Lou Dobbs: Secret Single-Payer Socialist?

Lou Dobbs is a strange man. One day he's railing against "Obamacare," stoking the birther and deather paranoia that an illegitimate president's health care plan will mandate euthanasia. Next day he's practically singing the praises of single-payer healthcare systems 'round the world.

It's kind of French of him, but last week, CNN's government-out-of-my-face bloviator began a monthlong, nation-a-night series to "learn from other countries' health care plans." He's already toured the single-payer systems of Denmark, Canada, and England, and the heavily regulated, public/private plans of Germany, France, Holland, and Switzerland. And, as if he were channeling Michael Moore or something, he's been rattling off stats showing that most of these universally covered foreigners are spending less on healthcare but living longer than we do.

Oh, sure, he'll occasionally exaggerate any weakness he can find--Lou's particularly eager to tsk-tsk over England's long lines. But overall, the series (reported mostly by CNN's Kitty Pilgrim), has been straightforward, like this look at Denmark, which could almost inspire a townhall mob to chant "Mandate, baby, mandate!"

And tonight it's off to Japan!

But, really, what gives, Mr. Independent? Have you gone soft on softcore socialism? Do you realize that you're actually making the "government takeover of healthcare" look pretty darn good? Or is this some kind of forced penance for spraying CNN with birther spittle, causing the network a "publicity nightmare," and, worse, sinking your own ratings?

On his Wednesday radio show, Dobbs as much as announced that CNN president Jon Klein (who's been publicly defending Dobbs against calls for his firing) made him do it: "We're pushing opinion aside. We're focusing on a nonpartisan objective reality that it is our job to cover," Dobbs declared, admitting, "I resisted this idea initially."

But as Lou has proved again and again, he can't help but resist. On radio the very next day, he slammed Obama for compiling "an enemies' list" (not true), and harrumphed mightily: "I'm moving from being an independent, sir, to being absolutely opposed to your, any policy you could conceive of!" As if he hadn't moved into outright opposition long ago.

So, as soon as Lou had completed all that extra homework--writing 100 times on the blackboard, "I will push opinion aside. I will push opinion aside"--he finally gets to bust out and mix it up with his guests. Only then do the familiar snide comments, appalled facial expressions, and twisted facts spill into a headlong attack on each and every aspect of Obama's healthcare plan--even the aspects resembling those he had just more or less commended in Europe.

That is, Dobbs can read all sorts of fair and balanced words from a script, but he is willfully deaf to their meaning. Anything that doesn't fit his worldview, he doesn't hear, it doesn't compute, and he goes blank.

As he did last week when he interviewed Obama's former doctor, David Scheiner. The fact that Scheiner had criticized the president's healthcare plan was enough to land him on Lou Dobbs Tonight; but the fact that Scheiner had criticized Obama from the left for ignoring single-payer plans simply couldn't find an empty berth to tie up to in Dobbs's brain. Dr. Scheiner passionately, and at length, explains to Dobbs that it is private insurance companies that are standing between doctors and their patients, not the goverment. "The government never gets in the way," Scheiner says. "In Medicare, 40 years of Medicare, they've never interfered with me giving care."

"Medicare is--I'm sorry, which is interfering?" replies a suddenly glowering Dobbs, who apparently wasn't listening at all. Yet even after Scheiner carefully explains yet again, Dobbs kept on: "But the argument is, as you know, Doctor, that with government-run healthcare that there would be great intrusion by the government..."

Now that's what I call dobbering! More willful than mere doddering, Lou's habit of hearing only what he wants to hear, while clinging to factoids that have been proven wrong and getting offended when others question these falsehoods, deserves an eponymous word all its own.

Take Lou's famous Imaginary Alien Leprosy Epidemic from 2005: He insisted that 7,000 cases of leprosy had suddenly appeared in the U.S. over the previous three years, mostly, he implied, from "illegal aliens." There were indeed 7,000 cases, "but that's over the last 30 years, not the last three," David Leonhardt wrote in The New York Times, and there was no link to immigrants. Leonhardt added that Dobbs "never acknowledged on the air that his program presented false information twice. Instead, he lambasted [guests] for saying he had." (For a recent, ridiculous health care lambasting, see this.)

People who've worked with Lou at CNN frequently try to explain his self-contradictions--the free-market capitalist who rails against corporations outsourcing American jobs, for example, or the anti-immigrant scourge who's married to a Mexican-American, or the avuncular anchor who says the only way to stop "leftist bloodsucker" Howard Dean is to "put a stake through his heart"--with a Theory of Two Lous. Lloyd Grove quoted an email from former CNN CEO Tom Johnson last week in The Daily Beast that explicitly postulated a nice, warm, sensitive Lou who wants all his colleagues to love him and simultaneously a mean, self-centered Lou who "can intimidate the hell out of" his people. You flips your coin and takes your luck.

In fact, Dobbs's fluctuating nature may simply be an expression of his total embodiment of CNN. No other cable anchor is as identified with his network as Dobbs is with his--none have been at the helm for as long, or have as intimate a relationship with the corporate side as Dobbs does (he and Ted Turner are old, close friends). Over that tenure Dobbs has gone from being the enterprising pioneer pushing a 24/7 news cycle to, with the rise of FOX and MSNBC, the closest thing we have to a cable establishmentarian. FOX is red, MSNBC is blue, and CNN is not purple but beige on beige--like Dobbs sees himself. At times he seems to fade into the silvery ether of his network's logo, leaving nothing but his perfect pearly whites behind, clacking away.

Dobbs has all the seamless, slick authority of a local TV anchor circa 1979--it's not for nothing that he's often compared to Ted Baxter, the hamster-brained blowhard on the Mary Tyler Moore Show. He was chosen to give heft and an air of reliability to CNN--the same reason the network got James Earl Jones to intone "This is CNN" for its bumpers--when it was little more than a local Atlanta start-up, fighting for acceptance from major corporate advertisers. As it has succeeded, so Dobbs has morphed into a kind of Mr. Drysdale, the stuffy banker from The Beverly Hillbillies, projecting a pompous dignity while secretly, just below the surface, bubbling with insecurities.

And like Mr. Drysdale, Dobbs sees himself as helping good, decent folks fit into a modern world that has too little respect for and absolutely no understanding of their traditional values. He has become a tribune of the "center" in American politics, and the center to Dobbs looks an awful lot like his glory days in the 1980s and early '90s, when CNN bestrode the cable world like a colossus and conservatism had not lost two foreign wars and destroyed the national economy. That these things have happened is almost beyond the ken of any political talk star created by Ronald Reagan's repeal of the old Fairness Doctrine rules, Dobbs included. They, quite naturally, just want all the changes to stop, right now.

So he looks into the camera with beetled brow, tries to make sense of these terrible truths, and asks, as he did last week about health care reform, "Is doing nothing better than doing something?"

Comments (121)

1. I have favored single-payer healthcare ever since the 1990s, just as I opposed NAFTA, arguing with the unions and Ralph Nader that without protections for workers and the environment, NAFTA would do more harm than good. But where was Lou Dobbs when NAFTA was being hammered out? Nowhere to be seen, at least not at any public demonstration against it.

   Nowadays, of course, to hear Mr. Dobbs explain it, NAFTA was somehow imposed upon us by evil Mexican cultural imperialists and their witless or corrupt allies in the US government. Lou Dobbs is a detestable xenophobe, racist, and pathological liar. We should all be looking for more credible sources for information.

   If Dobbs either purposefully or accidentally reveals some lesser known truths about the advantages of government-funded healthcare in between his paranoid screeds against black and brown foreigners, well, that's nice for those unfortunate dupes who have any trust in the man at all. I have none.

   Posted by JakobFabian at 08/12/2009 @ 10:17am

2. "the center to Dobbs looks an awful lot like his glory days in the 1980s and early '90s, when CNN bestrode the cable world like a colossus and conservatism had not lost two foreign wars and destroyed the national economy.

   posted by Leslie Savan on 08/12/2009 @ 09:44am"

   Stop the presses! Ms Savan, where and when did we lose two foreign wars (btw, I thought all wars were foreign, except our civil war)?

   Does the president know about this? Who was fired at the Pentagon?

   Oh, please explain how "conservativism" destroyed the national economy? And who were these conservatives? We've been crying out for some real conservatives for a long time now. We've had some pretenders, but no real conservatives in power for decades.

   Posted by antisocialist at 08/12/2009 @ 10:26am

3. With both our children born in Copenhagen, I can vouch for the excellent health care & single-payer insurance in Denmark. The US, which I know as well, simply doesn't measure up. Ditto when compared to Switzerland & France, 2 other countries I know well.

   Most Americans are being taken for a very expensive ride to shorter, unpleasant lives.

   Posted by sloper at 08/12/2009 @ 10:26am

4. Schizo Lou - what cay you say. Love/Hate Relationship. This looks like a great series - thanks for pointing it out Leslie. This is the informed debate we should be having. Thanks CNN and MSNBC for trying to educate us lately. Olbermann and Maddow have been relentless lately in pointing out "how it works" in Washington.

   Posted by OneVote at 08/12/2009 @ 10:36am

5. Most Americans are being taken for a very expensive ride to shorter, unpleasant lives.

   Posted by sloper at 08/12/2009 @ 10:26am | ignore this person | warn this person

   Gets you thinking on all this "death panel" crapola.

   The real death panels that we have right now are the insurance companies and their entourage of paid medical expert whores making life and death decisions on coverage for Americans. WTF this is okay with healthcare opponents is just beyond comprehension, aside from the obvious self interest.

   This is the true evil Ms. Palin.

   Posted by OneVote at 08/12/2009 @ 10:41am

6. Senator Claire McCaskill stated yesterday at her townhall meeting and again this morning on MSNBC that there will be no single payer coverage (thank goodness for that victory!)

   <Green asked McCaskill if she disagreed with President Barrack (sic) Obama who has said that he want(s) the health care socialized.

   McCaskill responded by informing Green that the President does not support a single payer plan as we reform health care today.

   Green noted that Obama had made this statement recently, to which McCaskill responded, "I don't think so, but whether or not the President said it, I can tell you Congress will not pass a single payer plan.">

   Posted by antisocialist at 08/12/2009 @ 10:43am

7. Posted by antisocialist at 08/12/2009 @ 10:43am

   Has Obama proposed single-payer, Larry?

   Posted by Mask at 08/12/2009 @ 10:45am

8. Actually Mask, when you get down to it, Obama has proposed NOTHING.

   Posted by fram at 08/12/2009 @ 10:51am

9. Posted by fram at 08/12/2009 @ 10:51am

   Yet these right-wing Town Hollerers KNOW that it's "socialism, fascism, going to kill my Grandma"!?!??!!?

   How do they know that???

   Posted by Mask at 08/12/2009 @ 10:57am

10. You don't get it do you. Where's Obama's plan? I keep hearing Obama say that if you like your Dr., or your insurance plan, that you can keep him/her/it. What page of Obama's plan can that be found? What page of Obama's plan spells out how we will save money? WHERE IS OBAMA'S PLAN?

    On the other hand, we do have a copy of what's passed the HoR and people have read it and they don't like what's in it. The CBO has scored it and it doesn't look good for your side. Your efforts at spinning this are both pitiful and weak.

    However, please feel free to continue to believe that all these protesters showing up at town hall meetings are part of some big right-wing funded organization.

    Posted by fram at 08/12/2009 @ 11:10am

11. Has Obama proposed single-payer, Larry?

    Posted by Mask at 08/12/2009 @ 10:45am

    As Fram noted, Obama has not submitted any plan.

    However, I posted this directed primarily towards the leftists bloggers here who are demanding a single payer system.

    I felt some sense of relief at Sen McCaskills comments that single payer is not an option in the Congress.

    Posted by antisocialist at 08/12/2009 @ 11:15am

12. "some sense of relief" =

    bipartisan agreements with insurance industry lobbyists, corporate CEOs, and "moderate" to far right republican and democratic congressional figures.

    that's "democracy" for you, whereas a single payer system? well, that's down right marxist and evil.

    and the claim that we haven't had any conservatives "in decades"?

    definitely conservative enough for you, though.

    and yes, they ruined the economy (hint: bill clinton was also a conservative, albeit a technocratic one.)

    Posted by darladoon at 08/12/2009 @ 11:20am

13. "He has become a tribune of the "center" in American politics, and the center to Dobbs looks an awful lot like his glory days in the 1980s and early '90s, when CNN bestrode the cable world like a colossus and conservatism had not lost two foreign wars and destroyed the national economy. That these things have happened is almost beyond the ken of any political talk star created by Ronald Reagan's repeal of the old Fairness Doctrine rules, Dobbs included. They, quite naturally, just want all the changes to stop, right now. So he looks into the camera with beetled brow, tries to make sense of these terrible truths, and asks, as he did last week about health care reform, 'Is doing nothing better than doing something?'" - Excellent analysis Ms. Savan

    Posted by hdthoreau at 08/12/2009 @ 11:28am

14. gee, you'd think a true conservative (read: likes to conserve money) would look at all of the available empirical data on single payer systems around the globe, and figure out that:

    a) they conserve money

    b) they cover everybody

    but no, "conservatives" cling to an outmoded, late-stage capitalist mentality. still.

    Posted by darladoon at 08/12/2009 @ 11:34am

15. gee, you'd think a true conservative (read: likes to conserve money) would look at all of the available empirical data on single payer systems around the globe, and figure out that:

    a) they conserve money

    b) they cover everybody

    but no, "conservatives" cling to an outmoded, late-stage capitalist mentality. still.

    Posted by darladoon at 08/12/2009 @ 11:35am

16. Posted by antisocialist at 08/12/2009 @ 10:26am |

    "Stop the presses! Ms Savan, where and when did we lose two foreign wars (btw, I thought all wars were foreign, except our civil war)?"

    Ill-advised, pre-emptive wars are lost as you start them.

    "Does the president know about this? Who was fired at the Pentagon?"

    Rumsfeld.

    "Oh, please explain how 'conservativism' destroyed the national economy?"

    Conservatism == widening distribution of income == temple of private wealth == stupid consumer culture == housing boom == housing bust. Don't forget that a good portion of this bust was from RE speculators who went tango uniform.

    "And who were these conservatives?"

    Newt. Phil Gramm. Greenspan...

    "We've been crying out for some real conservatives for a long time now. We've had some pretenders, but no real conservatives in power for decades."

    Who have you been VOTING for?

    And isn't the real story that LD didn't peg the 'illegals issue' with respect to a single-payer system, per his standard op procedure? (not that I agree with his racist rants on said subjects)

    Posted by snowball777 at 08/12/2009 @ 11:42am

17. Actually, AARP has read the various plans coming from the House and Senate and likes what they've seen. Granted, no single plan has risen to the top due to feckless Democrats. Oh, my party can be so frustrating! But then that's what you get when you have freedom within a party. Anyway, the AARP is hopeful and these aren't people funded by Washington lobbyists connected to the health care industry.

    Posted by DavidDurham at 08/12/2009 @ 11:44am

18. and the claim that we haven't had any conservatives "in decades"?

    definitely conservative enough for you, though.

    and yes, they ruined the economy (hint: bill clinton was also a conservative, albeit a technocratic one.)

    Posted by darladoon at 08/12/2009 @ 11:20am

    Just shows how far to the left you are Darla when a left of center Dem like Clinton and a right of center Repub like Bush are "conservatives" in your mind.

    Neither Clinton nor Bush "ruined" the economy.

    Posted by antisocialist at 08/12/2009 @ 11:44am

19. "Stop the presses! Ms Savan, where and when did we lose two foreign wars (btw, I thought all wars were foreign, except our civil war)?"

    Ill-advised, pre-emptive wars are lost as you start them.

    "Does the president know about this? Who was fired at the Pentagon?"

    Rumsfeld.

    "Oh, please explain how 'conservativism' destroyed the national economy?"

    "And who were these conservatives?"

    Newt. Phil Gramm. Greenspan...

    "We've been crying out for some real conservatives for a long time now. We've had some pretenders, but no real conservatives in power for decades."

    Who have you been VOTING for?

    Posted by snowball777 at 08/12/2009 @ 11:42am

    1. Afghanistan was not pre-emptive. It was the legitimate response to those responsible for 9/11.

    Iraq was not a pre-emptive war either. It was a resumption of hostilities with Iraq under International Law for Iraq's material breach.

    2. Technically Rumsfeld was a Cabinet Secretary who had the Pentagon reporting to him. No one at the Pentagon was fired for these supposed lost wars.

    3. Your so-called definition merely reflects your liberal slant rather than facts.

    Name one thing Newt did to "ruin" the economy? Likewise with Gramm and Greenspan. What has jeopardized our economy the most is reckless spending on unconstitutional domestic programs by Congress and the failure of Americans to live within their means.

    4. I voted 3rd party in '88, '92, '96 and 2008. I voted hesitantly in 2000 for Bush because I feared he would be a liberal like his father. In 04 I voted for him because of the alternative with Kerry. Bush ended up being liberal on some things and conservative on taxes, justices, and national defense.

    Posted by antisocialist at 08/12/2009 @ 12:08pm

20. "As Fram noted, Obama has not submitted any plan."----Posted by antisocialist at 08/12/2009 @ 11:15am

    Yes and as I noted to fram....then how do the Town Hollerer protestors KNOW that "Obama's plan" is "socialism, fascism, wants to kill off Granny"...

    if he hasn't submitted one?!????!?????

    Posted by Mask at 08/12/2009 @ 12:25pm

21. Dobbs is probably just trying to obfuscate after getting embarrassed on the "Birther" ignorance.

    It's morally wrong to leave 100 million Americans un or underinsured, 1 illness away from financial ruin. And it's wrong to burden small business with the outrageous insurance costs also -- found a cool site; Balkingpoints ; incredible satellite view of earth

    Posted by reg373 at 08/12/2009 @ 12:31pm

22. Yes and as I noted to fram....then how do the Town Hollerer protestors KNOW that "Obama's plan" is "socialism, fascism, wants to kill off Granny"...

    if he hasn't submitted one?!????!?????

    Posted by Mask at 08/12/2009 @ 12:25pm

    I think first of all because Obama TALKS like he has a plan. Certainly we hear little if anything by the MSM discussing that Obama has not submitted a plan to Congress.

    Secondly, I think it is fair to link Obama and the Congress together since they are both run by the Democrats.

    Posted by antisocialist at 08/12/2009 @ 12:31pm

23. Posted by antisocialist at 08/12/2009 @ 12:31pm

    So "it's fair to link Obama and the Congress"...

    Congress has a plan...

    but despite their "linkage", Obama doesn't have a plan....

    So it's rational to attack Obama for BOTH not having submitting a plan AND for supporting a plan that is "socialism, fascism, and wants to kill off Granny".

    I see........works out pretty good for you guys? Both attacking him for "having no plan" and for "supporting bad plan" at the same time, huh?

    Posted by Mask at 08/12/2009 @ 12:41pm

24. BTW, think the guy who painted the swastika on Rep. David Scott's office sign watchs Dobbs or Beck now?

    Posted by Mask at 08/12/2009 @ 12:42pm

25. Yes and as I noted to fram....then how do the Town Hollerer protestors KNOW that "Obama's plan" is "socialism, fascism, wants to kill off Granny"...

    if he hasn't submitted one?!????!?????

    Posted by Mask at 08/12/2009 @ 12:25pm |

    Mask, you must be completely tone deaf.

    Why does Obama keep saying what health care reform will do and won't do?

    Do you honestly believe that if the current HoR bill was presented to Obama as the final product, that he would veto it?

    Posted by fram at 08/12/2009 @ 12:45pm

26. Neither Clinton nor Bush "ruined" the economy.

    Posted by antisocialist at 08/12/2009 @ 11:44am

    Ummmm...then why were things so much better economically in the 90's than they are today? I can just look outside my door (as I know you can in Orange County, too) and see that things are significantly worse now than they were when Bush took office. To me, that means that Bush and his illegal Iraq war, along with his tax breaks for the wealthy, ruined the economy (no air quotation marks, BTW).

    Or how do YOU explain the financial sector meltdown, the housing bubble bursting and Wall Street CEOs and banking big wigs getting paid huge bonuses with taxpayer bailout money, a huge increase in unemployment and the biggest recession since the Great Depression? Are you blind?

    Or maybe, because you don't participate in the economy and don't watch TV, it ain't so bad for you?

    Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 08/12/2009 @ 12:48pm

27. Or how do YOU explain the financial sector meltdown, the housing bubble bursting and Wall Street CEOs and banking big wigs getting paid huge bonuses with taxpayer bailout money, a huge increase in unemployment and the biggest recession since the Great Depression?

    Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 08/12/2009 @ 12:48pm

    Easy....Democrats

    Posted by fram at 08/12/2009 @ 12:53pm

28. Or how do YOU explain the financial sector meltdown, the housing bubble bursting and Wall Street CEOs and banking big wigs getting paid huge bonuses with taxpayer bailout money, a huge increase in unemployment and the biggest recession since the Great Depression? Are you blind?

    Or maybe, because you don't participate in the economy and don't watch TV, it ain't so bad for you?

    Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 08/12/2009 @ 12:48pm

    Greed. We had plenty of regulation, but little enforcement.

    I was against the bank bailouts.

    The average payout to AIG employees was just over a $1000. Yes, some received a lot more. But these employees had contracts and they would have won in court if the bonuses were not paid.

    We have had many housing bubbles that burst previously. What was different was the push by Democrats in the Clinton Admin and Congressional Dems like Barney Franks and Maxine Waters who liked the Sub-prime program so much they wanted to expand it.

    It is hyperbole to call this the biggest recession since the Great Depression. This cycle is nowhere near as bad as the 70's. I think high unemployment, high interest rates, and gas rationing are worse than the current situation.

    Posted by antisocialist at 08/12/2009 @ 12:55pm

29. banking big wigs getting paid huge bonuses with taxpayer bailout money, ain't so bad for you?

    Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 08/12/2009 @ 12:48pm

    You must mean the TARP funds that Obama, as a Senator, voted for.

    Posted by fram at 08/12/2009 @ 1:00pm

30. The Obamanation that makes desolation keeps changing his title from "Apologist, then Racist, to the now very familiar LIAR in Cheif"! Just a couple of 7 examples;

    Time and again President Obama portrayed himself at Tuesday's town hall meeting as the voice of reason combating "myths" and "misinformation" -- while he himself weaved a web of gaffes, errors, and misstatements that further muddled the facts on healthcare, triggering a flurry of corrections and clarifications from the White House and other organizations.

    Obama's most egregious error: claiming the AARP organization that represents seniors has endorsed his plan, forcing them to issue a correction that in fact they have not.

    Obama went on to cite AARP throughout the town hall, at one point describing it as "so supportive." He also stated: "We have the AARP on board because they know this is a good deal for our seniors."

    The clear message was that if the AARP was for Obama's plan, so how could it be bad for seniors? Immediately following the meeting, AARP Chief Operating Officer Tom Nelson issued the following statement:

    "AARP has been working with Democrats and Republicans to fix our broken health care system.

    "While the president was correct that AARP will not endorse a healthcare reform bill that would reduce Medicare benefits, indications that we have endorsed any of the major healthcare reform bills currently under consideration in Congress are inaccurate.

    A few examples: Obama claimed he never supported a single-payer system, that he never supported a government-subsidized "public option," and that his plan would not increase the size of the deficit -- all assertions that are at odds with previous statements from Obama, the published record, and the views of various experts.

    Posted by BigPasture at 08/12/2009 @ 1:11pm

31. Posted by antisocialist at 08/12/2009 @ 12:31pm

    So "it's fair to link Obama and the Congress"...

    Congress has a plan...

    but despite their "linkage", Obama doesn't have a plan....

    So it's rational to attack Obama for BOTH not having submitting a plan AND for supporting a plan that is "socialism, fascism, and wants to kill off Granny".

    I see........works out pretty good for you guys? Both attacking him for "having no plan" and for "supporting bad plan" at the same time, huh?

    Posted by Mask at 08/12/2009 @ 12:41pm

    What can I say Mask, except that this is the bed you leftists Dems are making.

    BTW, there are only a few fringe folks calling this fascism.

    Also are you suggesting that Obama and his aides are not having any input with Congress on the legislation? that would probably be a first in presidential politics.

    Posted by antisocialist at 08/12/2009 @ 1:18pm

32. "Public support for the Democrats' healthcare reform plans has fallen to a new low -- just 42 percent of voters now favor the reforms, down five percentage points from two weeks ago, a new Rasmussen Reports poll reveals.

    Only 23 percent of respondents in the poll think that healthcare costs will go down if a reform plan passes Congress, and a majority believes costs will go up and quality of care will go down.

    The survey also found that 41 percent of respondents have a favorable view of the people opposing healthcare reform at town hall meetings conducted by members of Congress.

    Other findings of the Rasmussen poll:

    32 percent of voters surveyed favor a single-payer healthcare system, with the federal government providing coverage for everyone, but 57 percent said they oppose it.

    51 percent of respondents said when it comes to healthcare, they fear the federal government more than insurance companies.

    48 percent of voters now rate the American healthcare system as good or excellent, while just 19 percent rate it as poor."

    The more people read and anaylize these plans the more they realize that the Obamanation and the Demoncrats are out to destroy America and all its instituions just to "grab more power "and could care less about them and their families! Hopefully soon it will be the end of the road for these LIARS and HYPOCRITS!

    Posted by BigPasture at 08/12/2009 @ 1:18pm

33. Sloper, i got a real simple solution for you, MOVE BACK TO DENMARK and you'll have the system YOU want!

    Posted by barry25 at 08/12/2009 @ 1:24pm

34. This is what the Demoncrats in congress think of you!!!

    Rep. John Dingell (D-Mi.), the Chairman Emeritus of the House Energy & Commerce Committee, yesterday compared the large majority of average, everyday Americans who oppose the government takeover of health care and are speaking out at Congressional town hall meetings around the country to Ku Klux Klan members running around in white sheets during the civil rights movement.

    Yesterday, on the Manic Sycophants Nuzzling Barack Channel, otherwise known as MSNBC, Dingell hurled this latest outrage at the American people:

    In all fairness, perhaps Dingell was befuddled when he spotted Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W.V.) recently being wheeled into the Senate to vote in favor of the Sonia Sotomayor nomination.

    Byrd served as a recruiter, or "Grand Kleagle," in the Klan and led a 14-hour filibuster in the Senate in an attempt to block passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

    The sudden reappearance of the Klansman turned liberal Democrat may have led to Dingell's confused KKK reference.

    Posted by BigPasture at 08/12/2009 @ 1:24pm

35. "Why does Obama keep saying what health care reform will do and won't do? "----Posted by fram at 08/12/2009 @ 12:45pm

    "Also are you suggesting that Obama and his aides are not having any input with Congress on the legislation? that would probably be a first in presidential politics."----Posted by antisocialist at 08/12/2009 @ 1:18pm

    Okay, so now ....he DOES have a plan.

    Honestly guys, can we keep it to ONE story for atleast a day?????

    heheh

    Posted by Mask at 08/12/2009 @ 1:35pm

36. Posted by BigPasture at 08/12/2009 @ 1:24pm

    Hey, RIO, what radio DJ once told a black caller...

    "Take that bone out of your nose and call me back"?

    Two hints-

    1. It happened 20 years AFTER Robert Byrd quit the KKK.

    2. You listen to him.

    Posted by Mask at 08/12/2009 @ 1:36pm

37. I just love how so many people talk about "the bill".

    Do the cons even know how many health care reform bills there currently are?

    Posted by BlackFrancis at 08/12/2009 @ 1:40pm

38. Posted by antisocialist at 08/12/2009 @ 12:08pm |

    I agree that Afghanistan was not pre-emptive, but disagree with the execution of the operation, while I deplore violence, I'd rather see tactical work like the assassination of Mehsud than occupation of known militant territory over the long-term.

    Iraq was another story (several stories, in point of fact).

    You know Rumsfeld was 'let go' and that, while he was Sec at the time, he had been a 5-sided-fist-a-gon-er since Nixon days.

    "Name one thing Newt did to "ruin" the economy?"

    Welfare reform, tax cuts (for biz and friends, anyway), in addition to some of the least palatable ethics and house rules abuses in a generation.

    "Likewise with Gramm and Greenspan."

    Gramm: the CFMA and GRAMM-Leach-Bliley.

    Greenspan: keeping artificially low interest rates at the Fed to puff the bubble (google for 'Greenspan Put', if you are in need of edumecatin') and pushing against regulating derivatives (specifically CDS, as advised by Brooksley Born).

    "What has jeopardized our economy the most is reckless spending on unconstitutional domestic programs by Congress and the failure of Americans to live within their means."

    And the banks that wrote bogus loans to them are guiltless in your fantasyland where seniors work until they're 85, and the sick can quietly shuffle off?

    It's all one big 'death panel' with you.

    "4. I voted 3rd party in '88, '92, '96 and 2008. I voted hesitantly in 2000..in 04 I voted for him...Bush ended up being liberal on some things and conservative on taxes, justices, and national defense."

    The combination of which bloated the national debt, ignored three separate oncoming catastrophes with possible foresight on all three (AQ, the housing crisis, and Katrina) all wasting much blood and treasure.

    Posted by snowball777 at 08/12/2009 @ 1:41pm

39. Posted by antisocialist at 08/12/2009 @ 10:26am

    "We've had some pretenders, but no real conservatives in power for decades."

    Did I miss the posts where you were denouncing George W. Bush as not a real conservative? It seems to me that you were very much in support of George W. Bush on many of the policies of his administration, and I don't remember you raising any concerns about his soft on regulation positions and other positions that were, in many respects, responsible for the current economic environment. Explain to me how I'm wrong here. Or, do people flip-flop on whether they are conservative or not depending on their public opinion polls?

    Posted by fram at 08/12/2009 @ 11:10am

    It's called coordinated direct action, which can be astro-turf. You want to see an example?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zfsa2zdJ-JY

    Now, imagine doing the Health Care Hammer dance where each dancer is an individual or two in a "town hall" in individual communities following a script.

    Doesn't seem much different now does it?

    Posted by darladoon at 08/12/2009 @ 11:34am

    All for it, so long as we realize that the cost savings means saying no to a ridiculous standard of care that tries to save everyone, no matter what the expense.

    Posted by antisocialist at 08/12/2009 @ 11:44am

    Obama and Clinton are moderate right politicians. The fact that you think they are "left" merely points at how far to the right YOU are.

    Posted by fram at 08/12/2009 @ 12:53pm

    Umm, that worked when Reagan could blame a Democratic Congress. But, when you have the Presidency for 8 years and Congress for 6 years, this dog doesn't hunt.

    Posted by antisocialist at 08/12/2009 @ 1:18pm

    Mask....a leftist? Wait, wait...I'll have to come back and post later after the fits of laughter stop.

    Posted by srjenkins at 08/12/2009 @ 1:53pm

40. Posted by srjenkins at 08/12/2009 @ 1:53pm

    I posted numerous times how Bush was not a conservative on the budget, on education ("No child left behind" and more), and on his Medicare prescription drug program just to name the three largest liberal errors he made

    Posted by antisocialist at 08/12/2009 @ 2:12pm

41. Mask....a leftist? Wait, wait...I'll have to come back and post later after the fits of laughter stop.

    Posted by srjenkins at 08/12/2009 @ 1:53pm

    Perspective SRJ. to someone like me, Mask is an obvious leftist. he supports abortion, he supports increasing the role of the Federal govt in education. He supports Universal Healthcare (even if he doesn't think it will come for a while). He loves progressive taxation. He is a big supporter of Social Security, Medicare, Unions, liberal justices on the courts, and on and on.

    What is there about Mask's views that isn't liberal?

    Posted by antisocialist at 08/12/2009 @ 2:24pm

42. "Mask....a leftist? Wait, wait...I'll have to come back and post later after the fits of laughter stop."--Posted by srjenkins at 08/12/2009 @ 1:53pm

    In strict ideological terms, Larry thinks Eisenhower was a "leftist".

    Posted by Mask at 08/12/2009 @ 2:45pm

43. Sloper, i got a real simple solution for you, MOVE BACK TO DENMARK and you'll have the system YOU want!

    Posted by barry25 at 08/12/2009 @ 1:24pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    And, I think, some EXCELLENT furniture. Stop picking on Denmark.

    Posted by schnellerheinz at 08/12/2009 @ 2:54pm

44. In strict ideological terms, Larry thinks Eisenhower was a "leftist".

    Posted by Mask at 08/12/2009 @ 2:45pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    And don't forget those Trotskyists Robert "Darling of the Military-Industrial Complex" McNamara and Walter Cronkite!

    Seriously, though, all this railing here against Obama's "non-existent" plan does sound pretty silly.

    Posted by schnellerheinz at 08/12/2009 @ 2:58pm

45. Sloper, i got a real simple solution for you, MOVE BACK TO DENMARK and you'll have the system YOU want!

    Posted by barry25 at 08/12/2009 @ 1:24pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    Move back? How do YOU know Sloper hails from Denmark? Maybe he's a Swedish or Finnish subject, or Laplander.

    Huh? Huh?

    Posted by schnellerheinz at 08/12/2009 @ 3:02pm

46. Posted by antisocialist at 08/12/2009 @ 2:12pm

    Yes, but it is his conservative economic policies that are relevant to the current discussion, is it not? Please feel free to discuss how any of these topics were not examples of conservative thinking: tax cuts, his slogan about the "Ownership society", and his deemphasis of government regulation (with the notable exception of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac). These ideas were all instrumental in the current crisis despite conservative attempts to blame it all on Clinton.

    His ideas of privatizing Social Security, whose surplus makes the budget deficits look smaller, would have added trillions to the federal debt. I'll not even mention in detail the absurdity of arguing for small government and also arguing for an enormous military and intelligence apparatus fighting proxy wars throughout the world.

    The problem is not George W. Bush. The problem is in the paradox of the conservative position that cannot make up its mind about the role of government. Let's call that problem the fascist heart of conservativism.

    Posted by antisocialist at 08/12/2009 @ 2:24pm

    I didn't say Mask wasn't a liberal. I said he wasn't on the "left". While I don't know all his positions, I would say gun control, capital punishment, criteria for the use of military force, affirmative action are all likely topics where Mask might look more conservative than a typical "liberal".

    Leftism is quite different from liberalism. For example, Mask would not be interested in socializing the means of production. An example is his half-hearted support for single payer simply because he thinks it is inevitable. That's quite a distance from the left, and probably barely qualifies as liberal.

    Posted by srjenkins at 08/12/2009 @ 3:04pm

47. Yes, but it is his conservative economic policies that are relevant to the current discussion, is it not? Please feel free to discuss how any of these topics were not examples of conservative thinking: tax cuts, his slogan about the "Ownership society", and his deemphasis of government regulation (with the notable exception of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac). These ideas were all instrumental in the current crisis despite conservative attempts to blame it all on Clinton.

    Posted by srjenkins at 08/12/2009 @ 3:04pm

    I didn't realize that private ownership had become only a conservative belief. I thought that even FDR believed in private ownership of homes, businesses,

    <if you own something, you have a vital stake in the future of our country. The more ownership there is in America, the more vitality there is in America, and the more people have a vital stake in the future of this country. - President George W. Bush, June 17, 2004

    We're creating... an ownership society in this country, where more Americans than ever will be able to open up their door where they live and say, welcome to my house, welcome to my piece of property. - President George W. Bush, October 2004>

    In fact that would be a recitation of the statements of the Founders.

    And here by Justice Potter Stewart of the Supreme Court

    <"In fact, a fundamental interdependence exists between the personal right to liberty and the personal right to property.">

    Posted by antisocialist at 08/12/2009 @ 3:24pm

48. Posted by antisocialist at 08/12/2009 @ 3:24pm

    Government policies of promoting private ownership based on giving mortgages to people that cannot afford them, privatizing Social Security into funds managed by Wall Street or health savings accounts that provide disincentives to get high cost tests or to consult specialists is a swindle masquerading as private ownership.

    While I agree that economic liberty is the foundation of every other kind of liberty, this isn't economic liberty or even ownership in any meaningful sense of the term. The key is that true ownership means you have control, not the bankers, Wall Street mutual fund managers or administrators creating your health program. That's not what Bush was talking about. His "Ownership Society" is just like every other phony name used by politicians to call something its opposite, where the Fascism Act gets transformed into the Freedom Act and other such nonsense.

    Posted by srjenkins at 08/12/2009 @ 3:55pm

49. What is wrong with these scum bags who call the president a nazi?do these ass holes know what nazism is and what that dreadful idea did to millions?i understand that fox news is the voice of fascism in this country but now CNN has joined in to glorify these dumb red necks too.there is more coverage for these low life fat nasty white trash fuckers on cnn than any other groups and i do believe that CNN has an agenda and that agenda is to destroy the presidency of barak obama because he is a non white.these bastards are threatening the security and the well being of the republic and yet are assisted by CNN and their low life whores like tom forman,lou dubbs,kieran chitry and dr ass hole gupta.

    Posted by excalibur999 at 08/12/2009 @ 4:11pm

50. Posted by BigPasture at 08/12/2009 @ 1:11pm

    Oh oh.

    BIG was able to make his way through a post -- well, he did not actually write it or say who did, it's really a "paste" -- but, anyway, he was able to put his name under something WITHOUT calling his former MC J.C. WATTS that really heinous racial slur that rimes with "bigger".

    Looks like BIG is so spooked about imanently being turned into Soylent Green that he is, umm, not thinking straight.

    Posted by PhilMcCrevice at 08/12/2009 @ 4:23pm

51. DO NOT TRUST CONSERVA-FREAKS WITH THE TRUTH ANYMORE THAN YOU WOULD TRUST MICHAEL VICK TO PET-SIT ROVER OR JOSEF FRITZL TO BABY-SIT. WHEN THEY ARE NOT HOLDING TOWN HALL INTIFADA, THE WRITE HALF-ASSED SHIT LIKE:

    "...posted numerous times how Bush was not a conservative on the budget, on education ("No child left behind" and more), and on his Medicare prescription drug program just to name the three largest liberal errors he made..."

    --antisocialist, 08/12 @ 2:12pm

    We're just wondering, REV', but...was Goerge W Loser, whom you sychophantically rimmed to the very end as a "leader" (not "prep school cheer leader", just "leader")...was this sorry and pathetic phony, W Loser, who had been affirmative actioned through life behaving as a liberal or a conservative when he...

    1. Wiped his ass on the American flag, leaving chunks and streaks of his fecal matter on it, as he and announced to the world "Hell No! I won't go! I'm a Congressman's Metrosexual Cheer Leading Son and I'm going to go disco dancing with the fellows from the frat house now!" Notice: It is behavior that ANTI has vehemently defended despite the wink-winking comfort W furnished for the Vietnamese National Liberation Front.

    2. Similarly, was George W Loser being a "liberal" or a "conservative" when, 30+ years later, he wiped his ass on the August 6 "bin Laden poised to strike inside the USA" memo and refused to so much as shorten his vacation on the phony ranch that was jettisoned even before he slithered out of the White House?

    3. Was George W Loser following the "liberal" or the "conservative" tradition when he trashed the US Department of Justice and transformed it into a sewer of politcal prosecutions slavishly yoked to the electoral calender (with Don Siegelmann as the most obvious case)?

    Posted by PhilMcCrevice at 08/12/2009 @ 4:40pm

52. Posted by barry25 at 08/12/2009 @ 1:24pm

    "...Huh? Huh?..."

    Posted by schnellerheinz at 08/12/2009 @ 3:02pm

    HEINZIE,

    For future reference, notice that BARRY-IQ25 claims Basque heritage. This is fitting because (1) just the other day BARRY was boo-hooing about how he missed the good old days of September 11. Yup, you read that correctly. Feel free to ask him about it, since this sicko has a lot to explain.

    And, as BARRY has no trouble at all with sliming other people's race and ethnicity, let's rub his fucking nose in it. As stated, BARRY is Basque (y'know, with their phony "homeland" stradling France and Spain). Biggest fucking terrorists on Earth, it's in the blood of these fucking crazies. The Basques in ETA would embarrass the most wild-eyed rightwing freak imam for their blood thirstiness.

    So, again, connecting (1) and (2), BARRY needs to be cross-examined about his sicko creepy 911 nostalgia AND his ethnic background. He needs to be profiled. BARRY certainly presents the kind of rightwing freakazoid danger that should give pause before we let him into an airport, a shopping mall, a movie theater, et cetera.

    Posted by PhilMcCrevice at 08/12/2009 @ 4:52pm

53. Hey, RIO, what radio DJ once told a black caller...

    "Take that bone out of your nose and call me back"?

    Posted by Mask at 08/12/2009 @ 1:36pm | ignore this

    Hey mAsKeD fool, is that 37 or 38 times you have posted this same thing ad nauseum? Get off your head and let the blood flow to your brain for once!

    Posted by BigPasture at 08/12/2009 @ 5:01pm

54. Talk about delusional, FRAM, you are.

    Posted by Denise29 at 08/12/2009 @ 5:20pm

55. Hey mAsKeD fool, is that 37 or 38 times you have posted this same thing ad nauseum? Get off your head and let the blood flow to your brain for once! Posted by BigPasture at 08/12/2009 @ 5:01pm |

    And, checking in, I, of course, find Rio reeling as collateral damage from his own IEDs (you won't get him you stinkin' Feds, nope, not Rio).

    A man who has typed or pasted the word Demoncrat no less than a thousand times has no biz hoisting phalanges at Mask for pointing out that you are often (mis)informed by the radio show of the aforementioned racist dufus.

    Posted by snowball777 at 08/12/2009 @ 6:07pm

56. You must mean the TARP funds that Obama, as a Senator, voted for.

    Posted by fram at 08/12/2009 @ 1:00pm

    Yes, fram, those very same TARP funds that George W. Bush and his banking cronies forced on Congress with the cries of "If you don't do it TODAY, the world as we know it will end!" (which may or may not have been true.)

    Is your memory THAT selective that you only remember that Obama voted for it but not that Bush and his team forced it on Congress?

    Now, we can fight all day over who is to blame, the Republicans or the Democrats...but since we all know that BOTH sides agreed to the TARP funds, what's the point? Unless your point is just to score points on a liberal website. If that's your point, you need to get a life.

    The TARP funds were necessary to ensure that we didn't have to completely shut down the banking system. The law was written so vaguely that the banks got away with whatever they wanted (including all the bonuses, etc.). Republicans and Democrats were all to blame for that fiasco...one of the few times bipartisanship was actually reached, or don't you remember the Republican candidate, John McCain, suspending his campaign to fix the economy?

    And BTW, it's the Republican motto "Free Markets (and Corporations) Uber Alles!" that got us into the disaster in the first place...and I don't deny that the Dems played along.

    Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 08/12/2009 @ 6:49pm

57. Posted by barry25 at 08/12/2009 @ 1:24pm

    I've always had a soft spot in my heart for the "America, love it or leave it" argument so adroitly presented by barry25 in his post.

    Hmmm, barry, if you don't like the fact the majority of Americans elected an African American as President, go back to whatever country your people came from!

    barry, if you don't like the fact that Congress has a majority of Democrats, go back to whatever country your people came from!

    barry, if you don't like Hollywood, gays, abortion, multiculturalism, the Dixie Chicks, Ted Kennedy, Medicare, Social Security, the highway system, taxes, or the fact that white people are going to be a minority in this country by mid-century, or whatever else your tiny brain can comprehend, go back to whatever country your people came from and leave the rest of us the hell alone!

    The ironic part about this post however, is that barry's people probably came from what is now "socialist" Europe. Guess he's got nowhere to go except back inside the cave he crawls out of on a daily basis. Go back inside caveman and leave the rest of us thinking human beings (on the right and on the left) alone so we can figure out how to make our country better for everyone, even if we disagree on the best way to do that.

    Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 08/12/2009 @ 7:01pm

58. Hillary the Sec. of State just told an african nation they should TAKE OVER INDUSTRIES in their country! She is truely following Obamanations socialist marxist policies!!!

    Posted by BigPasture at 08/12/2009 @ 7:41pm

59. Right on, excalibur99, these white trash ignorant a-holes showing up at town hall meetings are threatening the well being of our republic. Jerks like Palin have my elderly mother terrified that the government is going to kill her!

    Posted by nursevic at 08/12/2009 @ 8:02pm

60. Posted by excalibur999 at 08/12/2009 @ 4:11pm | ignore this person | warn this person Posted by nursevic at 08/12/2009 @ 8:02pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    Pity all you have left is excretment to fling just as the Demoncrat congress! You are proof of devolvement and the true level of leftist discourse!

    Posted by BigPasture at 08/12/2009 @ 10:36pm

61. too nice leslie. he's a moron.

    Posted by dexter666 at 08/12/2009 @ 11:04pm

62. "You are proof of devolvement and the true level of leftist discourse!"

    Posted by BigPasture at 08/12/2009 @ 10:36pm

    BIG,

    Once again, before you are moved from Obama's enemies list to a place in Obama's human shredder (punishment for not being gay-married or a Lenin Youth) by the Brown-Shirted ACORN cadres descending like work ants from their black helicopters in order to make a batch of soylent green from you, gotta' ask...

    What is that name that you keep calling your much beloved former Congressman J.C. Watts? The one that rimes with "bigger" that you keep using, over & again, while you "defend" him against the un-named foes that you have been inisting to exist???

    Posted by PhilMcCrevice at 08/13/2009 @ 08:07am

63. However, please feel free to continue to believe that all these protesters showing up at town hall meetings are part of some big right-wing funded organization.

    Posted by fram at 08/12/2009 @ 11:10am

    Come on fram. Either the people showing up to these town hall meetings that are ranting and being rude as hell are either dumb as hell, or have been told a bunch of b.s. From what I've seen, it appears that none of them have been told anything about what is actually in the bills. As it stands, there is no bill, only bills that are being looked at and the final bill will come out of a conference between the two houses which we are far away from now.

    Insuricare just wants to get all of their ducks in a row for when the "real bill" surfaces. You think you are hearing screaming and ranting now, wait until the real bill comes out. If the insurance companies have to actually play by any rules other than their own, they'll whine and say they are going to take the ball home so no one can play and they'll have their moronic stooges out slitting their own throats on their behalf.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 08/13/2009 @ 08:10am

64. Posted by BigPasture at 08/12/2009 @ 5:01pm

    Sure, RIO...

    soon as you answer the question and tell us why Robert Byrd in the early 1950s is worse than "Jeff Christie" in the late 1970s?

    Posted by Mask at 08/13/2009 @ 08:10am

65. Lou Dobbs has always seemed a little schizophrenic and paranoid. Especially lately. But it seems that many Americans are exhibiting bizarre behaviour of late. We have a populist rebellion.

    People know something is terribly wrong, but they don't know what exactly.

    People know someone or something is screwing them. But they don't know who or what that might be.

    And they are constantly being bombarded with lies and distortions. The elderly are scared to death that the government is trying to kill them. Some people are afraid that the brown skinned demons are invading the neighborhood. Others are afraid that Communists and Marxists are taking over the country.

    There are many forms of FEAR being ginned up out there. Mainly by the Lunatic Right and the Totalitarian Theocrats.

    It seems that everyone is being tortured by their own favorite fear demon. Freddie Kruger come to life.

    It is particularly difficult to get the truth out through so much static. All the lies and deceptions are pitting people with basically common interests against each other.

    The Enemy is Within..

    Posted by chaoszen at 08/13/2009 @ 08:50am

66. meetings are part of some big right-wing funded organization.

    Posted by fram at 08/12/2009 @ 11:10am

    Have you checked out FreedomWorks? They are promoting much of these so called "grassroots" teabagger protests. FreedomWorks is funded by Insurance Companies and Big Pharma. It is an industry backed disinformation campaign led by Dick Armey, (Dick Army). How apropo.

    Anyone can spend maybe 15 minutes on the "Internets", and figure this stuff out.

    Why are people so willfully ignorant?

    What is so tragic and ironic about all this, is that most of the elderly dupes who run to these town halls to "protest" are on Medicare. A Government run Health Insurance Program that they are all happy with. And seemingly want to protect from Government Run Healthcare.

    That is so out there that I have become convinced that I live in Alter-World.

    Posted by chaoszen at 08/13/2009 @ 09:09am

67. Posted by chaoszen at 08/13/2009 @ 09:09am

    An interesting dilemma though, that Republicans have put themselves in.

    Now that they're claiming "We'll defend Medicare against Obama and the Dems who want to destroy it!"...

    IF they ever return to power, how do they EVER propose any "reforms" of Medicare, without completely contradicting themselves and opening themselves up to the SAME tactics at town hall meetings?

    Or put more basically, the Republican Party in its attempts to thwart "socialism"....have just embraced..."liberalism"!!!!

    Posted by Mask at 08/13/2009 @ 09:16am

68. The Entire Healthcare Bill could be maybe 2 or 3 pages long, and as clear and understandable as a pristine mountain stream.

    All that would be necessary to achieve that would be to expand Medicare to All. The system is already in place, and with a few small tweaks could be easily expanded to include everyone that desired to join.

    If you are happy with your current for profit rippoff private insurance you could keep it. If you wanted to buy into Medicare, you could do that. All of this crap of tearing the country apart over something so simple could have been avoided.

    The only reason things are so complicated is because people make them that way. And you have to wonder why that is.

    Who gains from muddying the waters? If you understand that simple litmus test, then you know who the enemy is.

    Posted by chaoszen at 08/13/2009 @ 09:23am

69. IF they ever return to power, how do they EVER propose any "reforms" of Medicare, without completely contradicting themselves and opening themselves up to the SAME tactics at town hall meetings?

    Or put more basically, the Republican Party in its attempts to thwart "socialism"....have just embraced..."liberalism"!!!!

    Posted by Mask at 08/13/2009 @ 09:16am

    Republicans never look past the next step. That is their weakness and also their strength. If they are in danger of contradiction, they just produce more lies and spin. And they walk in lockstep. If you look at these things through the lens of a leftie, these things seem like political suicide.

    But the Republicans also know that the American people seem to suffer from A.D.D. What happened in the faint distant past, (like last week) is largely ignored. They just spin out a new batch of lies and disinformation and keep throwing it against the wall until it sticks.

    It is hard to fight willfull ignorance.

    Posted by chaoszen at 08/13/2009 @ 09:38am

70. As it has become apparent "Medicare" has a good name in general. Most people like it. Even with the "Donut Hole" and the necessity of "Supplemental Insurance".

    Take those two things out of Medicare and most people would be ecstatic and positively rapturous.

    Why is it that anyone would not take advantage of people feeling good about something they are already comfortable with, like Medicare? Why was not an expansion of Medicare not on the table in the first place? If I wanted to get Universal Healthcare passed, I would have simply said we are going to expand Medicare to all who would like to join.

    I would have removed the "Donut Hole" and eliminated the need for "Supplemental Insurance", along with changing the law to allow Medicare to negotiate drug prices.

    Why was this not done? It would have saved a lot of trouble.

    Why would anyone in their right mind try and introduce a "Public Plan"? That would scare people and make them leery and afraid and open this entire can of worms?

    Even the Repugs would have had a hard time criticising an expansion of Medicare.

    I'm no genius. And even I see this anomally.

    We have to ask the question. Why?

    Once we answer that qwestion we will know about "who" and "why".

    Posted by chaoszen at 08/13/2009 @ 10:01am

71. Posted by chaoszen at 08/13/2009 @ 09:09am

    I'm curious. Do you think FreedomWorks.org is different from MoveOn.org? Or to be more specific, how are these two pages different?

    http://www.freedomworks.org/publications/ august-recess-town-hall-meetings

    http://www.moveon.org/augustrecess/ town_hall_materials.html

    The bottom line is that town halls and structured questions aren't a problem. The problem is the way in which these questions are asked and how far the conversation has moved from any kind of real dialogue.

    The whole confrontation with Arlen Specter is an excellent example of how people are not doing what FreedomWorks.org is suggesting in their packet. And if anything, these kinds of disruptions fuel sympathy for Democrats. I've never been a fan of Arlen Specter, but after seeing him deal with this man, I've got to give him credit - and the party that he belongs to for having the gumption to go into a public setting and deal with that kind of nonsense.

    It is also interesting to contrast this with the Republican approach of screening meetings, creating "free speech zones" and what not when they were in power.

    Posted by Mask at 08/13/2009 @ 09:16am

    And this is believable because...Medicare fits right into the Republican party platform - more choice, more ability to pay for service, more competition? And just like with the party platform, they have no idea how to deliver any of these beyond getting rid of Medicare and moving to "law of the jungle" healthcare.

    This topic is so easy to manage on a messaging front. I'd simply say that Medicare is socialized medicine and that we want to make Medicare available to every segment of society. Any counter-attack will essentially be an attack of Medicare. I'd take that argument every day of the week.

    Posted by srjenkins at 08/13/2009 @ 10:27am

72. Posted by chaoszen at 08/13/2009 @ 09:23am

    "The Entire Healthcare Bill could be maybe 2 or 3 pages long, and as clear and understandable as a pristine mountain stream."

    Let me be the first to say, 'If you believe this, you may need to change your prescription medication.'

    Posted by chaoszen at 08/13/2009 @ 09:38am

    "Republicans never look past the next step."

    Ditto. While your comments about consistently making bogus claims are correct, I think discounting a legitimate difference in political perspective and pretending Republicans are incompetent buffoons does more to harm your agenda than anything else.

    Posted by srjenkins at 08/13/2009 @ 10:31am

73. A blanket acceptance of the way European's handle their health care, which seems to be the undercurrent message here, ignores the relative importance of Europe in the world today vis a vis us, not to mention the different cultures involved. It is as silly to do this as it would be to accept Melissa Caldwell's take on racial matters here.

    Posted by william.harry13 at 08/13/2009 @ 10:37am

74. The only reason things are so complicated is because people make them that way. And you have to wonder why that is.

    Who gains from muddying the waters? If you understand that simple litmus test, then you know who the enemy is.

    Posted by chaoszen at 08/13/2009 @ 09:23am

    I agree 100%. The solution could be straight forward with no loopholes included.....but that's not how our friends in D.C. work.

    Say one thing to the public, do another when adding to the bills at midnght. Congressmen Joe Schmoe received 50k$ for his campaign from insuricare and therefore has to pay them back for services rendered or there will be no 50k$ for him for the next election cycle. So, he tells his constituents one thing, but votes another way when it really counts....or adds some clause into the bills to cover his ass with his major campaign contributors.

    At least two obvious things need to be done to at least slow this down. 1) Campaign finance reform which the GOP will have none of. (I wonder why) 2) The people of this country have to pull their heads out of their asses and find out what is going on in the world and not rely on one or two sources to get their information from.

    You can blame those on the disinformation side for lying, but you can also blame those on the stupid end for being lead around by the collar like a dog following it's owner because they are either too lazy to find things out for themselves, or are married to some ideology that won't allow themselves to see reality. Either way, a lot of the blame lies in the lap of those who blindly follow corporate news channels or any channel or party for that matter. One should always question the motive behind any actions of news sources and leaders....these folks aren't the wholesome folks they pretend to be.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 08/13/2009 @ 10:40am

75. "...without completely contradicting themselves and..."

    --Mask, 08/13/2009@09:16

    Yeah, gotta agree this is an uncharacteristically niave claim being floated by MASK.

    Remember, we are talking about True Believers like...THE REV' who not so long ago huffily sniffed that one of the best posters ever here -- the much revered SWRILEY -- could not be taken seriously as the professional military historian that he IN FACT is because he had not been in combat...

    ...Yet the same REV cannot inhibit the reflex to sink to his knees and rim that "Poet-Warrior from the Trenches and Leader of Battle-Hardend Manly Men" George W Loser, who spent his Vietnam years woozily disco dancing (& barfing.

    No contradiction here! No holding one's fellow knee-time travellors to pathetic low standards that they they still cannot meet.

    Or, one might think of the all the braying and barking about restrained government that conservaLoser's repeat ad nasueam as if a chip had been inserted into their brains.

    But these rock-solid convictions turn out to be as solid as puppy shit when the Mayor of Wasalla goes on a mad-dog 200-proof PC-rampage in the town's library to ban books on whim and to oust professional librarians who are not in alignment with the Mayor's nascent Stalinist ambitions.

    No contradictions here, just, umm, a little flexibility on principles. Just like when the same Mayor harbors hardcore open allegiance to "Alaska First" succession. And then, the following month, this same piece of refuse has the ass to rant & rave about "real Americans" under the sickly laughable banner of..."America First".

    Contradictions? Half-assed reasoning that only a blithering and bulbous moron would fail to notice? As phony and fake as an Ashley Todd tale of being mugged? You betcha!

    Posted by PhilMcCrevice at 08/13/2009 @ 10:41am

76. Posted by chaoszen at 08/13/2009 @ 09:09am

    I'm curious. Do you think FreedomWorks.org is different from MoveOn.org?

    Yes, I do.

    Or to be more specific, how are these two pages different?

    Hard to say, since the MoveOn page does not exist. When I post a link to a webpage I always post it and then copy and paste the link, and try it out to make sure it works.

    But to at least try an answer that question. What is MoveOn selling? As far as I know it is not trying to sell a product. FreedomWorks on the other hand is financed by Insurance Companies and Big Pharma who are trying to protect a multibillion dollar criminal industry from extinction.

    Posted by chaoszen at 08/13/2009 @ 10:46am

77. I am a supporter of MoveOn.org and am also involved with the DailyKos. And am a member of the Socialist Party and the Green Party.

    There you have it. No lies. No hidden ingredients. Just the Truth.

    Posted by chaoszen at 08/13/2009 @ 10:50am

78. Contradictions? Half-assed reasoning that only a blithering and bulbous moron would fail to notice? As phony and fake as an Ashley Todd tale of being mugged? You betcha!

    Posted by PhilMcCrevice at 08/13/2009 @ 10:41am

    Well done!

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 08/13/2009 @ 10:50am

79. "What happened in the faint distant past, (like last week) is largely ignored."----Posted by chaoszen at 08/13/2009 @ 09:38am

    S'why HAPP and Larry and even ol' PUMA Frankgrits get so perturbed about me "archiving" their old posts.

    Posted by Mask at 08/13/2009 @ 11:01am

80. Posted by Wolfgang1 at 08/13/2009 @ 10:50am

    Thanks, WOLF. And as satisfying as it may be to issue the indictment against rightwing detritus for being supreme relatavists whose positions are only connected by being so gawd-awful wrong about everything...

    ...their very shithouse weakness becomes a perverse advantage of sorts sincedit compels other, normal people to NOT want to engage any more with the crazies than is absolutely necessary. Kind of like the psychotic housemate who uses that very real and ugly psychosis with calculated manipulativeness (see: neo-c(l)o(w)ns, ANTISOCIAL) in order to try to get what he or she wants while the normal people just hope he or she goes away and so don't initially notice the heist that is taking place.

    So, it is unfortunate and it is necessary that we normal people are just going to have to go out of our way to confrontationally put these righthwing creeps sqaurely in their place and short-circuit their hateful, spiteful self-harm schemes on America. We will prevail if we make the effort because we are totally superior in all respects. So, to hell with PC nostrums & other nicities, let's save our country from these sickly, wretched self-haters.

    Posted by PhilMcCrevice at 08/13/2009 @ 11:04am

81. Posted by srjenkins at 08/13/2009 @ 10:27am

    Also why Chris Hayes' question from a week ago, so blatently points out the conservative hypocrisy...

    they claim they oppose "Gov't run health care" and not only don't call for the elimination of Medicare (obviously fitting that term by THEIR standard)...

    but promise to "protect and shore it up".

    A FEW honest ones like Larry/antisoc want Medicare scrapped....but the GOP (and talking heads like Rush or O'Reilly) know it'd be political suicide to say such a thing.

    Posted by Mask at 08/13/2009 @ 11:04am

82. 1) Campaign finance reform

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 08/13/2009 @ 10:40am

    You have named the most important single thing that might save our country.

    Campaign Finance Reform.

    Since we have a Constitutional Two Party System for the most part, that has a "winner take all" "first past the post" process, we really need "instant runoff voting". Australia has this and I believe New Zealand and Canada and something similar in some states, in the United States and also some cities.

    Anyway, the Green Party is pushing Instant Runoff Voting.

    We also need to remove the laws pertaining to corporate personhood and eliminate the option of corporations to claim first amendment rights that enable them to excercise their "right of free speech" through campaign contributions and other thinly disguised "bribes".

    That is why the Supreme Court is so important. And right now it is stacked with corporate sympathizers. Who believe that a corpoation is a human being.

    It does not get any more strange than that.

    Posted by chaoszen at 08/13/2009 @ 11:10am

83. I suppose I should spell check. But you get my drift.

    My time is limited. Sorry.

    Posted by chaoszen at 08/13/2009 @ 11:12am

84. S'why HAPP and Larry and even ol' PUMA Frankgrits get so perturbed about me "archiving" their old posts.

    Posted by Mask at 08/13/2009 @ 11:01am

    You provide a valuable service. That's for sure.

    Posted by chaoszen at 08/13/2009 @ 11:14am

85. Posted by william.harry13 at 08/13/2009 @ 10:37am

    You must have taken the "Alice in Wonderland" course in "Nonsense". When Lewis Carroll did it, it was quite smighty and lightly sprightly.

    When you do it, it is just plain disgusting...

    Posted by chaoszen at 08/13/2009 @ 11:22am

86. Posted by chaoszen at 08/13/2009 @ 11:14am

    And don't forget Frosty. Apologies FZ.

    Posted by Mask at 08/13/2009 @ 11:25am

87. Wonder when the rest of the gang of paid GOP bloggers will show up? Once they get wind of all us "Marxist, Communist, Baby Killin Socialists", I would expect they will decend like locusts.

    They usually show up after I go to bed. And I get limited entertainment. :(

    Posted by chaoszen at 08/13/2009 @ 11:32am

88. They must sleep late, or are otherwise busy in some other greedy and unsavory occupation.

    Posted by chaoszen at 08/13/2009 @ 11:34am

89. Posted by BigPasture at 08/12/2009 @ 5:01pm

    Dear BIG,

    As we now convene as your "FederallY Planned Lifespan Temporal Frame Telos Panel", we extend a big Oklahoma "Howdy" to you from a smiling and all-knowing Barack Hussein Obama.

    Oops! However, it seems that you have been less inclined to return the Maximum Leader's salutations. Thus we have no option but to re-classify your identity to the "Citizenship Aborted: Enemy's List". We hope your new status does not present undue inconveniences to you.

    Nevertheless, and despite all that, The Panel has judged that we can no longer support your continued existence. But this is really an opportunity for you. Yes, this is an exciting opportunity to "live on" as a government-subsidized Soylent Green (TM) meal. ACORN agents are at your door now, or perhaps they have already made their "dymanic entry", to better escort you to the human shredder to begin the role for which you have been especially selected in the ObamaNation.

    Let the fun begin! Please indicate the flavor that you would like to be endowed with as someone lucky citizen's federally subsidized Soylent Green (TM) meal:

    ___ Lettuce

    __ Broccoli

    __ Peppermint

    __ Asparagus

    __ Granny Smith Apple

    Yours In Him, Barack Hussein Obama, Our Wise Sheppard

    The Federally Planned Lifespan Temporal Frame Telos Panel

    Posted by PhilMcCrevice at 08/13/2009 @ 11:39am

90. ___ Lettuce

    __ Broccoli

    __ Peppermint

    __ Asparagus

    __ Granny Smith Apple

    Posted by PhilMcCrevice at 08/13/2009 @ 11:39am

    This sounds like a list of leftover flavors!

    What happened to the Lobster flavored Soylent?

    Who ate all the Prime Rib flavor?

    And who pigged out on all the Strawberry, Peach and Artichoke flavors?

    Why is it the "people" always get screwed on Soylent distribution?

    Posted by chaoszen at 08/13/2009 @ 12:02pm

91. I suppose I should spell check. But you get my drift.

    My time is limited. Sorry.

    Posted by chaoszen at 08/13/2009 @ 11:12am

    Hey, I have the same problem. I see something on here and respond and then go back to work unlike some folks posting here who seem to have all day to spell check, check for grammatical errors, but often don't check for reasoning errors. LOL

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 08/13/2009 @ 12:04pm

92. Posted by chaoszen at 08/13/2009 @ 10:46am

    Yes, sorry about the link thing. I generally add a space somewhere in the link rather than use tinyurl to avoid TheNation's websites penchant to complain about url character length. They need to fix that problem. The MoveOn.org stuff is available from the front page of their website, so you don't have to look hard to find it.

    I used to be a member of Moveon.org. But, it become obvious to me that what they are selling is their influence over their membership. The way they handled the Lee Amendment tore it for me and demonstrated they may not be acting in good faith.

    However, your claim that FreedomWorks is in the pockets of industry seems a little...over the top. I can agree it has an astroturf flavor and the format of the website mimics practically every other political website out there - must be a standard being sold by some bipartisan group. But, I don't think, functionally, they are different from MoveOn.org.

    I also think that it is a legitimate position to be for smaller government, and I would wager most people involved honestly believe that. I can also agree that these legitimate concerns perhaps are being co-opted by industry. But, again, I do not see how this is different from Moveon.org's agenda of promoting economic recovery and job creation - that's just as easily co-optable for any group you like depending on the technical implementation.

    Posted by srjenkins at 08/13/2009 @ 12:05pm

93. When I gave "Granny" all those government supplied pain killers and then had to call Soylent Central for approved protein removal and disposition, I though at least I would get my issue "Strawberries and Creme Soylent".

    Now I'm pissed.

    Posted by chaoszen at 08/13/2009 @ 12:07pm

94. Yet these right-wing Town Hollerers KNOW that it's "socialism, fascism, going to kill my Grandma"!?!??!!?

    How do they know that???

    Posted by Mask at 08/12/2009 @ 10:57am

    Same people that told us to fear wmd's, gays, single parents (except Bristol), Islamo-fascists around every corner, Bill Ayers....

    You know the rant, I will use my soapbox for tinder...

    "dobbering"!!

    I love it.

    "Anti was dobbering on about marxist takeovers of the US."

    Posted by crabwalk at 08/13/2009 @ 12:17pm

95. Why is it the "people" always get screwed on Soylent distribution?

    Posted by chaoszen at 08/13/2009 @ 12:02pm

    You know that Cheney has the chocolate flavor to himself. He hashed that out in the "secret meetings" to appear in his forthcoming book.

    Evidently W (during his second term in office)cuaght wind of Cheney's claim to chocolate and the rest of the good ones and got mad and wouldn't listen to poor Dick anymore. W was only able to save the Lettuce,Broccoli,Peppermint,Asparagus ,Granny Smith Apple in the end unfortunately.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 08/13/2009 @ 12:18pm

96. Actually, I'm planning on being a guard at one of Obama's ACORN-run Re-Education Concentration Camps and keeping a personal eye on RIO/Big Posture when they bring him in (part of the first batch of course), during the intensive indoctrination and brain-washing session to turn him into a loyal comrade of the State.

    Then we'll kill him and eat him. Us Demoncrats are just evil that way.

    Posted by Mask at 08/13/2009 @ 12:29pm

97. However, your claim that FreedomWorks is in the pockets of industry seems a little...over the top. Posted by srjenkins at 08/13/2009 @ 12:05pm

    No, actually my post was "under the top".

    I could rant for days about fake corporate sponsored, so called, "grassroots" organizations. That pop up like poisonious mushrooms in a "culture" medium of false claims, lies, distorions and fear tactics.

    The difference between MoveOn and FreedomWorks is that one is a true grassroots, time tested individually supported political vehicle. While the other is a Corporate Sponsored hate mongering machine of lies and disinformation that will dissapear as quickly as it came, once it's disease spreading social cancer is seeded.

    A rather startling difference I would say.

    And a great example of the modern version of the battle between good and evil.

    Posted by chaoszen at 08/13/2009 @ 12:36pm

98. CHAOSZEN 11:22 AM

    Why, he (or she)speaks to me!

    Juvenile content, to be sure, yet I am honored!

    Posted by william.harry13 at 08/13/2009 @ 12:38pm

99. Get on the right side Jenkins. The side that is truly concerned about you and your own best interests. And I don't mean Democrats. They are only better in that, they will give you a reach around while they are having their way with your backside.

    It is time to chose sides. Make sure your choice benefits you and your family.

    That's about the only advice I can give.

    Not that you asked for it.

    Posted by chaoszen at 08/13/2009 @ 12:44pm

100. So, it is unfortunate and it is necessary that we normal people are just going to have to go out of our way to confrontationally put these righthwing creeps sqaurely in their place and short-circuit their hateful, spiteful self-harm schemes on America. We will prevail if we make the effort because we are totally superior in all respects. So, to hell with PC nostrums & other nicities, let's save our country from these sickly, wretched self-haters.

     Posted by PhilMcCrevice at 08/13/2009 @ 11:04am

     You normal? If you spoke this way in public, they would have to put you in a mental facility for your own good and the public safety.

     Posted by antisocialist at 08/13/2009 @ 1:03pm

101. Posted by chaoszen at 08/13/2009 @ 12:44pm

     Choose sides? What do you propose I do?

     I voted for Ralph Nader in the general election (my first time voting for him and largely because the rest of the third-party field was packed full of nuttiness and couldn't support Obama's program of Afghan War). I voted for Dennis Kucinich in the primaries. I regularly recommend considering third parties to others. Despite this, I'm also not naive enough to believe my vote matters (or anyone's else for that matter).

     I've written to all of my representatives about Iraq and Afghanistan. I've also written to them about other policies like giving India nuclear materials, bailouts and other issues. I'm also not naive enough to believe my letters matter.

     I've gone to anti-war rallies. I've put signs in my yard. I've talked with right wing physicians threatening to quit over the socialization of health care and made the case for it (didn't change any minds, though). I am informed about politics. I discuss politics with people both online and in person.

     What else, exactly, do you believe I should be doing?

     And when I'm considering all my choices, I also cannot escape the fact that there is a sizable chunk of people out there who are all in favor of the common good (whether that means destroying the Taliban or paying for universal health care) that want it so long as it means they don't have to make any sacrifices - whether that means making hard choices about rationing (applies equally to military might as it does to healthcare), giving their time (what have you done for universal healthcare beyond post here?) or paying for it (never seen you discuss cutting costs).

     Everyone is all for it, so long as it comes out of someone else's pocket and they don't have to make hard choices.

     Posted by srjenkins at 08/13/2009 @ 1:12pm

102. Right CHAOSZEM, that's what we need. Choosing sides-As if this country hasn't been in the throes of small-minded internal conflict due to one sided, uncompromising thinking for fifteen years now. Red State Blue State Olberman-Coulter Wing Nuts-Left Nuts Yeah lets have WAR, buddy, war between Americans. Thats so much better than unity.

     Guys who think like that are the one's my new President was referring to when he spoke of ""the ground shifting beneath their feet." Your day is over.

     Posted by william.harry13 at 08/13/2009 @ 1:37pm

103. <i>Posted by chaoszen at 08/13/2009 @ 11:10am </i>

     Abolish corporate personhood? Not remove certain components, but abolish it altogether? Which of the following, pray tell, should corporate entities be able to do:

     1) Buy and sell property

     2) Enter into contractual relationships

     3) Hire and fire employees

     4) Purchase health insurance

     It is functions like these that form the primary justifications for corporate personhood. The primary reason we let corporations be persons is that we want them to legally undertake actions as an individual entity. Whatever one may say about things like the First Amendment (which I DON'T think apply constitutionally to corporations), abolishing corporate personhood is a terrible idea.

     Posted by Thrawn at 08/13/2009 @ 1:48pm

104. The republicans, and most democrats think it is a fine thing for government to encourage business with tax breaks, which shifts the load to the taxpayer. The above repubs and demos also think it is a fine thing to spend a gazillion dollars making the worlds largest military bigger. The first activity qualifies the government as fascist, the second some sort of military state. Compared to the defense budget, and tax breaks, and the bailouts, healthcare reform is small beans. I think it must be more about a fight between the government owning your butt, versus whoever the largest corporate entity is, owning your butt. One thing is sure: you can't even walk outside without asking permission.

     Posted by Qroger at 08/13/2009 @ 2:13pm

105. Interesting info on this man. I like to call these men Carsonian racists. They like bedding down with women of other ethnicities yet will disparage theses same women's culture and heritage at every turn.

     It fits right in with how Dobbs can be contradictory which is pointed out in the article.

     Posted by missionunaccomplished at 08/13/2009 @ 2:35pm

106. Posted by Thrawn at 08/13/2009 @ 1:48pm

     Rather strange justification Thrawn.

     Is it not possible to 1) Buy and sell property, 2) Enter into contractual relationships, 3) Hire and fire employees and4) Purchase health insurance under other forms of business organization - such as a partnership, unlimited company, limited liability company, limited partnership?

     Of course it is possible. The only real reason to grant personhood that I can see is to let people that are running the corporation off the hook and to not have them personally responsible if something happens - in every other form of business organization that does not include personhood, it's the managers on the hook.

     Posted by srjenkins at 08/13/2009 @ 3:28pm

107. "This sounds like a list of leftover flavors!

     What happened to the Lobster flavored Soylent?...

     Why is it the "people" always get screwed on Soylent distribution?"

     Posted by chaoszen at 08/13/2009 @ 12:02pm

     'ZEN,

     C'mon now! You know the government regs' call for drab colors and drab tawtes for Soylent ("Puke") Green. It's not Soylent Fuccia, after all, and never will be as long as Manchurian Man Obama is single-handedly suffocating the private sector with the Marxist-Leninst playbook!

     Posted by PhilMcCrevice at 08/13/2009 @ 4:35pm

108. Posted by antisocialist at 08/13/2009 @ 1:03pm

     Cogent as always, ANTI!

     Just wondering, but when in the measured appraisal of you and the thought leaders of your freakazoid community (like Rush, Sean & Glenn) will Obama finally have crossed the theshold of Out-Hitlering Bill "Hammer & Sickle" Clinton? How many of his aids will Obama have to assassinate (or cardigan sweaters will he need to don) before he can finally claim that mantle of the US's most Hitlerian president away from Clinton? And the only slightly less Hitlerian SS storm trooper, Carter?

     Posted by PhilMcCrevice at 08/13/2009 @ 4:40pm

109. We need free markets - which are nonexistent - in health care. Over three quarters of health care can be taken care of by someone with only one year of specialized education and 3 months on the job experience. But our government mandates that no health care can be taken care unless one runs the AMA gauntlet with 4 years of intensive specialized training and 2 years of indentured servitude working and studying long hours to "pay your dues". And they are compensated in kind. Free markets would allow the "rabble" to get most basic health care from someone earning a respectable income who will take care of all but the most difficult health care situations at a reasonable cost. Those people would NOT have deep pockets but shouldn't need them as most care given would not be critical. Those who could afford the best would get the 4 year degree doctors who would charge current rates. The "rabble" could get high deductible insurance to get the same premium care or take care of the small number of extraordinary conditions the one year wonders would not be licensed to handle. This works in the trucking industry with specialized endorsements for specialized loads. Most "ordinary" truckers are only qualified for the most basic trucking jobs. Of course, it would be a lot less expensive to get a one year degree and the premium doctors would get less routine business. They might have to lower rates to get enough business. Or they might not have to since their time with the well to do would be well compensated. The premium doctors would have a LOT less problems with malpractice dealing only with other wealthy patrons. Dealing with the rabble generally is less profitable - which is why UPS and Fed Ex don't service really downtrodden remote neighborhoods.

     Posted by rimchamp77 at 08/13/2009 @ 4:45pm

110. Who gains from muddying the waters? If you understand that simple litmus test, then you know who the enemy is.

     Posted by chaoszen at 08/13/2009 @ 09:23am

     So true it deserved to be posted again.

     Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 08/13/2009 @ 5:36pm

111. Cogent as always, ANTI!

     Just wondering, but when in the measured appraisal of you and the thought leaders of your freakazoid community (like Rush, Sean & Glenn) will Obama finally have crossed the theshold of Out-Hitlering Bill "Hammer & Sickle" Clinton? How many of his aids will Obama have to assassinate (or cardigan sweaters will he need to don) before he can finally claim that mantle of the US's most Hitlerian president away from Clinton? And the only slightly less Hitlerian SS storm trooper, Carter?

     Posted by PhilMcCrevice at 08/13/2009 @ 4:40pm

     I don't listen to Hannity or Beck (I don't care for either one and don't watch Fox, except for Chris Wallace on Sundays), and I only listen to bits of Rush mayb 6-8 hours out of an entire year. While neither Hannity nor Beck make such claims, Rush is a pure entertainer. He hosts no news television programs. His radio program makes no assertion of being a news program.

     I've never heard anyone call Clinton or Carter Nazi's or Storm Troopers, or Hitlerian. Who made those accusations? If anyone did, I certainly don't agree with that.

     Posted by antisocialist at 08/13/2009 @ 5:54pm

112. Hillary the Sec. of State just told an african nation they should TAKE OVER INDUSTRIES in their country! She is truely following Obamanations socialist marxist policies!!!

     Posted by BigPasture at 08/12/2009 @ 7:41pm

     That's right! Residents of a nation should not control the Industry of that nation, because that's the job of Imperialists! How are we supposed to rape and pillage the natural resources of another country if the people who live there won't let us? GUH!!!

     Socialism is just like Hitler... Stay with me here... because freedom is like a jew, and Healthcare wants to kill all jews.

     Posted by A.D.H.D. at 08/13/2009 @ 6:32pm

113. Jesus...after reading this whole comment section it is hard to realize what story this blog was originally about - the dichotomy that is Lou Dobbs. But it is good sport nonetheless. Carry on political savants.

     Posted by vaguelyinterested at 08/13/2009 @ 8:41pm

114. Hey anti social, you are in a great party of people. Let's all run over to the estate of the CEO of United Health for a party. We can rub shoulders with him and some Wall Streeters and Big Bankers. What a great deal,you know ,to meet some upstanding people who are fleecing the public. Man I can see you rubbing your hands together ,chatting with people who are instructing you how to steal from people legally(credit card interest rate hikes),brazenly(denial of insurance claims) or down right crookedly(credit default swaps). Now when you figure out how to crawl out of the sewer in a few years then comment again(2012). You act as though you have never heard the commentary by the "entertainer"Rush. Quit being as big a fraud as he is .He references the Nazis often. He has no idea what he's talking about but that is his modus operandi. His problem is that as a stormtrooper he would get his ass kicked for being unable to keep up.

     Posted by whatizz at 08/13/2009 @ 10:50pm

115. why all of a sudden the attack on Lou Dobbs? Apparently the southern poverty law center is out for him too, trying to get him fired. Of all the bloviators on radio and tv, this is the guy they want fired? At least he is covering health care in a factual way even if after proding. .. 'French of him'? what kind of idiotic statement is that? .. read tim wise in the latest counterpunch to read critisisms of a much worse commentator michael savage. .. on the "birthers", it does seem that the Obama admin could shut that down real quick if they wanted to but perhaps it helps them to have these seemingly insane people out there, politically.

     Posted by q at 08/13/2009 @ 10:51pm

116. Apparently our Senators CAN read the writing on the wall! They know if they DON'T listen to American citizens who also can all vote they might not have a job in 2010!

     "Key senators are excluding a provision on end-of-life care from health overhaul legislation after language in a House bill caused a furor.

     Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa, top Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, said in a statement Thursday that the provision had been dropped from consideration because it could be misinterpreted or implemented incorrectly.

     A health care bill passed by three House committees allows Medicare to reimburse doctors for voluntary counseling sessions about end-of-life decisions. But critics have claimed the provision could lead to death panels and euthanasia for seniors.

     The Senate Finance Committee is still working to complete a bill."

     Our townhall meetings here in our state were extended for hours because attendance require TWO meeting in stead of ONE for our representatives. And in another case the place was changed to triple the size of the audience and still they had to have TWO sessions!

     Posted by BigPasture at 08/13/2009 @ 11:06pm

117. Lou Dobbs is only a demagogue. He dances the tune he thinks the people will cheer. He is a Republican disguised as protester. He is totally anti-immigrant because he feels it to be 'popular with the middle class'. He feels the same with Health Care.

     Lou Dobbs is anti-everything, like the party of NO. But he does not propose anything to solve our problems. The government is bad, the two parties are bad, etc, etc. Nobody is in good shape... And then he introduces his dagger: "maybe the best is not to do anything at all".

     He is among the worst I have ever seen or heard. At least O'Reilly and the kind, do blatantly say they defend the right and the rich.....this guy wants us to believe he is for the middle class with his hepatic language, but when it is time for conclusions, he is only for the "statu quo", for a white America, and for corporations.

     Honestly CNN is showing serious lack of respect to the people programming Dobbs. It would be better to have a rightist and a leftist one after the other than to have a serpent with that venom language.

     Posted by Frank42 at 08/13/2009 @ 11:08pm

118. Frank, I think your wrong on dobbs. corporate america loves to expoit labor, which is evident in their "free trade ober alles" attitude, as Nader would say. Dobbs is one of the few commentators who will talk about this aspect of it. O'Reilly who you seem to like and rush etc. mainly concentrate on the Illegality of it.

     Posted by q at 08/13/2009 @ 11:40pm

119. rank, I think your wrong on dobbs. corporate america loves to expoit labor, which is evident in their "free trade ober alles" attitude, as Nader would say. Dobbs is one of the few commentators who will talk about this aspect of it. O'Reilly who you seem to like and rush etc. mainly concentrate on the Illegality of it.

     Posted by q at 08/13/2009 @ 11:40pm

     Please read carefully what I said, and I'm not in the political right ever.

     Dobbs pretends to be a voice for the working class "against corporations that take jobs out" because that pays. On a close scrutiny however, he won't back workers Unions for example. He is - or pretends to be- nationalistic, but is not pro-worker ever.

     Posted by Frank42 at 08/14/2009 @ 02:22am

120. "I've never heard anyone call Clinton or Carter Nazi's or Storm Troopers, or Hitlerian. "---Posted by antisocialist at 08/13/2009 @ 5:54pm

     How about "Communist" or "Stalinist"? or claim that they "had a drug smuggling ring out of the Mena, Arkansas airport"?......or "killed her lover and dumped his body in Ft. Marcy Park"?

     Posted by Mask at 08/14/2009 @ 08:51am

121. what a bunch of thick headed fools with pea brains. Let us start by being honest first. All the references that are being quoted are pointless on healthcare as Dobbs is faking it all, and playing to the galleries like Sarah Palin is also doing.

     The author is so spot on in analysing this self centered idiot to perfection by pointing out his flaws of no journalism ethics, dishonesty, and no conscious. The author has even checked at CNN and got the facts from his colleagues that he contradicts himself, big time.

     Can it be taken lightly when he gives inaccurate information on 7000 leprosy cases on national TV reported in 3 years, whereas in fact it was in 30 years and never apologizes? Imagine the scare he had spread throughout, he should be sued for his irresponsible role as a media man. Dr Scheiner says. "In Medicare, 40 years of Medicare, they've never interfered with me giving care." but this fatso Dobbs pretends not to listen to and keeps on and on to in an effort to bring the promised Waterloo to Obama. How cruel and dishonest! This red neck has lost his credibility, he is a fake and qualifies to join the likes of Orielly and Hannity, the pig stye in journalism.

     Mr. Frank42, I salute you sir! Every word of yours I relate to, you did read Dobbs well enough than his own poor patheitic mother!

     I had lot of respect for CNN, now I can say its not with two responsible positioned guys like Wolf Bloitzer and Dobbs showing so a standard, its time to kick them out and promote guys like John King as Dobb's Boss to inspire him what honesty and integrity is all about.

     Posted by aleemsyed at 08/16/2009 @ 03:19am