Democrats & Liberals Archives

Joe Miller believes in freedom. Just ask the handcuffed reporter.

Freedom. Such a wonderful word. It represents such uplifting and inspiring aspects of the human experience.
Which, of course, is why some people make such lavish use of it. Namely politicians. I hardly think any politician, Democrat or Republican, would fail to use it. And as often happens, overuse robs words of grounding and meaning. So, the operative question is, if this is what Joel Miller would do to the press for asking him questions, what might people like him do in office?

Republicans don't like to be questioned nowadays, despite the just plain odd behavior of their candidates. They've so bought into a victimized perspective on themselves and the media that they think it's perfectly alright to act with hostility towards the press. Never mind the old adage, "Don't argue with people who buy their ink by the barrel." It seems like the GOP feels secure in doing things like threatening to take out a reporter.

You see the ones that get negative attention cancelling appearances. That includes darling of the Tea Partiers and erstwhile Aqua Buddha proselytizer Rand Paul

(Aqua Buddha? Yes, Aqua Buddha.) Or as some pronounce it, Akwa Buddha.

The question those on the right would ask is whether the press is being overly hostile with them. It's a question they've asked as markets crashed, as wars dragged on interminably under questionable management, as whole cities drowned, as today's fiscal nightmare took shape and few in the GOP or its conservative media really asked themselves whether their actions were the principle cause of it. There's an arrogance in today's Republican Party, one that's enabled them to be more obstructive than any minority party's been in American history, one that's allowed them to basically blast Americans with an endless tide of BS and scaremongering. They're encouraging Americans to react against the big government. In the meantime, they're ensuring the kind of inaction and failure to act that's helping to keep America miserable. Nice racket if you can get it.

But of course, you have to keep people distracted. They can't actually realize that you are no better than the people you're trying to unseat or replace. That would just be inconvenient.

Tony Hopfinger, the founder and editor of online news site the Alaska Dispatch, was handcuffed and detained by Joe Miller's private security detail at a town hall yesterday at a public school in Anchorage, after he repeatedly tried to question and videotape the Republican nominee for Senate.

So what was he trying to question him about? Probably this:

Republican Senate candidate Joe Miller used borough computers in Fairbanks for partisan political purposes in 2008 when he organized the failed effort to oust state GOP chairman Randy Ruedrich from his post, the borough mayor who supervised Miller said Wednesday.

Jim Whitaker, the mayor of the Fairbanks North Star Borough when Miller was the borough's part-time attorney, said Miller was disciplined in writing for violating the borough's ethics policy.

Whitaker said he decided to speak out publicly now after Miller vowed this week to not answer questions about his past. Miller told reporters he has been the victim of "lies and innuendos" after questions were raised about his work history with the borough.

"Statements that Mr. Miller made on Monday led me to believe he was not going to be forthcoming. And I felt that the statements he made were less than honest," Whitaker said in an interview Wednesday. "This entire event happened on my watch. I know what the truth is and I felt obligated to tell the truth."

More:

Whitaker said Miller was caught using multiple computers to try to oust Ruedrich as party chairman. He said he was under the impression that Miller was trying to get himself elected to the position. Whitaker said he wasn't sure why Miller was using different computers.

Whitaker said the borough employees whose computers Miller used didn't know he was doing so. He said one of them "informed the acting borough attorney that something was amiss with her computer." He said borough technicians investigated and found that the computers had been used to send information to the Republican Party.

The borough's ethics policy does not allow employees to engage in politics on government time and with government equipment. Whitaker said his understanding is that Miller was reprimanded by the borough attorney and was to be suspended without pay. "I do not know if the time off without pay was enforced," Whitaker said.

Miller acknowledged, in writing, improperly using the computers, Whitaker said. Whitaker said he's never seen Miller's personnel file but believes the admission is in it.

Have we seen such behavior before? Well, the situation with Lurita Doan is a good example, using the General Services Administration to help Republicans win election.

But it doesn't stop there. Ostensibly, the US Attorneys firing scandal was about those supposedly independent prosecutors being pressured to push cases that would benefit the GOP in various races.

It's also ultimately what the controversy surrounding Valerie Wilson came down to: somebody wanted to play politics with national security, keeping their boss's poll numbers up by attacking those who didn't play ball with broadcasting their version of the truth.

What we have here are people who are perfectly willing to break and misuse our government in order to get themselves elected, and who are willing to play rough with the press and with your lives in order to keep their offices once they have them.

The incident in the school with the reporter sadly represents this arrogance all too well. They don't want to be questioned. They don't want to be held accountable. They don't want you to know the full truth about their dealings. They don't want people to be free to debate them to challenge them. They just want you to resign yourself to having people like them govern, and they're willing to put people in literal shackles and the government you voted for to change the country in figurative ones in order to do it.

They can make stirring speeches about freedom and liberty, but if this is what they do, pushing false prosecutions, letting their security teams falsely imprison reporters critical of them, making threats against the media- all things which we have documented without much hyperbole, what do they really represent as a political force? When power only answers to itself, the only freedom that remains untrampled is that of your leaders.

No society can get by without government, but when government is not accountable, when a political party strives to put the means of accountability beyond your reach, that's when true tyranny develops. You might not always like what laws are passed in a Democracy, but at least the system gives you the chance to put your own input in, and to engineer the collapse of those who betray your interests. When you're not given that choice, whatever the politicians say, you don't have true freedom. You are a subject.

There should be, must be, behavior seen as beyond the pale.

Posted by Stephen Daugherty at October 18, 2010 12:16 PM
Comments
Comment #310584

Stephen, could I ask what this has to do with what AK voters are interested in? Like spending run amuck, high taxes, lost jobs, politicians who don’t represent their constituents, and so forth. Your post appears to be another attempt to change the topic and just attack conservatives.

Posted by: TomT at October 18, 2010 2:50 PM
Comment #310585

Is this the best you can do Stephen? How about posting on all the good you democrats have done like trying to put this country into bankruptcy.

Posted by: MAG at October 18, 2010 3:09 PM
Comment #310586

Hopefully Alaska voters want what most of us want, and one of those is the right to have press present at public functions in public buildings.

Democrats have not been trying to put this country into bankruptcy, we’ve been trying to keep us out of it. Perhaps we go about it differently than you would, but please don’t challenge our motives.

Posted by: Marysdude at October 18, 2010 3:21 PM
Comment #310588

TomT-
I’ve watched your people for the last decade do everything they accused the Democrats of wanting to do, like lose wars, crater the economy with their policies, run sky-high deficits, and even now, still act like we’re the ones who’ll destroy the country, given a chance.

The Republicans have tried virtually everything you speak of before. That you don’t realize this is damning for your argument. They’ve made these promises before, made them and broken them.

I think what every voter wants, or should want, are government policies that work, that add up, and that contribute to the greater good. Dress it up in dittohead language, and all you’ve got are a few people projecting their desires on the many.

MAG-
Pardon me, my party?

Did my party decide to permanently, or near permanently add new expenses, new revenue shortfall to the budget in the last decade? Did my party decide the priority was on fattening the bank accounts of the already plump fat cats, rather than keeping this country on the road to paying down its debt?

This is why the Republicans are so good at inflicting so much damage. They can always count on loyal conservatives to blame everything on Democrats, even as their policies continue to throw wrenches into the machinery.

It’s not an accident that our country has suffered so badly. This is what happens when people put the welfare of a political party ahead of actually governing well.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 18, 2010 3:55 PM
Comment #310597

Bush started it and BHO and company are continuing down the same path Stephen. It’s time to man up Stephen your party owns this debt now.
The thing is Stephen, When is the Democrats that are running for office going to speak on the issues instead of the sleeze campaigns they are running? Case point Conway bringing up what Paul did in college 20 or so years ago, O’Donnell and the witchcraft thing. How is it that the majority leader of the Senate dosen’t hold a commanding lead over a republican airhead? Now this Miller thing I haven’t hea5rd much about it to comment yet. I’ll wait to hear both sides before making any assumptions.

Posted by: MAG at October 18, 2010 7:01 PM
Comment #310604

MAG,
Actually, I agree with you about the sleeze campaigns. Many Democrats are resorting to personal attacks aimed at character, especially with the Tea Party candidates, such as Miller, Rand, and so on. It is ridiculous. If the Democrats cannot win on the issues against such weak candidates, they deserve to lose. I don’t care if Miller used the office computers to run a campaign. I don’t care if Rand Paul did something stupid a couple decades ago. I don’t care if O’Donnell dabbled in witchcraft.

I do care that these candidates want to privatize or completely do away with social security, and in general, pursue the strategies that caused the economic meltdown in the first place.

This doesn’t cut just one way, of course. There are plenty of personal attacks coming from the GOP, and a massive ad campaign funded by the Rove organization and Chamber which consists of flat out lies.

The Democrats and Obama have achieved a lot. Obama successfully passed a lot of legislation, the most since 1946. That is quite an achievement, and speaks to basic competence, regardless of whether one agrees with the bills. Obama and the Democrats saved the American car industry, tightened up regulation on the banks, and literally saved the economy from Depression.

It came at a great cost, an we are not- NOT- out of the woods yet.

As far as I am concerned, the personal stuff, those so-called character issues, that’s a distraction, and harmful to the agendas of both sides.

Posted by: phx8 at October 18, 2010 9:49 PM
Comment #310607

phx8, I agree, enough with the sleeze, get to the issues.

Posted by: MAG at October 18, 2010 10:09 PM
Comment #310610

http://www.ontheissues.org/Economic/Joe_Miller_Budget_+_Economy.htm
Joe Miller on Budget & Economy

Demand a Balanced Budget amendment. (Jul 2010)
Limit federal spending growth to per-capita inflation rate. (Jul 2010)

Posted by: Weary Willie at October 18, 2010 10:38 PM
Comment #310613

MAG-
Man up? What, does masculinity depend on me being oblivious to budget realities?

Obama could stop both wars tomorrow.

He could campaign for a repeal of the medicare drug benefit.

He could wish away the effects of the recession and the idling of so much of America’s productivity and work force.

He could just say “**** it” and let all the Bush tax cuts lapse, restoring three trillion dollars over his own plan and four billion dollars over the Republican’s plan. That includes the AMT fix.

He could tell the Treasury to refuse payment on America’s debts. It would be economic disaster, but he’d save hundred of billions of dollars a year in paying for past Republican experiments in huge DoD expenses with huge tax cuts.

So really, what is Obama really able to do, if he’s responsible about his budget cutting, and not merely making broad, vague on the details promises about how he’s going to reduce the deficit?

Men, as I was taught, take responsibility for things, try to do the right thing. I don’t see how admitting fault for a budget situation irresponsible Republicans created is manning up.

This is not a simple mess Bush got us into on any front. Any one of the crises he left for Obama would have defined a Presidency. I mean, two ongoing, unpopular wars, an economy hit worse by a recession than any since the Great Depression, and a positively huge deficit already gift-wrapped and dropped on his doorstep to start out with.

And he has to fix all of those, all at the same time. That and face a rising healthcare crisis, and an environmental disaster in the making, too. Well more than one.

So, you tell me, how does this work? Republicans seem willing nowadays to put policy fantasy ahead of policy reality, and the reality’s backlashed against their fantasy with devastating consequences.

Gergle-
It seems nowadays that Republicans can field genuinely awful candidates who say terrible things that once would have meant the end of a political career back when we had some sanity, with impunity. And lo and behold, when these idiots get into office they actually do what they promise, with disastrous results.

I’ve learned that today’s Republicans are actually willing to carry out the campaign promises that their predecessors once had the common sense not to attempt. So when you hear about these Tea Party candidates and their bizarre views, you should understand that they’re not kidding.

The main reason why we are having trouble winning on the issues, is that the issues are clouded up by people like this, who just lie and lie and lie, and have no remorse about it. I mean, just listen to Sharron Angle when you hear her talk about her views, or Rand Paul’s denial that the aqua buddha thing every happened. Look at Christine O’Donnell’s Resume.

And look at the Republicans, claiming that everything is the Democrat’s fault, making stuff up left and right about our policies.

If we don’t hold these people accountable for their lies, for their dishonesty about who they have been, what they have done, then it’s all pointless, this system of ours, pointless and corrupted.

I’m sick of these people dominating politics. Holding true things about what they have said and done against them is not unethical, and not a dodge of the issues.

Weary Willie-
Are you sure Joe Miller is telling you the truth? Why would he need to detain a reporter in handcuffs, simply for asking questions about his behavior?

If you’re always looking for the next reason to rationalize these people’s behavior, they’ll always be feeding you the next excuse.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 18, 2010 11:18 PM
Comment #310614

Stephen MAN up to the fact that your party OWNS the debt now. BHO needs to realize this to, his blaming days are over and he needs to start taking responsibility for it. He’s the one who wanted the job now it’s time for him and his buddies in congress to do something about it. He should have made the economy and jobs a priority instead of HC.

Posted by: MAG at October 18, 2010 11:28 PM
Comment #310615

Stephen From what I heard while watching Olberman, Miller was at a private affair and was detained for tresspassing. Miller did answer one question but walked away from the guy after. Of course this is going to be he said, he said BS and you liberals will make a big deal out of it and more sleeze campaigning.

Posted by: MAG at October 18, 2010 11:46 PM
Comment #310616

Stephen, you write an article about Joe Miller, without all the facts, and then begin to talk about all the same old liberal talking points and blaming Republicans and Bush. Truth is Joe Miller was required to have security at the building which was used for his question and answer meeting. The reporter attempted to cause a confrontation with Miller and after Miller left the building, the reporter had another confrontation with the security forces. After shoving one of them, he was arrested. That is what happened, but rather than deal with the issues, liberals would rather resort to personal attacks. This won’t change a thing on November 2nd.

Posted by: TomT at October 18, 2010 11:47 PM
Comment #310618

Stephen,

You said, “The main reason why we are having trouble winning on the issues, is that the issues are clouded up…”

I disagree, the main reason that you are not winning on the issues is that the Democratic candidates aren’t saying this:

“The Democrats and Obama have achieved a lot. Obama successfully passed a lot of legislation, the most since 1946. That is quite an achievement, and speaks to basic competence, regardless of whether one agrees with the bills. Obama and the Democrats saved the American car industry, tightened up regulation on the banks, and literally saved the economy from Depression.”

I’ve just finished watching the evening news which meant that I watched about 30 political commercials. The Republican ad campaigns were tightly integrated and on point. The Democratic commercials were all different both thematically and emotionally. The Republican ads are a choice between Pelosi and the Republican candidate. According to the NY Times yesterday, the message has been so effective that in some races the Democratic candidates are now running ads saying that they do not agree with Pelosi and will not vote for her for speaker if elected.

So the Democrats are not giving us a choice between keeping the current achievements of the past four years or going back to the policies of the Bush administration. Instead, they are either actively or silently running from the National Party and there is no cohesive message across all of the races.

Posted by: Rob at October 19, 2010 12:01 AM
Comment #310628

MAG-
Look, even if we decide to ditch all the additional spending the previous party put into place, it can’t be done all at once, and the debt, which is principally what drives up the budget deficit for the latter part of this new decade, can’t be wished away.

So man up or woman up, or whatever term you wish to apply, and accept that people on your side screwed up the fiscal situation. Until you guys realize that, you will never properly moderate your budgets.

Already, we can recount several instances where Democrat rewrote Republican policies, and got more out of them. We can also site several instances where republicans have pretended to lower deficits, but in fact did nothing to lessen spending. That includes not budgeting as if we were fixing the doc fix. That includes paying for parts of the two wars we fight off the budget, so nobody sees what a boondoggle the whole affair is, fiscally speaking.

Democrats bargained on behalf of the American taxpayer to lower the costs on the Drug Benefit and Medicare Advantage, and used that to offset the cost of reform. Do we get credit for this? No! The Republicans act as if we just added it all to the deficit. You know, like they did.

So quit telling me how awful we are. Quit telling me to admit to a crime my party didn’t commit.

As for the event, it was a public town hall at a public school. Apparently, Joe Miller gets to privatize any facility he campaigns at.

TomT-
When the real police got there, they ordered the man released. What does that tell you?

Oh, and by the way, have you checked to see whether the security company had the right under the law to actually do security?

This will change plenty. Reporters in handcuffs is pretty man-bites-dog, and it isn’t exactly the most non-chilling image one could offer.

It doesn’t get better when he starts praising the Berlin Wall as a neat little example of how to set up an impediment. Republicans, especially in the Tea Party, have been held accountable so little by their constituents, that their political tone-deafness has gotten dangerously severe.

Rob-
The first thing they’ve done to clutter things up has been to filibuster most of the Democrat’s house-passed legislation. How can you run on your record if you’re not allowed to have much of one?

The second thing is, everything they haven’t been able to stop, they’ve vilified regardless of results.

Third, they’ve coopted a message of change, but if you really examine it closely, their ideas are no different than before.

Now quite a few are running from the Party, but I’ll bet many of them weren’t exactly running towards the party in slow motion with arms outstretch and Tchaikovsky’s Romeo and Juliet playing. Many Democrats are running on it.

But conflict and overturning of the old order sells better, so the networks don’t pay attention.

Republicans should watch what they say about a lack of a cohesive message. Other than their rejection of Obama’s reforms and emergency measures, what are the Republicans’ really for?

Even if the Republicans win, I think there’s a great potential for buyers remorse, and this time, I’ll bet you it’s not the Democrats who prove the Republican’s worst enemies, but, once again, as in the last two elections before, they themselves.

You can tightly integrate your message all you want to, but your candidates can never outrun the fact that their party has nothing new to offer people, and that its stands on the issues represent some of the things that Americans are angriest at.

I mean, you have that guy in Ohio who’s a re-enactor who likes to go around in a Nazi SS uniform that literally Josef Mengele was once proud to wear. You have Raese singing the praises of inheriting one’s wealth, while suggesting that the Minimum wage should be abolished.

I mean, America may go home with the Republicans right now, as far as the House goes, but when they wake up in the morning, they may feel like sawing their arm off to get free. And really, don’t tell me Republicans won’t walk right into American’s anger, just like the Democrats have. If what Democrats have done is mediocre in American’s sight, I bet you what the Republicans come up with will go over like a non-Mythbusters lead balloon.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 19, 2010 1:48 AM
Comment #310631

Rob,
That’s a good point about thematic consistency. I’ve watched the liberal talking heads go on and on about O’Donnell. They are so amused at her amateurnish, the way she is so obviously not up for the job. By doing so, they lose a cohesive message, unless the message is that none of the candidates are not up for the job because they’re a bunch of yahoos. Now, that may be true. However, it is not a message that wins an election.

The GOP is very consistent in its message: the stimulus failed, health care reform is just a government takeover, there’s too much debt. The fact that the message itself is factually wrong is irrelevant; or at any rate, it is irrelevant as long as Democrats concentrate on the latest foibles of Buck or Paul or Miller or some other loose cannon, and ignore the bigger picture. The Democrats are effectively letting the GOP message become the narrative, become the frame.

Posted by: phx8 at October 19, 2010 2:19 AM
Comment #310638

Why both sides overlook the fact Joe Miller misused Private Business Property than I guess Alaska people are on their own in seeing that he could easily use Federal Government Property to take advantage of others. And though it may be easy to hide or misinform the general pubic about what really took place in that time frame, I wonder what why the Conservatives are not questioning Mr. Miller Ethics and Morals.

Could it they believe Joe did what he is accused of and not wanting to admit they are backing a flawed candidate over one who faithfully served them. Or can it be the fact that the crime or misconduct only shows Joe would be welcome in Washington and the Immer Circle of the Republican Party?

Yes, the Democrats may acy like this is just part of the political gane they play with the Republicans; however, I do hope more and more Independent American Voters exaime the facts that Joe had his private security arrest the reporter for asking him questions in a public place. And broke seceral other laws that even an ordinary citizen would believe one seeking a job with “We the People” to act.

No, ever since President Bush started holding “by invitation only events” it seems like the Conservative movement has worked hard to keep out the Media (Main Stream or Otherwise) from reporting on what is said and done by a private group of people. So, why you can blame the Demoncrats for the debt before checking out how President Bush and Mr. Snow sacked the American Economy in 2004/2005. Yell about how the Democratic Party has had their candidates do the same thing.

The first and only thing the rest of us Americans have a right to comment on is weither as a Nation we could accept Joe Miller in Washungton as a Leader or just one of many political followers that will put Party over We the People. Since I don’t believe we have the right to chose a States Elected Officials.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at October 19, 2010 5:41 AM
Comment #310645

Basic question here, folks: Will a man selling you supplies for the end of civilization have a conflict of interest in seeing America’s prospects improve?

If that man can’t sell you fear, he’s out of a job.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 19, 2010 8:53 AM
Comment #310646

Stephen, I have been saying for months Bush and company screwed up. They spent to much and grew government. What more do you want. Most republicans and independents realize this. Now BHO and friends have the reins and are not doing much better especially since BHO has spent more and borrowed more than any President from Washinton through Bush. So now it’s time for YOUR party to MAN up to the fact THEY own it now and quity with the blame game.
As far as Miller, that’s Alaska’s problem as is the rest of the candidates. I only wrote what I heard from the News reports. I worry more about what goes on in my own state then to worry about who the other 49 want to put into office.

Posted by: MAG at October 19, 2010 9:36 AM
Comment #310648

MAG

I would go along with you on ownership, but we were sold a lemon…have you never heard of ‘Lemon Laws’? The crash was happening during the campaign of ‘08, but did not actually happen until it was too late for President Obama to back out. Democrats may own our bad economy, but when we trade it in there’d better be compensation for all the obstructionism that has lead to it still hanging around. You also fail to mention that many things have turned and are turning around as we sit on our duffs and whine about it.

Posted by: Marysdude at October 19, 2010 11:26 AM
Comment #310649

Dude “BUYER BEWARE”

Posted by: MAG at October 19, 2010 11:27 AM
Comment #310652


Mag, both parties are responsible. The part you seem to be having problems with is that it was Republican policies that got us into this mess. The Republicans led and the Democrats supported.

The Democrat constituents are having a hard time wrapping their minds around the fact that many of their politicians are owned by the money. As a result, these politicians are unwilling to change the course of the country in any meaningful way.

An example, the other day, Obama said we need to stop the tax breaks and other government incentives that help corporations outsource jobs to other countries.

If I am not mistaken, Pelosi and the Democrats made that promise during the 2006 campaign, and again in 2008. It is just a BS promise aimed at the constituency and totally unfulfillable in a Congress that is paid to provide liberal economic policies for the corporations and Globalization.

IMO, a further reduction of the middle class is going to be harder to accomplish until the poor are dealt with. Perhaps the conservative baby boomers can give the Congress the support they need to finally accomplish those major goals of the conservative Reagan revolution.

When it comes to economics, conservatives are liberals.

Posted by: jlw at October 19, 2010 12:28 PM
Comment #310653

Although as a Child of the 70’s I would like nothing better than to blame President Bush, President Obama, Congress, and yes even Wall Street for the national debt and the economic problems. As an American Layman Citizen I can’t find any fault futher than Ignohance which would explain how Americas’ Democratic and Republican Civil, Political, and Religious Leaders over the last 10 years took a budget surplas and returmed us back to a Nation in debt.

Not because it can’t be done or that the explanation make an sense to even those educated in the different subjects that make up Americas’ GDP and Economic System works. In fact, personally I would love to see someone try and explain how money or product not made or resources not used leads to such numbers. Nevertheless, like Insurance which can be secured through certain types of Bonds and Notes to the Power held by a State and Federal Government is something you need to go to school to learn how it works.

And why not a Whiz Kid, can anyone tell us “Poor Unedcated Folks” what the National Debt today would be if the President and Congress in the 1990’s would have not done the work to fix it? Because why $12-15 trillion dollars seems like a lot of money, what would we be facing now if we didn’t work as a nation to tackle the debt of the 1980’s? So please stop telling each other that they are the problem for the debt. Especially given the fact if the Democratic and Republican Party of the 90’s can reduce the National debt when everbody thought it was impossible while still growing the national and global economy. Certainly, today’s American Voters are smarter than to believe if it was done once by our elected officials it cannot be done again.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at October 19, 2010 12:39 PM
Comment #310654

When you boil all of this stuff down it’s all about dishonesty and evasion — plain and simple.

So, let’s be totally honest here ourselves:
Joe Miller doesn’t want to be honest or face up to what he did, so he refuses to talk to reporters.
Rand Paul doesn’t want to be honest and face up to the fact that he kidnapped a woman in college and proceeded to terrorize her, so now he’s acting all pissed off and running away from another debate.
Christine O’Donnell doesn’t want to be honest and face up to all that crazy stuff she did when she was young, and own all those crazy things she said on television as a spokesperson for the religious right, so she’s been hiding out from the press, and is refusing to answer debate questions.

Every one of these candidates could easily have done with these topics — if they were only willing to simply be honest and forthright. And, because they aren’t, it really does say a great deal about each of them. Indeed, it screams that they lack character, and that they are dishonest, evasive people.
Which means none of them deserve to hold, and that voters should reject them for, the responsibilities of public office.

If on the other hand, Joe Miller and Rand Paul and Christine O’Donnell had simply come out and admitted that what they did was wrong, or outrageous, or stupid, or immature — and they were actually ashamed of those things from their pasts — they would have automatically put those incidences to rest, and killed all the buzz surrounding them. Sure, their opponents and the press could still continue to bring them up, but it would no longer have any bite, and harping on them would only make those people look petty.

Those here claiming that bringing up the past of these candidates for public office is “sleeze” obviously aren’t all that interested in the truth, or in judging the characters of these potential office holders. But whether they’re willing to acknowledge it or not, honesty and forthrightness are qualities that really do matter.

Posted by: Adrienne at October 19, 2010 12:54 PM
Comment #310655

MAG-
If you ask me, did Bush spend too much for the taxes he brought in, I’d say yes. I could also say, with equal validity, that he did not tax enough to cover his spending.

Our huge deficits now are a product of what has caused our huge deficits now: Bush deliberately spent beyond his means, with Medicare and the Wars, and then deliberately aggravated that prodigality by cutting taxes.

It’s partisan bias to see that the equation doesn’t have two sides to it, a spending side and a taxation side, and that the problem in dealing with a deficit is that the taxation side is outmatched by the spending side.

What’s more, what Bush did has ongoing consequences.

First, his Medicare drug benefit is going nowhere. Our only option there is to make it cheaper, which Obama actually did.

Medicare Advantage might have to be restructured, or withdrawn from the private sector. It’s essentially duplicating a government service at higher cost in the insurance industry. Obama already got savings there, too.

Second, the Wars and their effect on the Defense Budget are ongoing, and will remain so for the next year or two. Obama’s already doing his best to wrap these wars up responsibly. But that’s not happening overnight.

Third, The recession and its after-effects are going to be a drag on revenues for some time to come, until they are dealt with. If allowed to continue, that lowers revenues for some time to come, widening any gap between what we take in and what we spend.

Fourth, the tax cuts that the GOP loves, absent any other changes in the budget, will create almost exactly the same problem that they created with Bush’s new spending, given how tough it will be to actually eliminate the programs in question.

Or, put another way, nothing Republicans have a consensus on doing will make the budget picture any better. Their resistance to emergency measures to pump up the economy, in fact, has an effective making a large part of the deficit a chronic condition.

The tea partiers can say they’ll do something special and magic, but if they don’t touch all they’ve set aside as off-limits, they have no hope of offsetting even the deficit they’ll generate with their policies.

I reject your assertions, your claims, because the numbers simply don’t add up. Rather than improving the budget picture, Republican policies promise to make our current budget deficit a regular, chronic affair.

That is the source of my violent revulsion to what you say, not a lack of cohones on my part. I’m not going to sugarcoat, with you, such a massive failure to understand the way our fiscal policy is going with the Republican’s obstruction of reforms and emergency measures to help the economy.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 19, 2010 1:43 PM
Comment #310656

>IMO, a further reduction of the middle class is going to be harder to accomplish until the poor are dealt with. Perhaps the conservative baby boomers can give the Congress the support they need to finally accomplish those major goals of the conservative Reagan revolution.

I don’t know, jlw, but I’m pretty sure conservatives know exactly what they want to do with the poor. Conservatives have always known that. Their real problem is that they don’t think there are enough poor as it is, and have set out to increase the numbers by dropping the bottom half of the middle class into that pool. Genocide is more effective in high numbers.

Posted by: Marysdude at October 19, 2010 1:48 PM
Comment #310657

Christine O’Donnell Questions Separation Of Church & State

From the link:

“Where in the Constitution is the separation of church and state?” O’Donnell asked him.

When Coons responded that the First Amendment bars Congress from making laws respecting the establishment of religion, O’Donnell asked: “You’re telling me that’s in the First Amendment?”

No wonder O’Donnell’s been hiding from the press! Much like Sarah Palin, whenever this woman does open her mouth it only goes to prove she isn’t qualified to hold public office.

Posted by: Adrienne at October 19, 2010 2:09 PM
Comment #310660

In reversal, Miller admits ethics violation

Should have simply been honest in the first place — but Miller obviously doesn’t have that kind of character.

Miller, Paul, O’Donnell — are running for the SENATE. Americans used to hold Senators to much higher standards and qualifications.

Perhaps this is now a thing of the past?

Posted by: Adrienne at October 19, 2010 3:07 PM
Comment #310662

jlw, I have been saying for a long time BOTH PARTIES have gotten us into this mess. It seems to me that liberals on this blog cannot accept the fact that their party is just as guilty as the other as far as being fiscally irresponsible.

Posted by: MAG at October 19, 2010 3:17 PM
Comment #310663

Mr. Daugherty wrote; “Republicans should watch what they say about a lack of a cohesive message. Other than their rejection of Obama’s reforms and emergency measures, what are the Republicans’ really for?”

Mr. Daugherty has been singing this same song for as long as I have been on WB and he never seems to get hoarse or learn a new tune.

His comment states that Republicans object to obama’s reforms and emergency measures and then asks what they are for. God Lord man…you stated the answer yourself. And it would seem, that a majority of November voters agree.

American’s who work for a living and have a vested interest in reducing the size and scope of government will make their wishes clear in just a few weeks. The OPR (obama, pelosi, reid) pushed much of their agenda into law against the wishes of the majority of Americans. You disagree, I know. But, the proof is in how many dem candidates are running away from what OPR accomplished and towards conservative values.

A good analogy, and one that Mr. Daugherty and others can perhaps understand is to liken the condition of our national debt and expenditures to that of a home burning down. OPR and the liber/socialists rush in builders to add an addition to the burning home. Conservatives call the fire department to put out the fire first, and then rebuild.

Our nation is burning up in the cost of expanded government and absoutely out-of-control deficit spending.

Posted by: Royal Flush at October 19, 2010 3:45 PM
Comment #310665

Stephen,

A fire cannot be put out without the proper retardant. TARP and the Stimulus was the retardant. Some would have merely thrown more gas on it and hoped for the best.

Posted by: Marysdude at October 19, 2010 4:09 PM
Comment #310669

Dude, spot on.

MAG:

It seems to me that liberals on this blog cannot accept the fact that their party is just as guilty as the other as far as being fiscally irresponsible.

Perhaps this is because it would be too much like blaming the Janitor while he’s trying to clean up the enormous mess left by a group of Spoiled Drunken Frat Boys.

FDR also once had to spend a lot too in order to clean up the mess that was the Great Depression.

Posted by: Adrienne at October 19, 2010 4:26 PM
Comment #310670

“Some would have merely thrown more gas on it and hoped for the best.”
Posted by: Marysdude at October 19, 2010

Hey Dude…we finally agree on something. Yes…that is exactly what the liber/socialists propose doing. The stimulus isn’t working well so we need ever bigger ones with no end in sight. The big three entitlement programs, all deep in red ink and consuming ever more of our national budget, don’t work so let’s establish another one in health care. Never mind that over $500 billion ($500,000 million) was taken from Medicare to force the numbers to balance. Continue to enlarge the number and amount of the federal payrole with ever increasing paychecks and benfit packages while the private sector suffers ever more job losses and reductions in pay.

“The ranks of Southern Democrats could be significantly thinner next year, with the makeup of rural lawmakers particularly different. The only incumbents with easy paths to re-election appear to be Democrats from majority black districts, like Representative James E. Clyburn of South Carolina and 15 others.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/19/us/politics/19south.html?pagewanted=2&nl=us&emc=politicsemailema1

Would anyone care to comment on the safe “black districts” mentioned above? Could it possibly have anything to do with racism?

Posted by: Royal Flush at October 19, 2010 4:34 PM
Comment #310673

MAG:

man up Stephen
Stephen MAN up

Royal Flush:

liber/socialists

Do you really think that using the over-the-top nasty approach is a good way to make people in the blue column take whatever it is you’re trying to say seriously?
Just curious.

Posted by: Adrienne at October 19, 2010 4:54 PM
Comment #310674

MAG-
Why do you believe we’re fiscally irresponsible? What things have we done to merit that label?

I sort of know what some of your responses might be, but I really want to know what puts equal blame on the Democratic party in your eyes, and what specific solutions you’re pushing for.

Politics is the art of the possible, so the question is what actual policy would the Tea parties or anybody else be able to achieve? What kind of compromise legislation could they propose?

Royal Flush-
So, you think merely standing in the way of the Democrats, merely being obstructive is all that is necessary for the Republicans.

Wonderful.

The OPR (obama, pelosi, reid) pushed much of their agenda into law against the wishes of the majority of Americans.

Your simplistic argument should have you hanging your head in shame. You gloss over the fact that many popular measures like the Public Option and the Medicare Buy-In were killed by the Republican Party and the few Democratic Party holdouts in the Senate, also conservative.

The Republicans, it would seem, are fully prepared to be hypocrites when it serves their purpose. Never mind all the efforts they went through in order to distort the contents of the bill. Never mind that the actual provisions, aside from the mandate, always polled well, still poll well when separated out from the well-vilified overall initiative.

Never mind the question here, which is whether healthcare reform would be more popular with the inclusion of the provision the Republicans struck down in spite of the majority support they enjoyed. Funny, isn’t it? One of the things that haunts many of the legislative successes of the Democrats are the compromises that had to be made in order to gain the support of the few conservative Democrats who could make or break passage, on account of constant Republican Obstruction.

Some Democrats are running away from what was done this Congress. But you know what? They’re likely the deadest ducks of the bunch. They’re attempting to appease people you’ve whipped up into a frenzy against Democrats in general. Not even changing allegiances helped them. The guy who tried that got slammed for being with Pelosi, despite his best efforts.

You’re not telling people the truth about what Republicans do to those who abandon their fellow party members. You’re not telling people that they get saddled with associations with the other party regardless of their actual loyalty. You’re not telling them that the Republicans really don’t care about the truth about their politics, just about grabbing the low-hanging fruit of the more conservative districts.

As for this?

A good analogy, and one that Mr. Daugherty and others can perhaps understand is to liken the condition of our national debt and expenditures to that of a home burning down. OPR and the liber/socialists rush in builders to add an addition to the burning home. Conservatives call the fire department to put out the fire first, and then rebuild.

Our nation is burning up in the cost of expanded government and absoutely out-of-control deficit spending.

To use a analogy from a song that was popular when I was a kid, “We didn’t start the fire.”

You smugly blame the Democrats for burning down the house on fiscal responsbility, when it was your party that decided to raise its spending and issue record tax cuts at the same time. And you know what? If their promises are any indication, they aren’t putting an end to either the tax cuts or the medicare spending. They won’t correct most of their mistakes. So, why are you lecturing me, mister, about what my party is doing?

Let me be blunt about this: if you want a House fire to compare this to, try that one down in South Fulton. Only to make it worse, your people started the fire yourselves.

A significant fraction of the current deficit is simply due to the fact of high unemployment and underperforming business. Recessions and rises in deficits go hand in hand.

Shockingly enough, the worst recession since the last Depression has had a terrible effect on revenues. Estimates are that up to forty percent of the deficit in 2009 was simply do to the fallout from the failed economy.

But you’re saying, let’s solve the deficit right now on the backs of the consumers we expect to drag us out of these economic doldrums!

Oh, but you say, tax cuts!

Well, tell me, sir, what are tax cuts when you’re already running a deficit? Additional deficit spending, if you don’t do additional offsets. Your party will not be able to do nearly enough to compensate, not and protect what they’ve promised to protect, for the sake of not seeing a quick exit from their political careers. Even your most ambitious plans don’t resolve the deficit for another fifty years. I wish I was kidding about that BS, but I’m not.

Democrats, if we’re able, will do something about the jobs situation, so we can grow some of our way out of the deficit. How Republicans expect to resolve any part of the Deficit is beyond me, because I don’t see your numbers adding up, and no amount of focus grouped BS will make up for that, however you do in the next election.

There’s a point in politics where words fail, and actions must be the test, and the Republicans are, with their rigidity and doctrinaire ways, guaranteeing that they’ll fail that test.

We’ll see what takes place on election day. But if you expect to be vindicated by any victory, don’t hold your breath, because ultimately, your bad policies will fail the test again, and people will remember why they didn’t like Republicans.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 19, 2010 4:58 PM
Comment #310677

“Do you really think that using the over-the-top nasty approach is a good way to make people in the blue column take whatever it is you’re trying to say seriously?
Just curious.”
Posted by: Adrienne at October 19, 2010

Let me help you out with your curiousity. Many on WB are admitted liberals and some are admitted socialists. I merely combine the two…is that really over-the-top?

Posted by: Royal Flush at October 19, 2010 5:17 PM
Comment #310678

Some interesting tidbits on the arrest of the Reporter:

First, there’s the matter of the fact that Drop-zone security Was likely unlicensed to do security at the time of the arrest. Unlicensed security guards are a bit of no-no, as are arrests by the same.

Second, some of the guards are actually active-duty soldiers, and this, too could be potentially a problem:

Meanwhile, the Army says that two of the guards who assisted in the arrest of the journalist and who tried to prevent two other reporters from filming the detention were active-duty soldiers moonlighting for Miller’s security contractor, the Drop Zone, a Spenard surplus store and protection service.

The soldiers, Spc. Tyler Ellingboe, 22, and Sgt. Alexander Valdez, 31, are assigned to the 3rd Maneuver Enhancement Brigade at Fort Richardson. Maj. Bill Coppernoll, the public affairs officer for the Army in Alaska, said the two soldiers did not have permission from their current chain of command to work for the Drop Zone, but the Army was still researching whether previous company or brigade commanders authorized their employment.

The Army allows off-duty soldiers to take outside employment if the job doesn’t interfere with their readiness, doesn’t risk their own injury and doesn’t negatively affect the “good order” and discipline of their unit, Coppernoll said.

“They’ve got to be up front with the chain of command,” Coppernoll said. “The chain of command needs to agree they can do that without affecting the readiness and the whole slew of things that are part of being a soldier that they need to do first.”

The owner of the business, William Fulton told the press that this wasn’t his problem. What could be, though is the fact that the school district says, in the same article:

Fulton said he arrested Hopfinger for trespassing and assault. He said he had the right to arrest him for trespass because the campaign had rented the space from the school district and had the right to exclude anyone, though the district said it rented the cafeteria, stage and parking lot, not the hall where the arrest took place.

Oops.

Going further, there’s a real question of necessity raised in the article:

Miller gave interviews to Fox and CNN on Monday. He told Fox, “I might also note that the middle school itself required us by a contract for a campaign, required us to have a security team.” He told CNN, “There was a — a private security team that was required. We had to hire them because the school required that as a term in their lease.”

But district spokeswoman Heidi Embley said that wasn’t true.

“We do not require users to hire security,” she said. Renters must only have a security plan to protect users and the school itself, she said, and can resolve the issues with “monitors.”

The contract the district has renters sign requires groups to make an “expectation speech” at the beginning of an event reminding people to be respectful, to park properly, and to remain only in permitted areas. That did not happen Sunday.

If he’s this bad as a private citizen, how will he be when he’s got real power?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 19, 2010 5:28 PM
Comment #310679

Royal Flush-
Well, I don’t think the socialists like being confused with Democrats, or the Democrats with socialists, and there isn’t really a connection between the two beyond what you imagine.

Also, you tend to use the term as a perjorative, always complaining about how we want to recklessly expand government, tax people to death, or some other garbage. It’s really just red-baiting, a generation after the fall of the real commies.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 19, 2010 5:30 PM
Comment #310680

Mr. Daugherty wrote; “You smugly blame the Democrats for burning down the house on fiscal responsbility, when it was your party that decided to raise its spending and issue record tax cuts at the same time.”

Gee…I didn’t know I was “smug”. Thanks for the laugh. Daugherty is an expert in talking all around a comment without ever addressing it. I don’t give a damn who started the fire Mr. Daugherty, only in getting it extinguished. You see, that is the main problem with Daugherty’s comments, he can only blame someone, and seldom will he take responsibility for the incredible harm his party has, and is, doing. There is blame aplenty but I am interested in fixing government. OPR merely want to keep adding more wings to the burning home and I want to put out the fire. Perhaps someday Mr. Daugherty will awaken to the fact that liberalism is a mental disorder.

Mr. Daugherty writes; “Oh, but you say, tax cuts.”

Hmmm…where did I write that? Not only is Mr. Daugherty incapable of responding to comments I did make, he now makes up comments I didn’t write to provide a platform for his feeble comments.

Mr. Daugherty writes; “Democrats, if we’re able, will do something about the jobs situation, so we can grow some of our way out of the deficit.”

Now there’s a plan anyone could vote for. Let me paraphrase…elect dems and liber/socialists and maybe we can do something in the next congressional session about jobs. We were too busy in the current session expanding government and adding another multi-trillion dollar entitlement program to worry about jobs. Oh wait, the stimulus…well, that didn’t work very well but we did manage to pay off some political debts to supporters and next time we’ll really try to do something about jobs. Of course, we’ll have to do it on the backs of workers and taxpayers.

Mr. D and many others on WB can’t seem to understand the difference between force and encouragement. There is nothing palatable we can do to force private business to hire or grow their business. There are hundreds of ways we can encourage and enable these same folks to do what is needed.

With the liber/socialists it’s all about force. I have power and you will Obey. Sorry, Mr. D. those days are soon to be gone.

Posted by: Royal Flush at October 19, 2010 5:43 PM
Comment #310681

“Also, you tend to use the term as a perjorative, always complaining about how we want to recklessly expand government, tax people to death, or some other garbage. It’s really just red-baiting, a generation after the fall of the real commies.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 19, 2010

Hmmm…SD doesn’t like my term liber/socialists. OK…duly noted but not abandoned. He then went on to explain what we complain about…expanding government, taxing people to death, well…that is exactly what your bunch is doing. As for commies and red-baiting, perhaps when Mr. D gets a little older he will understand those terms. I used neither. I wonder if Mr. D equates his liberal and socialist friends with commies? I don’t and didn’t.

Posted by: Royal Flush at October 19, 2010 5:51 PM
Comment #310685

I did say BOTH PARTIES as being fiscally irresponsible Stephen. Spending money you don’t have and borrowing above your means IMO is being irresponsible.

Posted by: MAG at October 19, 2010 6:21 PM
Comment #310689

Royal Flush:

Let me help you out with your curiousity. Many on WB are admitted liberals and some are admitted socialists. I merely combine the two…is that really over-the-top?

Yes, it is. Because it tells everyone that you don’t respect people on the left enough to differentiate between our political viewpoints. So for instance, if I started combining Libertarians and Republicans and called everybody on the right a Repurtarian, that would be disrespectful. Because I am aware of the actual differences between those two political viewpoints.

But obviously you don’t care about coming off disrespectful:

SD doesn’t like my term liber/socialists. OK…duly noted but not abandoned.

Like I said: Why should anyone take you seriously? Indeed who ever took trollish, flame-baiting behavior seriously? There’s really no point in trying to have a discussion — because the entire object on one side is simply to BE disrespectful and over-the-top nasty.

He then went on to explain what we complain about…expanding government, taxing people to death, well…that is exactly what your bunch is doing. As for commies and red-baiting, perhaps when Mr. D gets a little older he will understand those terms. I used neither. I wonder if Mr. D equates his liberal and socialist friends with commies? I don’t and didn’t.

Just read this today — very funny how perfectly it applies here!
Socialism For Dummies

Posted by: Adrienne at October 19, 2010 6:54 PM
Comment #310693

Adrienne wrote; “But obviously you don’t care about coming off disrespectful.”

I believe you are confusing “disrespectful” with politically correct. And, I don’t give a damn about PC.

For me, liberalism is merely a harbinger of socialism. They are closely related in philosophy and differ only in degree.

Posted by: Royal Flush at October 19, 2010 7:08 PM
Comment #310699

Has anyone heard about the Republican Senate candidate in West Virginia, John Raese? He wants to abolish the minimum wage, because he claims it’s “unconstitutional.”
Wonder how that one is going over in one of the poorest states in the nation?

Posted by: Adrienne at October 19, 2010 7:29 PM
Comment #310705

Back to Miller. Has everyone heard about how he just said that the U.S. should switch to East German-style border security? He wants our border guards to start shooting to kill everyone I guess…

Posted by: Adrienne at October 19, 2010 7:37 PM
Comment #310716

Rand Paul’s Aqua Buddha kidnapping victim:

“Yes, he was in a secret society, yes, he mocked religion, yes, the whole Aqua Buddha thing happened,” she said. “There was a different side to him at one time and he’s pretending that it never existed. If he would just acknowledge it, it would all go away and it wouldn’t matter anymore.”
Here’s the link. Posted by: Adrienne at October 19, 2010 8:19 PM
Comment #310722

With all this talk about the federal debt, everyone seems to forget that it wasn’t the public sector debt that caused the crash in 2008. It was private sector debt that imploded. Private sector debt had reached a level of 350% of GDP not seen since prior to the Great Depression. The recent increase in Federal Debt has much to do with socializing the private sector losses and attempting to fill the reduction in demand resulting from the financial collapse. Its all very convenient to blast away at the federal debt while ignoring the elephant in the room: unresolved private sector debt which is eating away at the economy.

Posted by: Rich at October 19, 2010 9:24 PM
Comment #310725

Jeez Royal judging from your comments you cannot tell the difference between respect and political correctness, what a shame. I find that trait often when talking with the talk radio conservative/fascist/authoritarian types. Especially when I talk with them soon after a Limbaugh show. Perhaps this will help you to understand the difference.

Political correctness
“Political correctness is one of the brilliant tools that the American Right developed in the mid-1980s, as part of its demolition of American liberalism… . What the sharpest thinkers on the American Right saw quickly was that by declaring war on the cultural manifestations of liberalism — by levelling the charge of “political correctness” against its exponents — they could discredit the whole political project.[22]”

“Moreover, the commentators claimed there never was a “Political Correctness movement” in the US, and that many who use the term do so to distract attention from substantive debate about racial, class and gender discrimination and unequal legal treatment.[23] Similarly, Polly Toynbee argued that “the phrase is an empty right-wing smear designed only to elevate its user”.[24]”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_correctness

Respect-
Treating people with respect makes your world a nicer place to live in, whether it’s at home, at school, or out in your community. And it’s easy - all you have to do is treat people the way you like to have them treat you. Here are a few ideas.

• Don’t insult people or make fun of them.
• Listen to others when they speak.
• Value other people’s opinions.
• Be considerate of people’s likes and dislikes.
• Don’t mock or tease people.
• Don’t talk about people behind their backs.
• Be sensitive to other people’s feelings.
• Don’t pressure someone to do something he or she doesn’t want to do.

http://www.goodcharacter.com/BCBC/RespectingOthers.html

So to sum up Royal political correctness is a right wing fantasy, respect is not, right?

Posted by: j2t2 at October 19, 2010 9:46 PM
Comment #310730

Royal Flush-
When somebody says “liberalism is a mental disorder?” should they expect to appear humble and tolerant? Or does such a claim project a strong sense of disdain and condescension on that person’s part?

It does matter who started a problem, when those who did start the problem keep blaming other people. It does matter when they refuse to consider alternative policies. It does matter when they don’t even have the consistency to actually call for the end of the deficit spending they so supposed hate.

You say we’re responsible for great harm, but it’s your policy we’re stuck with.

You the stimulus didn’t work well, but there are dozens of studies that say otherwise, and a very evident change in the direction in the economy that began right after the stimulus funds started going out.

As for forcing people to hire? You demonstrate great ignorance if you think that’s what happened. We gave people the money to hire, to work on projects. We funded research and gave tax breaks to companies for hiring and other things.

But of course, that doesn’t sell eyeballs on Glen Beck, or the other purveyors of paranoia You need people frightened.

As for this?

Hmmm…SD doesn’t like my term liber/socialists. OK…duly noted but not abandoned. He then went on to explain what we complain about…expanding government, taxing people to death, well…that is exactly what your bunch is doing. As for commies and red-baiting, perhaps when Mr. D gets a little older he will understand those terms. I used neither. I wonder if Mr. D equates his liberal and socialist friends with commies? I don’t and didn’t.

And you only just began putting the slash between liber and socialist. I know what red-baiting is. I also know when somebody is backpedalling furiously on a talking point gone wrong. I don’t remember you making such fine distinctions when you first introduced that term. You accuse us of wanting to take over everything, redistribute income, do all kinds of other things. You talk all the time as if we want to just take over the economy completely.

In the old days, you might say commie, commie, commie. But of course nowadays people would recognize that we fall far short of communism. So, instead, you use a gentler word, but force feed the same BS through it. The stridence of your charges belies your claims of moderation regarding the term.

MAG-
So you say all the time. Evidence, please. If you’re going to draw an equivalence, do so on substance, don’t just expect people to take your word for it.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 19, 2010 10:45 PM
Comment #310738

Stephen,
You know how everyone on the right keeps claiming that this election is supposedly “all about the deficit” and/or several other “very serious” GOP talking points? If you haven’t seen it yet, you’ll probably enjoy checking out this video, wherein every one of the endlessly repeated talking points from the right is completely and thoroughly shot down.

Posted by: Adrienne at October 20, 2010 2:12 AM
Comment #310739

Adrienne, I’m not able to connect through your link. Anyone else having problems?

Posted by: jane doe at October 20, 2010 2:39 AM
Comment #310743

jane doe,

I got through on Adrienne’s link first try.

Posted by: Marysdude at October 20, 2010 6:19 AM
Comment #310748

Stephen, Why are Democrats running away from BHO, Pelosi, Reid? Why are Democrats not running on their accomplishments? Why do Democrats need to run smear campaigns? Your last 2 post reflect this smear campaigning. Is it because you know people are against the crap your party pushed through congress and shoved down their throats? You have a stimulus that isn’t working the way it was supposed to. Unemployment heading to 10%. HC reform that is showing to be an albatros costing people more in their premiums. The Miller thing, Shultz had a WITNESS to the event that kinda messed up his rant, She didn’t quite defend the handcuff episode but did defend Miller because of the aggressiveness of the reporter. Shultz cut the interview because he didn’t hear what he wanted, typical LIBERAL, PROGRESSIVE style.

Posted by: MAG at October 20, 2010 9:29 AM
Comment #310753

MAG-
1) Yeah, see how fast they’re running.

2) Smear campaigns? Give me a break. To paraphrase Harry Truman, I’m telling you the truth about your candidates. You only think that it’s a smear campaign, because it certainly sounds atrocious.

3) As I recall it, she didn’t not quite defend the episode, she backed the reporter’s story that the security team got physical with him before he got physical with him, making what he did self defense, and what they did assault. She also recounts that Miller high-tailed it out of there and ran into her child to do so. She was considering voting for him, but now she says she will not.

So, it’s actually worse than you say.

You really need to stop buying the hype from your party. If you want real conservatives, you first need people who will be honest with you about both what they believe, and the limits of what they can do.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 20, 2010 10:49 AM
Comment #310756

Exaggeration v. Lies:

I have noticed one thing about the several campaigns in Georgia…all the ads either exaggerate or are patently false. Most of the exaggeration is coming from the left, and most of the lies are from the right. The Atlanta Journal Constitution has a ‘Truth-o-meter’ section it runs almost daily that supports that conclusion.

Posted by: Marysdude at October 20, 2010 11:37 AM
Comment #310757

Democrats who are running from the president are running races in very conservative districts. They are fools to do so. If they used their heads they’d shout proudly and loudly the accomplishments of this administration. Their advisors ought to be fired.

Posted by: Marysdude at October 20, 2010 11:41 AM
Comment #310758

Jane,
The link is working for me…
If you can’t connect to it here, you could try going onto the Crooks and Liars website and do a search for ‘The Rachel Maddow Segment You Must Not Miss.’

Posted by: Adrienne at October 20, 2010 11:42 AM
Comment #310759

Stephen, Maybe you watched a different Shultz then I did but his witness said she will still vote for Miller. As far as high tailing it I can be sure a Democrat would do the same if aggresively questioned. You liberals are just hyping the story. Stephen, Where pray tell are you going to find an Honest Politician? For sure not in the Republican or Democratic party. As far as MY party, I vote for the candidate who best serves my interrests. I DO NOT pull party levers. Stephen as far as smear campaigns if everything was brought out about the candidates nobody would be qualified to be in office from either party. Let me give you an example, Stephen D. is running for congress in his Texas district, While in college Stephen was suppossidly cought having an affair withn one of his instructors and got higher grades because of it. This was brought about because he dumped his longtime girlfriend but the actions were later found to be untrue. Would you want the stupid things you did as a student brought up in a campaign? Would you want someone to bring up something you have regreted doing in the past? I don’t think you would, I don’t think any politician likes SKELETONS brougtht up. IMO the smear politics needs to stop and candidates run on the issues if the truth is about the issues fine, keep his private life out of it. Unless it’s a major felony.

Posted by: MAG at October 20, 2010 11:45 AM
Comment #310762

MAG:

but the actions were later found to be untrue.

Only difference? In these particular cases they ARE TRUE.

Would you want the stupid things you did as a student brought up in a campaign? Would you want someone to bring up something you have regreted doing in the past? I don’t think you would, I don’t think any politician likes SKELETONS brougtht up.

Oh please. This is part and parcel with running for public office — and ALWAYS has been. Check out what Thomas Jefferson had to say about this:

When a man assumes a public trust he should consider himself a public property.
If these candidates can’t stand the heat, they should probably should have stayed out of the kitchen. Posted by: Adrienne at October 20, 2010 12:10 PM
Comment #310767

Adrienne, All because it is part of the political atmosphere doesn’t make it right. Most people I know are tired of the sleeze and want to hear about the issues not if Joe Blow poltician did something stupid years ago in college or some other thing not associated with the issues that are hurting this country. Or is it just maybe that is all YOU LIBERALS can run on is sleeze because you sure can’t run on your accomplishments.

Posted by: MAG at October 20, 2010 1:10 PM
Comment #310769

MAG:

Adrienne, All because it is part of the political atmosphere doesn’t make it right.

Well, I think you’re tilting at windmills here. Politics has always been this way, and I personally feel that digging up the pasts of these people serves an important purpose. As I said in my earlier post, how candidates deal with the facts of their pasts being brought up truly exposes their character. Not so much then, but NOW. So for instance, the fact that these candidates have tried to hide from these things, rather than simply owning up to them honestly says a lot about them as people — not to mention what kind of representatives of the people they’ll turn out to be.

Most people I know are tired of the sleeze and want to hear about the issues not if Joe Blow poltician did something stupid years ago in college or some other thing not associated with the issues that are hurting this country.

Well, I think it’s pretty important to talk about both. Especially when were talking about politicians no one has ever heard of before.

Or is it just maybe that is all YOU LIBERALS can run on is sleeze because you sure can’t run on your accomplishments.

Democrats could have accomplished much more had the opposition not blocked so damn much. Still, there were somethings that did manage to get done, and I don’t see too many Dem candidates running from those things.
YOU CONSERVATIVES on the other hand, seemed pretty happy about the fact that not much could move forward due to all of that obstruction. Indeed, the GOP has no new ideas, so all they can harp on now is what Dems didn’t get done.

Posted by: Adrienne at October 20, 2010 1:29 PM
Comment #310773

MAG-
What’s the point of an electoral system if our candidates are not put to the test? It’s one thing to argue in a particular candidates deeds weren’t that bad, to present mitigating evidence, or debunk false claims.

It’s quite another thing entirely to ask for it not to be considered.

People need to know, have a right to know, who they’re putting in office. The problem is not in the digging into these people’s pasts. The problem is how we go about making our conclusions about the people in question, and now that affects our judgment as voters. If you want to say that we should be more skeptical and rational about it, sure.

But we have to know who we’re hiring, when we hold an election.

As for running on our accomplishments? Not a day goes by where a Democrat doesn’t run on those accomplishments, and the Republicans don’t run on destroying those accomplishments. I think the comparison between the parties is valid. Until the Republicans are willing to admit that big mistakes were made, they don’t deserve to win.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 20, 2010 2:15 PM
Comment #310776

Issues, Stephen, Issues. Would You want someone ruining your hopes over some silly prank you did in college 30 years ago? I’d rather put a candidate to the test on the issues at hand not what he did in college 30 years ago.

Posted by: MAG at October 20, 2010 2:23 PM
Comment #310779

Adrienne, The only past that IMO is important is a criminal past. I don’t think you would want someone bringing up your past if you did something that you would rather keep covered, especially if it dosen’t reflect on your present feelings or ideals. Sleeze campaigns only hurt and in some cases can backfire on the person. The issues at hand are what is important to me, not what silly prank someone did in college 30 years ago. Chris Matthews asked a group of college students the other day if they would want to have their college past brought up you know everyone of them stayed SILENT. I don’t think you or Stephen would want that either.

Posted by: MAG at October 20, 2010 2:45 PM
Comment #310781

Stephen, Both parties need to admit to their mistakes. Democrats are NOT the lilly white saviors you portray them to be. Republicans are NO better.

Posted by: MAG at October 20, 2010 2:57 PM
Comment #310783

MAG-
I know, you’re always saying, one is bad as the other. Prove it. And meanwhile, tell me where you were when Republicans were pushing the most unfair of BS and character attacks on Obama and the Democrats. Were you defending them, too?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 20, 2010 3:58 PM
Comment #310788

No Stephen I wasn’t defending them either gutter politics is wrong no matter who does it. Stephen if you can’t see for yourself that both parties have screwed up then there is no hope for you.

Posted by: MAG at October 20, 2010 5:20 PM
Comment #310791

MAG-
I can SEE that. I’ve been candid about those screw-ups. I just don’t EQUATE them, because that means I’m not prepared to make a choice.

That’s why some point these things out: so it neutralizes the topic for the worst offenders.

Well, somebody pointed this out today on the liberal blogs: the Cost of the Medicare Drug Benefit and Advantage plan out strips that of the Stimulus, TARP, and Healthcare. What’s more, Republicans added a huge tax cut right on top of that.

What’s more, the TARP may very well get paid back entirely, while the Stimulus plan likely prevented tens of billions in deficits a year, perhaps more, simply by preventing a deepinging of the recession. And you know what? Democrats succeeded in doing, ironically, what the Republicans failed to do: they made their Healthcare plan a fiscal gain from the country, all the while making the Republicans own plans run more cheaply- part of the Healthcare bill was paid for by cost-cutting measures on the Republican’s policies.

How’s that for irony?

So, you equate them, I’m saying that’s crap. We did better than they did, on many fronts. Why? Because people don’t let us alone on matters like this. We get held accountable. Republicans both lacking in perspective on their incompetence, or confident that they won’t get hit for it, do things even worse.

Republicans created and added to the deficit all along the Bush years, and did that in ways that are not easy to fix. If your only response is to point fingers at the Democrats, and accuse them of being equally to blame, then my response is to show you that Democrats have actually done what the Republicans never had the guts or the drive to do: run the government more efficiently.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 20, 2010 5:38 PM
Comment #310792

Unemployment has been 9.6% for how many months Stephen, 90,000 Boeing workers are having to have their HC coverage payment share raised. How many business are not expanding because of the uncertanty of HC and Taxes. Unemployment in my state is over 10%. BHO spending and borrowing tops all previous presidents all the way to G. Washington. Yea Stephen that’s something you can really boast about.

Posted by: MAG at October 20, 2010 5:56 PM
Comment #310794

Adrienne, I tried the link this afternoon and got in fine…..thanks!

Posted by: jane doe at October 20, 2010 6:07 PM
Comment #310801

In England, where the unemployment is almost 12%, just passed a budget cutting almost a million government workers by the end of the year.

The newly elected conservative administration has taken the first step in doing what US conservatives have been pleading for.

Not only will those cuts have a negative effect on public safety, education and national security, but the loss of that many jobs will cause a ripple effect in more and more job losses as the purchase power of those hundreds of thousands diminishes.

Even if a recovery eventually happens in Great Britain, that nation has just taken a giant step in becoming a third world country.

But, my greater worry is that every modern nation contributed rescue funds when the financial meltdown occurred…will this perhaps be the first domino in the rush to recession/depression? A truly world class collapse?

I can’t imagine going from 12% unemployment to 16% or higher won’t have a debilitating effect on those who depend, in this fragile economy, on British business/trade.

Posted by: Marysdude at October 20, 2010 7:29 PM
Comment #310836

MAG-
Did you know the Boeing workers got a letter mailed to them from the management explicitly stating that the rise in costs had nothing to do with the passage of HCR?

If you really want to be independent, your perspective must match your political position. To put it plainly, you must be a skeptic of such claims, and verify them independent of their source.

Unemployment has been 9.6% for how many months Stephen

Two. After being at 9.5 for two months. And that, after having come down from 10.1. Want to see?

2009
7.7
8.2
8.6
8.9
9.4
9.5
9.4
9.7
9.8
9.7
9.8
10.1
10.0
10.0

See those three months? Those will be the highest unemployment gets.

2010
9.7
9.7
9.7
9.9
9.7
9.5
9.5
9.6
9.6

Certainly we don’t want to stay at 9.6. But it’s much better than this:

1981 7.5 7.4 7.4 7.2 7.5 7.5 7.2 7.4 7.6 7.9 8.3 8.5

1982 8.6 8.9 9.0 9.3 9.4 9.6 9.8 9.8 10.1 10.4 10.8 10.8

1983 10.4 10.4 10.3 10.2 10.1 10.1 9.4 9.5 9.2 8.8 8.5 8.3

1984 8.0 7.8 7.8 7.7 7.4 7.2 7.5 7.5 7.3 7.4 7.2 7.3

Obama’s dealing with a much tougher economic crisis, but he turned things around within nine or ten months from the passage of the stimulus plan. Reagan’s economy took seventeen months to reach its peak unemployment, .7% higher than Obama’s ever got, and about two and a half years to return to the levels they were when he signed the bill.

Given that Obama faced a recession of 4.1% and Reagan faced one of 2.7%, whose economic policy, at this point, looks better? The guy who turned around an economy that was suffering 4.1% decline in ten months, or the guy who took 17 months to resolve a 2.7% decline?

BHO spending and borrowing tops all previous presidents all the way to G. Washington.

You know what bugs me about the way you treat the subject of fiscal policy? You act as if Obama can just issue an order and stop that spending. You act as if there are not real world consequences for that sudden of a change in the US Budget.

All the people on Medicare who need prescription drugs, if the program were ended tomorrow, would still need the medicines. For the last several years, though, it’s been paid for by the government.

Sorry! Budget cuts! You’re on your own!

The reality is a government is responsible for more than just a budget, and that effects how quickly spending can go down.

It’s also responsible for paying back that debt, whether it has the money to do so or not. Obama, in short, must pay back Bush’s debts, Bush’s deficit spending. Keep that in mind when you look at those projections.

The question for the future, leaving aside the pernicious question of political realities, is whether we start paying for government, or whether we continue to expensively push the payments down the road.

Obama’s responsible for the economy, as you might say, but as you might not say he’s responsible for keeping it stable and trying to grow it, as well. That means, he can’t put the brakes on in terms of spending too fast, especially when people depend upon it. That also means he can’t raise taxes too much.

It also means he can’t, or at least shouldn’t pull a sovereign default, and pay off the debts that Bush generated.

We can much more easily deal with a fiscal problem if we get the economic problems off our back. But to actually do anything serious, like we did at the beginning of the Obama administration, we have to stop pretending like our economic problems don’t matter in the fiscal equation. You’re essentialy saying we can’t afford to promote growth. I would say, we can’t afford not to promote it, because this deficit will never be resolved properly from the depths of a struggling economy.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 21, 2010 11:18 AM
Comment #310844

Stephen, What went on 25 years ago during the Reagan years is immaterial now. I lived through and worked through those years. Jobs were difficult to find but they were out there unlike today. Today is what counts not what went on from 1981 to 84. IMO BHO and company should have put their priorities on Jobs and the economy instead of HC, it could have waited. Government cannot create jobs but they can give insentives to the private sector to create jobs in the form of Tax insentives, removing some rediculous regulations.

Posted by: MAG at October 21, 2010 1:58 PM
Comment #310850

Good article:
Memo to Media: The Tea Party Is Coming for You

From the link:

The Tea Party movement, and the press-hating frenzy that’s helping to fuel the uprising, doesn’t want better political coverage. It wants no political press coverage. It wants the Fourth Estate destroyed. And it wants its movement leaders not to be held accountable.

By anyone.

In order to achieve that open playing field, journalists and the idea of journalism has to be completely vilified so right-wing supporters no longer even see the pursuit as a legitimate one. So Tea Party media leaders cheer when reporters are handcuffed and subject to phony citizen “arrests,” and unleash lots of other vile attacks, portraying them as unpatriotic and treasonous.

What’s the not-very-surprising conclusion of all that? Tony Hopfinger sitting in a school hallway, surrounded by right-wing security forces, with his hands cuffed behind his back.

Posted by: Adrienne at October 21, 2010 4:19 PM
Comment #310855

MAG-
Essentially, you’re saying that I ought to ignore the effects of similar policies in history when I comment on the wisdom of new proposals, or renewals of old ones, right?

Why? Why should I ignore the past, ignore how similar policies have turned out?

When does this political dogma get put to the test? When are we allowed to see whether a policy succeeds or fails based not on the repeated assertions of the believers, but on their actual effect on the economy?

No practical system can long survive the refusal of those running it to recognize the connections between actions and results.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 21, 2010 5:26 PM
Comment #310858

Stephen, I did not say ignore them. If you are running comparisons of past policies that worked or didn’t and are going to apply them to current or future policies that’s one thing, but if you are just using them to show the stupidity of the Obama admin. compared to the stupidity of the Reagan admin. then it worthless to compare them. The only ones that can use those comparisions are the IDIOTS in DC. to figure what works and what don’t. The only way WE can change the outlook is by our VOTE. So to me to compare Regans 7% unemployment and his 2.7% recession and Obama’s 9.6% and 4.1%. is meaningless unless I’m in a position to apply corrective measures to future policies, is just a good conversation piece with my buddies.

Posted by: MAG at October 21, 2010 6:09 PM
Comment #310902

MAG-
Why would I want to illustrate the stupidity of the Obama Administration? I’m trying to prove that Obama’s done better than a person who is supposedly vaunted as a redeemer of the American economy.

Unless you understand just how severe this recession is, you won’t understand how profound the difference Obama has made. You’ll be stuck making rhetorical arguments against him that don’t reflect anything concrete.

Obama’s having to rescue the country from conditions that more resemble that of the Great Depression than Reagan’s early 80’s recession. I give you the GDP drop so you understand the depth of the recession, and the difficulty that brings with it.

The real question here, is whether you want to try an approach that:

1) Stimulates worse (32 cents on the dollar)
2) Has never succeeded as promised in generating growth or recovering revenue
3) failed to head off higher unemployment numbers, and in fact preceded a much larger and longer period of high unemployment for Americans.
4) and has had the effect every time it’s been tried of burying us under more debt.

I give you the facts so you can see the contrast in results, and between expectations and reality.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 22, 2010 1:49 AM
Comment #310910

Stephen, If he made such profound differences, Why is this country still in a mess? I’m sorry to say you don’t see the reality of the situation. Instead of working on HC for a year while unemployment was climbing and the economy was tanking, don’t you think that was a higher priority then a HC bill that a majority of people didn’t want and was rammed down our throats? Yes there are one or two good things about the bill. Stephen, if YOUR party would have tackled the economy and got it at least in a slow positive move with unemployment slowly going down YOUR party wouldn’t be in the fix they are now. Every poll taken had jobs and the economy on top NOT HC. That is the problem Stephen, YOUR party tackled the least of peoples worries and the arogance in the way YOUR party did it is leading to your downfall.

Posted by: MAG at October 22, 2010 9:15 AM
Comment #310931

MAG,

Since a solution to the HC problem was a main platform in President Obama’s campaign, I don’t understand where you get your data that a majority did not want it. Does that not sound like a talking point of an opposition that can’t come up with anything remotely close to a reason to hate the man so? Obviously a majority was NOT against it or the man would not have been elected by a majority. Now I’ll agree that he did not deliver on the public option that many of us wanted, but saying a majority was against the HC Reform to begin with does not wash.

Posted by: Marysdude at October 22, 2010 1:01 PM
Comment #310932

PS:

You complain about the mess we are still in, when actually we are either standing pat or improving in almost every economic category.

Posted by: Marysdude at October 22, 2010 1:03 PM
Comment #310946

Dude, What is more pressing Jobs and the economy or Health insurance. If you don’t have a job you can’t pay the premiums for the HC ins. so what good is it your still on the taxpayers dime. Where I’m from things are NOT improving. Standing pat is not my idea of a good thing

Posted by: MAG at October 22, 2010 2:43 PM
Comment #310968

MAG,

I’m not an idiot…I know that standing pat is not desired, but I also know that some things take a little time (especially if they start deep in a hole as our economy did), but while the wheels of progress turn slowly at least they turn forward and not backward. You may be of the ‘instant gratification’ generation, but damn it, this ain’t powdered coffee.

Posted by: Marysdude at October 22, 2010 7:17 PM
Comment #310969

Dude, The point I’m making is that Jobs and economy should have been the priority NOT HC. Congress focused on HC while the economy went south. Democrats would have been in a better shapen if they worked less on HC and more on jobs and the economy.

Posted by: MAG at October 22, 2010 7:26 PM
Comment #311030

MAG,

And, my point is that the economy would NEVER stand a chance at recovery WITHOUT HC Reform. You are trying to get the cart before the horse. The economy was beginning to down-slide long before the meltdown, and the biggest reason for the slide was how much of the GDP was the increasing costs ,to the American people, of health care. Health care was zooming along at a rate if inflation two thousand percent faster than the rest of the economy, and gulping GDP faster than wars, earmarks, or any other thing. Spending time on anything BUT HC would have delayed actual recovery by oodles and bunches, and perhaps completely destroyed any real chance at all. We just could not leave the 800 pound gorilla sitting there without offering at least a banana.

Posted by: Marysdude at October 23, 2010 3:01 PM
Comment #311031

PS:

If the obstructionists in Congress had gotten down to business, compromised an agreement earlier, our recovery could have begun earlier and by now jobs status would have likely stabilized. It was the obstructionism that has held recovery down, not health care reform.

Posted by: Marysdude at October 23, 2010 3:05 PM
Comment #311043

Dude, HC reform saving the economy?????? Maybe you should tell that to the 14% unemployed in Nevada or the over 10% in Ohio. Tell that to all those that are having homes foreclosed on. 9.6% unemployment in this country and you say HC reform aided the recovery. The stimulus that was passed BHO said unemployment wouldn’t rise above 8%. So much for that BS story. The other party is supposed to obstruct over unpopular bills which HC and the stimulus were. Even some in your own party had to be bought to get HC passed. If you want to believe that BS about HC reform that’s your right.

Posted by: MAG at October 23, 2010 5:29 PM
Comment #311044

MAG,

Most of what you said about the economy and health care is hog-wash, and you know it. But, that business about the opposition is SUPPOSED to OBSTRUCT, is not only silly, it is dangerous to our form a government. Obstruction is as a last resort only. The opposition is supposed to take as much of a proffered bill as possible and sign on modifications and compromises when possible. Nothing about the proposed health care bill was dangerous to America, and those who proffered it for consideration were attempting to help our people and our economy at the same time. Obstruction is a requirement of the opposition…bah!

Posted by: Marysdude at October 23, 2010 5:37 PM
Comment #311072

“Democrats would have been in a better shapen if they worked less on HC and more on jobs and the economy.”

MAG exactly what should they have been doing more of on jobs and the economy after the stimulus bill was completed in your opinion? The HC bill came after the stimulus bill, what additional steps should government have done to create jobs and get the economy moving?

Posted by: j2t2 at October 24, 2010 1:08 AM
Comment #311084

The stimulus didn’t work the way Democrats thought it would. Unemployment kept on the rise. 9.6% the figure we use but what is the actual figure. How many people are underemployed? How many people lost their benefits? Realistically we can go from 15-20% unemployment. HC reform, now that’s IMO a joke. Why do you think companies aren’t hiring, it’s the uncertanty of taxes and the unknown impact of HC on the employers. Hell nobody in congress even read the damn thing. Sure what has came about by the HC bill now is good except for one thing Insurance premiums skyrocketing. Some wrote on another blog that their share was being doubled next year. Now is that helping the economy? Do we have to wait until 2014 to see the real impact of the bill?

Posted by: MAG at October 24, 2010 10:47 AM
Comment #311090

I noticed your question did not get answered David. I think proof the HC Act is working is filtering in as we speak. We missed an opportunity for a faster recovery by not getting the public option into it, but slow progress is better than fast regress.

Posted by: Marysdude at October 24, 2010 12:19 PM
Comment #311312

MAG-
It worked pretty much like it was planned to work. The problem was that the economy was considerably worse off than people knew at that point, so they did not align the economic strategy as well as they hoped. Thanks to the Republicans, we’re having a hard time correcting the shortfalls.

But you’re wrong about the level of unemployment having been continually on the rise. it peaked about this time last year. It’s been more or less going down since then.

On HCR: your costs were going up anyways, and often by ludicrous amounts. Rate increases are going to start being limited coming up if the insurance plans want to be part of the exchange that’s being set up, and no longer will you see kids born with illnesses or Adults saddled with chronic conditions refused coverage. Some adjuster’s also not going to be able to look back and find some fiddly little thing you forgot to tell them, and cancel your insurance because of that.

But if you just want to repeat what you’re told, be my guest. The reality of healthcare reform is much better, and much more popular than the GOP’s propaganda mills portrayed it as.

To be honest with you, a lot is a great deal better than they say. But they have decided that being responsible and governing well and wisely is not nearly as important as pushing people’s buttons.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 26, 2010 1:53 PM
Post a comment