Democratic health care strategists are calling foul today on GOP officials John Boehner, Thaddeus McCotter, Johnny Isakson, and Chuck Grassley, claiming the Republican Party leaders are guilty of partisan obstructionism of the worst kind – demagoging the same end-of-life provisions, the now-famous “death panels,” they supported in the 2003 Medicare prescription drug bill.

“So either Republicans were for death panels in 2003 before turning against them now–or they’re lying about end-of-life counseling in order to frighten the bejeezus out of their fellow citizens and defeat health reform by any means necessary,” wrote TIME’s Amy Sullivan.

Not quite.

The four Republicans did, as Sullivan reported, vote for the 2003 bill, but nowhere in the bill did it call for the same broad and wholly unnecessary end-of-life counseling practices as President Barack Obama’s proposal.

Republican operatives argue the comparison between the two bills is an unfair one, noting, specifically, that Republican-backed provisions in the 2003 bill called for end-of-life counseling only in cases where individuals were already on hospice care—that is, terminally ill and close to death—whereas the 2009 bill calls for end-of-life counseling for all 44 million seniors on Medicare every five years.

“Anyone who understands this issue would find this comparison idiotic,” said Boehner spokesman Michael Steel. “Hospice care is, by definition, for people who are already close to death. The Democrats’ new government takeover of health care legislation would offer this counseling to every senior on Medicare.”

The 2003 bill, Steel explains, is not nearly as prescriptive as the proposed legislation of 2009, which calls for, among other things, the explanation of living wills, durable power of attorney, orders of life-sustaining treatment, health care proxies and end-of-life services by medical practitioners.

The 2003 legislation backed by Boehner, McCotter, Isakson, and Grassley was specific as it related to end-of-life consultation for those already in hospice care or those who were terminally ill – not for the 44 million seniors already enrolled in Medicare.

Read More →

A Roll Call story by John Stanton just posted that references our conversation here regarding the importance of Jeff Sessions being Judiciary Committee Republican Ranking Member instead of Chuck Grassley or Orrin Hatch. The most significant paragraphs are below:

The conservative blog redstate.com and other activists and media outlets already have started pushing back against Grassley. They are organizing call-ins to Minority Leader Mitch McConnell’s (R-Ky.) office, urging him to block his ascension on the panel. Redstate.com urges readers to register their opposition to the Grassley plan, arguing that “to have Orrin Hatch or Chuck Grassley at the helm would be an unmitigated disaster. Each are cut from the same cloth — that of the old guard Republicans in the Senate who have given us the train wreck that the Party has become.”

A GOP leadership aide, however, said there is little that McConnell can do at this point, and the Minority Leader is almost certain to avoid choosing sides in the brewing dispute. But the source said that if Grassley can persuade enough Members to back him, the Conference rules allow for it.

That may be technically true under the rules - but this is precisely the problem. Leaders - real leaders - recognize the goal and do what they need to do to attain it. That is what Mitch McConnell needs to do. Lead, dang it. Jeff Sessions is a capable, smart, conservative lawyer - and is the right man to lead the Committee right now. Chuck Grassley is not the guy to do it - and the old Senate guard “seniority” structure shouldn’t be the deciding factor on how to proceed.

Full text of the article follows and a reminder that Mitch McConnell’s phone number is 202-224-3121 (call your Senator, too, if he’s Republican).

Read More →

According to NPR, and other sources I am told, Justice Souter will retire at the end of the Court’s current term. He will remain on the Court until he is replaced.

Much more to follow on this topic - but let’s start with this… Jeff Sessions should be Republican Ranking Member on the Judiciary Committee. Not Orrin Hatch. Not Chuck Grassley.

UPDATE 2: In response to the below update regarding the Judiciary Commitee, a few folks have asked what they can do. Here you go:

1. Call Mitch McConnell at 202-224-3121.
2. Tell him that you understand there is some debate about who should be the Republican Ranking Member on Judiciary, and that you believe that person should be Jeff Sessions because:
- Sessions is next in line, is an accomplished lawyer and is a proven conservative.
- Chuck Grassley is neither a lawyer nor the right man for the job.
- Orrin Hatch has had his day.
3. Tell him also that this is a time to revisit the seniority system anyway - it is antiquated and perpetuates Washington largesse and stagnation as the same old dudes just shuffle around from committee to committee (e.g. Grassley going from Finance to Judiciary).

UPDATE: As reports have indicated, Senator Grassley is interested in the job of Judiciary Ranking Member but wants to keep his title as Finance Ranking Member AND be guaranteed the Judiciary spot in two years when he is “termed out” of Finance. To get his way, he’s enlisted the support of former Judiciary Chairman Orrin Hatch - trying to cut a deal to get Hatch as ranking member for the remainder of this Congress until Grassley could take over in 2011 (which would require a waiver by the Republican Conference because Hatch is term limited on Judiciary).

To have Orrin Hatch or Chuck Grassley at the helm would be an unmitigated disaster. Each are cut from the same cloth - that of the old guard Republicans in the Senate who have given us the train wreck that the Party has become. They would hire terrible staffers who would neither be the smartest lawyers nor actually conservative - and, potentially, maintain a significant number of Specter’s former staff.

Jeff Sessions, on the other hand, would field a talented team who could educate America on just who America is getting in the next Supreme Court justice . Barring something very odd and unexpected, the nominee will get confirmed. Therefore, our number one goal should be to make sure America knows who this person is and what he stands for - and you need the right people in place to make that happen.