January 21-26, 2008
Jan 21 03:11 Commodity vs. Community Need Jan 21 14:00 About Those Earmarks Jan 23 14:18 Tarryl: Trickle Down Economics Failed Jan 25 02:28 It's Time to Move On Jan 25 12:51 We Got the Message Jan 25 23:33 Twins Give Fans Reason to Cheer Jan 26 13:18 Exit Stage Left
Commodity vs. Community Need
In this op-ed , John Marty argues that health care should be a community need, not a commodity. That wrong-headed thinking is the motivation behind his crusade for a constitutional amendment that would mandate "affordable health insurance." Here's how the amendment would read on November's ballot:
"Shall the Minnesota Constitution be amended to state that every resident of Minnesota has the right to health care and that it is the responsibility of the governor and the legislature to implement all necessary legislation to ensure affordable health care? Yes? No?Here's how Sen. Marty argues that thinking of health insurance as a commodity is wrong:
Many politicians view it as a commodity, something that is bought and sold in the marketplace. "Bought," that is, to the extent you can afford it. However, if you believe that all people deserve access to affordable health care, as two-thirds of Americans do believe, then there is a problem. Many people don't earn enough to buy health care.One thing that single-payer activists won't discuss is that socialized medicine is part of the problem, not part of the solution. For instance, someone else has to pick up the costs when the VA negotiates (at gunpoint) with the pharmaceutical companies.
Another thing that single-payer activists won't discuss is the impact that illegal immigrants have on the system. Anytime that someone goes to the ER, someone else has to pay for it, either through higher taxes or with cost shifting to insurance premiums and co-pays.
Here's John Marty's thoughts on what's driving up costs:
Equally troubling, Minnesotans who have insurance still face astronomical health costs, and they would get little relief from this type of reform.Let's focus on government mandates. State legislators whine about the Fed's passing unfunded mandates down to state legislatures but they don't think twice about passing along their unfunded mandates to private businesses. It's difficult thinking of a more unjustly regulated industry than medicine.
Despite these things, John Marty and like-minded legislators think that the solution to their imagined crisis is to put Minnesota's health care system under legislators' control.
Here's another of Marty's arguments for single-payer:
If health care were treated as a community need, when you were sick you would get the care you needed. And you would get sick less often, because you would receive preventive care and health education to assist you in taking responsibility for your health. As with police and fire protection, we all would pay for it, and we all would benefit from it.The first sentence is accurate as far as it goes. What's cleverly hidden is that it doesn't say how long a wait you'd face to "get the care you needed." It also assumes, incorrectly, that cutting the pharmaceuticals' profits won't have a negative effect on research and development spending. In fact, the American Medical Students Association admits that that will have an impact :
Although there are some advantages and some disadvantages to each system, universal health care confers the greatest number of advantages. They include:For all his bluster, Sen. Marty is right about this part:
- Every individual would receive necessary medical coverage, regardless of age, health, employment, or socio-economic status.
- Health care spending would decline because centralized billing procedures would reduce administrative overhead. Consequently, a larger percentage of the cost of health care would actually be spent on patient treatment.
- Increased access to preventive care and the ability of government to purchase prescription medications in bulk would also help drive down health care costs. However, the corresponding drop in revenue for pharmaceutical companies could lead to a reduction in overall research and development, slowing down technological advancement.
- Patients can choose their physician and physicians can choose the most appropriate treatment for their patients.
- There would be a removal of profit-motive in health care. The driving force behind the health industry would be patient care and not profit maximization.
We end up paying more because people don't have health care up front. We don't focus on prevention.It doesn't take a complete overhaul of the health care industry to fix that. I just talked with Steve Gottwalt, who pointed out a couple interesting things:
Most of the uninsured are already eligible for state-subsidized health insurance probrams but they either haven't signed up or simply don't know that they'd qualify. I'd think that budgeting more for outreach would quickly remedy that situation.
Another thing Steve emphasized is that incenting people to buy preventive care would be a step in the right direction, possibly through the tax code.
I recently read that Minnesota's population is 6.5 million people and that 91 percent of Minnesotans have health insurance. Of the people that don't, 59 percent are eligible for existing government health insurance programs. Let's do the math on that. There are approximately 600,000 people uninsured in Minnesota, of which 354,000 are eligible for existing programs. That means only 246,000 Minnesotans are (a) without health insurance and (b) not eligible for taxpayer subsidized health care. That means approximately 3.8 percent of Minnesotans aren't insured or eligible for taxpayer-subsidized health insurance.
Frankly, that doesn't qualify as a crisis to me, especially when Minnesota has ranked as the first or second ranked state in overall health. In fact, other states are coming to us asking how we do such a remarkable, consistent job with our health.
With all due respect to Sen. Marty, I'm unwilling to concede that government would do a better job running the health care industry.
Many middle-income families have insurance but are still only one serious illness away from bankruptcy. Our businesses, schools and government face skyrocketing health-care costs.It's impossible to get everyone covered whether it's through government, private insurance or a combination thereof. That's the first reality that must be faced. Another undeniable reality is that when government negotiates the price of perscription medications, the pharmaceutical companies don't just give up on recovering the profit; they get it back by charging us more. The bad part about government dictating the prices that pharmaceuticals can charge is that it limits research and development.
It is time for Minnesota to make sure that every Minnesotan has access to the health care that they need. By treating health care as a community need, not as an optional commodity, we will live healthier lives and save money, too.
John Marty and his allies won't accept as fact that taking away profits, whether it's from pharmaceutical companies or health care professionals, reduces the availability of new products and reduces the quality of care given.
Single-payer is nothing more than a race to the bottom for quality healthcare. Considering how many cures we've developed in the last decade, I'm wondering why we need a dramatic change of any sort.
Posted Monday, January 21, 2008 3:11 AM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 21-Jan-08 10:14 AM
HEALTH CARE IS NOT A RIGHT! Being sick does not give you the right to the "free" labors of a health care provider. The only way that works is if all doctors become slaves, paid whatever the "master," which in the case of single-payer is the goverhment, wishes to pay. Can you just imagine the top-notch medical talent clamoring to work for slave wages?
About Those Earmarks
We all remember how Democrats campaigned on reforming earmarks. We remember that Tim Walz campaigned on being an independent voice in the House. This editorial has the proof that they failed miserably on fulfilling those campaign promises.
Walz had 50 opportunities to vote against earmarks. His record? Zero for 50. That's 0 percent. Minnesota Reps. Collin Peterson and Betty McCollum also joined Walz at 0 percent. Reps. Jim Oberstar and Keith Ellison were way up there at 2 percent. Average score for Democrats overall? Just 2 percent.That's shameful. I'll bet that Rep. Walz will talk about voting for the Earmark Reform bill. The omnibus budget bill contained thousands of airdropped earmarks. Rep. Walz voted for that bill.
Based on this information, it's safe to say that Rep. Walz isn't an independent voice for southeastern Minnesota. It's equally safe to say that he isn't fiscally responsible.
Posted Monday, January 21, 2008 2:00 PM
No comments.
Tarryl: Trickle Down Economics Failed
Last Friday, Eric at Liberal in a Land of Conservatives posted a press release from Tarryl Clark about Minnesota's economy. This statement from her press release struck me as absurd:
It's clear now that Minnesota's experiment with trickle-down economics has not produced the results that its backers promised. Minnesotans were promised that cutting taxes on the wealthy, along with cuts in services, would spur private investment and job growth.Tarryl's statement admits that trickle down economics is predicated on cutting taxes. I'd defy her to tell me when the last time was that the DFL Senate passed genuine tax cuts of any sort. I've been voting since 1974 & I don't recall them ever passing tax cuts.
I'd further defy her to find a single statement where Gov. Pawlenty or anyone in GOP leadership promised to cut taxes on the wealthy. She can't because it didn't happen. Tarryl should be ashamed of herself for making this type of strawman argument.
In other words, Tarryl's argument isn't worth the paper it's printed on because trickle down economics weren't tried. In fact, the closest things we've had to tax cuts were the back-to-back tax rebates during the Ventura administration. That doesn't qualify as trickle down economics.
I'd further point out that we haven't had a tax cut of any sort during the Pawlenty administration. He inherited the DFL-Ventura disaster, which was a $4.5 billion budget deficit that required deep spending cuts. That's just additional proof that Tarryl's trickle down argument is more myth than truth.
The verifiable truth is that we've tried everything except cutting taxes to improve our business climate. When Tarryl issued a statement titled " Minnesota must do more to spur job growth ", I wrote that I agreed with her . I even sent her an email to that effect. Here's what I wrote in that email:
Now would be a perfect time to cut taxes & restrengthen our economy. It's also time to pass a small increase in the gas tax & a big increase in bonding to fix our existing roads & bridges. It's also time to initiate a moratorium on LRT. Our highest priorities should be to fix the existing roads & bridges while not shackling small businesses & individual taxpayers with the crippling tax increases the Legislature passed last session.Cutting taxes isn't a DFL priority because that'd eliminate their plans to massively grow the budget. You needn't look further than the budget that the DFL passed last year. The DFL's obscene budget called for a spending increase of almost 20 percent. What's worse is that many of the bills have even bigger spending increases for the next biennium.
Isn't it time for you & Sen. Pogemiller, Speaker Kelliher & Rep. Sertich to realize that the tax increases on every Minnesotan is driving businesses out of the state? Shouldn't you re-examine your priorities so that they aren't preventing average citizens the ability to pursue their dreams?
Additionionally, we've become a 'magnet state', attracting people seeking welfare benefits. It's more accurate to say that we tried the DFL's way of increasing taxes & more generous welfare benefits, which has been a failure. Despit that, Tarryl is advocating more of the same:
It's time to change course. Minnesota's economic woes can be effectively addressed. We should start by recognizing what worked for us when our state was a national economic leader and act to return to proven strategies for rebuilding long-term health to the state's economy. We need smart investments in education and transportation infrastructure-they will incubate and sustain job growth. We need to rebuild and support a strong middle class by holding the line on property taxes and the growth of health care costs.I agree with Tarryl that it's time to change course. Unfortunately, while she's talking about "smart investments in education and transportation infrastructure", she's also talking quietly about a constitutional amendment that would make government-run health care a constitutional right. If that were to pass, the tax increases of the past will pale in comparison. The tax increase would easily be the largest in state history.
That's before we start talking about how many additional responsibilities we've dumped tons onto our schools. These additional responsibilities have driven property taxes through the roof. I agree with Tarryl that we need to return to making smart investments in education. By most people's definition, smart investment in education means prioritizing spending. It doesn't mean throwing more money at everything that EdMinn has on their laundry list.
If people want a picture of what happens if the DFL's plan is implemented, just look at Michigan & California. Both have dramatically increased taxes. Neither state has prioritized spending, which has resulted in passing spending bills that are totally irresponsible. (Sounds familiar, doesn't it?) Both are economic disasters and getting worse.
It's time that we rejected the DFL's irresponsible plan of irresponsible spending increases, lenient welfare regulations (that attract people from other states) & major tax increases.
It's long past time to start implementing sustainable spending growth patterns, a tax system that is pro-growth & wise investments in our transportation infrastructure than emphasizes bonding first.
Posted Wednesday, January 23, 2008 2:29 PM
No comments.
It's Time to Move On
Though I hate admitting it, it's time to move on now that Fred's dropped his presidential bid. Before we move on, though, I think it's important to learn from Fred's campaign.
The biggest lesson to be learned is that Fred shouldn't have teased us so long with his entry. Fredheads should've contacted his campaign and told him he needed to get in so he could carve out his niche. Had the Fred Thompson of the last few debates jumped in in July or August, I'm convinced that he'd be the prohibitive favorite for the GOP's presidential nomination right now.
The next biggest lesson we must learn as a political party is that Thompson's type of conservatism is appealling. The other lesson we need to learn is that we don't need to abandon conservatism to attract more squishy moderates. I'm all for a big tent but I insist that it's a principled big tent. Which leads to this important point.
John McCain's way of collaborating with Democrats is the opposite approach that Reagan used in winning over liberals. Reagan won liberals over with policies that made too much sense to argue against. McCain hasn't tried winning liberals over. History will show that McCain caved each time he worked with Democrats. The only time he didn't cave was on the surge.
McCain caved on the Gang of 14 without a legitimate reason. McCain caved on the First Amendment when he teamed up with Russ Feingold, Christopher Shays and Marty Meehan on campaign finance 'reform'. He caved to Ted Kennedy on immigration 'reform', even allowing an open borders advocacy group like NCLR a seat at the negotiating table for the second bill.
Because NCLR was doing the negotiating, we knew that McCain wasn't talking straight with us when he said that he'd learned his lesson about comprehensive immigration reform. Everyone knew that he and Ted Kennedy simply repackaged the same teethless provisions into a new bill.
Now we're down to Mitt, Rudy, McCain and Huckabee, though I don't think Huckabee will be with us much longer. For the reasons stated above, I can't support John McCain. Simply put, he's too headstrong to not attempt to shaft Republicans again. I won't tolerate that. I also can't support Gov. Huckabee because I've seen too many of his dirty tricks. I won't support candidates that I can't trust. I also think his Fair Tax plan is a disaster waiting to happen.
That leaves Rudy and Mitt. I like alot of the things that Rudy brings to the table policywise but I just can't endorse him. I'll support Mr. Giuliani if he's the nominee but I won't go farther than that.
That leaves Mitt. As regular readers of this blog know, I've had strong reservations about Mitt. I've questioned Mitt's abortion transformation. I've questioned him about flip-flopping on the Bush tax cuts. I've called him a convenient conservative who didn't always apply the principles of federalism.
That said, there's alot of positions that Mitt's adopted that I agree with. He's said that he'd make the Bush tax cuts permanent, something I strongly agree with. Mitt's said that he'd aggressively fight the jihadists, something else that I approve of. While I'm not convinced that Mitt would hit the ground running with foreign policy, I'd feel alot more comfortable with him if his running mate was Fred Thompson.
Having a Mitt-Fred ticket would be rock solid, far more impressive than Hillary and whoever or Obama and whoever. Fred's conservative credentials can't be argued with. Equally important, he'd give the Romney administration instant foreign policy credibility. With Fred as VP, we'd also be certain that the judges and justices that Mitt picked would fit the Roberts/Alito/Thomas/Scalia mold. You can't do better than that.
I'm not endorsing Mitt Romney at this point. I'm simply pointing out what the best ticket is at this point. I'd be lying if I said I didn't have misgivings about Mitt but I'd also be lying if I said that he'd have the most upside as long as he's paired with Fred.
Let's face facts about something. A Mitt-Fred ticket has much more of a chance of uniting the GOP than any other ticket. We'll need that if we hope to keep the White House under GOP control.
Posted Friday, January 25, 2008 2:33 AM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 25-Jan-08 10:11 AM
I beg to disagree. First and foremost, the ONLY reason I would support Huckabee is because of the FAIR tax. It's the right thing to do, whether a President can make it "happen" or not is not quite the issue.
Second, I don't think Mitt is a bad choice, but my worries aren't with his "unconservative" stances. I'm of the belief that he is first and foremost a pragmatist, and has enough experience (and push from other Republicans) that he can see that the conservative approach WORKS.
My personal preference would have been a Thompson-Romney ticket, so that the younger Romney could have stepped in after 8 years of Thompson. Barring that, the opposite isn't too bad. The problem with it is that I don't think Thompson's really interested. He didn't want the office to begin with, just wanted to "get things done." A VP can't do that. Maybe Romney-Hunter?
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 25-Jan-08 10:35 AM
UJ, This Cameron post says you're wrong about Fred not wanting the VP job:
I reported first that he was eyeing a White House bid. At the time several insiders told me OFF THE RECORD that it was largely a trial ballon to guage his popularity and float his name as a possible vice presidential nominee. I was sworn to silence.
We Got the Message
After getting his ass handed to him on immigration reform the first time, John McCain started saying that he'd "gotten the message". He still insists that his bill wasn't amnesty, though, making conservatives wary of his immigration 'transformation'. This information should remove all doubt:
A reader alerted me to the fact that McCain's "Hispanic Outreach Director" is the same guy who held that job for Mexico's President Vicente Fox! U.S.-born dual citizen Juan Hernandez was in Fox's cabinet as Director of the Office for Mexicans Living Abroad and is notorious for having said of Mexican Americans on Nightline on June 7, 2001, "I want the third generation, the seventh generation, I want them all to think 'Mexico first.'" Does McCain agree with this? Has he offered Hernandez, a former high-level foreign government official who presumably swore an oath to uphold the Mexican constitution, a place in a future McCain Administration? That's not a rhetorical question.I've said many times that people didn't trust McCain's second attempt because La Raza (NCLR) had veto power over anything brought up. NCLR are open borders advocates. Add the hiring Juan Hernandez as his "Hispanic Outreach Director" to the NCLR debacle and you've got an immigration reform disgrace. It's pretty apparent that John McCain hasn't changed his views one iota. He's still the same pro-amnesty guy he's always been.
McCain's actions tell us what his position is. His actions don't agree with his words, which is a polite way of saying that McCain shouldn't be trusted with immigration policy. He's as stubborn and prideful as anyone I've ever seen in public life. Frankly, I wouldn't trust him on immigration policy if my life depended on it.
Here's part of what Mark Krikorian wrote back in 2004:
There's nothing secret about this effort. President Vicente Fox once referred to himself as president of all 118 million Mexicans, the 100 million in Mexico and the (then-)18 million in the United States, the majority of whom are U.S. citizens. And this is a long-term proposition for them: In June 2001, Juan Hernandez, former head of Fox's cabinet-level office for relations with Mexicans abroad, said on ABC's "Nightline," "I want the third generation, the seventh generation, I want them all to think, 'Mexico first.'"Here's more of Krikorian's writings:
IDs for illegals.Juan Hernandez certainly knew all about this policy and encouraged it. Now he's Team McCain's amnesty policy director? Why should people trust McCain on immigration? Other than his words, what's changed since McCain first teamed with Ted Kennedy on the first amnesty bill? Granted, he's repackaged everything but it hasn't been changed substantively.
One of the biggest problems for illegal aliens is their lack of identification; it prevents them from getting driver's licenses or bank accounts and leads police to inquire into their legal status when stopped for traffic violations. This is a good thing, because making life difficult for illegal aliens is one important part of any successful effort to prevent illegal immigration.
But the Mexican government rejects our attempts at enforcing immigration controls and has launched a successful effort to get the Mexican consular registration card - known as the matricula consular - to be acknowledged by many banks and local governments.
Acceptance of this card confers a quasi-legal status on illegal aliens, partly shielding them from detection and incorporating them even more completely into our nationallife.
This hiring should be seen in this light too: It's just another instance of John McCain sticking his finger in the GOP's eye. This is him giving the GOP the finger. It's time the GOP thanked him for his years of public service, then tell him that they're moving in a fresh direction.
We need to start down the path to maintaining our national sovereignty. It's time we stopped practicing Washington politics as usual. Instead, we should reject the insiders' games that McCain plays.
Most importantly, we should fill John McCain's inbox with the message that we "got the message" he's sending on immigration reform and that we reject his message.
UPDATE: Hot Air is all over this:
Hernandez and I go way back . He had a bad habit of calling you "My friend" during TV debates while smoothly peddling open-borders propaganda. I cured that bad habit several years ago during a Fox News segment by pointing out that he was not, in fact, "my friend."
He is not your friend, either.
Hernandez was a close advisor to Vicente " Welcome to North America " Fox and headed up a Mexican bureaucracy called the "Presidential Office for Mexicans Abroad." It was designed to allow Hernandez to travel across the country, meddling with local, state, and federal immigration enforcement on behalf of millions of illegal
aliens in America. He lobbied for illegal alien driver's licenses and Mexico first, defended Mexican bus operators carrying illegal aliens to the USA, and promoted extending banking privileges to illegal aliens .
Posted Friday, January 25, 2008 1:26 PM
No comments.
Twins Give Fans Reason to Cheer
With most of the Twins' offseason attention focused on trading Johan Santana, it's understandable that Twins fans were apprehensive. Today, the Twins gave their fans reason for optimism by signing Justin Morneau and Michael Cuddyer to longterm contracts. According to the Strib's LaVelle E. Neal, Justin Morneau signed a 6 year, $80 million contract while Michael Cuddyer signed a 3 year, $24 million contract with a team option for a 4th year at $10.5 million.
The best news of the weekend is that Twins GM Bill Smith says that today's deals won't stand in the way of them negotiating with Johan Santana in the hopes of keeping him with the Twins. While I think keeping Johan is improbable at best, the thought of keeping him here the next 4+ years excites me.
Signing Johan would give the Twins a rotation of Santana, Lirano, Baker, Perkins & either Kevin Slowey, Nick Blackburn or Boof Bonser. Their bullpen would be solid, too, with Matt Guerrier, Pat Neshek, Jesse Crain and Dennis Reyes setting up Joe Nathan.
The biggest news this offseason that nobody's talking about is that the Twins lineup is much improved. If the Twins don't trade Johan for a starting centerfielder, they'll sign either Corey Patterson or Kenny Lofton. Personally, I hope it's Lofton because (a) he isn't aging, (b) he's still productive & (c) he's got a great veteran presence in the lineup.
Let's assume for the sake of discussion that the Twins keep Johan & sign Lofton. Here's what their batting order would look like:
Leadoff- K. Lofton, CF
2nd- J. Kubel, DH
3rd- J. Mauer, C
4th- M. Cuddyer, RF
5th- J. Morneau, 1B
6th- D. Young, LF
7th- M. Lamb, 3B
8th- A. Everett, SS
9th- B. Harris, 2B
They'll likely be a bit weak at the bottom of the lineup but they'll more than make up for it with the top & middle of the lineup. When the Twins traded for Delmon Young, I loved the move because he has the potential of being a superstar. He's got one of the strongest, most accurate arms in baseball. He's a power hitter. He's got pretty good range defensively, too. He's got the tools to become the Twins best hitter by 2009.
Having a middle of the lineup inhabited by Mauer, Cuddy, Justin & Young would be imposing at minimum.
Something that people haven't thought much about is how good the Twins will be defensively. On any other team, losing Torii would be devastating defensively. If they sign Lofton, he'll be solid defensively in terms of range, though he doesn't have Torii's throwing arm. Whatever they lack in center, they'll more than make up for on the corners. Teams won't take extra bases on Cuddyer & Young because they've got the two best throwing arms of all the corner outfielders in baseball. PERIOD.
The infield defense should be pretty solid, too, especially with the addition of Adam Everett at shortstop. While Everett's bat isn't a plus, everything I've read said his defense will be a positive. The reports I've read say that he's got above average range, a strong arm & picks everything hit in his direction. Justin Morneau hasn't made people forget about Doug Mientkiewicz or Kent Hrbek defensively but he's improved defensively each year. The scouting reports on Brendan Harris & Mike Lamb are solid, too.
I'm not convinced that this is going to be a major rebuilding year. It might turn out that way but I won't think that until I know Johan's status. Until that's settled, I'll just be thankful that they've locked up 2 important players like Cuddy & Morneau for the foreseeable future.
Posted Friday, January 25, 2008 11:33 PM
No comments.
Exit Stage Left
The LA Times Jonathan Chait is getting tired of the Clintons' scorched earth tactics. In fact, he thinks it's time for them to exit stage left :
Something strange happened the other day. All these different people, friends, co-workers, relatives, people on a liberal e-mail list I read, kept saying the same thing: They've suddenly developed a disdain for Bill and Hillary Clinton. Maybe this is just a coincidence, but I think we've reached an irrevocable turning point in liberal opinion of the Clintons.It's amazing that people on the left didn't say anything about the Clintons when they directed their attacks at conservatives but now they're frothing at the mouth now that they're attacking a liberal. I won't belabor the point that there is a double standard; that isn't news.
The sentiment seems to be concentrated among Barack Obama supporters. Going into the campaign, most of us liked Hillary Clinton just fine, but the fact that tens of millions of Americans are seized with irrational loathing for her suggested that she might not be a good Democratic nominee. But now that loathing seems a lot less irrational. We're not frothing Clinton haters like...well, name pretty much any conservative. We just really wish they'd go away.
The big turning point seems to be this week, when the Clintons slammed Obama for acknowledging that Ronald Reagan changed the country. Everyone knows Reagan changed the country. Bill and Hillary have said he changed the country. But they falsely claimed that Obama praised Reagan's ideas, saying he was a better president than Clinton, something he didn't say and surely does not believe.
My point is a much bigger point. The Jonathan Chaits of the world think that any charge against a conservative is accurate. That's why they don't challenge liberals when they disparage conservatives. Here's proof of that predisposition:
Were the conservatives right about Bill Clinton all along? Maybe not right to set up a perjury trap so they could impeach him, but right about the Clintons' essential nature? Fortunately, the Journal's attempt to convince us that the Clintons have always been unscrupulous liars seemed to prove the opposite. Its examples of Clintonian lies were their claims that Bob Dole wanted to cut Medicare, that there was a vast right-wing conspiracy, that Paula Jones was "trailer trash" and that Kenneth Starr was a partisan.Jonathan Chait saying that Bob Dole voted to cut Medicare isn't supported by the facts. He voted for a bill that would've reduced the rate of spending growth in Medicare, which isn't the same thing. Further, there hasn't been a vast right wing conspiracy to trash the Clintons because the Clintons' sleazy nature was apparent to anyone not suffering from BDS. Carville calling Paula Jones trailer trash is one of the ugliest chapters in American political history. It's also typical of Clintonista attacks.
Except Dole did vote to cut Medicare, there was a vast right-wing conspiracy and Starr was and is a rabid partisan. ("Trailer trash" is, of course, a matter of opinion, and it's a cruel thing to say, but as far as whether it's a lie, well, it's not like they called William F. Buckley "trailer trash.")
Jonathan Chait doesn't bother checking the veracity of charges the Clintons make against Republicans because he's assumed that they're true.
I don't know when the tipping point will come but it will happen. There will come a time when conscientious Democrats won't be able to look past the Clintons' behavior. There will come a time when they'll say enough.
The Clintons' unscrupulous attacks on Obama might speed the coming of that day.
Posted Saturday, January 26, 2008 1:19 PM
Comment 1 by janet at 26-Jan-08 02:43 PM
After the last couple of weeks, I, a democrat, can no longer abide the Clintons. I really do not want that man back in the white house. If it's Hillary vs. McCain in november, I will be voting for McCain.
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 26-Jan-08 05:14 PM
Janet, I appreciate you comment. Frankly, the Clintons aren't nice people. They won't hesitate a split second in criticizing their opponents.
