the way you’ve got the post formatted, it will kill the margins. Can you reformat the photos so that they fit the screen?
bowes3says
amberpawsays
We will leave on a family visit to Michigan 9/26 and are not back until 9/2 – but you are surely making the case that anyone who cares about democracy [even aside from health care] should be showing up for these meetings. Given my serious history as a public speaker, I might also make some difference – you never know. So I will also see what is going on in this regard in my home state [which has more than its own share of troubles right now, to be sure. Michigan makes Massachusetts look like an oasis of prosperity, unfortunately for Michigan].
lasthorsemansays
A reality show I can identify with
Channel 39 on Comcast “The Colony”
A diverse group of people battles against a post-Apocalypse world for survival.
I think “States Succeed Now!” would be a good idea. More success for everyone!
stomvsays
huhsays
bostonshepherdsays
Sure, a couple of bizarre signs. But some not so bizarre. And believe me, we could post up 10x what you have here if asked to display photos of an anti-war or SEIU rally.
<
p>Why heck, didn’t I see posters of Che Guevara in some Obama volunteer campaign offices, in Houston, IIRC? Is that bizarre? Yep.
<
p>But what’s your point? Looks like the public option is dead. To me, assuming it is dead, that means the protesters, and Sarah Palin (Sarah Palin!), have won this round. (We’ll see if the public option makes a comeback, or if the co-op proposal is simply Public Option Lite.)
<
p>I think there is real national opposition, if you believe the polls, to the health “reform” proposal that’s come out of the House, even with the public option and “death panel” removed.
<
p>If the town hall meetings were a heated, even over the top, well, that’s one from the Alinsky play book that’s worked for the conservative team.
Anti-war rallies had lots of posters claiming Bush was lying about his identity? People hung around outside Bush events carrying guns, and signs threatening his life?
stomvsays
You keep referring to “the polls” without actually citing any polls.
but bostonshepherd writes of polls showing opposition to the health bill that came out of the House. Given the amount of noise in this debate and given that Obama has not put forth any specific bills, I don’t consider the pollster aggregate of Obama’s job approval w.r.t. health care a relevant poll to bostonshepherd’s claim.
christophersays
The relevant question needs to be “Do you support a public option?” not “Do you approve of Obama’s handling of the health care issue?” I would answer yes to the first, but frankly, I’m not sure about the second as I definitely think he could be handling it better.
bostonshepherdsays
Here, and here are polls showing around 2-1 against the House plan.
<
p>There’s nothing specific that addresses the public option alone. Sorry. But that’s not important. On the other hand, I would conclude these results are WORSE for “reform” altogether than you think.
<
p>Why is that? Because, according to CNN, 8 in 10 people are happy with their health care, and 75% are happy with their own insurance.
<
p>Unless you ram “reform” through without debate, I have a hard time thinking a vast majority of likely voters are going to stand for having plans with which they are satisfied taken away from them. Indeed, folks are PO’d because Obama tried to sneak this stinker of a bill through before anyone really knew what was in those 1,100 pages.
<
p>Now it’s coming out, and folks are VERY ANGRY. Especially when politicians haven’t even read it (so long Arlen Specter.)
<
p>Stomv is correct … in reality there’s no Obama plan though that’s not what the public thinks. It’s “his” now.
christophersays
First poll link you provide asks about single payer – not valid for this discussion as it has, much to the chagrin of many of us, taken off the table. Second poll refers to a plan proposed by Obama and Congress, which let’s face it, most Americans wouldn’t know the exact legislation if it hit them in the face. How many times do we have to say IF YOU ARE SATISFIED WITH YOUR PLAN IT WON’T BE TAKEN AWAY FROM YOU! I’m glad people are happy with their healthcare as they should have no problem with this, unless of course they oppose helping people. This legislation isn’t for them; it’s for those either dissatisfied or without and 20-25% is a pretty significant chunk. Also these polls ask “Do you believe…?” What’s the point of that? Just because the public believes it doesn’t make it so, though it may be helpful in determining a need to more effectively communicate. It is now your turn to get from me the question I have asked others. What do you propose to do about the millions uninsured and address the obstacles even those WITH insurance sometimes face?
christophersays
Polls out today (NBC) show a pretty closely split decision – 47% opposed, 43% in favor, 3.5% margin. I would still point out two things. Very often the honest answer to polls, especially of the “Do you believe…?” variety is “I need more info. before I can comment intelligently”, and at the end of the day I really don’t care what the polls say anyway.
garysays
Polling shows that people oppose the health “reform” proposal that’s come out of the House.
p>Christopher: So, at the end of the day I really don’t care what the polls say anyway.
<
p>And, there you go. You just lost any credibility to ever cite a poll as justification for anything.
christophersays
First poll: Again that’s a handling question, one that even I might be inclined to answer in the negative, plus most of them are at pretty close margin
<
p>Second poll: The article cites exactly the same poll I did above. Thank you, Your Honor, I rest my case.
<
p>Finally, I don’t think you’ll ever see me cite a poll as justification for or against anything so I’m not looking for that kind of credibility. I have not and will not say, “We should (or shouldn’t) do X because the polls say Y.” What I will do is throw polls back in somebody’s face when I have reason to believe the interpretation is inaccurate or I’ve seen polls that would appear to contradict what someone else is claiming about polls. All told, I think there is way too much polling going on and they don’t do much to contribute to the debate on the merits.
<
p>The only occasion where they might be helpful is to see who is winning the message war and getting the losing side to rethink their communication strategy. If a poll said a majority thinks the plan includes “death panels” that doesn’t make it true; it just means that Sarah Palin has gotten her message out better than Obama has. If the President sees those numbers it should lead him to redouble his efforts to counter Palin, NOT drop the provision that Palin is using to justify her claims.
stomvsays
The first poll is indeed irrelevant. The second poll, however, is instructive. 53-42 is nowhere near 2-1 however, and while it’s not within the margin of error, it’s one poll… certainly not enough to back your claims that the public is remarkably one-sided on the issue.
<
p>Looking at the CNN poll (which reports that “Obama’s plan” is favored 50-45) there is a major generational gap. Folks on Medicare are against the Obama plan. I speculate that a big chunk of that is because they are worried they’ll lose coverage (death panels, whatever). If I were interested in making a decision that represented the will of a well informed public, I’d reduce some of that 45 because some of those seniors are against a plan that’s been conjured by talking heads on the right (including outright liars like Baby Downs’ Mama), not the actual plan under consideration.
<
p>The “eight in ten” and 75% numbers don’t break down those with public insurance (Medicare, Medicaid, VA benefits, BIA, etc) and those with private insurance, so it’s impossible to know what that number really implies. After all, if gov’t run health plans had very high approval rates and high enrollment rates, private insurance could have low approval but the aggregate still come out pretty strong.
<
p>
<
p>I do find it strange that you claim that “Obama tried to sneak this stinker of a bill through…” and then tow sentences later observe that “in reality there’s no Obama plan”. Surely, you know enough civics to know that (a) Obama didn’t write the bill, and more importantly, (b) can do nothing to “sneak” the bill through the House nor the Senate. Gee, you don’ think that playing fast and loose with the facts (like you did with Obama’s “sneak”ing) has anything to do with the polling, do you? Nah, of course not. There’s been a remarkable vacuum of honest public debate coming from leaders on the right side of the aisle, why should we expect anything from the rank and file?
p>Meanwhile, as Obama rushes to abandon the public option, pols turn attention to the Health coops in an attempt to form a new blue cross/blue shield.
johndsays
In another sign of discontent with the looming overhaul, some 60,000 senior citizens have severed ties with the AARP since July 1. The membership loss suggests dissatisfaction on the part of AARP members at a time when many senior citizens are concerned about proposed cuts to Medicare providers to help pay for making health care available for all.
<
p>Those are likely 60,000 registered voters too so Congressmen will be watching that group of people very carefully. I would caution those Congressmen who are declaring they will NOT vote for reform without a public option since that “signed” pledge will be shown by their opponent on election day.
bostonshepherdsays
60,000 on a 40 million person membership is meaningless.
Wow. So many seniors who are willing to voluntarily tear up their AARP cards and join this conservative organization must really show how upset people are at AARP and its support for health care reform, right? Well, not really.
ThinkProgress contacted an AARP spokesperson who said that while the organization is “concerned” about the 60,000 members who have left the organization, the number needs to be put into perspective. The organization generally loses 300,000 members a month just due to membership lapses and death. But since July 1, AARP has had 1.5 million people renew their memberships and 400,000 new members sign up.
Additionally, as Dissenting Justice points out, the people who recently joined ASA may not actually be quitting AARP: “[B]ecause it is probably impossible for ASA to confirm that new members have actually canceled their AARP memberships, people could send their torn-up cards to ASA, get a discounted membership with ASA, order a replacement card from AARP, and retain memberships in both organizations.”
“Up to 60,000 people” could accurately describe 60,000 people, 50,000 people, 30,000 people, or two dozen people. Generally, people use the phrase “up to __ people” when they want to focus your attention on a large number they don’t know is actually true. If CBS actually knew there were 60,000 cancellations, they’d just say “60,000 people,” without the “up to” wiggle words.
So, since CBS apparently has no idea how many people have cancelled memberships, how have they “learned” about this? It seems rather obvious that CBS “learned” this not by gaining access to AARP’s records, or from an AARP official, but from the American Seniors Association, a right-wing fundraising organization featured in the CBS report. ASA is urging seniors to mail them torn-up AARP membership cards, which ASA will reward with half-off membership.
There’s no reason to take ASA’s claims about AARP’s membership seriously — they are not in any position to know, and have a clear interest in inflating the number of cancellations.
“one from the Alinsky play book”? Can you back that up, at all? Where in, say, Rules for Radicals does it say that at public fora with Congresspeople the goal of the activist should be to shout them down and prevent any actual debate or discussion? Because that is explicitly what these “protests” are about. Not raising questions; not expressing dissent; shutting down discussion and intimidating the representatives. (digby had more on this.)
<
p>And while we’re at it, I’d love to know what evidence you can present that what Alinksy wrote has anything to do with anything right now, but I realize that might be asking too much.
bostonshepherdsays
I see this:
<
p>”Rule 12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it and polarize it. Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions. (This is cruel, but very effective. Direct, personalized criticism and ridicule works.)”
<
p>If that isn’t exactly what each Dem Senator and Congressman is going through, I don’t know what is. And to some extent, Obama is a recipient of this scorn too, even though it’s not “his” bill. It’s been hung around his neck.
<
p>On the other hand, it’s impossible to individualize the “mob” and the “Teabaggers.”
p>”Mr Alinsky believed that packing public meetings with highly vocal activists would sway their outcomes and give people a taste of the power they could exercise when they showed up in numbers.”
I see how someone* might think that actively preventing discussion, spreading vicious lies about political opponents, and issuing death threats both veiled and explicit, were a reasonable interpretation of what Alinsky recommended.
<
p>So now we come to my other question: what’s Alinksy recommending potentially disruptive tactics in “rule 12” got to do with anything? When did anyone working on behalf of President Obama’s agenda employ those tactics, or when did Mr. Obama employ or promote those tactics while campaigning for, or serving in, his Illinois or US Senate seats? Or is “Alinksy” just – like “Che Guevara,” “Jeremiah Wright,” “Bill Ayers,” “Nancy Pelosi,” etc. – a synonym for “Goldstein” as far as you’re concerned?
<
p>*who wasn’t very smart
bowes3says
I do not think Tea Baggers represent the Republican Party.
<
p>The propaganda, signs, photos and protests are foolish. The guns, violence, death threats, preventing people from speaking and turning town hall meetings into chaos are dangers to the foundation of democracy. But you do not denounce it?
<
p>Show me one video, picture or third party report that shows anyone on the left doing anything like what this video shows. I will denounce it!
<
p>So…
<
p>The year is 1788.
The issue is ratifying the Constitution.
Are you going to stand up to the Anti-Federalists?
<
p>Prove Me Wrong!
<
p>Go to a town meeting and stand up to the Tea Baggers!
Demand that every person and argument be heard!
Be the man on the beer bottle!
yellow-dogsays
The first refuse refuge of a conservative.
john-hosty-grinnellsays
I wrote an article in response to an email I received more than once from my family asking why I still supported Obama in his healthcare plan. The email went on to make what seems like an awful lot of painstakingly quoted points, yet when they are compared with the bill itself the bald faced lies become evident:
p>Please go there and compare their assertions with the actual Bill itself. I went to the page, section, searched the entire document by key words. It either does not contain what the teabaggers purport or says the complete opposite.
<
p>
(1) RECOMMENDATIONS ON BENEFIT STAND19
ARDS.-The Health Benefits Advisory Committee
20 shall recommend to the Secretary of Health and
21 Human Services (in this subtitle referred to as the
22 ”Secretary”) benefit standards (as defined in para23
graph (4)), and periodic updates to such standards.
24 In developing such recommendations, the Committee
25 shall take into account innovation in health care and 1 ensure that essential benefits coverage does not lead
2 to rationing of health care.
christophersays
…what this is supposed to accomplish. Say things get so out of hand that the member of Congress just walks out – then what? Lost opportunity to interact with voters and the member of Congress just votes anyway.
The teabaggers are going to have a similar impact on Baker’s chances in Massachusetts in 2010 as Sarah Palin had on John McCain in 2008. Lots of media attention for the Republicans but, in the end, alienation of a large majority of voters.
<
p>The decline of the G.O.P. as a party with broad national appeal continues.
johndsays
Republicans have always been the minority party in recent history. The swing is always the feelings of the independents and if it wasn’t for the Iraq War and the Economic collapse being blamed on Republicans… McCain would have won.
<
p>Take the current (and future) National Debt, the continued unemployment, the upcoming economic re-collapse (including Wall St), Obama’s bloody nose over Healthcare, weakening support from the far-left and a renewed energy from the middle of America leaning right and I smell comeback.
<
p>I will remove MA from this prediction since we have way too many zealots and socialists for even a moderate to appease. But Charlie Baker could make some hay with Patrick’s piss poor performance and poll numbers.
<
p>We’ll see.
christophersays
Probably – the pattern of the opposition to the White House gaining midterm favors them, but the key is national appeal, which they are definitely struggling with. Their appeal is decidedly regional at this point.
<
p>As for your opening line about Republicans always being in the minority, where were you 2002-2006?
johndsays
Independents (like me) made the difference for Republicans during 2002-206.
Everything I’m seeing suggests that yes, the Republicans will take back seats in 2010 – but 1) that they won’t take enough to gain control of either chamber and 2) that the most vulnerable seats are the Blue Dogs who are voting against their party anyway. They can have ’em!
stomvsays
if the Dems fall from 60% of House seats to 57%, how much does it matter in the immediate sense?
<
p>I’d gladly trade 4% of the House for another 2% of the Senate if those extra 2 Dems are willing to vote with leadership on (some of) health care and climate change and filibuster nothing. Of course, there can be no such actual exchange, but the point remains — it’s the 50th percentile in the House that matters, and (to varying extents) the 50th and 60th percentile which matter in the Senate. Moving legislators who are already left of the median leftward doesn’t help much, and losing legislators who are already right of the median doesn’t hurt much.
christophersays
That assumes of course, that there is true Democratic leadership in the Senate. I have to wonder about Harry Reid sometimes.
billxisays
Doesn’t Mr Butcher need to win a convention over first? And then Mr. Candlestickmaker will have to run and then win a primary? We in the MAGOP aren’t listening to your preferences anymore. and since the national GOP doesn’t know their asses from their eyeteeth, most of us don’t pay attention.
bostonshepherdsays
Otherwise, the polls would show support for the House bill when in fact it shows 2-1 against.
<
p>It get worse! Gallup now claims more people self-identify as conservatives than liberals. Even Massachusetts is split 30% – 30% conservative/liberal with 40% independent. Unbelievable.
<
p>Think this isn’t a result of health “reform” outrage?
<
p>Bob, are the polls off? Or are you cocooning?
johndsays
2010 will be a big year for Republicans.
joetssays
was John Hancock.
tbladesays
The Sam Adams bottle features a modified version of John Singleton Copley’s portrait of Paul Revere that is housed at the MFA.
joetssays
Thank you. I was being driven somewhat insane trying to figure out who it was, because I KNEW it wasn’t Sam Adams.
seascrapersays
I outlined this in the discussion about our failed town halls. But I refine it here. When the organizer of the discussion enters with her mind made up, and thinks the limit of her duty is to show up and say her piece as the last word, then her respondents will automatically turn the volume up to 11.
<
p>[As an aside you will see the same behavior in comments on newspaper web sites. It’s the same because newspapers have the same arrogant “last word” attitude as congressmen.]
<
p>Niki and any of these congressmen could have defused the situation if she had an ability with crowds, or some semblance of an interest in what they had to say. Imagine if she was Bill Clinton or even Hillary. Instead she faces them as the enemy.
goldsteingonewildsays
when they specifically set up reader comment sections such that readers have (literally and figuratively) the last word?
seascrapersays
The reporter never comes back and discusses the story with the commenters. That leads to ranting.
<
p>If you go to a “town hall” it’s basically the last place for you to let them know how you feel about the issue. The politicians besides being basically disconnected are going to vote for the bill unless you scream and yell. If you give them an inch, a nice word, they will turn it into support for what they wanted to do in the first place.
<
p>She should have had town halls a long time ago to find out what people want. This is a fake town hall where she shows up and tells them what she’s going to do.
howiejames2says
I have been googling some stuff about the connections between the tea baggers and the New Constitutional Convention crowd (Randy Barnett , Pete Fleckenstein , Tony Perkins etc.). A lot of Libertarians and other assorted wackos,if their ultimate goal is a new con con , they will fail because of opposition from left and right,including John Birchers and people who live in the real world…
johndsays
While I detest watching that moron, I had to hear what she had to say about the public option being dropped and it was priceless. She was angry, sad, confused, belittling and silly all at once. She was bitching at the Dems for being cowards and was in utter disbelief that the “majority” elected House and Senate were not ramming this down the throats of Republicans! She seemed to missing the point that a whole bunch of Americans (yes, the majority according to recent polls – thanks Gary) show we don’t like the current bill. She seems to think (like others here at BMG) that because Obama was elected and many Dems in Congress and the Senate, that ANYTHING they come up with has the implicit OKAY of the American people. Well, she is wrong. Americans want what they want and NOT what the House and Senate conjure up. The recent attempt by Nancy Pelosi to purchase a bunch of private jets for Congress’ use showed how not everything she (and Obama) want is also wanted by the majority of Americans.
<
p>Maddow’s liberal bias is coming through clearly and so is MSNBC’s and NBC’s obvious bias. I hope Americans respond by lowering the network and the Cable station’s ratings below their miserable levels of today.
lightirissays
becoming rather creepy. Beginning to look like something clinical is happening here.
tbladesays
…he couldn’t resist going completely off topic and trying to tie-in Nancy Pelosi and congrssional jets.
lightirissays
I think, too, Dr. tblade, that the patient exhibits some anxiety around strong women. Perhaps some underlying inadequacy projected upon Ms. Maddow and Ms. Pelosi fueled by a fixation on aeronautical prepulsion….
johndsays
I was simply trying to show how the people of this country still have a direct say in matters (like the “Congressional jets”) while Maddow was implying that the elected officials should simply do what they want and ignore the plurality of what Americans now want. GET IT?????
tbladesays
Nope.
<
p>You often do a poor job expressing your thoughts.
johndsays
Isn’t that what you guys are all about? Helping the less fortunate… I try to speak slowly and use simple words. I try to use analogies and pictures. It’s tough to talk about things like working hard and advancing in life to people who are slackers or have been given everything in their life. So cut me some slack for crying out loud.
tbladesays
I used to be a writing tutor.
<
p>If you promise to work hard, one day you too will be able to write better and more clearly elucidate your thoughts and ideas!
johndsays
Last week someone said I should try to make my comments more relevant but I thought she should have said I should make my comments more relative… which is it?
<
p>Why not start a business on this? You could get rich and become a Republican.
tbladesays
…are called teachers. For some reason I doubt that would make me rich.
Right wingers are against they want status quo health care and people like me are against the bill because I feel like it’s too weak and watered down. If asked if I approved of the bill, I’d say no – with the caveat that I’d rather have the current bill rammed down the Republican’s throat, as you put it, then nothing.
<
p>All I’m saying is don’t take polling saying that people, let alone +50% of Americans, are against this bill as evidence that +50 percent of AMericans agree with you in wanting to sabotage the current Health Care reform initiative.
<
p>And Maddow is a very openly liberal just like BMG is openly liberal. She’s supposed to have a liberal bias – that’s the whole appeal of her show. It’s like complaining that Sean Cardinal O’Malley has a Catholic bias. Strange.
bostonshepherdsays
If politicians see 2-1 against a bill, there’s a good chance that bill will not pass, no matter how much arm twisting Pelosi and Reid do. And no matter how upset you or Rachel Maddow are.
<
p>A 50/50 split is one thing, but we’re talking a small minority of likely voters who want “reform” in its current configuration.
<
p>I sense this majority outrage has some legs to it; it’s no longer “right-wingers”. This includes the deficit spending crisis with the cherry on top … 5 Gulfstream-Vs insisted upon by Madame Speaker (canceled by cooler heads.)
When has Harry Reid ever even so much as nudged an arm, let alone twisted? I mean, come on. You really ought to try to find a more plausible focus for your paranoid fantasies.
tbladesays
Baloney.
tbladesays
I’m taking all healthcare polls with a grain of salt nowadays, but here’s a different point of view:
A majority of Americans are in favor of having a public, or government-run, option in the US health care system as proposed by President Barack Obama, a poll showed Tuesday.
Fifty-two percent of 2,276 US adults surveyed online by Harris Interactive between July 9 and 13 said they were in favor of a government-run health plan, while just 30 percent were against.
Obama has pledged to overhaul the US health care system. He and most Democratic lawmakers want to introduce a public coverage option, while many Republican members of Congress and some conservative Democrats are against the idea.
Nearly seven in 10 Americans told Harris Interactive that a government-run plan would be a valuable alternative to private insurance; more than six in 10 thought it would help keep insurance costs down and 55 percent said it would allow patients to get better care.
<
p>People are against the bill, yet people want the government to step in and help make health care more affordable and easily accessible, possibly through a so-called “public option”. Hmmmmm….
christophersays
47% opposed
43% favor
3.5% margin
<
p>2-1? I believe we call that “fuzzy math”!
johndsays
My point was exhibited by your comment exactly…
<
p>
Right wingers are against they want status quo health care and people like me are against the bill because I feel like it’s too weak and watered down.
<
p>Many right wingers are opposed to this bill because they don’t like many of the provisions of THIS BILL! You are making a giant leap to say right wingers including myself want the status quo. I was trying make that point by saying left wingers are against the bill because it is watered down not because THEY WANT THE STATUS QUO. It works both ways, we can both be against the bill for varying reasons and not simply because we want the status quo.
yellow-dogsays
the realization that most of MSNBC (not Morning Joe) has a liberal bias or that our alleged independent has the hots for Rachel Maddow, whose Alan Colmes incidentally is the morally bankrupt Pat Buchanan.
<
p>What’s the next newsflash? Obama is bi-racial?
<
p>And if finding Rachel (who used to live in Northampton, MA) appealing bothers you, there’s always news bimbo Mika Brzezinksi who offered to dance on a stripper’s pole–it wasn’t clear if she’d strip–for charity. Starting price $100,000.
bostonshepherdsays
After reading some 40 posts on this thread, I note that progressives consistently believe the town hall ruckus is artificial, or simply represents a tiny number of vocal far-right extremists.
<
p>Unless the polls are way, way off, many more voters don’t want the current bill to pass than do.
<
p>Is this not clear? How come I see no empirical evidence from liberals that I’m misstating the polls I keep seeing?
christophersays
Plus some of us don’t believe in governing by polls.
yellow-dogsays
so why don’t you go back to RMG and preach to the converted?
my favorite would be this, from the promotion comment from Charley:
<
p>
Just disgusting, rotten, childish behavior from putative adults.
<
p>Ever the adult, Charley opines thus whilst promoting a post whose very title calls fellow Americans exercising their democratic rights and some might say responsibilities“tea baggers”, a slander repeated endlessly in the post and even by fellow editor Bob (to me always the most mature of the three! ) in the comments.
<
p>In the unlikely event that anyone reading this enlightened blog does not get the reference, here it is:
<
p>
To have a man insert his scrotum into another person’s mouth in the fashion of a teabag into a mug with an up/down (in/out) motion.
I had heard there was a sexual connotation to this term, but this is actually the first time I’ve seen it defined. Since apparently YOU don’t get the real reference, back on April 15, people of this ilk held “teabag” rallies protesting taxation (ostensibly) with (in my opinion lame) references to the Boston Tea Party. Part of the activity was to bring actual teabags to these rallies and in some cases mail such to their members of Congress.
p>then again, maybe you just sop up the language of your leadership without thinking
lightirissays
Geez, where’ve you been, under a rock? Of course the play-on-words is intentional–only you conservative types were a little slow on the uptake when the moniker naturally surfaced last spring. Someone should have seen this coming, actually, when the Einsteins among you decided it would be a good idea to make the tea bag your symbol. Now your tea bag is a metaphor for something even larger than its original point: ignorance. And you’re stuck with it. From where I’m sitting, that’s win/win.
the way you’ve got the post formatted, it will kill the margins. Can you reformat the photos so that they fit the screen?
We will leave on a family visit to Michigan 9/26 and are not back until 9/2 – but you are surely making the case that anyone who cares about democracy [even aside from health care] should be showing up for these meetings. Given my serious history as a public speaker, I might also make some difference – you never know. So I will also see what is going on in this regard in my home state [which has more than its own share of troubles right now, to be sure. Michigan makes Massachusetts look like an oasis of prosperity, unfortunately for Michigan].
A reality show I can identify with
Channel 39 on Comcast “The Colony”
A diverse group of people battles against a post-Apocalypse world for survival.
I think “States Succeed Now!” would be a good idea. More success for everyone!
Sure, a couple of bizarre signs. But some not so bizarre. And believe me, we could post up 10x what you have here if asked to display photos of an anti-war or SEIU rally.
<
p>Why heck, didn’t I see posters of Che Guevara in some Obama volunteer campaign offices, in Houston, IIRC? Is that bizarre? Yep.
<
p>But what’s your point? Looks like the public option is dead. To me, assuming it is dead, that means the protesters, and Sarah Palin (Sarah Palin!), have won this round. (We’ll see if the public option makes a comeback, or if the co-op proposal is simply Public Option Lite.)
<
p>I think there is real national opposition, if you believe the polls, to the health “reform” proposal that’s come out of the House, even with the public option and “death panel” removed.
<
p>If the town hall meetings were a heated, even over the top, well, that’s one from the Alinsky play book that’s worked for the conservative team.
Anti-war rallies had lots of posters claiming Bush was lying about his identity? People hung around outside Bush events carrying guns, and signs threatening his life?
You keep referring to “the polls” without actually citing any polls.
<
p>Which polls do you reference?
here
but bostonshepherd writes of polls showing opposition to the health bill that came out of the House. Given the amount of noise in this debate and given that Obama has not put forth any specific bills, I don’t consider the pollster aggregate of Obama’s job approval w.r.t. health care a relevant poll to bostonshepherd’s claim.
The relevant question needs to be “Do you support a public option?” not “Do you approve of Obama’s handling of the health care issue?” I would answer yes to the first, but frankly, I’m not sure about the second as I definitely think he could be handling it better.
Here, and here are polls showing around 2-1 against the House plan.
<
p>There’s nothing specific that addresses the public option alone. Sorry. But that’s not important. On the other hand, I would conclude these results are WORSE for “reform” altogether than you think.
<
p>Why is that? Because, according to CNN, 8 in 10 people are happy with their health care, and 75% are happy with their own insurance.
<
p>Unless you ram “reform” through without debate, I have a hard time thinking a vast majority of likely voters are going to stand for having plans with which they are satisfied taken away from them. Indeed, folks are PO’d because Obama tried to sneak this stinker of a bill through before anyone really knew what was in those 1,100 pages.
<
p>Now it’s coming out, and folks are VERY ANGRY. Especially when politicians haven’t even read it (so long Arlen Specter.)
<
p>Stomv is correct … in reality there’s no Obama plan though that’s not what the public thinks. It’s “his” now.
First poll link you provide asks about single payer – not valid for this discussion as it has, much to the chagrin of many of us, taken off the table. Second poll refers to a plan proposed by Obama and Congress, which let’s face it, most Americans wouldn’t know the exact legislation if it hit them in the face. How many times do we have to say IF YOU ARE SATISFIED WITH YOUR PLAN IT WON’T BE TAKEN AWAY FROM YOU! I’m glad people are happy with their healthcare as they should have no problem with this, unless of course they oppose helping people. This legislation isn’t for them; it’s for those either dissatisfied or without and 20-25% is a pretty significant chunk. Also these polls ask “Do you believe…?” What’s the point of that? Just because the public believes it doesn’t make it so, though it may be helpful in determining a need to more effectively communicate. It is now your turn to get from me the question I have asked others. What do you propose to do about the millions uninsured and address the obstacles even those WITH insurance sometimes face?
Polls out today (NBC) show a pretty closely split decision – 47% opposed, 43% in favor, 3.5% margin. I would still point out two things. Very often the honest answer to polls, especially of the “Do you believe…?” variety is “I need more info. before I can comment intelligently”, and at the end of the day I really don’t care what the polls say anyway.
Polling shows that people oppose the health “reform” proposal that’s come out of the House.
<
p>Christopher: So, where are the polls.
<
p>Here’s one that shows prolonged and persistant disapproval for Obama’s performance with regards to healthcare.
<
p>Christopher: So, the relevant question needs to be “Do you support a public option?”
<
p>Here’s the polled answer to that precise question.
<
p>Christopher: So, at the end of the day I really don’t care what the polls say anyway.
<
p>And, there you go. You just lost any credibility to ever cite a poll as justification for anything.
First poll: Again that’s a handling question, one that even I might be inclined to answer in the negative, plus most of them are at pretty close margin
<
p>Second poll: The article cites exactly the same poll I did above. Thank you, Your Honor, I rest my case.
<
p>Finally, I don’t think you’ll ever see me cite a poll as justification for or against anything so I’m not looking for that kind of credibility. I have not and will not say, “We should (or shouldn’t) do X because the polls say Y.” What I will do is throw polls back in somebody’s face when I have reason to believe the interpretation is inaccurate or I’ve seen polls that would appear to contradict what someone else is claiming about polls. All told, I think there is way too much polling going on and they don’t do much to contribute to the debate on the merits.
<
p>The only occasion where they might be helpful is to see who is winning the message war and getting the losing side to rethink their communication strategy. If a poll said a majority thinks the plan includes “death panels” that doesn’t make it true; it just means that Sarah Palin has gotten her message out better than Obama has. If the President sees those numbers it should lead him to redouble his efforts to counter Palin, NOT drop the provision that Palin is using to justify her claims.
The first poll is indeed irrelevant. The second poll, however, is instructive. 53-42 is nowhere near 2-1 however, and while it’s not within the margin of error, it’s one poll… certainly not enough to back your claims that the public is remarkably one-sided on the issue.
<
p>Looking at the CNN poll (which reports that “Obama’s plan” is favored 50-45) there is a major generational gap. Folks on Medicare are against the Obama plan. I speculate that a big chunk of that is because they are worried they’ll lose coverage (death panels, whatever). If I were interested in making a decision that represented the will of a well informed public, I’d reduce some of that 45 because some of those seniors are against a plan that’s been conjured by talking heads on the right (including outright liars like Baby Downs’ Mama), not the actual plan under consideration.
<
p>The “eight in ten” and 75% numbers don’t break down those with public insurance (Medicare, Medicaid, VA benefits, BIA, etc) and those with private insurance, so it’s impossible to know what that number really implies. After all, if gov’t run health plans had very high approval rates and high enrollment rates, private insurance could have low approval but the aggregate still come out pretty strong.
<
p>
<
p>I do find it strange that you claim that “Obama tried to sneak this stinker of a bill through…” and then tow sentences later observe that “in reality there’s no Obama plan”. Surely, you know enough civics to know that (a) Obama didn’t write the bill, and more importantly, (b) can do nothing to “sneak” the bill through the House nor the Senate. Gee, you don’ think that playing fast and loose with the facts (like you did with Obama’s “sneak”ing) has anything to do with the polling, do you? Nah, of course not. There’s been a remarkable vacuum of honest public debate coming from leaders on the right side of the aisle, why should we expect anything from the rank and file?
From a big picture approach, a favorable/unfavorable rating of Obama on healthcare seem particularly informative. It is interesting to note that Massachusetts doesn’t think so highly of its reformed Healthcare. The public option while popular in June, probably because of its vagueness appears now, with more publicity and specificity to be seriously waning.
<
p>Meanwhile, as Obama rushes to abandon the public option, pols turn attention to the Health coops in an attempt to form a new blue cross/blue shield.
<
p>Those are likely 60,000 registered voters too so Congressmen will be watching that group of people very carefully. I would caution those Congressmen who are declaring they will NOT vote for reform without a public option since that “signed” pledge will be shown by their opponent on election day.
60,000 on a 40 million person membership is meaningless.
… the AARP thing is related to this:
<
p>
<
p>Furthermore:
“one from the Alinsky play book”? Can you back that up, at all? Where in, say, Rules for Radicals does it say that at public fora with Congresspeople the goal of the activist should be to shout them down and prevent any actual debate or discussion? Because that is explicitly what these “protests” are about. Not raising questions; not expressing dissent; shutting down discussion and intimidating the representatives. (digby had more on this.)
<
p>And while we’re at it, I’d love to know what evidence you can present that what Alinksy wrote has anything to do with anything right now, but I realize that might be asking too much.
I see this:
<
p>”Rule 12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it and polarize it. Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions. (This is cruel, but very effective. Direct, personalized criticism and ridicule works.)”
<
p>If that isn’t exactly what each Dem Senator and Congressman is going through, I don’t know what is. And to some extent, Obama is a recipient of this scorn too, even though it’s not “his” bill. It’s been hung around his neck.
<
p>On the other hand, it’s impossible to individualize the “mob” and the “Teabaggers.”
<
p>Furthermore, this from the Financial Times on the Sunday:
<
p>”Mr Alinsky believed that packing public meetings with highly vocal activists would sway their outcomes and give people a taste of the power they could exercise when they showed up in numbers.”
I see how someone* might think that actively preventing discussion, spreading vicious lies about political opponents, and issuing death threats both veiled and explicit, were a reasonable interpretation of what Alinsky recommended.
<
p>So now we come to my other question: what’s Alinksy recommending potentially disruptive tactics in “rule 12” got to do with anything? When did anyone working on behalf of President Obama’s agenda employ those tactics, or when did Mr. Obama employ or promote those tactics while campaigning for, or serving in, his Illinois or US Senate seats? Or is “Alinksy” just – like “Che Guevara,” “Jeremiah Wright,” “Bill Ayers,” “Nancy Pelosi,” etc. – a synonym for “Goldstein” as far as you’re concerned?
<
p>*who wasn’t very smart
I do not think Tea Baggers represent the Republican Party.
<
p>The propaganda, signs, photos and protests are foolish. The guns, violence, death threats, preventing people from speaking and turning town hall meetings into chaos are dangers to the foundation of democracy. But you do not denounce it?
<
p>Show me one video, picture or third party report that shows anyone on the left doing anything like what this video shows. I will denounce it!
<
p>So…
<
p>The year is 1788.
The issue is ratifying the Constitution.
Are you going to stand up to the Anti-Federalists?
<
p>Prove Me Wrong!
<
p>Go to a town meeting and stand up to the Tea Baggers!
Demand that every person and argument be heard!
Be the man on the beer bottle!
The first refuse refuge of a conservative.
I wrote an article in response to an email I received more than once from my family asking why I still supported Obama in his healthcare plan. The email went on to make what seems like an awful lot of painstakingly quoted points, yet when they are compared with the bill itself the bald faced lies become evident:
<
p>http://livelovelearn247.blogsp…
Looks pretty serious, but have any of them read the Bill or just the preposterous assertions?
<
p>http://www.worcesterteaparty.c…
<
p>
<
p>Their page provides a link to the actual Bill: http://edlabor.house.gov/docum…
<
p>Please go there and compare their assertions with the actual Bill itself. I went to the page, section, searched the entire document by key words. It either does not contain what the teabaggers purport or says the complete opposite.
<
p>
…what this is supposed to accomplish. Say things get so out of hand that the member of Congress just walks out – then what? Lost opportunity to interact with voters and the member of Congress just votes anyway.
The teabaggers are going to have a similar impact on Baker’s chances in Massachusetts in 2010 as Sarah Palin had on John McCain in 2008. Lots of media attention for the Republicans but, in the end, alienation of a large majority of voters.
<
p>The decline of the G.O.P. as a party with broad national appeal continues.
Republicans have always been the minority party in recent history. The swing is always the feelings of the independents and if it wasn’t for the Iraq War and the Economic collapse being blamed on Republicans… McCain would have won.
<
p>Take the current (and future) National Debt, the continued unemployment, the upcoming economic re-collapse (including Wall St), Obama’s bloody nose over Healthcare, weakening support from the far-left and a renewed energy from the middle of America leaning right and I smell comeback.
<
p>I will remove MA from this prediction since we have way too many zealots and socialists for even a moderate to appease. But Charlie Baker could make some hay with Patrick’s piss poor performance and poll numbers.
<
p>We’ll see.
Probably – the pattern of the opposition to the White House gaining midterm favors them, but the key is national appeal, which they are definitely struggling with. Their appeal is decidedly regional at this point.
<
p>As for your opening line about Republicans always being in the minority, where were you 2002-2006?
Independents (like me) made the difference for Republicans during 2002-206.
Everything I’m seeing suggests that yes, the Republicans will take back seats in 2010 – but 1) that they won’t take enough to gain control of either chamber and 2) that the most vulnerable seats are the Blue Dogs who are voting against their party anyway. They can have ’em!
if the Dems fall from 60% of House seats to 57%, how much does it matter in the immediate sense?
<
p>I’d gladly trade 4% of the House for another 2% of the Senate if those extra 2 Dems are willing to vote with leadership on (some of) health care and climate change and filibuster nothing. Of course, there can be no such actual exchange, but the point remains — it’s the 50th percentile in the House that matters, and (to varying extents) the 50th and 60th percentile which matter in the Senate. Moving legislators who are already left of the median leftward doesn’t help much, and losing legislators who are already right of the median doesn’t hurt much.
That assumes of course, that there is true Democratic leadership in the Senate. I have to wonder about Harry Reid sometimes.
Doesn’t Mr Butcher need to win a convention over first? And then Mr. Candlestickmaker will have to run and then win a primary? We in the MAGOP aren’t listening to your preferences anymore. and since the national GOP doesn’t know their asses from their eyeteeth, most of us don’t pay attention.
Otherwise, the polls would show support for the House bill when in fact it shows 2-1 against.
<
p>It get worse! Gallup now claims more people self-identify as conservatives than liberals. Even Massachusetts is split 30% – 30% conservative/liberal with 40% independent. Unbelievable.
<
p>Think this isn’t a result of health “reform” outrage?
<
p>Bob, are the polls off? Or are you cocooning?
2010 will be a big year for Republicans.
was John Hancock.
The Sam Adams bottle features a modified version of John Singleton Copley’s portrait of Paul Revere that is housed at the MFA.
Thank you. I was being driven somewhat insane trying to figure out who it was, because I KNEW it wasn’t Sam Adams.
I outlined this in the discussion about our failed town halls. But I refine it here. When the organizer of the discussion enters with her mind made up, and thinks the limit of her duty is to show up and say her piece as the last word, then her respondents will automatically turn the volume up to 11.
<
p>[As an aside you will see the same behavior in comments on newspaper web sites. It’s the same because newspapers have the same arrogant “last word” attitude as congressmen.]
<
p>Niki and any of these congressmen could have defused the situation if she had an ability with crowds, or some semblance of an interest in what they had to say. Imagine if she was Bill Clinton or even Hillary. Instead she faces them as the enemy.
when they specifically set up reader comment sections such that readers have (literally and figuratively) the last word?
The reporter never comes back and discusses the story with the commenters. That leads to ranting.
<
p>If you go to a “town hall” it’s basically the last place for you to let them know how you feel about the issue. The politicians besides being basically disconnected are going to vote for the bill unless you scream and yell. If you give them an inch, a nice word, they will turn it into support for what they wanted to do in the first place.
<
p>She should have had town halls a long time ago to find out what people want. This is a fake town hall where she shows up and tells them what she’s going to do.
I have been googling some stuff about the connections between the tea baggers and the New Constitutional Convention crowd (Randy Barnett , Pete Fleckenstein , Tony Perkins etc.). A lot of Libertarians and other assorted wackos,if their ultimate goal is a new con con , they will fail because of opposition from left and right,including John Birchers and people who live in the real world…
While I detest watching that moron, I had to hear what she had to say about the public option being dropped and it was priceless. She was angry, sad, confused, belittling and silly all at once. She was bitching at the Dems for being cowards and was in utter disbelief that the “majority” elected House and Senate were not ramming this down the throats of Republicans! She seemed to missing the point that a whole bunch of Americans (yes, the majority according to recent polls – thanks Gary) show we don’t like the current bill. She seems to think (like others here at BMG) that because Obama was elected and many Dems in Congress and the Senate, that ANYTHING they come up with has the implicit OKAY of the American people. Well, she is wrong. Americans want what they want and NOT what the House and Senate conjure up. The recent attempt by Nancy Pelosi to purchase a bunch of private jets for Congress’ use showed how not everything she (and Obama) want is also wanted by the majority of Americans.
<
p>Maddow’s liberal bias is coming through clearly and so is MSNBC’s and NBC’s obvious bias. I hope Americans respond by lowering the network and the Cable station’s ratings below their miserable levels of today.
becoming rather creepy. Beginning to look like something clinical is happening here.
…he couldn’t resist going completely off topic and trying to tie-in Nancy Pelosi and congrssional jets.
I think, too, Dr. tblade, that the patient exhibits some anxiety around strong women. Perhaps some underlying inadequacy projected upon Ms. Maddow and Ms. Pelosi fueled by a fixation on aeronautical prepulsion….
I was simply trying to show how the people of this country still have a direct say in matters (like the “Congressional jets”) while Maddow was implying that the elected officials should simply do what they want and ignore the plurality of what Americans now want. GET IT?????
Nope.
<
p>You often do a poor job expressing your thoughts.
Isn’t that what you guys are all about? Helping the less fortunate… I try to speak slowly and use simple words. I try to use analogies and pictures. It’s tough to talk about things like working hard and advancing in life to people who are slackers or have been given everything in their life. So cut me some slack for crying out loud.
I used to be a writing tutor.
<
p>If you promise to work hard, one day you too will be able to write better and more clearly elucidate your thoughts and ideas!
Last week someone said I should try to make my comments more relevant but I thought she should have said I should make my comments more relative… which is it?
<
p>Why not start a business on this? You could get rich and become a Republican.
…are called teachers. For some reason I doubt that would make me rich.
Yikes…
Right wingers are against they want status quo health care and people like me are against the bill because I feel like it’s too weak and watered down. If asked if I approved of the bill, I’d say no – with the caveat that I’d rather have the current bill rammed down the Republican’s throat, as you put it, then nothing.
<
p>All I’m saying is don’t take polling saying that people, let alone +50% of Americans, are against this bill as evidence that +50 percent of AMericans agree with you in wanting to sabotage the current Health Care reform initiative.
<
p>And Maddow is a very openly liberal just like BMG is openly liberal. She’s supposed to have a liberal bias – that’s the whole appeal of her show. It’s like complaining that Sean Cardinal O’Malley has a Catholic bias. Strange.
If politicians see 2-1 against a bill, there’s a good chance that bill will not pass, no matter how much arm twisting Pelosi and Reid do. And no matter how upset you or Rachel Maddow are.
<
p>A 50/50 split is one thing, but we’re talking a small minority of likely voters who want “reform” in its current configuration.
<
p>I sense this majority outrage has some legs to it; it’s no longer “right-wingers”. This includes the deficit spending crisis with the cherry on top … 5 Gulfstream-Vs insisted upon by Madame Speaker (canceled by cooler heads.)
<
p>It just keeps getting better.
When has Harry Reid ever even so much as nudged an arm, let alone twisted? I mean, come on. You really ought to try to find a more plausible focus for your paranoid fantasies.
Baloney.
I’m taking all healthcare polls with a grain of salt nowadays, but here’s a different point of view:
<
p>Majority back Obama on health care reform: poll August 4, 2009 AFP:
<
p>
<
p>People are against the bill, yet people want the government to step in and help make health care more affordable and easily accessible, possibly through a so-called “public option”. Hmmmmm….
47% opposed
43% favor
3.5% margin
<
p>2-1? I believe we call that “fuzzy math”!
My point was exhibited by your comment exactly…
<
p>
<
p>Many right wingers are opposed to this bill because they don’t like many of the provisions of THIS BILL! You are making a giant leap to say right wingers including myself want the status quo. I was trying make that point by saying left wingers are against the bill because it is watered down not because THEY WANT THE STATUS QUO. It works both ways, we can both be against the bill for varying reasons and not simply because we want the status quo.
the realization that most of MSNBC (not Morning Joe) has a liberal bias or that our alleged independent has the hots for Rachel Maddow, whose Alan Colmes incidentally is the morally bankrupt Pat Buchanan.
<
p>What’s the next newsflash? Obama is bi-racial?
<
p>And if finding Rachel (who used to live in Northampton, MA) appealing bothers you, there’s always news bimbo Mika Brzezinksi who offered to dance on a stripper’s pole–it wasn’t clear if she’d strip–for charity. Starting price $100,000.
After reading some 40 posts on this thread, I note that progressives consistently believe the town hall ruckus is artificial, or simply represents a tiny number of vocal far-right extremists.
<
p>Unless the polls are way, way off, many more voters don’t want the current bill to pass than do.
<
p>Is this not clear? How come I see no empirical evidence from liberals that I’m misstating the polls I keep seeing?
Plus some of us don’t believe in governing by polls.
so why don’t you go back to RMG and preach to the converted?
my favorite would be this, from the promotion comment from Charley:
<
p>
<
p>Ever the adult, Charley opines thus whilst promoting a post whose very title calls fellow Americans exercising their democratic rights and some might say responsibilities “tea baggers”, a slander repeated endlessly in the post and even by fellow editor Bob (to me always the most mature of the three! ) in the comments.
<
p>In the unlikely event that anyone reading this enlightened blog does not get the reference, here it is:
<
p>
<
p>http://www.urbandictionary.com…
<
p>Well done, folks.
<
p>
I had heard there was a sexual connotation to this term, but this is actually the first time I’ve seen it defined. Since apparently YOU don’t get the real reference, back on April 15, people of this ilk held “teabag” rallies protesting taxation (ostensibly) with (in my opinion lame) references to the Boston Tea Party. Part of the activity was to bring actual teabags to these rallies and in some cases mail such to their members of Congress.
that very many of you are unaware of the meaning
<
p>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v…
<
p>http://newsbusters.org/blogs/j…
<
p>and for good measure
<
p>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v…
<
p>then again, maybe you just sop up the language of your leadership without thinking
Geez, where’ve you been, under a rock? Of course the play-on-words is intentional–only you conservative types were a little slow on the uptake when the moniker naturally surfaced last spring. Someone should have seen this coming, actually, when the Einsteins among you decided it would be a good idea to make the tea bag your symbol. Now your tea bag is a metaphor for something even larger than its original point: ignorance. And you’re stuck with it. From where I’m sitting, that’s win/win.