How to break the two-party hold on American politics

The problem with the "no Kings" movement is that they have no idea what they are talking about, which I affirm as someone who has lived in monarchies (UK, Canada, and Belgium). 

The real issue is the duopoly, which is realy only one party pretending to be different. The duopoly is the tool of the oligarchy, which is disgustingly obvious if one wants to admit it.

The US needs new players and parties that actually represent the people.

What if America had More Political Parties? - TLDR News

There are many advantages to ending the duopoly, but I am not sure I would go with the parties and the leaders proposed by this. While I talk about the Westminster system, coalition governments are much better than the gridlock which is endemic to the US system.

What If America Had More Than Two Parties?

One of the main reform which needs to happen before the US can truly see "democracy" (or a republic). I like to quote Julius Nyerere: "The United States is also a one-party state, but with typical American extravagance, they have two of them." On the other hand, there needs to be different parties to avoid the consolidation of power caused by the duopoly.

And the there really isn't a difference between a democracy and a republic:

Well, other than the founders had an unrealistic idea that the Roman republic was somehow stable and democracy was the equivalent of nihilism.

I really love Russell Brand and agree with him on a lot of things ("fings").

 

The problem with democracy in the US is that it isn't. The country that spent most of the 20th Century preaching about free and fair elections on a secret ballot has never done that at home. The Democratic party might want to live up to its name.

“I respect kindness in human beings first of all, and kindness to animals. I don't respect the law; I have a total irreverence for anything connected with society except that which makes the roads safer, the beer stronger, the food cheaper and the old men and old women warmer in the winter and happier in the summer.”― Brendan Behan

Thoughts on the British Election

Britain has a hung parliament, which means that neither party really has enough members to make a majority.  The Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) is now being seen as a coalition ally for the Tories. That goes to my Thoughts on US Third Parties since the DUP is a relic of the troubles and known to people like me who spent time in Ulster, but pretty much ignored.

Unless we are talking about Iris Robinson, who is sort of the Ulster version of Michele Bachmann, but much more amusing.  Iris went down with something called Irisgate. [1] Michele Bachmann is only an embarrassment for people who come from Minnesota (Iris did her part to embarrass Ulster Unionists,  but did it in a way that was funny [2]).

So, Most people know little about the DUP besides it being a political party founded by Ian Paisley which Iris Robinson once belonged to: if even that much. Of course, that pretty much sums up the DUP for those who don't know anything about it.

On the other hand, this is a party which pretty much would be like the religious/reality challenged right wing of the US Republican Party: Except they had nothing to do with Irish Republicans since they were Unionists (people who know Irish politics will get that comment).

Well, other than trying to kill the Irish Republicans (which clarifies the previous comment a bit).

Where was I? Oh, yeah, an otherwise insignificant party is playing a big role since there isn't a real majority in parliament, which also gets into how a parliamentary system works. 

That is the party with a majority runs the show. The leader of the majority party runs the government. If the party can't run the government it is dissolved, which happens if they can't pass a budget bill. 

Taking that description it is easy to see why the US isn't a parliamentary democracy since the current "leader" not only lost the election, but lost it with 46.4% of the popular vote (his opponent did slightly better with 48.5%, but still not a majority).  The opposition is known to not pass budget bills, leading to the government actually shutting down.

The US would go through governments faster than the Italians or Belgians, making both countries seem paragons of stability, if it were a parliamentary democracy.

Seriously, the bottom line of watching the UK election is that the US has a defacto parliamentary system since the legislature has the power of the purse.  Any small party (or faction) is better off being separate since the large "coalition" parties are meaningless. 

Another thing I have to say is that people are sick of politics as usual.  The Brexit vote, US, French, and UK elections have demonstrated that "non-traditional" politicians can do well.  Bernie did a hell of a lot better than I thought he would have.  And Trump showed that a clever politician can game the system (he spent far less than Clinton and got free publicity by being outrageous).

Also, people need to understand they are not as powerless as they are led to believe. In the US, they can vote their consciences in legislative elections to make more of a statement than they can in the presidential election.  The real power is in the legislature (which makes the electoral college superfluous).

And the establishment parties need to understand that they are near the end of life if they don't undergo drastic changes.

[1] Irisgate probably made Iris Robinson better known than her husband, Peter, which compounded the embarrassment since Peter Robinson was DUP leader at the time.
[2] Alternate version of this here.

Thoughts on US Third Parties.

This comes from watching the French election, which is a similar legislative-executive system to the US.  I will also admit to voting Green from a disgust with the US duopoly (i.e., the Democrats and Republicans) and its stranglehold on the system.
In a way Dan Savage is correct, the third parties should be running candidates lower down the ticket, in particular for the legislature. That is because a third party would be more effective in pushing its agenda there, or at least in blocking other parties from pushing theirs. It is more effective to be a spoiler/fixer in the legislature than in an election.  Third parties will become a force to be reckoned with once they demonstrate they have power, but they need to be the force to do what the obstructionists in congress have been doing. Or to thwart the obstruction.
One of the Clintonista/Democrat talking points was that the party is a coalition of various political views, but the duopoly parties are failed coalitions.  In some ways, they have become titular left-right parties, although I would argue any difference is more in appearance and relation to hot button issues (e.g. abortion and gun control [1]).  The past election showed how detrimental relying upon hot button issues is to real issues (e.g., the environment).
Third parties are good for keeping politics real. Case in point are the presidential debates which are no longer run by the League of Women Voters.  The president of the LWV, Nancy M. Neuman, denounced this action when the LWV ceased having any real control over the debates:

"It has become clear to us that the candidates' organizations aim to add debates to their list of campaign-trail charades devoid of substance, spontaneity and honest answers to tough questions," Neuman said. "The League has no intention of becoming an accessory to the hoodwinking of the American public."
Neuman said that the campaigns presented the League with their debate agreement on
September 28, two weeks before the scheduled debate. The campaigns' agreement was negotiated "behind closed doors" and vas presented to the League as "a done deal," she said, its 16 pages of conditions not subject to negotiation.
Most objectionable to the League, Neuman said, were conditions in the agreement that gave the campaigns unprecedented control over the proceedings. Neuman called "outrageous" the campaigns' demands that they control the selection of questioners, the composition of the audience, hall access for the press and other issues.
"The campaigns' agreement is a closed-door masterpiece," Neuman said. "Never in the history of the League of Women Voters have two candidates' organizations come to us with such stringent, unyielding and self-serving demands."
Neuman said she and the League regretted that the American people have had no real opportunities to judge the presidential nominees outside of campaign-controlled environments.

lwv.org/press-releases/league-refuses-help-perpetrate-fraud
I would that change is drastically needed in US politics, particularly its system of elections, but that will not come as long as the duopoly holds power.
I have pointed out that the Electoral College needs to be abolished, yet the fact that Clinton's "loss" was due to her failing to secure enough votes in the Electoral College is again overlooked and substituted for blame on everything except the existence of that body (as was the case in 1990).  Both times the "losers" won the popular vote.
Of course, abolition of the Electoral College is only one thing in what is probably a long wish list of electoral reforms needed in the US:

open debates run by an impartial body like the League of Women Voters, shorter election cycles, open primaries, ranked choice voting, return of the fairness doctrine and equal time rule (Trump used the lack of it to get shitloads of free publicity), campaign finance reform--if not publicly funded campaigns, easier access to the ballot for parties, reform or abolish the electoral college, end gerrymandering, handcounted paper ballots or receipts, and I am sure that is only the beginning.

While one can dream that there will be internal change, it doesn't seem likely since the parties still seem entrenched in the same behaviours which have led to the US political system being the disaster it is.
OK, we also need to add in media consolidation here since it is one way the "state" can get away with  form of censorship, but only allowing one message to get out.  Also controlling any opposing voices.
Any real change has to come through the system since violence will backfire and result in the wrong type of change.  Thus any dissenting parties best chance has to be to try and thwart the duopoly and use the duopoly's power against it.
Change has to come, but it must come by using the system to gain power and then force change.
[1] This is not to say gun control is not important (or abortion), but these issues have been used to get people to vote against their interests.  Neither is one of left and right, but of public welfare and safety.

Roe V. Wade, Marking the 38th Anniversary

The states are not free, under the guise of protecting maternal health or potential life, to intimidate women into continuing pregnancies.
~Justice Harry A. Blackmun, Roe v. Wade, 22 January 1973

Seventy-seven percent of anti-abortion leaders are men. 100% of them will never be pregnant. ~Planned Parenthood advertisement

Abolition of a woman's right to abortion, when and if she wants it, amounts to compulsory maternity: a form of rape by the State.
~Edward Abbey

Saturday, January 22, 2011 was the 38th anniversary of the Supreme Court decision which confirmed the right of women to privacy, including making the choice regarding abortion and pregnancy.

The battle ground for the next round of culture wars is set, including abortion, as conservatives prepare to invade that privacy, forcibly inserting themselves into the decision making process between women and their health care providers, family and spiritual advisers.

Praise the Lord and Pass the Ammunition?

"people should fight against tyranny for their God-given rights."
Congresswoman Michele Bachmann, CPAC

(Conservative Political Action Convention)
The title of this post is from a piece of music dating back to the attack on Pearl Harbor and our last formal declaration of war. The music is from a song by Frank Loesser back in 1942, based on a perhaps apocryphal saying by chaplain Howell Forgy, on the U.S.S. New Orleans during the attack. The song describes a 'sky pilot', a fond slang term for clergy, putting down his Bible and manning a gun turret. I selected this title because it was a popular combination of religion and politics, and history.

This post is not about any one of those, exactly, but like the title, it intertwines religion, politics and government, and history together. Sometime back my most-of-the-time friend and frequent critic, KR, sadly banned from Penigma for failing to follow our rules (including not trying to post while banned) accused me of being an atheist, for not stipulating to the concept that our rights as citizens derive from God, a statement I have heard often from the more extremely religious factions on the political right.

Talk About Big Brother

Frequently conservatives in the political "blog-o-sphere" caterwaul "government cannot be trusted".

In a recent post, my friend Mitch Berg suggests the government "should not be trusted with a cardboard knife." Government supplies police, fire, roads, military, coastal protection, schools, food, medical service and drug oversight, and an enormous host of other absolutely necessary services. These are services Mr. Berg and other Americans gratefully rely on daily.

The comment implies people employed within government are somehow not “ordinary Americans”, and the average, ordinary, every day “Joe”, who may be a sailor or a cop, is somehow vastly different; they should not be trusted with a cardboard knife. The forget or ignore our government is “of the people”, including its rank and file workers.

States and municipalities prove why governing isn't "simple", or driven by "common sense", as conservatives envision it. Laws drafted by those with single-issue agendas are dangerous laws. Perhaps such laws are simply falling to "The Law of Unintended Consequences", but that hardly makes it acceptable. Contempt for governance is an inadequate substitute for good governance. It is self-evident, crafting a law which doesn’t dramatically and negatively impact society is a requirement to be a "good" law. Knowing how to craft laws which avoid such outcomes should be a requirement for anyone seeking office.

It is precisely this contempt, this visceral disregard for the idea of a government shaped by understanding and appreciation of the potential negative impact (especially on the minority), that we get these horrible outcomes. Contempt drives the ideas making law is “easy”, and that those who think otherwise are naïve’. Contempt brings about these poor laws, rather than simple unintended consequence. Thinking government is always wrong has had serious and profoundly negative consequences on our society. Teaching contempt for government ultimately harms our ability to govern rationally, as knee-jerk reactions to any situation impedes reasoned consideration of perfectly appropriate, functional laws and services.

An example of this is Texas. In Texas, the death penalty is more frequently used than in any other state, by a factor of 4 times more often than the next closest state, Virginia. There have been 450 executions in Texas since 1976, 105 in Virginia. Now, Texas IS three times larger than Virginia (almost), so that explains some of it, but Texas' attitude and conduct of Capital cases is distinct and unique. Between those two states, they have put to death almost half of all of those executed since Capital Punishment was reinstated, with Texas making up the lion’s share of executions. In its desire to exact vengeance rather than justice, Texas stands virtually alone in using Capital Punishment contrasted with ‘average America’ as represented by the other 48 states. The interest in the state in fairness or due process seems a distant second to other interests, and as the following illustrates. It can be argued that innocence is not as desirable as conviction. Whether the convicted is the guilty party is a distant and secondary consideration.

Texas has a thirty day limit on the submission of exculpatory evidence after the date of conviction. Any evidence which shows the defendant was innocent, such as finding photos, fingerprints, DNA evidence or other proof of the innocence of the convicted, if it is found 31 days after the announcement of the verdict, it just doesn't matter, the defendant stays on death row.

I understand that Districts Attorney don’t want to release a convicted person. I understand they want to be darned sure the evidence they’ve convicted someone wrongly is factually correct, but that’s not the same thing.

This law bars the submission of any evidence, strong or weak, proper or questionable. It effectively prevents the kind of action taken in Illinois, it prevents freeing someone wrongly convicted, by preventing any evidence from being considered. The Supreme Court has upheld the right of Texas to implement this law. Appeals on evidentiary grounds, the most meaningful kind of appeals, are prevented. The zeal of the ‘too liberal court’ crowd to unlimited appeals, has, without question, sometimes gone too far. The contempt for appellants, the length of time it takes to execute someone, and the cost has in reaction caused the enactment of law which will lead to the death of innocent people. Think not? Read below about Illinois. As you consider, read these articles on the subject:

Cornell Law Review Editor's Article:

Execution of the innocent?

Clearly, from the second article, there is a question about whether the state may have executed innocent people. There are even greater questions about whether the Governor is willing to admit it, or would prefer to cover it up.

In Texas, in Capital cases, public defenders representing the VAST majority of capital case defendants get a minimal fee, around $250, to cover all their legal and research expenses. That’s not much, and to defend someone's life it is not adequate. In contrast, the state often spends hundreds of thousands of dollars on researching, taking depositions, bringing in forensics experts, and other activities to prosecute the accused. This inequity in the state of Texas is not describable as the “benevolent application of law.”

As a further example of the zeal for “justice” in Texas, I offer one more point.

A few years ago, a convict was released on a rape charge after DNA evidence during an appeal proved the convict was not the person who left semen on the victim. That DNA belonged to another person, a prior sex offender; that other person was ultimately charged.

There were two injustices in this instance. One, an innocent man was jailed; the other, more important in some respects, the guilty man was free. He stood little risk of ever being charged without the work and diligence of the defense counsel during the appeal.

What was the reaction of the District Attorney in this case? Did he apologize? Did he seek to confirm whether OTHER DNA test kits might show he should be looking for someone else?

No! He ordered the destruction of ALL rape test kits, to prevent any other appeal from being successful. He ordered the destruction of any evidence which might have proven the innocence of someone, and that the accused was still free. He ordered the destruction of any evidence that would affect his conviction rate.

His interest was not justice. He cared about preserving his reputation as DA, and the conviction record of his office. This was not swift justice, this was not the “common sense” application of the wisdom of “plain folk”.

This was a calculated intervention by the state, preventing innocent people from rightfully proving their innocence. Given the reliance by law enforcement on DNA, there was little validity to the DA’s claim at the time that the destroyed DNA evidence was “questionable.”

While one could look at this case as proof that government should not be trusted, I would argue instead that it is more proof that those who distrust the government and the legal process are untrustworthy. This DA did not trust the appeal process. He refused to allow the system to work properly, a system which had been designed to preserve such evidence both for the benefit of the state AND the defendant.

Now, ultimately the Governor of Texas in these capital cases could stay the execution, either commuting the sentence or pardoning the defendant. It's certainly not an assured outcome, and as a remedy to abuses, it is at best cold comfort. Anecdote and example do not support the premise of a lenient Governor intervening.

Consider the callousness of George Bush when asked by Larry King what Karla Faye Tucker's last words were, to then Governor Bush prior to her execution in Texas. Bush's vulgar and disgusting reply was to feign he was crying, rubbing his eyes with a smirk on his face as he sniggered, "Please don't kill me."

This is a man who claims to be a born again Christian. He LAUGHED at holding this woman’s fate in his hands. He mocked her death.

I make no excuse for Ms. Tucker. She was convicted of participating in the double murder with an axe of two innocent people. Fifteen years later she claimed she was also born again, that she had truly repented her sins and crimes. I do not believe such repentance is reason to halt an execution, but I’m not someone who claims to take instruction directly from God, nor embraces repentance in the same light as born-again Christians like Bush claim.

Finding humor in the execution of a person is disgusting, whatever your religion or lack of it. It belies an attitude of sneering, unrelenting contempt towards human beings. Consequently, there is NO assurance a Governor with that contempt and callousness will be impartial and fair when dealing with defendants.

In Texas once 31 days go by, there is no right of appeal, zero, under state law, and too little likelihood of such a conviction being commuted, even in the face of demonstrably provable cases of error. It's absurd.

The issue with Texas is simply what is done with the situations where the court erred? In many states there seems to be a similar contempt for due process and appeals, and toward the defendants. In what is a cruel irony, these states are also those which employ the death penalty more than most. It is primarily in southern states where 955 of the 1196 executions since 1976 have taken place. Do we support justice which is so dramtically different from one region to another in this country? Can we even call that justice?

In contrast, Illinois is different. In Illinois, after research by University of Chicago grad students found that 13 of 25 death-row convicts were NOT the perpetrators, the Republican Governor commuted EVERY death sentence and forbade any further use of the death penalty until such time as a more accurate convictions could be assured. This prohibition has not been lifted; it was instituted in 2003. An aside, this Governor was later accused and convicted of corruption, and sent to prison. In what would have been real irony, had he been contemptuous of the convicted, he would then have been contemptuous of himself, an irony not lost on me when examining Mr. Bush's sneering mockery.


The ultimate point here is, when considering the experience of Illinois, clearly these cases are not simple. Rights of appeal ARE relevant, and sometimes complex. None of us care to see a guilty man or woman set free. We find appeals by incompetent counsel difficult to stomach. However, if in our rush to "justice" we deny people's basic rights, our interest in 'simple' government becomes an anathema. It becomes nothing less than a gross violation of what we believe is intrinsically American. We believe as Americans in protecting the rights of the individuals from abuse by the state. Ironically, it is those small-government talking heads which bluster about believing exactly this, but which are ready and willing to enact the kind of travesty which characterizes the Texas Capital case penal system.

Equally compelling is the fundamental hypocrisy of it all. This deep and abiding hypocrisy occurs when those who advocate for a smaller government are the very same people who enact laws like the limits on counsel and appeal, precisely because of their contempt for government. Because of that contempt, they enact far more onerous laws than anything they complain about.

Whether those laws are onerous because of ignorance or unintended consequence is hardly material, because when confronted, they don’t look to change until the press or public become so indignant change is demanded. In short, they DESIRE such laws – and whether they desire such laws because they despise good governance, or because they reflexively write off someone accused of a crime, or both, I leave to you, the reader, to decide.

Either way, it seems clear that writing law in such a state of mind leads to the worst things in government, not the best. It is important we teach our kids about the proper use and limits of government, but also that government CAN be used for the greater good. We need to teach our children it is often quite capable and that when it is not, we can and should carefully change it.

The government isn’t some monolithic beast. It is made up of ordinary people. It is made up of you and me. So long as we hold our legislators to certain standards, such as being respectful of civic duties, grounded in how to govern well, then we will not so often fear them. We must embrace and teach that good and proper government includes respecting the rights of the unpopular. That many, in fact most laws are crafted carefully, not stupidily, out of a desire to protect EXACTLY those rights – the rights of the individual – rather than as some would claim, to usurp them.

To be continued…

Tort Reform vs. Defensive Medicine:

Dr. Kirsch - Michael - has been kind enough to offer us three articles on tort reform; what follows is the first. Welcome to our new commenter and now, guest author, Dr. Michael Kirsch of MD Whistleblower blog.

In my 20 years of medical practice, no issue provokes more physician angst than the unfair medical malpractice situation we physicians endure. It is the wound that will not heal. Physicians pursue one primary strategy to protect ourselves at the expense of our patients and society; we practice defensive medicine. Defensive medicine is omnipresent and burns up billions of health care dollars that we need so desperately.

Defensive medicine, I strongly believe, is practiced by nearly every physician in the country. If you suspect that this is hyperbole, ask your own doctor, although you may find him defensive about the subject. It’s not actual lawsuits that are suffocating doctors; it’s the fear of of being sued. The aura of litigation hovers in your doctor’s office during your office visits. It's like carbon monoxide. You can't see it or smell it. But, it is real and it is potent.

Attorneys and others reject our defensive posture. They argue that we should simply perform tests and treatments that are medically necessary. Good medicine, they claim, will protect us. Their truth, however, will not set us free. A physician who has a dagger raised above his head cannot ignore this threat when advising patients. ‘Good medicine’ won’t stop a case from being filed against an innocent doctor. A system that can ensnare an innocent physician for months or years is patently defective. We practice defensively as a filter to keep us out of the medical arena in the first place. If we are ultimately released after discovery and depositions, from a case that should never have involved us, we don't agree that our belated dismissal is evidence that the system is working.

Casey Fiano at American Issues Project blames avaricious trial lawyers for forcing physicians to become diagnostic testing machines. I don’t. While I agree that many trial lawyers have lost sight of the noble mission of their profession, they are operating within a corrupt, but legal system. We need new rules. If football games had no rules or referees, then every game would become a melee. Would this be the players’ fault?

Overlawyered points out that many unnecessary hospitalizations result from physicians who want to minimize their legal risk. Do patients want this? Ironically, a hospital, a big building stuffed with germs, should be the last place that any patient wants to spend a weekend. Of course, once in the hospital, defensive medicine goes ‘viral’, as consultants carve you up according to their organ of interest.

WeStandFirm points out that none of the players supports defensive medicine. The ordering physicians don't like it. The radiologists reading these unnecessary scans don't like. Insurance companies don't like it. Patients don't like it. Yet, we physicians practice it every day.

Happy Hospitalist summarizes the situation with simple elegance. Rarely will a patient get only what they need to make the diagnosis. They get far more than is necessary. You can call it good medicine. I call it fear.

I remember our athletic coaches who always emphasized how important defense was. Defense wins ballgames is still a classic sports maxim. This strategy, however, is wrong for doctors. Medicine should not be a contact sport. When defensive medicine triumphs, then patients lose. Does the public want a system that forces physicians to order tests and medical care that it doesn't need? Tort reform, while imperfect, can help heal the wound that harms patients, incinerates a fortune of money and abuses the medical profession. Aren't these 3 defects worthy of reform?

And the Winner of the Politifact.com 2009 Lie of the Year Contest IS....

“Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it.”
Adolf Hitler
German Chancellor, leader of the Nazi party,
1889-1945

"I believe that it is better to tell the truth than a lie. I believe it is better to be free than to be a slave. And I believe it is better to know than to be ignorant.”
Henry Louis Mencken
American humorous Journalist & Critic of American life
1880-1956

“People do not believe lies because they have to, but because they want to.”
Malcolm Muggeridge
British Journalist, Satarist, Spy,
1903 - 1990

Between December 9th and December 16th, one of my all-time favorite sites, Politifact.com, held open voting for their year in review "Lie of the Year" contest. This contest is a great look at both the issues that were important in 2009, and the people who were the faces of those issues. Those competing are so worthy, that picking just one is a terribly difficult decision. (I would have included Ben Bernanke, but oh well.....they didn't ask me.)

Politifact is one of the best fact checking sites on the web, a project of the St. Petersburg Times newspaper. A 2009 Pulitzer Prize winner, the purpose of the project, as stated on their web site, is "to help you find the truth in American Politics". Editors and reporters of the Times do the fact checking on "statements by members of Congress, the White House, lobbyists and interest groups" and then rate them on their truth-o-meter. Ratings on the Truth-O-Meter range from True through a spectrum of partially True all the way to False, and the ultimate bad rating and my personal favorite, because fact-checking American Politics just wouldn't be complete without it, for statements where a mere rating of false would be simply inadequate: "Pants on Fire". Politifact is adamantly non-partisan in their fact checking, so while readers may delight in seeing those who hold opposition figures accountable for their statements, readers should also be prepared to see statements made by figures they may endorse or support given equal scrutiny.

So, who are the candidates for the 2009 Lie of the Year award? (drum roll please!)

In no particular order

Joe Biden, for:
"When one person sneezes, it goes all the way through the aircraft."
April 30, 2009,
the Today Show.
Rated Pants on Fire.

Barack Obama, for:
"Preventive care saves money."
September 9, 2009,
speech to a joint session of Congress.
Rated False

Joe Wilson, for:
"You lie!"
September 9, 2009
speech by Obama to a joint session of Congress,
(re health care reform would not insure illegal immigrants)
Rated False

Nita Lowey, for:
"An amendment to the House health reform bill puts new restrictions on women's access to abortion coverage in the private health insurance market even when they would pay premiums with their own money."
November 7, 2009,
speech from the House floor
Rated False

Sarah Palin, for:
"Seniors and the disabled will have to stand in front of Obama's 'death panel' so his beaurocrats can decide, based on a subjective judgement of their level of productivity in society, whether they are worthy of health care."
August 7, 2009,
message posted on Facebook.
Rated Pants on Fire

Glenn Beck, for:
"John Holdren, director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, has proposed forcing abortions and putting sterilants in the drinking water to control population." July 22, 2009
Fox News cable television, Glenn Beck program
Rated Pants on Fire

Orly Taitz, for:
"A birth certificate shows Barack Obama was born in Kenya."
August 2, 2009
lawsuit attachment
Rated Pants on Fire

Michele Bachmann, for:
"Page 92 of the House health care reform bill says specifically that people can't purchase private health insurance after a date certain."
October 30, 2009,
Fox News cable television interview
Rated Pants on Fire

So hard to choose, it is so very hard to choose.......

And the winner is..........?

Unfortunately, Politifact did not provide a date for announcing the winner, only that the results will come soon. While readers wait for the announcement, they can browse the Politifact web site which is conveniently organized with Truth-O-Meter findings by persons, rulings, subjects, Pants on Fire rulings, and Health Care. There is a file devoted exclusively to Barack Obama, as well as an Obameter, Joe Biden has his own file as well. Glenn Beck and Michael Moore have their own files as well. TheObameter, worth a look for those who want to determine for themselves if the President gave himself a fair grade for his first year, is divided into headings for All promises not yet rated, All promises in the works, All promises stalled, Broken promises, Obama compromises, and for any topic not covered in those headings, By subject. Politifact is tracking 500 Obama promises, a prodigious undertaking. The site also has sections on people, and pundits.

Staff writer and researcher Angie Drobnic Holan is the Politifact reporter posting the story and presumably also the results to the Politifact web page. Her bio on Politifact indicates she has worked for the St. Petersburg Times since 2005, and holds a Masters degree from Columbia University School of Journalism. She has previously been a researcher at the Tampa Tribune and a business reporter for the Mobile, Alabama Press-Register.

I hope she posts an announcement soon; the suspense is brutal! Well, maybe it is not quite such suspense, for those who are the candidates for this distinction; I imagine they'd be happy to wait indefinitely. One last point: according to Politifact, as regards a difference of opinion covered in a previous article here on Penigma, relating to the Stupak Amendment, let me acknowledge that Politifact supports the position espoused by Thoughts of Eternity, and not the position I expressed. I like to admit it when I'm wrong. Well, I don't exactly LIKE it, but I try to do it.