E. J. Dionne Jr. asks if there's accountability for the Rs' wrong-wrong-wrongness about the ACA? (Accountability? Ha!)

Plus update: At Mozilla, Prop 8 supporter is out



"From now on, will there be more healthy skepticism about conservative claims against the ACA? Given how many times the law's enemies have said the sky was falling when it wasn't, will there be tougher interrogation of their next round of apocalyptic predictions?"

-- E. J. Dionne Jr., in his Washington Post column today,
"The GOP must admit it was wrong on Obamacare"

by Ken

As I always say, you have to love Washington Post columnist E. J. Dionne Jr., and today we have a reminder why. Who else would have the devilish innocence to write a column called "The GOP must admit it was wrong on Obamacare"? E.J. knows as well as you or I that the chances of the GOP admitting it was wrong about anything are the storied slim to none.

But that's not the end of it. E.J. launches the column with this graf:

Is there any accountability in American politics for being completely wrong? Is there any cost to those who say things that turn out not to be true and then, when their fabrications or false predictions are exposed, calmly move on to concocting new claims as if they had never made the old ones?

I mean, could you bust a gut laughing?

Accountability in American politics for being completely wrong?

Snort! Hack! Gag! Guffaw!

Any cost to those who say things that turn out not to be true and then, when their fabrications or false predictions are exposed, calmly move on to concocting new claims as if they had never made the old ones?

Stop, you're killing me! Is there anyone who doesn't know that Republicans now spend every waking moment saying things that turn out not to be true and then, when their fabrications or false predictions are exposed, calmly moving on to concocting new claims as if they had never made the old ones? Why do you think the Rs took out a lifetime, inviolable License to Lie? Any R who's caught telling the truth about anything in public is summarily threatened with a primary.

But no, still with a straight face, E.J. announces that with Obamacare signups reaching the magic 7 million mark, this --

ought to be a moment of truth -- literally as well as figuratively. It ought to give everyone, particularly members of the news media, pause over how reckless the opponents of change have been in making instant judgments and outlandish charges.

Of course it ought to. And of course it won't. This isn't the way the New American Right works. Ever since the wingnuts took over and proclaimed their ambition to practice politics as the absolute scum of the earth, the concept of accountability for their delusions and lies went out the window.

When the health-care Web site went haywire last fall, conservatives were absolutely certain this technological failure meant that the entire reform effort was doomed. If you doubt this, try a Google search keyed to that period relating the word -- doomed" to the health-care law.

It should be said that the general public was much wiser. A CNN poll in November that Post blogger Greg Sargent highlighted at the time found a majority (54 percent to 45 percent) saying that the problems facing the law "will eventually be solved." Political moderates took this view by 55 percent to 43 percent, independents by 50 percent to 48 percent. Only Republicans -- by a whopping 72 percent to 27 percent -- and conservatives (by 66 percent to 33 percent) thought the law could never be fixed.

Their representatives in Washington, moderate conservatives as well as the tea party's loyalists, followed the base's lead. In mid-November, for example, Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio) told Fox News flatly that the law is "destined to fail," "fundamentally flawed" and "not ready for prime time." House Speaker John Boehner predicted dire outcomes before the Web site fiasco. He repeatedly insisted, as he did in July, that "even the Obama administration knows the ‘train wreck' will only get worse."

This attitude affected more neutral observers. Forbes magazine posted a piece on Nov. 22 under the headline: "What to do if and when Obamacare collapses." The op-ed modestly acknowledged that "it's too soon to write an epitaph for Obamacare," but then barged forward, since "its crises are piling up so fast that one has to begin looking ahead."

At this point, the etiquette of commentary typically requires a "to be sure" paragraph, as in: To be sure, the law could still face other problems, blah, blah, blah. But such paragraphs are timid and often insincere hedges. After all, every successful program, even well-established ones such as Medicare, Social Security and food stamps, confronts ongoing challenges.

So let's say it out loud: The ACA is doing exactly what its supporters said it would do. It is getting health insurance to millions who didn't have it before. (The Los Angeles Times pegged the number at 9.5 million at the beginning of the week.) And it's working especially well in places such as Kentucky, where state officials threw themselves fully and competently behind the cause of signing up the uninsured. Those who want to repeal the law will have to admit that they are willing to deprive these people, or some large percentage of them, of insurance.

[Lots of links onsite.]

Now I believe that E.J., being the kindest and gentlest of souls would be sincerely thrilled if any number of Rs took him up on his suggestion that they come clean, once and for all, at least on this one subject. He would be the first one applauding their honesty and courage. But it's pretty clear that he isn't holding his breath.

Too many conservatives would prefer not to say upfront what they really believe: They don't want the federal government to spend the significant sums of money needed to get everyone covered. Admitting this can sound cruel, so they insist that their objections are to the ACA's alleged unworkability, or to "a Washington takeover of the health system" (which makes you wonder what they think of Medicare, a far more centralized program). Or they peddle isolated horror stories that the fact-checkers usually discover are untrue or misleading.

Thus the moment of truth, about the facts and about our purposes.

"From now on," E.J. asks, "will there be more healthy skepticism about conservative claims against the ACA?"

Given how many times the law's enemies have said the sky was falling when it wasn't, will there be tougher interrogation of their next round of apocalyptic predictions? Will their so-called alternatives be analyzed closely to see how many now-insured people would actually lose coverage under the "replacement" plans?

"Perhaps more importantly," he asks, "will we finally be honest about the real argument here:"

Do we or do we not want to put in the effort and money it takes to guarantee all Americans health insurance? If we do -- and we should -- let's get on with doing it the best way we can.

Will we finally be honest about the real argument here? Oh, E.J., you funny, funny man!

Okay, I'll play it straight. Will we finally be honest about the real argument here? Uh, no, I don't think so. That's not in the cards.


UPDATE FROM MOZILLA: EICH IS OUT

On Sunday I wrote ("A Prop 8 supporter as the new guy in charge of Firefox -- is that OK?") about the call to action by Credo Action's political director, Becky Bond, against the naming of Prop 8 supporter Brendan Eich as its new CEO. A few hours ago sent out an e-mail update that starts out:

Mozilla stands up for equality

Today, Mozilla’s Board of Directors and CEO Brendan Eich announced that Eich has decided to step down from the role of chief executive officer, effective immediately. The decision to step down comes after a week of intense backlash against Mozilla over Eich’s past support for efforts to deny equal marriage rights to gays and lesbians.

This is an important moment for the Mozilla community and a critical development in our ongoing fight for equality and the open web. As someone who signed the petition to Mozilla, you made a difference in this fight.

From Mozilla’s official statement:

Brendan Eich has chosen to step down from his role as CEO. He’s made this decision for Mozilla and our community. Mozilla believes both in equality and freedom of speech. Equality is necessary for meaningful speech. And you need free speech to fight for equality. Figuring out how to stand for both at the same time can be hard.

Later on Becky makes this significant point:

It’s important to remember that Mozilla is not a company, it’s a movement supported by tens of thousands of volunteers around the world. Mozilla is a non-profit organization fighting to keep the web open and free for all of us. They put people above profit, and fight for user choice and privacy. Their mission is vitally important to every grassroots movement, including the work that we do here at CREDO.

You can read Mozilla's full statement here.

#