Oh, Miss Connolly, how weak was your article today? Shall we count the ways?
Cite sources? Why whatever for?
I'm sure some of you have seen this article today.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/...
I would love to get a response from Ms. Connolly to the issues I have outlined below. Can anyone give me a hand? I attempted to post a comment, but the Washington Post cuts them off after a certain amount of characters. Here's my original letter:
Ms. Connolly,
I take issue with this article for the following reasons, and would hope to see some kind of substantial reply to the questions and points listed below:
In the high-stakes battle over health care, a growing cadre of liberal activists is aiming its sharpest firepower against Democratic senators who they accuse of being insufficiently committed to the cause.
1. Your blanket assertion that "liberal activists" are targeting Democrats for being "insufficiently committed to the cause" is woefully short on specific quotes or input from those coordinating these efforts, and falls short of establishing the overarching motive of ideological policing that you so flippantly assign. I imagine if you would have seen fit to include more voices from these groups, they gladly would have stated that their motive is simply to ensure that Congress offers a bill that doesn’t amount to a simple bailout for the same private insurance companies that have failed to control the rising costs of healthcare, and continued to deny coverage to sick Americans in the name of quarterly profits.
The rising tensions between Democratic legislators and constituencies that would typically be their natural allies underscore the high hurdles for Obama as he tries to hold together a diverse, fragile coalition. Activists say they are simply pressing for quick delivery of "true health reform," but the intraparty rift runs the risk of alienating centrist Democrats who will be needed to pass a bill.
2. Your suggestion that these groups have singled out senators "for the criticism more often reserved for opposition party members" implies that these groups are engaging in behavior that threatens the unity of "a diverse fragile coalition," and "runs the risk of alienating centrist Democrats who will be needed to pass a bill." Have you considered that the statements and actions of these senators have also harmed the unity of this same coalition? Perhaps they should take a page from the House Tri-Caucus Group, which consists of 120 members from the Congressional Black Caucus, the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus, and the Congressional Progressive Caucus, who recently unified to support a strong public option in any healthcare reform legislation. Finally, you neglect to mention the possibility of utilizing the reconciliation process to pass legislation with a simple majority, which would render the votes of these senators unnecessary. Your omission serves to reinforce the perverse notion that all legislation in the senate requires 60 votes to pass. The filibuster is nothing more than a parliamentary technicality that was never intended to empower an obstructionist minority. I suggest you explore the exponential increase of its use by the dwindling Republican party, and ask yourself if it serves any productive purpose.
One of his most stalwart supporters, for instance, says time is running out on efforts by the president and Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) to forge a bipartisan compromise on legislation affecting more than one-fifth of the economy.
"We are getting to the point if people aren't going to respond to the patience and openness of Senator Baucus, we should begin to make a different plan," said Andrew Stern, president of the 2 million-member SEIU.
3. Your placement of the quote you attribute to Andrew Stern, president of the SEIU, seems odd in regards to the issues he appears to address. In light of recent television appearances by Sen. Baucus’ Republican counterpart, Sen. Grassley, Mr. Stern’s statement is likely commenting upon the intransigence of Mr. Grassley and other Republicans who appear largely unwilling to negotiate a good-faith compromise on healthcare legislation, and have yet to offer a plausible alternative to Democratic initiatives. If this is the case, then Mr. Stern’s quote has no place in this article unless couched within its proper context. As written, it appears to offer criticism to the very parties that he is likely supporting.
Stern said his organization issued a release chastising Feinstein last week, because she should "put her foot on the gas, not the brake" on health reform.
"The gas pedal to go where?" Feinstein replied, explaining she has questions about how a broad expansion of health coverage will be paid for.
4. Senator Feinstein’s past votes in favor of TARP, war supplementals, and Medicare Part D greatly call into question her current and poorly-explained fiscal objections to this legislation. Her constituents and her own party deserve a proper explanation for her newfound concern with the budget deficit.
While recent polls show high initial support for a government option, the number declines if told the insurance industry could fold as a result. Change Congress and its sister group Progressive Change Campaign Committee are airing cable and Internet ads against lawmakers such as Landrieu and Nelson, who have not endorsed a robust public plan.
Green, in an interview, was hard-pressed to articulate a substantive argument for the public plan but said that it "has become a proxy for the question of Democrats who stand on principle and represent their constituents."
5. Your discussion of the public option is largely dismissive, and makes assumptions about its potential impact that are purely speculative in nature. You dismiss the widespread, bipartisan support for the public option measured in recent polling by stating that "the number declines if told the insurance industry could fold as a result." By how much does it decline? What poll are you citing? Furthermore, you state that Adam Green, interim chief executive of Change Congress, "was hard-pressed to articulate a substantive argument for the public plan" in an unspecified interview. Which interview are you referring to? What qualifications do you possess to determine the soundness of his argument for a public option? Your article does not appear as an editorial, so I find it hard to understand why you chose to insert an unsubstantiated statement of opinion within.
One Democratic strategist who is working full-time on health reform was apoplectic over what he called wasted time, energy and resources by the organizations.
The strategist, who asked for anonymity because he was criticizing colleagues, said: "These are friends of ours. I would much rather see a quiet call placed by [Obama chief of staff] Rahm Emanuel saying this isn't helpful. Instead, we try to decimate them?"
6. Your inclusion of anonymous sourcing in this story is unnecessary, and consists of nothing more than gossip, likely intended to influence the tone of your coverage. Your source’s statements lack substance and contribute nothing to the overall narrative. I suggest that your source find the courage to attach their name to further critical comments.
Like Specter, Wyden is sanguine about ads in his home state intended to pressure him to embrace a liberal bill.
"I get an election certificate from the people of Oregon," said Wyden, whose bipartisan health bill picked up its 14th co-sponsor last week. "As far as these ads are concerned, I pay them no attention."
7. Finally, you neglect to explore the possibility that Sen. Wyden’s constituents likely support the efforts of these grassroots groups. I find it telling that your article does not include a single mention of the outsized influence of healthcare lobbyists in crafting this legislation. You appear to direct the focus of your ire upon the very people that would be impacted by the passage of weak, or ineffective legislation. Your wholesale dismissal of their efforts to participate in this debate does your newspaper and your readers a disservice.
Adam Pettus USN