Now THIS is a fighter. He's re-casting the debate, portraying Republicans and their insurance company allies as obstructionists who don't want to do anything to pass any real healthcare reform. Now let's see what he says about the SPECIFICS of the public option, then we're gonna say something. Now here's the complete speech:
Back when I was much younger, there was a movie called "The Candidate" in which Robert Redford portrays an idealistic liberal California senatorial candidate Bill McKay who, with prodding from his chief political adviser, compromises his ideals after he wins his party's primary but still wins the general election over a classic right-wing Republican incumbent. I wonder if a somewhat similar scenario applies to President Obama who ran on a series of progressive ideals during his memorable 2008 campaign, but seemingly has begun a process of compromising all that he ran on down the river. Call it a case of recognizing political reality, but what happened to the fight and commitment Obama showed during his campaign? Polls show Obama's popularity down, but he has been down before? Remember the Rev. Wright fiasco during the primary season in which Obama overcame with a magnificent speech he gave on race in Philadelphia? He's going to have to do it again on Wednesday when he addresses a joint session of Congress, but instead of speaking about an overall issue like he did about race relations last year, he's going to have to be far more specific than he's ever been on healthcare reform. Obama wasn't the first choice of many progressives during the campaign when it came to healthcare reform. Many chose John Edwards who had been speaking forcefully and with compassion on the issue since his first presidential run in 2004 while others backed Hillary Clinton, who fought a losing battle for healthcare reform in 1993. Still others chose Dennis Kucinich, the only candidate willing to stick his neck out for single-payer "Medicare for All" coverage. But even during the campaign, Obama was unwilling to embrace Kucinich's message or some of the more aggressive approaches both Clinton and Edwards were advocating. Instead, his message (which continues to this day) was simple. If you liked the insurance coverage you have, you can keep it, only we'll make it cheaper to have. He spoke of the need for a public option in general terms, never in the specifics many on the left wanted. He spoke of the need to have that force to keep health costs down and insurance companies honest, but he never defined what he meant by "public option." Is this "public option" a type of Medicare that will help folks pay for basic care and services and can't turn you down because of pre-existing conditions or current systems, or is it a watered down co-op proposal such as the one Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) has advanced? People were willing to forgive Obama for not having some specifics when he spoke about healthcare reform during the campaign, but this time, with his presidency seemingly on the line, folks won't be so forgiving if he doesn't fight for what many thought he was for during the campaign on an issue as big as this one. I'm waiting to hear the details about what Obama will talk about, but if he doesn't speak forcefully and specifically for a robust public option, he'll become nothing more than just a Bill McKay-type who turned his back on his principles once he got elected and will be worthy of nothing more than a strong primary challenge in 2012.
When Republican senators and congressmen are confronted by inconvenient truths about healthcare reform they either: 1. Try to change the subject and lie about how President Obama is getting "his clock cleaned" about it (Rep. "Taliban Pete" Sessions (TX-32)during Irving townhall meeting) (NOTE: the transcript can be found here). 2. Tell a lie and then abruptly end the meeting when constitents catch the man in the act (Rep. Pete Olson (TX-22) during his recent townhall). 3. Blame the media when the questioner wouldn't allow him to get away with not answering the question (Rep. John Culberson when questioned by MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell). 4. Tell a crying woman in need that the government can't do anything to help her in a cold, matter-of-fact manner (Sen. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma). And now we have No. 5. And this could be the meanest one of all. Rep. Lynn Jenkins of Kansas, who got herself in deep doodoo the last few days because of her racist "Great White Hope" slur, dug herself in an even deeper hole with some rather sadistic behavior during a townhall meeting toward a single uninsured mother. Here's the video of Jenkins in action:
And here's the transcript (as provided in Mike Nellis' excellent Daily Kos diary):
Elizabeth Smith: I’m a 27 year-old single mother. I work full-time. I do not have health insurance. My employer does not provide health insurance to me and I cannot afford it privately. Why shouldn’t my government guarantee all of its citizens health care? Jenkins: Thank you. I’m sorry, maybe you missed my opening remarks, but absolutely. That’s why we have Medicaid in the current system and that’s why under the alternative proposal we have an option for low-to-modest-income people to be able to afford health care and then we’ve got the SCHIP program for children. I think we’ve got all of the bases covered. Audience member: She’s not covered under SCHIP! Jenkins: OK, if you’re not then you’re the perfect example for why we need reform and why we need it now but we have to do it right and if we can do an alternative proposal, as I’m suggesting, give you the money to go buy it in a reformed marketplace where it is affordable, that’s my preference rather than to saddle the nation with yet another government program when they can’t afford the government run programs we have. Elizabeth Smith: I want an option that I can pay for. I work. I pay my bills. I’m not a burden on the state. I pay my taxes. So why can’t I get an affordable option. Why are you against that? Jenkins: A government run program (laugh) is going to subsidize not only yours (laugh) but everybody in this room. So I’m not sure what we’re talking about here. Jenkins: I think it comes down to the whole discussion of... (The crowd erupts. At this point, it's safe to say even they aren't buying Jenkins position...) Lynn: OK folks. Let’s be respectful. UH-OH (talking over crowd). We’re gonna make time for everybody. We’re gonna all listen to each other respectfully, even if we disagree. I think we can agree we need reforms, again it’s just how we gonna do it. I believe people should be given the opportunity to take care of themselves with an advancebale tax credit to go be a grown-up and go buy the insurance.
What makes this exchange between Jenkins and her constituent even more illuminating is this-- according to the Daily Kos diarist:
In fact, yesterday we also learned that Jenkins' hasn't even read the health reform bills being debated in Congress.
Let's get straight to the point. The Republican party, their insurance company allies, and their lying apologists on right-wing talk shows and/or Fox "news" don't give a rat's a-- about providing meaningful health insurance reform so average folks like me won't have to go under just because we get sick. If you really thought Republicans have a solid case against health insurance reform, look at these examples. They'd rather lie and make things up instead of provide the reform people need. They'd rather sit, do nothing, and watch all the campaign cash come from their anti-reform friends rather than do anything that would even give folks a chance at making it through whatever healthcare crisis they face. This is your Republican party in action, and it's time the mainstream media stop giving these guys any creedence and legitimacy. They are out of touch, have no heart, and don't deserve to be heard or believed on healthcare reform or anything else. They are nothing but a fringe party, and the sooner Democrats realize this and stop thinking they can make deals with them, the better America will be.
When I was young and immature, I was anything but a Ted Kennedy fan (or a fan of any Kennedy), but as I have gotten older, I have learned to appreciate the legacy of all the Kennedy brothers, especially Ted, who died earlier in the day. Ted Kennedy was the senator from Massachusetts, but he might as well have been the senator who represented the entire United States. He championed just about every progressive cause that ever was hatched from the day he first walked onto the Senate floor to the day he died. Up to the end, Ted Kennedy was in the front lines of the fight for meaningful healthcare reform, and I wish Ted could have been there when this important legislation gets passed and then signed by President Obama. Ted Kennedy was a hero to me, and I'm DEFINITELY going to miss this Senate lion.
The attitude of the Republican party toward those who are suffering because of our broken healthcare system can best be described by that oft-quoted Marie Antoinette line: "Let them eat cake." My area's congressman, "Taliban" Pete Sessions (TX-32) might as well have given that answer as he refused to give a direct answer to a woman's concern about her situation that has been brought on by our healthcare crisis during a townhall last week at Irving's Ranchview High School. Another Republican, this one from across the Red River, Sen. Tom Coburn (Oklahoma), showed the same callousness toward another constituent during another townhall. Coburn's heartlessness was correctly exposed by CNN's Rick Sanchez. Here's that clip:
Coburn might as well have flipped the bird at the woman or have told his listeners, "Let her eat cake!" That's as mean as that response was. Now, let's hear Sessions change the subject to the cheers of heartless supporters as a woman queries him about her healthcare concerns:
The Republican party has rightfully been called the party of no by many. With heartless and unconcerned senators and congressmen like Sessions and Coburn, there's little reason to think that that image is going to change anytime soon. It's time for the Obama Administration to stop its efforts to negotiate with these callous critters and pass healthcare reform down their throats the same way these same Republicans when they controlled the Congress and White House railroaded morally irresponsible tax cuts for the richest 1 percent at the expense of the rest of us down our throats.
What a liar this Pete Sessions is. He claims the president is "getting his clock cleaned" on healthcare reform, but how can he say that when 77 percent of the American people support the public option? And when a woman came forward during his townhall last week to express her healthcare concerns, "Taliban Pete" (R-TX-32) didn't respond directly. All he did was change the subject and once again misappropriating blame for the current economic crisis we're in. Someone forgot to tell Pete that the mess was created largely during the six years that Sessions and his Republican friends controlled the Congress and George W. Bush was president. Anyway, here's the tape of Pete's exchange with the woman:
Our district deserves better from their congressman than one who doesn't answer a constituent's concerns and instead changes the subject while making things up in the process (Sessions' claim about Obama "getting his clock cleaned.") As a resident of Sessions' district, I deserve FAR better, and I hope some solid Democrat will challenge this fool next year and ask the questions that Sessions wants to duck like that posed by the woman in this video.
This is HUGE! Here's what's being reported in Firedoglake:
U.S. Senator Max Baucus has finally broken his silence regarding his personal position on including a public option in health care reform legislation. Last Monday night (8/17), in an unprecedented conference call to Montana Democratic central committee chairs, the powerful leader of the Senate Finance Committee told his strongest supporters that he supported a public option. While discussing the obstacles to getting a public option through the Senate, he assured his forty listeners, "I want a public option too!" The conference call was groundbreaking in that none of the recipients could ever remember this kind of call ever happening before. The teleconference was set up seemingly in reaction to rising discontent among the local Democratic leaders with the Senator's failure to take a clear position on the issue. The discussion, which became contentious and rancorous at times, also touched upon the wisdom of creating insurance cooperatives as an alternative to a public option. When several of the county chairs objected, commenting that they did not trust the health insurance companies to police themselves and limit their outrageous corporate profits, Baucus commented, "Neither do I." In the aftermath of the teleconference, a coalition of eighteen Montana counties in the Senator's home state decided to move forward with their plan to issue a Unified Statement accompanied by a joint press release. The statement sends a loud and clear message to their Senator: Any health care reform package coming out of his Senate Finance Committee must contain, at a minimum, a provision for a strong public option.
Now let's see how another senator, "co-op" Kent Conrad, handles similar pressure when confronted with a strong push for a public option. (NOTE: In all the stories I'm seeing about the public option in the mainstream media (particularly the Los Angeles Times), I haven't seen a word about polling that shows 77 PERCENT SUPPORT for a public option. So much for us losing the battle).
Slinkerwink in Daily Kos presented another excellent diary today on the fight for meaningful health care reform, this one on pending legislation in the Senate Finance Committee that would force patients to pay as much as 35 percent of their healthcare costs. The diary quotes a section of a story that appears in the Los Angeles Times that contends that health insurance interests have "gained the upper hand" in the battle. Here's part of what the Times reported about what's being hatched in the Senate Finance Committee:
"It's a bonanza," said Robert Laszewski, a health insurance executive for 20 years who now tracks reform legislation as president of the consulting firm Health Policy and Strategy Associates Inc. Some insurance company leaders continue to profess concern about the unpredictable course of President Obama's massive healthcare initiative, and they vigorously oppose elements of his agenda. But Laszewski said the industry's reaction to early negotiations boiled down to a single word: "Hallelujah!" The insurers' success so far can be explained in part by their lobbying efforts in the nation's capital and the districts of key lawmakers.
The L.A. Times piece continues:
"The insurers are going to do quite well," said Linda Blumberg, a health policy analyst at the nonpartisan Urban Institute, a Washington think tank. "They are going to have this very stable pool, they're going to have people getting subsidies to help them buy coverage and . . . they will be paid the full costs of the benefits that they provide -- plus their administrative costs."
Any bill that requires patients to pay as much as 35 percent of the bill is totally unacceptable. In fact, the bill wouldn't even be reform at all. Slinkerwink continues:
And you know what's egregiously bad about this? Private insurance companies currently pay about 80% of insurance policy claims, and in the Senate Finance Bill, the requirement for them will be lowered to 65%! That means you'd be required to pick up 35% of your medical bills. See? You get covered, but you're forced to pay 35% of your bills. That's why I keep saying that universal coverage does not equate affordability.
The American people can't afford to pay 35 percent of their healthbills. How can the Senate Finance Committee explain that this would be desirable legislation to those like me who struggle to make ends meet? Maximum pressure must be applied to right-wing Democrats in name only that this bill is unacceptable and no reform would be far better than what these so-called conservatives are hatching. And maximum publicity must be exposed on the fraud of a campaign being waged by opponents who claim that they represent the best interests of the American people but in fact really don't. As Slinkerwink writes:
Where's the affordability really for the middle-class in this crappy Senate Finance Bill? I don't see it, especially not with a community rating of 7:1 in that bill, which means you could pay seven times what a young adult pays especially if you're an adult in your 50s or 60s.
Our president gets one point-- you have to keep repeating the same points over and over again to get things done in Washington. No one ever said it was going to be easy to pass healthcare reform in this country, and, like in the past, insurance companies and their Republican allies are fighting tooth and nail to keep the current corrupt system in place. But at least our president keeps fighting (albeit not as strongly as I think he should), and that's to his credit. Here's the tape of his latest weekly message:
While the president repeats the answers that have been most frequently given to the myths about "death panels" (or the "pulling the plug on Grandma" argument) and how it would lead to a "government takeover" of healthcare, he makes this additional statement about the public option:
Now, the source of a lot of these fears about government-run health care is confusion over what’s called the public option. This is one idea among many to provide more competition and choice, especially in the many places around the country where just one insurer thoroughly dominates the marketplace. This alternative would have to operate as any other insurer, on the basis of the premiums it collects. And let me repeat – it would be just an option; those who prefer their private insurer would be under no obligation to shift to a public plan.
So what kind of a "public plan" are we talking about, a Medicare-style government-run one or a weak "co-op" plan that Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) is pushing? It is disturbing that our president doesn't define this further, and it is even more disturbing that he isn't using any harsher language about those who have been spreading outrageous lies about his proposal. I wish he would call spades spades and call his Republican, insurance company, and right-wing talk show critics who spread the lies exactly what they are, liars, and do it forcefully and with conviction. I appreciate that he is using his extensive "political capital" to pass this important measure, and it is also impressive that he has said that he is willing to be just a one-term president if that's what it takes to achieve healthcare reform. But on this public option, he must define it sharply and specifically, not leave any door open for any weak-kneed substitute like the co-op idea that Conrad and others are advancing. Is there any room for co-ops in any healthcare reform program? Here's what thebagofhealthandpolitics has said about that:
A co-op that operates under a national framework can be successful. This non-profit model is successful in many western European countries. But it is not the lame, state-based co-ops of Kent Conrad’s dreams; Conrad’s state-base co-ops wouldn’t have a large enough pool to alter the market, reduce costs and increase access. The end game is upon us, but for our side to be successful, we need the House to pass a strong bill with stringent regulations on the insurance industry and a strong public option, administered by the federal government.
So what is the use of dealing with those who want to defeat or weaken any healthcare legislation? I haven't heard our president give an answer to that question. We need to see much more fight from this president than he's shown, espcially when calling out his lying critics, and pressure must be placed on Democrats, both real and "blue dogs," to pass legislation that has a strong, not weak or in name only, public option that is not watered down by those with stakes in preserving what is wrong.
Just as Rick Scott's so-called "Conservatives for Patients Rights" put out an ad attacking President Obama's healthcare plan, Scott himself came under more scrutiny in another segment on Rick Sanchez's television show on CNN. Notice how Scott tries to weasel out of answering Sanchez's questions about the $1.7 million his hospital group had to pay in fines for activities that happened while he was heading the group. Here's the clip:
Sanchez's Scott piece didn't go without notice. Wrote Jason Linkins in the Huffington Post:
On Friday, Rick Sanchez went after Conservatives For Patient's Rights, another one of these groups that likes to pretend to want "real reform" when what they really want is a big ol' dollop of status quo. Rick Scott, who heads up the organization, is a real piece of work, the kind of guy you cross the street to avoid. His Hospital Corporation of America bilked the government by fraudulently "upcoding" Medicare billing codes, and it ended up paying $1.7 billion in penalties for stealing from American taxpayers. You might also recall that when Health Care For America Now called Scott out in an advertisement, CPR and Scott manufactured a phony controversy that took me about five minutes to debunk. Scott has hobbies, too, among them "sitting on the board of a company used by Saudi Arabia and Iran to suppress Internet access." All you guys out there with green-tinted Twitter avatars should take note!
Trusting Rick Scott to be a leading spokesman for patients' needs and rights is like trusting Bernie Madoff to be a leading advocate of financial responsibility. As Rick The Thief and his crew travel to Martha's Vineyard to hound our president and falsely claim that his anti-reform position represents the will of the American people, I hope those AT Martha's Vineyard are ready to expose the real Rick Scott everywhere he goes. Maybe that'll make him think twice before continuing to con the American people against their own interests and against real healthcare reform.
Watch all the cherry picking that will be done by those in the media looking for trends against healthcare reform. On the heels of a SurveyUSA Poll indicating 77 percent support for the choice of a public option, a new ABC News/Washington Post poll shows an erosion of support for not only the public option, but President Obama himself and how poorly he and those around him have handled the battle for healthcare reform. Here's an exerpt from the Washington Post story on the ABC News/WaPo poll:
Disapproval of Obama's handling of the health-care issue reached 50 percent in the new poll, the highest of his presidency, and 42 percent of those surveyed say they now "strongly disapprove" of the way he is dealing with his main domestic priority. Views of the president's actions on reform have dropped most sharply among seniors and independents.
The story then goes to discuss its public option findings:
The poll was completed just as a new debate about a public health insurance option erupted after administration officials appeared to signal their willingness to jettison the proposal as part of an eventual compromise. White House officials later insisted that there had been no change in their support for the public option as they sought to reassure Democrats furious about what they regarded as an administration cave-in. In the survey, 52 percent of Americans said they favor the government's creation of a new health insurance plan to compete with private insurers, while 46 percent are opposed. That is a big shift from late June, when 62 percent backed the notion and 33 percent opposed it. The drop in support for the public option has been particularly steep among political independents, the closely watched group so critical to the Democratic takeover of Congress in 2006 and Obama's victory last year. Two months ago, independents supported the public option by a 2 to 1 ratio. Now, 50 percent are in favor, and 47 percent are opposed. Seniors have also become decidedly negative toward the proposal: In June, seniors were evenly split on the plan, but now a majority strongly oppose the idea.
There is one BIG problem with the ABC News/Washington Post poll: It fails to deal with the REASONS for the opposition to healthcare reform. It also fails to check into WHERE those surveyed got their health insurance reform information from. The latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal expanded on that, as Rachel Maddow so brilliantly reported earlier in the week:
And King One Eye in Daily Kos expanded on Maddow's report further:
new NBC/Wall Street Journal poll featured on the Rachel Maddow show included questions centered on the recent health care debate. What made this poll unique was that four of the questions sought to ascertain whether the respondents believed statements that were known to be untrue. Here are the results broken out by which news sources the respondents favored:
On Health Care Reform, Those Who Believe That It Will... MSNBC/CNN Viewers Fox News Viewers Give Coverage To Illegal Immigrants: 41% 72% Lead To A Government Takeover: 39% 79% Pay For Abortions: 40% 69% Stop Care To The Elderly: 30% 75%
Let me repeat: These are statements that are known to be untrue, yet Fox News viewers believe them in overwhelming numbers. It's bad enough that approximately 40% of MSNBC/CNN viewers believe these myths, but clearly Fox is producing an audience of vastly misinformed, cultural illiterates. The problem with having a national news organization that is polluting the population with lies about critical public issues is that it makes democracy impossible. And that, of course, may be the goal of Fox and its corporate overseers. Democracy is such a messy affair, what with all the people voting and stuff. If your objective is to manipulate government, you can't get very far if voters are actually familiar with the issues and are capable of making sound judgments. So Fox News found it necessary to invent a platform of fake agendas to create fear and then purposefully indoctrinate their predominantly Republican and southern viewers to believe in them.
It sure makes you wonder about the validity of the negative ABC News/Washington Post findings on the public option since that survey did not delve into what folks believed or didn't believe about the proposal. The ABC News/Washington Post poll also failed to take into account discontent with Obama because of his failure (and especially that of those around him) to enunciate a clear vision of what they wanted from the start and sticking to it. Notice also the timing of the ABC News/Washington Post poll-- it was taken when both Obama and his HHS secretary-- Kathleen Sebelius-- were giving signals that they were willing to ditch the public option if that's what it took to pass healthcare reform. That would make anyone, including me, wonder about the commitment of someone to stand by his principles and fight for them even if it meant costing them legislation or popularity points. Given also the findings of the NBC News/WSJ poll, it's a big mystery why the ABC News/Washington Post surveyers didn't ask their respondents what they believed about the president's healthcare reform proposal and how they'd feel once they were explained what the proposal really was. In the light of something I've heard Chuck Todd of NBC said, that once folks were explained what the Obama proposal really was (with the public option), 53 percent would support it, it's a mystery why the ABC/Washington Post poll didn't do the same. The corporatists opposing healthcare reform may be gleeful about the poll, but I wonder what they'll feel when their house of lies is fully exposed and the American people revolt against them because of how they've been misled. And when that reality hits, watch the flimsy house of lies crash before us.
Even when confronted with polls showing 77 percent support for a public option in any healthcare reform bill, failed health industry executive and head of the so-called "Conservatives for Patients Rights," Rick Scott, continues on in his make believe world that his side against any reform is winning the battle. According to Greg Sargent, Scott's organization is planning a new series of ads and other activities designed to defeat the measure (and healthcare reform in general). Here's part of what Sargent reported:
In a clear sign that conservatives are worried that the public option could still survive, an internal memo from a top anti-health care reform group claims that “rumors of its death” have been “greatly exaggerated,” discusses plans to run new ads targeting it, and vows to redouble efforts to foment opposition to it at town hall meetings.
The Sargent piece continued:
The internal memo, which I (Sargent)obtained from a source, was created by staffers at Conservatives for Patients Rights, the well-funded group run by controversial former hospital exec Rick Scott, who reform proponents see as public enemy number one. The memo discusses a “Martha’s Vineyard ad strategy” that’s set to kick in next week. According to a source familiar with the group’s plans, this is a reference to a planned national ad targeting the public option that will reference the President’s vacation.
You can see the complete memo from Scott after clinking on this link. Another thing. Whenever you read or hear of any story about Rick Scott and his orgainzaition, look no forward to his checkered past in the healthcare industry To hear more about who Rick Scott is and what he represents, check out this video:
...and this video in which Scott is unable (or unwilling) to give straight answers about his checkered past in the health insurance industry:
You would think the anti-healthcare reform advocates would find a better advocate for its cause than Rick Scott, especially after one hears about his past and how he answers questions about it.
After hearing about how both the Fox "news" channel and CNN Headline News run segments defending a woman who likened President Obama with Adolf Hitler during Rep. Barney Frank's townhall, I felt like the Peter Finch character in "Network," who urged his listeners to climb on their rooftops and proclaim, "I'm Mad As Hell and I'm Not Going To Take It Anymore." It is totally disgusting that the two above-stated news organizations ran segments trying to make the anti-Semitic questioner look like a hero with Frank being cast as the villain. I don't mind constructive debate and even strong criticism of President Obama's healthcare proposal based on accurate information. What I do mind is anti-Semitism and the refusal of those who encourage its propagation to condemn it. For those who haven't seen the clip, here it is:
For those who are wondering what the Fox propagandists said in defense of the anti-Semitic questioning, Keith Olbermann was spot-on tonight in his "Worst Person in the World" segment:
And finally, a Daily Kos diarist, Griffin459, reported about his rightful disgust toward a CNN Headline News piece also defending the anti-Semitic questioner. Here's part of what he reported:
Just a few minutes ago while changing channels, I saw CNN Headline News show a segment of Barney Frank's Town Hall meeting from last night. BUT, it was edited to show Representative Frank picking on her!! I immediately sent an e-mail to CNN Headline News to complain about this outrageous editing of an important story. Here is my e-mail:
Approx 10 min ago you had a short story about Barney Frank's Town Hall meeting. Before the clip, the CNN Anchor said that at times it got down right disrespectful. You then showed the clip of a woman saying to Rep Frank, " why do you support this policy?". You then played segments of Rep, Frank saying "what planet are you from? and "talking to you is like talking to my dining room table." A logical assumption from your report was that Rep. Frank was Disrespectful. Your report did not show that the woman was carrying a sign that had Obama drawn like Hitler and your report did not show the woman comparing Obama's policies to Nazis. I think that this is a mistake that should be corrected IMMEDIATELY. Thank you!
I simply do not understand how this was a simple mistake, the editing was purposely done to make the woman who was attacking Obama in a sympathetic light...
There can be no respect given to anyone who portrays our president as Adolf Hitler or anyone pertaining to the Nazis who murdered 6 million Jews during World War II. There can never be any place in our airwaves for personalities who defend the bringing up of such slime during their shows. And there can never be any place in our democracy for those who'd rather carry inflammatory pictures depicting Obama as Hitler or any other matter of personal attack or lie against our president. At the very minimum, I demand that CNN Headline News not only apologize for the anti-Semitic defense, but those responsible for putting together the report be severely disciplined. In addition, in the light of their actions in enabling the inflammatory attackers of both Obama personally and the spreading of lies about his health care proposal, more than a mere apology is needed to start repairing the grotesque wrong the Fox "news" channel continues to perpetrate. What's needed is to hit the Fox channel where it hurts the most-- in the wallet. I praise those waging the continuing campaign for accountability against Fox personality Glenn Beck for his inflammatory remarks calling Obama a racist. I feel now it must be taken a step further. In addition to calling on advertisers to pull their ads off Beck's show, I feel maximum pressure must be placed on cable networks that carry the Fox channel. Regardless of whatever bribe those running Fox may bring the cable networks, pressure must be brought on the networks to end the anti-Semitic and inflammatory slime Fox has propagated by pulling the channel off their networks. It's time Fox is brought down to its knees and put out of business. It's bad enough that it hasn't acted like a real news channel for many years, but this latest defense of a questioner's anti-Semitism should raise questions about whether it belongs on anyone's cable lineup.
new NBC/Wall Street Journal poll featured on the Rachel Maddow show included questions centered on the recent health care debate. What made this poll unique was that four of the questions sought to ascertain whether the respondents believed statements that were known to be untrue. Here are the results broken out by which news sources the respondents favored:
On Health Care Reform, Those Who Believe That It Will... MSNBC/CNN Viewers Fox News Viewers Give Coverage To Illegal Immigrants: 41% 72% Lead To A Government Takeover: 39% 79% Pay For Abortions: 40% 69% Stop Care To The Elderly: 30% 75%
Let me repeat: These are statements that are known to be untrue, yet Fox News viewers believe them in overwhelming numbers. It's bad enough that approximately 40% of MSNBC/CNN viewers believe these myths, but clearly Fox is producing an audience of vastly misinformed, cultural illiterates. The problem with having a national news organization that is polluting the population with lies about critical public issues is that it makes democracy impossible. And that, of course, may be the goal of Fox and its corporate overseers. Democracy is such a messy affair, what with all the people voting and stuff. If your objective is to manipulate government, you can't get very far if voters are actually familiar with the issues and are capable of making sound judgments. So Fox News found it necessary to invent a platform of fake agendas to create fear and then purposefully indoctrinate their predominantly Republican and southern viewers to believe in them.
I wonder what would happen if you really opened the eyes of the Fox viewers and told them that what that network has fed them is lies. Do you think there wouldn't be an erosion of support for the OPPOSITION of health care reform? I also wonder when the Obama administration will stop playing cutie with Republicans in their vain attempt for so-called "bi-partisan support" and really begin to call them and their insurance company/Fox "news" supporters what they really are-- liars-- and repeat it time and again.
Why are some in the White House so anxious to make a deal with a Republican party that has no interest in passing any real healthcare reform. That's what I'm wondering after seeing this Daily Kos diary quoting an Obama aide as backing away from pronouncements last night that Democrats in Congress were going to press for healthcare reform without Republican support. From the New York Times earlier today:
Given hardening Republican opposition to Congressional health care proposals, Democrats now say they see little chance of the minority’s cooperation in approving any overhaul, and are increasingly focused on drawing support for a final plan from within their own ranks. Top Democrats said Tuesday that their go-it-alone view was being shaped by what they saw as Republicans’ purposely strident tone against health care legislation during this month’s Congressional recess, as well as remarks by leading Republicans that current proposals were flawed beyond repair. Rahm Emanuel, the White House chief of staff, said the heated opposition was evidence that Republicans had made a political calculation to draw a line against any health care changes, the latest in a string of major administration proposals that Republicans have opposed. “The Republican leadership,” Mr. Emanuel said, “has made a strategic decision that defeating President Obama’s health care proposal is more important for their political goals than solving the health insurance problems that Americans face every day.”
Now here's what the Daily Kos diarist is reporting:
The Hill is reporting that this morning Robert Gibbs said the NY Times article about the Dems going it alone on health care is wrong. He actually gave credit to Republican members of the Senate Finance Committee for working in good faith on reform. I wish this administration would get its story straight. My head is spinning. Bottom line: we're going to have to fight harder than ever before to make this happen.
White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said the administration remains committed to drawing Republican support for the bill, particularly in the Senate. "I don't know why we would short-circuit that now," Gibbs told reporters. He said the White House believes some Republicans on the Senate Finance Committee "are still working in a constructive way to get reform through the Senate and ultimately to the president's desk."
I hate to go comical on this, but these two seemingly contradictory stories are making me think there's a real Abbott and Costello game going on here with the question being "Who's on first?" when it comes to who is really speaking for the Obama administration on what is becoming an increasingly messy issue for them. I'd love to know which Republicans have really been working to get a real health insurance bill through Congress since one of them that had been cited by President Obama-- lying Sen. Chuck (pull the plug on Grandma) Grassley-- has been spreading lies and disinformation against the bill. I'd also like to know what sorts of behind the scenes negotiations are taking place between the White House and anti-healthcare reform Republicans to get a real bill past Congress and onto the president's desk. I can't say it enough. Healthcare reform isn't healthcare reform without a real public option.
If you didn't know before that there are elements on the right that don't want a constructive debate on healthcare reform, look no further than this. To make a long story short, a Jewish man extols the virtues of the Israeli health care system, to which a woman responds with "Heil Hitler!" The right-wing that makes such outbursts possible have really no real alternative of their own when it comes to our healthcare crisis. All they've been able to do is to spread outright lies about our president wanting to "pull the plug on Grandma," then likening our president with Adolf Hitler, and spreading all other manner of disinformation and ridicule designed to defeat any real healthcare reform. Well, guess what? We're fighting back, and we're not going to stand silent while right-wing hooligans egged on by inflammatory talk show hosts and opportunistic GOP politicians try to shut down any real debate and (to borrow an oft-quoted phrase, "slow walk" health care reform to death. We're not going to let them do that, and we're not going to let the mainstream media give these nitwits dominance over the debate. Having said it, here's the video of what the Jewish man said and the anti-Semitic remark that followed:
As the Huffington Post reports:
As ThinkProgress points out today, "Conservatives have strenuously denied that there is any anti-Semitism on display by anti-health reform protesters at town hall meetings nationwide." Those denials are no longer tenable, are they?
I'm so glad to see a lot of fightback now against the GOP's lying efforts to defeat healthcare reform. I'm glad these phony Democrats are being spotlighted in the ads in no flattering terms. Here's part of the Daily Kos diary reporting on the ads:
The ads focus on Senators Chuck Grassley (IA), Max Baucus (MT), Kent Conrad (ND), and Blanche Lincoln (AR). The Sheet Metal Workers International Association (SMWIA) and a coalition of Unions representing almost 2 million workers are planning to run these ads through the end of Congress's August recess. The SMWIA is diverting the political funds it would regularly use for donations to purchase time for these ads, rather than to padding the campaign coffers of the Democrats targeted in them. The Union suspended all financial and intangible campaign donations to political candidates to focus on efforts to pass real health care and labor law reform. Other Unions are considering similar action. These ads are part of an effort to cut through the noise and highlight the truth about the broken healthcare system the insurance industry, Republicans in Congress and some Democrats are fighting to protect.
The only thing I can say is "Yea!" Let the real fight begin.
Here's some more valuable information to bring with you at Ranchview High in Irving, TX on Wednesday that could help you during "Taliban" Pete Sessions' townhall meeting that starts at 7 p.m. Here are some more talking points you can use when questioning "Taliban Pete:"
The Ten Health Care Talking Points EVERY PUBLIC OPTION SUPPORTER SHOULD KNOW --When you need life-saving care, private insurance companies only profit by denying you and letting you die. If you have paid your premiums on time all your life, you're as likely to be dropped by your private insurance company when you need life-saving care as you are to get treated. A public option gives you a lifeline. --Private insurance companies are spending over a million dollars a day to kill the public option by inventing phony citizen groups, and trying to scare the elderly about euthanasia and pro-lifers with abortion; they know the only way to kill reform is to get people of good conscience fighting each other over misinformation, while they laugh all the way to the bank. They don't think very highly of our intelligence. --We pay more than any other country to be 24th in life expectancy: while the average Canadian family spends less than $2000 a year on health care with no waiting periods for life-saving care, the average American family spends $16,800 a year, waiting for private insurance companies to approve life-saving treatments. --Fourteen thousand Americans lose their health insurance every day; over forty-six million are currently uninsured. --Eighteen thousand Americans DIE each year due to lack of health care: THAT'S 50 A DAY. --Nearly two-thirds of American personal bankruptcies are related to health care costs. --Businesses - particularly small businesses - cannot afford to provide health insurance for their employees under the current employer based private insurance system, and will be forced to either drop their coverage or go out of business unless a public option is passed. --One-sixth of all our government spending is on health care, twice as much as any other country spends out of its budget. Our nation pays $2.5 trillion for care costing $912 billion. --Every independent estimate says the public option will save us money, from saving 150 billion dollars (CBO) to saving 265 billion dollars (Commonwealth). The Congressional Budget Office estimates the current bill in the House would actually leave a 6 billion dollar surplus --So - if you'd rather spend more taxpayer money, bankrupt businesses, AND pay $16,800 a year for your family's private insurance coverage in exchange for a policy that can be dumped the second you actually need it, then the current system is great for you. If you'd rather spend less, wait less, have less of a chance of dying, and want to remove the corporate bureaucrat from between you and your doctor, then a public option is the way to go. Right now, even if you're lucky enough not to be dropped by your provider when you need urgent medical care, your private insurance company can overrule your doctor's advice for life-saving treatment and only offer to cover something cheaper; a public option would remove that middleman and leave these decisions where they belong, between the patient and doctor.
Texas ActBlue on the Move
-
Great news from the ActBlue team.
Well done!!! Now that we've crossed $5k in funds for our work in Texas
we're full speed ahead.
Will keep you up to date...
