Republicans and the Town Hall Strategy: "Political Terrorists"
2008 Pulitzer Prize winner Steven Pearlstein warns today in his Washington Post column that he is going to go "over the line." This sounds exciting! But actually he just asserts some basic facts in this bullshit, fabricated, ridiculous and saddening summer-long political propaganda fest over healthcare. For instance! "The recent attacks by Republican leaders and their ideological fellow-travelers on the effort to reform the health-care system have been so misleading, so disingenuous, that they could only spring from a cynical effort to gain partisan political advantage. 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. "
Is this really any surprise? The Radical Right has always had a whining motor, and Energizer Bunnies to beat their drums.
The Whack Brigade lives for challenges like this far more than the meager satisfactions of actual power. This is true Civil Disobedience; those guys with blunderbusses tossed tea for it back in the day when you didn't elicit knowing snickers from perverts for talking about tea.
Once these inbreds get their high chairs back, they'll call for the elimination of scraggy-haired ethnic fruits and their pantywaist potsmoking libertinism. They'll show you who has what between their legs.
God. If they just played the 'greed' card instead of feigning moral outrage once in a while it would be so refreshing.
It must suck being a Liberal. Even with total control of the government you guys can't get anything done. The Republican party is in complete shambles and they're still able to rattle your cage and by using your own tactics against you to boot. Republicans protesting?? Hilarious.
"Political Terrorists" how very Cheney-esque. Amazing how fast the tactics have switched.
Can't get anything done? Ha.
What up, Troll.
Meh. this is all part of the modern phenom of politics as entertainment. As an NFL fan i am always struck by how the language of bipartisan politics matches that of sports. but stats show these people are in the true minority.
The real bad guys here, as has been the case since the late 90s, are the media. These nuts are easily whipped into a frenzy — as they always have been through all of history. but they are further emboldened by seeing others doing it on tv; call it the "broken windows" theory of disruptive activism.
Agreed. I blame The Awl.
cantastoria, makes a good point. The Republicans have no alternative agenda beyond the rattling of cages. Why continue to try to work across party lines (which is what's holding things up)? Why all the attention to a miniscule, loud, and sweatpanted crumb of the total American electorate. Get the Blue Dogs in line and steamroll.
"Why continue to try to work across party lines (which is what’s holding things up)?"
Well I guess that's one way of looking at. Although I prefer to call it "covering your ass". The Dems don't want to own Health Care and they're going to water it down in the name of "compromise" until there's nothing to own.
It's already a joke anyway. Frankly, I'm amazed Dem supporters have come out so strongly for it. It's going to wind up being mandated crappy private insurance with some subsidies if you can't afford to buy it. You're still going to be calling Cigna begging for a liver transplant.
Lame scare tactics. Look, I have a good health plan, but I don't feel quite right about kicking the door behind me and telling the 30 million uninsured people to go to the emergency room. Besides, people with good health insurance have to beg for actual coverage as it is. If I ever got truly sick, they'd do their best not to cover me, despite my many years of prescription free healthiness paying into the plan. It's a disgrace and everybody knows it.
Yeah, I had my skull bashed in for homophobic reasons a few weeks ago and had to have parts of it replaced with metal (almost lost an eye there) and I had to go in through the emergency room because my insurance (Oxford) was trying not to pay for my diagnostics and surgery.
"Lame scare tactics"
There's not going to be a requirement for full coverage by insurance companies, just that they offer plans cheap enough for individuals to buy. What they cover is still left up to them.
"Look, I have a good health plan, but I don’t feel quite right about kicking the door behind me and telling the 30 million uninsured people to go to the emergency room."
So instead you'd rather kick the door and tell them to buy health insurance?
"It’s a disgrace and everybody knows it."
And now it will have the full backing of the federal government.
Of course. Having a skull and eyes is a pre-existing condition! I'm very sorry to hear that. Get well.
Of course the part where you close the front doors and only allow in SEIU members and other fellow travelers has nothing to do with propaganda. And when I get that email directly from the president's office telling me who to call, what to say and where to show up, that's not astroturfing.
New York City allowed a massive protest rally during the RNC — one which was organized in part by actual, living Communists (WWP and International ANSWR) — yet when Republicans cried "astroturfing" they were told not to question anyone's patriotism. The city didn't explode. Both sides were heard. Some people were arrested and some counter-protesting Republicans got their asses kicked by anarchists. In other words, everyone had a grand old time and the country survived.
I can't say I'm surprised by all this pants-wetting and knuckle-gnawing from supposedly free-speech Democrats who, by the way, spent last election cycle extolling the virtues of COMMUNITY ORGANIZING (which is just another way of saying astroturfing). But I am a little disappointed.
Argue the points for health care reform. Explain WHY these people are wrong. Calling them unhinged lunatics — whether it's true or not — isn't going to make the case.
Especially as Congress, at Obama's behest, DID try to rush through some version of a poorly defined bill without reading any of it. You're talking about something that effects a large chunk of the economy and vast numbers of people … and it was like, "Hey, trust us. We're the geniuses of Congress." (Keep in mind, if things had played out as planned, they wouldn't even be having these townhall meetings because they'd wanted this bill DONE by now.)
The "rush to war" with Iraq, which was, in effect, a simple yes or no vote with clear repercussions (Yes, we go to war; no we don't go to war) took a year and a half. But this they tried to cram through in two months AFTER the bullshit stimulus plan, AFTER trying the same with cap and trade and AFTER Obama pretty much said, "Remember that stuff about transparency and posting bills online? Yeah, neither do I?"
But sure, call the opposition terrorists and question their patriotism. That worked out so well for the Republicans the last few years.
Will you marry me KenWheaton?
Only if your health plan is better than my wife's!
Look, I know that Republicans work the refs in a way not seen since the Pistons of the 1980s (I hat you Bill Laimbeer), but really from a communications standpoint, it's fair game to point out that these protests are staged theatre to lessen their effect. The aim was to make it seem like organic rebellion was bursting out all over the place and an alternative narrative was introduced. Sorry. It sucks for the Republican plan, but, hey. Plus, if the Glenn Beck fans can show up, why can't the union folks show up? Are all union members citizens of Kenya now?
Now, I'm not big on the name calling, but I don't think free speech and democracy was envisioned as "nyah nyah! I can't hear you!" It's totally allowed but I'm sorry there are no high fives and it's not incredibly easy to have everyone see something the way you want and just play their roles as part of a Republican script. If it makes you feel better, it's still much easier than the 100s of people penned in Pier 57 in New York during the RNC had it.
Sure. If we're looking at it from a pure communications standpoint, the Dems are doing what they have to do as they do seem to have lost some control of public perception. I get that. But that's just as much propaganda as anything else going on.
Of course, if the Republicans can manage to get a grandma knocked down by a union rep, THAT's gonna be great TV.
All that said, this idea that the Democrats have some weird right to "build consensus" without anyone shouting at them — as if it just goes without saying that the entire country just can't wait to reform health care (and do it their way) — is sort of ridiculous.
"Look, I know that Republicans work the refs in a way not seen since the Pistons of the 1980s "
Who exactly are these "refs"? Would that be the media that's been frantically reprinting a thinkprogress.com piece about how these protests are being organized? If there are refs in Congress I'm pretty sure they're Democrats.
"but really from a communications standpoint, it’s fair game to point out that these protests are staged theatre to lessen their effect."
Aren't all protests staged theatre? I still have fond memories of the "theatre's of dissent" at the RNC protests years back. Oh and the vomitorium… good times. But I guess those didn't need to be pointed out to lessen there effect seeing as they didn't have any.
"Now, I’m not big on the name calling, but I don’t think free speech and democracy was envisioned as “nyah nyah! I can’t hear you!â€Â"
So your free speech is better than my free speech? If you scream "Troops home now" over and over again that's some how better then "Vote No" or "Read the bill"? As hard as may be to believe some people have actually seen how the Left protests. I'm not seeing much difference between the two.
"If it makes you feel better, it’s still much easier than the 100s of people penned in Pier 57 in New York during the RNC had it."
I'm sure it's been a badge of honor for them ever since.
I'll start by agreeing that the current health care proposal is so watered down that… well. so what. Because it'll probably only get more watered down after all this happens.
The problem isn't the extremist sides; they are unreachable and really need the kind of deprogramming one would give a cult member. No "engagement" or discussion is ever going to reach them and they don't intend to have one.
The problem with your comparison is the coverage. I remember the RNC protests AND the anti-war protests in 2003, I remember the media VASTLY underestimating the numbers (calling 100,000 "at least 30,000"), I remember the small handful of dipshit anarchists got plenty of TV play instead of the large number of middle-class, average protesters. As for the grass rootiness of the "community organizing" you must, as always, follow the money. Who is paying FreedomWorks and the Club for Growth to "help" organize these events? Oh, look, it's the same dirty lobbies that these very protesters say are part of the problem in corrupt washington.
They are wrong because in many cases, such as where I live, they are the very people who most need health care reform. They are the ones who will be denied and they are the ones who will soon be priced out of the system (once their non-locally-HQed employers decide that health insurance isn't really an expense they need to make anymore. They are wrong because they have no alternative solution. They are ironically wrong because if they block this reform from happening then its only going to get worse until true Socialized (pinko) medicine is an inevitability. They are wrong as they have been for years about a party that has pandered to their basest fears for votes and then turned around and shit on their lives in every possible way. They are the very group that cries for "the market" to run healthcare and the exact ones that the market would determine to be poor risks. They complain about tax increases on the only group that lives to exploit them. (Meanwhile, they have seen no raises).
There are commercials on TV here, right now, that are outright saying that heath care reform means that your grandma is going to have a time to die chosen for her by Washington DC. Now, are you go to tell me a tactic like that is even within the realm of reason or that it is something (to the cost of millions of $ to run) that is being done by a "grass roots" organization? The Pavlovian reaction to Obama has become so drilled in that now people immediately criticize him for something as simple as giving 6000-year-old helen thomas cupcakes on her birthday. The guy's only been in office 6 months.
Meanwhile, where were all these "patriots" and lovers of free speech and low deficits when the patriot act was getting crammed down throats and there was a $5 trillion deficit being run up in the largest growth of US govt. ever? You call that reasonable?
Also, nice red scare mention of "Communists" by the way.
It wasn't a "Red scare" mention of "Communists." It was a mention of Communists. Or does that make me a fascist or something just because I pointed out the simple fact that communists were involved with organizing those rallies?
And, yes, I know that many of the middle-class protesters in that march had no idea of who was handing out signs and such. But that's no different from you just assuming the entire opposition consists of little more than slobbering drones programmed by Glenn Beck.
Well-played, though. The geniuses at WWP dreamed up International ANSWER so as to distance the party from the group. And then, by even mentioning the word communist, I'm a red baiter!
As far as where those "patriots" were during the Patriot Act? I don't know. I don't care. Obviously they didn't care enough about it to mobilize — which is usually the case with privacy issues as they relate to either side of the political aisle.
We rational and high-minded observers don't get to pick what people get pissed off about to the point they protest.
In America today all mentions of Communism are "red care" mentions, intentional or not. If it was a simple fact, why mention it at all? There were lots of political groups involved in that? Why single out the communists?
ANSWER. Yeah. Who funded them? The World Workers Party. (And they were hardly the only group involved in the anti-war protests.). So what? At least it wasn't a pharmaceutical lobbyist group. If you want to play the associated-extremist groups thing I can mention all the Birthers in these grass roots protests.
And whatever. The communist thing is not really the issue here. The issue is that these people are wrong and are being misled by corporate interests that are using them. Did I say they were slobbering drones? No. They are scared people (rightfully so) who are being made more scared for no reason.
If you're wondering why I left Louisiana all those years ago, it's because of this kind of Opelousas-level thinking.
No. No one was wondering. But thanks for sharing!
I was wondering. And this Ken Wheaton does a good impression of a dick.
NYC "allowed" a protest rally? "Allowed"?
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
What NYC did was to lock down the city and face down the marchers with more police than I saw at the WTC on the evening of 9/11/2001. Along with that show of force went hundreds of fake arrests, a tactic pioneered in the deep south during the struggle for civil rights–a struggle with conservatives.
If American conservatives had won the many battles they've fought, we would be living in a very different world today. There would be slavery or apartheid. Women would stay at home. We would have skipped WWI and WWII. White supremacy would be official policy. Immigration would be racially limited based on quotas. …And we would be a fourth-rate country instead of a second-rate one.
Can't we all just agree that disrupting your opponent's attempt to speak and shouting him or her down to prevent them from making their point is now completely valid behavior and a legitimate form of debate? I mean, really, we should let these people TALK? They might say things! Shut 'em down!
"Can’t we all just agree that disrupting your opponent’s attempt to speak and shouting him or her down to prevent them from making their point is now completely valid behavior and a legitimate form of debate?"
As it always has been. This is nothing new except for the fact that Republicans are doing it. Think of it as throwing shoes at Congress.
"I mean, really, we should let these people TALK?"
They are talking. They're creating legislation, a very powerful form of speech.
OMG what are you saying? They aren't "talking" at all. That's not even the point The only thing they are "creating" is a disturbance.
And throwing shoes? You are comparing shutting down a local town hall meeting to a journalist throwing shoes at a man whose poor planning (and lying) was largely responsible for thousands of unnecessary deaths not to mention that I have $100 that says the very people who are throwing these figurative shoes were very much against the first actual act.
Abe I can't reply below you because The Awls' comments system sucks. Balk? Choire? Get on it…
"OMG what are you saying? They aren’t “talking†at all. That’s not even the point The only thing they are “creating†is a disturbance."
I was referring to the members of Congress speaking at these town halls. Isn't creating a disturbance the whole point? Are WTO protesters creating a disturbance when they smash a window? We're the protesters that snuck into the RNC creating a disturbance? Why now all of sudden is this behavior characterized this way?
"And throwing shoes? You are comparing shutting down a local town hall meeting to a journalist throwing shoes at a man whose poor planning (and lying) was largely responsible for thousands of unnecessary deaths"
Yes. Yes I am. Throwing shoes at someone when they're giving a speech is no different from shutting down a local town hall meeting. That the shoes were thrown at the President doesn't matter. The act was the same.
"I have $100 that says the very people who are throwing these figurative shoes were very much against the first actual act."
As the people who are now having these figurative shoes thrown at them very much supported the first actual act.
I think this behavior has always been characterized this way. i don't remember any positive coverage by any major media organization of the WTO protesters. in fact, i remember replay after replay of the clashes and broken windows.
and the difference with the shoe thrower is that he was one man who acted alone because of his passions on an issue he fully understood- his act was the beginning and the end of his protest; these people are groups organized and egged on and supported by lobbying interests and they have no understandable agenda other than to shut down the meeting.
"I think this behavior has always been characterized this way. i don’t remember any positive coverage by any major media "
I wasn't commenting on how it was portrayed by the major media. I was simply responding to your dismissal of this type of action as merely "creating a disturbance". And no it hasn't always been characterized this way. It has been applauded and replicated, many times, by protesters who up until now were Leftist/Dems.
"and the difference with the shoe thrower is that he was one man who acted alone because of his passions on an issue he fully understood- his act was the beginning and the end of his protest;"
How could you possibly now what he understood or didn't understand or what he feels passionate about. It's clear you feel passionate about what he did.
You keep proving my point. Throwing shoes at a speaker is no different from shutting down a town hall. The fact that you have a particular affection for the shoe thrower doesn't make your argument. His act and their acts are one and the same.
"these people are groups organized and egged on and supported by lobbying interests and they have no understandable agenda other than to shut down the meeting."
All protests are supported by outside interests of some kind. Whether it be MoveOn, Internation ANSWER, United for Peace and Justice or Code Pink. This "they're being organized and egged on by outside interests" argument is only applied to Republican protesters (never thought I'd use those two words in the same sentence…).
The fact is that regardless of who is doing the talking, this turkey of a "reform" bill is going to be passed this fall. Have you read it? If the final bill resembles anything like what's being debated right now you're not going to be happy.
But that is exactly what this action is. Its aim is to create a disturbance and nothing else. The fact that seeming intelligent people are buying into this “they just want to be heard†nonsense shows how successful this campaign is.
As for the support groups. I’ll make this as simple as I possibly can. The organizations (with the exception of ANSWER which itself was a front for a political party/group and not a lobby) you mention were not shell organizations created to look like grass roots groups to back protests for the insidious purpose of advancing a corporate interest.. In this case, that’s exactly what they are.
The bill isn’t the issue. Of course it’s going to be compromised so heavily (thanks to in part to lobbying tactics like the ones you’re defending) that, ironically, it probably SHOULD be blocked at this point. And because it will probably do a piss poor job, ironically again, a decade from now all of these people will have worse healthcare and then there WILL be socialized medicine.
What about our uncivil rights?
Until this moment, Balk, I think I never really gauged your cruelty, or your recklessness.
You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?
***
Seriously, the scarier the Republicans get, the better.
A while back, I attended a meeting of California Progressives who had gathered together to assess Obama's first 100 days. Some were Democrats. Some were Green Party. Some were proper Socialists. Not one of them was happy with the way he was approaching health care reform. No one supporting single-payer health insurance was even being allowed to testify at the hearings. Doctors and Nurses representing pro-single-payer groups were being escorted from the premises. The people who had gathered together felt marginalized and ignored. Many folks I know would call these people left-wing nutjobs. I would reply that this is not helpful, and that it's wise to pay attention when folks are actually roused to activism. (Most people I know would rather tend to more immediate matters than political protests – kids, jobs, homes, etc.) Are the rallies funded? Probably, sure. Ought attendees to be dismissed? That seems less clear. Are some of their concerns, however exaggerated, founded on concerns that have some basis in genuine philosophical/political differences? I think maybe yes. And if you want to defuse the opposition, you have to address those differences. People get mad when the feel ignored.
Couldn't agree more.
Citation?
You mean, for the meeting? Just this:
http://www.sandiegoreader.com/news/2009/aug/05/no-cover-charge/
Relevant graf:
After that, Barbara Storey, program director for health care for the League of Women Voters of California, excoriates the Obama administration for not even allowing the discussion of single-payer health coverage at the Baucus-led Finance Committee hearings. “To date, more than 13 people have been arrested because they’ve gone into the hearings and talked about it â€" and these are doctors and nurses. There is no way you can finance this system and keep the health-insurance industry in it. They’ve got to go. The Obama-Baucus plan is a disaster happening.â€Â
heh.
"And if you want to defuse the opposition, you have to address those differences." that's a nice thought and i agree in theory. but how? it's like with the birthers, you cannot confront them with facts. so how?
My dad is a big fan of what he calls "active listening." When we would get into familial arguments, we were required to pause before saying our piece, and first attempt to express what the opposition was saying, and THEN say, "Does that accurately express your position?" It was a huge pain. But by golly, it worked. The other side felt understood, and it forced everyone to listen and be careful in their responses. I wonder if the crowds would be shouting quite so much if the Congresspeople began their speeches by saying, "I get it. You're afraid of x. You're afraid of y. You've read z. You're upset by all this, and understandably so. Because a, b, and c. Am I right?" [Pause for reaction.] "Now I want you to understand why I think those fears are unfounded, and why we think this is the best way to proceed – not because we're trying to ram through some piece of legislation by some deadline, but because we believe this is what's best for America. And by the way, here's why that deadline is a good thing, and not just some arbitrary date."
Easier said than done, I know. But has it been tried?
Actually, yes. Watch the videos. 2 weeks ago it was fairly humane. The officials would call on someone and they'd stand up and ask their question and they'd et an answer. But then the protesters said these answers were lies. Then they started asking their questions and then Booing down the official before they even got through their answers. And now it's just an attempt to highjack the whole meeting and get footage of it to post (on sites like FreedomWorks and Operation Embarrass Your Congressman and Fox News) to create the look of a vocal majority that's being locked out of having an opinion. Granted, Pelosi and crew are goading these nuts and MAKING IT WORSE because they are retards.
The fault of your approach is that you (being a reasonable human being) assume that they're angry because they're "not being heard." but that's not the goal. The goal is to be disruptive and that's it. here's an example of a comment – by no means the worst – from one of the right wing blogs that is big into helping organize these protests. You tell me if this is somebody who will respond to your very reasonable and humanistic proposed approach.
http://abesauer.com/__oneclick_uploads/2009/08/obama-nfl.png
Sigh. What you say about media manipulation – disrupting for the sake of posting video of the disruption – may well be true. And that comment you link to is saddening. It's clear you're better informed than I am on this one – I've seen only a few videos, read a few articles and editorials. I would love to hear some politician actually appeal to "the better angels of our nature."
p.s. Balk, just read your comment about the shout-downs, and don't wish to imply that I'm in support of uncivil behavior.
I think we can ALL agree that Civil Discourse has, in the 21st Century, gone the way of the Unicorn.
It never existed in the first place?
It can only be tamed by virgins.
And in an ironic and totally self serving twist: even the debate on the Awl is dominated by a few who appear to mimic the very actors they are critique-ing.
Morally questionable and insincere motives driving hysterical and simplistic arguments on both sides–We all just play the game as though no one is waiting in the emergency room bleeding to death.
The machine is wanting. The machine wont stop. We are slaves to the machine.
"We all just play the game as though no one is waiting in the emergency room bleeding to death."
Awesome. Though federal law requires hospitals to provide emergency care whether the patient has insurance or not.
Also, I apologize. You're right. We were beginning to sound like a bad episode of cable TV. I now feel dirty and ashamed.
I don't know… I feel pretty good about what's transpired here. I think the real problem is that both sides are defending something that neither of them wants. Dems really want single payer health care. Republicans don't know what they want but it probably involves markets and deregulation which they're not getting either. Politics is all we have left.
Would you like to play a nice game of chess?
Yes, and they also get slapped with a massive bill for it. What in the fuck leads people like yourself to declare that the ER is the answer to this country's serious health care problem? Wouldn't it be better for ERs to deal with, I don't know, "Emergencies"?
Oliver Stone?
Takeaway: no one is as sincere and intelligent wiilliiaamm. I may disagree with Ken and cantastoria, but they at least put their beliefs on the line. Was that last paragraph a Nine Inch Nails song?
Can we all at least agree that this is exactly what a real town hall meeting should actually sound like?
Sorry, I didn't actually mean that as a response to you directly, Janine. I see your point re: wiiiiilllliiiiaaaaaaammmm though.
Damn, I came into this far too late! Can barely read everything that's been going on? But, hmm, some pretty shaky comparisons being made.
There is a difference between "grassroots" and "astroturfing" – the fact that both involve groups of people protesting with the involvement of some sort of organzing bodies does not mean the two terms are synonymous. The difference? The extent to which an empowered body is sponsoring a group of people to represent that body's interest while pretending they are representing their own interest. In this case, it is a matter of, broadly, corporate sponsorship, where corporate interests are being represented as non-corporate interests. Potentially, any movement can have "grassroots" or "astroturf" protests; in this case, the Republicans are astroturfing.
There is a difference between an Iraqi man throwing a shoe at the man who led the violent and often brutal invasion of his country and oversaw an occupation involving widespread incarceration, torture, frank murder, and the exile of one in five of his surviving countrymen, and a Republican jeering at a "socialist" Democrat [sic] congressman.
There is a difference between free speech and the disruption of free speech under the guise of protected free speech. It is a difference that is worth being cautious about, worth debating, and worth considering; it is worth considering when the disruption of free speech under the guise of protected speech should be confronted as such, and how it might be confronted.
Good luck with all of that. The Right is currently banking everything on False Equivalency, or, as I like to call it, "B-b-b-but Code Pink!"
Sigh..
"The extent to which an empowered body is sponsoring a group of people to represent that body’s interest while pretending they are representing their own interest."
As done so well by International A.N.S.W.E.R. and just about every other anti-war protest organizer during the Bush years. The WWP is great at stirring up the anti-war crowd. Notice how these protests magically disappeared after a more sympathetic (or so they believed) administration took over, despite the fact that both wars are still being fought. Astroturfing at its finest. Wouldn't you agree?
"In this case, it is a matter of, broadly, corporate sponsorship, where corporate interests are being represented as non-corporate interests. Potentially, any movement can have “grassroots†or “astroturf†protests; in this case, the Republicans are astroturfing."
See above.
"There is a difference between an Iraqi man throwing a shoe at the man who led the violent and often brutal invasion of his country and oversaw an occupation involving widespread incarceration, torture, frank murder, and the exile of one in five of his surviving countrymen, and a Republican jeering at a “socialist†Democrat [sic] congressman."
Not in the way that they are both being "disruptive" and shutting down the exchange.
"who led the violent and often brutal invasion of his country and oversaw an occupation involving widespread incarceration, torture, frank murder, and the exile of one in five of his surviving countrymen"
Feel better now that you got that all out? Good.
"There is a difference between free speech and the disruption of free speech under the guise of protected free speech."
Only as a of few weeks ago. Up until then all protest was protected free speech and the highest form a patriotism regardless of who organized it or who showed up.
"B-b-b-but Code Pink!"
"Wouldn't you agree?" No!
"See above." Did so. Same question? Same answer!
"Feel better now that you got that all out?" Um, no! But it doesn't really matter how I feel, though I appreciate your concern! Was I wrong in any of what I said when I presented George W. Bush in this way? But, again, thanks for your concern about my well-being.
"Only as a of few weeks ago. Up until then all protest was protected free speech and the highest form a patriotism regardless of who organized it or who showed up." Um? Really?
Meanwhile, at a town hall right now in Florida, people are shouting, slapping, tearing clothes. All hell has broken loose. Nobody's been able to speak because they just get shouted down, so no actual "town hall" was able to take place.
See the video linked here.
So I guess we can't have town hall-style discussions in this country any more. They'll just be hijacked special-interest-organized mobs as opportunities to scare people with intimidation and violence.
I CAN'T HEAR YOU BECAUSE YOU'RE WRONG LA LA LA LA!!!!!!!
what? I couldn't hear you.
re: "Republicans don’t know what they want but it probably involves markets and deregulation."
How quickly everyone forgets. Republicans want privatization of Medicare, since market forces and private companies are able to provide health care far more efficiently than government bureaucrats.
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/04/republicans-lets-privatize-medicare.php
It's demonstrably false claim that is also undermined by Republican criticism of the so-called "public option," because the too-low overhead poses an unfair competitive threat for regional insurance monopolists.
"How quickly everyone forgets. Republicans want privatization of Medicare"
No ones talking about Medicare. Republicans are all out astroturfing town halls.
"It’s demonstrably false claim that is also undermined by Republican criticism of the so-called “public option,†because the too-low overhead poses an unfair competitive threat for regional insurance monopolists."
"Too low overhead"? You mean because the government can just either raise taxes or print money to cover overhead while a private company has to increase revenue? I'd say that's a pretty unfair competitive threat no?
haha, that's your final answer? I at least expected some at least somewhat informed reply about actual administrative costs, profit margins, executive compensation, marketing expenses, medical losses, &c., but all you come back with is top-level GOP boilerplate about raising taxes and printing money. Turns out all you're doing is playing at being a conservative wolf among a bunch of Obama's New York sheep.
I mentioned Medicaire privatization because it puts paid to your nonsense about Republicans not knowing what they want. What they want at this second, of course, is no mystery: to derail whatever it is Obama wants, and to thereby score political points among the haters.
Well kids it's been fun.
I'll check back in the fall when the bill gets passed and we can all play "blame the lobbyists".
And their defenders.
I am a lobbyist Abe.
Gotcha.
Me and millions of others.
Zinggggggggggg!
Good Night Folks!
In Europe, people are biting their nails and looking at the US and wondering what will happen there when the flu epidemic snaps back this fall. The civilized world – that with universal health coverage – looks at the US as a slob who shits himself because he's lazy. Health care is basic hygiene.
I find I usually state the obvious in these parts. so fuck it, let me do it again.
The pink tutu-ed elephant in this debate (and not necessarily here… I have hope for my fellow AWL readers) is race. We are still a country with a very vocal group who would rather go without health care than somehow contribute pennies towards the health of peoples who don't look like they do, etc.
yes. I posted this screengrab off a tea party/town hall blog earlier but I think it speaks to your point about not being able to reason with this bunch
http://abesauer.com/__oneclick_uploads/2009/08/obama-nfl.png
I live in New Zealand and I cannot fathom why there is so much scaremongering around healthcare reform in America. Admittedly I don't understand all the issues surrounding it but the whole thing just makes me hideously hideously sad. My partner is American but he has no desire for us to return, largely because of healthcare being so prohibitively expensive.
We pay for private health insurance which is pretty cheap and very comprehensive (covers pre-existing conditions). However it is such a weight off our minds (mostly his, this is just normal to me!) to know that if we could not afford insurance we can easily access free public healthcare.
Sure we pay a lot of tax here and the cost of living is not exactly cheap either. But no one really cares because, well, we're used to it.
Oh and I sincerely apologise if that came across as sounding like 'nyah nyah we have free healthcare'. Honestly not my intention. Also, I am a big fan of your delicious Nyquil, which you cannot get here because our government is a cruel unfeeling tyrant when it comes to powerful cold remedies.
Ha ha ha. You even apologize for your superior health care. How… foreign to us.
How dare he flaunt the humane and decent society he lives in!
Do you have Solpadene at least? Or Night Nurse?
The healthcare protesters look to me like people with Stockholm Syndrome. But their defenders? Look like their captors.