In a recent blog post, the discussion has been about holding Barack Obama accountable for an unfortunate sentence in a 14-page bill that he supported in the 1990s, a sentence that seemed to promote "comprehensive sex education" for children as young as Kindergarten, but was countered by more careful wording in the rest of the bill that called for "age and development appropriate" curriculum.
If we are going to hold candidates accountable, let's look at more recent words. Here are some of McCain's in the September/October 2008 edition of Contingencies, where he writes:
"Opening up the health insurance market to more vigorous nationwide competition, as we have done over the last decade in banking, would provide more choices of innovative products less burdened by the worst excesses of state-based regulation."
He concludes the same paragraph with:
"Nationwide insurance markets that ensure broad and vigorous competition will wring out excess costs, overhead and bloated executive compensation."
Hmmmm. Is that so? Unfettered competition sure has done a lot to wring out bloated executive compensation in other industries, hasn't it, John?
But, hey, don't trust my word on his policy. Go read the article yourself:
http://www.contingencies.org/septoct08/mccain.pdf
You can tell it's McCain talking, or a paid minion, because he twice calls us "my friends." Among the scary concepts you will read -- a $5,000 tax break for all families, regardless of how wealthy, to pay for health insurance. While this sounds loverly on the surface, especially if you need that $5,000, please remember that every time you read the words "tax subsidy . . . regardless of one's income" you need to hear the sound "ca-ching," because it means we're taking out another cash advance on the Credit Card of the Bank of China and throwing the money at wealthy people. Note that the Republicans would have this credit card (a.k.a. the national debt) repaid by our children and grand children. They hope to make W's tax breaks for the wealthy "permanent." And remember too, that a $5,000 tax credit is meaningless for someone who is so poor that they aren't paying $5,000 in taxes to begin with. And finally, remember that every $5,000 subsidy that a wealthy person receives for health care is another 5 grand that won't go to public education or another area we may think needs support.
Hear "ca-ching" again when he talks about expanding support for the guaranteed access plan, with no apparent funding mechanism.
In the subsection "Transforming Medical Practice," it sounds like he is suggesting an HMO-type system, "paying for coordinated care and prevention," though, honestly, it's vague. If it is HMOs he's suggesting, but under a different name, we should remember they didn't work when we Dems launched them. How will they work better now?
Ca-ching, again, when he proposes "incentives to strengthen the business model for investment in health information technology (HIT)." Republicans love to say you don't solve problems by throwing money at them, but they sure do love throwing money at CEOs who are following a "business model," especially when that money comes from the credit card of the Bank of China, which our children will repay.
In the third to final paragraph, he finally suggests something that would seem to pay, in part, for this expensive plan, but, in fact, it's even more scary than everything else he has proposed. He's gonna make sure that doctors and hospitals are protected from you filing "frivolous lawsuits." If your doctor dotted his i's and crossed his t's and followed "best practices," (not necessarily most complete practices) you won't be able to sue if you have the wrong organ removed. Even if you are able to sue, the doctor will be protected from a jury of peers awarding you a fair settlement because McCain will protect your doctor from "excessive damage awards." Republicans love to give the Reader's Digest condensed summary of lawsuits to make them appear unreasonable and excessive, when, in fact, most of the time judges mitigate the damages after a jury makes an award, or an appeal otherwise prevents the dreaded "excess." But McCain will take discretion away from judges and the system of due process, and give doctors carte blanche to screw up without, dare I say it, taking "personal responsibility."
"Personal responsibility," ironically, is the topic of his final subsection, where he blames political correctness, not the No Child Left Behind Act, for squeezing nutrition and physical education out of the public schools.
Read and weep, my friends, my friends, but especially read between the lines. Hold McCain responsible for his words and don't make him CEO of this fine nation.
Debra Sapp-Yarwood, Midwest Voices '08








Delicious
Digg
I googled
Google gave me this link from 2006 where Kerry's talking about wiretaps.
http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/Politics/story?id=1530799
Can't you simply give me your source yourself so we don't have to play "go fishing" games?
Google it--
Google John Kerry 2008 interview with ABC. I'm guessing you want to do the whole semantics argument thing as far as what "universal" means, which is your right. But I'm not buying it. The Congress, especially a Dem controlled one, will not tackle health care for all--look at how they bent over for Bush on the SCHIP issue.
Pelosi's "impeachment is off the table" is another example of no balls. Would you like me to provide more?
And for the other comment---the Dems already have the center in their rear view mirror, so I would question whether or not Obama gets to the right faster than McCain.
Got anything else?
Truth squad miscellaney
Chazzy, here's my promise, as the election continues to unfold and the truth squads left and right (thank you, Pilon) work their strategies, I will try to keep a critical (if left-wandering) eye.
At this point I don't have the time to do the research to give you a good answer. Your points one and two were not readily apparent from the materials you provided in your original post. Please don't take that as encouragement to provide proof and footnotes at this time. I, er, need to actually attend to my real life right now. The virtual has intruded too long.
Oh, and I responded to your last post in the George Will thread. No need for further response on your part. The question at the end may be taken as rhetorical.
Let's keep it fair and balanced, hem hem
I personally don't see this as anything more than surrounding the entrance to a venue with protestors with their arms linked. However, let's note the following, from
http://www.news-leader.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080927/BLOGS09/80927018
"Frank Donatelli, deputy chairman of the Republican National Committee, held a conference call with reporters Saturday morning while touring the state’s offices for GOP presidential candidate John McCain.
In a telephone interview with the News-Leader, Donatelli admitted the Democratic prosecutors “haven’t specifically said” they would use their prosecutorial powers on Obama’s behalf.
“I don’t think you have to use the power. I think if you just call out somebody and you have the power, you’ve made your point,” Donatelli told the News-Leader. “It’s not that you have to prosecute a guy, but people think you might.”
Donatelli said prosecutors don’t normally join campaign truth squads because their mere presence as a campaign attack dog “has a chilling affect on people’s rights of free speech.”
But a review of McCain’s own truth squads shows he has a district attorney from New Mexico and the South Carolina attorney general ready to respond to misleading ads from Obama and Democrats in their respective states."
Debra
First, thank you for that which you display: (my prism here) unusual, uniquely civil liberal perspectives absent the one way hypocrisy I attribute to most of your political persuasion.
Allow me to focus on what I believe distinguishes the "truth squad" from the standard conteporary levels of acceptable (repulsive) campaign behavior. 1) They proactively PRECEDE open discussions with threats and intimidating vitriol designed to stop free expression. They call people deceitful liars before they have opened their mouths. 2) They do so hypocritically even as their partisans practice exactly the same behavior that they are attempting to inhibit. My personal belief is that the behavior of the Truth Squad is perilously close to the activities and behavior of the gestapo. I find it to be over the line.
I begrudgingly accept the deplorable standards of gutter sniping that both of the candidates are displaying in this cycle. I reject them philosophically but I, like you, am powerless in my efforts to stop them. My sense is that you would also aspire to a higher level of comportment.
let me be clear: I accept and agree that each should have, in fact do have access to the legal system as a method of retribution when lines are inexorably crossed.
You reveal yourself and your acceptance of some liberal dogma a bit when you excoriate Corsi's writing having obviously never read any.( Its Jerome, not Richard) He is a scum bag of the first order BUT he had little to do with the "swift boat" book other than editing and footnoting....which, if you research Corsi, is where he really gets himself in trouble. John O'Neill was the source of, and true writer of the book
I sought out and have spoken with Mr O'Neill on two occaisons and personally found him to be an unlikely fabricator and an affable and forthright guy. (I say that as a Nam vet and protestor at the time of Kerry's eloquent testimony before congress in '71) (Surprised that I was once a lib?)
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, regarding the issue of media bias and the future of media in general: You state that the conservatives have their own TV network (FOX) and a clear dominance of AM radio. What you left unsaid is that your side has 4 TV networks ABC, CBS, NBC, and MSNBC and over 90% of the print media. I reluctantly accept that imbalance, but take significant exception to your sides unwillingness to leave it there.
Whatever percentage of media dominance the libs enjoy (I would suggest that it is between 65 and 80%) it not enough. They are anxious to forward the "Fairness Doctrine" which I perceive as a legislative effort to completely eliminate any semblance of media fairness. That also I fear, like the truth squad, are attempting to eliminate any public access to the non liberal perspective.
jenniferm
would you please provide evidence for your claim? Thanks.
And so obviously your solution is...
...to run even faster to the right so you get there first. Gotcha.
It isn't on the table....
...because the DEMOCRATIC MAJORITY said so and therefore they have already caved on the issue to the GOP. Like all other former Democratic causes out there--the Democratic Party has chosen to run to the right rather than fight for what is right.
I pointed out the conflation you're making
between universal healthcare and universal insurance coverage.
There's a distinction between the types of universal government run healthcare system we see in the UK (which, as I pointed out, isn't on the table), and making certain that all Americans have access to affordable health insurance plans, which Senator Obama supports and Senator McCain opposes.
Obama's not
...in favor of universal health care--you said so yourself awhile back. Now if you are looking to change the meaning of "universal" coverage, that's your prerogative. Not sure what Obama's position is, because he seems to alter it based on his audience.
so, you and Sen. Obama are both in favor of universal coverage
but you're voting for McCain, who's against it.
How strange.
Don't have to, Interface.
We've had this discussion before, but hey, keep trying.
Besides you need to re-read the posts here. I'm in favor, the Dems in Congress are not.
"the right causes"
Since universal health insurance coverage apparently isn't one of the right causes for jenniferm, perhaps she'll enlighten us to which causes are the "right" ones.
Spare me, Deb
Please, insult me some more--I'm used to it--and from people within my own party. As someone who has voted for a Dem for POTUS since 1984, I find your condescending attitude for those that might differ from yours pretty typical. Nothing like stifling a debate or conversation when you might have to defend your opinion. Funny how the Dems have morphed into the GOP in their behavior--I remember when true Dems would actually fight for the right causes and actually put principle ahead of most other things. So, last I looked this was a major metropolitan newspaper's web site, so I'll read and post where I feel like it.
Good to know that 'universal health care' isn't on the Dems agenda. The Dem Party of the past would have fought for the rights of the people--now it appears they will do nothing of the sort. GOP-lite is pretty pathetic way to go to win an election.
Jenniferm, another area where we agree
The media are bought and paid for. Just look at the holdings of that slobbering lefty Rupert Murdoch:
http://www.newscorp.com/operations/other.html#
Be sure to click on all the tabs. He's not just Fox News and the Wall Street Journal; he's Harper Collins books, for crying out loud, and . . . and . . . It's mind boggling!
"universal health care"
in response to "jenniferm," who referenced "universal health care."
Universal health care isn't even on the table. Senator Obama is promoting affordable health insurance for all -- and there's no requirement that anyone of us using private insurers opt into that plan.
I'm sure that there are pros and cons to this policy, but expanding insurance coverage is not the same as "universal health care." My thought is that we should at least avoid unnecessary confusion of the terms.
Indeed, we see through prisms
Chazzy, let me help you see this issue, which Blunt finds "scandalous beyond words" (but then he finds words, of course) through my prism.
There is no "abuse" going on, no nefarious "plans" that needs to be "exposed," as Blunt would have us to believe. These citizens, who also practice law or are employed in law enforcement, are operating in plain view. (TV interviews are pretty public these days.) Moreover, they aren't going to silence people who have legitimate disagreement on policy issues. In fact, they want to keep political discourse focused on policy issues. They are merely going to "respond" when they hear lies. The two lies alluded to in the news story you provided are that Obama is a Muslim, which he is not, and that he will raise taxes on the poor and middle class, which is not in his platform. By "respond," they seem to mean with more words, through fairness doctrine or equal time provisions, and by using Missouri ethics laws to get misleading ads pulled. No handcuffs, no shakedowns, just responding with more words and legally putting a halt to libel.
Perhaps, if egregious enough -- think Richard Corsi, Swift Boat tactics -- I would hope they'd also use due process, though they aren't even threatening that in the materials you provided. As a public figure, Obama would have a much higher bar to leap than a common citizen to prove libel. He would have to prove the defendant had malicious intent, knew the statement was untrue and exercised reckless disregard for the truth, if I'm remembering Journalism 101 correctly. If advertisements stoop to that level, then Obama should prosecute, in my book. (And that sword cuts both ways -- McCain has access to the legal system too.) Libel to the Richard Corsi degree is real "abuse," and there should be consequences for liars who engage in it, so that we will be spared such tactics in future elections.
We Dems saw our man go down in '04 in large part because Corsi and crew were allowed to spout lies without serious challenge. This time around, it looks like our man has decided not to play dead.
Finally, an irony alert. At the end of Gov. Blunt's press release, he says that when he and his family are the victims of "scurrilous accusations" then "We refute them." That's exactly what the Obama "Truth Squad" supporters are proposing to do, just with some teeth from the laws that we the people have enacted to protect us from liars.
As for you, Jenniferm, indeed, I am an advocate for Obama. If you would wish to advocate another position, bring to light Obama's shortcomings, then you too have claim to the first amendment. On this site, Ross Balano, Juanelle Garrett or Tom McClanahan may better represent your views if you're goal is to feel more comfortable and to converse with like minds. Conservatives also have their own TV network, Fox, and a near monopoly on the AM radio band. Go have playtime in the marketplace of ideas!
Debra
It would appear that you choose to hold only one candidate accountable for their words, when in fact there are numerous instances where Obama is not held accountable (meaning, by the media).
Every politician exaggerates, embellishes, manipulates and flat out lies. Yet, rarely is the public made aware of these cases simply because our "free press" is actually bought and paid for. Look at this site as a prime example.
John Kerry has already said that universal health care is DOA in the Senate--so where exactly is the outrage by the Dems over this?
Gov. Blunt pfess release
Well, I read this press release three times but I could not find any specifics. Just what is it that the Governor alleges the Obama people are doing? This is like eating meringue thinking there will be something to chew.
If the Obama camp is taking steps to prevent voter intimidation by the Republicans or try to spread the truth before Karl Rove's troops arrive to do otherwise, who could blame them?
Meanwhile, if the Governor wrote this press release himself, he should either go back to school to learn how to write or join his father in Washington to learn better how to spread garbage.
Holding Obama Accountable for Actions
A well written post. Also a worthy platitude…..not often adhered to in the contemporary political arena…but worthy nonetheless.
I would like to suggest that all candidates be held accountable for their words, regardless of the office they seek or their party affiliation. Again, that is not likely in contemporary politics , or life in general. We are all at the mercy of our prisms and our exposures: the prisms through which we view words and actions and the information to which we are exposed.
Mom taught me another platitude ….it became a bit of a cliché ,,,,but it too is worthy.
ACTIONS SPEAK LOUDER THAN WORDS……unless people are unaware of the actions.
Yesterday, The Governor of the state of Missouri, Matt Blunt issued a press release that has drawn no reference anywhere on the Star website. I also have not seen it in the dead tree edition….though I acknowledge that I only read a couple of sections of the printed version.
Here is a link to the Governors press releases. I allude to the one about presidential candidate Barack Obama‘s abusive use of state officials: http://governor.mo.gov/press.htm
To further enlighten yourself about Senator Obama’s “truth Squad” I offer a Thursday evening news broadcast link from KMOV in St Louis. That was the action which I am certain elicited Blunt’s press release: http://www.kmov.com/video/index.html?nvid=285793&shu-1
I have written about the fascist tactics of Obama’s “truth squad” a couple of times on this blog regarding his attempts to quell free speech on WGN radio in Chicago. Most of those who responded to the posts found the actions to be acceptable…..”simply trying to stamp out deceit” was one memorable post.
Mr. Blunt clearly takes profound exception to Obama’s actions and even stronger exception to the encroachment on the states publicly paid servants to carry out those actions. Governor Blunt even goes further in suggesting that the activity is perilously close to an act of sedition .
This type of action is, I believe, the height of presumption and goes miles beyond the scurrilous low life ads that both candidates for president, and most candidates for any office of importance stoop to much too often.
As Ms. Sapp-Yarwood said “Read and weep, my friends, my friends”. But do not bother with what is between the lines for there is nothing there. Weep for our city and nation that such activity is not only tolerated, but is not even reported by a major city newspaper that is responsible for much of the information to which we are exposed. Bias by omission.
Mr Obama has been doing this in all the battleground states and one should logically challenge the Star about the reasons and causes for the abdication of the civic responsibility that they shoulder in their role.
I will not close as Sapp-Yarwood did with a negative voting recommendation. Instead I will ask each and every reader to give cognitive thought about the question of whether you , individually, really want a man who believes that this behavior and activity is acceptable to lead this, the greatest nation on the planet . I personally know that I want to retain the ability to speak my mind. Truth squad, indeed.
McCain needs to think some more.
Will competition make insurers cover preexisting conditions for an affordable premium, or will people with preexisting conditions still find insurance either unaffordable or unavailable? Will competition force insurers to forgo their practice of moving healthy lives into new policies, thereby leaving only unhealthy lives in the risk pool and creating the infamous premium "death spiral?"
Competition might make life better for the young and healthy. For the rest of us, competition will leave us with very expensive coverage, if we are offered coverage at all.