A Childish GOP Ad On Health Care

A childish political ad shows why the Supreme Court should let Americans watch its hearings live and uncut.

Some loaded pauses are more loaded than others. Sometimes, it’s necessary to preload them.

At least that seems to be the Republican National Committee’s idea.

The RNC posted an attack ad last week using audio from the Supreme Court’s oral arguments on the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. The ad portrays Solicitor General Donald Verrilli – identified in the ad as “Obama’s lawyer” – struggling for words, pausing and peppering his statement with “um” and “uh.” Behind the recording, the text reads “ObamaCare: It’s a tough sell.”

However, that pause and those hesitations are not the result of Verrilli grasping for something to say. They are the result of editing, in what RNC Communications Director Sean Spicer disingenuously described as a “mash-up.” In its coverage of the incident, Bloomberg News pointed out that such unflattering edits are par for the course in political campaigns, which is hardly likely to make members of the Supreme Court eager to see wider dissemination of their proceedings.

This judicial reflex, however, is the wrong response. If ever there was a case that called for live video and audio broadcast, the health care case was it – and the Republican Party’s sneaky editing proved it.

If the entire country had seen Verrilli’s argument as he made it, would the GOP’s operatives have been so brazen as to edit his presentation into something so obviously different? The fraud would have been clear to even a casual observer, who would have wondered whether Republicans believe the word “voter” is a synonym for “gullible dupe.”

For those who don’t regularly read my column, let me point out that I am not a fan of the Obama administration. I’m a registered Republican, and I believe the Affordable Care Act is a terrible piece of legislation. I also respect the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence on most First Amendment matters, including its Citizens United decision. And it is that belief in free expression and open government that has led me to make the case, on more than one occasion, for broadcast of the Supreme Court’s proceedings.

Will live broadcast prevent misleading and inaccurate quotation of the court’s activities? Most of the time, probably not. People who are in the business of spin and distortion are not going to stop just because they might be called out. They count on the fact that only a fraction of the people who hear a misleading message are also going to hear and be persuaded by the counter-message. Yet this is no reason for the Supreme Court to resist putting the full truth of its proceedings into public view; it is, instead, a reason to ensure that the truth can be found by anyone who cares enough to look.

The RNC ad is particularly galling to someone like me, who opposes the health care legislation and wants to see it overhauled or repealed before it does a lot of damage. The people who produced that ad it should be forced to go sit in a corner and think about the damage done to a creditable argument when they resort to childish tactics. Spicer, the operative behind the ad, seems thus far unfazed. “Are there multiple clips in that video? Yes,” he said to Bloomberg. “The point was that he continually had to stop because he was having trouble making the case for why Obamacare was valid.”

The point, in fact, is that the RNC has provided a textbook example in how to turn a strong argument into a weak position. The bright spot is that this mistake actually strengthened the case for allowing the public to view arguments like Verrilli’s live and uncut, so they can form their own conclusions without political “help.”

For more articles on financial, business, and other topics, view the Palisades Hudson newsletter, Sentinel, or subscribe to my daily opinion column, Current Commentary.

This post is contributed by a community member. The views expressed in this blog are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Patch Media Corporation. Everyone is welcome to submit a post to Patch. If you'd like to post a blog, go here to get started.

Bob Ogden April 05, 2012 at 02:59 PM
John, I give Paul Ryan credit in that he proposed a budget. In my heart I think he knows there is no chance of this ever passing and he's submitting it, is strictly political grandstanding. Whether or not the Supreme Court overturns this law and it has overturned many the things before, I would hope that it's not a 5 to 4 decision because that's just divisive and would reflect poorly on the court. The other thing I would hope for is that someone from either side of the aisle comes up with a plan for healthcare because our hospitals are in a crisis that shows no signs of getting better.
Donna April 06, 2012 at 12:02 AM
Well, it's certainly not the Supreme Court's job to come up with a plan for healthcare. They are not the legislative branch; it's the Congress that needs to develop a law that is feasible, fair, and constitutional. Those who want the Supreme Court to pick out parts of the law that are good and throw out those that are not do not realize that that does not follow our three branches of government. If the Supreme Court decides that the mandate is unconstitutional, I'm hoping that they strike down the mandate and throw the rest of the law back to Congress to get it done right. Congress didn't read the whole law; why should the Supreme Court have to sit there and fix the mess Congress made.
Lisa Graham April 09, 2012 at 02:04 PM
Like the budget Obama submitted? That not one Representative voted for? Obama is the quintessential bloviating grandstander........ Paul Ryan's budget actually addresses many of the critical issues facing this country, like overspending, and Medicare and Social Security, both now doomed to bankruptcy. And no, he's not trying to take Medicare and Social Security away from granny and throw her over the cliff. But, of course, as all the "smart, educated, thinking" people tell us everyday, everything that Republicans do is evil, and all that Democrats do is benevolent and good. (wink wink)
Bob Ogden April 09, 2012 at 04:36 PM
Actually, if you read my post I didn't take any of the positions you're ranting about. I personally think we should have gone with a single payer system but no one had the guts to do that on either side. If you're under 55 years old and somehow I doubt it, you'd realize that medicare under the Ryan plan would be converted to a voucher system. The voucher system will be based on the two lowest cost insurance carriers in the region. I will suggest to you that if that happens your insurance will not cover much of anything and you'll beg to have medicare back. Social Security is not bankrupt nor is it in danger of becoming bankrupt and if you researched it rather than repeating what you hear on FOX you would know that. And finally yes, I am a smart, educated and thinking person. You should try it..
Todd Hannon August 17, 2012 at 05:18 PM
Paul Ryan's Budget doesnt balance the budget for at least another 20 years, which is useless because with the way the deficit is growing our economy will have collapsed by then. The U.S dollar is is losing its status as the worlds reserve currency, we need answers now, not in 2030.


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »