bob S. does, that the Washington Post is serving their corporate clientele at the expense of the rest of us. Ever since Donny Graham became the publisher, this has been the trend at the WaPo.

We have a choice between a right wing corporate press and an insane right wing corporate press in this country.

Next, getting to the specifics of the health care debate, these numbers should be published everywhere:

Total health expenditures per capita, 2003

United States $5711
Australia $2886
Austria $2958
Belgium $3044
Canada $2998
Denmark $2743
Finland $2104
France $3048
Germany $2983
Ireland $2466
Italy $2314
Japan $2249
Netherlands $2909
Norway $3769
Sweden $2745
United Kingdom $2317

Those are astonishing data. Over the past fifteen years, they’ve almost never been discussed. Everyone but Krugman understands—you simply mustn’t discuss them.

UPDATE: Horton hears a Who?

I mean, Harry gets a clue?

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) abruptly waded into health care reform negotiations Tuesday, telling Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) that Democratic leaders had serious concerns about a bill that would tax health benefits and nix a strong public insurance option.
~