Now I remember why I was an independent all those years.

[bleedorange]

Well, "a lot" is relative and I don't know what you mean by it. Regardless, I think we can agree that the vast majority of Obama-is-Hitler protesters are aligned with right-wing groups rather than LaRouche. The more relevant point deals with how each side of the spectrum generally treats their lunatic fringe: While mainstream Democrats have a long record of shunning and marginalizing LaRouche types (like Frank dismissing that woman), mainstream Republicans are now actively courting and riling up their crazies (like DeLay validating the birthers last night).

 

Is DeLay considered a mainstream Republican?

[ikol]

Well, "a lot" is relative and I don't know what you mean by it. Regardless, I think we can agree that the vast majority of Obama-is-Hitler protesters are aligned with right-wing groups rather than LaRouche. The more relevant point deals with how each side of the spectrum generally treats their lunatic fringe: While mainstream Democrats have a long record of shunning and marginalizing LaRouche types (like Frank dismissing that woman), mainstream Republicans are now actively courting and riling up their crazies (like DeLay validating the birthers last night).

 

Maybe so. I honestly don't know or care whether those calling Obama Hitler are mainstream Republicans as it does not affect my inclination to ignore them. However, I don't recall a lot of fury on the left when Bush was Hitlerized for 8 years.

 

Is DeLay considered a mainstream Republican?

 

He's on Dancing with the Stars. You can't get more mainstream than that.

[kwall]

you're giving Palin more credit than she deserves...

When Sarah Palin declares in a speech that our current private insurance system is "downright evil," and concedes that the current push for reform is designed partly to address how private denial of coverage is killing people, then we can talk about whether she has any intellectual honesty.

i'm not really interested in debating the intellectual honesty of sarah palin. i don't like her and i never did. my intent was to defend the fear that some people have about the government making these kind of calls. i understand that it's a subtle distinction between that and having a private insurer do it. subtle, but worthy of debate. too often, anyone that shares this fear is labeled as mindlessly taking their marching orders from sarah palin. it's just not true.

[bleedorange]

He's on Dancing with the Stars. You can't get more mainstream than that.

 

 

Yeah, I guess we'll find out how mainstream and popular he is once the voting begins. Or do people actually vote based on true dancing ability on that show?

[Beltmann]

i understand that it's a subtle distinction between that and having a private insurer do it. subtle, but worthy of debate.

Agreed. I wish the discussion centered on such subtle distinctions rather than the cartoonish and counterproductive demagoguery that is currently driving the debate.

[Sir Stewart]

the cartoonish and counterproductive demagoguery that is currently driving the debate.

 

"America, fuck yeah."

[Guest Jules]

Fuck you JUDE.

[Good Old Neon]

Is DeLay considered a mainstream Republican?

 

Yes, in fact he is.

 

As is RNC Chairman Michael Steel, who, it seems, cannot seem to allow himself to admit that the "death panel" discussion is a fucking farce - or maybe he actually does believe in death panels, along with faeries and unicorns and leprechauns.

From Andrew Sullivan:

 

RNC Chairman Michael Steele Is Not Willing To Say That Death Panel Rumors Are False

 

I don't want to spend all week writing about death panels. Writing about something that doesn't exist is tedious, and I realize that by giving further attention to the subject I am possibly just playing into the intended trap, which is to give everyone the impression that there is genuine controversy and uncertainty here, rather than just a bunch of straightforward lying about the administration's health-care proposals. I hope I'm not doing that, because it really is just a bunch of straightforward lying.

 

But it's getting weird, and I cannot resist. Here, via Ben Smith, is RNC Chairman Michael Steele, like a latter day Jacques Derrida, deconstructing the question of whether or not death panels exist:

 

Michael Steele, the chairman of the Republican National Committee, said the false “death panel” rumor about President Obama’s health care plan is a “grassroots” notion that he does not know if he believes.

 

Steele said he does not regret that Republicans such as Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich raised “death panel” issue.

 

“Some characterize it as unfortunate. Others characterize it as a reflection of what they think and what they feel,” Steele said in an interview on MSNBC’s Morning Joe. “That comes from some place and is something that’s out there in the grassroots of America, not just Republicans.”

 

Asked if he thinks there is a “death panel” provision in the bill -- a suggestion that has been proven untrue and that the White House has spent a week trying to knock down -- Steele said he does not know.

 

“It may or may not be. I don’t know. We don’t know what the bill is,” Steele said.

 

After I stopped slamming my forehead into my desk, it occurred to me that Steele's rhetorical move is really a pretty common one. Just as creationism gave way to intelligent design, the original false claim in this case -- that the House bill would create death panels -- has now been replaced by the far more insidious notion that death panels reflect some 'emotional truth' floating around in America, and we'll never really know whether that emotional truth reflects the, you know, factual truth.

 

And then it occurred to me that we do know what's in the House bill, we do know it contains no "death panel" provision, and we do know that no member of the administration or Congress has proposed anything of the sort. So, for the squintillionth time, this stuff is just false. That's not my characterization; it's a well-documented matter of fact, and I'm sure Michael Steele knows it. Or at least I hope so.

 

link - http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/08/rnc-chairman-michael-steele-is-not-willing-to-say-that-death-panel-rumors-are-false.html

[ih8music]

re: the earlier discussion about how much the wording of the poll question can drastically alter the results...

 

New Poll: 77 Percent Support "Choice" Of Public Option

 

More than three out of every four Americans feel it is important to have a "choice" between a government-run health care insurance option and private coverage, according to a public opinion poll released on Thursday.

 

A new study by SurveyUSA puts support for a public option at a robust 77 percent, one percentage point higher than where it stood in June.

 

But the numbers tell another story, as well.

 

Earlier in the week, after pollsters for NBC dropped the word "choice" from their question on a public option, they found that only 43 percent of the public were in favor of "creating a public health care plan administered by the federal government that would compete directly with private health insurance companies."

 

Opponents of the president's agenda jumped on the findings as evidence that backing for the public option was dropping. Proponents responded by arguing that NBC's tinkering with the language of the question (which it had also done in its July survey) had contributed to the drop in favorability for a public plan.

 

SurveyUSA's poll, which was commissioned by the progressive group MoveOn.org, a proponent of the public plan, gives credence to those critiques. While arguments about what type of language best describe the public option persist --"choice" is considered a trigger word that everyone naturally supports -- it seems clear that the framing of the provision goes a long way toward determining its popularity.

 

In asking its question SurveyUSA used the same exact words that NBC/Wall Street Journal had used when conducting its June 2009 survey. That one that found 76 percent approval for the public option: "In any health care proposal, how important do you feel it is to give people a choice of both a public plan administered by the federal government and a private plan for their health insurance--extremely important, quite important, not that important, or not at all important?"

 

To ensure that its respondent pool was composed of people from similar demographics and political mindsets, SurveyUSA asked respondents a question pulled directly from NBC's August survey. The results were nearly identical.

 

Read a description of the president's health care plan, 51 percent of Survey USA respondents said they "favored" the approach, while 43 percent opposed it. In the NBC poll, 53 percent of respondents said they favored the president's plan, 43 percent said they opposed it.

[bjorn_skurj]

New York Times primer

 

Christian Science Monitor primer

[M. (hristine]

New York Times primer

 

Christian Science Monitor primer

These are very helpful, bjorn. Thanks!

[Good Old Neon]

New York Times primer

 

Christian Science Monitor primer

 

 

I did little research into the author of both these articles, and sure enough:

 

[Tweedling]

The way the right attacks Barney Frank for things not having to do with his politics is pretty disgusting. I was watching the video of his response to that woman on Youtube and the first similar video was "The 600,000,000,000 FAG".

 

Rush Limbaugh also likes to play clips of him altered to have a chipmunk voice and then plays a parody song called "Banking Queen" over top of it.

 

Attacking an openly gay politician for being gay in our country is pretty fucking low, in my opinion. It takes a really brave person to be able to put up with the bullshit that comes along with just being openly gay, let alone being openly gay in the public eye and being a divisive political figure to boot. It would be very easy for him to slink back in the shadows.

Just to clarify, no one has attacked him for being gay on this board. Right? I know that had nothing to do with my criticism.

[Sir Stewart]

Just to clarify, no one has attacked him for being gay on this board. Right? I know that had nothing to do with my criticism.

 

Dude, Elmer Fudd is totally gay - look how he checks out Bugs in drag!

[bjorn_skurj]

Just to clarify, no one has attacked him for being gay on this board. Right? I know that had nothing to do with my criticism.

Dude, have you taken a look at your sig line lately? You really should STFU about gay people.

[stooka]

Calm down!

[bobbob1313]

Just to clarify, no one has attacked him for being gay on this board. Right? I know that had nothing to do with my criticism.

 

It was a general criticism.

[Tweedling]

Dude, have you taken a look at your sig line lately? You really should STFU about gay people.

Dude, I have and I think that shit is funny. Are you serious? You should BTFU. Grow some f'n onions. It's a damn message board! I don't really care who is gay or who is not. I love poontang. You are free to love what you want! sheeeez

 

It was a general criticism.

same here

[Good Old Neon]

Nat Hentoff casts his lot with the crazies.

 

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/08/20/i_am_finally_scared_of_a_white_house_administration_97969.html

 

And, though unrelated - as many suspected, it appears as though the Bush White House was using that handy color coded threat alert system for political gain.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/08/21/ridge.terror.level/index.html

 

(So called)Conservatives express their outrage:

 

**cricket - cricket - cricket**

 

Edit: Here, they apologize to those all those “crazy” liberals who suspected the alerts had more to do with politics, and much less to do with any actual danger.

 

**cricket – cricket – cricket**

 

The ironic difference between, say, right wing attacks against Obama and left wing attacks against Bush, is that a great number of accusations leveled at Bush were true. Torture (a war crime) – fabricating evidence in support of a war, also know as, “making shit up” (war crime) – wiretapping (unconstitutional) – the events following Katrina (ineptitude) – hiring folks who were not even remotely qualified for their posts (nepotism) – I’m sure I’m leaving out tons of shit.

[ikol]

The ironic difference between, say, right wing attacks against Obama and left wing attacks against Bush, is that a great number of accusations leveled at Bush were true. Torture (a war crime) – fabricating evidence in support of a war, also know as, “making shit up” (war crime) – wiretapping (unconstitutional) – the events following Katrina (ineptitude) – hiring folks who were not even remotely qualified for their posts (nepotism) – I’m sure I’m leaving out tons of shit.

 

I fail to see the irony. I'm also not getting a whole lot of Hitler from that. And as far as unconstitutionality goes, Obama's policies take the cake.

[kwall]

Nat Hentoff casts his lot with the crazies.

 

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/08/20/i_am_finally_scared_of_a_white_house_administration_97969.html

what do you take issue with in this article? it sounds pretty scary to me. but then, i'm just a crazy.

[Good Old Neon]

I fail to see the irony. I'm also not getting a whole lot of Hitler from that. And as far as unconstitutionality goes, Obama's policies take the cake.

 

Liberals were consistently mocked for a.) believing the Administration would ever engage in the use of torture (and then, when it was proven true, the right changed tactics, either by defending its use, or calling it some other thing), b.) for raising questions as to the veracity of both the WMD evidence, and claims related to Saddam’s capabilities and motives – all of which turned out to be….bullshit.

 

And yet here we are again, with republicans making shit up – death panels – that status of Obama’s citizenship – etc, i.e. – making ridiculous claims, which, unlike those levied against Bush, are simply not true. The irony, for me, is that the same right wing that, right now, is actively attempting to make Obama out to be a monster, based on fabrications, is the very same right wing that spent years defending the actions of what might just be the worst political tag team in US history, Bush and Cheney.

 

As for Obama’s choice to continue many of Bush’s policies, both foreign and domestic, I agree – it’s bullshit.

[Good Old Neon]

what do you take issue with in this article? it sounds pretty scary to me. but then, i'm just a crazy.

 

The error is this. On the purely voluntary end of life consultations in the House bill, Hentoff writes:

 

"To me, 'purely voluntary' means 'not unless the patient requests one.'"

 

But Obamas' doctors will initiate these chats.

 

No, no, a thousand times no. The House version of the bill ensures the Medicare will cover up to one consultation every five years, but it makes no stipulation that "Obama's doctors" (whatever the hell that means) will "initiate these chats."

[Winston Legthigh]

"Obama's doctors" (whatever the hell that means) will "initiate these chats."

Obviously Mengele and his cronies.

 

Soon we'll all become familiar with doctors asking "IS IT SAFE??"

[Atticus]

Liberals were consistently mocked for a.) believing the Administration would ever engage in the use of torture (and then, when it was proven true, the right changed tactics, either by defending its use, or calling it some other thing), b.) for raising questions as to the veracity of both the WMD evidence, and claims related to Saddam’s capabilities and motives – all of which turned out to be….bullshit.

 

And yet here we are again, with republicans making shit up – death panels – that status of Obama’s citizenship – etc, i.e. – making ridiculous claims, which, unlike those levied against Bush, are simply not true. The irony, for me, is that the same right wing that, right now, is actively attempting to make Obama out to be a monster, based on fabrications, is the very same right wing that spent years defending the actions of what might just be the worst political tag team in US history, Bush and Cheney.

 

As for Obama’s choice to continue many of Bush’s policies, both foreign and domestic, I agree – it’s bullshit.

 

I don't want to speak for ikol, but maybe his point was that what you're talking about sounds more like hypocrisy than irony