The Republicans have opened a full-scale attack against Democratic health care reform proposals, even though there is no single bill yet. Conservatives hope to weaken reform legislation before the bill is shaped and put Dems on the defensive, so media coverage will provide more ink and broadcast time to possible problems with health reforms than to the improvements in health care reforms could produce.
The lynch-pin of conservative strategy to discredit the Democratic health care reform package, in whatever shape it emerges, is to spread two key memes:
1. Democratic reforms will be funded by tax hikes on everyday working people.
2. Democratic reforms will adversely affect the health care coverage of those who like their insurance.
They are also pushing sub-memes, like Democratic reforms=Socialism, or the Democrats will set up “death boards” to deny senior citizens needed care (as if Insurance companies didn’t have faceless bureaucrats who make life and death coverage decisions) among others. But these scare tactics are designed to influence “low-information” voters, not those who care enough to do their own thinking, a much larger group, one hopes. Dems should refute these charges, but focus more on challenging the GOP’s two lead memes. That’s the battlefield that matters most.
The GOP echo chamber is already roaring at full tilt, with Limbaugh, Hannity, O’Reilly, Beck, Scarborough, right-wing radio, print and web commentators all on board with the shrill message du jour, which usually features scare-mongering memes. Lacking any credible solutions, they are reduced to knee-jerk bashing of progressive reforms, with the unspoken subtext, “What we got now may not be so great, but the Democratic reforms will make it worse.”
Are Democrats ready for the attacks? In today’s L.A. Times, Peter Wallsten’s “Obama’s grass-roots network is put to the test” provides an update on the activities of Organizing for America. Wallsten explains:

With public skepticism rising over Obama’s plan, which is still being worked out with Congress, Democrats were hoping that the August recess would provide a chance to explain the complex and, in some cases, fear-inducing legislation to a nervous public. But Republicans, talk radio and conservative advocacy groups have seized the moment, drowning out that opportunity through a campaign to disrupt Democratic town hall meetings.

Wallsten points out that the Conservative disinformation campaign is not the only problem:

Beyond the healthcare debate, the network’s troubles suggest that even a well-tuned campaign operation — with its stable of trained organizers, precinct captains and neighborhood coordinators — is not easily transformed into a policymaking force that Obama might rely on to deliver on other issues, such as global warming and immigration legislation.

On the positive side, however, Wallsten adds:

….Organizing for America, which was known as Obama for America during the presidential campaign, is quietly and deliberately building a system of professional field organizers and trained volunteers that has already inspired thousands of community events and reached millions of people…Staffers have been hired so far in 42 states, said the group’s deputy director, Jeremy Bird, and he expects to have paid workers in every state in a matter of weeks.
“We’ve been methodical, dogged and focused,” Bird said. “It’s like in the early days of the campaign, people said we needed to be louder, to have more signs. But we focused on the conversations between people and neighbors, and that’s what worked.”
Organizing for America’s website displays hundreds of upcoming events, ranging from tiny house parties to solicitations to match the conservative presence at town hall meetings. With new online tools, supporters can tell their own healthcare stories to be distributed to lawmakers, and network members can monitor their colleagues’ calls to Capitol Hill…A Democratic National Convention spokesman, Hari Sevugan, argued that the Obama network ultimately would prove more effective than the GOP approach because “grass-roots efforts are won at the doors, with neighbors talking to neighbors, not in front of news cameras with folks screaming at members of a community.”

The big TV networks have a moral obligation to provide more thoughtful coverage about America’s health care crisis and challenge the conservative disinformation/fear mongering campaign designed to discredit pro-Democratic reforms. We know Fox won’t accept the responsibility. But CNN, NBC, CBS and ABC ought to rise to the challlenge. If they don’t step up in the month ahead, it will be very difficult to educate the voters needed to get the attention of undecided members of congress. The TV networks need to hear from the health care reform movement in a big way.
It’s up to reform supporters, however, to come up with the creative ideas and actions that can compell greater media attention. In his August 5 TDS post, James Vega called for mobilizing an impressive turnout of the sick, people with disabilities and those who have had their financial assets decimated by health care costs to attend the health care meetings and sit up front. That’s a fine idea, and more such focused brainstorming is needed.
If we don’t get it a strong health care bill this time, a mass demo definitely should be considered for the next mobilization. A million plus “March on Washington for Health Security,” spotlighting the constituencies noted by Vega, for example, might help shake the rafters in congress.
Progressive philanthropists should spring for a nationwide broadcast of Michael Moore’s “Sicko,” Robert Greenwald’s “Diagnosis: Now!” and any other good documentaries about health care reform. Reform supporters should press local TV networks and stations to show health reform documentaries, and they should also arrange showings in community venues.
Most importantly of all, Democrats must not get hustled into a purely defensive posture. If there was ever a time for Dems to attack the industry and politicians who have obstructed comprehensive, universal health security for America, it has surely arrived.

With the House of Reps already ajourned for the August recess, The DCCC has hit the ground running with a “Major Advertising and Grassroots Offensive” called “Health Care ER.” DCCC Chairman Chris Van Hollen has said that the campaign is targeting more than two-dozen Republicans throughout August, explaining:

Time and again, Republicans protect a broken system of skyrocketing costs, insurance companies making health care decisions, and record setting insurance company profits instead of working with President Obama to bring real health insurance reform. President Obama and Democrats are working for health insurance reform that lowers costs and protects patient’s choice of doctors and plans, while Republican are fighting for insurance companies. This August we are going district-by-district to hold Republicans accountable for trying to obstruct health insurance reform through their scare tactics and just-say-no protection of big insurance companies.

Some of the actions being conducted by the DCCC include:

Radio ads in seven (7) Republican Members districts;
Volunteer live calls, automated calls to 25 targeted Republican Members;
Volunteer live calls to talk radio stations in their districts;
Three (3) million e-mails;
Letter writing drive in their districts;
Letters to the editors of newspapers in the targeted districts;
An on-line petition campaign;
Fact check Republicans’ lies about health insurance reform;
Tele-town halls in the districts

You can hear the radio ads at the DCCC Stakeholder Weblog, which also has an ad script and a complete list of the targted Republicans.
Brian Beutler of TPM reports that the targeted Republicans fall into three categories “vulnerable, moderate, and high-profile.” Eight Reps, including Michelle Bachman (R-MN); Joseph Cao (R-LA), Charlie Dent (R-PA), Dan Lungren (R-CA), Thaddeus McCotter (R-MI), Erik Paulsen (R-MN), Dave Reichert (R-WA), and Pat Tiberi (R-OH) will be the focus of attack ads in their districts.
Volunteers who want to get involved in the health care reform struggle are encouraged to contact the DCCC here.

Oscar Wilde said that “the best thing to do with advice is to pass it on; it is never of any use to oneself.” And pass it on we do, hoping that it will be of some use in the struggle for health care reform. And, judging by the surfeit of health care reform strategy advice from all points of the political spectrum, few advocates can fairly complain that their views are not being heard. Here follows some of the more interesting nuggets from recent editorials, articles and blogs:
The Editors of The New York Times forum on”Selling Health Care Reform to Voters” included contributions from seven diverse opinion leaders. In one article, Julian E. Zelizer, a professor of history and public affairs at Princeton University, voices an oft-heard concern these days:

President Obama has allowed Congress to work out the details of the legislation…The problem is that he has neglected to keep working on the message. As Congress deliberates, reports inevitably emerged about the potential costs of the program and the limitations of the expected impact. Opponents of reform have steadily gained ground by warning of a government takeover. Support for reform has diminished. A coalition of centrist Democrats and Republicans are pushing legislation that falls far short of President Obama’s promise.
During the most successful struggle for health care reform — the passage of Medicare and Medicaid — Presidents Kennedy and Johnson were never shy in talking to the public about what they hoped to accomplish…Both of these presidents delivered speeches about what health care reform could accomplish. This was an era when liberals were comfortable talking to Americans about why government worked. At a rally at Madison Square Garden in May 1962, Kennedy rebutted every argument of his opponents and said, “This bill serves the public interest. It involves the Government because it involves the public welfare. The Constitution of the United States did not make the President or the Congress powerless. It gave them definite responsibilities to advance the general welfare, and that is what we are attempting to do.”

Most Dems will disagree with the forum contribution of GOP strategist Michael Murphy, but he may have a point or two worth mulling over nestled in his predictably partisan screed:

…When you do anything in Washington of such size that it directly touches the lives of most Americans, you had better be authentically bipartisan. Big changes are scary and difficult. Their fragile nature can only survive politics if both parties are chained together in a lifeboat of mutual survival. Otherwise one party will certainly torpedo the other.
True bipartisanship is difficult. It demands real compromise, an anathema to the drunk with victory ideological partisans who lead the Democrats in the House and Senate. Unfortunately, these are the people that President Obama has outsourced his health care plan to…Measures that only make broken things bigger and more complicated, without fixing or reforming core problems are an easy kill in Washington.

Harold Pollack, faculty chairman of the Center for Health Administration Studies at the University of Chicago, says of President Obama

…He should puncture complacency about an unsustainable status quo. You may believe that you have good insurance. Absent effective regulation, you have no real way to know. You certainly can’t know that it will remain affordable for you or your employer. As costs escalate and financial insecurity moves up the economic ladder, this really matters.

Robert Blendon, professor of health policy and political analysis at the Harvard University JFK School of Government and the School of Public Health, adds

…For about half of Americans, the critical issue is ensuring that their health premiums go down, not up. At the moment, people are worried that the trend is up. The president has to stop talking about the national problem of “bending the curve” — and instead talk specifically about how he will lower insurance premiums for average families.
…The president has continually talked about cutting back on Medicare to save money for health reform. He has to reassure seniors that the cutbacks won’t affect the benefits they are currently getting. Some of the problem is how people absorb the message. When they hear President Obama talking about “cutting back Medicare,” they think “benefits” when he means to aim his savings at paying physician, hospitals, and nursing homes less money.

Also in the New York Times, Carl Hulse has a revealing article about the difficulties involved in Dems using the ‘reconciliation’ process to pass health care reform by a simple majority vote. Hulse sees a possibility of a sort of hybrid strategy for Dems:

…Democrats are envisioning an unusual two-track approach. Under this strategy, some of the most contentious elements of the health plan — new taxes and fees as well as savings from Medicare, Medicaid and other federal programs — would be packaged in one bill that could be passed by a simple majority.
A second measure would contain the policy changes and program expansions and would be treated like an ordinary bill, subject to filibuster and amendment. But the thinking is that this legislative sidecar would contain enough popular programs to attract the 60 votes needed to overcome a filibuster. Voilà — a health care bill.

In the Sunday L.A. Times, Doyle McManus joins the chorus of pundits decrying President Obama’s “bend the curve” (slow the rate of increase) on health care spending as a yawner unlikely to excite popular support. McManus offers an alternative strategy:

Obama and his aides know they need to win this debate; they’ve known that all along. So what can they do?
First, reframe the issue — not as an arid fiscal question of “bending the curve” but as a moral and economic imperative to provide reliable coverage to those who have insurance as well as those who don’t. Obama began to do this last week when he unveiled an eight-point “bill of rights” for health insurance consumers and promised “stability and security.”
Second, endorse a specific plan — even though that means making someone unhappy. Obama hamstrung himself by allowing centrists in the Senate to attempt to fashion a genuinely bipartisan proposal… The goal was to see whether an earnest show of bipartisanship could win a few Republican votes. As long as Montana Democrat Max Baucus and Iowa Republican Chuck Grassley were negotiating — and it has been a very long time — Obama didn’t want to get too specific with his own “red lines,” lest he drive Grassley away. The time to jettison Grassley is near.
Third, mobilize Obama’s Democratic supporters. That won’t be as easy as it sounds. Many liberal Democrats would prefer the single-payer model that was never seriously debated in Congress this year. Many more will find fault with parts of whatever plan Obama finally settles on — for example, if he accedes to the Senate centrists’ proposal for health cooperatives instead of a single federally administered “public option” insurance plan. But the president can explain to the faithful that the Republicans would love to “break him” and that liberals shouldn’t make the perfect the enemy of the good.

Read more…

This item by Mike Lux is a cross-post from OpenLeft, representing an important point of view on health care reform and party loyalty.
It was good to see President Obama shifting toward a more directly confrontational tone with the insurance industry today in his weekly radio/YouTube address on health care. One of the biggest mistakes Clinton made in the last fight was shying away from directly taking on the insurance companies standing in the way until it was too late. It is only this kind of directly populist message that will carry us home.
It was also very exciting to see Obama be very clear and the strongest yet about how much he wants the public option.
We have reached a crucial moment, perhaps the crucial moment. All those folks pushing for delay (with the possible exception of Ron Wyden) are pushing for delay because they don’t want to take on the insurance industry, and they want to slow the momentum of the Obama approach, especially the public option. Now is when Democrats and all of us progressive activists on the outside need to get very tough and very specific. Conservative Democratic Senators need to understand that they need to vote for cloture even if they can’t bring themselves to vote for the bill itself, that to break with Obama and the party on this is the ultimate disloyalty. They need to understand that the White House, and Harry Reid, and Nancy Pelosi will cut them off at the knees on all future requests. They need to understand that progressives will recruit primary candidates against anyone who stops health care reform, and that progressive donors will stop giving to anyone who helps the Republicans on a filibuster fight.
This is the biggest issue for Barack Obama, and his ability to get anything else significant done will die if health care dies. This is the ultimate measure of whether you are part of the team, and the consequences of defeat on health care need to be made clear- yes, crystal clear- to everyone. All of us in this fight- from Obama, Reid, and Pelosi, to all of us who are progressive activists- need to ratchet up the pressure even more than the insurance company lobbyists. This is our hill to die on.

You may not have seen this storyline yet, but I promise you, you will. Basically it argues that the Iranian protesters have been primarily inspired by the American creation of democracy in Iraq. Seeing the Iraqis vote, in this narrative, is what stimulated the Iranians to challenge their own clerical regime. The Fox News PR guys will call it a “tide of freedom unleashed by the United States” and the Iranian protesters will be described – as were the Iraqis — as yearning for American-style freedoms and hoping to make their country more like the U.S.
Regional experts who actually speak the major languages, read the speeches of the Iranian leaders and listen to the commentary in the Iranian street will tear out their hair and sputter that this is a profound cultural misunderstanding of how most Iranians actually think about reform. Consider the following analogy — imagine that in 1963 the then-Prime Minister of India, Jawaharlal Nehru – noting on TV the clearly Gandhi-inspired, nonviolent tactics of the civil rights movement – assumed that the movement was actually generally inspired by the Indian example and led the Indian congress to unanimously pass a “Fraternal Resolution of Support and International Solidarity with American Blacks in their Heroic Struggle to create a Hindu Republic in the American deep South.”
Go ahead and laugh. But the notion that the Iranian protesters basic source of inspiration is the U.S. presence and activities in Iraq represents a level of American cultural misunderstanding of their motives that is equally misguided. Unfortunately in the absence of high-quality objective opinion polls, this cannot be empirically demonstrated. Moreover, because this notion serves the profound needs of two groups, it will inevitably become a permanent part of the American political debate.
First, the neo-conservatives. For them, this “made in America tide of freedom” narrative is vital because it justifies the invasion of Iraq. Even in their own eyes, the worst failure of their policy was the absolutely undeniable strengthening of Iran that it produced (“collateral damage” to Iraqi civilians and the sacrifices demanded of US troops were always considered an acceptable “price”) Embarrassingly for them, the replacement of Saddam Hussein with a pro-Iranian Shia government and the immobilizing and overtaxing of virtually every available combat soldier in America in “Blackhawk Down” style urban warfare for 5 years exposed the fact that their feverish fantasy of intimidating the Iranian regime into total submission with implicit or explicit threats of a massive George Patton-style armor/infantry thrust on Teheran (launched from bases in a compliant US-allied Iraq, of course) made them look like pathetically bumbling military incompetents. Today, rather than being seen as the modern-day George Pattons they fancied themselves, the neo-conservatives have become widely viewed as modern-day General Custers.
Thus, for them, the story that the sight of elections in Iraq was the central inspiration for the demonstrators in Iran is vitally important. It makes everything fit together again and makes them once again “right”. They will, therefore, cling to this notion against any and all empirical evidence to the contrary with the fervor of religious pilgrims in Lourdes seeking miracle cures for their ills.
The second and far more heartrending group is America’s military families. It is impossible to overstate the tremendous comfort this narrative promises to provide. They desperately need to feel that the difficult and painful sacrifices they have made have had meaning and have been worth the cost. For the families and friends of the injured and dead, this sentiment is unimaginably profound. They will therefore embrace the notion that the invasion of Iraq has been validated by the protests in Iran utterly and without reservation. It is impossible not to deeply feel and profoundly identify with their feelings.
Thus, for these two groups, the new conservative narrative will stick. For other Americans as well it also has a very strong appeal – one rooted in the psychological mechanism called the “theory of mind” – the mental model people have of how other people think.

Read more…

In the continuing argument over ideology and violent extremism in America, conservatives are making some very odd assertions. Check out this statement by conservative San Francisco Chronicle columnist Debra Saunders:

I reject the idea that James W. von Brunn, the alleged Holocaust museum gunman and known white supremacist and anti-Semite, is right wing — as well as the implication that racism and conservatism somehow are connected. The KKK is not welcome at any conservative event I’ve ever attended.

Look at what is going on here – the term “right-wing” and “conservative” are being treated as interchangeable and both terms are being counterposed to “white supremacists” and “anti-Semites” – who are no longer part of “right-wing” ideology. In effect, not only the term “conservative” but also the term “right-wing” is being rescued from any associations with racism and anti-Semitism.
And it’s not just Saunders. There’s actually a whole cottage industry over in the right blogosphere arguing this same notion – that white supremacy is not really a part of any known and recognized “right-wing” ideology. Instead, it is in some utterly unique category all its own or is actually a left-wing idea (please don’t ask for details on this second notion. It goes something along the lines of “racist=Hitler=vegetarian=feminist=Hillary Clinton=liberal”)
But, wait a minute. Wasn’t the whole heroic start of the Bill Buckley/National Review initiative designed to “rescue” true, Burkean conservatism from the nutty and disreputable “right-wingers” of the 50s– the John Birchers, southern racists, anti-Semites, anti-fluoridation paranoiacs and so on? Wasn’t this clean break with the racist, anti-Semitic “right-wing extremists” central to the entire ethos of the new breed of Goldwater-Reagan- conservatives who then rose to the leadership of the Republican Party?

Read more…

Let’s say you’re running a gubernatorial campaign in Virginia, and you want turnout in Northern Virginia to be relatively high. This is probably not the early-morning headline you want to see in the Washington Post: “Severe Thunderstorms Hit As Polls Open in VA.” The story beneath that headline says that in some areas experiencing hail, radio stations are telling residents to stay indoors, presumably even if that van shows up to take you to the polls.
For whatever reason, it looks like God had some definite ideas about turnout patterns in Virginia today.

The midterm elections of 2010 are still seventeen months away, but in many states, the cycle’s starting early, in part, no doubt, because everyone is expecting a difficult environment for fundraising.
In my home state of Georgia, the 2010 gubernatorial contest has been actively underway for months, and has been enlivened by two big events that have significantly changed the field. Lt. Governor Casey Cagle, the early frontrunner on the GOP side, suddenly withdrew from the governor’s race in April, citing health issues (he is, however, running for re-election). That decision lured U.S. Rep. Nathan Deal, who shares a geographical base with Cagle, into the GOP field, which already featured two statewide elected officials, Secretary of State Karen Handel (a protege of term-limited incumbent Gov. Sonny Perdue) and Insurance Commissioner John Oxendine.
Then just yesterday, former Gov. Roy Barnes, who lost to Perdue in 2002 in a major upset, jumped into the race on the Democratic side. The field already includes Attorney General Thurbert Baker, former Secretary of State and Adjutant General David Poythress, and state House Democratic leader Dubose Porter. Barnes is the Big Dog of Georgia Democratic politics, and was immediately regarded as the front-runner, even getting a big shout-out from the Democratic Governors Association as though he were the putative nominee. It wouldn’t be a big surprise if one or more of Barnes’ rivals decides to give the contest a pass. Early polling by DKos/R2K in April showed Barnes running ahead of Handel and just behind Oxendine.
Though Georgia has leaned decisively Republican in recent cycles, the recession (which has hit the state very hard), infighting among Republicans, and significant cutbacks in state services and investments, have all given Democrats hope that they can stage a comeback in 2010. Indeed, Georgia may become one of many states where there will be an interesting test about which party gets the blame for bad times: the governing party in Washington, or the incumbent party closer to home.
The same could be true of Florida, which at least one recent analysis called the hardest-hit of all the states, thanks to a massive decline in home prices. Though Obama carried the state last year, Republicans have been regularly winning most other elections of late; gubernatorial candidate Alex Sink, the state CFO, is the only Democratic statewide elected official other than U.S. Sen. Bill Nelson, and Republicans control both state legislative chambers.
Sink enjoys a cleared field for the gubernatorial nomination, and Florida Democrats are enthusiastic about her candidacy (it doesn’t hurt that her husband is 2002 gubernatorial nominee Bill McBride, a wealthy trial lawyer). Her almost certain opponent, Attorney General Bill McCollum, has lost two Senate bids since 2000, and he will also have to deal with possible fallout from a bitter, ideologically-driven Senate primary between Gov. Charlie Crist and former FL House Speaker Marco Rubio. Crist will likely win that primary, but hard-core conservatives could decide to sit on their hands on General Election Day. And since Republicans now control state government, the perennial state budget crisis will probably be held to their account by many voters.
Georgia and Florida are two states where Democrats often express optimism early in cycles, only to experience the hard realities of minority status when voting draws near. This is one cycle where Democrats have more realistic grounds for an optimism that could extend right through to election day.

Today Alternet gives George Lakoff the lead article, “Conservatives Are Waging a War on Empathy — We Can’t Let Them Win.” Lakoff’s concern here is what he sees as an attack on one of the Democratic Party’s defining values, through “reframing.” As Lakoff explains:

The Sotomayor nomination has given radical conservatives new life. They have launched an attack that is nominally aimed at Judge Sotomayor. But it is really a coordinated stealth attack — on President Obama’s central vision, on progressive thought itself, and on Republicans who might stray from the conservative hard line.
…Empathy is at the heart of progressive thought. It is the capacity to put oneself in the shoes of others — not just individuals, but whole categories of people: one’s countrymen, those in other countries, other living beings, especially those who are in some way oppressed, threatened, or harmed. Empathy is the capacity to care, to feel what others feel, to understand what others are facing and what their lives are like. Empathy extends well beyond feeling to understanding, and it extends beyond individuals to groups, communities, peoples, even species. Empathy is at the heart of real rationality, because it goes to the heart of our values, which are the basis of our sense of justice.

Lakoff sees the GOP reframing of empathy as a sort of code for the feelings of the ‘bleeding heart liberal.’ As Lakoff puts it:

Empathy in this sense is a threat to conservatism, which features individual, not social, responsibility and a strict, punitive form of “justice.” It is no surprise that empathy would be a major conservative target in the Sotomayor evaluation.
But the target is not empathy as it really exists. Instead, the conservatives are reframing empathy to make it attackable. Their “empathy” is idiosyncratic, personal feeling for an individual, presumably the defendant in a legal case. With “empathy” reframed in this way, Charles Krauthammer can say, echoing Karl Rove, “Justice is not about empathy.” The argument goes like this: Empathy is a matter personal feelings. Personal feelings should not be the basis of a judicial decision of the Supreme Court. Therefore, “justice is not about empathy.” Reframe the word “empathy” and it not only disqualifies Sotomayor; it delegitimizes Obama’s central moral principle, his approach to government, his understanding of the nature of our democracy, and progressive politics in general.

Lakoff goes on to discuss the spins on empathy by various conservatives, David Brooks, Charles Krauthammer, Newt Gingrich and G. Gordon Liddy. But Lakoff feels it’s important to understand the subtext of their attacks:

The real target here goes beyond Sotomayor. In the last election, conservative populists moved toward Obama. Conservative populists are working people, mostly white men, who have conservative views of the family, of masculinity, and of the military, and who have bought into the idea of the ‘liberal elite” as looking down on them. Right now, they are hurting economically, losing their jobs and their homes. Empathy is something they need. The racist card is an attempt to revive their fears of affirmative action, fears of their jobs — and their pride — being taken by minorities and women. The racist attack has a political purpose, holding onto conservative populists. The overt form of the old conservative argument is made regularly these days: liberalism is identity politics.

But the real danger, according to Lakoff is Democratic complacency in underestimating the power of the Republican echo chamber:

Radical conservatives know that Sotomayor will be confirmed. They also know that their very understanding of the world is being threatened by Obama’s success. But they have a major strength. They have their message machine intact, with trained spokespeople booked on TV and radio shows all over the country. Attacking Sotomayor, even when they know she will win, allows them to rally their forces and get swing-voting conservatives thinking their way again.

And the needed response by Dems — to confront the challenge head-on:

Democrats should go on offense. They need to rally behind empathy — real empathy, not empathy reframed as emotion and personal feeling. They need to speak regularly about empathy as being the basis of our democracy. They need to point out that empathy leads one to notice real social and systemic causes of our troubles and to notice when and how judicial decisions and legislation can harm the most vulnerable of our countrymen. And finally that empathy is the reason that we have the principles of freedom and fairness — which are necessary components of justice…Above all, Democrats should be aware that the attack on Sotomayor is not just about Sotomayor. It is an attack on the basis of our democracy and must be answered.

A worthy challenge, and one which Dems should meet, lest we cede the ability to define our core values to our adversaries.