Republicans have declared war on women -- congressional panels discuss birth control with no women in sight, and GOP-led legislatures all over the country are finding more creative ways to limit our access to health care. In this environment, you couldn't blame women for deciding that politics was not for them. There are some folks out there with reports suggesting that women are shying away from public office, not interested in running. But, frankly, the truth is far different.

I come from Montana, where individual liberty is a pretty big deal. And the right to take care of yourself is something we hold pretty dear. So I know how mad I got when Republicans started trying to chip away at my ability to make my own health care decisions, and I know I'm not the only woman who felt that way.

Rather than standing down, women are stepping forward in greater numbers than ever -- as activists, as donors, and as candidates. In fact, 2012 is actually poised to be a historic year for women candidates.

Right now, there are 15 women running for the U.S. Senate, which is a record-breaking number. At EMILY's List, we've made our own history by endorsing 11 of those women. To put those numbers in perspective, there are only 33 Senate seats up for election in 2012. That means that one in three Senate races this year involves an EMILY's List-endorsed candidate. Our six incumbents up for reelection are in excellent shape running on their record of leadership over the past six years. And all five of our Senate challengers are ready to break glass ceilings -- each would be the first woman senator to represent her state.

And it's not just the Senate. We're seeing women all across the country putting together strong campaigns at all levels, especially in the House. More women are stepping up to run for Congress every day. Pro-choice Democratic women are ready to oust the Tea Partiers, who promised to work on jobs and the economy, but pulled a bait-and-switch and launched an all-out attack on women's rights instead.

In just this past year alone, EMILY's List helped to add three more pro-choice Democratic women to congress through special elections. Electing Kathy Hochul, Janice Hahn and Suzanne Bonamici to the House of Representatives not only added more voices for women across the country, but also completely reversed the decline in the number of women in Congress we saw in 2010. Now, we are ready to gain some ground.

This Republican War on Women has driven women into the political process in a way we've never seen before. Women are not only stepping up as candidates, but as donors and as voters. At EMILY's List, we've seen our community surpass more than one million members and more than double since the GOP took control of the House in 2011.

Poll after poll has shown women shying away from the Republicans' divisive and restrictive agenda. Women will be the deciding voters in the 2012 elections. And thanks to the incredible number of outstanding female candidates running for office this year, there's a compelling progressive alternative to that regressive agenda. Women candidates don't want to turn back the clock on our rights; they want to focus on issues like jobs, the economy, and problems affecting families across the country.

So, where are the women? They are leaders in the House and Senate; they are working in legislatures across the country, and an incredible number of others are stepping up to join them. And come January 2013, we're expecting to see a record number of Democratic women serving in the halls of our nation's capitol.

This was originally published as an exclusive to Politico.

Congress and President Barack Obama have been treating federal workers like the nation's piggy bank. They have imposed a two-year pay freeze to reduce the budget deficit, raised pension contributions of future civil servants to fund extended unemployment benefits and talked about additional compensation cutbacks that further devalue public service.

These measures may be expedient for achieving budget savings, fixing pressing political problems or giving some lawmakers satisfaction, but there could ultimately be a high price to pay for treating federal employees as an unnecessary cost rather than an asset.

The legislative actions and some 20 pending proposals to cut pay, benefits and the workforce, combined with regular, unchallenged political attacks against the government, are symptomatic of an elected leadership that has lost understanding of and respect for the people working to implement the laws they pass and the programs they create.

The consequences are already evident. Employee morale is in decline, the desirability of public service has diminished and trust in government is at an all-time low.

The "Best Places to Work in the Federal Government" rankings, for example, show that employee job satisfaction and commitment are dropping. The number of students planning to work in the public sector dropped more than 40 percent from 2009 to 2011, according to a National Association of Colleges and Employers student survey.

In addition, federal retirements last year jumped 24 percent compared with 2010. Many experienced workers, for example, left government because of concern about possible changes in pay and retirement benefits.

If we continue to discourage young Americans from entering public service and experienced employees from staying, we will create a workforce incapable of effectively dealing with our problems.

There are legitimate differences of opinion about what government should do. But there should be agreement about the proposition that we want government to do well -- no matter what it is doing.

It is time for our political leaders to focus on what it will take for government to succeed against a tide of increasing challenges and decreasing resources. More politically motivated quick wins are not the answer.

We need to build a workforce with the advanced skills to serve a knowledge-based economy, including one with a more global and multi-sector perspective. This means creating the conditions that can attract highly educated Americans to government service, providing them with training and leadership development opportunities and holding them accountable for results.

Instead of arguing that federal workers are paid too much and imposing across-the-board freezes, Congress and the Obama administration should revamp the fundamentally flawed civil service compensation system created in 1949. There should be a market-based approach that sets federal pay levels roughly comparable to major private-sector employers.

Federal employee pay should not be higher or significantly lower than the private sector. Government workers should be viewed as part of, not isolated from, the larger labor market.

Last September, Obama called on Congress to establish a Commission on Federal Public Service Reform to recommend personnel system changes that "could include but would not be limited to compensation, staff development and mobility, and personnel performance and motivation." Rep. Mac Thornberry (R-Texas) introduced similar legislation in the last Congress.

This is a step in the right direction, and Congress should move forward on this recommendation.

At the same time, the White House must ensure that the political leadership in the departments and agencies focus on operational excellence and be held accountable for it. To do otherwise can only invite missteps and further erosion of the public view of government. As a society, we must take ownership of our government, identify its failings and fix them -- rather than bemoaning the problems, downgrading federal employees and undermining the ability of the nation to meet its collective challenges.

Max Stier is the president and chief executive officer of the nonprofit, nonpartisan Partnership for Public Service.

The Truth-o-Meter says: Mostly True | Santorum says Americans 'overwhelmingly' oppose health law, mandate

Rick Santorum, in an op-ed for U.S. News and World Report, wrote about his opposition to the national health care reform law, calling it "a dangerous precedent" that "should be repealed in its entirety." And he says the American public is on his side. "Polls show Americans are overwhelmingly opposed to Obamacare, especially the individual mandate," Santorum wrote in the March 26, 2012, column. The op-ed ran the same week that the U.S. Supreme Court is hearing arguments on the constitutionality of the law and the mandate. We decided ...

>> More

LACROSSE, Wis. — Republican presidential front-runner Mitt Romney is attacking rival Rick Santorum as a friend of "big labor" as they campaign in Wisconsin, where a fight over labor unions is fueling a bitter recall effort aimed at Gov. Scott Walker.

Santorum, in turn, is aligning himself with the embattled Republican governor, a play for a party base that he hopes will carry him to victory in the GOP presidential primary on Tuesday.

"As you know the fight against big labor led by Gov. Walker isn't over, here in Wisconsin," a voice says in an automated Romney telephone call. "I was shocked to find out that Rick Santorum repeatedly supported big labor and joined with liberal Democrats in voting against right-to-work legislation during his time in Washington."

Romney, with help from a well-funded allied group, is pointing to union-friendly votes by the former Pennsylvania senator. His swing back from confronting President Barack Obama to attacking his main GOP rival comes as a Marquette University poll shows him overtaking Santorum in Wisconsin by an 8-point margin, 39-31.

In Michigan and Ohio, Romney criticized Santorum's 1996 Senate vote against so-called right-to-work legislation, which provides that people cannot be compelled to join a union as a condition of employment. The recession has hit hard in both states, and labor unions are unpopular with Republican primary voters there.

Wisconsin is Santorum's last chance to keep alive his claim that he can go toe-to-toe with Obama in the industrial heartland. Romney edged Santorum in Michigan and Ohio and soundly beat him in Illinois last week.

The pro-Romney super PAC Restore Our Future is spending $2.3 million on television ads attacking Santorum and added a spot this week mentioning his right-to-work vote.

Santorum has said as a candidate for president that he supports a national right-to-work bill, and that he opposed it in the Senate because he didn't want to undermine Pennsylvania's opposition to the policy. Santorum represented southwestern Pennsylvania in the House for two terms and then won two terms in the Senate from the strong union state. Romney supports national right-to-work legislation.

"Calling Rick Santorum a friend of labor is like calling Mitt Romney a conservative. Neither are true," Santorum told reporters Wednesday.

Organized labor and Democratic critics targeted Walker, a Republican elected in 2010, after he won approval last year in the GOP-controlled Legislature to effectively end collective bargaining for public employees. Campaigns for and against Walker have consumed months of television advertising and have overshadowed Tuesday's presidential primary.

Republican National Committee member Mary Buestin of Mequon, Wis., said GOP activists are lining up with Walker, and said any hint of waffling on union issues is not good for a presidential candidate.

"I think when people find out he voted that way, even if he has come around since then, it will hurt Santorum," said Buestin, who lives in a GOP-heavy Milwaukee suburb.

University of Wisconsin political science professor Charles Franklin, who conducted the Marquette poll, said GOP sentiment is heavily anti-union.

"The GOP primary electorate is very positive toward Scott Walker. So anything that differentiates a candidate and puts space between them and Walker is not good for the primary coming up," Franklin said.

Santorum worked vigorously this week to endear himself to supporters of Walker, who is locked in a tight battle to retain the governorship.

"Gov. Walker ... is leading. He is leading this country with his courage, his ability," Santorum said in Bellevue, Wis. "He is willing to stand up and fight the bullies. I come from southwest Pennsylvania. I represented the old steel valley of Pittsburgh. I know what it's like."

Outspent roughly 4-1 in the state by Romney and his allies, Santorum needs to rally Walker supporters to his side to have hope of prevailing in Wisconsin.

Aides to Romney noted how he campaigned for Walker ahead of the 2010 election, as well as Republican senators also targeted in the recall, including his state campaign chairwoman, state Sen. Alberta Darling.

Santorum has won a string of caucuses and primaries in the South and Midwest, where his socially conservative profile has appealed to evangelical conservatives more than Romney's more moderate, economic-focused message.

Santorum campaigned in conservative western Wisconsin on Wednesday and planned to return Friday.

Romney was planning to make his first campaign trip to Wisconsin on Friday. He talked for 30 minutes to thousands of Wisconsin voters in a telephone conference call Wednesday.

During the call Romney joked about an awkward familiarity with the state, where his father, as president of American Motors, moved all production. Later, when running for governor of Michigan, the elder Romney was walking in a parade where the marching band only knew the University of Wisconsin fight song.

"So every time they would start playing `On, Wisconsin! On Wisconsin!' my dad's political people would jump up and down and try to get them to stop," Romney recalled with a chuckle.

The Democratic National Committee later accused Romney of joking about closing the Michigan motor plant.

___

Elliott reported from Wisconsin.

A.B. Stoddard, The Hill
Irony alert "” President Obama gets a boost no matter what the Supreme Court decides on his politically toxic healthcare reform law. The high court either upholds Obama's signature domestic accomplishment, imprinting it for history, or it overturns the law, thereby breaking a big stick with which the GOP planned to beat Obama this fall. Should front-runner Mitt Romney become the GOP nominee, what's left of the stick would more likely resemble a Q-Tip. Although a final ruling is nearly four months...

Doyle McManus, LAT
Op-Ed Obama is shown speaking during a town hall meeting on healthcare at the headquarters of the Democratic National Committee on Aug. 20, 2009. (Alex Wong/Bloomberg / March 28, 2012) March 29, 2012In 2009, President Obama was asked whether the individual mandate in his healthcare plan was really just a tax in disguise. "I absolutely reject that notion," he responded.But if the president had been brave enough back then to call a tax a tax, his...

E.J. Dionne, The New Republic
WASHINGTON -- Three days of Supreme Court arguments over the health care law demonstrated for all to see that conservative justices are prepared to act as an alternative legislature, diving deeply into policy details as if they were members of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee.Senator, excuse me, Justice Samuel Alito quoted Congressional Budget Office figures on Tuesday to talk about the insurance costs of the young. On Wednesday, Chief Justice John Roberts sounded like the House whip in discussing whether parts of the law could stand if other parts fell. He noted...

"Southern Democracy" is in trouble!

Certainly the Democratic Party in the South is not "dead" in the technical sense of total, terminal collapse. But as the current, unfolding election season demonstrates, the excitement and energy of partisan politics lies mainly in Republican campaigns in the South, while the historically-dominant Democrats mainly sit and stew in envy. And such has been the case for a while. So my blunt rhetorical title is a legitimate setup for talking about the state of the Democratic Party in this region.

In coming posts, I will deal with critical questions facing Southern Democracy. This analysis will probably be most interesting to Southerners, politicians, and scholars who study regional politics; but I hope that other readers will find it informative and positively provocative.

Historic decline of Southern Democracy.

I use the term "Southern Democracy" to refer to the entrenched Democratic Party as the historic ruling regime -- and more recently its competitive primacy -- in Southern politics and governance for much of our nation's history.

The institutionalized Democratic Party dominated regional affairs, as a whites-only entity, for almost a century after Reconstruction until the civil rights movement of the 1950s-60s; then absorbing new black voters, the Democrats exercised majority control through the 1970s and into the 1980s. Even as the Southern electorate shifted toward GOP candidates in the 1990s and at the dawn of a new century, Democratic politicians, organizations and voters continued as robust players in the eleven states of the Old Confederacy.

Throughout, Southern Democrats have conducted themselves as a stubborn, contrarian version of their national party. For a long time, the Solid South maintained partisan electoral loyalty as part of a strange gentlemen's agreement with their national party leaders to preserve regional autonomy on racial matters; later on, they conducted an uneasy, awkward relationship with the national party. All the while, Southern Democrats usually went their own way on issues of concern to more progressive partisans.

But the South turned a sharp partisan corner in Election 2010; and Southern Democracy clearly faces more painful adjustments in 2012 and thereafter.

So it is worthwhile to ask whether the traditionally dominant party is going to survive for the long term as an effective player, in competitive parity with the Republicans, in the Southern states. Or, are Southern Democrats devolving into permanent minority status as the loyal blue opposition in a really red region?

Yellow-Dogged optimism.

It is clear that hard-core, progressive Southern Democrats -- the "Yellow Dogs" -- are defiantly optimistic about their philosophy and future, as revealed in remarks to the news media and among themselves at party rallies.

As a reminder for those who don't keep up with Southern politics, the term "Yellow Dog" is an honorific reference to faithful partisans who would vote for a yellow dog before pulling the Republican lever. It goes back to the blind allegiance of the Solid South to the Democratic Party after the Civil War; and it is reserved today for unabashed champions of progressive politics. Yellow Dogs have long been and are still the heart and soul of the Democratic Party in every Southern state. By comparison, the "Blue Dogs" are a relatively recent incarnation who practice moderate-to-conservative politics, much to the consternation of the party core. (More about this family feud later in my assessment.)

The conventional wisdom among Yellow Dogs is that "We've got to refine our message and shout it out loudly and proudly." They claim that Republicans have bamboozled Southern voters; and once Democratic loyalists explain things clearly in terms of common-sense economics, most Southerners will see the light and flock back to the traditional party of the people. Some organizational activists emphasize that "We've got to revitalize our grassroots operations." Others are more opportunistically hopeful: "Just wait! The Republicans will screw things up bad soon and we'll be back in power just like before."

A cautionary assessment.

I'll not dwell further here on these scenarios other than to acknowledge that they all have some merit. But I doubt that Yellow-Dogged optimism will be enough for successful comeback of Southern Democracy.

I also know that I'm opening a contentious argument by even questioning, as a long-time Democrat, the future of Southern Democracy. Many Democrats and Republicans disagreed with my sentiments when I was in politics; and they undoubtedly will challenge my cautionary assessment of the current situation and my recommendations for the future. I hope my friends and critics will respond in constructive manner to the questions presented here.

The critical questions.

Being an ex-professor, I'll deal with the issue socratically, by asking critical questions and interjecting my own sentiments at certain points in a series of discussions over the next few posts. Answers, or non-answers, to the following key questions may reveal how Southern Democracy will fare as a political force in the years ahead:

1. How serious is the current plight of Southern Democracy?

2. Do Southern Democrats want to be practical players or ideological voices?

3. Can Southern Democrats survive the legacies of race and racism?

4. Can Yellow Dogs and Blue Dogs rekindle their romance?

5. Will National Democrats dump the white working class?

6. Is there a future -- short term or long term -- for Southern Democracy?

Stay tuned for the next post about Southern Democracy in peril!

Author's Note: This is the first post in a series about the future of the Democratic Party in the South.

For the past three days, the political world has been largely focused on the Supreme Court, and the arguments over whether President Obama's signature legislative achievement is constitutional or not. At the heart of the argument is the "individual mandate," a section of the law which would require Americans to pay more money on their income taxes if they could afford health insurance but chose not to purchase it from a private company.

In the 2008 presidential election campaign, Barack Obama disagreed with Hillary Clinton on this issue. Clinton was for the individual mandate, Obama was not. Once he got elected and started wheeling and dealing with the insurance industry, however, Obama agreed to include the individual mandate in the law now universally known as "Obamacare."

While we're all waiting for the verdict from the Supreme Court, I thought it would be worthwhile to dig into the actual origins of the concept of the individual mandate. Now, the idea itself may have been around for much longer than the documentation I could find online, but the real political push behind the idea seems to have started in 1989, from the ultra-conservative Heritage Foundation.

Stuart M. Butler, who at the time was Heritage's Director of Domestic Policy Strategies, wrote the second chapter of a position paper with the title "A National Health System for America." (Heritage has a PDF version of this document you can download from their website.) The document was over 100 pages long, and envisioned a "consumer-oriented, market-based, comprehensive American health system" that would become "the model for the entire industrialized world." It was a strictly conservative plan, as evidenced by the inclusion of the idea of replacing Medicare with a voucher system (the same thing Paul Ryan is now championing, in other words).

In his chapter "A Framework for Reform," Butler lists three elements which would be required to remold the American health care system into his conservative vision for the future. The very first of these, in full (chapters referenced are from the same document):

Element #1: Every resident of the U.S. must, by law, be enrolled in an adequate health care plan to cover major health care costs.

This requirement would imply a compact between the U.S. government and its citizens: in return for the government's accepting an obligation to devise a market-based system guaranteeing access to care and protecting all families from financial distress due to the cost of an illness, each individual must agree to obtain a minimum level of protection. This means that, while government would take on the obligation to find ways of guaranteeing care for those Americans unable to obtain protection in the market, perhaps because of chronic health problems or lack of income, Americans with sufficient means would no longer be able to be "free riders" on society by avoiding sensible health insurance expenditures and relying on others to pay for care in an emergency or in retirement.

Under this arrangement, all households would be required to protect themselves from major medical costs by purchasing health insurance or enrolling in a prepaid health plan. The degree of financial protection can be debated, but the principle of mandatory family protection is central to a universal health care system in America.

Help would be provided in two ways. First, the tax code would be amended, as Chapter 3 describes, to give tax relief to individual purchasers of health insurance or prepaid plans and to provide tax credits for out-of-pocket expenses. Second, government would aid those who, because of income or medical condition, find the cost of protection to be an unreasonable burden. Such aid could take the form of vouchers for purchasing insurance or state-managed systems as described in Chapter 5.

The requirement to obtain basic insurance would have to be enforced. The easiest way to monitor compliance might be for households to furnish proof of insurance when they file their tax returns. If a family were to cancel its insurance, the insurer would be required to notify the government. If the family did not enroll in another plan before the first insurance coverage lapsed and did not provide evidence of financial problems, a fine might be imposed.

In the mid-1990s, of course, the Democrats attempted health care reform. The most famous of these attempts was Hillary Clinton's, but many other Democrats also proposed plans of their own in Congress. By 1994, Butler (now listed as "Vice President and Director of Domestic Policy Studies" at Heritage) wrote a critique of the individual mandate included in one of these Democratic bills, although it's interesting to note that he doesn't seem to be against the concept itself, rather choosing to complain about the projected costs to families of the plan. Constitutional questions aren't even raised.

By 2003, congressional Democrats had failed in their health reform efforts (and Obama's election was still five years in the future), so it was safe once again for conservatives to back the individual mandate. At this point in time, Butler's title at Heritage was "Vice President of Domestic and Economic Policy Studies," and he was testifying before the Senate Special Committee on Aging. Here, however, he specifically points out at the beginning of his testimony that the views he is expressing are his own and not the official position of the Heritage Foundation. During his testimony, Butler gives even more detail on how he sees the individual mandate working:

The current social contract should be replaced with a more rational one. In a civilized and rich country like the United States, it is reasonable for society to accept an obligation to ensure that all residents have affordable access to at least basic health care -- much as we accept the same obligation to assure a reasonable level of housing, education and nutrition.

But as part of that contract, it is also reasonable to expect residents of the society who can do so to contribute an appropriate amount to their own health care. This translates into a requirement on individuals to enroll themselves and their dependents in at least a basic health plan -- one that at the minimum should protect the rest of society from large and unexpected medical costs incurred by the family. And as any social contract, there would also be an obligation on society. To the extent that the family cannot reasonably afford reasonable basic coverage, the rest of society, via government, should take responsibility for financing that minimum coverage.

The obligations on individuals does not have to be a "hard" mandate, in the sense that failure to obtain coverage would be illegal. It could be a "soft" mandate, meaning that failure to obtain coverage could result in the loss of tax benefits and other government entitlements. In addition, if federal tax benefits or other assistance accompanied the requirement, states and localities could receive the value of the assistance forgone by the person failing to obtain coverage, in order to compensate providers who deliver services to the uninsured family.

The individual mandate which was included in Obamacare is so close to what Stuart Butler of the Heritage Foundation initially suggested that we can honestly say there is no appreciable difference between the two. The only real difference is whether Republicans supported the idea or not. When it was branded as a conservative idea from a conservative think tank, then Republicans embraced the idea as requiring "personal responsibility" from all those deadbeats out there who were getting a free ride on the taxpayer's dime. These were the days when "reforming welfare" was a big deal, and Republicans tended to lump a lot of things under the dreaded "welfare" label, to give some rhetorical context.

But when Democrats agreed to the idea -- in the 1990s, and then later when Obamacare was being debated -- Republicans decried the idea and refused to support it (to put all their histrionics and hyperventilating over Obamacare's mandate in the mildest terms I can manage). That, it seems, is really the only thing which has changed over time. The idea itself hasn't changed in any appreciable way from what was proposed in 1989. Republicans' support of the idea, however, waxes and wanes depending on who proposes it.

Well, to be fair, I should say "those Republicans who are not named Mitt Romney," as Mitt is truly in a class by himself when it comes to supporting... and then not supporting... the idea of the individual mandate. But that's a subject for an entirely different blog post.

 

Chris Weigant blogs at:

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
Become a fan of Chris on The Huffington Post

 

Now that the president has pivoted to jobs and growth, will there be any more pivots away from them in the second term? Will the lure of the Grand Deficit Bargain return? And if it does, how much is Obama willing to give up to sign it? Millions did what he asked in the first campaign and voted their hopes, but how many were hoping for the Grand Bargain we really got?

Hope is great, but what the country needs in an Obama second term is not hope, but real change.

It's difficult to assign psychological motive when it comes to political tactics, but based upon the collective behavior of far-right conservative Republicans, we can only deduce that a considerable number of them are bullies and ought to be treated as such.

What other conclusion can we draw when they regularly attack children and ordinary citizens who aren't involved in the day-to-day political discourse? I'm not talking about low-level drones who lurk in blog comment sections and various other dark corners of the Internet -- disguised behind cowardly pseudonyms. I'm talking about the top-shelf players. Fox News hosts, AM radio talkers and various Internet commentators.

Naturally there are exceptions to every rule, but nearly every time there's a news story involving a child or group of children, the far-right erupts into a shameless frontal assault against the kids. In fact, there are almost too many examples to list here.

Trayvon Martin is the latest in a long roster of conservative targets. This week, various conservative media sources have made specious accusations about the character and motives of an unarmed kid who was shot dead. Arguably the easiest target in America is a dead black teenager: unable to posthumously defend himself and whose race makes him a lightning rod for all sorts of slack-jawed character assumptions, racial stereotypes, backhanded "unintentional" racism and white resentment.

So the far-right has naturally taken the path of least resistance here and is thumbing through Trayvon's tweets and photos -- and even his menswear -- to determine whether he had it coming.

Geraldo Rivera thought Trayvon's clothing might have invited the shooting. Rush Limbaugh and others have tried in earnest to connect Trayvon to the Black Panthers via, strangely enough, President Obama. Drudge posted sensationalistic headlines about Trayvon's past while illustrating the links with a "grills" photo of Trayvon which was obviously meant to feed anti-black "gangsta" stereotypes. Tucker Carlson's The Daily Caller released what are purported to be Trayvon's tweets. Glenn Beck's The Blaze posted an entire list of infractions Trayvon might have committed at his high school. The list includes homicide, sexual harassment and armed robbery.

The absurd notion that somehow Trayvon's unsubstantiated "record" might somehow justify George Zimmerman's actions are totally indicative of the kind of bullying and racial dog-whistles we've observed from these people on countless occasions. And, by the way, it's this kind of behavior that's dooming the far-right to the margins of reasonable debate while fracturing the Republican Party.

As I wrote earlier, this isn't the first time a child has been targeted by the right. There's a long history of far-right aggression against both children and adult "noncombatants."

Sandra Fluke, whose reputation was assassinated in the right-wing media, is an ordinary citizen who simply delivered some brief remarks to members of Congress. For her obvious crime the right-wing media, and most notably Rush Limbaugh, declared war on a woman who hadn't ever appeared on cable news or talk radio or even maintained a blog. Easy, then, for the far-right to draw blood by means of overwhelming the so-called enemy with the full force of right-wing radio and television. How can anyone new to the scene, irrespective of age, race or gender, expect to fight back against a trained and monied right-wing attack machine? Limbaugh and others know this, so, to them, it's an easily winnable fight.

In addition to his infamous rants against the late Dr. George Tiller, Bill O'Reilly and his brigade of stalking underlings have made a career out of lurking in parking lots awaiting everyone from school principals to low-level nobodies. Here are some of his noncombatant victims:

Homeless Veterans, 1/31/08: O'Reilly producer Jesse Watters confronts the group outside of Fox News headquarters as they try to deliver a petition to O'Reilly.

Helen Jones-Kelley, Director of the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services, 11/6/08: O'Reilly producer Jesse Watters follows Jones-Kelley -- after she refused to talk to him -- to a fire station, where a police chief intervenes to stop the harassment.

Jenna Kern, Member of the Unitarian Universalist Church, 8/21/08: O'Reilly producer Jesse Watters confronts Kern in her driveway outside of her home.

Rev. Michael Pfleger, Catholic Priest, 4/3/08: O'Reilly producer Porter Berry confronts Pfleger outside of his church.

Dr. George Garcia, Boulder High School Superintendent, 5/29/07: O'Reilly producer Jesse Watters confronts Garcia on a wooded road away from his school.

Bud Jenkins, Boulder High School Principal, 5/29/07: O'Reilly producer Jesse Watters confronts Jenkins in the parking lot of his school.

Dr. Helayne Jones, Boulder High School Board Member, 5/29/07: O'Reilly producer Jesse Watters confronts Jones inside of her garage as she tries to enter her home.

Pedro Irigonegaray, Attorney for Dr. George Tiller, 11/7/06: O'Reilly producer Jesse Watters confronts Irigonegaray outside of his law office.

Just recently, Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh mocked Malia Obama, imitating her voice with what can only be described as the most annoying sounds in the world -- ever.

Speaking of Beck, he once outed an Islamic private school in Northern Virginia when the school's sole newsworthy trespass was that an application to expand its campus was approved by the local zoning board. But Beck went on an extended googly-eyed, sarcasmo rant (lots of "maybe it's just me but... ") about the school being a de facto training camp for would-be terrorists, and even invoked September 11th imagery -- collapsed buildings and the like -- in the process. It's a grade school where large groups of children go for seven hours a day. Really smart. Outting a school for "terrorists" on the ultra-conservative Fox News Channel on a show that was viewed by loyal conspiracy wackaloons during a time when anti-terrorist fear-mongering and militant anti-Muslim hatred is at an all-time high. Worse, the school is full of children who then became potential targets. All because the school's zoning application was approved.

Rewind to 2009 during the health care reform debate when an 11-year-old girl asked President Obama a question during a town hall meeting about the "mean things" she observed on various protest signs outside. Michelle Malkin and other conservatives swooped into action, investigating and exposing the girl and her parents for being "Obamabots."

For whatever reason, this discussion always circles back to Malkin. The far-right blogger wasn't the first to stalk and attack children, but she certainly popularized it during the Bush era debate over expanding the SCHIP program. You might recall how Malkin famously stalked a 12-year-old accident survivor named Graeme Frost after he appeared in a commercial supporting SCHIP, the children's health insurance program.

The list goes on and on. World Net Daily attacked a high school play. Anti-choice activists targeted the child of a landlord who rents space to a women's clinic. Limbaugh, once again, attacked a 13-year-old boy and called him a "Nazi stormtrooper." The entire right-wing media Kraken was released on 11-year-old Marcelas Owens after he attended the Affordable Care Act signing ceremony. I won't even get into the jokes about Chelsea Clinton during the 1990s.

And they engage in these tactics without shame or apology.

You will not find this kind of bullying from high profile talkers with this degree of frequency anywhere else in the American political discourse. Why? In the absence of integrity, intelligence or empirical arguments, the last resort of a mindless posse is to target children and defenseless bystanders. It's because their policy positions and bumper sticker sloganeering is increasingly thin and indefensible, so they attack those who are unable to fight back. The alternative is to take on capable and experienced opponents who can potentially disprove and debunk their crapola ideas. But they're too cowardly for that.

Sadly, as the far-right becomes increasingly self-satirical and marginalized, this will get worse -- but only as long as it sells. The far-right knows its audience and the mob loves it. Think about that. Children are fair game and it's good for ratings. The sooner these unserious thugs and bullies are called out for their disgraceful tactics and banished from any and all debates of consequence, the sooner the rest of us can get on with thoughtful and reasonably passionate arguments about the future of the nation.

Subscribe to the uncensored and totally raw Bob & Chez Show After Party podcast.
Click here to listen to the Bubble Genius Bob & Chez Show podcast, with Bob Cesca and Chez Pazienza.
Bob Cesca's Awesome Blog! Go!

If the individual mandate cost $25 a month, would the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act be debated in the U.S. Supreme Court this week? Perhaps not.

The individual mandate is a distraction from the real issue that the health care reform law didn't fix: health care is too expensive and unaffordable.

See what Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius said on ABC News last January when she was asked what people should do when their health insurance premiums increase too much.

She replied, "They should contact the governor of their state and state legislature demanding that those laws be changed."

The health care reform law didn't really make health care affordable. It papered over the real cost with subsidies.

Why isn't health care affordable? Health care has caught the Wall Street fever and become just like the banks. See how health care and the banks operate the same way, documented in The Battle Over Health Care: What Obama's Reform Means for America's Future.

Just like the banks, health care has its own price bubbles, toxic assets, too-big-to-fail syndrome, conflicts of interest, the ratings game, and the tendency to privatize gains and socialize losses.

The result? Even with the reform law and subsidies, the cost will still be high for many Americans.

A single 60-year old woman earning $48,000 won't be eligible for subsidies and will pay more than $10,000 a year for health insurance, in addition to out-of-pocket expenses.

A family of four with a 40-year old head of household earning $48,000 will pay more than $3,000 a year even with subsidies.

Health care reform merely transferred the risk of bankruptcy of individuals to the risk of bankruptcy of the federal government. And there is nothing in the health care reform law to stop the bleeding.

This is what Americans should be protesting about -- call it Occupy Wall Street Health Care.

Rosemary Gibson led national quality and safety initiatives at the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation in Princeton, NJ for 16 years. She is the author of The Wall of Silence and The Treatment Trap: How the Overuse of Medical Care is Wrecking Your Health and What You Can Do To Prevent It.

Greg Holyk, ABC News
Mitt Romney trails Barack Obama by 19 points in basic popularity as the 2012 presidential contest inches closer to the main event, with a record 50 percent of Americans in the latest ABC News/Washington Post poll now rating Romney unfavorably overall.Thirty-four percent hold a favorable opinion of Romney, the lowest for any leading presidential candidate in ABC/Post polls in primary seasons since 1984. His unfavorable score is higher than Obama ever has received; it’s been exceeded by just one other Republican candidate this year, Newt Gingrich, and by only one top candidate in 28...

The Truth-o-Meter says: Half-True | Santorum accuses Romney of favoring high gas prices in Massachusetts

How is Mitt Romney similar to Barack Obama? He likes high gas prices, according to rival Rick Santorum. Campaigning in Wisconsin ahead of the state primary, Santorum spoke to a crowd in Racine on March 25, 2012. In this video clip, he skewers Romney’s past statements on gasoline prices and what to do about them. "Who said, when he was governor of Massachusetts, we are going to have to live with high gas prices, it's a good thing because it will reduce consumption, we don't want to produce any more gasoline? That ...

>> More

BURBANK, Calif. -- Whatever happened to Ron Paul?

Jonah Goldberg, National Review
White Hispanic." That's how the New York Times, Reuters, and other media outlets have opted to describe George Zimmerman, a man who would simply be Hispanic if he hadn't shot and killed 17-year-old Trayvon Martin. The term, rarely if ever used before this tragedy, is necessary in telling the Martin story in a more comfortable way.What's the comfortable way? It's the way the blame for Martin's death belongs squarely at the feet of "the system." And "the system" is a white thing, don't you know?For instance, in a...

Clarence Page, Chicago Tribune
It is customary in the wake of a major racial eruption to say that we Americans need to have a national conversation on race. Yet the fury surrounding the death of Florida teenager Trayvon Martin shows why it is so hard for us to hold that conversation.The shooting of the unarmed 17-year-old has sparked nationwide protests and reignited chatter all the way to the White House about racial profiling, gun laws, hate-crime laws and even the risks of wearing a hoodie, especially if you're a young, black male outside after dark.

Dick Morris, The Hill
Outside the Beltway, polling indicates a massacre of Senate Democrats is in the offing in the 2012 elections. Currently, Rasmussen's polls have Republicans leading Democrats for eight Senate seats now held by Democrats. Nelson is 6 points behind Mack in Florida, McCaskill is 10 behind Steelman in Missouri, Tester is 3 behind Rehberg in Montana, Brown is 4 behind Mandel in Ohio. And, for open seats, Allen is 3 up on Kaine in Virginia, Bruning is 20 ahead of Kerry in Nebraska, Thompson is 15 ahead in Wisconsin, and either Berg or Sand will undoubtedly win in North Dakota. Additionally, the...

Erin McPike, RCP
National Democrats and Mitt Romney may have something in common this week: Both are apparently trying to distract the intense media focus on the three-day Supreme Court hearing on the constitutionality of the national health care reform law.Romney, considered vulnerable on health care reform, has sought to make an issue out of President Obama's professed need for "space" from Russian leaders to deal with missile defense negotiations. (Though Romney has gotten support in his efforts from the Republican National Committee, House Speaker John Boehner issued a warning to the GOP...