The American Spectator

Shaun Kavanaugh| 9.24.09 @ 7:33AM

Having had many discussions with patients in my office I can attest to the fact that Obama's style has them completely entranced. Most have little or no concept of what the HR 3200 changes will mean to them. Most hold fast to the belief that his participation in the democratic party means he will stand up for their benefits??? When confronted with details that show otherwise they retreat to their fallback "I don't believe that".

martin j smith| 9.24.09 @ 7:38AM

Republicans must unanimously fight Obama care and at the same time produce an alternative bill which would be made public so they cannot be accused of just saying "no". And must demand more forcefully airtime on prime time TV to make their case.

TJK| 9.24.09 @ 8:33AM

Unfortunately, the real problem is, we're all focusing on Obama. The real culprit is Pelosi, who has now said she will throw out all the results of the negotiations with the Blue Dogs, and proceed with an even more liberal version of HB 3200. She's the one we should be focusing on, since Obama still hasn't written his own bill. He's too busy bashing the US in front of the UN to be bothered to actually codify what HE wants health insurance reform to look like.

Doctor Right| 9.24.09 @ 10:22AM

You can't "focus on Pelosi". She's from an absolutely safe district of left-wing loonies, millionaire greenies, and queers in San Francisco. She will NEVER be defeated except by someone more left-wing than she is.

The focus should be on the so-called "Blue-Dogs". They need to be persuaded that the Dem-Machine will pressure them to vote the Party line, thus preventing them from serving their constituencies, amny of whom are in "red" congressional districts. The best way for these people to keep their jobs is to:

1) Flip, and become Republicans (unlikely), or...
2) Become Independents

This would INSTANTLY weaken Pelosi's power, as she'd have to come begging for support on each and every issue.

The 2nd thing we need to focus on is throwing-out ANY Representative who supports Pelosi's agenda(s), be they left-wingers, "Blue Dogs", or complete assholes like my RINO Cogressman Leonard Lance (or, as we refer to him here in New Jersey after his support for Cap-n-Trade, "Dead Man Walking" in 2010).

You want to neuter Pelosi? Strip her of the Speakership. Barring that, take away her veto-proof majority.

Louis Jenkins| 9.24.09 @ 11:47AM

Pelosi's district will be impossible to crack. Let us pray for the big earth quake. Blue Dog Democrats, what a self depreciating term! Look underneath the coat of blue and you'll still find a carion eating dog. They're attempting to straddle both sides of the fence and will not succeed if their district is evenly mixed or conservative. Obama has soiled his own bed, and conservatives must look to themselves, not old RINO retreads or Blue Dogs, for their salvation.

Kurt| 9.27.09 @ 8:19PM

And the Blue Dog is different from 99% of the other political 'dogs' why?

Shamus| 9.24.09 @ 9:00AM

Liberals can get their single payer plan if they are get any bill through the Senate, as it will be replaced in conference with Pelosi's legislation.

Michael L. Hauschild| 9.24.09 @ 2:00PM

Shamus,
I have posted this (or some form thereof) several times. It very seldom solicits even the slightest response. What is your take?

This is the Presidents bill; Baucus is just the vehicle. By the time it gets out of the Senate under nuclear propulsion it will go to the joint committee and there become a rubber stamp of exactly what the extreme liberal left wants.
The House version will be “moderate” (after all they must have some semblance of bi-partisanship and give cover to the Blue dogs) but it will be totally striped in the joint committee. The joint committee version will be sent to the House and Senate and voted on. They have the votes; elections have consequences. The only consolation is that the next election will produce majorities to enable impeachment.
Don’t believe the fix is in? They just voted in Baucus’s committee not to let the public view the final markup. They will vote on this and we will not be able to see what is in it other than THEIR summation.

Ken (Old Texican)| 9.24.09 @ 10:01AM

It is real simple folks:
A DOCTOR'S PERSCRIPTION...OR GOVERNMEN'S PERMISSION.

I hope each of you can memorize that and use it as your headliner in discussing health-care.
www.myteamusa.org

Ken (Old Texican)| 9.24.09 @ 10:02AM

OKOK! (smile) "Government's" permission.

Johanna Lapp| 9.28.09 @ 8:05AM

As long as you're in a correcting mode, it's prescription, not perscription.

Luca Brazzi| 9.24.09 @ 10:21AM

The man is narcisstic and incapable of telling the same story 2x . This will be the greatest failed presidecy in our countrys history.
I can only imagine how many of these people will be thrown in jail when the term expires.

Margie| 9.25.09 @ 12:06AM

We can only hope! Now that's the kinda hope I'm looking to!

Kurt| 9.27.09 @ 8:24PM

Go to jail for what? Taking what has been happening since FDR to the next level? Hardly illegal-undoubtably unconstitutional-rarely illegal.

Robert Rosencrans| 9.24.09 @ 11:24AM

This is just a great example of Democrats at their best. While proclaiming they are going to give you better health care, they secretly plan to raise your taxes and ration your health care. Calling the Democratic leadership scum would be doing them a favor. What they are doing here is offering you a pile of crap wrapped up in lies. If you complain about it then they get their friends in the media to throw out terms like AstroTurf and Teabaggers. In the meantime a poll from Investor's Business Daily shows that a majority of doctors want tort reform as a means of reducing costs.
http://www.investors.com/NewsA.....?id=506988
Nearly half of doctors say tort reform is key to getting U.S. health care costs under control, according to the IBD/TIPP Poll on which this series is based.

Of the 1,376 doctors who responded to our survey, 48% mentioned tort reform as the best way to slow the rise in medical costs. The No. 2 preferred cost-cutting measure was "insurance reform," at 18%, followed by reform of pharmaceuticals, at 6%.

Other major suggestions, in diminishing order of their mention, include stopping the use of defensive medicine, allowing consumers to buy insurance across state lines, more preventive care, more focus on healthy lifestyle choices, reducing waste and fraud, and more patient responsibility for the costs of their treatment.

Marcell| 9.24.09 @ 11:26AM

The one thing about an election campaign is that they are not running to be the King. The reality is that for the most part a President has to have the consent of congress, so what he or she says in a campaign is one thing & the political realities kick in when that person is in office. But, I know that the purpose of everything say is to attempt to undermine Obama's Presidency.

Just think

A Conservative complaining to other conservatives about how a Democrat, whom they will never vote for, is not living up to their campaign promises is a joke; especially when you totally ignore or make weak excuses for Conservatives who fail to live up to the promises they made to you like making gay marriage illegal.

Yeah, those Right-Wing preachers & the unethical Christian Conservative leaders had you all rallying for what?

The zealots accomplished their goal by tricking you into the voting booth by giving you the false impression that your voices were being heard & there was a solution VOTE REPUBLICAN ...bullsh!t

Then the Dems spent the next four years exposing all the gay Republican perverts & their conservative cronies who help hide their identity; l alone, most of them have gay friends & family members.

Sue| 9.25.09 @ 1:25AM

How much do they pay you to spout this crap? First, you're appalled that the "repub" didn't do gay marriage (even though it was not promised); pretending that it's very important to you; then, you turn around and call "gay Republicans" perverts! It's obvious, you really have some issues or you're being paid.

Rmm| 9.24.09 @ 11:26AM

The real quandary here is that Obaminous has flipped over so many times on the issues, it hard not to get dizzy trying to follow along. Do you walk away in disgust with all the deceit? No, you can't afford to turn your back because that alternative would be too Ominous. This 75^@!) needs to be called out at every turn.

More Conservacrap | 9.24.09 @ 11:49AM

Fight Fear With Facts: Health Care Fact Check.com
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NXAhRPHw2og

Counter to Rmm | 9.24.09 @ 11:55AM

MYTH: "Death Book" encourages veterans to end their lives sooner

FACT: Pamphlet emphasizes preserving life "using any means possible"

The pamphlet, “Your Life, Your Choices - Planning for Future Medical Decisions,"--which has been in use for more than 10 years--contains the same advance-care planning required of all health care organizations under federal law and was developed with the input of interfaith ministers.

The Veterans Affairs policy does not encourage disabled vets to end their lives. Rather, it is in accordance with the 1990 Patient Self Determination Act, which requires all institutions receiving Medicare funds to provide information to patients regarding end of life, living will and other advance directives.

[Huffington Post, August 22, 2009]

MYTH: Grassroots Protestors are Disrupting Town Halls
House Republican Leader John Boehner's Office: "Back home for the August recess, rank-and-file Democratic Members of the House are facing a backlash from their constituents."

FACT: Lobbyist-Run Groups Are Orchestrating Extremist Mobs
Republicans and well-funded special interest groups are sending far-right extremists to local town halls to stop any meaningful discussion of Health Insurance Refrom. Some of these mob scenes have turned especially ugly -- including the hanging of Members of Congress in effigy and use of Nazi SS symbols.

Read more on the DCCC Blog: The Stakeholder

[Anti-Reform Group Takes Credit For Helping Gin Up Town Hall Rallies, The Plum Line;
The danger in the right's anger, Politico]

MYTH: "Government-Encouraged Euthanasia"
House Republican Leader John Boehner claimed the House bill "may start us down a treacherous path toward government-encouraged euthanasia."

FactCheck.org: The claim is "nonsense."
The bill never requires anyone to discuss end-of-life care. Rather, the bill ensures medical professionals who do offer this type of counseling at the patient's request are reimbursed for their time, just as they would be for other types of counseling or medical services.

[False Euthanasia Claims, FactCheck.org, July 29, 2009]

MYTH: Private Plans Outlawed
Rep. Doc Hastings (R-Wash.) claimed on his website that individual private health insurance plans will be outlawed in 2013 under the Democratic health care plan.

PolitiFact.com: Private health insurance not banned
In fact, PolitiFact rates this myth so miseleading that it calls it "Pants on Fire." Individual policies will continue to be available, but people will buy those policies through the national health insurance exchange, which will ensure that people with pre-existing conditions will be able to get coverage. The House bill also allows for existing policies to be grandfathered in, so individual purchasers who like their coverage will be able to keep it.

[Private Health Care Not Banned, Politifact.com]

MYTH: 120 Million Americans Will Be Deprived of Health Care
Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.): Democrats' plan "will deprive roughly 120 million Americans of their current health care coverage."

PolitiFact.com: "False"
The 120 million number Pence cites comes from the Lewin Group, a wholly owned subsidiary of insurance giant UnitedHealthCare, which based its numbers on several public-option scenarios that are dramatically different than what Democrats have proposed. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that about 11 million-NOT 120 million-Americans will end up voluntarily enrolling in the public option, and none of them will be "deprived" of coverage.

[Politifact.com, Associated Press]

MYTH: Illegal Immigrants May Be Covered
Rep. King (R-Iowa) issued a press release with this headline: "CBO: 5,600,000 Illegal Aliens May Be Covered Under Obamacare."

FactCheck.org: "Not True"
H.R. 3200 includes a provision that specifically says that there will be no federal funds spent to cover illegal immigrants:

H.R. 3200: Sec 246 - NO FEDERAL PAYMENT FOR UNDOCUMENTED ALIENS

Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States.

[Misleading GOP Health Care Claims, FactCheck.Org, July 23, 2009]

MYTH: There is a Republican Plan
Minority Whip Cantor: "The Republican plan" provides "access to affordable basic coverage."

FactCheck.org: "Republicans have yet to coalesce around a single plan."
Even though the House Republicans' "Health Care Solutions Group" guaranteed a counter proposal, they have refused to release a plan to the public.

[Misleading GOP Health Care Claims, FactCheck.Org, July 23, 2009]

MYTH: Widespread Tax Increases
Newt Gingrich: Reform plan would increase taxes on "virtually everyone."

FactCheck.org: Less than 1.4% Would Face Higher Taxes
According to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, less than 1.4 percent of all U.S. households would face higher taxes under the proposal. The surtax for those upper-income folks would start at 1 percent and go up to 5.4 percent with top incomes over $1 million.

[Tax-and-Spend Twittering, FactCheck.org, July

http://healthcarefactcheck.com/

Sue| 9.25.09 @ 1:36AM

I'm the "mob," the "Nazi," the "right-winger," etc. You can list all the facts you want, but the true fact is because of the way the legislation is structured, it will be cheaper for thousands of companies to "just pay the 8%" than keep private insurance on their employees. Not one Democrat is denying this fact.

The bill (H.R. 3200) also phases in the acceptance of "state run self-insured plans" "HSA" and large corporations' plans by the end of five years.

The bill has requirements for identifying cost effective procedures offered by doctors for medical treatments, revamps the payment procedures from a fee-based t a bundled system, identifies penalties if doctors, hospitals, and other providers do not meet pre-established guidelines for efficiency; allows 27 appointed individuals to determine coverage, and on and on and on and on.

Don't be so disingenuous about your "fact" checking. The issue is "government run" health care and it's right there in the bill. In fact, it's touted as being "medicare" for everyone - from the VA, Tri-Care, to "state care" etc.

Instead of paying premiums to "private insurers" the citizens will be sending those premiums to the government, they will take their "slice" and give us back "defined care." Oh, and don't forget the organized unions and their contracts along with "diversity" requirements and the establishment of 30 - 50 new government agencies at the Federal level and who knows how many at the state level.

Bend over and get it from the government and just hope that you survive it.

Kurt| 9.27.09 @ 8:36PM

Bend over indeed! I have no doubt I can survive it. I highly doubt future generations (especially the aborted) can survive it.

Kurt| 9.27.09 @ 8:33PM

OH! Yes, let us believe the 'Health Care Fact Check.' For indeed, facts are facts as written or heard on youtube! Much the same as facts are facts written in the tabloids.

Marcell| 9.24.09 @ 11:44AM

This is just a great example of Democrats at their best. While proclaiming they are going to give you better health care, they secretly plan to raise your taxes and ration your health care. Calling the Democratic leadership scum would be doing them a favor. What they are doing here is offering you a pile of crap wrapped up in lies.

*****************
What is good for the goose works great for the gander.

Do you remember when President Bu$h was trying to get everyone to buy into his stay the course in Iraq because we are winning in Iraq during the 2006 mid term election?

The truth hit him in dishonest face.

Boom!!

Bush Abandons Phrase ‘Stay the Course’ on Iraq
By JIM RUTENBERG and DAVID S. CLOUD

WASHINGTON, Oct. 23 — The White House said Monday that President Bush was no longer using the phrase “stay the course” when speaking about the Iraq war, in a new effort to emphasize flexibility in the face of some of the bloodiest violence there since the 2003 invasion.

“He stopped using it,” said Tony Snow, the White House press secretary. “It left the wrong impression about what was going on and it allowed critics to say, ‘Well, here’s an administration that’s just embarked upon a policy and not looking at what the situation is,’ when, in fact, it is the opposite.”

Mr. Bush used the slogan in a stump speech on Aug. 31, but has not repeated it for some time. Still, Mr. Snow’s pronouncement was a stark example of the complicated line the White House is walking this election year in trying to tag Democrats as wanting to “cut and run” from Iraq, without itself appearing wedded to unsuccessful tactics there.

Democrats have increasingly pressed a case this fall contending that Republicans are stubbornly proposing to “stay the course” in a failing effort to stanch violence in Iraq. Strategists in both parties consider the Democrats’ approach to have been fairly successful, especially as violence has continued to mount in Baghdad.

In the last few weeks a number of Republican lawmakers and party elders have also come forward to express doubts about whether the administration’s approach to stabilizing Iraq is succeeding and to suggest new strategies.

Sue| 9.25.09 @ 1:43AM

Yeah, that's real intelligent; bring out the old "Bush lied, people died" crap. Is that all you have? You really have a problem of accepting the fact that for 89 months or so we didn't have another terrorist attack on American soil. I'll take that security anyday.

You have to be getting paid to write this stuff! No one in their right mind could write this and believe it.

Kurt| 9.27.09 @ 8:41PM

Sue, please remember that choosing the lesser of two evils is still evil. PLEASE; for the sake of our republic, never choose security over liberty, because you deserve nor will get either!

Marcell| 9.24.09 @ 11:44AM

This is just a great example of Democrats at their best. While proclaiming they are going to give you better health care, they secretly plan to raise your taxes and ration your health care. Calling the Democratic leadership scum would be doing them a favor. What they are doing here is offering you a pile of crap wrapped up in lies.

*****************
What is good for the goose works great for the gander.

Do you remember when President Bu$h was trying to get everyone to buy into his stay the course in Iraq because we are winning in Iraq during the 2006 mid term election?

The truth hit him in dishonest face.

Boom!!

Bush Abandons Phrase ‘Stay the Course’ on Iraq
By JIM RUTENBERG and DAVID S. CLOUD

WASHINGTON, Oct. 23 — The White House said Monday that President Bush was no longer using the phrase “stay the course” when speaking about the Iraq war, in a new effort to emphasize flexibility in the face of some of the bloodiest violence there since the 2003 invasion.

“He stopped using it,” said Tony Snow, the White House press secretary. “It left the wrong impression about what was going on and it allowed critics to say, ‘Well, here’s an administration that’s just embarked upon a policy and not looking at what the situation is,’ when, in fact, it is the opposite.”

Mr. Bush used the slogan in a stump speech on Aug. 31, but has not repeated it for some time. Still, Mr. Snow’s pronouncement was a stark example of the complicated line the White House is walking this election year in trying to tag Democrats as wanting to “cut and run” from Iraq, without itself appearing wedded to unsuccessful tactics there.

Democrats have increasingly pressed a case this fall contending that Republicans are stubbornly proposing to “stay the course” in a failing effort to stanch violence in Iraq. Strategists in both parties consider the Democrats’ approach to have been fairly successful, especially as violence has continued to mount in Baghdad.

In the last few weeks a number of Republican lawmakers and party elders have also come forward to express doubts about whether the administration’s approach to stabilizing Iraq is succeeding and to suggest new strategies.

Allan| 9.24.09 @ 12:51PM

While I agree with the author's article I note that he makes the same mistake on auto insurance as Obama does.

No state in the country requires drivers or individuals to purchase auto insurance. What the laws state is that "owners" of vehicles that desire to drive them on public highways must buy "liability" insurance. Note that this insurance does not cover damge to the driver or the owner's car - it covers damages inflicted on someone else.

As to the myth/fact nonsense above, the Supremes Plyler v. Doe decision of 1982 will require covering illegals regardless of what the bill says and the death panel legislation was in the stimulus bill (pg 151) and is already law.

Kurt| 9.27.09 @ 8:43PM

AMEN Allan. But what do you expect, after all, politicians want nothing more than to get elected!

Plyler v. Doe | 9.24.09 @ 1:34PM

As to the myth/fact nonsense above, the Supremes Plyler v. Doe decision of 1982 will require covering illegals regardless of what the bill says and the death panel legislation was in the stimulus bill (pg 151) and is already law.

***************

Facts of the Case:

A revision to the Texas education laws in 1975 allowed the state to withhold from local school districts state funds for educating children of illegal aliens. This case was decided together with Texas v. Certain Named and Unnamed Alien Child.
Question:

Did the law violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?
Conclusion:

Yes. The Court reasoned that illegal aliens and their children, though not citizens of the United States or Texas, are people "in any ordinary sense of the term" and, therefore, are afforded Fourteenth Amendment protections. Since the state law severely disadvantaged the children of illegal aliens, by denying them the right to an education, and because Texas could not prove that the regulation was needed to serve a "compelling state interest," the Court struck down the law.

Decisions

Decision: 5 votes for Doe, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Equal Protection

Kurt| 9.27.09 @ 8:51PM

And the facts of this case change or tip the scales of tyranny vs. liberty in what way? So the court struck a gavel against sovereignty, this makes it right-why? Because they have motives that are not in the best interests of the (us) folks paying for this government entitlement? Well, all right then, let me stand down and be conquered, the court said so.

Allan's Misinformation| 9.24.09 @ 1:39PM

As to the myth/fact nonsense above, the Supremes Plyler v. Doe decision of 1982 will require covering illegals regardless of what the bill says and the death panel legislation was in the stimulus bill (pg 151) and is already law.

************************
August 14, 2009
Op-Ed Columnist
Republican Death Trip
By PAUL KRUGMAN
“I am in this race because I don’t want to see us spend the next year re-fighting the Washington battles of the 1990s. I don’t want to pit Blue America against Red America; I want to lead a United States of America.” So declared Barack Obama in November 2007, making the case that Democrats should nominate him, rather than one of his rivals, because he could free the nation from the bitter partisanship of the past.

Some of us were skeptical. A couple of months after Mr. Obama gave that speech, I warned that his vision of a “different kind of politics” was a vain hope, that any Democrat who made it to the White House would face “an unending procession of wild charges and fake scandals, dutifully given credence by major media organizations that somehow can’t bring themselves to declare the accusations unequivocally false.”

So, how’s it going?

Sure enough, President Obama is now facing the same kind of opposition that President Bill Clinton had to deal with: an enraged right that denies the legitimacy of his presidency, that eagerly seizes on every wild rumor manufactured by the right-wing media complex.

This opposition cannot be appeased. Some pundits claim that Mr. Obama has polarized the country by following too liberal an agenda. But the truth is that the attacks on the president have no relationship to anything he is actually doing or proposing.

Right now, the charge that’s gaining the most traction is the claim that health care reform will create “death panels” (in Sarah Palin’s words) that will shuffle the elderly and others off to an early grave. It’s a complete fabrication, of course. The provision requiring that Medicare pay for voluntary end-of-life counseling was introduced by Senator Johnny Isakson, Republican — yes, Republican — of Georgia, who says that it’s “nuts” to claim that it has anything to do with euthanasia.

And not long ago, some of the most enthusiastic peddlers of the euthanasia smear, including Newt Gingrich, the former speaker of the House, and Mrs. Palin herself, were all for “advance directives” for medical care in the event that you are incapacitated or comatose. That’s exactly what was being proposed — and has now, in the face of all the hysteria, been dropped from the bill.

Yet the smear continues to spread. And as the example of Mr. Gingrich shows, it’s not a fringe phenomenon: Senior G.O.P. figures, including so-called moderates, have endorsed the lie.

Senator Chuck Grassley, Republican of Iowa, is one of these supposed moderates. I’m not sure where his centrist reputation comes from — he did, after all, compare critics of the Bush tax cuts to Hitler. But in any case, his role in the health care debate has been flat-out despicable.

Last week, Mr. Grassley claimed that his colleague Ted Kennedy’s brain tumor wouldn’t have been treated properly in other countries because they prefer to “spend money on people who can contribute more to the economy.” This week, he told an audience that “you have every right to fear,” that we “should not have a government-run plan to decide when to pull the plug on grandma.”

Again, that’s what a supposedly centrist Republican, a member of the Gang of Six trying to devise a bipartisan health plan, sounds like.

So much, then, for Mr. Obama’s dream of moving beyond divisive politics. The truth is that the factors that made politics so ugly in the Clinton years — the paranoia of a significant minority of Americans and the cynical willingness of leading Republicans to cater to that paranoia — are as strong as ever. In fact, the situation may be even worse than it was in the 1990s because the collapse of the Bush administration has left the G.O.P. with no real leaders other than Rush Limbaugh.

The question now is how Mr. Obama will deal with the death of his postpartisan dream.

So far, at least, the Obama administration’s response to the outpouring of hate on the right has had a deer-in-the-headlights quality. It’s as if officials still can’t wrap their minds around the fact that things like this can happen to people who aren’t named Clinton, as if they keep expecting the nonsense to just go away.

What, then, should Mr. Obama do? It would certainly help if he gave clearer and more concise explanations of his health care plan. To be fair, he’s gotten much better at that over the past couple of weeks.

What’s still missing, however, is a sense of passion and outrage — passion for the goal of ensuring that every American gets the health care he or she needs, outrage at the lies and fear-mongering that are being used to block that goal.

So can Mr. Obama, who can be so eloquent when delivering a message of uplift, rise to the challenge of unreasoning, unappeasable opposition? Only time will tell.

David Brooks is off today.

Sue| 9.25.09 @ 1:48AM

Oh, Lord! I pray that you will spare me from even seeing a post with "Krugman's" name on it! This man isn't even American. He's from outer space - beyond our galaxy. Everything he writes is either a lie, an exaggeration, and an embarassment to the profession of journalism.

Please, God, spare me from this misery! Can't these posters use their own brains? Why do they have to "cut and paste" someone else's non-intellectual thoughts? Because they have none of their own?

Kurt| 9.27.09 @ 8:53PM

OP-ED dude! Get it?

Oh, Those Death Panels| 9.24.09 @ 1:47PM

Posted by Amy Sullivan Thursday, August 13, 2009 at 10:14 pm
206 Comments • Trackback (52)

You would think that if Republicans wanted to totally mischaracterize a health care provision and demagogue it like nobody's business, they would at least pick something that the vast majority of them hadn't already voted for just a few years earlier. Because that's not just shameless, it's stupid.

Yes, that's right. Remember the 2003 Medicare prescription drug bill, the one that passed with the votes of 204 GOP House members and 42 GOP Senators? Anyone want to guess what it provided funding for? Did you say counseling for end-of-life issues and care? Ding ding ding!!

Let's go to the bill text, shall we? "The covered services are: evaluating the beneficiary's need for pain and symptom management, including the individual's need for hospice care; counseling the beneficiary with respect to end-of-life issues and care options, and advising the beneficiary regarding advanced care planning." The only difference between the 2003 provision and the infamous Section 1233 that threatens the very future and moral sanctity of the Republic is that the first applied only to terminally ill patients. Section 1233 would expand funding so that people could voluntarily receive counseling before they become terminally ill.

So either Republicans were for death panels in 2003 before turning against them now--or they're lying about end-of-life counseling in order to frighten the bejeezus out of their fellow citizens and defeat health reform by any means necessary. Which is it, Mr. Grassley ("Yea," 2003)?

Marcell| 9.24.09 @ 1:52PM

It is clear to me that the Repugs need their base to dumb as can be in order to win.

What I really love about the articles I am posting here is that they thoroughly explains why the Right hates the MSM... " The liberals in the MSM are doing their jobs bursting up Wrong Wing lies."

could be| 9.25.09 @ 8:35AM

you could be right....but I know this much...best hope another domestic terrorist event OR foreign crisis never materializes. the Left doesn't carry the load and hasn't for decades when it comes to national security. Obama has so polarized the country that those who are doing the dirty work are going to hoist the dubious digit - he will not be able to effectively in a real crisis....his actions now are undercutting his moral authority with wide swathes of the population.

the man and is acolytes are fascists...pure and simple. there is nothing immutable about his policies or the social structure he is trying to engineer. if the Left has served notice on anything...it is that you can fight a government for however long it takes to undermine and diminish its credibility. and this is what will happen to this group of elitists over time as their policy failures mount.

YOU REPUGS CAN'T WIN| 9.24.09 @ 2:39PM

Rasmussen reports gets in on the gig.

http://www.rasmussenreports.co.....d_limbaugh

The Racist Truth About Beck and Limbaugh
A Commentary By Joe Conason
Thursday, September 24, 2009
Email a Friend Email to a Friend ShareThis
Advertisement
Quantcast

With admirable calm, President Obama has sought to deflect the supercharged politics of race by expressing his optimism about American attitudes and ignoring the most extreme statements by his critics. For his own sake, as well as the nation's, he is wise to give a pass to the likes of Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh. That is not, however, what they deserve.

The behavior of those media provocateurs over the past few months is almost beyond parody. They call the president a racist, even though there is no evidence of prejudice on his part and much evidence to the contrary. They demand that nobody should ever point out racial prejudice, but spend hours on the airwaves making false claims of bias against whites. And they whine constantly about being called racists, even though the president has never made that accusation against them.

"You can't get your agenda," protested Beck the other day, speaking of the president, "so you unleash the hounds and point the fingers, and everybody is a racist." That was around the same time Obama's spokesman said quite emphatically that the president does not believe his opponents are motivated by racism.

But since Beck and Limbaugh seem to be obsessed with this touchy subject, let's examine their record. It turns out that both established their keen racial sensitivity on air long ago.

Back when Beck was simply a coked-out zoo-style morning talk jock on a Kentucky station -- rather than a national political philosopher -- he regularly mimicked African-American speech patterns for fun. "He used to do a funny 'black guy' character, really over the top," recalls one of his former colleagues, quoted by biographer Alexander Zaitchik in a fascinating Salon.com profile.

Beck also became a devotee of the Mormon crank author and conspiracy theorist W. Cleon Skousen, whose writings he enthusiastically promotes to this day. Among Skousen's pet theories was that Southern slave owners were actually the victims of the plantation system, which according to him favored the lazy and pampered slaves, whose children he called "pickaninnies." Like his ultra-right friends in the John Birch Society and kindred groups, Skousen was a dedicated foe of civil rights legislation.

Does that mean Beck is a bigot? If Obama had ever endorsed the writings of Louis Farrakhan, replete with vile slurs against whites and especially Jews, that would certainly be enough for Beck -- who says he believes that the president has "a deep-seated hatred for white people, or the white culture." That must be why the Obama White House has so many whites of all ethnic and religious backgrounds advising the president, from the Cabinet down.

As for Limbaugh, perhaps nobody remembers the time that he told a black caller to "take that bone out of your nose"; or the time when he said the nonviolent NAACP "should get a liquor store and practice robberies"; or the many times when he would play the "Movin' On Up" theme from the old Jeffersons TV show to accompany his commentary about Carol Moseley Braun, the first black woman in the United States Senate. He used to do mocking bits in black dialect, too. But who needs to remember those sorry episodes when he continues that ugly pattern on air nearly every day?

The Limbaugh show reached a new low recently when he began a campaign around a school-bus incident in Belleville, Ill., where two black students were videotaped beating up a white kid. Police authorities first said they believed the assailants were motivated by race, but later said it was just a nasty bullying assault (for which the two little thugs are now being prosecuted).

But Limbaugh could not resist the opportunity to turn that nastiness into something much more dangerous. "It's Obama's America, is it not? Obama's America -- white kids getting beat up on school buses now. I mean, you put your kids on a school bus, you expect safety, but in Obama's America, the white kids now get beat up, with the black kids cheering." In a more reflective mood, he later asked, "Can this nation really have an African-American president?"

Yes, we can -- and despite the racial poison spread by Beck and Limbaugh, most Americans are proud that at long last, we do.

Margie| 9.25.09 @ 12:03AM

LOL! Joe Con-a-Son is about as real as the Obamamaton. A walking, talking stiff necked Socialist Communist Liar! Have a real good night now.

Sue| 9.25.09 @ 1:57AM

Do you get paid to post too? None of what you have written is true. Did you not learn about sattire, tongue-in-cheek, when you were in school? Neither of these individuals are racists. You're the racist. I can feel it dripping from your pores.

I bet you've never listened to either one, and you just list things you've read on people's blogs.

And as for the comment about the African-American president, the point is no matter what a person says about this Administration, the "race card" players come out of the closet to try to "shut you up."

I would very much like Mr. Obama to succeed as president. He needs to stand up for conservative values which includes limited government, personal responsibility, elimination of fraud and corruption, sensible environmental regulation, defend our Country from radical islamists, take a stand and support our police, military and security personnel, and speeches that reflect pride in our Country. (For starters.) That's all he has to do to win me over.

I haven't seen the first sign of any of those things!

jim O'Brien| 9.24.09 @ 5:28PM

Obama is a Socialist Liar who wants to operate a Shadow Government run by "Czars" whose activities are hidden from public scrutiny.

Kerry Marvin| 9.24.09 @ 6:30PM

Congress also is considering a "public service academy, a four-year institution that offers a federally funded undergraduate education with a focus on training future public sector leaders."

Joseph Farah, founder and editor of WND, used his daily column first to raise the issue of a "national civilian force" and then to elevate it with a call to all reporters to start asking questions.

"If we're going to create some kind of national police force as big, powerful and well-funded as our combined U.S. military forces, isn't this rather a big deal?" Farah wrote. "I thought Democrats generally believed the U.S. spent too much on the military. How is it possible their candidate is seeking to create some kind of massive but secret national police force that will be even bigger than the Army, Navy, Marines and Air Force put together?

"Is Obama serious about creating some kind of domestic security force bigger and more expensive than that? If not, why did he say it? What did he mean?" Farah wrote.

"The Audacity of Deceit" exposes exactly who Barack Obama is. He isn't pedaling "change you can believe in" – he's planning to uproot American culture and replace it with the failed, secular, socialist policies of the past.

Solomont warned that people shouldn't be "fixated" on such apparently small numbers.

"We hope sooner or later this will be a part of every citizen's experience," he said.

WND reported when the bill began its quick trip through Congress, and its original language called for a study of how best to implement a mandatory national service program for citizens of the United States.

Later the language was dropped from that bill, only to appear at the same time in another legislative proposal. That plan, H.R. 1444, now is in committee.

The White House announced today that the focus of the program will be "clean energy, education, health care, veterans care, and economic opportunity."

Melody Barnes, director of the White House domestic policy council, confirmed the plan was in response to Obama's demand for civilian service during his campaign.

"That's certainly something that the president has spoken about. And he started his call around nation service publicly during the course of the campaign when he talked about the fact that government cannot be a solution to all of our problems, and we have to work together," she said.

Officials said there also are specific programs for seniors and children to become involved in the government operation, and the plan goes far beyond just working on planting trees or addressing storm damage.

"The bill provides the opportunity for a social innovation fund," said one official, which will allow the government to pursue changes.

The plan also raises First Amendment issues over its limitations on what various corps participants are allowed to do.

For example, it states those in an "approved national service position" may not try to influence legislation, engage in protests or petitions, take positions on union organizing, engage in partisan political activities, or, among other issues, be "engaging in religious instruction, conducting worship services, providing instruction as part of a program that includes mandatory religious instruction or worship, constructing or operating facilities devoted to religious instruction or worship, maintaining facilities primarily or inherently devoted to religious instruction or worship, or engaging in any form of proselytization."

Judi McLeod of Canada Free Press wrote that the bill simply would turn everyone into a community organizer.

"Everybody means the roughly seven million people called to public duty in the $6 billion National Service effort," she said. "But members pressed into the service of the one million-strong Youth Brigade, sanctioned by 'Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education (GIVE),' will have none of the freedoms of the community organizer who started it all.

"There's no room for God in Obama's long promised Youth Brigade, no room to protest, petition, to boycott or to support a strike, and loopholes to give its mandatory membership a pass," she wrote. "Obama's plan requires anyone receiving school loans, among others to serve at least three months as part of the brigade."

Gary Wood at Examiner.com said it's part of Obama's plan to set up national service. He noted the explanation offered by White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel: "It's time for a real Patriot Act that brings out the patriot in all of us. We propose universal civilian service for every young American. Under this plan, all Americans between the ages of 18 and 25 will be asked to serve their country by going through three months of basic training, civil defense preparation and community service."

Duane Lester, writing at All American Blogger, put into words the worst fears of opponents.

"Hitler knew that if you control the youth, you control the future. I wrote about him in 'The Threats to Homeschooling: From Hitler to the NEA.' As I noted in that article, Hitler said: 'The Youth of today is ever the people of tomorrow. For this reason we have set before ourselves the task of innoculating our youth with the spirit of this community of the people at a very early age, at an age when human beings are still unperverted and therefore unspoiled,'" he wrote.

Sue| 9.25.09 @ 2:01AM

It's nothing more than a "looting" America Act. If you can't "redistribute the wealth," you pass laws allowing you and your cronies to "loot" the wealth legally.

Nothing more, nothing less.

Kerry Marvin| 9.24.09 @ 6:39PM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

New law to 'manage' 8 million 'volunteers'
Obama signs huge expansion of youth brigades legislation

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: April 21, 2009
10:03 pm Eastern

By Bob Unruh
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

President Obama today signed into law the "GIVE Act," H.R. 1388, which massively expands the National Service Corporation and allocates to it billions of dollars, and one executive for the program now says it will allow for the "managing" of up to 8 or 9 million people.

WND has reported on plans to create the corps since Obama told a campaign stop in Colorado Springs last year he wants a "Civilian National Security Force" as big and as well-funded as the U.S. military.

The bill includes a "National Service Reserve Corps" whose members have completed a "term of national service," "training" and "not less than 10 hours of volunteering each year."

In a conference call with reporters on the plan, Alan Solomont, chairman of the Corporation for National and Community Service, said the 75,000 current members of the AmericCorps program "leverage" about 2.2 million volunteers, and the total of all such volunteers who are managed through the federal program total about 4 million.

He said the possibility with the expanded authorization and funding means that up to 8 or 9 million could be involved.

Kerry Marvin| 9.24.09 @ 6:44PM

What does ACORN and SEIU Union, and Give Act have in common? Which Congressmen and Senators, Supprted this? Vote Them Out Now and Call for the Ipeachment of this Administration Until they are Held Accountable!

Ken (Old Texican)| 9.24.09 @ 5:44PM

It is remarkable to observe how many idiots Mr. Soros hires to plop long winded comments into sites like the Spectator.

I do appreciate the Spectator's policy of pretty open comments sections, but please folks do a little joke that Rush liked to use. When you see these idiotic posts, jut put a little card on your screen that says: IF THEY ARE WRITING, THEY ARE LYING! heh!

Marcell| 9.24.09 @ 7:30PM

One thing for sure about you Wrong -Wingers is that you know how to bring the heat & make threats, & you are willing to undermine constitution in order to stop other Americans from beating you at your own game.

I thought Rush believed that Democrats were afraid of debate when it is clearly true that the old Texican type conservatives cower under real pressure.

You are no different from the Right-Wing talk show host who screen out all the real opposition; you learned it well.

I know I am making look fools but you don't squeel lke a pig heading to slaughter.

Kurt| 9.27.09 @ 8:59PM

Soros-Evil Evil Evil, however, I am not smart enough to call him a genius.

Sue| 9.25.09 @ 2:03AM

I think Marcell has a few "bolts" missing.

Marcell| 9.25.09 @ 4:52PM

I look at statements like this to be an example me whipping your...

It also proves that you can't refute my posts or you would do it.

Kurt| 9.27.09 @ 9:01PM

If I could refute them would it change what you believe or what you do? I did not think so.

Wally| 9.28.09 @ 1:41PM

Um, their is no Obamacare yet. The President is working with the 5 different committees but has not layed down ANY commandments.

Now, I would not be one to suggest that the AS is encouraging conspiracy nuts like Old Texican (Tex, its' spelled "g-u-b-m-e-n-t"), that Obama has some SECRET agenda. AS would never bow to that idea. BTW, AS, what kind of donations do you recieve from the insurance industry to keep their stanglehold on our horrible healthcare insurance system?

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITI.....insurance/