While it’s a lot of fun to point out how silly the right sounds when they try to propagate the meme that the left means “bigger government” and the right “smaller government”, we’re breezing right by the fact that the idea that “liberals == larger government” is just flat-out wrong.
The truth is liberals don’t look at the size of government – say in employees, or budget size, or whatever – and say “that’s too small; we need to grow government!” It just doesn’t happen. Liberals look at individual programs and decide what we should be doing at the governmental level and what we shouldn’t. Some of those decisions will result in larger government. Some, in smaller government.
For example, it’s conservatives who want to spend billions of dollars on a wall along our southern border which will have the effect of hurting our economy. (Then they think that when liberals oppose that idea, that means we’re for illegal immigration. No – we just think the wall is a stupid, stupid idea.) Similarly, it is conservatives who move to grow the size of our military, not liberals.
In fact, we should all know by now that under GOP administrations our federal government has grown dramatically in size and debt. Much faster – many times more than the worst post-war Democrats in terms of growth of government – with Reagan-style conservatives.
The right are wrong with their “big government v small government” meme on it’s face. It’s just a nice bonus that we can make fun of them for saying something silly about it.
This email is making the rounds (and blowing up on FreeRepublic); apparently that Muslin Negro Manchurian candidate from Kenya who stole the election and conned his way into the Presidency has the nerve to disrespect, well, everything by putting his feet up on his desk.
Oops. Wrong photo. Let’s try again.
Nope, still got it wrong.
There we go – third time is the charm. Here’s the text going around attached to the photo of Obama.
Does this photo taken in the Oval Office convey anything to you about attitude and arrogance?
Would you speak with the Chief of Staff, your Chief Economics Adviser, and your Senior Adviser with your feet up on the Resolute Desk – a gift from Queen Victoria to President Rutherford B. Hayes in 1880?
We should inundate the White House with emails demanding that he stop desecrating his office and keep his feet off of our furniture.
This arrogant, immature, self-centered idiot demonstrates repeatedly that he has no sense of honor, or of simple decency.
While this posture is disrespectful in any culture, it is absolutely never done in any executive setting.
Further, in over half of the cultures of the world, it is recognized not only as disrespectful, but as an extreme insult ot show the bottom of your shoes. In some cultures it could also get you killed!
He thinks of himself as a king — and not as a servant of the people, humbly occupying our White House for his term in office.
Electing him was an enormous mistake — and will cost us in many ways, for generations
Well, I guess it’s a good thing HeWhoShallNotBeNamed didn’t have his feet down – he might have ruined the carpets with all of that dirt from the cotton fields.
Snopes blows up the ridiculousness of the email. I also find it interesting that now wingnuts are interested in “cultural sensitivity”.
Although we strongly support the important reforms made by the Senate-passed health reform package, including a strong public option would improve both its substance and the public’s perception of it,” Bennet wrote to Reid in a letter cosigned by Sens. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), and Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio).
“The Senate has an obligation to reform our unworkable health insurance market — both to reduce costs and to give consumers more choices,” the senators added. “A strong public option is the best way to deliver on both of these goals, and we urge its consideration under reconciliation rules.”
So while I’m busy laughing at the absurdity of John Boehner (the public televised debate we’ve agitated for is a trap!), Sherrod Brown is out there working to get a better bill. Thanks for looking out for your constituents, Senator.
I’m pretty sure Democrats will continue to take the wrong message away from losing Kennedy’s seat and turn a papercut into a sucking chest wound. Sorry Conan O’Brien – I’m a cynic.
Normally when I post these, I like to shine a light on stuff so far out of the mainstream that calling it “indie” would be a stretch (in fact, one artist I like has a song called “Indier than Thou” with a lyric that goes “if I were on an indie label, you could call me mainstream.”)
But not these next two. These next two are giant hits that, I am ashamed to admit, I crank up and bounce my head to in the car. I’m not even sure why I’m admitting this, except maybe I’m looking for absolution. Father forgive me, it has been far too long since my last confession.
First up: Ke$ha. Yes, with a “$” in her name. I’m not proud.
I know this is not really local, and not really national either, but I think it’s important to understand the nuances of local/regional elections, and how they effect national politics, and even what they “mean” to other local/regional elections.
While many are describing the election to fill the late Edward M. Kennedy’s Senate seat as a referendum on national health-care reform, the Republican candidate rode to victory on a message more nuanced than flat-out resistance to universal health coverage: Massachusetts residents, he said, already had insurance and should not have to pay for it elsewhere.
Scott Brown, the Republican state senator who won a stunning upset in Tuesday’s election, voted for the state’s health-care legislation, which was signed by then-Gov. Mitt Romney (R) and has covered all but 3 percent of Massachusetts residents. That legislation became the basic model for national health-care legislation. Brown has not disavowed his support for the state’s law, which retains majority backing in Massachusetts.
Instead, he argued on the campaign trail that Massachusetts had taken care of its own uninsured, and it would not be in the state’s interest to contribute to an effort to cover the uninsured nationwide.
“We have insurance here in Massachusetts,” he said in a campaign debate. “I’m not going to be subsidizing for the next three, five years, pick a number, subsidizing what other states have failed to do.”
This reinforces what I said yesterday: that Brown loses if a better, stronger bill was already in place. Bayh’s spinelessness gave a lot of Mass voters a reason to vote: the federal bill would cost them money, but provide no additional apparent benefit, because – as is the case with virtually all federal legislation – “blue” states subsidize “red” states. 3% of Mass residents are uninsured. 25% of Texas residents are uninsured.
People like Bayh are drawing entirely the wrong message here by attempting to generalize a very specific election result into something it’s not. Health care reform is popular in Mass, and it’s popular nation-wide. Passing a strong reform bill would be popular, even amongst moderates. And, in the long term, better for voters, since a federal program will be more economically viable than state-level programs.
The implications of this is important to remember when it comes to election decisions. Elections have consequences. Which is why it’s especially important to take Voinovich’s seat in the Senate, as well as hold OH-1, OH-15, OH-16, and OH-18, as well as challenge Tiberi in OH-12. And then, actually installing a progressive agenda that would be popular with the people, rather than dithering around and getting nothing substantial done. The fact remains that Social Security is the largest and most popular social program enacted in the United States, and every time the GOP tries to dismantle it, people strongly oppose such action. EIGHTY percent of Americans support Social Security. So why are so many politicians petrified of strong, progressive legislation? Over 60% of Americans support a public option. STOP BEING SUCH SPINELESS ASSHOLES. Make the GOP take the unpopular action; you still have 58 votes, and the backing of the American people.
“There’s going to be a tendency on the part of our people to be in denial about all this,” Bayh told ABC News, but “if you lose Massachusetts and that’s not a wake-up call, there’s no hope of waking up.”
OK, maybe. But you have to properly read the sacrificial entrails to divine the appropriate response.
“It’s why moderates and independents even in a state as Democratic as Massachusetts just aren’t buying our message,” he said. “They just don’t believe the answers we are currently proposing are solving their problems. That’s something that has to be corrected.”
Well, he’s actually right about this. People are recognizing that what Democrats are doing are not solving their problems. Where Bayh goes wrong is direction.
“ The only we are able to govern successfully in this country is by liberals and progressives making common cause with independents and moderates,” Bayh said. “Whenever you have just the furthest left elements of the Dem party attempting to impose their will on the rest of the country — that’s not going to work too well.”
Wrong. Wrong wrong wrong. You want to know why Democrats lost this seat? Because people like Evan Bayh dragged out the process and watered down the bill. Yes, Coakley was a weak candidate, and Brown (relatively) strong. Yes, Brown campaigned strongly on voting down the healthcare bill. But if the bill had already passed and been signed into law, Brown’s got no hammer to swing with.
Allow me to explain.
Turnout was low in areas won by Coakley, and high in areas won by Brown. The margin of victory was just about 100,000 votes. This would seem to indicate what Bayh thinks it does – that people don’t want health care reform.
Except it doesn’t.
For starters, Massachusetts already has statewide “universal” health care. Signed into law by Mitt Romney, BTW. In addition, Mass voters slightly favored the federal proposal, and they are about split on whether or not their own plan has been a success or not. Most interestingly, the American people at large think the current version of the bill isn’t liberal enough: by about 2-1 Americans have favored the inclusion of a public option – something the Senate stripped from the bill.
As is usually the case, Republican Know-Nothings were strongly anti-reform, and strongly motivated. Democratic voters were not strongly motivated; by the candidate, by the personal stakes, and by the infuriating centrist nature of Senate Democrats, and it showed in the turnout.
Bayh has it wrong. He’s the problem, not the solution. Even Bayh’s own constituents want him to be less of a pansy and more liberal.
In a Research 2000 poll conducted last weekend, 52 percent of Indiana residents said they favored the government offering everyone a government administered health insurance plan like Medicare. Another 42 percent opposed the idea.
The Research 2000 poll, which had a margin of error of 4 points, showed that 62 percent of voters have a favorable opinion of Bayh, while only 30 percent have an unfavorable view of him.
Most would seemingly prefer he avoid a supporting a filibuster, however: Twenty-nine percent said they would be less likely to vote for Bayh in the general election in 2010 if he joined Republicans in a filibuster against the bill because of the public option. Eighteen percent said they would be more likely to vote for him, and 55 percent said it would have no effect.
Among Democrats, 54 percent said they would be less likely to support him in a primary, and 40 percent said it would have no effect. Six percent said they’d be more likely to vote for him.
Sack up, Bayh. You are the problem. You are the one blocking the reform both the American people and your constituents want. You are the reason people think Democrats are spineless and ineffectual. Stop being such a wuss, or GTFO.
Back in 2003, Fox News threatened to sue the makers of the Simpsons because of a fake FNC ticker “Do Democrats Cause Cancer?”. Flash-forward to 2010, and Rush Limbaugh says… “Voting Democrat Causes Cancer”.
Former McCain campaign manager Steve Schmidt said Palin’s debate preparations were going so poorly that campaign aides feared the closely-watched debate could prove to be a “debacle of historic and epic proportions.”
What was most troubling, according to Schmidt, was the fact Palin repeatedly confounded Biden’s name during the preparation process, referring to the then-Delaware senator as Sen. O’Biden. Aides were so worried that such a mishap in the actual debate would prove catastrophic that they advised her to simply refer to her opponent as “Joe.”
“It was multiple people – and I wasn’t one of them – who all said at the same time, ‘Just say, Can I call you Joe,’ which she did,” Schmidt tells Cooper.
Palin herself addresses that moment in her memoir released late last year, “Going Rogue.”
“We had no idea my mic would already be hot when I walked onstage, crossed over to his turf, and said, ‘Can I call you Joe?’ The ‘expert’ post-debate analysis was that my question was a cleverly devised strategy to disarm my opponent. Yeah, right.”
Apparently all Democrats are Irish (at least in Palin’s noggin). Kennedy, O’Bama, O’Biden… That’s worse than Dubya!
What is the real intention of this Kenyan, Indonesian communist usurper? Is it to provide security for us or to destroy our security? Judge for yourself.
Seeing targeted destruction of our economy, our security, dissipation of American jobs, massive corruption in the Government, Congress Department of Justice and Judiciary, it might be time to start rallies and protests using our second amendment right to bear arms and organise in militias.
It wasn’t even a month ago that Sarah Palin called the “birther” position legitimate. I wonder how she feels about this latest screed from Taitz?
Those of you with sharp eyes may notice a few (kinda) famous faces in the video. Like James Kyson Lee from Heroes and Samm Levine from Freaks and Geeks (and quite a few more folks). If you enjoyed that, I’ve put a few more hilarious videos from Garfunkel and Oates after the jump. [click to continue…]
On July 16, Betsy McCaughey, the former lieutenant governor of New York and a conservative health care commentator, suggested that the Democratic plan included a measure requiring seniors be told how to end their lives. “Congress would make it mandatory — absolutely require — that every five years people in Medicare have a required counseling session that will tell them how to end their life sooner,” she said on a radio show hosted by conservative Fred Thompson.
PolitiFact gave McCaughey a Pants on Fire rating for that statement. There were no mandatory sessions proposed. Instead, for the first time, Medicare would pay for doctors’ appointments for patients to discuss living wills, health care directives and other end-of-life issues. The appointments were optional, and the AARP supported the measure.
Nevertheless, Republican officials began amplifying McCaughey’s comments.
House Republican Leader John Boehner issued a statement July 23 that said, “This provision may start us down a treacherous path toward government-encouraged euthanasia if enacted into law.”
Rep. Virginia Foxx, R-N.C., said on the House floor July 28 that a Republican alternative for health reform was “pro-life because it will not put seniors in a position of being put to death by their government.”
Palin’s statement then launched the health care debate into overdrive. The term was mentioned in news reports approximately 6,000 times in August and September, according to the Nexis database. By October, it was still being mentioned 150 to 300 times a week.
…
On Aug. 10, PolitiFact rated Palin’s statement Pants on Fire. In the weeks that followed, health care policy experts on both the right and the left said the euthanasia comparisons were inaccurate. Gail Wilensky, a health adviser to President George H.W. Bush, said the charge was untrue and upsetting.
“I think it is really unfortunate that this has been raised and received so much attention because there are serious issues to debate in health care reform,” she said at a forum on Sept. 3.
But some prominent Republicans didn’t reject the death panels claim.
Liars. Big surprise. Palin’s spin was every bit as ridiculous as the original claim.
“To me, while reading that section of the bill, it became so evident that there would be a panel of bureaucrats who would decide on levels of health care, decide on those who are worthy or not worthy of receiving some government-controlled coverage,” she said. “Since health care would have to be rationed if it were promised to everyone, it would therefore lead to harm for many individuals not able to receive the government care. That leads, of course, to death.”
“The term I used to describe the panel making these decisions should not be taken literally,” said Palin. The phrase is “a lot like when President Reagan used to refer to the Soviet Union as the ‘evil empire.’ He got his point across. He got people thinking and researching what he was talking about. It was quite effective. Same thing with the ‘death panels.’ I would characterize them like that again, in a heartbeat.”
I’m not really sure there’s any other way to interpret this bit of lunacy from Walker: Texas Ranger…
Lastly, as we near the eve of another Christmas, I wonder: What would have happened if Mother Mary had been covered by Obamacare? What if that young, poor and uninsured teenage woman had been provided the federal funds (via Obamacare) and facilities (via Planned Parenthood, etc.) to avoid the ridicule, ostracizing, persecution and possible stoning because of her out-of-wedlock pregnancy? Imagine all the great souls who could have been erased from history and the influence of mankind if their parents had been as progressive as Washington’s wise men and women! Will Obamacare morph into Herodcare for the unborn?
For those of you who have forgotten – or perhaps are just unfamiliar with – the Gospel of Matthew, Herod allegedly murdered every infant under the age of two in and around Bethlehem in an attempt to eliminate the newborn King of the Jews. Jesus escaped his intended fate by being whisked away to Egypt by Joseph after being warned by God. While historians do not consider this to have actually happened, Norris’ intent will be clear to his intended audience. And that’s blowing right by the absurd idea that Mary – who had been informed by God that He had put that fetus there and that it was the flippin’ Son of God – would elect to terminate the pregnancy.
What is ultimately ironic about this is that studies have shown that the legality of abortion has no impact on it’s rate; only on it’s safety. In other words, when abortions are illegal, women just get dangerous “back-alley” abortions instead. Additionally, 46% of abortions resulted from sex without contraceptives, and 54% from people who used contraceptives, but mostly (nearly 90% of them) incorrectly. We could reduce the incidence of abortion by approximately 95% just by educating people on the proper use of contraceptives.
Just to repeat – make abortion illegal, and the result is no reduction in abortion, but a transference to dangerous “back alley” abortions. Educate people on contraceptives, reduce the incidence of abortion by 95%. If your goal is reducing abortion, the choice here should be pretty clear.
Perhaps the cruelest stroke of all is the fact that the “pro-life” side is opposing health care reform because of this issue, while uninsured kids suffer from a three-fold increase in mortality rate from trauma compared to insured kids. This is, quite literally, a case of “life begins at conception and ends at birth”. Except that the overwhelming majority of uninsured fetuses will still not get pre-natal care; after all, 78% of all pregnancies are not aborted.
