August 6-9, 2009
Aug 06 02:37 Pelosi Rails Against Real Activists Aug 06 03:05 How Safe Are Walz & Peterson? Aug 06 12:21 They're Carrying Swastikas? Aug 06 14:47 Peterson Changes Tune, Walz Spins Cap & Tax Aug 07 09:20 Democrats: The Party Of Poll-Driven Panic Aug 09 02:23 You Work For Us, Mr. President, NOT VICE VERSA!!! Aug 09 08:32 David Frum: Twentieth Century Conservative Aug 09 13:40 Liberal Columnist: How Can We Be Losing Health Care Debate? Aug 09 23:44 The DFL's Misinformation vs. Verifiable Facts
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul
Pelosi Rails Against Real Activists
Speaker Pelosi didn't hide her anger with the activists that have disrupted the Democrats' townhall meetings in this post :
During the August district work period, Democrats are meeting with their constituents about the health insurance reform and America's Affordable Health Choices Act . Unfortunately, those not interested in health insurance reform are disrupting public meetings and not allowing concerned constituents to ask questions and express their views. Many of these opponents who are shutting down civil discussion are organized by out-of-district, extremist political groups, and industry-supported lobbying firms.While there's some proof that organized groups are sending out instructions, the videos show that the protesters are simply angry that representatives and senators listen to President Obama, Speaker Pelosi and Sen. Reid more than they listen to their constituents. Simply put, constituents have let it be known, by a pretty wide margin, that they want less sweeping change than the Democrats are proposing.
That hasn't stopped Democrats from marching toward the ruination of the current health care system. Kathleen Sebelius first looked shocked at the anger that activists were expressing, then looked annoyed with their protests when she appeared with Sen. Specter.
By the way, Sen. Specter said that they have to make decisions quick because they've got so many things on their plate. That's a worthless excuse for being irresponsible. To the best of my knowledge, constituents don't have a gun to the Democrats' heads demanding immediate action. In fact, it sounds more like the people are demanding that the politicians slow down and get this right the first time.
I'm confident that the Democrats' attempt to villainize the insurance companies and angry constituents will backfire. BADLY. Most of the people at these events are genuinely upset. Having Democrats say that their angst and their worries are artificial will only upset people more.
It's never a smart idea to insult people who might've voted and contributed to the Democrats' campaigns. That's what the Democrats are doing. They're villainizing people who've voted for their freshmen and sophomores. How stupid is that?
You've seen the videos. You've seen the people asking tough questions of their elected officials. You've even heard the passion in their voices. That's what participatory democracies are about.
I'll do my best to make sure that these angry mobsters will be reminded what Democrats said about them this summer. But I can't do it myself. What we need is an angry mob of MOBsters reminding people too.
Originally posted Thursday, August 6, 2009, revised 15-Nov 3:28 PM
No comments.
How Safe Are Walz & Peterson?
I'm sure that that seems like an odd title to a post but there's a reason why I'm asking that question. In a normal year, these politicians, especially Collin Peterson, would be in pretty good position for getting re-elected. I'm certain that 2010 isn't a normal year.
What's making this an unusual cycle is President Obama's and Speaker Pelosi's overreaches. What's making this a difficult battle for the DFL are the votes that Reps. Peterson and Walz took on Waxman-Markey . Tim Walz voted to raise electric bills for the Mayo Clinic and for countless schools. Rep. Peterson voted to increase gas prices on Red River Valley sugar beet farmers. Both did so because Speaker Pelosi ordered them to do it. Both voted for Waxman-Markey because they believe in increasing taxes and because they're expected to vote for anything that relates to 'The Environment.'
Barring a dramatic change of heart, they'll both probably be forced to vote for the health care reform bill, too.
What's worse from a re-election standpoint is that Peterson seems willing to ignore his constituents. He's already proven that he's willing to badmouth his constituents. That's what happens when a career politician gets DC-itis. Arrogance inevitably sets in.
This is just a hunch but the more Peterson and Walz ignore their constituents, the more danger they put themselves in. Is that enough to get them defeated? I don't know at this point but the voters' disgust with unresponsive politicians who vote with the party leadership more often than they vote with their constituents is increasing.
At minimum, this is the type of environment where incumbents better not make mistakes because those mistakes might send them into involuntary retirement.
Posted Thursday, August 6, 2009 3:05 AM
Comment 1 by eric z at 06-Aug-09 07:47 AM
There is a ring to the ideas. A familiarity. Is Brodkorb feeding you your talking points?
Comment 2 by Dennis at 06-Aug-09 09:34 AM
As his constituent, I'm tired of Walz's arrogance. Nearly every response I get from him to my communications are democrat "talking points" And, I'm spreading the word around town about my experiences. Hopefully, the people I talk to will tell their friends, who'll tell their friends, who'll tell their friends, and so on and so on.
Comment 3 by Gary Gross at 06-Aug-09 09:35 AM
Michael doesn't feed me anything except quotes. People need to understand that they get talking points from me.
Comment 4 by Gary Gross at 06-Aug-09 09:36 AM
Dennis, You're doing the Lord's work. The easiest way for him to win is for his dissatisfied constituents to stay silent.
DON'T LET THAT HAPPEN!!!
Comment 5 by Walter Hanson at 06-Aug-09 06:31 PM
Gary I definitely think both Walz and Peterson are vulnerable. Walz won his two races when people were most upset against Republicans. Now having voted for an agenda which doesn't fit that district he's hurting and could lose.
Peterson might claim he's an important chairman, but the district voted for McCain. Suddenly his votes are more important than ever.
The real question to ask is considering the circumstances can Oberstarr be vulnerable. That Sierra Club agenda is really hurting that district.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
They're Carrying Swastikas?
Speaker Pelosi has said a number of dishonest things in her life but this undoubtedly is the most repulsive, dishonest thing I've heard her say:
What's particularly repulsive is that she said it to distract attention away from the health care debate and to be a lightning rod so her Blue Puppy Democrats don't take the heat for their cavings. What's most repulsive is that she's saying it knowing that it's blatantly false.
It's fine to beat Speaker Pelosi up for a little bit but then we need to refocus ourselves and return to talking about the Democrats' wretched health care plan. At the same time, we need to remind voters nationwide that the Democrats don't want to hear from real people. The Democrats have gotten so desparate that the DNC resorted to calling people who've voiced concern with the proposed health care changes an "angry mob."
Comparatively speaking, the Democrats' message has gone from shrill to the political equivalent of running fingers across a chalk board. I've said for years that Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi were two of the most tin-eared politicians I've ever seen. It's now important to add the DNC to the list of tin-eared political organizations.
The DNC elitists are insulting people, much like elitist liberal newspapers insult their readers. If the DNC's and Speaker Pelosi's elitism works as well as journalistic elitism worked for the NY Times, the Seattle Post-Intelligencer and the STrib, Republicans will have a very good election cycle in 2010.
Posted Thursday, August 6, 2009 12:23 PM
No comments.
Peterson Changes Tune, Walz Spins Cap & Tax
Collin Peterson is changing his tune on why he voted for the Waxman-Markey bill, aka the National Energy Tax. Right before the 219-212 vote, Peterson announced that he was supporting the bill because he'd won some trivial 'concessions'. Here's the new song he's singing:
Both men are members of the House Agriculture Committee. Peterson, the chairman, said Tuesday he voted for the bill only because he knew it wouldn't become law immediately. He had urged support for the bill after winning concessions that he said would benefit agriculture and ease the impact of higher energy costs on rural residents. "In spite of the fact that they gave me everything I wanted in agriculture...it needs some more work," he said.If you take Rep. Peterson's statement literally, which you shouldn't do, it'll give you intellectual whiplash. If Speaker Pelosi gave Rep. Peterson "everything I wanted in agriculture", why does the bill "still needs some more work"?
This is Peterson doublespeak. He initially said that he wouldn't support the bill because of the damaging effects it would have on farmers. Then it becamse a close vote and Speaker Pelosi required his vote. At that point, they threw a few trivial provisions to him to get him to roll over and play dead. This Peterson did like a good puppies should do.
The concessions Peterson won't mean much because they won't prevent gas prices from spiking. Those concessions won't prevent higher electric bills. That's because Peterson didn't get them to relent on the massive taxes on coal-fired power plants in the bill.
Tim Walz took some heat, too:
Walz argued that "cap-and-trade" provisions, limiting climate-changing pollution but also allowing polluters to buy and sell emission allowances, would create new jobs and growth in agriculture. "This is a good idea, but it can't just be us that do it," said farmer Leonard Tellinghuisen, who grows corn and soybeans in Slayton, Minn. "Other countries pollute, too, and I don't know how you talk to them."Mr. Tellinghuisen just pinpointed why this legislation can't work. When Rep. Michele Bachmann hosted a global warming forum at St. Cloud State, St. Cloud Times reporter Larry Schumacher asked SCSU professor of meteorology Bob Weisman what he thought about what he'd heard. Here's one thing that Professor Weisman said that caught my attention:
"Like the Kyoto treaty, it won't bring down global warming," Weisman said. "You'd need something more like a 40 percent cut in emissions (to do that)."Since China and India refuse to adopt the standards in Waxman-Markey, it's impossible to cut worldwide greenhouse gas emissions by 40 percent.
Tim Walz knows that the job creation thing is spin, too, because it doesn't factor in the number of jobs lost when manufacturing companies move to Mexico, South Korea or other Pacific Rim countries.
Here's something else that Rep. Walz said something that shouldn't be overlooked:
Both talked up ethanol and research for new renewable fuels. Walz said any national energy policy should include investment in coal and nuclear power.Here's what Sen. Obama said in January, 2008:
I was the first to call for a 100% auction on the cap and trade system, which means that every unit of carbon or greenhouse gases emitted would be charged to the polluter. That will create a market in which whatever technologies are out there that are being presented, whatever power plants that are being built, that they would have to meet the rigors of that market and the ratcheted down caps that are being placed, imposed every year.I won't let Rep. Walz get away with saying that "national energy policy should include investment in coal and nuclear power" after voting for a bill that makes it financially difficult to build coal-fired power plants. Some people say that's called talking out of both sides of you mouth. More plain-spoken people would simply call that telling whoppers.
So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can; it's just that it will bankrupt them because they're going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that's being emitted. That will also generate billions of dollars that we can invest in solar, wind, biodiesel and other alternative energy approaches.
I suspect that both groups of people would say that Walz's type of doublespeak is grounds for termination, something that I'd wholeheartedly agree with.
Posted Thursday, August 6, 2009 2:47 PM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 07-Aug-09 08:24 AM
The good professor is wrong and needs to read up on his agit-prop literature (aka the IPCC report). Even it says that, if Kyoto were fully followed, global warming would continue for another 100 years, and that's IF. Another estimate says that radical curtailment of CO2 (by magic, as far as I know), would have only a minimal effect and that warming STILL would continue for 100 years. My own scientific studies on the matter lead me to the conclusion that nothing humankind can do is going to change the climate-- if it warms, it warms, an we better learn how to adapt.
Democrats: The Party Of Poll-Driven Panic
Jonah Goldberg's column is spot on: Democrats are panicking over health care reform, which is causing them to lash out at the average working people they'll need if they want to keep their majority in the House:
The Democratic Party is panicking, lashing out like a cornered animal, all because its effort to take over the health care industry is coming apart like so much wet toilet paper.What type of evil person would try selling the notion that people who are afraid of losing their private health insurance are swastika-wearing hatemongers? What type of person has the type of imagination that allows them to utter such profanities? It's what happens when a spoiled brat throws a hissy fit.
Nancy Pelosi, who will get her own bound volume in the annals of asininity, has outdone herself. When asked by a reporter whether the protests at various town hall meetings represented legitimate grassroots opposition or were manufactured "Astroturf" stunts, she replied, "I think they're Astroturf. You be the judge. They're carrying swastikas and symbols like that to a town meeting on health care."
Now this is a pas de trois of dishonesty, slander and idiocy. Not only is Pelosi lying when she says protestors are bringing swastikas to these town halls, not only is she suggesting that American citizens are Nazis for having the effrontery to get in the way of ObamaCare, but she's also saying that the alleged swastikas are obvious proof that these protests are manufactured by slick P.R. gurus.
Most importantly, it's what happens when We The People tell the spoiled brat that we aren't interested in the crap that she's peddling.
It's also what happens when big dreams vanish into thin air, when people start registering their disapproval with pollsters :
Unlike most polling these day, Democracy Corps does try to maintain a semblance of credibility and looks at likely voters instead of all registered voters. And among their pool of likely voters, 53% of those likely to vote in 2010 think Obama is too liberal. The same number think he's going to raise taxes. 55% think he doesn't deliver on his promises.SUMMARY: Democracy Corps polling shows that the American people don't trust President Obama to keep his promises at the same time that like voters don't trust Democrats to spend our tax dollars wisely.
Oh, and Republicans lead Democrats by 13 points on the issue of who will be a better steward of our tax dollars.
That's the worst possible set of poll results Democrats could find at this crucial juncture in the health care debate. Why would people give Congress the go ahead to manipulate one-sixth of the U.S. economy when they think Congress will waste that money?
Rather than listen to their constituents, Democrats are being given special instructions on handling the supposedly angry mobs:
" If you get hit, we will punch back twice as hard ," Messina said, according to an official who attended the meeting.Sen. Reid is full of it. Axelrod's gang of thugs are teaching senators how to be Chicagoland thugs. This arrogance is disgusting. Never should We The People put up with a bunch of thugs whose entire agenda is to get their way by using violence and intimidation rather than by winning on the intellectual battlefield.
The hourlong session was the last opportunity for Democratic leaders and the White House to prepare senators for what will be a crucial month in shaping public opinion on health care. With no final legislation to promote, senators have expressed concern about dealing with questions and criticisms about the almost $1 trillion overhaul. The spate of confrontational town hall meetings have raised the stakes.
"They are just helping us understand the fringe that is trying to mess up our meetings," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.).
It's accurate to say that the tactics that Axelrod and Messina are advocating are the tactics that were used during the 1968 Democratic Convention in Chicago .
This administration is quickly becoming exposed as a collection of Chicagoland thugs. That can't help after President Obama ran as a post-partisan politician and a healer of all divisions. I never bought into that image. Now I'm being vindicated for doubting that image, as are many others.
Posted Friday, August 7, 2009 9:26 AM
No comments.
You Work For Us, Mr. President, NOT VICE VERSA!!!
This video shows President Obama at his smart aleck best in Virginia:
"But I don't want the folks who created the mess to do a lot of talking. I want them to get out of the way so we can clean up the mess. I don't mind cleaning up after them, but don't do a lot of talking."Frankly, Mr. President, I don't give a damn if you want us silenced. You've been talking with that arrogant smirk alot lately. You've had fascists like Speaker Pelosi and Sen. Boxer ridiculing the American people, telling the fawning media that this is an astroturf movement that should be ignored. Mr. President, Don't tell us what to do. We The People will tell you what to do because YOU WORK FOR US, NOT VICE VERSA!!!
The Constitution that you so frequently dismiss gives We The People the right to assemble peacefully, to tell empty suit politicians that their ideas suck and to vote out of office those that are too arrogant for We The People's good.
Mr. President, You're the leader of the free world in title but you get your power from us, not vice versa. When you shot your mouth off at that fundraiser, you essentially said that people who disagreed with you should shut up. That isn't how the Constitution works. All your intimidation tactics, all your thugs' violence and all of Nancy Pelosi's grandstanding won't get us to back down. This is too important.
If there's a lesson in this battle, it's that this administration can be rattled. We The People punched the White House bully, something they didn't expect. As a result, we stunned the Democrats. As a result, Speaker Pelosi accused We The People of carrying swastikas. As a result, Rep. David Scott screamed at a doctor who attended a meeting that Scott hosted.
Friday night's Hannity Great American Panel consisted of Bob Massi, Leann Tweeden and Hugh Hewitt. Massi said that he sensed a sense of arrogance about this administration and the Democrats. It was clear that he wasn't impressed, that he was disgusted with their behavior. He said that the administration acted stunned that people actually intended to hold them accountable.
I think Massi is exactly right about this.
It's important that we don't start acting like the SEIU thugs that beat up Kenneth Gladney. It's important that we respectfully ask questions that tell us whether the politicians know what they're talking about. If they don't, then we should highlight that fact. If there's a TV crew there reporting on the townhalls, make yourself available. If you have a blog, let people know what the politicians said. If you have a camcorder, post the video on YouTube.
Most importantly, let people see that our politicians don't understand health care reform. In the end, that's the ultimate way of hurting this administration's thuggish allies.
Posted Sunday, August 9, 2009 2:25 AM
Comment 1 by Political Muse at 09-Aug-09 01:20 PM
Wait, let me get this straight. First, you become OUTRAGED that Nancy Pelosi says people are bring Nazism into this debate about health care. A short two posts later you describe her as a fascist?
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 09-Aug-09 01:30 PM
I'm outraged that Pelosi falsely accused people of bringing swastikas to these meetings.
And yes, I called her a fascist because it fits:
a person who is dictatorial
If the shoe fits...
Comment 3 by Political Muse at 09-Aug-09 01:49 PM
Really, no one brought swastikas?
http://www.dustytrice.com/?p=5398
Response 3.1 by Gary Gross at 09-Aug-09 01:58 PM
Where was the swastika? I've watched tons of videos & I've seen ONE swastika & it had a red line drawn through it. Pelosi said THEY, meaning plural, were bringing swastikas, again plural, to these meetings. You still haven't provided proof. You've provided allegations.
Comment 4 by Political Muse at 09-Aug-09 01:52 PM
And regarding your dictionary link: You conveniently left out the part of the definition that says someone with EXTREME RIGHT WING VIEWS. You need to stop reading Jonah Goldberg.
I am not interested in calling anyone names and it saddens me that you have decided to fall into line with Rush Limbaugh
Response 4.1 by Gary Gross at 09-Aug-09 02:02 PM
Eric, Explain why Pelosi's shutting Republicans out of negotiations on health care reform & on the stimulus isn't the actions of a dictator. Explain why her shutting down debate on drilling last year via a closed rule so Republicans couldn't offer amendments to the various energy bills isn't the actions of a dictator.
You can't say that with any seriousness.
If the shoe fits...
Comment 5 by walter hanson at 10-Aug-09 06:48 PM
Gary:
Here's something that had me outraged. Mr. Obama was complaining about we have to rein in the credit cards. Oh really:
Isn't it his cash for clunker program which if you use a 4% (maybe heading higher over the years) for $3 billion dollars will be $120 million dollars per year. We'll still be paying that $120 million per year 25 or 50 years from now when any rational person will say that every new car purchased will no longer be running. At least with my car loan the car will be paid off in four more years and I have an asset to sell.
The stimulus program is 788 billion dollars. If you assume just 4% per year will be $31.5 billion per year or $105 per person. I will be paying an extra $105 per year or not getting a tax cut or at a minimum not having that $105 to be spent on a better federal spending program.
Yet he wants to lecture us about a credit card out of control. If you add in a trillion dollars for health care (the optimistic scenario) that's another $133 per person per year.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
David Frum: Twentieth Century Conservative
David Frum's latest post at the New Majority is one of the most moronic posts I've read, recently or otherwise. He asked what would happen if Republicans defeated the Democrats' latest attempt to install universal care:
What would it mean to "win" the healthcare fight?What it would mean is that we will have saved the American medical system. Winston Churchill famously once said that "Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried." The American health care system has significant flaws that need addressing but it's still producing miracle cures for diseases that once were considered fatal. In fact, with certain types of cancer, we're still light years ahead of other industrialized nations.
For some, the answer is obvious: beat back the president's proposals, defeat the House bill, stand back and wait for 1994 to repeat itself.
The problem is that if we do that, we'll still have the present healthcare system. Meaning that we'll have (1) flat-lining wages, (2) exploding Medicaid and Medicare costs and thus immense pressure for future tax increases, (3) small businesses and self-employed individuals priced out of the insurance market, and (4) a lot of uninsured or underinsured people imposing costs on hospitals and local governments.
We'll have entrenched and perpetuated some of the most irrational features of a hugely costly and under-performing system, at the expense of entrepreneurs and risk-takers, exactly the people the Republican party exists to champion.
What Mr. Frum is fretting about is actually producing solutions. That shouldn't be what he's thinking about. I suspect that he thinks that health care, like education, isn't a "Republican issue." That's outdated thinking that doesn't have a place in today's GOP. Today's GOP should look forward to unleashing the power of an army of Davids.
Even worse will be the way this fight is won: basically by convincing older Americans already covered by a government health program, Medicare, that Obama's reform plans will reduce their coverage.What's wrong with telling seniors the truth? It's fact that ObamaCare will dramatically cut Medicare funding. There's no denying that. Whether we like it or not, senior citizens still rely on Medicare.
The solution to Frum's imaginary dilemma is to actually figure out a way to reform Medicare while reforming the health care system. Eliminating the lion's share of federal and state mandates should help us immensely. High on the list of regulations that need elimination is the one that doesn't allow individuals to by health insurance across state lines. That alone will spur lots of competition, which we know will drive down costs.
In short, it's time that David Frum stopped being a twentieth century conservative. It's time that he started thinking in terms of providing market-oriented solutions that help families. This doesn't mean following President Bush's path. Instead, it means we should embrace Reagan's principles in reforming health care.
Posted Sunday, August 9, 2009 8:35 AM
Comment 1 by Skip at 09-Aug-09 07:58 PM
What is wrong with Brooks and Frum, anyway? Is their conservative-bashing just a tactic for gaining attention?
Comment 2 by eric zaetsch at 10-Aug-09 08:34 AM
All the hand wringing on both sides is fine and dandy. People cut checks to other people for such stuff.
But my question is, where is the polling?
You'd think there would be some - IF, big if, mainstream media were doing its ostensible job.
But we know about propaganda.
Polling would be easy to find:
What percentage of the people feel the Dems are not proposing enough and want something better from Washington for the population?
What percentage believe and agree with Blue Dogs?
What percentage put any trust in the GOP in either house?
With all the future implications, shouldn't there be a host of inquiry, what do people expect, want, and why?
Individual yammering writers on either side, paid disruptions from either side at recess events like the Pinkertons at strikes in the past, all that is great theater.
But my suspicion is that the Dems will suffer, because so far they have a tepid bandaid thing they will end up trying to sell under "Best we could do" excuse making, when they have clear numerical advantage in both houses and they have the presidency. I also hope people will see through that and heap more blame on the Dems for their smoke-and-mirrors "have to capitulate here, there, everywhere" BS, when everyone including the insurance industry knows the great, great majority of people HATE insurance companies as parasitic and obstructionist.
Liberal Columnist: How Can We Be Losing Health Care Debate?
Dan Neil, an admitted liberal/progressive columnist for the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, can't understand why the left is losing the health care reform debate :
While opinions on health-care reform break sharply along partisan lines, with most Democrats in favor and most Republicans opposed, independent voters strongly oppose the health-care reform measures pending in Congress by a whopping 70 percent to 27 percent, according to a recent Pew Research poll. How could the left possibly be losing the debate on health-care reform when its opponent is the roundly loathed health insurance industry, an ongoing criminal syndicate, in my view, that demands protection money from sick people?First, that's one of the most boneheaded assumptions I've ever heard. Neil assumes that people "roundly loathe" the health insurance industry. What proof does he have of that? Yes, people don't agree with their insurance company but that isn't proof of loathing. The other thing that Neil doesn't factor in his predilection towards government. If polling were conducted asking people if they trusted this Democrat-controlled congress more or trusted health insurance companies more, I suspect the people would have more reservations towards this Democrat-controlled congress.
Independents are breaking against the Democrats' health care reform proposal because they prefer what they have over what they might get. It doesn't help that Democrat politicians have accused doctors of having an agenda when they're just asking questions. It isn't helping the Democrats' cause when Arlen Specter tells people they don't have time to read bills because they have to keep legislation moving at a fast pace.
People know that that isn't true. The people understand that the frenetic pace that they're moving at is a pace of the politicians' choosing.
This sentence is utterly laughable:
The reform message is so jellied with politesse, so measured, so anti-inflammatory it might as well be made out of Advil.I'd hate to think that Speaker Pelosi's accusation that people asking questions at the townhall meetings were carrying swastikas isn't an example of that measured message. I don't think that Sen. Durbin's accusation that the people asking legitimate questions were either GOP plants or the insurance companies' operatives is an example of measured communication.
Compare these ads with, for example, the Americans for Prosperity group's Patients First campaign ad. Cue the scary music.First of all, seniors understand that cutting Medicare by 10 percent over the next decade is hurting them. Seniors also know that Medicare enrollment will grow by 30 percent during that decade. In other words, they know that President Obama's proposal will ration health care for seniors.
"Washington now runs your banks, your insurance and your car companies," the female narrator says while a photo of Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi looking like Skeletor flashes on the screen. "But do you trust Washington with your life? $600 billion in new taxes...cutting $400 billion from Medicare...plus tens of millions will lose their insurance..."
You simply have to concede the point: The insurance industry's ads are more effective. They are big, scary, threatening. Reform gets rolled like the British at the Somme by this ad. Liberal progressives and advocates are going to have to get down and dirty if they want to win this fight.
This column shows how frustrated Democrats are. In their minds, they think they've got the better arguments but the damn peasants won't listen to those arguments because they're too afraid. That arrogance will help kill health care reform.
Neil isn't factoring in the public's distrust of Obama, Pelosi and Waxman. That shouldn't be minimized. The SEIU's thuggish behavior isn't helping, either.
The Democrats won't win this argument because their only chance of passing single-payor is if people think their health insurance is utterly inept. Even then, it isn't likely because they'd still have to convince people that the government is more efficient and responsive than health insurance companies.
Good luck winning that argument.
Posted Sunday, August 9, 2009 1:42 PM
Comment 1 by walter hanson at 10-Aug-09 06:37 PM
lets not forget people commonsense dictates malpractice reform (I've been a victim of needless tests just because the doctor wanted to protect himself from being sued for malpractice)
Obama went and accused doctors in a national press conference of doing needless procedures, but total ignored the things they order to avoid malpractice lawsuits.
Where's the real malpractice reform?
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 2 by Birdzilla at 02-Sep-09 02:15 PM
OBAMASHEALTHCARE the cure is worse then the illness
The DFL's Misinformation vs. Verifiable Facts
Last week, Chester Rorvig wrote a Your Turn op-ed in the St. Cloud Times that was filled with misinformation. Here's a healthy helping of that misinformation:
Recently [Gov. Pawlenty] railed against the health care overhaul proposals being debated by Congress. OK, I can understand that he has concerns, as do many Americans. These proposals need thorough analysis before they are enacted.Saying that Republicans haven't proposed health care solutions is either ignorance-driven or it's plain dishonest. I've written more than a few times about Steve Gottwalt's Healthy Minnesota Plan legislation.
But while the governor did concede that our current system is unsustainable financially, he did not offer his plan or his alternative. He simply made attacks. And then he wonders why his political party has become known as the party of "no."
Gov. Pawlenty, if you have good ideas, please share them!
Strikingly absent from his comments were references to how he "fixed" health care and taxes in Minnesota.
By his unallotment of funds, he threw tens of thousands of poor individuals off health care coverage. When these individuals incur medical expenses and are unable to pay for them, guess what happens? These unreimbursed costs get spread to those who do have coverage, resulting in higher insurance premiums.
Here's the other misinformation in Mr. Rorvig's op-ed:
By his unallotment of funds, he threw tens of thousands of poor individuals off health care coverage.That's wildly inaccurate. First, the people who were getting GAMC are now eligible for MinnesotaCare, likely with very low, taxpayer-subsidized premiums. I confirmed that with Steve Gottwalt this evening. Steve said that the DFL is misleading people on GAMC. Here's what he said on the subject:
The HHS budget is growing at a rate of 20% per biennium, and accelerating. By the DFL leadership's own admission, the state's Health Care Access Fund which provides coverage for low income Minnesotans, will go bankrupt by the end of 2012 (if not sooner). At that point, state law requires us to kick thousands of Minnesotans off of government health care coverage.By refusing to pass Steve's reforms at least three different times, the DFL is essentially forcing draconian cuts in health care coverage for low income Americans. In fact, I'm betting their strategy is to force a showdown, saying that it's a choice of raising taxes or cutting health care coverage for the poorest of the poor.
That scheme will fail because we'll tell people that there's a reform option which will provide a safety net for the neediest while protecting taxpayers' wallets. We'll ask people across the state whether they'd rather choose between raising taxes to provide benefits to the poorest of the poor or if they'd prefer reforming the delivery of those benefits while saving lots of money.
At a time when Obamanomics is failing and jobs are still being cut, I'm betting that voters will pick the reform option by a wide margin.
I don't expect the DFL to stop their misinformation campaign. I just expect them to get hurt politically by employing a my-way-or-the-highway strategy.
Posted Sunday, August 9, 2009 11:44 PM
No comments.
