I just got back from a "town hall" meeting with Tom Perriello. I was appalled at those holding up signs with Obama with a Hitler moustache, and people claiming that "Granny is in his sights." I got into an argument with a guy with one of those signs and I reminded him that Democrats had fought for Social Security and Medicare, against the republicans, who tried desperately to prevent both. His answer? "I am a Teddy Roosevelt Democrat, and I don't want socialist, fascist health care." I responded that he is NOT a Democrat at all, because a Democrat doesn't call someone a fascist and a socialist at the same time because they are not that stupid! AND I reminded him that Obama is neither!

To say that Democrats don't care about the elderly is ignorant at best, and malicious at its worst. I saw posters with our president depicted disgustingly as the JOKER proudly displayed.

And you

... just worry that leveling accusations at reform oppponents will be an inadequate defense against the "death panel" argument.

There IS no argument, just like there is no argument about where Obama was born! Is there an argument about gravity, Fred?

As long as you continue to grant deference and respect to malicious liars, we will be stuck where we have been for the last 2 decades. In case you accuse me of hyperbole by calling it lies, have you heard any of Potter's testimony or interviews?

OK, I have a challenge for you: Name ONE Republican who spoke as you do of continually turning the other cheek; of respecting the other's ideas; of crossing the isle (and doing it -- I know McCain spoke of it, and so did Palin but they don't count because THEY were lyiing). Please. Educate me.

I suppose you've heard of the K Street Project that was designed to kill any Democratic influence AT ALL. What are your comments about that?

And here you go again, making it seem that we are the bad guys:

I haven't seen that discussion attempted much by the Administration, or even here. Until that happens, I expect "death panels" will continue to pervade the exchange of views between both sides.

Are you saying that the administration has to disprove the completely bogus, dreamed up "death panel" lie to stop this mess? If so, I have a question for you:

When did you stop beating your wife?

Ah but Fred, Obama's incremental approach assures that insurance companies can still get a lot of the blame for the whole "death panels" thing, does it not?

With a more rapid change to a system more controlled by the government, then the government would more likely get much of the blame?

Back during the primaries, when Maggie Mahar was posting here on Clinton's and Hillary's health reform plans, I was actually thinking that there was this sort of intentional pre-emption in both of their plans.

Both knew the realities of what had to eventually happen, Hillary possibly even much more than Obama's people, and they saw incrementalism as the answer to the way the real horror of the whole situation could best be introduced to a voting public, without causing a detrimental counter-reaction (i.e., throwing the bums out that caused all of it and dis-enacting legislation) to getting a reform process moving.

All countries are facing this problem of the cost of possibile treatments far outweighing the ability to offer them to every citizen, and health care costs jumping astronomically as a percentage of GDP, especially with the boomer bulge. Part of our problem is that we starting out so far behind other countries that the changes needed are so drastic, and the depth and breadth are not well understood. The long term big problem is too complex for many voting minds to grasp or they are in denial about it; if it seems that things have gotten a bit worse, there is the tendency to blame whatever change was recently instituted to deal with the long term problem.

If insurance companies are still around, chances are they get blame, too, you see? And maybe more become sold that more government regulation and intervention is needed, you see?

There is something about the way both Hillary and Obama operated politically that made me think that they could be this Machiavellian about the incremental plans they proposed. I also think Obama's approach to selling has indicated that this might be the case as well--he has this sort of "what will be will be" attitude about it as if he knows this is just step one in a decade long process or longer, it's about the public grasping in stages what needs to be done, and learning who and what the problems really are, and one can't predict how that will play out, you just have to take those cards as they come.

For instance, I see you advocating honesty about the true Medicare situation elsewhere. But politically we are still at a stage where the "third rail" rules are in effect for most politicians on that--they don't dare, if they did, they wouldn't be effecting any change of any kind, they'd be out of office.

is that "death panels" are not bogus, but are an essential ingredient of the reform package.

I've come to realize you have zero fucking clue what you are talking about. You use a lot of words, but are totally full of shit. Did you study to become such an asshat - or were you born that way? What exactly IS a fucking "death panel"?

And also too. Also, what is the "reform package" in your mind? Juz curious ... got a link to this "package" you seem to be able to discuss with definitive certainty?

Hi CatM, I was a little put out when I read the Guardian story--I thought maybe they had somehow seen my tiny TPM post and stolen it! But that didn't make any sense, and then I realized the Guardian had also probably emailed Hawking and he said the same thing to them that he said to me.

Which made me pretty happy, 'cause gosh darn it, Stephen Hawking and his PA gave the same quote to the Guardian that he gave to me, a stranger who emailed him out of the blue! Pretty cool if you ask me.

Hope that helps! Thanks for posting about the story--you have a nice blog over there.

erica