Obama Swats At Critics. So Does ABC.

Lisa Derrick Wednesday June 17, 2009 10:14 am

Oh no, wait. It’s a fly. And it’s kinda how Obama has treated same-sex federal workers over health care benefits. And speaking of health care, the Obama Administration and ABC are facing some harsh words from the GOP over ABC’s broadcast (and pre-broadcast hype, including a Michelle and Barack appearance on ABC’s "Good Morning America") over Obama’s town hall meeting on health care reform.

Monday Republican National Committee Chief of Staff Ken McKay sent this complaint to the head of ABC News:

As the national debate on health care reform intensifies, I am deeply concerned and disappointed with ABC’s astonishing decision to exclude opposing voices on this critical issue on June 24, 2009. Next Wednesday, ABC News will air a primetime health care reform "town hall" at the White House with President Barack Obama. In addition, according to an ABC News report, GOOD MORNING AMERICA, WORLD NEWS, NIGHTLINE and ABC’s web news "will all feature special programming on the president’s health care agenda." This does not include the promotion, over the next 9 days, the president’s health care agenda will receive on ABC News programming.

Today, the Republican National Committee requested an opportunity to add our Party’s views to those of the President’s to ensure that all sides of the health care reform debate are presented. Our request was rejected. I believe that the President should have the ability to speak directly to the America people. However, I find it outrageous that ABC would prohibit our Party’s opposing thoughts and ideas from this national debate, which affects millions of ABC viewers.

In the absence of opposition, I am concerned this event will become a glorified infomercial to promote the Democrat agenda. If that is the case, this primetime infomercial should be paid for out of the DNC coffers. President Obama does not hold a monopoly on health care reform ideas or on free airtime. The President has stated time and time again that he wants a bipartisan debate. Therefore, the Republican Party should be included in this primetime event, or the DNC should pay for your airtime.

Okay, last I checked rightwing radio hosts were kicking and screaming over Equal Time and how if it’s re-instituted it will massively suck for them and how it’s not fair blah blah blah. But now they want it. My head is spinning like Linda Blair in the Exorcist.

But then ABC pops back with this "All your bases are belong to us" response (emphasis mine):

ABC News prides itself on covering all sides of important issues and asking direct questions of all newsmakers — of all political persuasions — even when others have taken a more partisan approach and even in the face of criticism from extremes on both ends of the political spectrum. ABC News is looking for the most thoughtful and diverse voices on this issue.

ABC News alone will select those who will be in the audience asking questions of the president. Like any programs we broadcast, ABC News will have complete editorial control. To suggest otherwise is quite unfair to both our journalists and our audience.

So don’t expect any questions about health care benefits for same-sex partners of Federal workers.

Phoenix Woman | Wednesday June 17, 2009 05:09 pm 1

1) The DoJ is compelled to defend DOMA as it’s the law of the land.

2) As long as DOMA is in place, possible benefits are limited. Get rid of DOMA, the limits go away.

3) The best way to end DOMA is through the Congress, as both Laurence Tribe and OPM’s John Berry have stated. Why? Because, as Tribe notes, you don’t want a Supreme Court run by John Roberts deciding this thing:

As someone who wants to see DOMA dismantled and invalidated, I would love it if this ninth circuit case would evaporate into the ether.

Even though I personally believe that DOMA is unconstitutional, I think that this particular lawsuit is very vulnerable; it’s not anywhere near as strong as the one that was brought in the federal district court in Massachusetts [a suit filed by Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders].

In an environment where the Supreme Court is still quite conservative, what makes a suit a strong one is that it finds a point of entry in which it’s possible to invalidate a law in a number of its applications by using more of a scalpel that might appeal to five justices rather than a bludgeon that will almost certainly ask more of the court than it is willing to do.

What’s strong about the Massachusetts case is that these are concrete situations of people who are legally married under the laws of states like Massachusetts or Vermont, and who are being discriminated against by the federal government with respect to federal benefits simply because they are same-sex couples. There’s no other difference between them and other couples in that state, and the court could agree with that without accepting any of the broader theories advanced in the [Smelt] lawsuit in the central district of California, which is basically a bet-the-farm lawsuit that almost dares a conservative Supreme Court to slap it down.

[…]

There are ways for the president to get rid of DOMA. He can advocate for its repeal, he can eventually urge the solicitor general to join in a more surgical attack, but he certainly isn’t obliged to go along with every plaintiff who brings a lawsuit.

The important point here is that the solicitor general traditionally seeks to dismiss lawsuits against federal laws whenever there is a plausible basis to do it. A lot of the outcry about the administration’s position doesn’t take that institutional reality into account.

4) The people most loudly demagoguing the DoJ’s DOMA brief — and at least one gay activist who dislikes the brief isn’t exactly fond of how it’s being demagogued — seem to be confusing or (deliberately?) conflating a DoJ lawyer’s somewhat lazy cites of case law — cites that were likely used in this brief simply because they were used in prior DoJ briefs responding to prior DOMA challenges — with OMGOMGOBAMAHATEZTEHGHEYZZZ!!!