Brown’s victory gives Republicans the numbers in the Senate to filibuster most Democratic legislation…

Yes, it does, if one goes by the reasoning of the New Yorker’s Hendrik Helzberg, where the Filibuster is an evil tool that only one party has the right to both use, and prevent the other party from using.

Because, of course, Democrats used it all the time to stop legislation earlier this decade, right? And in particular, to stop all those super ideological Judicial appointments by the Bush Administration, too.

Or maybe not.  Let’s look at the ramifications of Democrats presuming that the filibuster is an occasional tool, except when their opponents badger them, then it is only an “extraordinary circumstances” tool, on the one hand,  but that in the hands of their political opponents can simply be used with impunity to no challenge at all.

We hate the current health care bill, for reasons to be skipped here. But we agree that given the enormous sums that are wasted on health care in this country, the huge lapses that occur in care anyway, the enormous and unnecessary insurance company costs and de facto intrusions (if you give your health care money to your health insurance company you don’t have it for the test you needed yesterday that they deny or play around with for for weeks) between doctor and patient, and the absolutely gargantuan government expenditures on health care, reforming our current system seems like a good idea.

Just not via a bad idea.

However, Lanny Davis has penned an editorial for the Wall Street Journal Editorial pages, which is to objective and non partisan analysis what the San Diego Chargers are to winning clutch playoff games at home against a lesser Jets team the past ten years.

This editorial is in some ways so bad, it defies description. We’ll let provocateur Glenn Greenwald explain:

Last night, Evan Bayh blamed the Democrats’ problems on “the furthest left elements,” which he claims dominates the Democratic Party — seriously.  And in one of the dumbest and most dishonest Op-Eds ever written, Lanny Davis echoes that claim in The Wall St. Journal:  ”Blame the Left for Massachusetts” (Davis attributes the unpopularity of health care reform to the “liberal” public option and mandate; he apparently doesn’t know that the health care bill has no public option [someone should tell him], that the public option was one of the most popular provisions in the various proposals, and the “mandate” is there to please the insurance industry, not “the Left,” which, in the absence of a public option, hates the mandate; Davis’ claim that “candidate Obama’s health-care proposal did not include a public option” is nothing short ofan outright lie).

We don’t agree with the “furthest left” elements, whatever they are. But blaming the Democrats problems on the “furthest left” elements (unless, by blame, Bayh means the inability and unwillingness to connect with, show and sell to American without presuming what America thinks, feels, perceives or assumes) is like one time Arizona Representative (and future McCain opponent) J.D. Hayworth blaming the recent economic collapse on George Soros or Chuck Schumer.

The Democrats problems come down to two things. One, Democrats allow their opponens to control, shape, and frame the debate. Two, Democrats don’t even tend to realize what this entails, or that they do it. And if we had to add a third, it would be Democrats resistance to what this idea actually means.

What other party would be losing their effective majority in the Senate and White House by seeing their number drop not from 50 to 49, but from 60 to 59?

And because Democrats seem to be constantly afraid of what their opponents will say (largely because they allow their opponents to control the debate, but they miss this), and afraid of saying what they believe, why they believe it, and showing and selling it to the country. As a result, they pass piece of crap more government control no underlying problem solving pieces of legislation because they think that that is what is going to get them re-elected, when the irony is, it is what is going to get their opponents re-elected.

Update: Lanny Davis says the election was not about the candidate, but about the message.  Timothy Egan, writing today in the NY Times (covered here) points out the following:

Coakley belittled the retail politics of her opponent, who stood in the cold of a Bruins hockey game at Fenway Park, thus disparaging three great New England institutions a single two-second sound bite. It follows, then, that she didn’t know that Curt Schilling, the Boston pitcher who bled through his sox, was a Red Sox fan. Stealing a page from Mike Dukakis when he decided to spend August mowing his lawn while the 1988 presidential contest slipped away from him, her campaign essentially went dark with a double-digit lead. And she did what no Kennedy had ever done — she took the voter for granted.

Effectively showing how one’s opponent is either deceiving and misleading voters, or profoundly wrong, and either way can’t be trusted, is the most valuable thing one can do in politics. Belittling one’s opponents, in a way that also impugns some of the very target voters that need to be reached, as if one is speaking only to an audience that already agrees with everything one has to say and is full support, is one of the worst things one can do. Democrats do it all the time.

But what about Davis’ point about the message itself?  He writes, of the Democrats message, “How is it that so few people have heard that message?”  He is right on that point. And we have made it ourselves, here.

But Davis also writes:

In the last several months, the minority congressional Republicans have dominated the message on health care—and stamped on the Democratic Party the perception that we stand for big government, higher taxes, and health insecurity when it comes to Medicare.

This comes from two things. First, nothing to do with the issue, but who has controlled the issue. Once again Democrats opponents.  This is the doing of all Democrats, and the DNC, not just the “left.”  Second, it is because the bill has in fact in some ways become these things, while at the same time it has failed to address the root of the problem.

And why is that? Because, ironically, the alleged “non left” wing of the party has demanded these concessions in order to get re-elected (they think) and thus in fact turned the bill into just such a spectacle of bigger government, rather than just consist of the empty rhetoric that had predated the calls for legitimate health care reform, which were based upon neither liberal nor conservative principles at heart, and could just as easily have been used to lower government costs and wastes, as to provide, heaven to mercy “universal” coverage for people.

Ironically, the supposedly more “liberal” option, which was that if the government was going to try and curb costs and expend funds, it should provide an option to insurance companies was more popular than this ridiculous mandate as to our how we address our own care — rendered even worse by the simple fact that most health insurance coverage in this country, presently, both costs a fortune, and is a veritable abomination of control, inconsistencies, forced interjection between doctor and patient, and endless paperwork and needless hassles.

But it was this line from Davis’ piece that really makes one want to tear their hair out:

We liberals need to reclaim the Democratic Party with the New Democrat positions of Bill Clinton and the New Politics/bipartisan aspirations of Barack Obama—a party that is willing to meet half-way with conservatives and Republicans even if that means only step-by-step reforms on health care and other issues that do not necessarily involve big-government solutions.

“We liberals”? Who is he talking to?  Putting that issue aside, his proscription is to let the far right define the terms, and then accomodate to the far right’s demands, rather than simply sell, show, explain and frame, their own position, beliefs, and reasonings.  This fits in perfectly with the absolute donkeyness of this, regarding this whole heath care debacle, in the first place, where Democrats have managed to allow their opponents to take control of the Senate, effectively, with just over 40 out of 100 member, when for close to eight years, Democrats themselves couldn’t accomplish this with larger numbers than Republicans have right now.

Real Donkeys, the kinds with four legs, ought to be hiding in holes in shame.

And then Davis plays right into this right wing framing of liberals and Democrats of favoring “big government” solutions.  Republican consultants would have paid Davis money to write this, if they had to. And he (presumably) did it for them, for free.

But Davis, worst of all, misses the fact that it is the current bill which is a perfect example of big government that mandates and intrudes, while doing little in return to protect freedoms or reduce costs at the same time, and that had the bill been better written — exactly what Davis, backwardly, seems to think would have made it more unpalatable — it would have accomplished far more, with far less infringment and legitimate complaint of big government overtone, and been far more politically successful for Democrats, throughout the country, and our national discussion.

This is why, dear reader, Democrats lose, and spend most of their time, complaining about the ramifications of those losses, despite the fact that more people in America are Democrats than Republicans.

Of course, Martha Coakley, the Democrat who lost in a state where only 13 percent of voters identified as Republicans, ran a campaign that should be a mandatory lesson for all her supporters in Cambridge.

Among other great sins, she belittled the retail politics of her opponent, who stood in the cold of a Bruins hockey game at Fenway Park, thus disparaging three great New England institutions a single two-second sound bite. It follows, then, that she didn’t know that Curt Schilling, the Boston pitcher who bled through his sox, was a Red Sox fan. Stealing a page from Mike Dukakis when he decided to spend August mowing his lawn while the 1988 presidential contest slipped away from him, her campaign essentially went dark with a double-digit lead. And she did what no Kennedy had ever done — she took the voter for granted.

…Democrats are good at bleeding, kvetching and woe-is-me-ing.

Democrats taking voters for granted.

Democrats belittling opponents in ways that don’t speak out to those beyond their own base, but that invariably impugn the very voters that they need to reach. (We won’t add “Democrats mocking these suggestions as irrelevant, or worse, because, well “we told the truth,” “If we got the message, then doesn’t that prove it was effective?” See here, for a classic example.)

Democrats then spending a whole lot of time, complaining about the very things that shouldn’t have happened, because it was all “so obvious.”

Yeah, we’ve heard this before.

It also ties in with a post here yesterday that asked “Just how bad are Democrats at Controlling the Debate,” and which made the same point which Egan ascribes to Jon Stewart, whom he calls the most astute political commentator in America. (Maybe he’s just the best known.)

This huge majority, as America’s most astute political observer, Jon Stewart, pointed out, is far more than George W. Bush ever had, and he used it to do whatever he wanted to with the country.

You don’t say. Our point, exactly. And we ask, why?

Whatever one thinks of his politics (or his recent “debate” with Salon columnist Glenn Greenwald) Krugman has numerous accolades, and is an accomplished economist.  He has even won a Nobel prize. Often his opionions are characterized as “Liberal,” when what that really means is that he sensibly takes issue with the unofficial position of the Fox advocacy channel that masquerades under the clever guise of “Fox News.”

Whether Krugman is spot on much of the time, or often spouting knee jerk partisan positions, when it comes to Democrats and importance of framing and understanding what the national debate is imparting, he may follow the same mold as other Democrats. That is, the application of what seem to be intellectual, rationale (sometimes subjective, sometimes not) standards to the analysis of why things are the way that they are in American politics.

This is a huge, and typical, Donkey Party mistake. Krugman makes it here, yesterday:

Lately many people have been second-guessing the Obama administration’s political strategy….

The Obama administration’s troubles are the result not of excessive ambition, but of policy and political misjudgments.

This is not the place to go into the conditions that the Obama Administration inherited when it took office, or the mistakes it has made, or the things that it has done, good and bad.  That has been debated elsewhere.

The Obama Administration’s troubles, politically, are a result of the fact that once again, the Right has controlled the debate, and done far more to define the Obama Administration, than Democrats have.

The analysis essentially starts, and stops, there.  Yet Democrats seem to live in a different world, and hold Obama to some standard of their own disappointment, rather than how Obama is being characterized to, and perceived by, the country.

The latter defines the administration. The former only defines it to a core of Democrats.  The former is not the country. Democrats often confuse it, for the country.

Yes, part of what Krugman suggests might be correct. The Obama administration has made political misjudgments. But to the extent relevant here, all of those  go to how the Obama Administration has framed and controlled (or failed to control) the debate, and thus, ultimately, the same issue. Here is a stunning example, rendered even more stunning by the response to it, from what is a mostly (but not all) Liberal site.

Much of this, of course, is hyperbole, exaggerated, and left wing stereotpying of the right, The Tribune went on to note.  However, Conservatives were not having any part of it. As of  today, party leaders announced, those formerly known as “conservatives,” shall heretofore, along with the “artist formerly known as Prince,” be known simply as “The Sign,” or, signers, for short. As in, signers in the Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution. (Birthers was already taken.)

Ha ha ha ha. No one was fooled, right? Because this is utterly ridiculous.

But yet, on the other hand, “Liberals,” after the Right had managed to completely define the word, ran screaming from it.  So much so that they are no longer “Liberals,” but “Progressives.”  (Sort of like the insurance company).

Maybe a better idea would have been to start a third political party in America, long overdue, and simply call it the “Progressives.” (Only problem is that this would have only furthered this country’s shifting to the right — see above not completely untrue stereotypes of “conservatives” for example — but still desperately needed, and long overdue.)

But that’s not what happened. Instead: Out — Liberals. In – Progressives.

Alan Grayson is one of the most unafraid members of Congress out there. He used the term, because there are only so many battles to fight, and Chris Matthews had rather inappropriately attached a label to him.  But then Matthews had this to say, raising a good question for “progressives.”

Hey look, don;’t hide from that word liberal. progressive sounds a little, well, i cant say that word, pussillanimous. ….this progressive sounds like you are hiding from who you are.

Here’s the video:

How come you knew that the way to beat these guys was to put em on defense.

The common sense mind boggles. It reels.  Very uncharacteristically, it grasps for air.  Truly, Democrats did not know this. And this is what, more than anything else, defines the past nine years.  The story behind the story — as always, more important than the one that is commonly “known,” or maintained.

How come you knew that the way to beat these guys was to put em on defense.

Mind you, Matthews is not talking about just Republicans here, or even the “Right,” but the far right (as he illustrates by way of example at the outset), which has come to take over, and largely define the Republican Party today.

Largely because Democrats did not know. Among other things, not so known.

Update: Matthews says something else pretty interesting on that video.  Minute 2:00

Why did the Democrats spend the last year or so attacking the way things are, as  a way of getting them fixed.

There are some things wrong with this statement; it plays to right wing framing, and it is somewhat misleading.  But there is also a great deal of truth in it. Or, more accurately a great deal of truth, in terms of how things are perceived. Democrats spend an unfailingly small amount of time defining the issues, and an even unfailingly smaller amount of time, defining their opponents.

Matthews, bad as he is, is not making these statements in a totalvacuum.  Democrats have spent a lot of time telling Americans what their opponents are, concluding what there opponents are, noting how “obvious” it is what there opponents are, but they have spent precious little time defining their opponents. Or even defining the issues, for that matter.

They usually play defense. It’s almost as if the Right is paying them. But it’s not. Democrats really seem to ofteh think that everyone knows what they “know” and so engage accordingly.  And this gets wildly self reinforced online, where the phenomenon is even worse.

Grayson — a pretty bright guy, self made, wildly rich, grew up dirt poor, put himself through Harvard and Harvard Law — may also think a lot of this stuff is obvious. But at least he shows what this stuff is.  And he does not play unnecessary defense.

As we noted earlier, Republicans fear him, because, as he put it;

The Republicans are serious about getting rid of me, because they are scared.  They have already set up a site to attack me. And the reason is simple; they don’t want my tough attitude to rub off on other Democrats.

No doubt. Whether Republicans  realize it, or not; they don’t.

By the way, it is important  to note — particularly given the level of vitriol on the web — that tough attitude is not defined by getting mad and calling people names.  It is defined by showing the case to the American people, breaking it down into terms that they — and not just the self reinforcing choir — can understand, and by turning their opponents miscues and misrepresentations into defining stories about them; not playing into them, and, as Matthews put it, “playing defense.”

Update II: We heard Matthews’ statement incorrectly.  Which lead to a fairly interesting analysis of how Democrats are often perceived to be “complaining.”  It turns out that we had it backward, and heard “did” when Matthews said “did not.”  Matthews: Why didnt the Democrats spend the last year or so attacking the way things are, as  a way of getting them fixed.

Well, interestingly, before agreeing with Matthews (well, agreeing with the opposite of what he was saying) we first noted “There are several things wrong with this statement” (the statement that was, in fact, the opposite of what Matthews was saying.)  Frankly, we don’t like the new “correct” statement either, but this is in some measure a function of framing. If Matthews simply meant “Why didn’t Democrats make the case as to what the issues are,” and then of course tie those into their opponents’ leadership and constant rhetoric, then it works.

Full Disclosure:  We are not fans of Michael Moore.  Some on the left may likely get angry with that statement, and dismiss what we are trying to do (somewhat comically, since there are millions of blogs out here and few see this one).

But what is important to point out — and even more important to understand (aside from the fact that people can have different perspectives over the same set of facts) is that the fact that a website like this that actually supports a number of positions that the left happens to support, carries far more credibility, because it can not be simply dismissed by or attributed to irrelevant but typically common assertions of “well, that’s just the left talking,” and a presumption of bias and spin immediately read right in. Because, here, it is not, and there is none. Rather, we are looking at the issue objectively, and dispassionately, trying to share facts as reasonably as possible, and when our perspective intermingles (which is not often the case), we try to give the reason why, when it is relevant.

That is what gets people to listen, and to bridge divides. Not necessarily in changing positions or even “compromising” things that don’t need to be or even should not be compromised on, but in helping open up actual debate, improving the level of information,and making disinformation into a much bigger issue that it currently is.

Now back to that disinformation, and the intense media bias that continues to play into the framing of the right. Part of the reason the media does this is because — well, for reasons discussed in other posts, and on more serious, lengthy sites, this is what the media does. And part of the reason why is because Democrats allow them to do it, Democrats do not use the often misleading framing of the far right to define the far right, Democrats allow the far right to define Democrats, and Democrats often play into the framing of the far right. This makes it easier — no offense media — for the media to do the lousy job that they do. (Many reporters have privately acknowledged that the wish Democrats would sometimes just freakin’ make an effective case, so they could cover it without immediately being accused by the far right of bias simply by virtue of covering the facts — but this seems to be a notion that, when shared, many active Democrats online scoff at. Which is too bad.)

Briefly, with the Michael Moore example:  Here is the news headline, on its user account home page, that greeted millions of Americans today (emphasis added):

Michael Moore Defends Beliefs. Filmmaker reacts to suggestions he leave the country:  Why he won’t go

This is rather incredible in its presentation.  Moore had to “defend” rather than simply “express” his beliefs?  Then there is the absurd suggestion that Michael Moore leave the country.  Why is AOL even parroting this?   For quick headline appeal, most likely. But the effect is the same.

“Jim” is famous.  Jim doesn’t think the way we are doing things is the best way, so Jim complains about what he thinks is not the best way.  He might spin his facts, as many do, and exaggerate a bit, but he doesn’t even wildly mislead, as some very promiment commentators in America do. And we say “Jim should just leave the country.”  Because our country is not founded upon the notion of the right to disagree, but instead, the idea that those whose perspectives we don’t like (not those who continually, and repeatedly, wildly mislead — and even they have a right to be here) should just leave.

Ha ha. We were just kidding. Of course our country is founded upon the right to disagree — and in fact the necessity for it. But maybe a few other people take up our call for Jim to leave the country.  “Jim, just get the hell out.” It has a nice, real emotionally base, and very easily appealing (and pithy!) ring to it. It’s even fun to say.

It is absurd, of course.  But AOL in its news feed, to millions, decides to run a headline;  ”Jim responds to suggestions that he leave the country.” The idea, even if Jim’s response is wonderful, is now legitimized.

But AOL,here, does something much worse. AOL now actually gives credence not just to the idea that the suggestion is at least reasonable, but to the idea that Jim “should get the hell out” itself, by telling its readers and account holders “Why Jim Won’t Go” is reasonable.

This is sensationalism at its worse.  We may dislike Moore, but at the moment we dislike AOL “more.”  Maybe AOL should “get the hell out!”

Heck, that is appealing!!  And it is fine, we are not castigating those who make this very misguided (and darest we say, perhaps on some absrtract level, “unAmerican”? suggestion), BUT WE ARE CASTIGATING AOL FOR BLATANTLY LEGITIMIZING IT, AND PLAYING RIGHT INTO IT.

It’s shameless. It’s clueless. And it is extremely biased.  And it’s being manipulated by the far right.  But as we noted above, Democrats are not helping, either.

From this morning’s fundraising email from the NRCC, signed by [Joe] Wilson:

There has been a lot of debate on what is true in the debate over government-run healthcare. But Democrats continue to spin and mislead the public in an attempt to stifle honest and open debate …..If we can raise more money than the Democrats, we’ll send a message .

From the DCCC’s fundraising email, signed by Paul Begala:

“You Lie!” That was one Republican Congressclown’s response to President Obama’s call for action on health insurance reform…Classy….But now the very liars who heckled President Obama for calling them out are raising millions of dollars off of their rude, dishonest attack — and even claiming victory in the media for it!

We think this sets up the Republicans perfectly for not just a fundraising email, but a full blown TV ad, that should say something like this:

Can you believe it America?  Congressman Wilson helped point out the hypocrisy of the Obama Administration’s push, as Democrats continue to continue to spin and mislead the public. We need to raise money to correct this stifling of open and honest debate by those dastardly Democrats, and now those same Democrats are actually, scandalously, trying to raise more money off of our fundraising that was pointing this out!

“We’ll see your two lies, and raise you one hypocrisy, a misrepresentation, and two government social workers thrown in.”

But the Democrats should then re-raise, with an ad that goes something like this:

Can you believe those absolutely classless, ”classy” Republicans, America!!  First they tried to raise money off of Joe Wilson’s outrageous attack upon the President, and did so by trying to project their own constant dissembling on the health care bill onto us, just like they always do!  Then, when we pointed this out – to raise funds to show these vicious lie — they used this against us to fund raise some more; by re-spinning those same lies! (And calling us “dastardly.”  America, make them apologize).  Even signed once again by “Classy” Joe Wilson.  Help us raise money now to defeat these lies about the truth we were telling about the lies they were telling about the truth!!!!

Of course the Republican camp will then run another ad, which will say something like this:

Hey, would somebody simply explain to the American people what this is all about so that we Republicans can stop lying so easily about it and actually have an informed discussion over the issue and see what we can do about these outrageously spiraling taxpayer funded medicare and medicaid expenses, which eat up more government funds than anything save perhaps national defense?

Yeah, Right.

Yet the media has covered the story quite a bit. As they have covered ACORN for quite some time now, on the continued rantings of those who think ACORN is the biggest thing in America.

But still, why hasn’t the media covered this latest “pimp” scandal even more?  Salon Columnist Glenn Greenwald, clearly, wonders as well why the media has not covered the  huge, enormous ACORN scandal as the very huge, enormous, once in several years type scandal that it quite clearly is.  Some hyperbole aside, his piece is well worth reading.

But even if the media “ignored” this HUGE story — which according to the far right means not making it one of the bigger stories in ages –Congress didn’t, and promptly passed a bill to address the situation. (As Congress often does, most particularly this decade, to address “situations.”)

However, there was a little problem.

So a few days ago Greenwald “interviewed”  Florida Representative Alan Grayson on just exactly this problem was.  Grayson, it should be noted, is a pretty formidable attorney.  (Here, he is lovingly described by Rolling Stone reporter and latest “in” commentator guy Matt Taibbi, in a pretty hilarious and entertaining post that describes Taibbi’s “personal experience” with him.  The video of Grayson grilling the Chief Counsel for the Federal Reserve, embedded at the bottom), gives a pretty good indication of Grayson’s skill set.)

Glenn Greenwald: You discovered that there was a potential consequence in this bill that was probably not intended by the bill’s sponsors. Can you talk about [that]?…

Alan Grayson: Well, I wouldn’t go that far, but I will say that it is true that 10 out of the 10 biggest defense contractors have been convicted of fraud at one time or another in the past few years, and ACORN hasn’t, it’s difficult to frame any bill, whatever one’s intent, to punish ACORN and keep ACORN from being funded by fed contracts…[and] This bill, taken literally, at its words, actually forbids and prohibits fed funding of virtually every large defense contractor in America.

Glenn Greenwald:Why couldn’t the bill just have simply said we will defund ACORN, and left it at that?…

Alan Grayson: The Constitution specifically prohibits bills of attainder; bills of attainder are actions by Congress that are directed toward one individual or one organization. And the reason for that is that Congress is a law-making body, not a judicial body. We [Congress] don’t actually decide guilt or innocence; we don’t decide liability, and therefore the Constitution understandably forbids a law that singles out ACORN or any other organization for punishment.

Glenn Greenwald: …Before you got to Congress, one of the things you were known for was working on fraud and abuse among contractors in Iraq. Can you put, in terms of the cost to the taxpayer of funding ACORN versus, say, the waste and abuse that comes from fraud on the part of military and defense contractors in Iraq [in context]?….

Alan Grayson: AG: …The amount of money that ACORN received in the past 20 years, all together, is roughly equal to what the taxpayer paid to Halliburton each day, during the war in Iraq.

We  agree that the ACORN scandal bears looking into.  But it also seems fair to ask the far right, if some dime store low level employees of already scandal ridden ACORN, engaging in some two bit, and somewhat hilarious, if not disturbing, ”free” pimp and prostitute and income sheltering advice is a national scandal of such epic proportions as to warrant a full court press of ongoing national news coverage; where was the same cry for more glaring media coverage, with respect to the far more significant — from a taxpayer standpoint – fraud convictions of each of our nation’s top defense contractors?

True, the ACORN story is more salacious.   But from a taxpayer standpoint, as Grayson points out, Halliburton – which has already been convicted of fraud with respect to expenditure of Taxpayer funds (awarded via not bid contracts, as well, upping the price to taxpayers considerably) – received from taxpayers each and every single day, roughly the same amount that ACORN had over 20 years. (The far right is also calling out for an investigation of Obama, as if he has been ACORN’s CEO just before becoming president;  Dick Cheney was Halliburton’s CEO.)

If we are talking about taxpayer support of fraud and improper purpose, it seems like Congress was focused on making an issue out of a pretty small ACORN, that fell from the mighty Oak tree of taxpayer funded fraud and abuse, instead of also going after, say, an actual mighty tree of fraud and abuse itself.  Wouldn’t all those Independent, anti Big Government, anti Fraud and Abuse, anti Waste of Taxpayers’ Money Tea Partiers agree with this?

Probably not. And therein lies the political problem that America is facing today.