Ezra Klein: Town Hall Protesters Are Killing Democracy!

Here's Ezra Klein:

When you have to explain why your bill won't create death panels, and what will make sure that it doesn't, you've pretty much lost the argument.

That's an excellent point, and I'm glad he admits it, because the rest of Klein's essay makes the case that just asking if ObamaCare will create "death panels" is killing democracy. That's right, Klein argues that the concerns over Democratic plans for cost rationalization, felt by literally hundreds of thousands of regular Americans, amount to "unthinkable madness."

Klein links to an essay at the Post by Danielle Allen, "Health Reform's Hearing Problem: Both Sides Are Deaf to the Real Debate About Consequences":

In asking lawmakers to consider not merely the goals of their policies but also the experiential meaning of concrete realities that those policies may bring, they have a point. One can't answer them by saying: "These policies won't ration; there will be no death panels." If these reforms do either of these things, they will do so as a matter of unintended consequences. The appropriate answer, therefore, is to explain the institutional checks that will prevent the emergence of such unintended consequences.

Actually ,"unintended consequences" are part and parcel to policy evaluation. Leftists had no problem attacking the Bush administration's robust forward policy of democracy promotion, including wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, by excoriating neo-imperialist "blowback." Yet, now that the Democrats are in power, and when they're being asked legitimate questions - and whether folks are angry while asking the questions is immaterial - they throw up their hands and cry, "Ahh, this is madness ... you're killing the democratic process." Ezra Klein's basically endorsing the Pelosi/Hoyer formulation of criticism of the administration as "un-American." Leftists, people who are supposed to be all about civic participation and civil liberties, want to squelch freedom of speech faster than you can say "comparative effectiveness."

In any case, watch Glenn Beck at the video above. He argues, at about 2:40 minutes, that "I am so sick and tired of the media, and everybody else, equating union thugs with everyday Americans."

But you won't get that from Ezra Klein and the secular collectivists. All you'll here are smears of "Astroturfing" and "teabagging," and how the right's "hooligans" are destroying democracy.

Frankly, grassroots American democracy hasn't been quite this vigorous in some time, and we can thank Barack Obama's own hubris for that, not to mention the Pelosi/Reid/Hoyer faction's own sense of royal entitlement.

Meanwhile, our all-American town hall demonstrators just need to keep repeating: "You work for us"!

Arlen Specter: 'Do You Want to Be Led Out of Here?' Angry Citizen Walks Out on Town Hall as Crowd Fires Back at Specter: 'You Work For Us'!

Amid booing from the crowd, Senator Arlen Specter, at a town hall meeting this morning, yelled back at a gentleman who wasn't allowed to speak: "If you want to stay in here, we’re not going to tolerate any demonstrations or booing. So, it’s up to you."

Watch the CNN video. The crowd is cheering ecstatically in solidarity for their fellow consitituent:

And from the report:

Emotions ran high, with questioners complaining of government intrusion in their lives on health care and other issues. One man implored Specter and the government to "leave us alone," while another said the message Specter should take back to Washington is that he and others "want our country back."

The shoving incident occurred early in the 90-minute session, when a man started shouting that he had been told by Specter's staff that he could speak, but he didn't get one of the 30 cards distributed to people allowing them to ask questions. Another man stood up and shoved the protester, and Specter approached the men shouting for calm.

"You and your cronies in government do this kind of stuff all the time," the protester shouted before leaving the hall. "I'm not a lobbyist with all kinds of money to stuff in your pockets. I'll leave you so you can do whatever the hell you do."

The Politico's got a nice breakdown of what happened, "Arlen Specter Faces Fury: 'You Work For Us!'":

Sen. Arlen Specter (D-Pa.) fired back Tuesday at a raucous town hall audience that booed and jeered him for more than an hour.

Specter immediately tried to temper the rough crowd, which started booing him before the question-and-answer session even began, with the blunt warning: “If you want to stay in here, we’re not going to tolerate any demonstrations or booing. So, it’s up to you."

But minutes later during the senator’s response to a question on whether Americans would be able to maintain their private insurance under the Democratic health care proposal, a protester who was not selected to speak stood up, walked into the aisle and began shouting at him.

“Do you want to be led out of here?” the senator told the man, pointing at him. “You’re welcome to go.”

Specter then walked toward the heckler who was being pushed back toward his seat by another member of the crowd.

“Now wait a minute,” Specter shouted repeatedly into the microphone. “You want to leave? Leave.”

“I’m going to speak my mind before I leave, because your people told me I could,” the protester said once the room quieted down. “I called your office, and was told I could have the mike to speak. And then I was lied to because I came prepared to speak.”

“I’ll leave,” the protester said, as several police officers stood nearby. “And you can do whatever the hell you please to do. One day God’s going to stand before you, and he’s going to judge you and the rest of your damned cronies up on the Hill. And then you’ll get your just deserts. I’m leaving.”

The man received loud applause and shouts of support as he walked out of the room.

So, what's the response among the chattering leftist-media classes? Blame the Repubicans, of course. Here's Mark Ambinder, "How Conservatives Are Blowing Their Chance":

Democrats are beginning to notice that opponents of health care reform have discredited themselves. They ramped up much too quickly. When smaller, conservative groups Astroturfed, they inevitably brought to the meetings the type of Republican activist who was itching for a fight and who would use the format to vent frustrations at President Obama himself. There were plenty of activists who really wanted to know about health care, and some who were probably misinformed -- scared out of their chairs -- to some degree, but the loudest voices tended to be the craziest, the most extreme, the least sensible, and the most easy to mock.

Yep, blame the Astroturfers. Typical. But let's not forget what's really going on: Americans want reform of healthcare, not a bureaucratic takeover that destroys the marketplace.

The left is losing this battle, and the townhalls are actually forcing the Democratic Party to do what what needs to be done: go back to the drawing board and write-up a market-driven reform plan that gives incentives for individuals to invest in ownership of insurance policies and health savings accounts. Reform should preserve functioning employee-based insurance programs (eliminate incentives for employers to abandon private markets); allow greater private competition, with individuals empowered to seek cost savings across state lines. Further, state-governments can reform Medicaid into a voucher program, which will help remove some of the stigma of public assistance in health care. As Arthur Laffer wrote recently:

By empowering patients and doctors to manage health-care decisions, a patient-centered health-care reform will control costs, improve health outcomes, and improve the overall efficiency of the health-care system.

More at Memeorandum.

Don't Insult Southerners: Hey, Michael Lind Gets it Right on the Left's 'Creepy Bigotry'!

From Michael Lind, at Salon, "Are Liberals Seceding From Sanity? The Left is Crazy to Insult White Southerners as a Group":

Back in the 1960s, Seymour Martin Lipset and Richard Hofstadter and other liberal sociologists, historians and political scientists, puzzled that anyone could support Barry Goldwater rather than Lyndon Johnson, concluded that Goldwater supporters were deranged. They didn't say so directly, of course. They said that members of the radical right were emotionally disturbed victims of "status anxiety." The evidence? They didn't vote the way that Lipset and other academics thought that they should vote. Therefore they had to be crazy.

In the decades since, far better scholars than Hofstadter and Lipset, for whom history and sociology are not exercises in partisan Democratic mythmaking, have established that Goldwater and Reagan Republicans often were highly educated, socially secure individuals who happened not to share the values of liberal professors and journalists. This scholarship has been wasted, to judge by the glee with which the liberal blogosphere, in the aftermath of the ephemeral "Birther" flap, has dusted off the old conservatives-are-crazy meme, and revised it to suggest that all white Southerners are crazy.

In a recent Washington Post column, Kathleen Parker quoted Ohio Sen. George Voinovich's assertion that the Republican Party is "being taken over by Southerners" to suggest that the GOP risks becoming a permanent minority party of the old Confederacy. In itself this is a legitimate point that I and many other critics of Republican conservatism have made for years. However, at Mother Jones, the blogger Kevin Drum used Parker's political argument as an excuse for all-too-typical liberal Southern-bashing. According to Drum: "There are, needless to say, plenty of individual Southern whites who are wholly admirable. But taken as a whole, Southern white culture is [redacted]. Jim Webb can pretty it up all he wants, but it's a [redacted]." Drum did the redacting on his own blog post, explaining he'd blacked out the offending text "on the advice of my frontal lobe".

Drum's creepy bigotry becomes clear when other groups are substituted: "There are, needless to say, plenty of individual blacks who are wholly admirable. But taken as a whole, black culture is [redacted]. Barack Obama can pretty it up all he wants, but it's a [redacted]." Or maybe this: "There are, needless to say, plenty of individual Jews who are wholly admirable. But taken as a whole, Jewish culture is [redacted]. The late Irving Howe can pretty it up all he wants, but it's a [redacted]."

Lind goes on about how in recent years California has in fact been more bigoted than Texas, blah, blah ... But his larger point is that, frankly, leftists aren't too smart. They should be appealing to white of lower SES instead of disparaging them as backwater hicks. And THAT'S the thing. As Lind points out:

Liberals should respect and promote the interests of working Americans of all races and regions, including those who despise liberals. They are erring neighbors to be won over, not cretins to be mocked.

What Lind doesn't do is explain why lefists are hostile to cross-cohort political alliances. There's a number of reasons, but the main thing is that leftist elites don't care about poor minorities or white Southerners. All they care about it political power to ram down their statist program of collectivism on the population. The left's bigtotry runs from blacks to rednecks and beyond. Frankly, folks like Kevin Drum are a dime-a-dozen across the leftosphere. This is what these freaks do.

More at Memorandum. And check the response Amanda Marcotte's response at Pandagon. And look for something at the biggest left-wing racist going, TBogg.

Tanking! Public Support for ObamaCare Falls to New Low

From Rasmussen Report, "Support for Congressional Health Care Reform Falls to New Low":

Public support for the health care reform plan proposed by President Obama and congressional Democrats has fallen to a new low as just 42% of U.S. voters now favor the plan. That’s down five points from two weeks ago and down eight points from six weeks ago.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey shows that opposition to the plan has increased to 53%, up nine points since late June.

More significantly, 44% of voters strongly oppose the health care reform effort versus 26% who strongly favor it. Intensity has been stronger among opponents of the plan since the debate began.

Sixty-seven percent (67%) of those under 30 favor the plan while 56% of those over 65 are opposed. Among senior citizens, 46% are strongly opposed.

Predictably, 69% of Democrats favor the plan, while 79% of Republicans oppose it. Yet while 44% of Democratic voters strongly favor the reform effort, 70% of GOP voters are strongly opposed to it.

Most notable, however, is the opposition among voters not affiliated with either party. Sixty-two percent (62%) of unaffiliated voters oppose the health care plan, and 51% are strongly opposed. This marks an uptick in strong opposition among both Republicans and unaffiliateds, while the number of strongly supportive Democrats is unchanged.

Via Memorandum. See also Hot Air, Moe Lane, Power Line, Pundit & Pundette, and Weekly Standard.

White House Whines About 'School Lunch' Poster Mentioning Obama Daughters

From the Washington Post, "White House Objects to Poster That Invokes Obama Children":

The posters went up last week, 14 in Union Station. On each of the large displays, a thought bubble rises up from a picture of a beautiful 8-year-old: "President Obama's daughters get healthy school lunches. Why don't I?"

A Washington nonprofit that advocates nutrition-policy reform paid $20,000 to get its message across and carefully maneuvered Metro's tangle of regulations to display its posters. Metro gave it a go -- but the White House did not, according to the group. Within 24 hours of the signs' appearance, the White House asked the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine to take down the ads, which feature Jasmine Messiah, a vegetarian who attends a Miami-Dade County public school that, she says, offers no vegetarian or vegan lunch options.

The Physicians Committee has declined to take down the posters.

PCRM President Neal Barnard, a nutrition researcher, says he received a phone call regarding the posters Aug. 4 (a day after they went up) from Associate Counsel Karen Dunn and Deputy Associate Counsel Ian Bassin.

"They're very nice people. I like them a lot," Barnard says. "But they called and said: Please take those down, you can't mention the kids and so forth. . . . They felt that mentioning the president's children was off-limits. They said [they're] not going to allow the use of their daughters as leverage."

The fact that the poster mentions the president's children has been the main point of contention, though neither the children's names nor their images appear. That reaction doesn't come as a complete surprise; when Ty Inc. marketed dolls in January named Sweet Sasha and Marvelous Malia, the first lady made her objections clear, and the toy company stopped using the girls' names. The First Lady's Office declined to comment for this story.

There's a difference between a toy marketer and a public health advocacy group (the latter making an important point on public policy), although the administration's response is typical: DON'T CRITICIZE THE ONE!!

See also my earlier entry on the Obamas decision to sent their girls to the Sidwell Academy: "Moving on Up! Obama Girls to Attend Elite Private D.C. School."

The Healthy Lunches website is here, "Girl in Metro Ads Asks: 'President Obama's daughters get healthy school lunches. Why don't I?' "

Jake Tapper also has the story, "White House Objects to "School Lunch" Advocates' Poster Mentioning Obama Daughters." But see also Memeorandum.

Barack Obama Tinky Winky Poster!

Not a big story, but I got a kick out of this Obama Tinky Winky satire. What's interesting is how blogger Doug Gibson is quick to denounce the "smears," despite Tom Bevan's "SATIRE" flag. As Bevan notes, right at the top::

"SATIRE ALERT: On the heels of the much commented upon Joker poster of President Obama, a new poster has emerged from an another anonymous artist that has people chattering once again...

Bevan's post continues:

Don't be misled. These new posters featuring Barack Obama's face imposed over the likeness of Tinky Winky may appear benign, but they're not.

Their intent is far deeper and insidious: to stir ugly racist thoughts in America's subconscious.

More at the link, and Memeorandum.

What's funny is Doug Gibson's post, "A More Sinister Obama Poster and Another Dumb Ad":

(UPDATE): I was too hasty posting this and was alerted via an astute reader in a comment that I had neglected to mention that Bevan’s take was satire, which is integral to my take on the issue.

I find it more childish than bigoted, but I am very disturbed at the casual insults directed at our commander in chief via this art, and the willingness of some conservative sites to feature it and even adopt it as a logo.

Look, I disagree more with President Obama than I did seven months ago. I’m disappointed he outsources legislation to political hacks in Congress. But he is an intelligent, thoughtful leader, and an impressive family man. Anyone who watches the First Couple together sees a long-married, middle-aged pair still very much in love who are doing a great job of raising their children. Decency is a requirement for those successes.

Gibson then posts a pathetic anti-tea party ad by the Democratic Senatorical Campaign Committee, "Stop the Mobs!" I love Gibson's Obama-Kool Aid line, indicating how Dear Leader "is an intelligent, thoughtful leader, and an impressive family man."

Yeah, impressive. And decent too. That's why he votes against Born Alive Infant Protection legislation, right.

Also, Gibson's obviously not a real political blogger, he just plays one online.

Obama's Plan for Single-Payer Universal Health

I wasn't going to bother with him. Dr. Ahmadinejad Chavez Biobrain, at my earlier post, "Large Majority Opposes ObamaCare Singe-Payer System!," writes:

Well I guess it's a good thing that Obama isn't proposing that we move to a single-payer system, huh? Or weren't you aware of that, Donald?

If it helps, here's a Health Reform for Beginners post that Ezra Klein wrote back in June. Yes, he's a liberal, but this is just basic stuff that even you can't disagree with. This way, you won't look so stupid when you try to scare people about Socialized Medicine or Single-Payer Systems which aren't under serious discussion.

The link is here.

Dr. Ahmadinejad Chavez not-a-real-doctor-who-posts-cowardly-under-a-pseudonym Biobrain likes calling me a "liar" as well as "stupid." But as I noted last night:

Dr. Biobrain has yet to prevail in debating me, although he's a glutton for punishment. I've been trying to ignore him lately, though, disgusted as I am with his recent outburst of unspeakable anti-Semitism. It really crosses a line.

That's why I was going to ignore his little slur this evening. But since AOSHQ's got a post up on it, I thought I'd show once again how dumb and dishonest Dr. Biobrain is. See, "Smokin' Video on Obama's Trojan Horse":

The compelling part of this, to me, isn't Obama's or Jan Shakowsky's statements that public option will lead to single payer. We've heard that. The compelling part is that Jacob Hacker, the man who "shopped" this plan to Congress (according to NPR), states unambiguously that his plan -- and he should know -- is expressly designed to displace private insurance.

Yes, "we've heard that." And I know that, or I wouldn't have made such a big deal out of the public's huge repudiation of singler payer. No, some things are self-evident, simply because THAT'S HOW THE DEMOCRATS WORK. They hate choice, individualism, and personal autonomy. That's why Americans are so genuinely mad. They don't like the Democratic oligarchs slamming a top down regime of "Sandmen" technocrats down their throats. This is not a bunch of hippies protesting a war and doing the flower-power bit before finishing college and joining a commodities trading firm. Nope, by now we've seen millions of people, over the course of this year, getting involved in grassroots activism to turn back the the shift to an authoritarian socialist model in the United States.

Ace links to Michael Barone's piece for good measure. See, "Video Proof: Obama Wants a Single-Payer System". Barone discusses Professor Hacker:

Speaking of the government option in 2008, he says, “Someone told me this was a Trojan horse for single-payer. Well, it’s not a Trojan horse, right? It’s just right there. I’m telling you. We’re going to get there, over time, slowly, but we’ll move away from reliance on employer-based health insurance as we should, but we’ll do it in a way that we’re not going to frighten people into thinking they’re going to lose their private insurance. We’re going to give them a choice of public and private insurance when they’re in the pool, and we’re going to let them keep their private employer-based insurance if their employer continues to provide it.”

Of course there’s no guarantee employers will. Many employers, single-payer advocates hope, will be happy to let their employees go onto the government plan. The Lewin Group, cited often by various analysts, estimates that a government-option plan, depending on how the law is written, could move as many as 100 million households off private insurance and onto the government plan in a few years.

Obama has never made his ultimate goal a secret; it’s the same as Schakowsky’s and Hacker’s. The video shows him saying in October 2003, when he was running for the U.S. Senate, “I happen to be a proponent of a single-payer health care program.” He adds, “We may not get there immediately,” noting the Democrats must “take back” the White House and both houses of Congress — a condition fulfilled last Jan. 20.

Campaigning for president in May 2007, he says, “But I don’t think we’re going to be able to eliminate employer coverage immediately.” That seems to imply that his goal remains the same as it was in 2003. “There’s going to be potentially some transition process — I can envision a decade out, or 15 years out, or 20 years out, where we’ve got a much more portable system.” Which of course government health insurance would be. You couldn’t get away from it. The president’s defenders depict this video and others like it as a patchwork of irrelevant and misleading statements. They also cite Obama’s oft-repeated pledges that any health care bill he would sign would let you keep the insurance you have. They don’t address the point, raised by Hacker, that you can’t keep it if your employer stops offering it.

There you have.

Barone crystalizes what's been floating around all year. And so, back to Dr. Ahmadinejad Chavez Biobrain.

The guy's an accountant by occupation, but he's also a Democratic Party hack and was an alternate delegate during last year's primaries (for "The One," if I'm not mistaken). In other words, like the Dear Leader, Biobrain's ideological and political program is to lie, intimidate, and spread disinformation. That's what leftists do. They'll call you stupid, then bail out from the scene of the crime. Dr. Biobrain will go to work tomorrow, scamming his clients with bogus actuarial expertise, then come back here tomorrow and start up another mini-flamewar.

Good thing AOSHQ wrote on this. Saved me some time that I otherwise wouldn't have invested debunking Dr. BioDenialist one more time.

TBogg Mainstreams More Racism on the Democratic-Left

We have, once again, TBogg mainstreaming racism on the Democratic-left.

Here's this from earlier today, "“Oh my God, they killed beat Kenny! …You bastards!”:

Shorter Andrew Breitbart:

Lo, though you may beat upon us and refer to us using a term for a vulgar sexual practice that my wife totally will not do no matter how much I beg, we shall rise up again just like Kenny Gladney (although not in a wheelchair) for now he has given our movement a name: we are The Gladbaggers. Look upon our works, ye mighty MSM, and stop your giggling.

TBogg's getting a rise out of trashing Kenneth Gladney with sick racism and vulgar sexual slurs. Previously, "Kenneth the Teabagging Drama Queen." Interacting with his commenters, TBogg posts the "Wheelchair Stevie" image. The "nigger" jokes start immediately at the comments:

* House v. Field.

* I like the Joe Plumber reference. But, I was thinking that he may be the Rosa Parks of the Teabagging movement.

* Five seconds of shirt-pulling handbags and he turns into that kid from Malcolm in the Middle?

And then from another TBogg post,"Palin/Joe the Plumber/Jindal/Santelli/Taitz/Gladney 2012!":

* You have to look very closely to notice that Not Atticus’s lips are moving when the dummy talks. Great ventriloquist routine!

* In my postracial America, the fact that this idiot is black doesn’t mean jackshit ‘coz he’s still a freaking idiot! That’s postracialism I can believe in–just like I don’t care if MM is Asian, she still needs to STFU.

* ATTICUS!…ATTICUS!…ATTICUS!

Hunh? Oh. Sorry.

Next, check over at Daily Kos, "Alleged St. Louis Attack Victim" Has No Health Insurance."

* There he is fighting for truth, justice and corporate America and he himself cannot afford Health Insurance. He'll be worshiped as a "real Amurican" who toughs it out and knows his "place"...at the bottom of the ladder looking up, where he'll never be.

* Allow me to indulge ... a mean-spirited speculation here. Kenny was just laid off. He sees the success that Everyman RW poster children have garnered, especially those of color. One encounter with union thugs, and he now has a lawyer (thought it was only lefties who were lawsuit-happy?) and a begging bowl.

Is he looking to be a black Joe-the-Plumber?

Is he busy interviewing publicists and agents as we speak?

Note that Gladney is coverered by his wife's health insurance and he was unemployed, not laid-off. See Gateway Pundit, "Figures... Leftists Hurl Racist Insults at Black Man After Horrible Beating," and "FACT vs FICTION: Kenneth Gladney Corrects the Leftist Lies About the SEIU Attack That Put Him In the Hospital (Video)."

Large Majority Opposes ObamaCare Singe-Payer System!

From Rasmussen, "32% Favor Single-Payer Health Care, 57% Oppose":

Thirty-two percent (32%) of voters nationwide favor a single-payer health care system where the federal government provides coverage for everyone. A Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 57% are opposed to a single-payer plan.

Fifty-two percent (52%) believe such a system would lead to a lower quality of care while 13% believe care would improve. Twenty-seven percent (27%) think that the quality of care would remain about the same.

Forty-five percent (45%) also say a single-payer system would lead to higher health care costs while 24% think lower costs would result. Nineteen percent (19%) think prices would remain about the same.

There's wide political disagreement over the single-payer issue. Sixty-two percent (62%) of Democrats favor a single-payer system, but 87% of Republicans are opposed to one. As for those not affiliated with either major party, 22% favor a single-payer approach while 63% are opposed.

That last number, 63 percent opposed, would basically be for independents - that is, the swing voters whom the administration has increasingly alienated in healthcare and deficit reduction.

See also, the Astute Bloggers, "OBAMA WANTS TO REGULATE PROFITS, NOT JUST THE HEALTHCARE INDUSTRY."

More at Memeorandum.

Claire 'ACORN' McCaskill Slams Constituents at Town Halls: Voter Concerns - 'Are You Going to Kill Our Kids?' - Dissed as 'Mean' and 'Offensive'

Senator Claire McCaskill, the administration's top ObamaCare-shill, implicated in an ACORN fraud probe in 2006, lashed out at constituents at Missouri's Three Rivers Community College. Constiuents called President Obama a socialist and asked McCaskill if she was going to kill their kids (link):

The standing ovation from an overflow crowd suggested that Democratic Sen. Claire McCaskill was in friendly territory. The shouts and jeers made it clear that public rancor over President Barack Obama's proposed health care overhaul remains incendiary.

The first-term senator took her message about health care reform to rural southeast Missouri on Monday, hosting town hall forums in Kennett and Poplar Bluff and meeting with county hospital workers in Hayti, one of the state's poorest communities.

The morning session at Southeast Missouri State University's Kennett campus was marked by polite dialogue and few signs of unrest. McCaskill even complimented the roughly 150 audience members for their "good Missouri manners."

The mood at Three Rivers Community College in Poplar Bluff on Monday afternoon — despite an initial warm greeting and McCaskill's leading the audience of 500 in the Pledge of Allegiance — was far different. The loudest applause came when an audience member called Obama a socialist.

Another asked loudly whether McCaskill was "going to kill our kids or not," a reference to concerns over federally funded abortions.

A third asked, "Where's the birth certificate?" alluding to claims that Obama is ineligible to be president by people who contend his birth certificate is a fake and he was actually born outside the U.S.

"You guys are so mean," a visibly frustrated McCaskill said at one point. "It's almost like I give you good news, and you're still mad at me."

Also, at the video above, Senator McCaskill tells CNN's Brianna Keilar that "the notion that ... our government would do anything to cut short or dismiss the quality of life for our seniors is offensive..."

Or, in other words, it's "unpatriotic" to dissent from the administration's ObamaCare line. The truth is, Americans have legitimate concerns about healthcare cost rationalizations being proposed by the administration. As Wesley Smith points out:

Some of President Obama’s most influential health-care advisers have promoted rationing and quality-of-life judgmentalism. For example, Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel’s brother, has suggested that we can no longer afford Hippocratic medicine, laid the intellectual groundwork for rationing based on age, and even stated that medical services “provided to individuals who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens are not basic and should not be guaranteed.”

See also, Gateway Pundit, "Obamacare Gives Doctors Financial Incentive to Push Euthanasia."

Don't Pay for Health Care Reform on the Backs of Seniors

There's a heavy ad buy today on Fox News from the 60 Plus Association. Here's the accompanying article, "Massive Medicare Cuts Await Elderly Says New Ad From Seniors’ Group":

The 60 Plus Association, a 17-year-old nonpartisan senior citizens advocacy group often referred to as the “conservative alternative to the AARP” today released a TV ad warning the elderly that the healthcare proposal touted by the Obama Administration “means massive Medicare cuts in order to pay for healthcare ‘reform’.” See the ad 60plus.org.

“This strikes at the heart of the debate over the value of our seniors’ lives versus the cost of expensive treatments they need to stay healthy or get better,” said Jim Martin, President of 60 Plus.

Entitled “Sacrifice,” the ad states that seniors today, The Greatest Generation, have spent their lives sacrificing to protect freedom and strengthen our nation. From landing at Normandy, to raising strong families and building successful businesses, these men and women have remained dedicated to their country. Now, in seniors’ most vulnerable stage of life, President Obama and Congress are asking them to sacrifice even more by cutting Medicare to pay for healthcare reform, meaning long waits for care and even possible denial of care.

But perhaps the scariest part, the ad says, is that the government, not your doctor, decides if older patients are worth the cost. And the cruel joke is that many politicians are designing a health care plan for the country that they themselves are exempted from.

“Tell Congress don’t pay for healthcare reform on the backs of our seniors. They’ve sacrificed enough,” ends the ad.

The ad started today on national cable.

See also, "Seniors Are Scared of Obamacare...and They Should Be."

White House Launches New 'Fight the Smears' Website for ObamaCare

ObamaCare's going down in flames, and the administration is freaking.

From Fox News, "White House Launches Web Site to Battle Health Care 'Rumors'":

The Obama administration has launched a new Web site to battle what it calls "wild rumors" about the health care reform plans being pushed through Congress -- including an invitation for the public to tattle on any other "myths" they come across.

It comes a week after the White House asked the public to send in "fishy" information about health care reform.

The Web site, activated Monday, uses the same set-up as the "Fight the Smears" page the Obama campaign maintained last year to battle rumors seen as potentially damaging to his candidacy.

The new "Reality Check" site site features a half-dozen alleged rumors about health care reform, responding to them with videos of top aides rebutting them.

"We're offering the site and tools to empower individuals across the country to take this content into their own hands and share it among their networks," a senior administration official said.

"That's the sort of bottom-up process that got us to the White House, and it's what's going to deliver meaningful change to the health insurance system."

That "senior administration official" sounds like Linda Douglass, the ObamaCare propagandist who took whithering fire this weekend while defending the snitch program at the White House.

Also, from Rasmussen Reports, "On Health Care, 51% Fear Government More Than Insurance Companies" (via Memeorandum).

Image Credit: Dana Loesch, "Seen All Over Missouri."

'Social Justice' in ObamaCare

From Ralph Reiland, "'Social Justice' in Health Care," writing on White House ObamaCare advisor, Ezekiel Emanuel:

The writings of Obama health adviser Emanuel provide some insight into how our current crop of central planners might well be intending to accomplish these seemingly conflicting goals.

Last year in Health Affairs: The Policy Journal of the Health Sphere, Emanuel wrote that "Vague promises of savings from cutting waste, enhancing prevention and wellness, installing electronic medical records and improving quality are merely 'lipstick' cost controls, more for show and public relations than for true change."

In other words, the billions in the House and Senate health reform bills for "infrastructure" pork -- i.e., "wellness" by way of jungle gyms and walking paths -- are just so much "lipstick."

In her recent article "Deadly Doctors: O Advisers Want to Ration Care," former New York Lt. Gov. Betsy McCaughey, founder of the Committee to Reduce Infection Deaths, reports on where Emanuel sees the real savings, citing an article he wrote last year in the Journal of the American Medical Association: "Savings, he writes, will require changing how doctors think about their patients: Doctors take the Hippocratic Oath too seriously 'as an imperative to do everything for the patient regardless of the cost or effects on others.'"

The "effects on others" is the key. He's saying we've got to think more collectively and less about ourselves. "Emanuel," explains McCaughey, "wants doctors to look beyond the needs of their patients and consider social justice, such as whether the money could be better spent on somebody else."

If "social justice" demands more spending on the young and less on the old, Emanuel explains why this isn't a case of discrimination: "Unlike allocation by sex or race, allocation by age is not invidious discrimination; every person lives through different life stages rather than being a single age. Even if 25-year-olds receive priority over 65-year-olds, everyone who is 65 years now was previously 25 years."

Granny, in short, should move on because she's had her chance.

An essay co-authored by Emanuel on the "just allocation of health care resources" in the Hasting Center Report (November-December 1996) provides some detail regarding who should be rationed out of the system: "(S)ervices provided to individuals who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens are not basic and should not be guaranteed. An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia."

We should die, in short, if we're deemed by the authorities to be insufficiently participating.

See also, "ObamaCare and the Elderly: Don't Entrust 'Sandmen' Technocrats With Deathly Medical Directorate Authority."

Citizen Protesters More Popular Than Congress

From Don Surber, "Townhall Protesters Are More Popular Than Congress" ...

Also, Rasmussen, "41% View Town Hall Protesters Favorably, 35% Don’t."

See also, Astute Bloggers, "A Small Roundup on the Healthcare Protests."

Obama’s Authoritarian Style

From James Taranto, "Obama’s Authoritarian Style":

Last Thursday, as the Roanoke Times reports, Obama appeared at a rally for Creigh Deeds, Virginia’s Democratic nominee for governor:

Obama also did some campaigning for himself, defending his administration’s efforts to fix the economy and blistering Republican critics, who he blamed for creating the crisis he inherited.

“I expect to be held responsible,” Obama said. “But I don’t want the folks who created the mess to do a lot of talking. I want them to get out of the way so we can clean up the mess. I don’t mind cleaning up after them, but don’t do a lot of talking.”

Video is here, though the passage is strangely omitted from the official White House transcript.

Now, it is perfectly acceptable, if not presidential, for Obama to keep disparaging the Republicans and the previous administration. But “don’t do a lot of talking” crosses a line. This is America, and they have a constitutional right to talk all they want. “Get out of the way” is problematic as well. The Republicans whose terms ended after the last election are out of the way, having left office to make way for Obama, his men and his allies in Congress. What can the president possibly mean here other than that he demands that they stop participating in politics--again, something that, in America, they have a perfect right to do?

Also on Thursday, according to Politico, “top White House aides gave Senate Democrats a recess battle plan”:

[The aides] showed video clips of the confrontational town halls that have dominated the media coverage, and told senators to do more prep work than usual for their public meetings by making sure their own supporters turn out, senators and aides said.

And they screened TV ads and reviewed the various campaigns by critics of the Democratic plan.

“If you get hit, we will punch back twice as hard,” [Deputy Chief of Staff Jim] Messina said, according to an official who attended the meeting.

Normally one would not take Messina’s statement seriously. Politicians are always “fighting” for their constituents, running “attack” ads, getting “into the ring,” waging “war” on this or that social problem and otherwise playing at combat.

But Messina knew that the Democrats were busy portraying citizens who oppose ObamaCare as a violent “mob,” and in that context this becomes more than a clichéd pretense. In fact, some administration allies seem to have taken Messina literally ...

Taranto then discusses the SEIU beating of Kenneth Gladney, which is being covered extensively by Gateway Pundit.

Now TBogg and Daily Kos are making ugly racist attacks on Gladney, and Gateway Pundit responds: "Fact Versus Fiction: Kenneth Gladney Corrects the Leftist Lies About the SEIU Attack That Put Him In the Hospital (Video)."

See also, Andrew Breitbart, "I am Kenneth Gladney." (Via Memeorandum.)

House Democratic Leadership: 'Protests Against ObamaCare 'Un-American'

It's the biggest thread today at Memeorandum. Here's Ed Morrissey on Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer's attack on citizen protesters as "un-American":

There could be nothing more American than appearing at a town hall and confronting elected officials over their wrong-headed policies, especially when those policies accrue more power to the federal government and eliminate freedom of choice for American citizens. Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer don’t agree. They apparently believe that their elected positions gives them the right to dictate to the country, and the right to be free of protest and dissent. In other words, they see themselves as royalty — as if they themselves were the state, and any protest is un-American simply because it opposes their policies.

They’re impugning your patriotism for using the First Amendment. That tells us everything we need to know about the Democratic majorities in the House and the Senate. This is a new low in American politics, and both Pelosi and Hoyer are foolish enough to put it in USA Today for all to see it.

Check out the whole debate at the thread.

'You Need to Shut Up and Get Out of the Way'

From Dana Loesch, "Indicative of What I’m Dealing With":

Andrew Collins writes:

We need health care reform people like you do nothing but spread lies. The people voted for change and thats what is going to happen. And you are always talking about pulling somebody hair out of their head now you cant take it when the shoe is on the other foot.You need to shut up and get out of the way before you get hurt or your family gets hurt. People are under a lot of stress out here it wont take much to set them off.

Yes, I forwarded this to the proper channels. I do not take anything lightly.

Yep, yet another example of leftist thuggery!

Video Credit: Hot Air, "SEIU Memo: Let’s “Drown Out” Health-Care Protesters’ Voices" (via Memeorandum).

'Taking Rich People’s Money and Devoting it to Public Purposes'

Remember how leftists refuse to be labeled as "socialists"? The preferred terminology nowadays is "progressive," but underneath you''ll find the same hardline radicals who advocate revolutionary change to sweep away the capitialist order.

And note this from Ayn Rand's essay, "The Monument Builders":

The essential characteristic of socialism is the denial of individual property rights; under socialism, the right to property (which is the right of use and disposal) is vested in 'society as a whole', i.e., in the collective, with production and distribution controlled by the state, i.e., by the government.

So it's really interesting to see how transparently socialist is Matthew Yglesias' post today, "If Only We Had Some Means of Taking Rich People’s Money and Devoting it to Public Purposes." Here's the key passage, in the context of "banking reform":

... we actually have a well-established method of taking market distributions of income and trying to transmogrify it into a more just, useful, and welfare-enhancing deployment of social resources—taxes and public services. The world of finance has been the main driver behind the growth in inequality at the extreme high end, and establishing additional tax brackets with higher rates would help lean against that trend. So would something like the Obama administration’s proposal to curb the extent to which high-income individuals can shelter income from taxes through itemized deductions.

It strikes me as ultimately unlikely that the political process will be able to micromanage high finance in a way that strikes people as meeting the claims of justice.

And Yglesias' last point about "justice" is the dead giveaway. Here's this, on what "social justice" means for today's radical left:

The quest for social justice, or a just and equitable society, is perhaps the foremost stated objective of the modern Left ....

The unbroken line from The Communist Manifesto to its contemporary adherents is the notion that economic inequality is the monstrous injustice of the capitalist system, which must be replaced by an ideal of "social justice" - a "classless" society created by the elimination of all differences in wealth and "power." Thus "social justice" in its contemporary sense has come to mean a rejection of capitalism and of each man's economic freedom - be he a manufacturer or a consumer -- to do as he wishes with his own intellectual, physical, and material resources; this freedom is the origin of income disparity under capitalism.

There you have it: Matthew Yglesias unpacked as the true revolutionary socialist expropriator that he is. Take that, Edge of the American West (see, "Pride and Prejudice and Zombies and Yglesias and Socialists and Communists").

Mike Sola to Pelosi, Reid, Hoyer: 'We've Had a Visit From Your Thugs'

I watched the interview this morning. Mike Sola, whose son could be denied treatment under ObamaCare cost rationalization, appeared with Megyn Kelly on "America's Newsroom." It's dramatic, "I will use every means available to us ... my wife is terrified ...":

Gateway Pundit has a report, "It Has Begun... Father of Handicapped Son Receives Threats After Confronting Dem Congressman."

Also, Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer at USA Today, "‘Un-American’ Attacks Can't Derail Health Care Debate" (via Memeorandum).

Epic Fail: Obama and the Politics of Personal Destruction

From Jennier Rubin, "Obama and the Politics of Personal Destruction":

The president and his party are in a fix.

At their moment of great political ascendancy — when they control both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue and a recession has rocked faith in free market capitalism — they still can’t get the country to go along with their big government schemes.

Each day brings a new batch of bad polling news for the president. The public is wary of his spending, is convinced he is too liberal, and doesn’t much care for ObamaCare. Meanwhile, the speaker of the house has Dick Cheney-like poll numbers and the Democrats’ generic poll numbers have slid.

Under such circumstances, the only reasonable thing to do is attack the voters and the Republican Party. That at least seems to be the conclusion reached by the Obama White House, which now is convinced that smearing citizens who bother to come to town hall meetings and painting their opponents as intransigent critics of all reform — or as fruitcakes — are the keys to success.

And from Obama himself, the once presidential candidate who wanted to have civil discourse and get beyond name calling, the message to his critics is: “get out of the way.” Anyone who disagrees with ObamaCare is now a crank, a stooge, or an obstructionist. Even the Washington Post editors have had quite enough of the “round-up-the-usual-suspects demagoguery.”

Read the whole thing (link).

I've been blogging the administration's epic fail on ObamaCare for weeks now. Click around at the tags for additional entries.

See also the unbelievable USA Today essay from Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer, "‘Un-American’ Attacks Can't Derail Health Care Debate" (via Memeorandum).

ObamaCare and the Elderly: Don't Entrust 'Sandmen' Technocrats With Deathly Medical Directorate Authority

Here's Newt Gingrich speaking on ObamaCare's end-of-life provisions for the elderly:

You're asking us to trust turning power over to the government, when there clearly are people in America who believe in -- in establishing euthanasia, including selective standards.

I've read the key passage of the bill, to which George Stephanopolous is referring; and I wrote about it last night, see "End of Life: ObamaCare and the Elderly." The entry triggered a lively discussion, and Dr. Ahmadinejad Chavez Biobrain weighed in with a subsequent post, "In Defense of Palin's Death Panel." At one point, Dr. Biobrain claims that " Donald's solid ground' just crumbled out from beneath him."

Actually, not so fast. The "death panel" terminology is not mine. Yet, I do know that President Obama is indifferent to the beauty and sanctity of life (he's President Infanticide, remember). And the legislation is clear: It requires "orders" for end of life decisions, a choice of language which is totally at odds with traditionally individualistic "patient's directives" terminology - and which is thus typically authoritarian in tone. That is fact, not opinion. It's explicitly set forth as such in the key sections of the House bill I cited last night. And why "orders"? Well, the Democrats hate private autonomy and personal liberty. It's no wonder that Newt Gingrich argues that President Obama is "asking us to decide that we believe that the government is to be trusted." I don't trust President Obama. He's a liar and a sneak, and he's gathering information on his political enemies. Perhaps one of those enemy's parents or grandparents might not be approved for some life-sustaining medical treatment. Of course, it's not a political decision, so the administration and the Democratic majority will have plausible deniability. It's a technocratic decision, which will be carried out by the government's "Sandmen" ObamaCare technocrats empowered with life-and-death authority to "order" treatment limitations for the elderly. Only a hard left radical like the not-a-real-doctor-who-posts-cowardly-under-a-pseudonym Dr. Ahmadinejad Chavez Biobrain would defend this monstrosity of Democratic big-government neo-Stalinism.

Dr. Biobrain has yet to prevail in debating me, although he's a glutton for punishment. I've been trying to ignore him lately, though, disgusted as I am with his recent outburst of unspeakable anti-Semitism. It really crosses a line.

In any case, check some other sources for reference.

* Betsy McCaughey, "DEADLY DOCTORS: O ADVISERS WANT TO RATION CARE". McCaughey writes of Ezekiel Emanuel, President Obama's health adviser at OMB and an Obama point-man at the Federal Council on Comparative Effectiveness Research:

Emanuel ... believes that "communitarianism" should guide decisions on who gets care. He says medical care should be reserved for the non-disabled, not given to those "who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens . . . An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia" (Hastings Center Report, Nov.-Dec. '96).

Translation: Don't give much care to a grandmother with Parkinson's or a child with cerebral palsy.

He explicitly defends discrimination against older patients: "Unlike allocation by sex or race, allocation by age is not invidious discrimination; every person lives through different life stages rather than being a single age. Even if 25-year-olds receive priority over 65-year-olds, everyone who is 65 years now was previously 25 years" (Lancet, Jan. 31).

* Also, the Heritage Foundation, "Obamacare: One Pill, Two Pill, Red Pill, Blue Pill":

Who Makes Medical Decisions? What is the right medical treatment and should bureaucrats determine what Americans can or cannot have? While the House and Senate language is vague, amendments offered in House and Senate committees to block government rationing of care were routinely defeated. Cost or a federal health board could be the deciding factors. President Obama himself admitted this when he said, "Maybe you're better off not having the surgery, but taking the painkiller," when asked about an elderly woman who needed a pacemaker.

* The Washington Post, "The Health-Care Sacrifice: What President Obama Needs to Tell the Public About the Cost of Reform"

Mr. Obama's soothing bedside manner masks the reality that getting health costs under control will require making difficult choices about what procedures and medications to cover. It will require saying no, or having the patient pay more, at times when the extra expense is not justified by the marginal improvement in care.

See also my previous entry, "Obama's Health Plan Will Succeed (At Getting People to Die." Faster)."

Hat Tip: Hot Air, "We Have Seen the “Death Panel,” And You Are On It."

Dissent is Patriotic? Not Under the Obama Administration

From Debra Saunders, "Dissent is Patriotic - Not":

Imagine it's four years ago and an aide to President George W. Bush posted a blog on the Whitehouse.gov Web site that bemoaned Internet criticism of the Iraq war, then continued: "These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain e-mails or through casual conversations.

we can't keep track of all of them here at the White House, we're asking for your help. If you get an e-mail or see something on the Web about anti-war protests that seem fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov."

Substitute the words "health insurance reform" for "anti-war protests," and you get the exact wording of a blog posted by Macon Phillips, the White House director of new media, on Tuesday.

"I can only imagine the level of justifiable outrage had your predecessor asked Americans to forward e-mails critical of his politics to the White House," Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, wrote in a letter to President Obama. "I suspect that you would have been leading the charge in condemning such a program."

No lie.

Now I don't think Obamaland was working on an "enemies list" - as some conservatives have charged. But I do want to note how deftly the left has abandoned its old rallying cry, "Dissent is patriotic" ...

I want to be clear: I want nothing to do with any protesters who carry swastikas, hang our leaders in effigy or show up to disrupt when a duly-elected official speaks. Over the years, I've seen too many signs depicting the president as a Nazi and too many extremists who think they are so right that they don't have to respect the free-speech rights of others.

The problem is: When anti-Bush protesters behaved badly, when Code Pinkers shouted and anti-war protesters brandished signs with swastikas, they did not rate nearly as much press scrutiny as the ObamaCare protesters. There seems to be the impression in my profession that comparisons of Bush with Hitler were to be expected, but not of Obama with Hitler. That's below the belt.

Below the belt ... that pretty much summarizes all the Democratic activities of late, from the White House down to the local union office. (Read the whole thing at the link.)

Cartoon Credit: Nate Beeler, "In Defense of Dissent on Health Care Reform."

Democrats Rally Their Own Thugs to Visit Town Halls, District Offices

From Jake Tapper, "Painting Protestors as "Partisan Mobs with Lies About Health Reform," Democrats Rally Their Own Activists to Visit Members of Congress at Town Halls, District Offices":

Supporters of President Obama formerly signed up as members of "Obama for America" received an email today from Mitch Stewart, the director of the group's current incarnation, Organizing for America, to show up at town halls and congressional offices as a counter to the protestors against the president's health care reform push.

Painting the protestors as "Insurance companies and partisan attack groups...stirring up fear with false rumors about the President's plan," Stewart's email tells supporters whom their member of Congress is and even provides information about town hall meetings they may be holding.

Writes Stewart: "As you've probably seen in the news, special interest attack groups are stirring up partisan mobs with lies about health reform, and it's getting ugly. Across the country, members of Congress who support reform are being shouted down, physically assaulted, hung in effigy, and receiving death threats. We can't let extremists hijack this debate, or confuse Congress about where the people stand."

Supporters are told to stop by local congressional offices to show support for health care reform with the option of a "quick conversation with the local staff, tell(ing) your personal story, or even just drop(ping) off a customized flyer and say that reform matters to you."

After participants sign up, they're sent to a webpage (an example of one for Nevadans is HERE.) where they're told to "Stay calm and positive. While some are attempting to disrupt and shut down debate, our goal is to engage in meaningful, respectful discussion. Remaining calm, positive and polite while speaking to any staff member is the best way to be heard."

More at the link.

See also, Dana Loesch, "DNC Trying to Stack the Deck for McCaskill on Tuesday."

Image Credit: Gateway Pundit, "Unreal!... SEIU Thugs Who Beat a Black Conservative & Smashed a Woman In Her Face Now Claim They Were the Real Victims."

Democrats Rethink Health Care Town Halls

From Warner Todd Huston, at RightWingNews, "Democrats: Anything to Avoid Meeting With Voters":

Democrat Party bigwigs are passing down the directives to their Congressional membership that townhalls are verboten from this point forward. Congressmen returning to their districts are being told to find ways to avoid their voters as much as possible.

Instead of holding large meetings, now Democrats returning back home are trying to corral voters into small gatherings, one-on-one meetings, phone calls, or simply not meeting with them at all. These cowards realize that their efforts to back Obama's socialist take over of nearly 20% of the American economy is anathema to a large portion of the electorate and they don't want to hear about it. These elected officials' minds are made up and what the voters want is immaterial.

Read the whole thing (here).

Also, from the Wall Street Journal, "Lawmakers Rethink Town Halls."

Hat Tip: TrogloPundit (who is now blogging at RightWingNews).

Linda Douglass on Reliable Sources: Citizen Discussion of ObamaCare More 'Disinformation'

Linda Douglass, the White House Health Office Communications Director, calls debate and dissent on ObamaCare "disinformation":

Also, at the sidebar from the YouTube:

When asked (at 6:00) to comment on Rush Limbaugh comparing the White House's health care logo to a Nazi swastika, Douglass remarks: "I just don't even want to say about something like that... People are saying crazy things right now."

YouTube Hat Tip: Freedom's Lighthouse, "Howard Kurtz Tells Linda Douglass He's "Skeptical" Using Obama's Own Words is "Disinformation" - Video 8/9/09."

Added: From Gateway Pundit, "Linda Douglas, the former the state-run reporter turned Obama shill, admitted today that the White House is breaking the law by collecting names and information on fishy Americans who oppose nationalized health care ..."