Jane Hamsher reaches the poop threshold

A wingnut with a screw loose.

Moderator: carsonfire

Jane Hamsher reaches the poop threshold

Postby carsonfire on Wed Jan 13, 2010 10:13 pm

Judging from the polls, independents finally understand that conservative warnings before the 2008 election actually had merit after all. What's surprising is that many on the left are beginning to realize it, too.

Younger Democrats take part in rewriting history concerning Jimmy Carter -- they have been taught by their lying elders that today's conservatives just LIE about them, and so it follows that what they hear about Jimmy Carter must have been LIES too. But what was remarkable about Carter in the late 70s was that he was judged a failure from all corners.

That's because no matter how much poop the left shovels, there are still too many on the left who want to believe the poop is on the level. When the poop gets too high, they can't lie to themselves anymore, and can't let their dishonest leaders continue lying to them.

Welcome to reality. The Democrat party let partisanship and the extreme hate of the left blind them, and as a result have installed what is probably the dirtiest, most corrupt administration ever to sit atop the federal government.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jane-hams ... 21549.html
How the White House Used Gruber's Work to Create Appearance of Broad Consensus

...

How did the feedback loop work? Well, take Gruber's appearance before the Senate HELP Committee on November 2, 2009, for which he used his microsimulation model to make calculations about small business insurance coverage. On the same day, Gruber released an analysis of the House health care bill, which he sent to Ezra Klein of the Washington Post. Ezra published an excerpt.

White House blogger Jesse Lee then promoted both Gruber's Senate testimony and Ezra Klein's article on the White House blog. "We thought it would all be a little more open and transparent if we went ahead and published what our focus will be for the day" he said, pointing to Gruber's "objective analysis." The "transparent" part apparently stopped when everyone got to Gruber's contractual relationship to the White House, which nobody in the three-hit triangle bothered to disclose.

But that was child's play compared to the effort that went into selling Gruber's analysis of the bill unveiled by the Senate on Wednesday, November 18. Two days later on Friday November 20, Gruber published a paper entitled "Impacts of the Senate High Cost Insurance Excise Tax on Wages: Updated," claiming that the excise tax would result in wage hikes of $234 billion from 2013 through 2019.

And it was off to the races.

The next day on the 21st, Ron Brownstein wrote in the Atlantic about Gruber's effusive praise for the cost-cutting measures in the bill: "Everything is in here....I can't think of anything I'd do that they are not doing in the bill. You couldn't have done better than they are doing," says Gruber.

On Monday the 23rd, the DNC was sending the Brownstein column around in its entirety...one of 71 emails they would send touting Gruber's work. It was also included in OFA's Monday Morning News Clips on BarackObama.com.

On Tuesday the 24th, OFA had another post touting the Brownstein article and citing Gruber as a "self-proclaimed skeptic on this stuff. The DNC sent that around, too. Mike Allen wrote that Obama had made the Brownstein article "mandatory reading" in the West Wing. TPM had the scoop that Rahm Emanuel told senior staffers "not to come back to the next day's meeting if they hadn't read the article."

David Brooks of the New York Times was not convinced that the Senate bill would be deficit neutral, so Peter Orszag pointed him to the Brownstein's "insightful article on health care costs" on the White House OMB blog that same day. It's hard to believe Orszag didn't know about Gruber's contract -- a search of the White House visitor logs indicates he met with Gruber on March 26, the day after his HHS contract was first awarded.



We don't expect these people to admit we were right after all, but... no, wait. Actually, that's just what I want to see. :D
Cars, as always
User avatar
carsonfire
Keenspot Mac Daddy
 
Posts: 7772
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2000 12:00 am
Location: Small town, Texas

Re: Jane Hamsher reaches the poop threshold

Postby VictorK on Thu Jan 14, 2010 6:30 am

I wouldn't count on Hamsher saying that you were right any time soon. The left criticizes Obama from the left, Hamsher is attacking the Senate bill because she wants the House bill. Her attacks on Gruber are not meant to call health care reform into question but point out the shaky proposals in the Senate bill. Hamsher is part of a group that is trying to defend unions and other Democratic constituents from the excise tax, while pursuing a tax on the wealthy that the House bill uses as its funding mechanism.

Hamsher's position is reflected in a recent CBS News poll where a plurality of voters don't think that the current proposals go far enough:
http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/health-care/poll-more-think-health-care-reform-isnt-ambitious-enough/
Image

It will also be interesting to see how Brown does in Massachusetts. He's following the New Jersey/Virginia playbook by trying to run as a moderate, disclaiming any knowledge of the tea parties, which Democrats are eager (and able given that he spoke at a tea party rally) to do. Under your theory one would think that Democratic efforts were counterproductive. We'll see, as the only tea party candidate to run so far has lost.
"The gods are not all powerful, they cannot erase the past."

-Agathon, printed in Ludo de Witte's "The Assassination of Lumumba"
User avatar
VictorK
Keenspot Despot
 
Posts: 2520
Joined: Sat Apr 08, 2006 3:22 pm

Re: Jane Hamsher reaches the poop threshold

Postby Casual Notice on Thu Jan 14, 2010 8:12 am

You'll note that in that summary sheet you show the pluralities emerge not in coverage, but in cost. You're wrong to believe that conservatives want the healthcare system to go on blithely the way it has. We know the system is broken, it's the method of correction that we take issue to. Insurance costs are high because medical costs are high, medical costs are high because pharmaceutical companies get a pass on reasonable pricing and because doctors and hostials have to maintain huge amounts of malpractice insurance to prevent bankruptcy on the offchance of a big payout suit. Malpractice insurance is so high because state boards of medicine are not revoking the licenses of enough bad doctors (or--and I have my head in myhands as I type this--states not consulting with other states' boards in granting licenses in the first place). The problem with health care is not one you can solve by throwingmoney down a hole. It has to be handled slowly, with full regard to the consequences of every action.
The savior of billions (Norman Borlaug) dying barely rated a mention in the news this year. Farrah Fawcett wore a bikini well back in the 70s and she got international coverage. Good job, society.
--Lisa Skye Ioannidis
Image
User avatar
Casual Notice
Keenspot Despot
 
Posts: 1978
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2004 10:14 pm
Location: Houston, TX

Re: Jane Hamsher reaches the poop threshold

Postby carsonfire on Thu Jan 14, 2010 9:43 am

VictorK wrote:I wouldn't count on Hamsher saying that you were right any time soon. The left criticizes Obama from the left, Hamsher is attacking the Senate bill because she wants the House bill. Her attacks on Gruber are not meant to call health care reform into question but point out the shaky proposals in the Senate bill.


I'm giving her more credit than you are, apparently. And for all I know you may be right.

But just to be clear, you are saying that the only reason she is objecting to the sleazy process is not because it is a sleazy process, but because this particular implementation of a sleazy process results in an outcome that she disagrees with, and this alone is the reason she calls attention to it -- which implies that she would be just fine with the sleazy process if it instead got her what she wants.

This is one of our (non-liberal Democrat) criticisms of the modern Democrat party. The fact you have arrived at a point where a majority of you seem just fine with ANYTHING as long as it gets you what you want. And anything that doesn't get you what you want -- regardless of the validity of the accusation -- is open to attacks, smears, and destruction.

In this clownishly cynical world, what you want comes before everything else -- process, ethics, reason, law, everything. It's why we see, for example, Obama essentially breaking the law in order to fire an IG who inconveniences his own unethical political cronies. Now that you mention it, I haven't seen any Democrats complain about this -- far from it, nothing but weasely defenses. And it must be because the IG firing doesn't go against any particular want or desire. It is instead seen as a benefit to political allies, so what is at the very least unethical is defended because you like the *outcome*.

VictorK wrote:It will also be interesting to see how Brown does in Massachusetts. He's following the New Jersey/Virginia playbook by trying to run as a moderate


Wow, spinning already. Democrats must really be worried about his chances.

His TV ads and much of his rhetoric have embraced the PRIME conservative position of using tax reduction to aid the economy. I'm sure he's not using the word "conservative" in Massachusetts, but neither did Obama when he falsely espoused conservative positions in 2008. A great number of conservative people don't identify themselves with that label.

You seem to just be echoing the Coakley ads, as opposed to actually thinking for yourself. Coakley is running an incredibly dopey campaign, with TV ads identifying the tea parties as "hate groups". My question: do you have Brown on record distancing himself from tea parties in just those words, or do you have him calling that accusation a lie?

We're a little too accustomed to the way Democrats use false logic in campaigns like this. A does not equal B, but you insist it does; rival candidate disclaims B, but since you falsely equate B with A, you claim that the candidate is distancing himself from A when he disclaims B, simply waving off any attempt to correct your false correlation along the way.

Hamsher's complaint, your depiction of her complaint, and this false logic all demonstrate the weakness of your positions. If you can't win an honest debate, you need to re-examine your arguments.
Cars, as always
User avatar
carsonfire
Keenspot Mac Daddy
 
Posts: 7772
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2000 12:00 am
Location: Small town, Texas

Re: Jane Hamsher reaches the poop threshold

Postby VictorK on Thu Jan 14, 2010 10:19 am

Casual Notice wrote:You'll note that in that summary sheet you show the pluralities emerge not in coverage, but in cost.


Really? I see 'not far enough' leading in every single category, including the expansion of coverage. If you toss in those who think it goes far enough you have a majority who find the bill beneficial in that regard.

You're wrong to believe that conservatives want the healthcare system to go on blithely the way it has. We know the system is broken


I think you're the rare conservative who says that. Carson is quick to point out that the US has the best system in the world, after his trip to the hospital Rush couldn't say enough about how amazing the US health care system is for every person in the nation.

And the silence from Republicans in proposing an alternative plan is deafening. The conservative response has overwhelmingly been to delay and shut down the reform process entirely rather than engage it.

Carson wrote:But just to be clear, you are saying that the only reason she is objecting to the sleazy process is not because it is a sleazy process


Hamsher doesn't say anything about a sleazy process, she's trying to discredit a source that her opponents rely on.

Boy, for all you like to say about how mere opposition creates a hateful response in liberals and Democrats (it's the Democratic Party, btw) you're very quick to turn routine debate tactics into evidence of your own narrative.

Carson wrote:You seem to just be echoing the Coakley ads, as opposed to actually thinking for yourself. Coakley is running an incredibly dopey campaign, with TV ads identifying the tea parties as "hate groups". My question: do you have Brown on record distancing himself from tea parties in just those words, or do you have him calling that accusation a lie?


The claim comes from The Boston Globe:

He also claimed that he was unfamiliar with the “Tea Party movement,” when asked by a reporter. When told that different people labeled him a conservative, moderate and a liberal Republican, he responded “I’m a Scott Brown Republican.”


There's no mention of Coakley's ad or any claims that she made about the nature of the Tea Parties, merely a statement that he didn't know what they were. Brown may indeed be running on a fiscal responsibility platform (which can hardly be said to be owned by conservatives after the results of their decades in power) but he's running from the far right. Probably a wise move, in Massachusetts.
"The gods are not all powerful, they cannot erase the past."

-Agathon, printed in Ludo de Witte's "The Assassination of Lumumba"
User avatar
VictorK
Keenspot Despot
 
Posts: 2520
Joined: Sat Apr 08, 2006 3:22 pm

Re: Jane Hamsher reaches the poop threshold

Postby carsonfire on Thu Jan 14, 2010 10:24 am

And adding to what Casual's already said about that polling -- when VK sees a poll that says that the current plans don't go "far enough" to control costs, he simply assumes that this means that everybody is in favor of incredibly dumb liberal solutions like price caps and other controls. But we know from experience that those kinds of policies are a disaster. It's the kind of thing that necessarily leads to rationing and other predictable unintended consequences.

Tort reform that conservatives favor is one way of helping control costs that liberals hate. Unlike price caps, tort reform would help control costs by making it more difficult for Democrat cronies to constantly siphon cash out, some of which winds up in the campaign coffers of rich Democrat senators. Dems see it as free money because they don't care where it's coming from, but this cost ultimately *has* to be passed on to the rest of us in higher medical bills. That's a status quo that Democrats *like*.

The liberal objection to tort reform is that they think that by putting limits on how much their ambulance chasers can extract from hospitals, it will somehow encourage doctors to be bad doctors. Instead, the constant threat of financial ruin makes the profession less attractive and retards recruitment. Why go to medical school, when you know the real money is to become a lawyer suing doctors?

Really, health care does badly need reform -- but reform FROM bad liberalism, not TO more of the same.

The following article addresses the traditional danger of VK's lunkheaded view of controlling costs:

http://american.com/archive/2010/januar ... f-no-price
The High Cost of No Price

Economists have shown that if a good’s price is zero or decreasing, then the demand for this good will likely increase. In 2008, consumers were only directly responsible for 11.9 percent of total national healthcare expenditures, down from 43 percent in 1965, according to new data from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. This means that someone other than consumers pays roughly 88 percent of all healthcare costs, giving consumers little incentive to mind costs and much incentive to over-consume.

The graph below shows out-of-pocket payments by consumers and spending by Medicaid, Medicare, and private insurers on healthcare from 1965 to 2008. Since the passage of Medicare in 1965, consumers’ out-of pocket spending on healthcare has decreased steadily as a percentage of overall U.S. healthcare spending. While real and nominal out-of-pocket healthcare payments increased over the period, growth in these costs was dwarfed by a much more rapid growth in overall spending. On average, consumers’ out-of pocket healthcare costs increased 6.7 percent each year, while national healthcare expenditures increased by an average 9.8 percent each year.

[go to link for graph]

By contrast, increases in expenditures by private insurers, Medicaid, and Medicare accounted for the majority of this excess cost growth—since 1965, private insurers’ spending has increased by an average 10.8 percent annually, Medicaid spending has increased by an average 15.4 percent, and Medicare spending has increased by an average of 15.6 percent each year. Also, as you can see, the rate of growth in both Medicare and Medicaid spending far outpaces the rate of growth in out-of-pocket and private insurance costs.

And it’s about to get much worse. On Christmas Eve, the Senate passed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, which further expands Medicaid and Medicare’s roles in the U.S. healthcare system.

Much of the rationale behind the current reform of the healthcare system is about controlling inflation in healthcare costs. However, based on the trend presented above, a better alternative to the semi-nationalization that the president has in mind would be to increase individual responsibility for medical decisions and costs. When people aren’t exposed to the true cost of their care—even if they pay for it in foregone wages and higher taxes—they consume more.
Cars, as always
User avatar
carsonfire
Keenspot Mac Daddy
 
Posts: 7772
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2000 12:00 am
Location: Small town, Texas

Re: Jane Hamsher reaches the poop threshold

Postby carsonfire on Thu Jan 14, 2010 11:34 am

VictorK wrote:
You're wrong to believe that conservatives want the healthcare system to go on blithely the way it has. We know the system is broken


I think you're the rare conservative who says that. Carson is quick to point out that the US has the best system in the world, after his trip to the hospital Rush couldn't say enough about how amazing the US health care system is for every person in the nation.


We acknowledge that which works exceedingly well, while wanting to always reform that which does not work or which runs contrary to good function.

You, on the other hand, have simply railed against the status quo. If you can't discern between that which works admirably and that which doesn't, you have no business leading the reform.

That's the trouble with current Democrat proposals. People can see that in you are more than happy to destroy what we have that works in order to achieve your political goals. The fact that so many of you admit the current bills are terrible, but insist on passage anyway, because this is your "last shot" at it proves it without a shadow of a doubt.

You don't consider traditional Republican or conservative calls for reform as such, because, first, you dismiss any of these proposals you don't agree with. Continuing to use tort reform as an example, you are probably like most Democrats in that you don't consider that a health care reform, but must believe that it is some kind of evil giveaway to Big Doctors.

Second, anybody but the myopic left recognizes the enormous good that exists in our health care system, and would want to institute reforms in such a way that doesn't destroy what we have that's good, along the way. Your definition of reform is to blindly destroy the status quo and replace it with a socialist system -- using the dishonest euphemism "universal". That's not reform, that's a power grab.

Your definition of not being interested in reform, then, is not throwing ourselves to the ground and worshipping your ideological idiocy.

VictorK wrote:Hamsher doesn't say anything about a sleazy process, she's trying to discredit a source that her opponents rely on.


Proving my point. What she describes is clearly sleazy regardless of its intent; but for you, the sleaze is invisible -- it conly matters who the accusation discredits. You choose sides THEN decide if what's being done is actually sleazy or not.

Ethics isn't a matter of recognizing things are done incorrectly that go *against* you. Ethics is recognizing when these things are incorrect even if they otherwise serve you.


VictorK wrote:The claim comes from The Boston Globe:

He also claimed that he was unfamiliar with the “Tea Party movement,” when asked by a reporter. When told that different people labeled him a conservative, moderate and a liberal Republican, he responded “I’m a Scott Brown Republican.”


There's no mention of Coakley's ad or any claims that she made about the nature of the Tea Parties


I'm not talking about Coakley's ads in relation to Brown's statements, I'm talking about Coakley's ads in relation to your transparently dishonest rhetoric. The Boston Globe presumably does the same, quizzing Brown about the Tea Party movement BECAUSE Coakley is running ads equating the Tea Party with "hate groups".

Based on that, it looks like the Globe reporter probably asked Brown a question that is almost on par with "when did you stop beating your wife?" And as you can see in your own excerpt, the Globe neither prints the wording of their actual question nor the wording of Brown's answer. Considering the false logic the charge is based on in the first place, that reporter does a great disservice by his incredibly vague wording.

We know this is likely, because liberal journalists, even if they are trying to be fair and impartial, have a bad habit of accepting false logic from other liberals without question. So the liberal journalist wouldn't think it unfair, for example, to ask Brown if he has any association with "hate groups like the Tea Parties". To answer that question at all is to accept the false premise; to try to correct the false logic in order to give an answer opens you up to easy mischaracterization, especially when the journalist, who is already confused, only paraphrases the question and answer.

Further, from your excerpt, we see that your claim that Brown is running as a MODERATE and not a CONSERVATIVE is based on an answer where he also just as clearly eschews being called a MODERATE. How dumb!

In other words, you're making up sh*t again, then pretending you weren't even when your own evidence shows you were.
Cars, as always
User avatar
carsonfire
Keenspot Mac Daddy
 
Posts: 7772
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2000 12:00 am
Location: Small town, Texas

Re: Jane Hamsher reaches the poop threshold

Postby carsonfire on Thu Jan 14, 2010 11:49 am

Oopsie-doodle! Guess what, VK? Turns out there's a transcript of the interview:

http://hotair.com/archives/2010/01/14/s ... a-parties/
QUESTION: “Scott, what do you think about the Tea Party movement and what they are trying to do?”

SCOTT BROWN: “I am not quite sure what you are talking about, what are they trying to do?”

QUESTION: “The anti-smaller government, sort of anti-establishment organization that is trying to take over the country.”

SCOTT BROWN: “Taking over the country. I think that is a little bit of an exaggeration.”

QUESTION: “Well, they are all over the place and they are trying to take down moderate Republicans. . .”

SCOTT BROWN: “All I know is that. . . “

QUESTION: “Are you completely unaware of that organization?”

SCOTT BROWN: “I’m not quite sure what you are referring to. But let me just say that this is a big tent campaign. I have people who are Democrats, I have people who are Independents, Republicans, young, old, liberal, conservative, moderate involved in this campaign because people are looking past the letter behind my name and they are looking at my 30 years of military service. They are looking at the fact that I have been a municipal and legislative leader with over 6000 votes, and more importantly they are looking at the stark differences between Martha and me on health care on cap and trade, on the expiring tax cuts, on the war tax, on how we treat people who are trying to kill us, on the fact that Afghanistan has a very real and vital national interest. They’re looking at those issues, and I welcome everybody’s support, because, literally, it’s me against the machine.”


The story you excerpted, VK, was (of course) a liberal journalist asking Brown if he was unaware of a "anti-smaller government, sort of anti-establishment organization that is trying to take over the country". Brown was understandably careful in answering this boob, because he was obviously digging for a hot gotcha. If Brown had admitted to being "aware" of this boob's characterization of the Tea Party, the story then would likely instead feature a line paraphrasing Brown that he and the Tea Parties are going to "take over the country".

Despicable.
Cars, as always
User avatar
carsonfire
Keenspot Mac Daddy
 
Posts: 7772
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2000 12:00 am
Location: Small town, Texas

Re: Jane Hamsher reaches the poop threshold

Postby Dave.gillam on Thu Jan 14, 2010 12:22 pm

VictorK wrote:I think you're the rare conservative who says that.
Really? Most every conservative I talk to admits there's problems. We just dont see ANY solutions offered in the Dem proposals.
Repubs have been offering "reform" for years. Much of the lost money at both Doctorr and hospital is from 3 things: The lack of payment from Medicare/aid, the fact that private insurance price-matches what medicare/aid pays out, Illegals skipping out on the bill, and frivolous lawuits for millions (and associated legal fees) Whan hospitals in Chicago have almost as many lawyers on staff as doctors, legal issues are clearly a problem.
If the cost were kept in control, most people that want health insurance would be able to afford it.
Build a man a fire and he will be warm for one night. Set a man on fire, and he will be warm for the rest of his life.

Liberals believe conservatives are evil; Conservatives believe liberals are wrong.
User avatar
Dave.gillam
Keenspot Juggernaut
 
Posts: 3995
Joined: Tue Apr 04, 2006 1:31 pm
Location: Mishawaka IN

Re: Jane Hamsher reaches the poop threshold

Postby VictorK on Thu Jan 14, 2010 2:37 pm

One wonders why Brown didn't defend the tea parties instead of launching into a big tent, hedging response. But your point is taken. While I think that the anti-establishmentarian and "anti-smaller" government (maybe the guy misspoke? anti-establishmentarian and anti-smaller government don't go together) parts are true saying that they're trying to take over the country, while true in the sense that they are trying to achieve political power sufficient to completely reorient the political system and overturn any political results of the previous election, does not follow from the connotation that the reporter gave. It appears that Brown is not willing to embrace the tea parties, but you are correct in saying that we cannot claim that he has disowned them base on that exchange.

As for tort reform, I don't think it's nearly as big a deal as you claim but what the hell I'd be willing to throw conservatives a bone on that one. It's not a big deal to me even if it is vastly overstated, and it is precisely because it is vastly overstated that "giving it up" is no real concession at all.
"The gods are not all powerful, they cannot erase the past."

-Agathon, printed in Ludo de Witte's "The Assassination of Lumumba"
User avatar
VictorK
Keenspot Despot
 
Posts: 2520
Joined: Sat Apr 08, 2006 3:22 pm

Re: Jane Hamsher reaches the poop threshold

Postby Casual Notice on Thu Jan 14, 2010 2:50 pm

He couldn't. The laguage with which the reporter framed the question made it impossible for any reasonable man to support the tea parties in any way other than stating that he seemed to be overstating the issue. The question was a non-question, like "When did you stop beating your wife?" There's no real way to answer it without a gotcha.
The savior of billions (Norman Borlaug) dying barely rated a mention in the news this year. Farrah Fawcett wore a bikini well back in the 70s and she got international coverage. Good job, society.
--Lisa Skye Ioannidis
Image
User avatar
Casual Notice
Keenspot Despot
 
Posts: 1978
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2004 10:14 pm
Location: Houston, TX

Re: Jane Hamsher reaches the poop threshold

Postby carsonfire on Thu Jan 14, 2010 3:05 pm

VictorK wrote:One wonders why Brown didn't defend the tea parties instead of launching into a big tent, hedging response.


Even though you eventually concede, I feel this still needs to be responded to. He didn't give the "big tent" response until the reporter's intention was crystal clear. And I think it was the right response, because you and other liberals insist on misunderstanding the nature of the Tea Parties.

Brown likely does understand it: the Tea Parties are not a narrow "special interest" as Democrats understand their own kaleidoscope of constituents, but a wide cross-section of the population that is concerned about dangerous policies overall. Conservatives don't have a monopoly on concern over spending and the deficit; anyone who genuinely believed Democrat's rhetoric about deficits prior is going to be upset now. So the Tea Parties are instead the "big tent" that Brown winds up describing. Your bias (and the Globe reporter's) will prevent you from understanding that properly, no matter how many times it is explained or demonstrated to you.

"anti-smaller" government (maybe the guy misspoke?


I think that's a pretty good bet. What he meant was anti-government OR small-government types, and just ran the two together. I have no complaints about the mistake, because I think his meaning was clear nonetheless.

while true in the sense that they are trying to achieve political power sufficient to completely reorient the political system and overturn any political results of the previous election


During Bush's administration, Democrat rhetoric was all about "taking our country back". This "takeover" stuff is your domain, not that of the Tea Parties. The Tea Parties main point seems to be making an issue of Obama's central promise, which was to reign in spending and lower the deficit. That's not a "re-orientation" of the government nor is an attempt at a take-over. It's an attempt to hold Obama accountable for a huge lie he told in order to get elected.

Your position, by contrast, seems to be that your left-leaning Democrat president was elected dictator. Say anything to get in, and once elected, he is free to do anything. Uh uh, VK. That is not how it works. It's not surprising that polls are showing that if another election were held today, Obama would be tossed out on his enormous ear.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/polit ... 80502.html
Remember those rapturous crowds that swooned at Barack Obama's rhetoric. "We are the change we are seeking," he proclaimed. "We will be able to look back and tell our children," that "this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal."

A lot of style there, but not very much substance. A Brookings Institution scholar who produced nothing more than that would soon be looking for a new job.

In retrospect, the Obama enthusiasts seem to have been motivated by a yearning for a rapturous, nuanced leader. Send that terrible tyrant with his tortured sentences and moral certitude back to Texas and install The One in the White House, and all would be well.

The Obama enthusiasts have achieved that goal, and perhaps it's not surprising that, as polls show, they're not much engaged in the details of the health care bills or cap-and-trade legislation or looming tax increases and the like. They, or at least most of them, were never much interested in those things anyway.

In contrast, the tea party protesters, many of them as fractious and loudmouthed as David Brooks thinks, are interested in substantive political issues. They decry the dangers of expanding the national debt, increasing government spending, and putting government in command of the health care sector.

Their concerns have basis in fact. The national debt is on a trajectory to double as a percentage of the economy over 10 years, and the Democrats' health care bills threaten to bend the cost curve up. Higher taxes could choke off economic recovery and keep unemployment up near double-digit rates for years.

Last year's stimulus bill surreptitiously raised the budget baseline for many domestic spending programs and sent money to state and local governments -- a payoff to the public employee unions who spent more than $100 million to elect Democrats in 2008.

Agree with the tea party folk or not, these are substantive public policy issues of fundamental importance.


In fact, let's be a little more clear on this: now that we've seen the transcript, it's safe to say that the Globe reported didn't just paraphrase poorly, he LIED. Remember, the main reason the Tea Party question is being asked is because Coakley is trying to make it an issue, saying that it is a "hate group". The reporter admits to Brown that he is trying to tie him to an organization that is "trying to take over the country". Brown's response:

"Taking over the country. I think that is a little bit of an exaggeration."

That shows Brown's familiarity with the Tea Parties, and contradicts the reporter's claim that Brown claimed to be "unfamiliar" with the Tea Parties. Note that when we quote "unfamiliar", we are quoting the reporter, because Brown never makes that claim. Instead, he is not sure what the reporter is trying to ask him. And as the reporter's bias ultimately reveals, it was a smart thing to do to get him to be more clear before giving him fodder for the smear he was trying to construct.

Meanwhile, Coakley's aides are busy shoving reporters into railings for asking *honest* questions.
Cars, as always
User avatar
carsonfire
Keenspot Mac Daddy
 
Posts: 7772
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2000 12:00 am
Location: Small town, Texas

Re: Jane Hamsher reaches the poop threshold

Postby carsonfire on Thu Jan 14, 2010 3:29 pm

Here, for example, are Tea Party types causing a scene -- the ringleader claims to be a registered Democat, and probably is:

http://www.breitbart.tv/house-majority- ... onference/

This is hard to believe for internet liberals who think they personally represent the Democrat party, who are one with the leftist minority. They don't understand that they are at odds with most average, working Democrats.

When confronted with an unpleasant reality like this, the left reverts back to mockery. I see a whole article -- an entire article -- posted on Huffington Post that's nothing more than build-up for a joke about how we "found the Tea Party Democrat", pointing to a dot in a picture of a crowd, followed by the obligatory racist jab that he had "lunch with his black friends".

At no point can VK or other leftists concede that Obama's lying to the public about reigning in spending might be a legitimate grievance for a large number of people who voted for him specifically because he promised to reign in spending. VK and other Dems come off like the con artist waving your cash around saying "so what, I got your money SUCKEEEEERRRRR!!!!"
Cars, as always
User avatar
carsonfire
Keenspot Mac Daddy
 
Posts: 7772
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2000 12:00 am
Location: Small town, Texas

Re: Jane Hamsher reaches the poop threshold

Postby VictorK on Fri Jan 15, 2010 7:32 am

Casual Notice wrote:The laguage with which the reporter framed the question made it impossible for any reasonable man to support the tea parties in any way other than stating that he seemed to be overstating the issue.


"Now wait a minute there, Chuck. I support the tea parties. I support the tea parties because they want to return Washington to the people. I support the tea parties because they're real Americans out there trying to make their voice heard and take back their government from the special interests that have run up our debt and imperiled our children's future with this reckless spending. You in the media might say that they're trying to "take over" but I stand by them because in our democracy it's the people, not elites in Washington and the media, who run things. So I'm Scott Brown and I don't care what you call me, conservative or liberal or moderate, I'm here to fight for the people of Massachusetts and I'm putting you on notice that we're not going to take this anymore."

Thank you can I get a consulting check. The tea party hates the media (except for Fox News) and if Sarah Palin has built her image on being bombarded by elites then by god Scott Brown should be able to as well.

carson wrote:Democrat rhetoric was all about "taking our country back". This "takeover" stuff is your domain, not that of the Tea Parties. The Tea Parties main point seems to be making an issue of Obama's central promise, which was to reign in spending and lower the deficit. That's not a "re-orientation" of the government nor is an attempt at a take-over. It's an attempt to hold Obama accountable for a huge lie he told in order to get elected.


That's a novel explanation of the tea party's mission. If you look around at their actual rhetoric they're /all about/ taking the country back and returning it to some point in the past before the socialist/communist/fascist/Nazi/witch doctor Obama got his hands on it. There's nothing about holding Obama accountable to his own promises; and indeed if that were the case I don't know why they're so opposed to health care reform. It is a re-orientation and a take-over, but I don't mean in the sense of a coup, the tea parties aren't about armed resistance-yet. And I don't think they'll need to be, they're a strong enough force in the Republican Party and the Democratic Party has done enough to completely eviscerate any chance it had at governing so there's no reason to think that in the near future the tea parties and their masters won't get what they want.

VK and other Dems come off like the con artist waving your cash around saying "so what, I got your money SUCKEEEEERRRRR!!!!"


Interesting you would say that...

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/12/majority_of_tea_party_groups_spending_went_to_gop.php?ref=fpa
The political action committee behind the Tea Party Express (TPE) -- which already has been slammed as inauthentic and corporate-controlled by rival factions in the Tea Party movement -- directed almost two thirds of its spending during a recent reporting period back to the Republican consulting firm that created the PAC in the first place.


You guys are getting played.
"The gods are not all powerful, they cannot erase the past."

-Agathon, printed in Ludo de Witte's "The Assassination of Lumumba"
User avatar
VictorK
Keenspot Despot
 
Posts: 2520
Joined: Sat Apr 08, 2006 3:22 pm

Re: Jane Hamsher reaches the poop threshold

Postby carsonfire on Fri Jan 15, 2010 12:12 pm

VictorK wrote:
VK and other Dems come off like the con artist waving your cash around saying "so what, I got your money SUCKEEEEERRRRR!!!!"


Interesting you would say that...

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/12/majority_of_tea_party_groups_spending_went_to_gop.php?ref=fpa
The political action committee behind the Tea Party Express (TPE) -- which already has been slammed as inauthentic and corporate-controlled by rival factions in the Tea Party movement -- directed almost two thirds of its spending during a recent reporting period back to the Republican consulting firm that created the PAC in the first place.


You guys are getting played.


Tea Party folks being vigilant against being played is evidence that Tea Party folks are getting played? Huh?

Anyway, cash isn't the point. I'm talking about the huckster attitude -- playing and conniving to a gullible audience, until the huckster gets what HE wants -- then being arrogant in his success at hoodwinking the gullibles. It's hardly a comparison to point to people being vigilant against being hoodwinked.
Cars, as always
User avatar
carsonfire
Keenspot Mac Daddy
 
Posts: 7772
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2000 12:00 am
Location: Small town, Texas

Re: Jane Hamsher reaches the poop threshold

Postby carsonfire on Sun Jan 17, 2010 10:00 pm

Among Democrats, loyalists with at least some modicum of principles are finding themselves at odds with the slavish hack apologists. Slavish hack apologist in this particular case being the absurdly inconsistent Paul Krugman, who famously won the Nobel Prize for Insane Bush Rants.

Glenn Greenwald:

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn ... 6/krugman/
Krugman accuses me and others of "claiming that there’s a huge scandal" here and of conducting a "crusade against Gruber," but I did no such thing. "Huge scandal" is just a rhetorical straw man to rail against. I didn't even mention the Gruber matter until yesterday, and did so only because of its obvious relationship to the Sunstein scheme I was discussing. Ironically, the only reason the Gruber matter has received as much attention as it has is because Gruber's defenders began aggressively attacking the people who uncovered, documented and objected to the undisclosed payments, as Krugman did when he equated the sober and cautious Marcy Wheeler with "the right-wingers with their endless supply of fake scandals." People can characterize the magnitude of the failings here however they want ("huge" or otherwise), but the indisputable fact is that Gruber was running around publicly and favorably commenting on the President's health care plan -- while the White House and its allies were centrally relying on him and characterizing him as an "objective" analyst -- at exactly the same time that the administration, unbeknownst to virtually everyone, was paying Gruber many hundreds of thousands of dollars. The DNC alone sent out 71 emails touting Gruber's analysis without even once mentioning the payments. Those are just facts.


IIRC, Krugman also targeted Hamsher for betraying the party on this issue. Right wingers, all, if they cross the hack apologist. Well, the more the merrier, says right winger I.
Cars, as always
User avatar
carsonfire
Keenspot Mac Daddy
 
Posts: 7772
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2000 12:00 am
Location: Small town, Texas

 

Return to Winger

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron