Here’s another example of LGBT activists’ calcified partisanship and zombie “progressivism.” Via last week’s Washington Blade:
Two Democratic members of Congress—one gay and one bisexual—are incurring the wrath of LGBT activists for voting with House Republicans to delay certain portions of Obamacare in exchange for keeping the government in operation.
Reps. Sean Patrick Maloney (D-N.Y.) and Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.) were among nine Democrats on Monday who voted for a Republican-led resolution that provided funds for the government for fiscal year 2014, but included a provision delaying the individual mandate and requiring members of Congress and their staffs to pay the full cost of insurance without the government subsidy. …
Both Maloney and Sinema also joined Republicans on Sunday to vote for repeal of the tax on medical devices as part of Obamacare. …
Michael Rogers, a D.C.-based LGBT rights advocate, said the vote means Sinema and Maloney are Democrats in name only. … Michaelangelo Signorile, a gay New York activist and radio host on SiriusXM, took to Twitter to express his indignation.
Oh, the horror. Not marching in iron-booted lockstep with the party of PROGRESS. Shamelessly violating the precepts of Democratric centralism. Shun them NOW.
More. The Blade subsequently reports this week that furloughed gay federal employees “all blamed Congress—and Tea Party Republicans in particular—for the partial government shutdown,” and that:
“Their style of government is not geared toward compromise,” [a furloughed employee] said, referring to [GOP] efforts to defund the Affordable Care Act known as Obamacare that took effect on Tuesday. “They’re basically holding the federal workers and contractors hostage.”
Let’s think about this. The House Republicans for over a week have retrenched from their demand to defund Obamacare and instead staked their position on a one-year delay in the individual mandate, matching the delay granted businesses, and no special exemption (to allow employer-provided pretax subsidies for exchange-based plans) for congressmembers and staff. Also on the table is a bipartisan-supported end to the counter-productive tax on medical devices. In response, President Obama has said he will not negotiate until the Republicans pass his spending resolution with no changes (rendering “negotiation” rather beside the point). As Charles Krauthammer notes:
For all the hyped indignation over GOP “anarchism,” there has been remarkable media reticence about the president’s intransigence. He has refused to negotiate anything unless the Republicans fully fund the government and raise the debt ceiling—unconditionally.
Just who is refusing to compromise here? And when moderate Democrats want to pursue that compromise, they get attacked as DINOs by the same folks who claim the Republicans are the no-compromise party.
Do the progressives ever bother to think through their bald-faced contradictions?
Furthermore. Lots of gratuitous insults aimed at yours truly by loyal Democrats earning their Media Matters points, without tackling the actual arguments made above.
Still more. Via instapundit:
MoveOn.Org petition demands GOP arrests for ‘conspiracy against US.’
They are making plain how they think, and what they’d do if they had the power to do it. Take this seriously, because they do.
62 Comments for “Don’t They Understand Democratic Centralism?”
posted by Houndentenor on
Republicans do this all the time. GOP officeholders are under constant threat of a primary challenger from the right in the next election. What’s the difference? Personally I’d think the same as what Rodgers said about any Democrat who voted to shut down the government, gay or not? Do you want Democrats to give gays a pass? That seems rather odd.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Republicans do this all the time. GOP officeholders are under constant threat of a primary challenger from the right in the next election. What’s the difference?
Progressives are the undead. That’s the difference. I’m astounded you didn’t know that. Haven’t you been keeping up with StephenWorld?
posted by Houndentenor on
LOL. It’s like Groundhog Day.
Doing my part to forge a gay mainstream. *snork*
posted by Mike in Houston on
Stephen sounds more and more like the unhinged in the GOP that can’t quite grasp that the country has moved on – despite of or perhaps accelerated by their reactionary views (even if he tries to cloak them in glibertarian randianisms).
posted by Tom Scharbach on
LOL. It’s like Groundhog Day.
It is.
But you have to admire Stephen’s tenacity. A weak after Rand Paul, the Libertarian Prince of Principle, is taped discussing poll-tested messaging on “compromise” (that is, ripping the financial guts out of the ACA by eliminating the individual mandate after having failed to defund the ACA), Stephen is in there swinging, deriding the Democrats for being unwilling to “compromise” and ripping up “progressive zombies” for criticizing the few conservative Democrats who are buying into it, no doubt for poll-tested reasons of their own.
Meanwhile, back at the Values Voters Summit, Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, Marco Rubio and … Oh well, we don’t mention that. It would be impolite.
posted by Houndentenor on
Obviously Stephen, GayPatriot, et al. will denounce all presidential candidates in 2016 who attended the gay-bashing VVS, right?
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Yup. Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden …
posted by Jim Michaud on
You’re right about that, Houndentenor. I had to check the masthead again because I thought I stumbled into GayPatriot by mistake.
posted by clayton on
ACA was proposed in the executive branch, passed by the legislative, and approved by the judicial. The continuedcRepublican opposition has never seemed anything to me other than strident and childish. Admittedly, I’d like to become effective ASAP because I don’t live in a marriage equality state, my employer won’t let me carry my husband on my health plan, and ACA will make our lives easier. Perhaps this is why so many gay activists “march in lockstep” with the Democratic party ; theyvsee that ACA helps provide some of the protections to gay families that are otherwise unavailable in red states. Health care is an unacknowledged gay rights issue, but iff if we had full marriage equality, it would be less of one.
posted by Houndentenor on
In addition, Democrats and Republicans had a deal on the continuing resolution which included many spending cuts that Cantor and company had asked for. The House and Senate bills are pretty much identical except that at the last minute, at the insistence of the Tea Party fringe inside the GOP, the House added a provision to defund the ACA. A vote for the House bill was a vote to shut down the government and an act of bad faith after an agreement was already in place. So yes, I’m pissed that any Democrats in the House voted for that bill.
posted by Tim on
All of this is beside the point. Federal and state government involvement in the healthcare insurance market IS the problem and has been for the past 50 years. Wait and see how much more expensive it all gets once it’s “free”.
posted by Jimmy on
OK, we’ll wait and see.
posted by Houndentenor on
In what way is it going to be “free”? Do you even know anything about the ACA? I’m still paying for my insurance just like before only how I can buy on an exchange and get something closer to the price I’d pay if any of my employers provided insurance. #facepalm
posted by Tim on
Just for the record, I don’t have the time of day for the Democrat or Republican statists.
The healthcare market is so distorted by government that at this point that no one knows what it should cost. Its the same with the education market, and for similar reasons. If the price signals of a market are distorted, there will be major misallocation of resources and malinvestment. As it gets worse, government will not blame its previous actions as the cause of course, but instead, will try further “fixes” that will make matters even worse. It will lead, eventually, to an single-payor system where it will then be “free” yeah! No thanks. The old soviet system was one giant “free” “single-payor” system, those governments had all the resources at their command and we know how that turned out.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
The old soviet system was one giant “free” “single-payor” system, those governments had all the resources at their command and we know how that turned out.
The Soviet Union never dies in the minds of conservatives.
Nobody is proposing adopting the Soviet system.
The proposals for a single payer system in our country are almost certain to be variants of the systems in place in European and Commonwealth nations, or more likely, a variant of our Medicare system.
Nobody is proposing a “free” system, either.
Americans will pay for the system through taxes, as is the case in other Western nations with single-payer systems.
posted by Houndentenor on
I think it’s odd that you can’t imagine anything in between what we had a year ago for a health care “system” and the Soviet Union. Is your thinking really that black and white. Every country has a different system. There are plenty of models to look at. Anti-reformers always reference the UK because that’s probably the worst of the european health care systems. I have some (limited) experience with the German system and even as an outsider paying the full price it was cheaper and better care (a doctor’s visit for an ear infection) that I’ve ever received in the US where it seems to be about rushing you through as quickly as possible and billing you for the most things. I just now (I think) finally settled on an x-ray I had 18 months ago. I paid. My insurance paid part but didn’t pay the rest. I then got a bill from a collection agency for the rest which was mailed a week before they were even going to send me a bill for what I owed. (When I called the doctor’s office they hadn’t even mailed me a statement but I had already received a collection notice???) And last week someone in Tennessee (no idea how they are connected and had to call to find out what the fuck it was) sent me $20. I think I’m finally done with that. It’s ridiculous. But that’s our “system”. It stinks. I fully agree that it’s a mess and because of how we are billed we have no idea what we are really paying for or what it ought to cost. If you have reform ideas in that regard let me know. In the meantime ACA is the best bill we could get passed. It’s not ideal by any means. Feel free to propose reforms. But it’s insane to think that health care is going to work the same way as most businesses. If my tv goes out I just won’t watch tv until I can afford a new one. If my kidneys go out that’s quite another matter. I’m not going to die because I can’t afford the latest phone or computer. Health care really does involve life and death decisions and I ought not be at the mercy of a corporate employee who can save money by denying me needed care. It’s not the same as most business transactions and shouldn’t be treated the same.
posted by Tim on
You could say the same thing about the food market. Its essential like healthcare. Should we have Foodcare and Foodcaid or an single-payor food market too?
posted by Tom Schafbach on
You could say the same thing about the food market. Its essential like healthcare.
The two markets are quite distinct. Medical costs are often unexpected and catastrophic, with the need for major medical services unevenly distributed though the population. Medical costs are not fungible or sensitive to market cost adjustments. And so on. The two markets are not a close analogy.
posted by Tim on
Most medical needs are, in fact, routine and predictable. And the costs are sensitive to market adjustments, substitution, etc. if they were allowed to operate properly.
Its government mandates, regulation and subsidies that are causing the cost explosion. People don’t know what the true cost of healthcare is because of how health insurance is structured.
posted by Tim on
Most medical needs are, in fact, routine and predictable. And the costs are sensitive to market adjustments, substitution, etc. if they were allowed to operate properly.
Its government mandates, regulation and subsidies that are causing the cost explosion. People don’t know what the true cost of healthcare is because of how health insurance is structured.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Most medical needs are, in fact, routine and predictable. And the costs are sensitive to market adjustments, substitution, etc. if they were allowed to operate properly.
The operative words in your observation are “most medical needs”.
Routine care cost is not the issue for the bulk of the population; a few hundred dollars a month per person in doctor’s visits and drugs can be budgeted and paid by most people, although, of course, routine medical costs increase with age and for a segment of the younger population, even routine care is out of reach.
Major medical costs are what differentiate the health care market from other markets. Major medical costs are not distributed evenly among the population, and can be (and often are) catastrophic. A free market solution has to deal with major medical costs — the high cost and the uneven distribution — or it is a chimera.
Its government mandates, regulation and subsidies that are causing the cost explosion.
Controlling cost is one issue; insuring access to health care is another. The two are linked, certainly, and “government mandates, regulations, and subsidies” almost certainly operate to increase health care costs overall, if not in the particular. But “government mandates, regulations, and subsidies” are not the sole factor that is driving medical costs.
People don’t know what the true cost of healthcare is because of how health insurance is structured.
Granted. It is almost impossible to find out what a particular procedure (say the cataract surgery I will be having in a couple of weeks) costs. Dealing with health care providers on cost is like dealing with a used car salesman — identical procedures have wildly varying costs depending on whether the patient is uninsured, insured (and by which company) or on Medicare.
But I would point out that our supposedly free-market system of private, non-mandated insurance adds significantly to the cost of medical care for most people.
A lot of overhead exists in the private insurance system (both the overhead cost of providing the insurance and the providers’ overhead cost of dealing with multiple cost structures and contradictory paperwork because of the way the insurance system works).
In addition, medical and medical insurance costs include a hidden subsidy for the uninsured, paid for those who carry private insurance. The hidden subsidy increases cost and adds to the shell game.
The point is, though, that the health care market is neither “routine” nor “predictable”. That’s why the market is unlike the food market, and by glossing over the very complex issues involved in health care by looking only at the costs that are “routine” and “predictable”, you are missing the nub of the problem.
posted by Houndentenor on
“Most medical needs are, in fact, routine and predictable.”
They are? That has not been my experience. I have had the experience of calling various doctor’s offices to compare prices and not being able to get the information. I’ve also had a procedure done on me (fiber-optic scopting) and then been shocked upon leaving that I now owed over $600 for a five minute visit. I’ve never had anything like that happen at a grocery store. It’s not the same as shopping for groceries. I can comparison shop. In fact prices are displayed in ways that make that easy and convenient. No one does that with health care.
I agree that how we are billed and how things are priced is a mess. But I have yet to hear a proposal that actually addresses that. Also, those without insurance are billed between 4 and 10 times what an insurance company would pay for the same procedure or item. Really? Yes, it’s screwed up. I’d love to see realistic proposals for fixing it, but pretending that getting health care is like shopping for a toaster oven is absurd.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Federal and state government involvement in the healthcare insurance market IS the problem and has been for the past 50 years.
Well, Medicare did have one unintended consequence, an increase in the number of old, white Republican voters. US life expectancy was just under 74 in 1965, the year Medicare was enacted, and now it is just under 81.
Back in 1965, who would have guessed that Medicare would be largely responsible for keeping the prime Republican demographic alive and and most definitely kicking beyond their Biblical allotment of three score and ten? We can debate whether that is a “problem” or not.
posted by Houndentenor on
Yes, how ironic that in 1965 Republicans fought medicare which now keeps alive the demographic that is their only hope of winning elections.
posted by Jorge on
The Blade subsequently reports this week that furloughed gay federal employees “all blamed Congress—and Tea Party Republicans in particular—for the partial government shutdown,”…
…Let’s think about this. The House Republicans for over a week have retrenched from their demand to defund Obamacare and instead…
I had better not be the first person to say that. I think the federal employees were furloughed well before the House Republicans had a change in tune.
I am? Well, that’s excusable given how ridiculous the rest of his post is.
You break it, you buy it. I don’t care if the glue supplier is being a jackass about the price.
Republicans do this all the time. GOP officeholders are under constant threat of a primary challenger from the right in the next election. What’s the difference?
I read an op-ed or something some days ago blaming the moderate House Republicans like Pete King for the continued shutdown, on the grounds that there are enough of them to break ranks and join the Democrats in re-opening the government. I cannot argue with that.
posted by Houndentenor on
How do they break ranks and vote for a bill that isn’t up for a vote? I think enough would vote to end this if Boehner would let that happen.
posted by Jorge on
I think the idea is that they keep voting party-line on the House GOP’s fake little poison pill ideas.
Boehner is not likely to let it happen if there is no cost to him. The faster people break ranks, the faster the pressure increases. Is there good cause why the only rogues among the House Republicans are Ted Cruz and his ilk? Why does one set of dissenters command and control, while another stays silent? I am getting a little tired of seeing every single voice of moderation come from the Senate.
posted by Houndentenor on
I think the country was better off when both parties had a wider range of ideologies. Up even into the 80s there were liberal Republicans and conservative Democrats and things didn’t often become a party line vote. Now we call something “bi-partisan” if 2-3 members cast votes with the other party. There ought to be more ways to align on a bill than what letter comes after your name.
posted by Francis on
Queer Zombie Progressives unite! Let’s eat Stephen! Happy Halloween!
posted by Tom Jefferson III on
I have no desire — cannot speak for anyone else — to score points with Media Matters (or whatever the Fox News/Tea Party version happens to be)
Unless I am mistaken (I do not claim to be an expert) the federal government shutdown seems to have come about because a small faction within the GOP — i.e. Tea Party Inc.– really disliked the idea that the Federal government might have a role to play in helping its citizens afford decent health care.
Their are many ways to try and change the law and their was quite a bit of debate about it in Congress (prior to it passage) and among the supreme court justices. I am just not sure that shutting down the federal government is the proper way to go about doing it.
posted by Tom Jefferson III on
Also, when you start the conversation by asserting (with the use of ‘democratic centralism)– more or less — that “well, all liberals want to live in the Soviet Union and the Democratic Party is made up of all liberals”, you do not exactly suggest a willingess to be the adult
posted by Houndentenor on
The biggest joke in all of this is that what the liberal Democrats wanted was single-payer. But instead the centrist Democrats (including the president who in spite of claims by the far right isn’t really all that liberal, just ask a liberal what they think of his policies and actions as president if you don’t believe me) brushed off the old Heritage Foundation health care plan and passed that thinking that some Republicans would surely be in favor of what is essentially a conservative response to the old Clinton Plan. But they didn’t. And in order to argue against it they made ridiculous claims about a “government takeover of healthcare” and “death panels”. Even attempts to alter the bill to win the votes of supposedly moderate Republicans like Collins of Maine made no impact. The GOP was against any health care reform. David Frum’s reaction to all this was dead on. They could have negotiated for something they’d like better but instead they chose to just say no to everything that was going to come from Democrats. Lately they’ve voted in the house over 40 times to repeal the ACA. What a pathetic charade this has become.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
The biggest joke in all of this is that what the liberal Democrats wanted was single-payer.
Eventually, the country will come to its senses and go to single payer. The healthcare industry is singularly unsuited to free market economics. The ACA reminds me of Jack Kennedy’s quip about Washington — “Southern efficiency, Northern charm.” — combining as it does the inherent inefficiencies of a multiplayer private health insurance industry with the high overhead costs and endless paperwork associated with that industry. We’d be a lot better off with single payer, and some day we’ll get there, I hope.
posted by Houndentenor on
I have misgivings about a country this big going to a single payer system. Perhaps that would work well, but I have concerns that would need to be placated before I supported something like that.
posted by Kosh III on
I don’t think that matters unless the fact that it’s so big means there is a larger pool of tax money to support it.
Japan has a large population; don’t they have single-payer? Ditto UK, Germany, France.
posted by Rob Tisinai on
It always astonishes me that people forget Obamacare IS the compromise. Republicans aren’t merely demanding that Obama compromise — they want him to compromise on his compromise.
You lost in all three branches of government, Republicans. Obama won the legislative, judicial, and executive battles. Getting that first compromise was more than you deserved. Shutting down the government to compromise the compromise? That’s just craptastic.
posted by Scott on
Rob, nailed it!
posted by scott on
Not, that Stephen would except it!
posted by Houndentenor on
Oh, Stevie, cut the victim act. There are no points in your post. Gay people are not happy with the two openly gay/bi Congresspersons who voted for the Teaparty shut-down-the-government bill. Your arguments make no sense and would not be applied in the opposite situation. Try making a coherent argument that ‘s worth taking on point by point. It’s been awhile. You seem to be moving further and further to the right, which is the antithesis of your website’s banner. Also, I do not now nor have I ever had any affiliation with Media Matters. I can’t remember every even visiting their website, but I’m curious about points. Are those like frequent flyer miles? What do I get with such points, and how do I earn them?
posted by Jorge on
Their are many ways to try and change the law and their was quite a bit of debate about it in Congress (prior to it passage) and among the supreme court justices. I am just not sure that shutting down the federal government is the proper way to go about doing it.
To be honest I don’t have a big problem with the shutdown… for a couple of days. However as almost every pundit with a brain has observed, this will not work. There’s no exit plan. There is an astonishing lack of strategy here.
It always astonishes me that people forget Obamacare IS the compromise. Republicans aren’t merely demanding that Obama compromise — they want him to compromise on his compromise.
Just because Olympia Snowe got her voice her voice heard in committee and then voted against the final bill does not mean that something that passed cloture on a razor-thin party-line vote is a compromise.
posted by Houndentenor on
Yes, ACA is the compromise. Liberals wanted single-payer. Instead Democrats dusted off the Heritage Foundation’s plan that was produced as a response to the Hillary Clinton proposal. this is not some far left socialist agenda at work. It’s a conservative idea.
What became clear early on, as David Frum pointed out at the time, is that Republicans weren’t going to support any health care bill no matter what was in it. There was plenty of attempt to appeal to moderate Republicans. It was a huge waste of time if you ask me. And I think it’s why Democrats don’t have much interest in attempting to negotiate with Republicans now.
posted by Jorge on
Yes, ACA is the compromise. Liberals wanted single-payer. Instead Democrats dusted off the Heritage Foundation’s plan that was produced as a response to the Hillary Clinton proposal. this is not some far left socialist agenda at work. It’s a conservative idea.
As interesting as it is that the Affordable Care Act contains elements from the Heritage Foundation and Romneycare, you are changing the subject, that is not compromise.
According to Merriam-Webster.com, a compromise is a (1a): ” settlement of differences by arbitration or by consent reached by mutual concessions”, or (1b): ” something intermediate between or blending qualities of two different things”
…never mind. Obamneycare is a compromise under 1b. I was talking about 1a.
What became clear early on, as David Frum pointed out at the time, is that Republicans weren’t going to support any health care bill no matter what was in it.
Were you even in the same country at the time of the health care debate? Republican leaders and rank-and-file conceded very early on that health care reform was on the agenda and inevitable. The country was becoming even more increasingly aware of the problems in the health care system. But Republicans also wanted a more free-market type of health care reform (most notably the ability to buy insurance across state lines). It was Barack Obama and the Democratic party who decided to shape the bill to their liking passed on what could pass at all rather than based on what could pass on a bipartisan basis. And even then they needed to bribe Ben Nelson and a few other skeptics.
Your statement makes no sense. Health care reform is not an ideological or political issue to the Republican party as it is to the Democratic party. It is primarily an economic issue. That is a kind of split that should have been possible to bridge in the days before the Tea Party made economics political. There are far more divisive issues in this country which have received bipartisan congressional backing: Supreme Court nominations, immigration reform, gay rights laws.
That is why, however infantile the Tea Party branch of the Republican party is acting right now, the current mess is ultimately that of the President’s and the Democratic Party’s making. Hmm, and Mitt Romney’s and those “voluntary deports” to the Democratic ballot box, let’s be fair.
posted by Doug on
Ignorance is bliss, isn’t it. The ACA was modeled after the Heritage Foundation guidelines. The only reason the GOP objected to ACA is because they opposed Obama. The ACA was essentially their plan until Obama went with it. And just for the record, allowing insurance sales across state lines does virtually nothing to get health care to the 35+ million without it.
posted by Jorge on
Furthermore. Lots of gratuitous insults aimed at yours truly by loyal Democrats earning their Media Matters points, without tackling the actual arguments made above.
Stephen: Don’t They Understand Democratic Centralism?
Houndentenor: Republicans do this all the time. GOP officeholders are under constant threat of a primary challenger from the right in the next election. What’s the difference?
I don’t think you realize that your post got demolished in one hit.
What use is further discussion?
posted by Don on
I think it’s fairly easy to test theories of unreasonableness in negotiations and/or legislative processes. Imagine the inverse happening and test your reaction to it. President Obama says “I will veto every bill that you send me, including defense spending, until I get Medicaid for all. I will let all Bush tax cuts expire. I will do it all to save the American people from your tyranny” and then he promises enough senators what they want to make sure his veto remains unchallenged.
Suddenly, he’s not so terribly unreasonable. An honest person could say such an action was a sincerely held belief that was good for the country. And it really is no different than what we have here now.
After reading about Mr. Klayman’s comments at the war memorial over the weekend, I think there is not a compromise available with a large swath of the population. At least one that doesn’t involve the president’s resignation and banishment to a desolate island in Africa. They are not a majority of the right by any means, but they are a significant bloc that has successfully tied this all up and are extremely vocal and motivated.
posted by Kosh III on
“GOP — i.e. Tea Party Inc.– really disliked the idea that the Federal government might have a role to play in helping its citizens afford decent health care.”
There is an additional underlying reason for SOME but they don’t say it out loud because…well…you know
The problem is that the White House has been usurped by some uppity colored boy/illegal alien/mooooslim.
I know for some of you in comfy liberal big city enclaves that’s hard to grasp. The War of Trason(1861-65) is still being fought in the minds of many.
The other week I was at a GOSPEL concert in middle-of-nowhere mountains of Kentucky. I overheard a conversation about the imminent “shutdown”(actualy a workstoppage/strike something the GOP alleges to hate when unions do it)
She said, and I mostly praphrase: that “damn nixxer” is making the shutdown happen so he can declare martial law and be a dictator.
This is what you get when you only listen to Faux News and believe everything the GOP says without question.
This is what you get when you buy into things said by Palin & CO to “Take back our country.”
Take back from whom? Last time I looked Palin wasn’t a Cherokee—they’re the only one’s who can legitimately claim to have had their country stolen. My ancestor was in NC in colonial times. I”m not going anywhere—it’s my country too!
Frakin’ lyin’ hypocrites!
P.S. I haven’t taken a politician at his word since 1964 when I heard LBJ say “I’m not gonna send our boys 10,000 miles overseas to fight somebody else’s war!”
posted by Jorge on
She said, and I mostly praphrase: that “damn nixxer” is making the shutdown happen so he can declare martial law and be a dictator.
This is what you get when you only listen to Faux News and believe everything the GOP says without question.
This is what you get when you don’t listen to Fox News and believe everything the left-wingers say without question.
posted by kosh iii on
Jorge, your reply makes no sense. What “left-wingers?”
Just to be clear, this was a TeaNut who said that, not me.
I have never EVER heard someone on the left claim that the FOP strike is engineered by the President so he can be dictator.
I have never heard that type of nonsense on the various news places I visit, local news, CBC, BBC, MSNBC, HuffPost, CNN, Times of London and a few others from time to time. I even occasionally listen to Faux News.
I think you didn’t have a reasonable response and just decided to toss out a lie and hope it sticks.
posted by Don on
I think Jorge means believing that it was ever said at all. that was what “the left wingers say . . . ”
It is a firm belief among some that liberals go dressed to tea party events with misspelled racist signs to shame conservatives and make headlines.
The belief seems unprovable either way. But given our current climate, proof is not really going to shift opinion in any direction. It tends not under less strident circumstances. (regardless of party affiliation) Liberals and conservatives both find studies that support their existing viewpoints very persuasive while those that challenge them are usually dismissed completely as fabricated.
What has been happening are more and more interest groups funding studies to convince the choir they are right. And arming them with “equal” studies to guarantee gridlock. Think oil companies funding environmental impact studies on the right and liberals loving studies that show genetically modified food will kill us all.
posted by Lori Heine on
This is definitely happening, Don. It is a form of mass insanity. And it happens, as you suggest, on both ends of the political spectrum.
I am frequently told — by true believers Right or Left — that I don’t really believe what I say I believe. Libertarians have this down-the-rabbit-hole-with-Alice kind of experience all the time. They’ve been told what I believe — by Those They Can Trust — and I have no say in the matter.
As the song says, “How bizarre, how bizarre.”
posted by Doug on
Nothing will really change until we figure out a way to get special interest money out of politics. My solution would be to allow contributions to a political candidate only if you, the contributor, can actually vote for that candidate. If you can’t vote for the candidate then you cannot contribute to that candidate. Anyone contributing on behalf of another entity or person would have their right to vote revoked for several election cycles.
posted by Jorge on
Jorge, your reply makes no sense. What “left-wingers?”
Perhaps I could be a little more clear.
This is what you get when you only listen to Faux News and believe everything the GOP says without question
Bull****.
posted by kosh iii on
“allow contributions to a political candidate only if you, the contributor, can actually vote for that candidate.”
Far too sensible solution to ever happen. Scalia & Co are probably going to allow even more secret money to be given.
And we really should stop calling it “contributions” it’s bribery. Vote this way and get $$$.
posted by Houndentenor on
The argument for campaign finance from the right used to be “unlimited but full disclosure”. Now that they have most of the limits removed they don’t want to disclose either. So what we have now is a system in which it’s legal to bribe public officials. It’s the death of democracy if we let this continue.
posted by E. Carpenter on
A majority in the House has been ready to pass a clean continuing resolution and a clean raise of the debt ceiling since BEFORE the shutdown. But the Republican leaders, unwilling to let the majority prevail, have not let the House vote on those two items.
Why should Democrats “negotiate” away what the majority of House members want? Why should anyone treat holding the government for ransom as a valid governing tool?
posted by Mike in Houston on
So… now that we’re past this Randian nonsense and Teabagger nihilism (at least for the next few months), the Cruz-led temper tantrum has cost tax-payers an estimated $24B and .6 percent of GDP growth, taking us from what would have been a slow 3% growth to 2%… and with additional uncertainty out there for December through February acting as a damper on consumers during the holidays.
http://www.businessinsider.com/sp-cuts-us-growth-view-2013-10
And as to the supposed lack of negotiation from Democrats and the President — we now know what a canard that meme was.
posted by Kosh iii on
So?? It doesn’t affect them. They still have their always open gym and haircuts, they still have an average annual income of $800,000; Cruz’s wife will probably get an Xmas bonus from Goldman Sachs that’s more than some of us make in a decade.
The two idiot Senators here in Tennessee will continue to plot to remove the uppity colored boy while jetting around on the taxpayer dime……
And this is just a delay on the efforts to wreck the country so the fascist teanuts and their corporate masters can pick up the wreckage and turn back the clock to 1928. Or is it 1860?
Cynical? Moi???
posted by Doug on
Mitch McConnell added $2.5 Billion worth of “pork” into the final bill last night which just proves that the GOP obsession with spending and debt is a myth and total fabrication.
posted by Don on
As my tea party buddy says: there only difference between the Democrats and the Republicans is what they’ll spend on.
posted by Tom Jefferson III on
I have mixed feelings about “campaign finance” reforms that I see get proposed. Yes, I can appreciate the problems of corruption and vote buying. Yes, I do not agree with what the high court has said recently on the subject. but, we don’t (or at least I don’t) want to make it special protection for incumbents or give additional special protection to the major parties.
posted by Tom Jefferson III on
Yes, I have certainly had similar social/water cooler situations where the topic of the federal shutdown came up, and some of the folk were not even trying to be subtle about the fact that their opposition to all-things Obama was racially motivated.
I cannot say whether or not this is a accurate representation of how most “Tea Party” folk believe. I only know what I hear in this type of informal conversations from Tea Party folk, and most of it does seem to circle around racist attitudes……
posted by Don on
I’ve read some interesting articles on Andrew Sullivan dealing with these issues. Although not all of the extreme right are white supremacists, there are quite a few running around. And although its obvious, the term “supremacy” explains much of the anger and criticism that is not fact based. Obama is by definition inferior to supremacists, regardless of their own personal achievements or lack thereof. And it goes to the heart of the usurper rhetoric. I think a lot of people jump on that bandwagon without being racist (I know quite a few personally). But it is clearly a dog whistle that is missed by nearly all moderates of both parties. They just don’t think that way.
The one that drives me the most nuts is painting him as a radical socialist/communist takeover artist. Liberals would love it if he were anything like that. That’s why they’re mad at him.
I’m just hopeful that McConnell is right and he won’t let this mule kick us again. Only time will tell. There was small part of me that kind of wanted to go over the cliff so that everyone could see what would really happen if we did. I can say from personal experience that sometimes I just have to be proven wrong spectacularly before it sinks in that I was wrong.
Legalized gay marriage would fall into that category as well. I’ve been waiting for the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse to crest over Martha’s Vineyard for a decade now. They haven’t been spotted yet.