Happy Hour Roundup: NRCC Defends Calling For Pelosi To Be Put “In Her Place”
* The National Republican Congressional Committee is unapologetic for its claim today that taxpayers should hope Stanley McChrystal puts Nancy Pelosi “in her place” in response to her criticism of the general. NRCC spokesman Ken Spain emails this defense:
“The Speaker of the House is taking on a highly decorated general who has outlined a strategy in Afghanistan that she once claimed to advocate. This is the same San Francisco liberal whose military foresight — or lack thereof — led her to oppose General Petraeus’ successful surge strategy. Up until it became politically inconvenient, Pelosi and her puppets were referring to Afghanistan as the ‘real central front’ in the war on terror, now their excuse is that there is just not enough political will to keep America safe. Nancy Pelosi might think she’s a general, but she’s playing out of her league and she knows it.”
* Eugene Robinson says McChrystal should “shut up and salute.”
* But liberals didn’t want to muzzle General Eric Shinseki during the Bush/Iraq years.
* Support for direct engagement with Iran is still running strong, though so is support for military action against Iran if it proves necessary to prevent the country from getting nukes.
* Sam Stein seems to be cornering the market on these: This time, it’s local Dems in North Dakota who are putting Senator Kent Conrad on the public option hot seat.
* In light of the in light of the White House’s new pushback against criticism of Obama’s “czars,” this video of previous attacks on the czars is really a hoot.
* Joe Sestak wants you to meet the real Arlen Specter.
* A milestone of sorts: Talking Points Memo installs a full-time reporter in the White House.
* Alan Grayson clarifies: Republicans don’t want you to die quickly, they just don’t care if you die quickly.
* Speaking of which, it looks like Republicans are dropping plans to introduce a resolution condemning Grayson.
* Which prompts this from Chris Bowers:
It is almost unprecedented for Republicans to back down from their demands for an apology from a Democrat. And yet, that is exactly what happened here.
What did I miss? Links! Links! Links!
This blog’s homepage is here. RSS feed here. Twitter feed here. Email me here.
Greg, Whoa! Eugene Robinson says the GENERALS should shut up and salute Obama!
Otherwise, hey, how are you? Great job.
Did you just fix that or did I read that wrong?
““The Speaker of the House is taking on a highly decorated general who has outlined a strategy in Afghanistan that she once claimed to advocate.”
Look, you whitebread fuckwits, this is the Speaker of the House. She is 3d in line to the Presidency and you know that.
The GOP has no shame at all, and precious little maturity.
heh, Kathleen, thanks. when I first saw that I hit the ceiling.
It’s all good, fast catch. Also, through the magic of LINKING, I went to that TNR page. And the distinction a commenter makes re: Shinseki v. McChrystal, is that Shinseki was answering a question posed in a Congressional hearing, whereas McChrystal is speaking truth to power to 1) Possibly Bob Woodward, 2) 60 Minutes and 3) Eggheads in London (when he said Biden’s plan would lead to “Chaos-istan.”)
Also, I’ve seen that pic of him talking to Obama on AF1, and I wonder, why is he in camo?
Tena, I know, I was surprised when Greg said (and I love him) something like Pelosi took a hard shot at McChrystal, or words to that effect. And I thought, well, damn, it’s just the truth straight up.
And for God’s sakes, McChrystals’s not outlining a strategy, he’s outlining new tactics to execute the strategy. Big, fat surge-y tactics.
Well, I am out of here for the night. If any of you find my monocle, please hold on to it, for me. What is that that I hear you say: But Liam, you don’t wear a monocle. Really! are you sure? I though I did because of the way I keep clinching one eyebrow. Perhaps you are right, so never mind.
” But liberals didn’t want to muzzle General Eric Shinseki during the Bush/Iraq years.”
Yo, Gregt – do I really have to explain the difference here? I can start at the beginning – but I can also cut to the chase:
Obama is not Bush.
Until Obama stands up in front of god and Congress and everyone else and tells one lie after another to lie us into a war, I don’t want to hear these damn comparisons any more.
Until Obama proves that he is half as incompetent as Bush – these remarks are completely irrelevant.
Dammit
Kathleen – what I object to the most is the GOP disrespecting our Speaker like that. They also disrespect our President and it’s getting really old.
The best presentation of polling data that I’ve seen ..
The intensity of polling on this topic and the dispersion in the results is obvious.
http://www.pollster.com/polls/us/healthplan.php
The only place for that senile mess is an old folks home. Sorry, assisted living facility. Just keep her away from our tax dollars.
Kathleen – and let’s face it – “Put her in her place” was a very belittling way to talk about the first woman Speaker of the House.
I don’t get offended by stupid sexism often, but that offends the HELL out of me.
I really love these resolutions supporting the PO coming out of Nebraska and N. Dakota. I know the Dem party in Montana has been pushing Baucus as well. We’ll see if it gets them to move to the left a little.
Pelosi deserves as much ex officio respect as Delay and Gingrinch got.
Pelosi gets no more – or less – respect based on gender than anyone else. Not a factor, remember? We judge on the basis of performance.
On an individual performance basis, I’d give her credit for political in-fighting and arm-twisting skills equal to Delay – i.e. pretty good.
Tena, you are right at the sexism, and without using the exact same language, it’s what they imply every time they challenge Obama’s authority as Commander-in-Chief.
“Not a factor, remember? We judge on the basis of performance.”
Tell that to the GOP who publicly stated they want to see McChrystal “put her in her place.”
Spare me the gender-neutral sermon.
Freehold
Did they do the same comparison polling when the Puplic Option is inserted into the questioning?
“it’s what they imply every time they challenge Obama’s authority as Commander-in-Chief.”
Word, Kathleen.
Imsinca – “I really love these resolutions supporting the PO coming out of Nebraska and N. Dakota.”
Doesn’t it seem like that is the direction we’ve been going in? I think PO will become “inevitable” at this rate.
Tena, Gallup didn’t include PO and STILL got:
51% for
41% against
8% not sure
And Rassmussen’s polling shows a 5% increase in favorability from the previous poll (9/24-25/09) to the current one (10/2-3/09).
Oh yeah Freehold. We’re really scared now.
Ethan – It sure feels like the tide of history is carrying PO into shore – Americans want it.
We get this done – I’m going to let out this breath I’ve been holding since last August.
Did they do the same comparison polling when the Public Option is inserted into the questioning?
Don’t know. Didn’t look further.
Oh yeah Freehold. We’re really scared now.
Its just data. I wasn’t trying to scare you – really.
I thought this was a much better way to present the data – pick your topic – than the usual “this week’s results”, with the resultant back-and-forth arguments from both sides.
http://washingtonindependent.com/62415/media-pushes-rift-between-mcchrystal-and-obama
Far from breaking with Obama, McChrystal, in his talk to the IISS, defended the Obama strategy review repeatedly. “People are re-looking what our goals and objectives are and redefining and clarifying those, and I think that’s helpful,” the general said. His only remark that addressed a question up for debate in the strategy review was a contention that “a strategy that does not leave Afghanistan in a stable position is probably a short-sighted strategy,” something the Times reported as a shot at Biden. (Despite reports that McChrystal called Biden’s plan “Chaos-istan,” the full context for what McChrystal said was “A paper has been written that recommends that we use a plan called ‘Chaosistan,’ and that we let Afghanistan become a Somalia-like haven of chaos that we simply manage from outside,” an option he indeed rejected.) But for the better part of half an hour, McChrystal dodged questions on a prospective troop increase, and portrayed the strategy debate, rather than the troop request, the more urgent consideration, saying, “I don’t think we have the luxury of going so fast [on debating strategy that] we make the wrong decision,” a remark that, if anything, inverted an argument made by Obama’s domestic critics.
Nor were those remarks unique. In mid-September, after he completed his assessment of war strategy to the Pentagon in late August, McChrystal spoke to reporters at the Dutch Defense Ministry, where he likened his role to a “mechanic,” who tells the owner of a car “what the situation is and what it will cost to make the vehicle run correctly.” McChrystal also spoke recently at a Dutch security think tank, known as the Clingendael — also at its invitation — where he gave what Sholtis described as essentially the same speech he provided to the IISS.
Officials throughout the Obama administration, military and civilian, deny any rift and contend that the controversy over McChrystal’s remarks is a media-driven event with little substance.
Holy Cow! There’s a poll among countries on which country is the most admired. The last time the poll was done, the US came in 7th; Bush was president.
We just became Number 1 most admired country in the world. We elected Obama.
One of the first reasons I got interested in an Obama presidency was just this effect – I knew it would make a difference. And in the long run, it makes a hell of a difference when one is trying to negotiate anything at all or if one does business with the rest of the world.
And no I don’t have a link – I just heard it out of Chris Matthews’ mouth.
lmsinca:
2. I consider the public option to be a viable way of forcing the insurance industry to actually compete, thereby lowering the costs.
This will only happen if government can undercut the price of private insurance. It will only be able to do so by subsidizing the true cost of insurance with tax dollars. This is not lowering cost. It is shifting cost, from the insured to the taxpayer. If the government does not cost shift through subsidies, it will not be able to undercut private insurers, and hence will not “lower” costs.
3. They charge what they think they can get away with and will continue to do so.
Of course they do. That is what all sellers of all services and commodities do. Isn’t that what you do in your business?
4. If reform doesn’t work then we will probably end up with single payer someday.
Actually, if the currently proposed reforms “work” the way I suspect its current supporters want it to, we most definitely will end up with a single payer system.
5. Universal coverage mandates with a competetive bargaining pool, including the PO will lower costs.
No it will not. It will shift costs, to healthy people who would otherwise not buy insurance. And it will increase costs as previously uninsured people who would otherwise be economical about what health care they sought proceed to act like everyone else and access all health care all the time, because they have already “paid” for it through their “insurance”. I don’t know why you insist on believing in this utopia which is counter to all economic knowledge and experience.
7. Then let’s get rid of employer provided insurance.
The only reason it exists is because of the tax advantage, which you inexplicably want to maintain.
1. I would like to see the actual cost of insurance go down.
I’ve saved this for last, as it is the most important thing, and probably deserves the most discussion. What do you mean by insurance? Do you mean it in the traditional sense, as in financial protection against an unpredictable catastrophic health event? Or do you mean it in the modern day sense of paying a third party a premium every year and having them use that premium to pay out your annual, ordinary, and highly predictable health care costs?
This is a very important distinction, and will greatly affect any approach to lowering the cost of insurance. If you mean the former, then the way to lower costs is to increase the number of people in the risk pool with similar risk factors, and also to find cheaper treatments for the catastrophic event in the event that it occurs.
If you mean the latter, then the last thing you want to do is increase the pool of people “covered”, because the coverage merely provides incentives to people to spend more each year than they paid in. The “insurance” is worth the cost only if one gets more health care value than the cost of the premium each year. And if everyone charges more than they paid in premiums, then necessarily the following year premiums must increase in order to cover the shortfall. And so on the next year. And the next. And you end up with spiraling “insurance” costs.
So, really, you have to decide what you mean by “insurance”, before you can decide on an approach to lowering the cost.
sgwhite – “But for the better part of half an hour, McChrystal dodged questions on a prospective troop increase, and portrayed the strategy debate, rather than the troop request, the more urgent consideration, saying, “I don’t think we have the luxury of going so fast [on debating strategy that] we make the wrong decision,” a remark that, if anything, inverted an argument made by Obama’s domestic critics.”
Nice!!
“Of course they do. That is what all sellers of all services and commodities do. Isn’t that what you do in your business?”
Which is why there either has to be regulation of how much they can charge or real competition from a public option.
This is the whole reason why regulation is required in a capitalist economy – just what YOU said.
LOL!!!
And in the long run, it makes a hell of a difference when one is trying to negotiate anything at all or if one does business with the rest of the world.
Could be. One can hope it will have that effect. I’d guess that it will make very little or no difference in the real world. Permanent interests and all that.
But one might suggest a few tests – things that were difficult to negotiate before are now accomplished.
North Korea gives up nukes? Iran gives up nukes? NATO provides more troops and equipment to AgPak campaign? Russia and China stop blocking Iran resolutions? Israel/Arab peace deal? Next round of trade talks is successful? China/India agree to cut CO2 emissions?
Do you have some other objective results in mind we should be watching for?
Let’s try this, Freehold: “U.S. conveys “deep outrage” to Guinea over killings”
How much authority did Bush actually have when he tried to be “outraged” at some other country’s human rights abuses?
It makes a difference. I didn’t say it was a ******* magic wand.
God you do have a smartass style.
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/28784
They wrote it on Jan. 17th. 2001, and it all came to pass.
Bush: ‘Our Long National Nightmare Of Peace And Prosperity Is Finally Over’
January 17, 2001
WASHINGTON, DC–Mere days from assuming the presidency and closing the door on eight years of Bill Clinton, president-elect George W. Bush assured the nation in a televised address Tuesday that “our long national nightmare of peace and prosperity is finally over.”
President-elect Bush vows that “together, we can put the triumphs of the recent past behind us.”
“My fellow Americans,” Bush said, “at long last, we have reached the end of the dark period in American history that will come to be known as the Clinton Era, eight long years characterized by unprecedented economic expansion, a sharp decrease in crime, and sustained peace overseas. The time has come to put all of that behind us.”
Bush swore to do “everything in [his] power” to undo the damage wrought by Clinton’s two terms in office, including selling off the national parks to developers, going into massive debt to develop expensive and impractical weapons technologies, and passing sweeping budget cuts that drive the mentally ill out of hospitals and onto the street.
During the 40-minute speech, Bush also promised to bring an end to the severe war drought that plagued the nation under Clinton, assuring citizens that the U.S. will engage in at least one Gulf War-level armed conflict in the next four years.
“You better believe we’re going to mix it up with somebody at some point during my administration,” said Bush, who plans a 250 percent boost in military spending. “Unlike my predecessor, I am fully committed to putting soldiers in battle situations. Otherwise, what is the point of even having a military?”
On the economic side, Bush vowed to bring back economic stagnation by implementing substantial tax cuts, which would lead to a recession, which would necessitate a tax hike, which would lead to a drop in consumer spending, which would lead to layoffs, which would deepen the recession even further.
Wall Street responded strongly to the Bush speech, with the Dow Jones industrial fluctuating wildly before closing at an 18-month low. The NASDAQ composite index, rattled by a gloomy outlook for tech stocks in 2001, also fell sharply, losing 4.4 percent of its total value between 3 p.m. and the closing bell.
Asked for comment about the cooling technology sector, Bush said: “That’s hardly my area of expertise.”
Turning to the subject of the environment, Bush said he will do whatever it takes to undo the tremendous damage not done by the Clinton Administration to the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. He assured citizens that he will follow through on his campaign promise to open the 1.5 million acre refuge’s coastal plain to oil drilling. As a sign of his commitment to bringing about a change in the environment, he pointed to his choice of Gale Norton for Secretary of the Interior. Norton, Bush noted, has “extensive experience” fighting environmental causes, working as a lobbyist for lead-paint manufacturers and as an attorney for loggers and miners, in addition to suing the EPA to overturn clean-air standards.
Bush had equally high praise for Attorney General nominee John Ashcroft, whom he praised as “a tireless champion in the battle to protect a woman’s right to give birth.”
“Soon, with John Ashcroft’s help, we will move out of the Dark Ages and into a more enlightened time when a woman will be free to think long and hard before trying to fight her way past throngs of protesters blocking her entrance to an abortion clinic,” Bush said. “We as a nation can look forward to lots and lots of babies.”
Continued Bush: “John Ashcroft will be invaluable in healing the terrible wedge President Clinton drove between church and state.”
The speech was met with overwhelming approval from Republican leaders.
“Finally, the horrific misrule of the Democrats has been brought to a close,” House Majority Leader Dennis Hastert (R-IL) told reporters. “Under Bush, we can all look forward to military aggression, deregulation of dangerous, greedy industries, and the defunding of vital domestic social-service programs upon which millions depend. Mercifully, we can now say goodbye to the awful nightmare that was Clinton’s America.”
“For years, I tirelessly preached the message that Clinton must be stopped,” conservative talk-radio host Rush Limbaugh said. “And yet, in 1996, the American public failed to heed my urgent warnings, re-electing Clinton despite the fact that the nation was prosperous and at peace under his regime. But now, thank God, that’s all done with. Once again, we will enjoy mounting debt, jingoism, nuclear paranoia, mass deficit, and a massive military build-up.”
An overwhelming 49.9 percent of Americans responded enthusiastically to the Bush speech.
“After eight years of relatively sane fiscal policy under the Democrats, we have reached a point where, just a few weeks ago, President Clinton said that the national debt could be paid off by as early as 2012,” Rahway, NJ, machinist and father of three Bud Crandall said. “That’s not the kind of world I want my children to grow up in.”
“You have no idea what it’s like to be black and enfranchised,” said Marlon Hastings, one of thousands of Miami-Dade County residents whose votes were not counted in the 2000 presidential election. “George W. Bush understands the pain of enfranchisement, and ever since Election Day, he has fought tirelessly to make sure it never happens to my people again.”
Bush concluded his speech on a note of healing and redemption.
“We as a people must stand united, banding together to tear this nation in two,” Bush said. “Much work lies ahead of us: The gap between the rich and the poor may be wide, be there’s much more widening left to do. We must squander our nation’s hard-won budget surplus on tax breaks for the wealthiest 15 percent. And, on the foreign front, we must find an enemy and defeat it.”
“The insanity is over,” Bush said. “After a long, dark night of peace and stability, the sun is finally rising again over America. We look forward to a bright new dawn not seen since the glory days of my dad.”
SG, thanks for the context on Chaosistan and for cutting through the mustard on the media. They complain that Obama’s still in campaign mode, but they’re the ones unable to shake campaign swine flue.
A further 19 advertisers have now left Beck’s show. That’s now a total of 80. It’s a very interesting dynamic. Rupert is the sort of bully who does not want to be seen as backing down anytime to anyone (others must back down to him). http://thinkprogress.org/2009/10/06/19-beck/
freehold said:
“Pelosi deserves as much ex officio respect as Delay and Gingrinch got.
Pelosi gets no more – or less – respect based on gender than anyone else. Not a factor, remember? We judge on the basis of performance.”
True on first sentence. But as others have noted, the “in her place” has a sexist component, particularly acute in the contrast of a woman and a military general. Gender neutrality is the desired end, of course, but this isn’t an instance of it.
Yglesias on healthcare in Denmark… http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2009/10/health-care-in-denmark.php
Man, you all see Shepard Smith go after Barasso on the public option?
At first he had a look of shock as he wasn’t ready for the onslaught Shep unleashed on him.
mike from A
It was a thing of beauty. I keep wondering if any Beck or Hannity fans tune in for Shep.
sg
Thanks for all the McChrystal research, it really helped clarify some of the media coverage for me. As usual they and the Repubs create controversy out of thin air. I’m anxiously waiting to hear Obama’s end game and strategy to get us there.
@mike – Impressive, wasn’t it? That guy represents the singular bit of integrity in a overwhelmingly sordid operation.
Sort of a reverse fire-hose-the-protesters thing… http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/06/business/global/06milk.html?_r=4
The Shinseki parallel is asinine. Shinseki was providing his assessment of what it would take to accomplish the Bush administration’s publicly stated strategy. His statements were given in the context of SASC hearings r.e. authorizing the war in Iraq. The mission was defined by the civilian authorities and he was testifying what would make it successful. But to be totally clear, the Bush administration set the over-arching mission of invading Iraq before Shinseki ever opened his mouth.
In contrast, McChrystal is holding private briefings and scheduling media appearances. The statements were given in the context of publicizing his desire to dictate what the underlying global military strategy will be. He is not giving his assessment of what it will take to accomplish the defined mission, he is lobbying to apply political pressure in what should be a purely military and strategic decision based on the goals defined by the administration.
Shinseki provided a professional assessment, McChrystal ignored the chain of command and skirted right to the line of insubordination – and IMO, he crossed it by in the disgraceful choice to wear his combat boots instead of dress greens when called to meet with his Commander in Chief far outside the combat theater (coming from a speech for which he formally dressed). The a-hole thinks he’s John Wayne Rambo – he is a danger to the troops he leads.
“Reporting from Washington – Five constitutional experts testified at a Senate hearing Tuesday that President Obama’s extensive use of policy “czars” is legal — as long as the officials do not overstep their authority.”
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-czars7-2009oct07,0,3535667.story?track=rss
So much for Feingold’s hearing. Susan Collins declare the matter is still open and she will hold hearings in her committees on this, [rollseyes] – but at least she’s a Republican.
Bernie:
Impressive, wasn’t it?
Not really. Smith makes the same ridiculous claim that Obama makes, and that people here on this board make, and that is that a public option will be self funded. Such a claim is outrageously false. The single reason why the government, rather than a private non-profit, needs to manage the so-called public option is so that it can be supported and guaranteed by public funds. Smith should know that, and if he doesn’t, he is a fool.
That guy represents the singular bit of integrity in a overwhelmingly sordid operation.
How could an organization of institutionalized propaganda for the right allow him to appear nightly? Could it be, perhaps, that claims of it being an organization of institutionalized propaganda are a tad overwrought?
Tena:
Which is why there either has to be regulation of how much they can charge or real competition from a public option.
Are you saying that lmsinca’s businesss needs to be either regulated or subject to competition from a government run business? All because she wants to charge as much as she can?
Scott C
1. I consider insurance to be protection against future health events, but not necessarily catastrophic, for example cancer or open heart surgery. I had a broken foot a couple of years ago and had to have some delicate surgery. Our insurance helped us defray some of those costs. We have a fairly high deductible and pay quite a bit out of pocket for Doctor visits, RX, etc. You’d have to ask others what they mean by insurance.
2. You focus only on subsidies as a means of lowering costs, you want to ignore the fact that a public option will have lower overhead and will not be motivated by 350% profit over 10 years. It is the competition against the greed of the insurance industry that will lower the cost of insurance. Perhaps if the monopoly is broken other private or non-profit insurers will come in as well.
3. Actually no, we are motivated by a highly competetive market, customer service and satisfaction, a profit margin that remains steady year after year while still offering the best prices to our customers. We are a small company competing against very large ones and the only way we can compete is with very low overhead, no waste in time or money, customer satisfaction, flexibility and keeping current with technology and innovation. We have had the same model for 30 years and still thrive.
4. The only way to avoid single payer or postpone it a bit longer at this point is to pass reform that really reforms the insurance industry, lowers health care costs and makes the majority of Americans happy with the changes. If it doesn’t work we will be headed to single payer much sooner, which as you know is fine by me if that’s the way it works out.
5. I’m actually not a fan of the mandate, but it seems to be the way to get closer to universal coverage. The only way this makes any sense to me is with the competition of the public option, Wyden’s Free Choice ammendment, the ability to negotiate for both drugs and services, and subsidies for people who cannot afford the premiums. I don’t like the Baucus bill and if it’s not improved substantially I think we’re probably going to end up worse off with the insurance industry reaping all the rewards. I’m actually a bit more practical than you give me credit for, not a big believer in Utopia.
7. I believe we will be gradually weaning ourselves away from employer provided health insurance over the years as we enact more and more change to health care delivery and coverage. The writing’s on the wall.
Re #2: Should read “motivated by a 350% increase in profit over the past 10 years”
An aside, yesterday I read an article regarding a group of business owners and manufactures descending on DC to promote the energy bills going through Congress. They seem to know we are headed, by necessity, down the path of harsher emission controls and caps and want to see the end game sooner rather than later. One of them remarked something to the effect of give us the information and we’ll deal with it. They seem willing to adjust their businesses to meet the new standards but want to know ASAP what will be required so they can get started.
I see no such willingness to adapt from the insurance industry, they have exhausted their business model and are facing a new century with feet dug in the past. It’s time to move them along or out.
@Scott C:
(1) A fundamentalist religious believer, whether Baptist or Muslim or Judaic, holds that scripture is inerrant and therefore there can be no set of facts available or possible which might cast doubt on the claims in those scriptures.
Your notions regarding governance hold as a central premise that government has no proper role in delivering medical insurance. There are no sets of facts available or possible that might alter your stance here. It simply cannot be the case, for you, that such a system might work or that it might be a social good.
(2) Your argument above (a single FOX employee sometimes breaks the network ideological/propagandist mode therefore one cannot properly consider it an ideological/propagandist operation) is a bit like arguing that because Squeaky Fromme spent twenty minutes arguing that her compatriots in the Manson family ought not to do murder therefore we ought to consider the group as something like an odd and colorful group of Rotarians.
Did I mention previously that I don’t like Michael Gerson?
His column this morning is quite interesting. He points to the demographic dilemma for his party if it continues to derogate Hispanics (eg Tancredo) in the immigration debate. The “scramble for votes”, he wisely advises, will inevitably direct politicians (and society) towards inclusion of growing minorities. He says as well that the notion, inherent in Catholic and evangelical theology, of man made in the image of God, must lead to a similar sort of inclusion of those who seem different.
Hard to argue with either of those opinions. But of course what the more thoughtful (ie liberal) theological traditions in Catholicism and American evangelism hold don’t necessarily reflect the real history of the behaviors and notions of either religious tradition. Gay people, for example. Michelle Bachmann and Sarah Palin for example. Bill Donahue and the Catholic League, for example.
Gersonn notes that Catholics and evangelicals have been fundamental to the modern conservative movement’s rise. True enough. But it has been the extremist and exclusionary wings of those two groups which he’s actually talking about. They’ve been cultivated for electoral gain (as we increasingly see now happening with the right attempting to build an extremist Jewish base). Again, Gerson says, “The scramble for votes, in the long run, requires inclusion.” Man in the image of God doesn’t really apply until, apparently, enough of them can swing an election.
Yesterday, I noted that Rove had sent money to the Rubio campaign (against Crist). I linked Tomasky’s piece on this which held that this was motivated by the typical Bush/modern Republican habit of mercilessly removing moderates and non-loyalists. Damned possible. But there might also be a nod from Rove here (the ‘news’ of this donation came from Chuck Todd who doesn’t tell us who told him about it) to the future (a la Gerson’s piece) and the need to show some support for Hispanic candidates, which are as rare in this party as hen’s peckers.
Oh my god in heaven. John McCormack at the Weekly Standard heads up a long quotation with…
“Sarah Palin issued a statement on Afghanistan:”
Tomorrow or the next day…
“Jim DeMint issues a statement on macro-economic dynamics in 17th century Burma.”
These guys no longer even pretend to have the slightest intellectual honesty.
As the days go by, I am starting to believe in Nancy Pelosi. The fact that she is liberal, old and gorgeous has to drive Con Artists nuts.
The best they have is a half-baked Palin, where we get a woman who doesn’t just have the inside track, she IS the inside track.
At least I’m not greeted every day by stupidity when Ms. Pelosi speaks.
Explanation: Yes, I’d lick it.
All day and every day.
Bernie:
Your notions regarding governance hold as a central premise that government has no proper role in delivering medical insurance.
Incorrect. The central premises of my notions of proper governance having nothing at all to do with medical insurance. The central premise of my philosophy of governance is that government exists primarily to protect the freedom of its citizens, and by freedom I mean the absence of force or fraud initiated against them. It is decidedly not a central premise of my philosophy of governance that the government exists fix any and all problems that human beings face.
It simply cannot be the case, for you, that such a system might work or that it might be a social good.
What do you mean by “work”? If by “work” you mean that such a system will be able to provide a benefit to some people at the expense of others, yes, it will “work”.
And what do you mean by a “social good”? Goods, as far as I can tell, accrue to actual individuals, not abstractions.
BTW, assuming you are opposed to black slavery, is there any set of facts possible that could convince you that black slavery “works” or that it could be a “social good”? If not, do you also consider yourself akin to a fundamentalist religious believer? If not, why not?
Your argument above (a single FOX employee sometimes breaks the network ideological/propagandist mode therefore one cannot properly consider it an ideological/propagandist operation)…
That is not my argument. First of all, being ideological is not the same as being propagandistic, despite your above attempt to conflate the two.
Second, there are in fact many, many FOX employees that do not conform to your propagandistic characerization of FOX as a propaganda organ. You have acknowledged two of thiem here…Shephard Smith and Bernard Goldberg. There are others. Is Brett Baier a propagandist for the right? How about Brit Hume? Neil Cavuto? Alan Colmes? O’Reilly? In fact your argument seems to be little more than that Beck and Hannity are propagandists, therefore the whole thing is. Or worse, your more general argument seems to be that anyone who dares to express disagreement with The World According to Bernie is a propagandist.
Bernie:
These guys no longer even pretend to have the slightest intellectual honesty.
In what way is McCormack being intellectually dishonest?
It isn’t about sexism it is about ineptitude. Why do we have to respect to respect Pelosi. Respecting the President is one thing, He was chosen in a national election,.we sll got to vote for or against him. Pelosi was chosen by her constituency in CA.and advanced to Speaker of the House via politics.Opposing her ahs nothing to do with sexism. It has to do with her attitude.Yea, we are either racists or sexists, and you who argue that are full of cow dung.Find something tangible to defend her with. There are plenty of female national figures I respect. Pelosi is past her prime confused and bumbling.
A few typos in my post. Oh well focus on that rather than context.Just beating you to the punch.I understand some of the minds out there.
The central premises of my notions of proper governance having nothing at all to do with medical insurance. The central premise of my philosophy of governance is that government exists primarily to protect the freedom of its citizens, and by freedom I mean the absence of force or fraud initiated against them. It is decidedly not a central premise of my philosophy of governance that the government exists fix any and all problems that human beings face.
The usual utopian libertarian ****.
It’s only a high-minded disguise of the actual philosophy:
I’VE GOT MINE. Y’ALL CAN ROT IN HELL.
@Scott C:
“Your notions regarding governance hold as a central premise that government has no proper role in delivering medical insurance.
Incorrect. The central premises of my notions of proper governance having nothing at all to do with medical insurance”
OK. Take the wording as “as a consequence of your central premise on governance”. In either case, there is no set of data or facts (eg efficiencies and medical outcomes in countries which have such a system) which will permit you to hold any other conclusion than that government-run medical insurance is improper.
” BTW, assuming you are opposed to black slavery, is there any set of facts possible that could convince you that black slavery “works” or that it could be a “social good”? If not, do you also consider yourself akin to a fundamentalist religious believer? If not, why not?”
Sure. Those ‘facts’ would have to show that blacks were better off, in their own estimation and through more objective criteria and that society too was benefited from the arrangement. Those ‘facts’, of course, won’t be forthcoming because of the nature of slavery and the nature of human psychology. But those would have to be the criteria met.
Re propaganda and FOX… I won’t bother doing this with you.
“In what way is McCormack being intellectually dishonest?”
Very simply, because Sarah Palin certainly did not compose the passage he quotes and that is because she has neither the curiosity nor the capacity to consider and formulate knowledgeable or even slightly noteworthy opinions on the situation. Do you turn to Sarah Palin for education on middle eastern and military and foreign policy matters? If not, why not?
Bernie:
Those “facts”, of course, won’t be forthcoming…
I see. So, in other words, if the nature of reality was something other than what it actually is, then you would support slavery as a “social good” (whatever that is…I see you won’t define it) and something that works. Very well. The same thinking, then, applies to my consideration of government run health care. So I guess I am no longer a religious fundamentalist.
I won’t bother doing this with you.
As you wish. And I can understand your reticence. It would be difficult to defend your position without declaring at least a majority of the major personalities at FOX to be propagandists, something you are unlikely to do (and something you are probably not even in a position to do.)
…because Sarah Palin certainly did not compose the passage he quotes…
Do you honestly believe that Obama, or any poltician for that matter, composes every statement that is released on their behalf?
…and that is because she has neither the curiosity nor the capacity to consider and formulate…
I see. So anyone who disagrees with Bernie’s Estimation Of Sarah Palin’s (complete lack of) Intelligence is necessarily being dishonest?
Do you turn to Sarah Palin for education on middle eastern and foreign policy matters?
No. I don’t turn to you, either, but that doesn’t mean that I must think that anyone who suggested you had an opinion on such matters must be dishonest.
If not, why not?
For the same reason I wouldn’t turn to most politicians on such matters (including Obama, at least prior to him becoming President)…because I have no reason to think she (or they) have any particularly special information or insight into the matter.