Ray LaHood: Why Republicans should support health care reform

By GottaLaff

Look who's going to be the next one to get attacked by his own party.

None other than Ray LaHood, former Republican congressman from Illinois, secretary of transportation in the Obama administration:

If I were still a member of Congress, I would proudly vote for the bill that President Barack Obama is championing and I would urge my colleagues to do the same, not because I don't believe in fiscal discipline, but because I do.

We do not need to look that far down the road to see the pain that failure to pass health care reform will cause. Americans of every background, class, race and political persuasion are suffering.

What?!

How?

Why?

When?

Why I....

Traitor!

The bill that will be voted on will reduce the deficit by about $1 trillion over the next two decades, and will reduce waste, fraud and abuse in the health care system. It will slow the rate of growth in health care costs and put America back on the path toward fiscal sustainability.

Wackydoodle!

The bill will give families and small business owners greater control over their own health care.

Terrorist!

While the ultimate vote on health care may not be bipartisan, the ultimate bill certainly is.

Socialist!

I also feel compelled to remind my former colleagues that contrary to what many people have been saying, the bill explicitly prevents federal dollars from being used to fund abortion.

Double-dealing, two-timing turncoat!

Go ahead, Michele Bachmann, I dare you.

H/t: VNDNBRG

Who's watching Glenn Beck?

By GottaLaff

Tim Rutten has an op-ed in today's L.A. Times about the Anti-Defamation League's scrutiny and condemnation of you-know-who:

For the first time in living memory, the ADL is sounding the alarm about a mainstream media personality: Fox News' Glenn Beck, who also hosts a popular radio show.

Now, we all know that ClusterFox has a whole array of hosts who many of us find offensive. Why single out Blech?

"Beck and his guests have made a habit of demonizing President Obama and promoting conspiracy theories about his administration. ... Beck has even gone so far as to make comparisons between Hitler and Obama."

For someone who says he isn't a Hitler fan, Blech has a funny way of showing it. You see, he has his own radical Plan, with a Capital P (I posted about that a few days ago here):

As Beck wrote on his website, "I know that the bipartisan corruption in Washington that has brought us to this brink and it will not be defeated easily. It will require unconventional thinking and a radical plan to restore our nation to the maximum freedoms we were supposed to have been protecting. ... All of the above will culminate in The Plan, a book that will provide specific policies, principles and, most importantly, action steps that each of us can take to play a role in this Refounding."

All that and he's hawking a book, too. Guess which of the two is his Priority... with a capital P? My guess is it's the same Priority as Fox's. But about that incitement thing....

It's hard to imagine any contemporary cable system dropping Fox News simply because Beck is an offensively dangerous demagogue -- not with his ratings at least. His new foray into politics, though, presents Rupert Murdoch's network with a profound challenge. Is it willing to become the platform for an extremist political campaign, or will it draw a line as even the authoritarian Catholic Church of the 1940s did? CNN recently parted ways with its resident ranter, Lou Dobbs -- who now confirms he's weighing a presidential bid.

Does Fox see a similar problem with Beck -- and, if not, why?

For these bottom feeders it's all about the bottom line, and to get there, they continue to strive for the bottom. Consequences be damned.

Much more here. I skipped a lot.

Sarah Palin's Wall St. Journal OpEd

By GottaLaff

I wonder who she hired to write this for her:

Let's talk about specifics. In his Times op-ed, the president argues that the Democrats' proposals "will finally bring skyrocketing health-care costs under control" by "cutting . . . waste and inefficiency in federal health programs like Medicare and Medicaid and in unwarranted subsidies to insurance companies . . . ."

First, ask yourself whether the government that brought us such "waste and inefficiency" and "unwarranted subsidies" in the first place can be believed when it says that this time it will get things right. The nonpartistan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) doesn't think so: Its director, Douglas Elmendorf, told the Senate Budget Committee in July that "in the legislation that has been reported we do not see the sort of fundamental changes that would be necessary to reduce the trajectory of federal health spending by a significant amount."

You want to talk specifics? Okay then, how about this? You forgot to tell everyone that the report supported what Obama said all along.

[I]s it any wonder that many of the sick and elderly are concerned that the Democrats' proposals will ultimately lead to rationing of their health care by—dare I say it—death panels?

She did. She dared to say it. Again. Oddly, the government that she despises is so evil that she did her you-betcha-gosh-darndest to be Vice President of it. Too. Also. That wacky martyr.

Establishment voices dismissed that phrase [death panels], but it rang true for many Americans.

Wait. I'm now establishment? Who knew? And it only "rang true" for Americans who can't read or write or dress themselves. The rest of us, the informed, rational ones? Yeah, we dismissed it. Know why? Because it's an outright lie. A smeary, slimy lie. How's that for dismissal?

Such government overreaching is what we've come to expect from this administration.

Yes, the ObamAdministration is much more overreaching than say, BushCo, who reached into our phone lines, computers, bodies, who tortured and maimed innocent people, I could go on. But it's Obama who's the intrusive one.

The economic effects won't be limited to abstract deficit numbers; they'll reach the wallets of everyday Americans.

Gee, and we're doing so well now. Big Insurance and Big Pharma not only snatched our wallets away completely, they also control our lives... and deaths. Talk about Death Panels, how's that stranglehold on your family working for you, America? Notice any interference into your relationship with your doctors?

Rather than another top-down government plan, let's give Americans control over their own health care.

And one way to do that is to allow a government-run program to compete with Big Insurance. Why would they object to that if they're so superior to a public option? If Americans prefer private insurance, then the Big Bad Government program will fail... so what's the problem again?

Democrats have never seriously considered such ideas, instead rushing through their own controversial proposals. After all, they don't need Republicans to sign on: Democrats control the House, the Senate and the presidency.

Once and for all: 60 seats does not equal 60 votes. That's Government 101, okay Barbie? Okay.

We often hear such overblown promises from Washington.

We heard a few from you and your running mate, too, Sarah the Quitter. In fact, you broke one whopper of a promise when you swore to fulfill your duties as governor. Remember that? The governmental position that you abandoned, despite your oath?

That makes you a liar. And if you're a liar, why would anyone believe anything in this ghost-written op-ed of yours?

By the way, just FYI, Sarah, the vast majority of Americans support a public option. And that's not overblown.

Why We Need Health Care Reform by Barack Obama

By GottaLaff

Guess who has an op-ed in today's New York Times:

OUR nation is now engaged in a great debate about the future of health care in America. And over the past few weeks, much of the media attention has been focused on the loudest voices. What we haven’t heard are the voices of the millions upon millions of Americans who quietly struggle every day with a system that often works better for the health-insurance companies than it does for them.[...]

I don’t have to explain to the nearly 46 million Americans who don’t have health insurance how important this is. But it’s just as important for Americans who do have health insurance.[...]

First, if you don’t have health insurance, you will have a choice of high-quality, affordable coverage for yourself and your family — coverage that will stay with you whether you move, change your job or lose your job.

Second, reform will finally bring skyrocketing health care costs under control, which will mean real savings for families, businesses and our government. We’ll cut hundreds of billions of dollars in waste and inefficiency in federal health programs like Medicare and Medicaid and in unwarranted subsidies to insurance companies that do nothing to improve care and everything to improve their profits.

Third, by making Medicare more efficient, we’ll be able to ensure that more tax dollars go directly to caring for seniors instead of enriching insurance companies. This will not only help provide today’s seniors with the benefits they’ve been promised; it will also ensure the long-term health of Medicare for tomorrow’s seniors. And our reforms will also reduce the amount our seniors pay for their prescription drugs.

Lastly, reform will provide every American with some basic consumer protections that will finally hold insurance companies accountable. [...]

Our reform will prohibit insurance companies from denying coverage because of your medical history. Nor will they be allowed to drop your coverage if you get sick. They will not be able to water down your coverage when you need it most. They will no longer be able to place some arbitrary cap on the amount of coverage you can receive in a given year or in a lifetime. And we will place a limit on how much you can be charged for out-of-pocket expenses. No one in America should go broke because they get sick.

Most important, we will require insurance companies to cover routine checkups, preventive care and screening tests like mammograms and colonoscopies. [...]

This is what reform is about. If you don’t have health insurance, you will finally have quality, affordable options once we pass reform. If you have health insurance, we will make sure that no insurance company or government bureaucrat gets between you and the care you need. If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan. You will not be waiting in any lines. This is not about putting the government in charge of your health insurance. I don’t believe anyone should be in charge of your health care decisions but you and your doctor — not government bureaucrats, not insurance companies. [...]

But let’s make sure that we talk with one another, and not over one another. We are bound to disagree, but let’s disagree over issues that are real, and not wild misrepresentations that bear no resemblance to anything that anyone has actually proposed. [...]

We are already closer to achieving health-insurance reform than we have ever been. We have the American Nurses Association and the American Medical Association on board, because our nation’s nurses and doctors know firsthand how badly we need reform. We have broad agreement in Congress on about 80 percent of what we’re trying to do. And we have an agreement from the drug companies to make prescription drugs more affordable for seniors. The AARP supports this policy, and agrees with us that reform must happen this year.

In the coming weeks, the cynics and the naysayers will continue to exploit fear and concerns for political gain. But for all the scare tactics out there, what’s truly scary — truly risky — is the prospect of doing nothing. If we maintain the status quo, we will continue to see 14,000 Americans lose their health insurance every day. Premiums will continue to skyrocket. Our deficit will continue to grow. And insurance companies will continue to profit by discriminating against sick people.[...]

In the end, this isn’t about politics. This is about people’s lives and livelihoods. This is about people’s businesses. This is about America’s future, and whether we will be able to look back years from now and say that this was the moment when we made the changes we needed, and gave our children a better life. I believe we can, and I believe we will.

Liberal media, my (bi)as:The Right-Wing Op-Ed Insurgency

By GottaLaff

Oneth again, it'th time to dithpel thome myth-information:

Liberal bias? A Daily Beast investigation crunches the numbers and shows how conservative think tanks have quietly achieved domination over the opinion pages of America’s biggest papers. [...]

[A] Daily Beast review of the archives of The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, and The Washington Post tells a much different story: Conservative think tanks are pummeling their liberal peers in the race for the most prominent placement on op-ed pages. During the past year, 77 percent of pieces authored by think-tank affiliates came from conservative outfits, 18 percent came from centrist groups, and a tiny 5 percent came from the left wing.

Just for the fun of it, put that info together with what's seeming to (d)evolve on the Tee Vee Machine, specifically this story about MSNBC, Fox, and Richard Wolffe. Keep in mind who the guests have been on The Ed Show (Hint: Tom Tancredeo, Lars Larsen) and The Rachel Maddow Show (Pat Buchanan), among others.

Which think tank takes up the most opinion-page real estate?

The American Enterprise Institute crushes the competition, liberal and conservative, in racking up bylines, scoring 99 of the total 217 pieces published by major think tanks from the third week of July 2008 to July 21, 2009, as shown by a review of the archives of the Times, Post, and Journal. [...]

But it’s important to note that the AEI crowd is not completely confined to the Journal. They also find themselves in the opinion section of the Washington Post more times—16 during the last year—than any other think tank. [...]

Which think tanks does The New York Times seem to crush on?

Unlike the Journal, The Times has no consistent feeder like AEI. The most common partners are fellows from the left-center Brookings Institution, security analysts Michael O’Hanlon and Kevin Pollack, and the centrist New America Foundation, including foreign-affairs expert Peter Bergen.

The Times was generally more resistant to think-tank op eds; in The Daily Beast survey, the Journal had approximately five times more major think-tank bylines than the Times.

This absence may relate more to the approach of liberal policy centers than the direction of the Times. [...]

But when it comes to the byline battles, no matter who is in the White House, Podesta and his allies face an uphill battle. When it comes to influence, conservatives have the broadsheet opinion war won.

So! How's that media push for a public option going?

Mark Sanford 'humbled and broken', sniffle!

By GottaLaff

Mark Sanford is broken alright... more like damaged... more like wrecked... more like in ruins:

A self-described "more contrite" Sanford wrote an op-ed, published in newspapers around South Carolina, vowing to "begin the journey of trying to get things more right with you and others." [...]

"I realize this op-ed does not do justice to the process of saying I am sorry," the two-term Republican wrote. "A handwritten note or a phone call would ultimately be more appropriate."

My voice mail is still empty, Marko. Although a nice note on scented stationery would be so lovely.

Sanford again admitted, "I did wrong and failed at the largest of levels." He said "life is… about way more than public standing or political views, it is about recognizing that none of us of are the arbiters of truth, that there are moral absolutes and that there is a God to whom we will all report for our actions."

Well, maybe... unless you're a Commie atheist such as yours truly. Personally, I report to Paddy. She's much fiercer and almighty than any god. And she never makes me bow to her. That is so like Paddy.

"My failure has been more glaring on this front, where no public apology can make wrong right."

But Sanford wrote that he has been "humbled and broken as never before," and has "given up areas of control."

Um, Marko? You kinda gave up "areas of control" when you zipped off to Argentina and zipped down your pantalones.

"It is my belief this will make me a better father, husband, friend and advocate."

Yes, cheating always improves one's husbanding/paternal skills and standing with the ol' fam.

Sanford, a strong-willed political figure who often sparred with legislative leaders, said that he is "committing to you and to the larger family of South Carolinians to use this experience to both trust God in his larger work of changing me, and from my end, to work to becoming a better and more effective leader."

Now really, Marko-- can I call you Marko?-- think about this for longer than the time it takes to cry for Argentina. Wouldn't becoming a better and more effective leader be the thing to aspire to before you had an extramarital affair and joined the C Street Frat?

Trying to heal political wounds deepened by the scandal, Sanford said, "I think all that has transpired will be particularly relevant in the way I deal with the legislative body and other state leaders going forward… as I begin these steps into the last 18 months of this administration, it will be indeed with a more contrite and humble spirit."

Here's a better idea. Follow the example of your Fearless Leader, Sarah Palin, and quit.

Obama Publishes Op-Ed in Advance of Summit of the Americas

By GottaLaff

President Obama is using his cabeza:

President Obama wrote an op-ed that ran today in 15 Carribean, Latin American and United States newspapers, promising the other nations of the hemisphere "a new day" in their relationship to its most powerful member.

"Choosing a Better Future in the Americas" appeared this morning in the St. Petersburg Times and Miami Herald, both of which serve substantial Cuban American readerships, and the Trinidad Express of Trinidad and Tobago, where Obama is headed to tomorrow to attend the Summit of the Americas than runs through April 19. As well, the op-ed ran in El Nuevo Herald, an American Spanish-language paper.

The op-ed also ran in a number of Grupo de Diarios America affiliates across the hemisphere: La Nación in Argentina, O Globo in Brazil, El Mercurio in Chile, El Tiempo in Colombia, La Nación in Costa Rica, El Comercio in Ecuador, El Universal in México, El Comercio in Perú, El Nuevo Día in Puerto Rico, El País in Uruguay and El Nacional in Venezuela.

The English version of President Obama's op-ed, which was published in Spanish and Portuguese, can be read in full here.

Prelude to tonight's presser: Obama's op-ed

By GottaLaff

BuzzFlash links us to President Obama's piece.

Oh, and I'll be streaming the press conference here live, and we can chat on an open thread.