“[M]y baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama’s ‘death panel’“- Sarah Palin, 8/7/09

Republican Death Panels: How many falsehoods can a party spread before it is no longer viable to the electorate?

As if the Republicans’ Teabaggers, Birthers and Screamers weren’t problem enough for its image, now they have the Deathers.  The Republican Party is now the embodiment of American fringe politics.

Ever since August 7th when Sarah Palin twittered that her disabled baby would die before the eyes of Obama’s death panels, the Republicans credibility with voters has taken a nose dive (again).  At what point does a political party obscure the reality of issues to voters so often, that it can no longer run in elections because it has destroyed all faith and trust in itself?

The Republicans used to rely upon Frank Luntz and Newt Gingrich to help them obfuscate in crafty, disingenuous ways.  Now, they flat out lie.

The party’s stars in politics and in their information machine Fox News have hearkened the pending Death Panels who will kill the elderly and Sarah Palin’s baby.  Problem:  there is no such thing.

In fact, pro-life Republican Johnny Isakson of Georgia is the one who wrote the provision into the healthcare bill.  Facing South’s Sue Sturgis unearthed that fact:

Many in the media quickly pointed out that Palin’s claims weren’t true. But Sturgis was the first to report that one of the biggest advocates of counseling for end-of-life care — the provision that actually was in the Congressional legislation — was none other than a pro-life Republican: Sen. Johnny Isakson of Georgia.

Although one of their own was the architect of the “Death Panels”, Republicans have been going into over drive to tell people that they exist, when they don’t.  Isakson is exasperated by his own party:

“I just had a phone call where someone said Sarah Palin’s web site had talked about the House bill having death panels on it where people would be euthanized. How someone could take an end of life directive or a living will as that is nuts. You’re putting the authority in the individual rather than the government. I don’t know how that got so mixed up.”

Are voters wisening-up to Republican tricks to harm the veracity of the national debate over issues, and if so, how long can a party function with no credibility once people realize this is their game plan?

Death Panels and Republican Credibility – a timeline

“By poisoning the political well, they’ve given up any pretense of being the loyal opposition. They’ve become political terrorists, willing to say or do anything to prevent the country from reaching a consensus on one of its most serious domestic problems.” – Steven Pearlstein, Washington Post, 8/7/09

The ‘Death Panel’ provision of Section 1233 of America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009, as written by pro-life Republican of Georgia Johnny Isakson:

According to an analysis of the bill produced by the three relevant House committees, the section “[p]rovides coverage for consultation between enrollees and practitioners to discuss orders for life-sustaining treatment. Instructs CMS to modify ‘Medicare & You’ handbook to incorporate information on end-of-life planning resources and to incorporate measures on advance care planning into the physician’s quality reporting initiative.”

June 25, 2009 - Peter Johnson Jr. claimed on Fox & Friends that health care reform is “the government deciding who will live, who will die.” He later went on to ask: “Is that what this plan is about? To save money by killing old people? That’s frightening. That’s absolutely frightening.”

June 26, 2009 -  NewsBusters article titled “Obama Says We Shouldn’t Treat Old Folks to Save Money And the Media Goes Deaf,” Warner Todd Huston wrote, “[I]t sure seemed to me as if the most caring, most civil, most intelligent president evah just said that healthcare could be cheaper if we don’t give old folks and the infirm the full measure of care they now get. It appeared that Obama said we should just let them die or suffer because they aren’t worth the effort.”

June 25, 2009 -  American Spectator article titled “Obama Wants to Let Those Pesky Geezers Die,” Capital Research Center senior editor Matthew Vadum paraphrased an excerpt from a Los Angeles Times article as stating: “So, old people: screw you”

June 27, 2009 – Forbes on Fox, Forbes publisher Rich Karlgaard misrepresented Obama’s remarks at the health care forum, stating: “[W]hat he’s indicating is that government health care involves rationing. It’s kind of funny that he let it slip out. It was kind of funny he signaled it by wearing a black tie, the color of funerals. There’s going to be more funerals for old people going ahead.”

July 16, 2009 - former New York Lt. Gov. Betsy McCaughey falsely claimed on Fred Thompson’s show that the House health care reform bill would “absolutely require” end-of-life counseling for seniors “that will tell them how to end their life sooner.”

July 17, 2009 – Betsy McCaughey writes an op-ed for the New York Post repeating false claims, writing “[o]ne troubling provision” of the bill “compels seniors to submit to a counseling session every five years … about alternatives for end-of-life care,” adding that the “mandate invites abuse, and seniors could easily be pushed to refuse care.”

Fox News stars begin spreading the rumor

Sean Hannity:  “[I]t sounds to me like they’re actually encouraging seniors in the end, ‘Well, you may just want to consider packing it all in here, this is — ‘ what other way is there to describe this?” He continued, “So that they don’t become a financial burden on the Obamacare system? I mean that’s how they intend to cut cost, by cutting down on the health care we can give and get at the end of our lives and dramatically cutting it down for senior citizens? You know, welcome to the brave new world of Obamacare. We’re going to encourage, you know, inconvenient people to consider ‘alternatives to living.’ ”

Laura Ingraham:  “[S]ome will call them death camps, but this is the way Obamacare is gonna go for America.”

August 9, 2009 – Newt Gingrich on This Week -“You’re asking us to decide that the government is to be trusted … You are asking us to trust turning power over to the government, when there are clearly people in American who believe in establishing euthanasia, including selective standards.”

August 9, 2009 – Michelle Malkin – “Death panels? What death panels? Oh, yeah, those death panels.”

August 10, 2009 – Fox & Friends, co-host Brian Kilmeade said, “[E]veryone’s talking about seniors, and they’re talking about the middle class and affordable health care. If the upper class is paying for the next two classes, and are seniors going to be in front of the death panel? And then just as you think, OK, that’s ridiculous, then you realize there’s provisions in there that seniors in the last lap of their life will be sitting there going to a panel possibly discussing what the best thing for them is.”

August 10, 2009 -Glenn Beck on death panels: “I believe it to be true.”

The Rush Limbaugh lies that the Democrats are planning to take away people’s 401(k)s dispute on Wikipedia has now been opened up for comment to the entire Wikipedia community.  Below is an example of the side that is winning to whitewash the article.  In one sentence:  If somebody else says something, and you say it after them, you are not responsible for your words.

Whether there is or isn’t a Democrat plan to seize people’s 401(k)s, Limbaugh didn’t make it up. He was just repeating what he’d read and heard. The first time Limbaugh mentioned it, as far as I know, was after the election. And Rainey seems to agree with that, since he gives this as an example of post-election bitterness on the right. But this article, which can’t be accused of partiality to the right, was written before the election, and puts this accusation in the mouth of John McCain, on Fri 31-Oct! So what’s it got to do with Limbaugh? It should be out of the article, for this reason if for no other. — Zsero (talk) 01:41, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Huh? So because another person said it, that doesn’t make Limbaugh responsible for what he says on multiple occasions? This isn’t “McCain said it also, so Limbaugh has no responsibility for what he says…” That doesn’t even make sense. We’re all responsible for our words, and Limbaugh isn’t saying “According to John McCain…” he is fervently saying this is the truth, from his own mouth, not McCain’s. –David Shankbone 01:48, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Rainey dishonestly presented this as if Limbaugh had made it up in response to the election result. But he didn’t. It had been reported before the election, McCain was saying this before the election, so it’s not at all remarkable that Limbaugh would pick it up and repeat it. He’s not expected to do his own research; he sees something in a reliable-enough-for-talk-radio source, and repeats it. Much like LA Times reporters do. An article about Limbaugh should only have significant facts that are about him; if he had come up with this himself that would be significant, but repeating someone else’s research, whether careful or shoddy, is not. — Zsero (talk) 02:11, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

That’s really silly. First, until you are prepared to research every statement made on this issue, just because you find one instance where McCain says something doesn’t mean he was the first. Second, are you saying we are not personally responsible for what comes out of our mouths if somebody else says it? Is Limbaugh not responsible to research for himself before he makes multiple statements. This is a pretty poor argument – nobody’s responsible for what they say until we can find the first person who said it – then, that person is responsible for it, and for whoever says it afterward. LOL! If only we could all use such logic to absolve ourselves of responsibility, but unfortunately, that’s not the way the world works. For any of us, liberal or conservative. –David Shankbone 02:20, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Here is my statement of the issue for the Request for Comment:

The issue is that on multiple occasions Limbaugh has stated that the “Democrats want your 401(k)” and that they are “planning” to “take your 401(k) and put it in Social Security.” There is no Democratic plan to take away the 401(k)[10] and James Rainey, in a column run in both the L.A. Times[11] and the Baltimore Sun, pointed that out.[12]. The basis for such an assertion is one economist out of many, Teresa Ghilarducci, testified before a bipartisan House committee chaired by George Miller (politician)and proposed ending the 401(k) as one facet of a multifaceted proposal.[13]. Ghilarducci herself stated that Miller does not support this part of her proposal.[14]. But Limbaugh continually tells his millions of listeners that this is a Democratic plan, to “take” or “get” people’s 401(k)s. I added one sentence–initially using Obama, which he often throws in for good measure, but more accurately he just says “the Democrats” so I changed it–under the “Questions about accuracy” section of the article. Instead of adhering to WP:V and WP:NPOV, several editors either spin Limbaugh’s words to mean something else, or use other conservative commentators who are parroting the same line to say that it’s a fact (enter Truthiness and Wisdom of the crowd – enough people say, it’s got to be true). Is there a Democratic plan? No. Is there any evidence of a Democratic plan outside one economist’s testimony to a committee? No. Does Limbaugh continually say there is a plan by the Democrats to do so? Yes. Is this inaccurate? That’s putting it lightly. –David Shankbone 01:47, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I’m not succeeding.  Oh, and Gwen Gale wrote that this Carolina Journal piece gives “more meaningful talk about the confiscation of retirement funds in the states.”  But even the ultra-conservative John Birch Society ripped that piece apart as hysterical propaganda (they also mentioned that it neglects to talk about Republican efforts to take away 401(k)s).