Yes, this is the question.

If the Christian Right had such power - forever mushrooming and intensifying - why was its social agenda always elusive? There is no prayer in American public schools, and we live in a society that seems more deliberately secular every day. Abortion is still legal, and although the bounty of research was delayed, stem cells are now ensconced in test tubes and under microscopes without counterintuitive Middle Eastern fairy tales cluttering up the process.

The Christian Right was always theatrical bogeyman for our supine media and neoconservatives - who used the bugaboo of "growing influence" by Christian fanatics to establish themselves as a GOP wing liberals could love. In return, we got an utterly pointless war cranking along in Iraq, Mideast policy via Tel Aviv and a financial industry detached, voracious and firmly in control of federal machinery.

But, sure, endlessly tell me the old, old "10 commandments at the courthouse door" crap again...

"So can a shattered Republican Party reunite in time for 2012, or will its fixation on ideological purity and the histrionics of its leaders prevent it from returning to national power?"

This is a great question and a singularly important one. What nobody seems to take into account, however, is the basic fact that most people in the United States have no idea that a massive, Darwinian struggle is even occurring within the Republican Party. The reason is because "most" people just aren't particularly interested in politics; especially when there isn't a presidential election anywhere in sight.

Try asking an acquaintance what they know about the current Republican civil war. In most cases, you will probably be greeted with the same blank stare that you'd get if the subject of conversation were anti-matter annihilation. The failure of the MSM to report on this massive schism isn't doing anyone any favors considering the GOP (whatever that means) stands to gain big in next year's midterms.

What remains to be seen is which faction ultimately prevails? Will the party split permanently and lead to the formation of a third party? Will the religious right make a comeback? Will the Neocons try to make a play? Whatever the outcome, I don't like the chances for regular, good 'ole fiscal conservatives. That group just isn't nasty enough to win such a dirty fight.

"When I ask that my ancestral homeland be returned to me in the pristine condition of when it was "discovered", I would like to see the clean water, clean air, and the clean dirt, again."

That is fine, but just how do you expect to bring back the Pleistocene plants and animals?

otghand,

This would be easily accomplished via a "conservative war tax" and which would consist of a voluntary subscription. Thus, at the end of the political day, we would all find for ourselves, the number of "dedicated" conservatives versus the number of "convenience" conservatives, that reside in our America.

And all this accumulated wealth and would be turned over to the scientific community for their continued tango with intellectal vigor.

:-)

Jaango

Have gotten as far as Chapter 10, of Gomorrah, Max.

So far, quite enlightening.
What has become apparent to me is that James Dobson is the point of the neocon arrow. His skilled manipulation of those with psychological frailties is, indeed, impressive. He is the equivalent of a chess master. Looking back at the Bush administration it would seem that the psychological profiles of the movers and shakers within that administration would strongly adhere to Dobsons' "Dare to Discipline." Those who were not in lock -step with the concept of coercive discipline were cast aside. I think this policy was applied to the administration as well as diplomatically. It seems that being disciplined as children did not "set well" with most of the sovereign powers!

Although, I have not completed "Gomorrah," I've noted that little has been noted relative to the obvious movement to proselytize our military. I, strongly, believe the movement is deeply ingrained throughout all services and government agencies.

TJ...
I have no expertise in political science -- nor have I completed the book. Obviously, you are a conservative and that's fine with me. I have no desire to convert you.

I believe Blumenthal is analyzing a culture within the conservative movement. He is going beyond what we are shown on the Sunday talk-shows and what we see in 30 second news clips. He is defining the backgrounds of the movers and shakers of the religious right. The author makes an effort to describe the psychological evolvement of the power brokers of the religious right.

I could define how Max describes their similar philosophies in analytic terms, but would only be quoting the book. Steal it from a library and read it.

If as you say Blumenthal decided to venture out to understand the other side, then that is admirable, but to me it sounds like an explorer that returns home and tells stories of uncivilized heathens that are inhuman and need to be conquered, because they lack a soul.

I am under the impression that another aspect of his book is the oft repeated meme that the GOP is divided and falling apart, so I am not sure what you are referring to regarding goose stepping Nazis and Hitler. If you would like to expand on that, I would be very interested. Regarding your idea that the GOP has a problem with the influence of Christians, the party has different wings like all parties, but I would like to hear why you think the influence has "replaced" or engulfed all other aspects of the party.

One merely has to peruse the GOP Senate voting record to be alerted to the absolute conformity within the ranks. I, personally, identify Conservatives as similar to those of the ranks that dominated the Third Reich (goose-steppers.) I commented on a particular book and have no desire to involve myself in a pissing-contest with someone who has political (and moral) beliefs that I detest. Thanks for posting politely and continue to read and participate in TPM. You will find that most posters, here, do not post in generalities. They deal with specifics, name names and utilize references to support their contentions. The "Yes you did -- No you didn't" argument gets little attention here. Enjoyed posting with you.
Chuck

I hope you are not attributing to me every protester's remark that you have disagreed with over the years. I am not the "devil" if that is what your final remark means. You have referred to a lot of different people and remarks, but I will try to address most of it.

First of all, as you started out, my contention was not that two sides are painting the others ideas in the worst light possible. That is par for the course in politics. What I was contending is that Blumenthal appears to be taking it to the next level. He appears to be going beyond claiming that his opposition has wrong ideas, but that they have some sort of biological brain disorder that calls for Doctors to reprogram them. It is as if to say conservatives are not human and they have forfeited their civil rights for the fact that they are psychologically ill. This is the type of thinking you find in Cambodian re-education camps. I haven't read the book, but I read the summaries and the commentary so I may be wrong, but I'm sure it would be as intellectually lazy and maybe a relief for some conservatives to trot out a medical study that claimed that liberalism was a form of mental illness that required hospitalization. I'm sure if you look around you can find a conservative that has said that. So the examples you raise are off topic of what my point was, but will address them anyway.

what then do you think of the barrage of accusations from talk radio, Fox, Sarah, Newsmaxx, and even the GOP in Congress that "Obamacare" entails "death panels," "mandated abortions," and represents a long stride toward socialism?

I can't be responsible for every remark these people have made, but regarding the two items mentioned, Death Panels and slide towards Socialism. There are numerous examples of those on the left that in the last year have trumpeted the end of capitalism, or a new regulated capitalism, or a return of the acceptablity of socialism or some socialism. Howard Dean was DNC Chair earlier this year and recently he said there is no longer a debate on Capitalism or Socialism, he said it will now be a debate over how much more socialism we will have. That is not a random protester in a crowd, it is the Leader of the party. He is proud to be a leader in a move towards socialism. He and Hillary Clinton use the term communitarianism and socialism interchangeably. Michael Moore has a movie out that trumpets the end of capitalism and the benefits of a new socialist shift. So, I am wondering if you are troubled by the real shift towards socialism that the left talks about, or the fact that a conservative tries to portray it as something to be avoided.

Regarding Death Panels, I think a lot of liberals are most angry about the idea that their motives are being impugned as wanting to kill someone, much the way Ezra Klein impugned Joe Lieberman this week. I don't think Governor Palin was claiming Obama is some kind of blood thirsty Dick Cheney type caricature that enjoys watching innocent people die. She made statement that under new rules, her elderly parents and disabled baby may have to stand before panels that would have the power to deny them care that could result in their death. She was referring to proposed changes for IMAC that would give them broader powers to deny care to the elderly and the disabled similar to the UK, where their policy is to deny life prolonging procedures that amount to more than $35,000 for each year that life is prolonged. To the British this might make sense from a cost cutting perspective to treat the populace as a whole, but if it is your mother, and you could spend $350,000 to have her live 10 years longer, you would do it. The left gets angry when conservatives quote Obama's remark to the townhall questioner about her mother that it might be better to skip the costly surgery and give her morphine instead, but conservatives would like this to be a personal decision for an individual than a disinterested committee of bureaucrats. I'm sure you have read the conservatives sources and so on, but I will supply a typical article for you.

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10467

I have talked to some liberals that have said, we already have panels that decide matters of life and death at insurance companies or the doctors themselves or even greedy family members. Well, I think what conservatives find most distasteful is having a government that can use the power of life and death over its citizens to perpetuate its hold on power. I think our founders would consider this the most agregious breach of their founding principles, if the way conservatives are portraying it is accurate. I am contending that conservatives are actually fearful and sincere in their concerns, but I think implicit in your remark is the idea that they are knowingly mischaracterizing based on insincere and feigned concerns. That doesn't mean you think conservatives are mentally ill, nor do I think Obamacare supporters are insane, merely mistaken.

I was not aware that Michelle Bachman posed for photos in front of a photo of Dachau victims. Can you supply the photograph? I would be interested to see more information about her views on the accusation.

Regarding the Obama place of birth remark or the manner in which Obama dealt with requests for medical documents and birth certificates, I think you know that the people that say he was not born in America a fringe group, mostly populated by Ron Paul supporters and Lyndon Larouche types. Although Paul claims to be Republican and Larouche a Democrat, I don't think either of us wants to claim either of them. The way to avoid setting off the nutcases, is for Kerry and Obama to quickly release all pertinent documents early on the way candidate McCain and Bush did. I'm not blaming the victim, in this case Pres. Obama, I'm just saying, the birther thing annoyed me almost as much as mainstream democrats claiming Bush blew up the World Trade Center.

In all honesty, in virtually every discussion I have with conservatives, and I have many of them, there is always a point at which they will tell me, "You just can't stand it that there are people who disagree with you." It happens every time like clockwork--and now you've said the same thing, though not to me.

No I haven't said you personally can't stand it, but you claim I have said it, although not to you. One of the reasons, you hear that a lot is because, it has been said that Liberals consider Conservatives not just wrong, but evil, whereas Conservatives think Liberals are merely mistaken. Ronald Reagan regularly referred to his opposition as "my well meaning liberal friends". He did this to remind people that he is not questioning their sincere desire to improve the lives of the American people, i.e. to impugn their motives, but to point out that he believes they are mistaken and their ideas will have what he thought would be the opposite effect. I know there are distasteful people on the right and left, but it appears Blumenthal is not satisfied with conservatives being mistaken, and not even satisfied with conservatives being evil. It appears he is trying to convey that they have a fuse upstairs that has short circuited that has caused them to suffer from mental illness. I think this dehumanizes about half of the American population. Calling Conservatives devils is something we have grown accustomed to, but implying that a forced hospitalization and a power drill to the forehead is even more distasteful. (No, I'm not implying that that is written into the text of the current health care bill, as much as some might want it to be)

Thanks for your response and I'm glad you "stepped in" as you put it.

Okay, let me try to respond...

TJ: "What I was contending is that Blumenthal appears to be taking it to the next level. He appears to be going beyond claiming that his opposition has wrong ideas, but that they have some sort of biological brain disorder that calls for Doctors to reprogram them. It is as if to say conservatives are not human and they have forfeited their civil rights for the fact that they are psychologically ill."

Here's what Blumenthal says above: "Many of the movement's most fervent activists had suffered existential personal crises ranging from struggles with homosexual urges to alcoholism to mental illness that propelled them into far-right politics. For these trauma-wracked personalities, who ranged from reclusive movement financiers like Howard F. Ahmanson Jr, a resident for two years in a mental institution before he became the self-proclaimed sugar daddy of the Christian right, to key Republican Party leaders like Tom DeLay, a philandering drunk known as "Hot Tub Tommy" before his rebirth as an evangelical Christian, authoritarian politics served as a balm for their psychological anxieties."

He does look into their chronicled past. He does look at their psychological state as he sees it. I'd have to check, but I guess Ahmanson was, in fact, in a mental institution for two years. Similarly, I'd have to check, but he again points to Delay's documented past.

But NOWHERE does he say these folks have a "brain disorder" and NOWHERE does he suggest that this disorder "requires Doctors to reprogram them." And NOWHERE does he say or imply that they have "forefeited their civil rights." This is all stuff you have made up.

He has looked into their past and is making claims about their psychological state and some of what may be motivating them. But this strikes me as legitimate. As an example, would you want someone in a position of responsibility whom you felt was psychologically unstable?

As to the issue of socialism, I think it's a matter of degree. If, by socialism, we mean public ownership of an organization or a facility, then we already have plenty of "socialism" in this country. And people actually like it. It works well. Everything from the sewers to the fire departments to the public schools. Virtually all of our seniors are thrilled with their socialized medicine in the form of Medicare. Now, suddenly, for the first time in history, the GOP is at least putting on a face of wanting to save Medicare--because they know it sells. Up to now, they've put forth proposals to cut Medicare. And of course, they opposed its creation--most notably RR--in the first place. So contemplating them as the saviors of Medicare doesn't really pass the laugh test.

Deregulation, begun under RR, has had dubious results at best though, no doubt, it's done some good. In the financial markets, it's had disastrous results, I'd say. At a minimum, the markets and their private leaders failed to police themselves as Greenspan thought they would. It was a failure of the regulators too, but by now, the regulators have been weakened by a general ideological bias against "government regulation" and a sheer lack of funds and manpower. You can't police the markets if you don't have enough police on the streets.

(One conservative gambit, IMO, is to hamstring government by "starving the beast" and then say, 'Look! Government doesn't work!' Not honest.)

So you have to see Dean's remarks in that context, I think. Conservatives characterize those remarks as a desire to turn America into the former Soviet Union. "More socialism" becomes "totalitarian state." But in fact, there are plenty of examples where "more socialism"--say, in health care--doesn't mean anything like "totalitarian state" at all. In the early 60s, RR sent out his recording warning that Medicare would be the first step on a slippery slope to totalitarianism, i.e., "socialism." Well, it wasn't. The British don't live in a totalitarian state, nor do the Italians. The Canadians certainly don't, and neither do the French or Swiss. And yet they all manage to cover everyone.

Michael Moore's movie--though I haven't seen it--is a critique of capitalism. If there are things wrong with capitalism, shouldn't they be critiqued? Isn't that the intellectually honest thing to do? Why hold capitalism above all criticism? How honest is that?

If we had "socialized medicine" everyone would have the plan seniors now enjoy and love and the GOP is pretending to be trying to protect. And we'd have to put it on a sound financial footing.

As to "death panels," it's clearly an incendiary phrase meant to scare people. Surely, we can agree on that. She didn't come out and say, "Good idea, but we need to change here, here and here." As to the Cato fellow's contentions, I'd have to get down in the weeds to see if what he was saying had any real merit. It struck me as heavily caveated: If this, then maybe that. And certainly tweakable to avoid bad outcomes. But tweaking and making better is NOT what Sarah Palin is all about here. When you invoke "death panels," you don't want to improve a bill, you want to destroy it and you are purposing conjuring the worst possible images to ensure that happens. It's not as if you don't like this or that provision, you want the whole thing to fail. If you don't see that, then you and I probably have limited places where we can agree.

If we had a system like Britain's then you, if you had the money, could buy any kind of care you want. I know this, because I sold private health insurance in the UK. You can buy yourself a Harley Street doctor, and get any level of care you want. Right now, and ever since the campaign, Obama EXPLICITLY REJECTED the British system. Ruled it out. Even said it was sort of unAmerican. But even if we had a single payer system, which has NEVER been on the table, you could still take your money and buy whatever kind of care you could afford for yourself or your parents. There's nothing stopping you.

The problem is, millions of people don't have that kind of money and so they're left without any options. Millions of others with insurance are left to contend with faceless insurance company bureaucrats who will decide what gets paid for and how much. They are utterly unaccountable to anyone or thing other than their own internal policies which are purposely kept opaque to the outside. Their decisions are final and largely non-reviewable. Try it sometime the next time an insurance company refuses to pay your claim or gives you less than you think you should get. There's essentially no recourse. At least with a government agency, there is SOME accountability, even if the thread is thin. There is SOME sense, or there used to be before conservatives turned "government" into a dirty word, of PUBLIC SERVICE. Private companies have NO obligation, whether met or not, to serve the public. Their only masters are their shareholders.

So I'd venture to say that the founders would find a public system preferable to a private one. After all, didn't Ben Franklin replace the patch quilt system of letter delivery with the USPS?

But the bottom line is, insurance companies ration care. Anyone who has bought a plan, or has looked at his company's plan, or put in a claim, knows that there are limits to what the insurance company will pay for. That's a fact. And if you're on your company's plan and you get sick, you get what you get. And you can't move to another plan--even if the company allowed you to move--because now you have a preexisting condition. So the fantasy of "freedom" that conservatives attribute to the current system really is fantasy. Yeah, it's there...sort of. But come to DC some time when they hold "open enrollment" in the agencies. It's like a game of musical chairs as these folks review, re-evaluate and switch coverage. I've never been at a company that offered anything comparable to that level of freedom of choice.

But here's the dishonest part, IMO. On the one hand, conservatives claim that Medicare is going bankrupt and it (really all government programs) should be subject to stricter financial discipline. Often that means cutting programs, cutting benefits, cutting spending. Make government more like the private sector in that way. And yet, this is precisely the FEAR they express toward government programs--that Obama will examine whether such and such a treatment is effective, or cost effective, and deny them this treatment in the name of fiscal responsibility or medical responsibility. They SAY they want to cut out wasteful spending on programs that don't work, but then stoke fears that government will cut wasteful spending on medicine that doesn't work. On the one hand, they defend an insurance company's right to deny coverage for too costly procedures to patients who are too costly to cover....but fear the government will do the same. They complain that government is simply incapable of running a tight ship and they complain when someone like Obama pledges to run a tighter ship.

So here, you say to Chuck T: "Is it possible, Lieberman and conservatives have beliefs that the left has either gone to the trouble to investigate and decided its not their cup of tea,....or maybe the left is just so wrapped up in their own cocoon that they are not willing to look at the views of others that disagree?"

This is the point I was making about "disagreeing." You weren't talking to me, because I hadn't entered the conversation yet.

As to Dachau, just Google the tea party held by Congresswoman Michele Bachmann on the Mall. Many GOP Congressmen and women were there, including Minority Whip Eric Cantor. Plenty has been written about the photograph. And you will find remarks by Eric Cantor saying that the photo "wasn't helpful." Lots to read and easy to find. So, again, I don't think these GOPers are saying that Democrats or Obama are merely "mistaken." Reagan did say those things and, in fact, he got a lot of Democratic support. (BTW, when you change "Democratic" to "Democrat," you aren't engaging in a simple disagreement between parties, you are denigrating the opposition--you're name calling.) Even GW got a lot of Democratic support after 9/11, despite his having been installed by activist judges on the SC.

So, I guess, bottom line, when Palin lies about death panels (even the Cato analyst hedges his bets on this one)...when you have the the talkers on TV and radio saying President wants to turn this into a socialist state... when you have repeated claims that he's not an American even when he's released is BC and there are newspaper reports of his birth...when you have Obamacare compared to Dachau...when you claim erroneously that the bill will "mandate" abortions... when you have Jim DeMint of SC telling the faithful that reform will be Obama's "Waterloo," a goal that is utterly beside the point of ensuring good health care for Americans... it is very hard for me to believe that the GOP is "disagreeing" in good faith.

So, at that point, I look for other motivations. I can no longer say this is an honest disagreement, because there is little to no honesty in the arguments. The arguments are largely fact-less. And what facts there are center on issues that could be easily dealt with, but which are blown up to theological proportions. Obama wants to turn this into a socialist state, a gulag. Obama is a Kenyan. Obama is willing to let some faceless bureaucrat kill my poor Trig. Obama is the anti-Christ. These are all highly inflammatory and baseless claims. And when they are put forth by folks who are otherwise in command of their faculties, yes, I do have to look for other motivations. And no, it is no longer a matter of a simple disagreement.

BTW, where do you find "forced hospitalization" and "a power to drill to the forehead"? Please come with some actual language in the bill that says anything like this.

Let's work our way backwards here, TT. First thank for your detailed and thoughtful post.

First, The power drill remark was clearly a joke and I even joked that although there is no provision in the current bill, some might wish there was. So, as far as me providing language in the bill, I already said there is no language in the bill, because it was clearly a joke.

Let's start with your summary paragraphs:

So, I guess, bottom line, when Palin lies about death panels (even the Cato analyst hedges his bets on this one)...

... when you have the the talkers on TV and radio saying President wants to turn this into a socialist state...

Which leads me to the Demint remark. Some Democrats have used this same remark that they feared it would be his waterloo. Many portrayed his remark as implying that Demint will oppose an excellent plan in order to get at Obama. That is either intellectually dishonest or just intellectually lazy. Anyone that knows Demint, knows that he does not consider Obama's well publicized ideas on Healthcare reform as an excellent idea. He was saying that it is a bad idea and an unpopular idea and if he pursues it, he will drag down his popularity,....which could be argued has proven to be true when you consider the polls. The mainstream media ran with this story, because it is based on the assumption that anyone that would oppose ObamaCare is knowingly opposing an Excellent idea. A clear majority of the American people don't think it is an excellent idea. I don't hear the Mainstream media attacking the 58% of Americans the way they attacked Demint.

... when you have repeated claims that he's not an American even when he's released is BC and there are newspaper reports of his birth...when you have Obamacare compared to Dachau...

when you claim erroneously that the bill will "mandate" abortions... when you have Jim DeMint of SC telling the faithful that reform will be Obama's "Waterloo," a goal that is utterly beside the point of ensuring good health care for Americans... it is very hard for me to believe that the GOP is "disagreeing" in good faith.

So, at that point, I look for other motivations. I can no longer say this is an honest disagreement, because there is little to no honesty in the arguments. The arguments are largely fact-less.

... And what facts there are center on issues that could be easily dealt with, but which are blown up to theological proportions. Obama wants to turn this into a socialist state, a gulag. Obama is a Kenyan. Obama is willing to let some faceless bureaucrat kill my poor Trig. Obama is the anti-Christ. These are all highly inflammatory and baseless claims.

And when they are put forth by folks who are otherwise in command of their faculties, yes, I do have to look for other motivations. And no, it is no longer a matter of a simple disagreement.

Regarding your remarks about private insurance, I think some of it is a bit of an oversimplification. I have had insurance companies deny claims and yes, it was a pain in the butt to challenge them, but I did and eventually they coughed up. And no, its not true that there is no recourse. Every state has Insurance commissioners where you can file complaints and ask for arbitration of some sort and I have used this option before and received satisfactory results. There is also an army of civil lawyers chomping at the bit to attack private insurance companies if they screw you, and finally, the free market if allowed to operate allows for people to walk away and find a better provider in most states and the GOP has actually offered ideas that will make it work better, but they are demonized as having NO plan and the party of NO, yet the Democrats will not even let them in on the debate.

You say the GOP is dishonest regarding Medicare and have not dealt in good faith on it or tried to keep it solvent. Thats just not true. Every Republican President in the last 50 years has tried to address the issue. When Gingrich tried to come up with increased options for the elderly, the Democrats did not work with him, they used it against him. When Bush tried to address it, they used it against him. When Nixon came up with a Healthcare plan that makes the current one look timid by comparison, Ted Kennedy destroyed it for political purposes and in later years admitted that it was his biggest regret in his career.

As you read current articles from the left, they claim that we have to pass this bill not because it is a great bill, but because if we don't, this chance will never come again. They basically admit that the bill stinks. They argue that this chance will never come again, because, as they point out, in each previous example where they tried a similar program in the past, no alternative plan was submitted after THEIR bill was scrapped. That is just not true. The truth is either no bill that they considered radical enough was feasible, or a Republican might get credit for addressing the issue and we just can't have that. The Waterloo Meme might apply more aptly to Ted Kennedy than Jim Demint. Demint honestly doesn't think the current bill is a good idea, he believes the people don't want it either and he thinks Obama is damaging himself by pursuing it. Kennedy and a number of other Democrats since have knowingly stood in the way of proposals on Health care that they believed were good ideas and ideas they would later propose themselves, but obstructed them for fear a Republican would get credit. Just because the GOP ideas were not socialist enough or radical enough does not mean they did not address the issue or offer up what they considered solutions.

The Democrats oppose the GOP on some of their ideas. Do I think they are theologically delusional? No. Do I think they are Mentally Ill? No. This is politics. I think they were mistaken. As I said, Reagan said, Our well meaning liberal friends are mistaken on this one.

When you or Howard Dean say honestly and sincerely that you like a little Socialism here and there, good for you. I try to listen and find out what the left really wants in the midst of all the political speak. If you listen to Jim Demint or Sarah Palin, if you can cut through the political speak and phrases you consider incendiary and ask yourself if its possible, they really don't like the level of Socialism that Dean wants, or they differ on what Dean considers that magical balance or what they would refer to as the dangerous tipping point, then try to imagine, they really sincerely believe this bill is a mistake.

It is possible for a rational person to find this bill imperfect and still be able to to live a normal life. With a majority of people in America who currently oppose it, it is possible that they are not hot tubbers, or suffering under sexual identity issues or in need of a visit to a mental hospital.

This is the way our political system works. Dean has his views, Demint has his. The people look it over and choose. Last night Obama said on ABC that if this bill doesn't pass we will all lose our insurance coverage and the United States will go bankrupt. Sound kind of incendiary? Thats politics.

I appreciate your thoughtful comments and much of what you said makes me realize that although we disagree, there is some common ground we can discuss and use to understand the issues better. I know Blumenthal didn't say he was going to force someone into a hospital and give them a lobotomy, but my point was, when we veer off the path of engaging in debate and listening to the other side and we give up and start imagining the otherside is somehow not rational in the clinical sense or that some mental illness or psychosis has caused them to not agree with your point of view, then it crosses a line where any hope of discourse is totally impossible and that is a very dangerous path to go down. If a conservative were to say this type of thing, I would lump them in with the dangerous fringe we have covered before.

Thanks again for your response. I enjoyed your ideas very much.

Okay…
TJ: First, The power drill remark was clearly a joke and I even joked that although there is no provision in the current bill, some might wish there was. So, as far as me providing language in the bill, I already said there is no language in the bill, because it was clearly a joke.

TT: I didn’t hear it as a joke, but you DID say it wasn’t in the bill. I misread that. Sorry.

Let's start with your summary paragraphs:


TJ: So, I guess, bottom line, when Palin lies about death panels (even the Cato analyst hedges his bets on this one)...
I think your above discussion of Palin contends that there are panels that their are cost cutting oversight panels and you went in to detail about how the private sector does it too. It sounds like you are admitting that there might be some truth in her underlying contention, but as you said, the phrase "death panels" is incendiary.

TT: This is circular reasoning. It doesn’t make sense to pillory a system for a provision contained in the system you support. If that were the case, Palin would be required to say that Aetna has “death panels.” But she doesn’t. The CLEAR intent here is to scare people into thinking that they aren’t going to get the consideration or treatment they get now when, in fact, many people will get much more of both. So I’m not admitting that there’s “some truth” in her argument. This would be like GM trying to scare people from buying Ford cars because, holy moly, Ford cars use this highly flammable stuff called “gasoline” and you’ll be driving around in a bomb ready to detonate! Sorry. The point is, virtually ALL insurance systems ration care to some extent; permit some treatments and not others. But to scare folks with the words “rationing” and “death panels” when, in fact, the bill gives them MORE treatment and fewer restrictions than many private plans and gives the uninsured 100% more coverage than they have now is dishonest.

TJ: We are told that Palin is a ditzy MILF, but apparently she must have some political skills, because the phrase got instant traction. Lies? No. Making the bill look bad? probably.

TT: Oh she’s got political skills.

TJ: And your contention that she only wants to kill it all, rather than work on little parts here and there, assumes the GOP doesn't have an alternative. They do. If the Democrats don't allow the GOP to participate, and it dies, they have no right to claim the GOP were not willing to "improve" the bill. And if the bill dies and the next day the GOP put there bill up for debate, what are the chances of them getting it heard. It is the party in control that is making this all or nothing.

TT: Last I heard, the House took something like 126 Republican amendments. Clearly, they’re not going to take all of them and aren’t going to take the ones with which they disagree. I’ve only ever heard three ideas from the GOP: tort reform, interstate competition, and one other that escapes me, probably to do with tax. Everything I’ve ever read on tort reform, including from FactCheck.org, suggests at most a .5% savings. Moreover, if malpractice leaves a person impaired for life, the cost of living over a lifetime goes way up. Interstate competition might help some, but I’m not convinced. We already have states with multiple insurers, and they tend to cluster (fix?) their rates. The problem here is that the buyer can’t really walk away from the transaction. He MUST have insurance. The companies know this, so they have no real incentive, IMO, to cut him a break except along the margins. If a buyer can’t walk away from the transaction—because having insurance can be a matter of life and death for someone and his family—then he’s kind of over a barrel.

Moreover, I’ve NEVER seen a GOPer run on a health reform platform. Generally, they want to cut Medicare, reform torts, and allow competition. I’m not sure what that does for the people who don’t have insurance, or who get rejected for pre-existing conditions, or whose insurance is rescinded just when they need it. Never saw anything comprehensive from the GOP. Maybe they’re trying to get onboard now because they know being anti-reform is a non-starter.

TJ: ... when you have the talkers on TV and radio saying President wants to turn this into a socialist state...

I appreciate the fact that you have explained with numerous examples that there is already some degree of socialism and that we are witnessing an increase in socialism. You like that and believe the American people like that. I say I appreciate that, because if we call it what it is, and you prefer it, and the people do too, then good for them. What a lot of people don't like is promoting Socialism and denying that it is out of fear that if the people find out that it is, that they will oppose it. That would be lying. When Dean or Hillary openly admit their socialist ideas, I appreciate their honesty.

TT: I don’t mind the word socialism, but since the Cold War at least, it’s become a dirty word—to the point where, if an idea carries that label, many people won’t look at it. Is that a good thing in your opinion? Policymaking by label? Moreover, the intent is always to invoke the slippery slope argument: This step may be okay, but it’s one step closer to the gulag. Well, in fact, as we saw with MC, no it isn’t. And if that argument had been allowed to prevail, we wouldn’t have MC, and a lot of seniors would probably be a lot worse off. So it’s not just the word or label, it’s also the slippery slope argument that’s invoked. Here we have conservatives questioning liberal motives: They don’t mean well; they want to use this as the first step toward putting us all in the gulag. That was RR’s argument way back when he first opposed MC. But whether you call it socialism or pasta-making, MC and SS for that matter have done a lot of people a lot of good. They don’t even think of MC as “socialism” because, well, they have a lot of experience with it, and they like it.

TJ: If a conservative points it out as fact and that ticks off a liberal, it is merely for the fact that they don't want this fact to be shared with the public for fear it will be frowned upon by the people.

TT: Yes, because the word “socialism” has been demagogued. As soon as the label is affixed, folks say, “I don’t want that,” even if they would want were they able to look at what the proposal REALLY is.

TJ: Which leads me to the DeMint remark. Some Democrats have used this same remark that they feared it would be his waterloo. Many portrayed his remark as implying that DeMint will oppose an excellent plan in order to get at Obama. That is either intellectually dishonest or just intellectually lazy. Anyone that knows DeMint, knows that he does not consider Obama's well publicized ideas on Healthcare reform as an excellent idea. He was saying that it is a bad idea and an unpopular idea and if he pursues it, he will drag down his popularity

TT: Well, TJ, c’mon. First, nobody, by definition, is going to oppose “an excellent idea.” This is tendentious. But what is excellent? Second, he wasn’t giving advice to Obama, “Watch out! You’ll drag down your popularity!” He was rallying his troops to bring down Obama. His focus was NOT on health care at all. If it had been, then the remark would have been about the DeMint Plan. And lastly, he made this remark at the very beginning of the debate, when there was barely a plan at all, just a list of guidelines or principles—one of which was deficit neutrality.

TJ: A clear majority of the American people don't think it is an excellent idea. I don't hear the Mainstream media attacking the 58% of Americans the way they attacked DeMint.

TT: To be honest, this whole conversation has been so badly polluted with terms like death panels (thank you, Chuck Grassley) and mandated abortion and “government run health care”…I don’t think the American people have a clear idea of what the bill really is. It’s a shame. The GOP has been very effective that way and the Dems have been pretty incompetent. Then again, it’s harder to get something done than it is to tear something down.

TJ:... when you have repeated claims that he's not an American even when he's released is BC and there are newspaper reports of his birth...when you have Obamacare compared to Dachau...

As I said before, the Ron Paul and Larouche fringe groups are not mainstream GOP and represent a small nutty bunch that defies party affiliation.

TT: This isn’t true. There have been bills entered into Congress calling on candidates to provide BC…for the first time in history. Why? A number of GOPers did the old agnostic non-denial denial: “As far as I know, he is an American.” The GOP has been copping a feel from this the whole time.

TJ: On the other hand the Palin baby story was repeated by mainstream personalities on the left and Andrew Sullivan for instance still has not let go of the "Trig is not the Governor's baby" story.

TT: Sullivan is a conservative.

TJ: 911 truther stories were repeated by the Democrat leadership.

TT: Which Democratic leadership? Who, in Congress, has signed on to the truther tale? Kucinich? He doesn’t have much support, based on his track record. AFAIK, this is a part of the base calling for new investigations. Other parts of the base, like me for example, aren’t convinced by their arguments and don’t believe GWB was behind it.

TJ: The two items you mention here are a super fringe group and an anonymous protester in a crowd with an offensive sign.

Earlier, I was led to believe from your remarks that Michelle Bachman proudly stood in front of a Dachau banner and had her picture taken. As you said, when asked Eric Cantor expressed his discomfort with a random protester appearing with a poster like that. This happenes often, and if you have seen the news coverage of the yellow posters with Obama and a Hitler mustauche, what they do not say is that Democrat Lyndon Larouche supplies those posters to the protesters, yet they try to attribute them to the GOP. The items you mentioned are clearly not mainstream Republican ideas.

TT: "Who knew a casual comment on TV could generate this?" Rep. Jeb Hensarling (Tex.) exulted as he stood in front of the Dachau banner. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/05/AR2009110504566.html

TJ: Assuming that no rational person could find this bill imperfect is a pretty high bar and saying that Palin's remarks and the socialism remarks are fact-less is not necessarily so, based on your own comments. And the birther nuts are not mainstream Republicans.

TT: I don’t assume; I just don’t hear much in the way of facts or logic or reason.

TJ: Regarding the Gulag concept, as we have discussed there are Socialist components already and are being introduced and you like them, and thats fair. There is an honest and sincere belief amongst reasonable people that there is a tipping point at which a certain level of Socialism creates a power structure that becomes self-perpetuating and irreversible.

TJ: But TJ, the public option is so far removed from ANYTHING that resembles the gulag, a reasonable person is hard pressed to know what to say.

TJ: Regarding your remarks about private insurance, I think some of it is a bit of an oversimplification. I have had insurance companies deny claims and yes, it was a pain in the butt to challenge them, but I did and eventually they coughed up. And no, its not true that there is no recourse. Every state has Insurance commissioners where you can file complaints and ask for arbitration of some sort and I have used this option before and received satisfactory results.

TT: Wasn’t that “rationing”? Thank god for the little bit socialism we have!

TJ: There is also an army of civil lawyers chomping at the bit to attack private insurance companies if they screw you, and finally, the free market if allowed to operate allows for people to walk away and find a better provider in most states and the GOP has actually offered ideas that will make it work better, but they are demonized as having NO plan and the party of NO, yet the Democrats will not even let them in on the debate.

TT: Thank god for trial lawyers! No; they aren’t demonized. Democrats just don’t agree. They think they’re bad ideas.

TJ: You say the GOP is dishonest regarding Medicare and have not dealt in good faith on it or tried to keep it solvent. Thats just not true. Every Republican President in the last 50 years has tried to address the issue. When Gingrich tried to come up with increased options for the elderly, the Democrats did not work with him, they used it against him. When Bush tried to address it, they used it against him. When Nixon came up with a Healthcare plan that makes the current one look timid by comparison, Ted Kennedy destroyed it for political purposes and in later years admitted that it was his biggest regret in his career.

TT: I agree with Kennedy on this. But it’s a fact that the GOP have opposed MC from the get-go. They also don’t like SS and have tried to privatize that, fortunately, without luck. Unless a politician is for the ESSENCE of a program, then I don’t trust him to reform it. He’s most likely trying to destroy it piece by piece. If it’s a popular plan, then, of course, he can’t come right out and say it. So he HAS to say that he’s “reforming” it. But if an art critic hated Van Gogh, I wouldn’t just him to restore one of his paintings.

TJ: As you read current articles from the left, they claim that we have to pass this bill not because it is a great bill, but because if we don't, this chance will never come again. They basically admit that the bill stinks.

TT: The first person to try this was a Republican, TR. The don’t admit the bill stinks. Of course, no one likes ANY big bill because it’s always full of compromises. But that isn’t to say they think it stinks.

TJ: They argue that this chance will never come again, because, as they point out, in each previous example where they tried a similar program in the past, no alternative plan was submitted after THEIR bill was scrapped. That is just not true. The truth is either no bill that they considered radical enough was feasible, or a Republican might get credit for addressing the issue and we just can't have that.

TT: Not “never”…just a long time. Maybe they didn’t think those ideas were good.

TJ: The Waterloo Meme might apply more aptly to Ted Kennedy than Jim DeMint. DeMint honestly doesn't think the current bill is a good idea, he believes the people don't want it either and he thinks Obama is damaging himself by pursuing it.

TT: The idea that DeMint is looking out for Obama is, on its face, laughable.

TJ: Kennedy and a number of other Democrats since have knowingly stood in the way of proposals on Health care that they believed were good ideas and ideas they would later propose themselves, but obstructed them for fear a Republican would get credit. Just because the GOP ideas were not socialist enough or radical enough does not mean they did not address the issue or offer up what they considered solutions.

TT: “Socialist enough” or “radical enough” are tendentious. They didn’t think they were good ideas. But I agree, this goes on. The GOP complained that Clinton had co-opted all their best ideas.

TJ: The Democrats oppose the GOP on some of their ideas. Do I think they are theologically delusional? No. Do I think they are Mentally Ill? No. This is politics. I think they were mistaken. As I said, Reagan said, Our well meaning liberal friends are mistaken on this one.

TT: But what if they WERE mentally ill? Shouldn’t that be discussed and brought out into the open?

TJ: If you listen to Jim DeMint or Sarah Palin, if you can cut through the political speak and phrases you consider incendiary and ask yourself if its possible, they really don't like the level of Socialism that Dean wants, or they differ on what Dean considers that magical balance or what they would refer to as the dangerous tipping point, then try to imagine, they really sincerely believe this bill is a mistake.

TT: Then why don’t they OPENLY call for the elimination for MC? It’s socialist as hell. Seniors get—and the GOP is “trying to protect”—the very thing they don’t want the rest of us to have because it’s so awful. Is it okay for the oldsters to have socialist care?

TJ: It is possible for a rational person to find this bill imperfect and still be able to live a normal life. With a majority of people in America who currently oppose it, it is possible that they are not hot tubbers, or suffering under sexual identity issues or in need of a visit to a mental hospital.

TT: Sure. But what if they have these issues and they are driving them in a certain direction.

TJ: This is the way our political system works. Dean has his views, DeMint has his. The people look it over and choose. Last night Obama said on ABC that if this bill doesn't pass we will all lose our insurance coverage and the United States will go bankrupt. Sound kind of incendiary? Thats politics.

TT: I’d have to look at his wording on this. He is looking at the steep cost curve under current conditions and the number of people who are losing their insurance and the % of GDP going to health care. Doesn’t look good. But this is an argument from fact.

Thanks again for your response. I enjoyed your ideas very much.

Ditto.

I guess the final piece of this is this...

Without a public option ("government run program") or a Medicare buy-in, there is NO socialism in this plan. And it looks like those things won't be in the plan.

We'll see, however, whether the Palins and the GOPers stop calling it socialism. I suspect not, but we'll see.

More broadly, ever since RR said that government was the problem, Republicans have associated virtually any government action--apart from security issues and making war--with the first step toward socialism.

TJ: If a private company prior to purchasing the plan says it will cover some services and not others, you are free to choose a different plan or different provider or opt for a fee for service alternative.

TT: You may be free to choose at the start, when you’re healthy. But when you’re facing an illness—which are largely unforeseen—you are NOT free to go find a policy that covers it. At that point, it’s a pre-existing condition.

TJ: When one of my children was born they allowed for two nights in a hospital suite after birth if there were no complications. We wanted to stay one more night so we paid out of pocket for another night.

TT: If you had a government plan, you could also pay out of pocket for whatever you wanted and could find.

TJ: Just because the carrier puts limits on procedures, does not make it rationing. In the private realm, it is called price rationing, where price defines the means by which goods and services are doled out. The phrase rationing in its common usage and in terms of health care is non-price rationing meaning everybody that participates in the government plan is treated equally, but since there are scarce resources, the amount is doled out based on other criteria.

TT: This is a difference without a distinction. The insurance company decides, however it decides to allow the procedure or not. Here, the market is invoked as some sort of fair and wise arbiter of which treatments you get and which ones you don’t. But again, if you need a serious operation, good luck shopping for it from a different insurance co., at the moment of need.

TJ: The example I gave in the previous post about the British $35k per year of life extension was similar to what Hillary Clinton explained in the 1990s that too much is spent for end of life care that has lower chances of being effective, so therefore it should be witheld under certain so called "reasonable" situations. That makes sense to her when looking at the populace as a whole, but does not make sense to an individual who is about to die and wants to use his life savings to try to stay alive.

TT: Believe it or not, insurance companies also judge which procedures they’ll cover based, at least in part, on their effectiveness. And there are “scare resources” in play here, too: How much of their scarce capital they’re willing to pay out to save my life. Sure, it’s a different mechanism, but there is no big difference, except that the government isn’t enslaved to the profit motive when decide which events it will pay for. It doesn’t have to make a profit, or pay out $120 million salaries, which cut into the resources it has to pay for treatment.

TJ: So back to your Palin response, she does not see private systems the way the left does so would not need to call them death panels.

TT: This is circular. She’s free to say whatever she thinks. The question is, does what she says have any validity, and I’ve argued that it does not. Whether you’re denied a life-saving treatment because of price rationing or rationing or by a government bureaucrat or an insurance bureaucrat, you are still denied the care. Bottom line, you may die because of what a bureau doesn’t allow you, so if you’re going to call one a death panel, honesty should compel you to call the other a death panel. But Sarah isn’t about honesty—or a person’s health—she’s about ideology. But in either system, if you’ve got life savings to spend, and want to go outside the system, you can. Even in Britain.

TJ: The more competitors the more likely you are to have a price sensitive player break from the pack.

TT: Yes. Unless they find it more lucrative to move as a pack. And to buy each other up to reduce competition. Consolidation is a big factor. It seems to me that big companies don’t really like competition past a certain point, unless THEY are the competition. They like monopolies or duopolies. Certainly that’s been true in the broadcast field. The goal of a business is to make profit and return value to shareholders, not promote competition.

Then you have the pesky problem of pre-existing conditions and rescission. Even in a large field, maybe especially in a large field, there is no incentive for any of the players to take in folks with pre-existing conditions. They are all already cherry picking, looking for the healthiest folks, so they would avoid pre-existers like the plague, especially as they couldn’t necessarily jack up the price of the premiums to cover it. Very sick are often not the wealthiest. The same goes for capping payments and rescinding cover when someone becomes very ill. No way are those other companies going to flock to cover the sickest as some kind of niche market.

In fact, these problems are exascerbated by having more players in the field. Each player necessarily has fewer customers and afford fewer costly customers, such as the very ill. So while more players might bring down prices, it would do so by sacrificing coverage, I predict.

TJ: If you mean running on a platform where Healthcare is the crown Jewel of their campaign, no I've never seen that either, and even on the Democrat side, Clinton is the only one I've seen at the Presidential level and Harris Wofford at the state level. But as far as a Republican who made it a highly prominent component of his campaign, you can start with Bush in 2000.

TT: There was Truman. There was LBJ. There was Teddy Kennedy. There was Clinton I and Clinton II. And there is Obama. I don’t recall Bush talking about prescription drug benefits in 2000, but you may be right.

TJ: The Democrats are always saying the GOP is on the verge of cutting Medicare and in fact it is the Democrats that are cutting it. I know you don't think so, but thats the way many people do see it.

TT: That’s because they opposed it from the beginning. Look at the RR recording. I imagine some moderates supported it. Yes, Obama claims to be cutting waste out of the program—we’ll see if that’s so. But considering MC has been a Democratic program through and through for decades, I doubt seriously they are going to do anything to impair it. Course, then they’ll be accused of profligate spending by the same folks (McCain) who are screaming (now) that the Dems are cutting MC. Hard to win with these folks.

TJ: Socialism in one form or another has proven to be the deadliest philosophy of the 20th century.

TT: We are talking health care, here TJ, not a dictatorship. I’m sorry there’s a difference. You have to look at virtually every other advanced industrial nation…France, Britain, Italy, Germany…not Maoist China. (Who, somehow, are cleaning are clocks economically.) If we were banning private property, I’d be with you, but we’re not. Not even close.

TJ: Socialism is a dirty word not because of a clever marketing campaign by extreme right wingers. It is based on real life experience.

TT: Not it isn’t. What you are calling socialism is a form of communism. And real life experience with socialized medicine would seem to confirm that it works very well if, what you’re judging, are health outcomes. We’re 37th according to the WHO. France is first. This isn’t to gainsay a lot of the good things we’ve done in health care—but we have serious problems others don’t.

“Socialism” is a dirty word based on propaganda—as opposed to actual experience and a policy’s content—when it is applied to HC. RR made a strong and unsubstantiated pitch that MC would lead inexorably to socialized medicine and from there to a socialized society. Well, neither thing has happened, even remotely.

And even the current policy isn’t socialized medicine. All of that has been stripped out (unfortunately).

In terms of labels, I’m saying judge the policy based on actual experience and content, not on fear-mongering.

TJ: I don't think anyone on the left can deny that the current bill involves more government control in Healthcare than the original MC plan.

TT: I can deny it. MC is a government-administered plan. The current Senate bill has stripped out the PO and the Medicare buy-in. Insurance is provided solely by the private sector. Even the PO that was most recently proposed involved a very small number of people in special circumstances.

TJ: Reagan meant that the left sincerely believes what they are doing will ultimately result in a Utopia, but they are mistaken. Furthermore, he believes that their plans will unwittingly cross a tipping point from which there is no return.

TT: Leaving aside “utopia”—I can assure you that NO ONE on the left thinks that this bill will result in utopia—what basis is there for claiming or showing that “their plans will unwittingly cross a tipping point from which there is no return.” Nice rhetoric, but I see no evidence for it. Many European countries are much more socialized than this bill will allow for and yet I haven’t seen even one cross a tipping point. In fact, if anything, Russia and China, who jumped over the line, are heading back in our direction. But my point is this: This is fear mongering without a basis in fact. And even if there were a slippery slope—for which I see no evidence —you assume that the slope can’t be avoided. That we’re going to slide right down into the gulag with our best of intentions. I see no evidence for this. None. And I’ve spent a lot of time in socialized countries.

As to DeMint and his motives, I think what you say is possible…but not the case here. My judgement based on what I know of the comment. Here’s the first part of the comment: “DeMint said: “If we’re able to stop Obama on this it will be his Waterloo. It will break him.” This is not DeMint saying this is a bad idea, and the American people don’t like it, and it will bring down Obama. This is DeMint saying, “We are going to use this battle to break Obama.” Noticeably absent from this is comment is…health care… or addressing the needs and desires of the American people.

TJ: Yes, we just spent 8 years watching what it looks like to see opposition politicians tear things down. Like I said. That's Politics. It is now and it was then.

TT: Yes, it is politics. The question is, were Bush’s policies good for America? Were they Constitutional? Did they leave America better off than when Bush came into office? This is an even longer conversation than the one we’re having. But the answer is…no. And a LOT of Americans would agree with me. One reason why Republicans were turned out in record numbers. Two disastrous wars. Illegally invading a sovereign country that hadn’t attacked us. Unconstitutional wiretapping. Tearing up the Geneva Convention by torturing. Those are the principal reasons why Bush was savaged. After 9/11, he had HUGE Democratic support.

TJ: So there is no mainstream Republican that subscribes to the Obama non-citizen story.

TT: Wouldn’t you agree that an action by a Congressman is pretty “mainstream?”

TJ: I challenge any one to find a conservative that would consider him a conservative. Add to that the fact he voted for Kerry and Obama and recently wrote a manifesto how he despises the conservative movement.

TT: Many may disown him because he’s gay. But he was an early and ardent supporter of the war in Iraq. I think he voted for Bush, at least the first time. He has become disgusted with the conservative movement, so he has moved away from it. A bit like RR who didn’t leave the Democratic Party; the party moved away from him. I’m sure there are many conservatives who don’t like Sullivan. In fact, by the end of his presidency, many conservatives didn’t think Bush was a conservative. And in some ways, he wasn’t. But then the discussion becomes one of personal perspective, i.e., who’s a REAL conservative; who’s a real Liberal.

TJ: Howard Dean, the ultimate leader of the party said, ""I don't know. There are many theories about it. The most interesting theory that I've heard so far, which is nothing more than a theory, I can't—think it can't be proved, is that he was warned ahead of time by the Saudis. Now, who knows what the real situation is,..." He also defends Obama's Green jobs Czar Van Jones who is a truther,...and then there is the poll that says a majority of Democrats believe Bush knew about 911 before it occurred which may not be Rosie O'Donnell melting steel territory, but it is disturbing.

TT: I’d have to do a search on this, but it’s pretty clear from your quote that Dean is not supporting truther theories. Van Jones, as I understand it, signed a petition, probably asking for further inquiry. I don’t see anything wrong with that as there appear to be quite a few anomalies with the official story. As I recalled, Bush OPPOSED the formation of the 9/11 Commission and finally gave in. I think THAT’s weird, given the magnitude of the event. Personally, I don’t give these theories much credence, but I haven’t spent any time looking into them. I tend NOT to be interested in conspiracies, and I don’t have the scientific or engineering background to judge them. Some seem ridiculous on their face, e.g., a missile hitting the Pentagon.

The birther controversy, by contrast, is a non-starter because Obama HAS shown his birth certificate and there are birth announcements for him in papers of the time. There’s just nothing to it. But it’s always possible to keep some things alive, if only because people are ignorant and willing to believe. This is true of all conspiracies, I think.

TJ: Sounds like you have a slippery slope argument as well as far as the GOP destroying things.

TT: Only if there’s a GOOD and REASONABLE reason to think that that is what they are up to. This should be obvious. The slippery slope argument isn’t one you can profitably apply from the facts. RR, the patron saint of the modern conservative movement, demagogued MC at its inception. I’m sure there are reasonable GOPers who supported it then and since. But not among the current crop.

TJ: Bush addressed Medicare and SS and on Medicare "Expansion" in 2003 the Democrats overwhelmingly voted against the President, and on Social Security reform which was the President's primary domestic policy initiative in his second term, they killed it before it got started.

TT: They killed it, because Bush’s idea for saving it was to privatize it. That runs counter to the essence of the program. Moreover, there were other ways of saving it without destroying it, and there was some genuine disagreement over when it would run dry, etc. Of course, he didn’t SAY he wanted to destroy it or privatize it. In fact, at the time, Luntz and company realized that the word “private” as in “private accounts” was a no-no with the public, so they called them something else.

TJ: Did they not favor keeping SS solvent?

TT: Sure, but not by destroying the essence of the program and doing it unnecessarily (that's key).

TJ: I think if we applied your logic and reason that no politician should be trusted to address any program that he previously had opposed the initial framework, then I guess we could apply that to our current President on a number of issues.

TT: It depends to my mind on whether the person has clearly changed his mind and what his ideological stance is. For example, Republicans are constantly flogging the free market as a better way and solution to all issues (“freedom solutions” as DeMint would say). This harkens back at least to RR who claimed (without evidence) that “government was THE problem.” IOW, it wasn’t a critique of government programs—this program or that, or this aspect or that—but government per se.

TJ: We could even argue that the Democrats should not be allowed to address the part of Health Care that applies to the 2003 Prescription drug benefit since they can't be trusted to reform something they so fervently opposed.

TT: As I recall, the Dems opposed the giveaway to big Pharma (non-negotiation), but were not opposed to giving seniors drug benefits. But I believe a lot of them voted for the bill; it was Republicans that Bush had to arm wrestle. So you point here about trusting Dems would NOT follow. In any event, I think a lot of Dems supported it as one might expect.

Here’s Wiki:
“In support of the bill, sponsor John Dingell (D-Mich.) said, “Forty-three million people can have the purchasing power to perhaps encourage these drug houses to give the government and the American retirees a better price.” House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said, "This legislation is a common-sense effort to do right by the 43 million Americans enrolled in Medicare." All but 24 House Republicans opposed the bill.

TJ: Teddy Roosevelt would have said it stinks. I have heard Obama and many others prop up Republican TR as some sort of proof that the current GOP is betraying its roots.

TT: I’m sure. But you have to judge plans by the times in which they are proposed. It’s entirely possible that if TR were transported into today’s world, he’d be aghast at what had become of his GOP. You know, Lincoln wasn’t the Emancipator that the GOP claims, either.

TJ: But these ideas would help people.

TT: I’m sure some would. Kennedy regretted not doing business with Nixon at the time. These things definitely happen in both directions.

TJ: I don't often laugh out loud at my computer, but I literally couldn't stop laughing for about 30 seconds after reading this one.

TT: Thanks. Of course, they aren’t going anywhere. And some are sane (fewer and fewer, though-:) But when counter-arguments don’t make any sense, then one does start looking for alternative explanations. The Christian Right prays for us, so…

TJ: This sounds like both a Malthusian non-sequitor and a criticism of Medicares structural inefficiencies,...but in reality we both know this is the same scare tactics you decry on the GOP.

TT: No it is not. For one thing, Obama cites facts; he doesn’t posit some slippery slope that has yet to appear in America or Europe with respect to health care or other social programs. There’s a big difference between looking at facts, extrapolating, and warning about likely events in the future and going “Boo! If we give everyone Medicare, we’re all going to end up in the Gulag.”

You can argue about whether Obama’s facts are correct or properly interpreted, but the whole nature of the argument is totally different. Second, his warnings about Medicare and Medicaid are the very same ones the Republicans use!

As I recall, it was Paulson and Bush who held us up for $700 billion based on three paragraphs and the same dire warnings. Lot of economists agree that we did pull back from the brink—but who knows? We’re in uncharted territory. And the economics who disagree with stimulus warn of equally dire consequences from the accumulated debt. Myself, I don’t know.

TJ: No, I think Reagan considered the path to Socialism beyond step one.

TT: Go back to that anti-MC recording. Giving old people coverage is the foot in the door and will lead us to "socialism" and "slavery." Just ridiculous.

As to Milbank, I can't say. You may be right. But the fact that Cantor and then Bachmann had to apologize for the sign suggests that it was prominently displayed in a way as to associated the speakers and Bachmann with it. And the point is, there were the signs about the Rothschilds and Obama taking orders from them, and it appears that Rep King (no relation I'm sure) was signing a bunch of them.

Boehner to the crowd: ""This bill is the greatest threat to freedom that I've seen in the 19 years I've been in Washington."

Really?

I think Matt Yglesias makes my point better than I do: "There are all kinds of nutty people in the world, but these kinds of things are the wages of a conservative leadership and media that’s consistently tried to drum-up opposition to health care reform not by opposing things that are actually in the bill, but with demagogic opposition to completely fabricated provisions."

Ditto…but I may have to poop out here.