If our critics judged Obama’s team (& allied interest groups) by the the same standards they apply to conservative activists, it would include only unsavory astroturfers
Peeling away the name-calling we have experienced since we first started blogging nearly five years ago, the two most juvenile lines of attack involve those who rant and rave at us for not blogging about the issues they believe we should be addressing and those who dismiss our concerns as mere posturing or pandering.
As to the former criticism, it’s always amusing when some angry gay reader e-mails (or otherwise messages me) asking why I didn’t blog on this or that topic as have several other gay blogs. Such readers don’t realize that the answer to their attack is in the criticism itself–other gay bloggers have already addressed the issue; we try to address issues which such blogs do not consider.
As to the second, it has come most to the fore in recent days, as it seems part of the lead Democratic talking point on demonizing their adversaries, we’re just astoturf, tools of corrupt corporate interests. Indeed, just look at how one of our regular critics takes me to task:
Its amazing how Rick Scott happened to have an email of town hall sites on a nice spreadsheet isn’t it? Amazing how his hands’s keep turning up in these protests. But instead of looking into this and see how your “movement” is being used, you instead play your usual victim card and talk about how unfair it all is.
GPW have you even looked into this? Does it give you pause? Or don’t you care that you are being used by a guy who has made millions defrauding our current system?
If we applied the standards this critic uses to measure the right to the left, they would easily exceed the baseline definition for Astroturfing.
I hadn’t heard of this Rick Scott fellow until left-wing bloggers brought him up–nor would I daresay have 99% of those protesting the President’s health care plans. Most have legitimate objections to the plan, some concerned they’ll lose the coverage they now have, others aware of the problems created by increased government involvement.
In rebutting this critic, GoCon offered simply that Scott “is not using us, we are using him.” Perhaps, this guy is as corrupt as left-wingers suggest, but then, so what? Every political movement, even Mr. Obama’s, has its share of unsavory characters. And note, this guy is not running for office, just helping organize efforts to defeat a statist proposal. How would liberals react if conservatives uncovered a corrupt official on Obama’s side and attempted to define the health care overhaul proponents by him (or her)?
Are the union thugs who beat up Kenneth Gladney representative of the organized support for the President’s plan?There are unsavory characters on both sides of this debate. And some of the opponents have behaved in a boorish manner. Some have indeed exceeded the bounds of decorum and respect. But, they are just one aspect of a many-faceted movement. They don’t define it.
So far, “the only violence” has apparently been those union goons beating up a conservative activist.
So, why, I ask yet again, would left-wngers rather demonize than debate their adversaries?
42 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
They’re losing…
I’m not sure how it happened, but they’re losing…
Go Team US!
Best wishes,
-MFS
Comment by MFS — August 11, 2009 @ 6:06 pm - August 11, 2009
I love your critic’s misspelling of “hands’s”. We all make keyboard errors, I know I do. But “hands’s” isn’t a keyboard error. It was intentional… the foolishness of an illiterate.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — August 11, 2009 @ 6:08 pm - August 11, 2009
And, lefties should look at gallery of crooks on the side of Obama.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — August 11, 2009 @ 6:10 pm - August 11, 2009
The left can’t win on points because ObamaCare is impossible to defend. There is no way freaking way to put millions of people into Government health care without blowing up the cost of the system. That much is obvious to anyone with a higher-than-room-temperature IQ.
Since they can’t defend it, they instead attack its opponents. They can’t explain how it will work without rationing care, blowing out the deficit, or leading to massive tax increases. So, they accuse anyone who brings these topics up of being misinformed, rude, stupid, or… wait for it … racist.
Comment by V the K — August 11, 2009 @ 6:51 pm - August 11, 2009
Say, anybody got any poll numbers showing how many Americans agree with Congress, Reid, Pelosi etc.?
Comment by ThatGayConservative — August 11, 2009 @ 7:25 pm - August 11, 2009
let me finish this sentence for you:
“this guy is not running for office, just helping organize efforts to defeat a statist proposal”…so he can continue to make millions off the current broken system
Comment by gillie — August 11, 2009 @ 7:59 pm - August 11, 2009
OT: Freedom Index for the 50 States courtesy of George Mason University.
Comment by Ignatius — August 11, 2009 @ 8:08 pm - August 11, 2009
“Say, anybody got any poll numbers showing how many Americans agree with Congress, Reid, Pelosi etc.?”
On what?
If its just general approval, then the latest CBS poll has approval for:
Dems in Congress Fav-47 UnFav-42
GOP in Congress Fav-28 UnFav-61
Gallup has Pelosi 32/48
Reid 17/30
Harris has McConnel at 21/51
A good source for all such stuff is PollingReport.com
Comment by Tano — August 11, 2009 @ 8:11 pm - August 11, 2009
gilllie, I’m still waiting for you to explain how a guy involved with minute clinics and a plastics company is ‘benefitting from the current system.’
But then again, you can’t answer questions, you can just repeat talking points.
Comment by The_Livewire — August 11, 2009 @ 8:16 pm - August 11, 2009
Livewire:
1.7 billion!!! yowzers
http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2003/June/03_civ_386.htm
rearding you other “questions”
http://www.gaypatriot.net/?comments_popup=14709#comment-459741
Comment by gillie — August 11, 2009 @ 8:54 pm - August 11, 2009
*yawn* So using the gillie standard, the president is still a coke head since a) it happened in the past and b) he was never convicted of anything.
and again, all gillie can do is repeat talking points.
More softballs please.
Comment by The_Livewire — August 11, 2009 @ 9:15 pm - August 11, 2009
$400,000 in bribes + money laundering!!! Yowzwers.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0809/25850.html
Faces up to 20 years in prison. Gave DOJ the opportunity to redeem itself after the Ted Stephens clusterf**k, priceless. Not to mention the al-Qaeda Times NEVER mentioned his party, doubly priceless.
And how can we forget
Norman Hsu $60 million Ponzi Scheme! Yowzers!
Tony Rezko
Rod Blagjevich
The NJ 44 (43 of which were liberals)
John Murtha
Charlie Rangel
Chris “Countrywide” Dodd
John Edwards
I can go on, if you like.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — August 11, 2009 @ 9:36 pm - August 11, 2009
12
And I could go on and on too.
Livewire wanted to know what Rick Scott did that was so bad.
I showed him
asked. answered
Comment by gillie — August 11, 2009 @ 9:44 pm - August 11, 2009
#11 his company committed MASSIVE health care fraud while he was CEO.
Now he is helping organize the anti health care reform town hall protests
and you “yawn”? geez.
Comment by gillie — August 11, 2009 @ 9:47 pm - August 11, 2009
gillie, if you’d understood the post, you’d understand that the issue wasn’t Scott, but the larger movement.
And Tano, if the CBS poll is so accurate, how come generic congressional matchups show the GOP closing the gap, with one of the polls which most closely forecast the 2008 race showing the GOP ahead.
Ok, now, critics, please address the point of the post. Thanks.
Comment by GayPatriotWest — August 11, 2009 @ 10:09 pm - August 11, 2009
Well I don’t see you demanding that the President step aside because he snorted coccaine and is now in charge of the DEA.
Gods gillie, you’re so thick.
Comment by The_Livewire — August 11, 2009 @ 10:10 pm - August 11, 2009
gillie:
If one were to concede that this criminal mastermind that no one has ever heard of were the second coming of Dillinger, how would Obamacare ™ be an iota more appealing?
Best wishes,
-MFS
Comment by MFS — August 11, 2009 @ 10:10 pm - August 11, 2009
This is the issue at hand. They are losing because there is no true argument in favor of this bill. They can’t get past the rhetoric and make a reasoned argument in favor. Obama = Good, Critics = Bad, is not an argument. We are getting angry because we are not being represented.
Our elected representatives have it all wrong. These town hall’s aren’t about listening to them, it’s about them listening to us! And until our voices are heard we will not be silent.
Raise your voices, not your fist!
Comment by GoCon — August 11, 2009 @ 10:11 pm - August 11, 2009
Not that it wasn’t obvious to even a blind man, but the little girl at the “town hall” really was a total plant.
Comment by V the K — August 11, 2009 @ 10:13 pm - August 11, 2009
That’s not in the Obamaton playbook. The rule is, “When you can’t refute an argument, change the subject.”
Comment by V the K — August 11, 2009 @ 10:15 pm - August 11, 2009
Oh, forgot, gillie stills hasn’t answered the question of how someone who is currently involved with minute clinics and a plastics company is planning to profit from the’evil’ system. Apparently he has a time machine to go back to 2003? You know where he wasn’t convicted of any crime?
Not to mention, the company bilked Medicare. Thank you gillie, you again show the government can’t monitor fraud.
So gillie still can’t answer my questions.
Oh, and Gillie, surely you feel that Obama isn’t qualified as president since he associates with admitted terrorists. under the Gillie standard, he must be one.
Comment by The_Livewire — August 11, 2009 @ 10:18 pm - August 11, 2009
Wow … GPW, to say “this guy is corrupt … so what?” really blows my mind. If you’re not calling out the corruption on either side, how does that reconcile with a conservative point of view?
Also, when you say “Such readers don’t realize that the answer to their attack is in the criticism itself–other gay bloggers have already addressed the issue; we try to address issues which such blogs do not consider.” that also gives me pause. There are tons of other places to get coverage on just about every other issue this site covers. The recent federal gun rights bill being a wonderful exception.
Comment by DRH — August 11, 2009 @ 10:24 pm - August 11, 2009
#22: GPW can speak for himself obviously, but I’ll address my question to gillie to you: Posit that this guy is a bad actor (“crooked timber” is actually the heart of conservative worldview.)
If we assume that, how is the current proposed legistlation superior? His original point was on the rhetorical and logical weakness of the anti-voter jeramiad.
Much as I disagree with them, Obama and his team deserve a better class of defenders.
Best wishes,
-MFS
Comment by MFS — August 11, 2009 @ 10:35 pm - August 11, 2009
“how is the current proposed legistlation superior”
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/06/george-f-will-admits-public-option-will.html
Nate silver has a fantastic examination about how the public option will cut costs.
Be careful, there is a small bit of math!
Comment by gillie — August 11, 2009 @ 10:42 pm - August 11, 2009
gillie:
My heart soars! You are the first supporter I’ve met that wants to talk about the merits.
You say that a government program will be cheaper because it doesn’t have to turn a profit or pay for marketing and the like.
Outstanding! The natural question then is: Why is Medicare broke then?
The next question is (thanks Virginia Postrel!): If Orzag and Dingell have a brilliant idea on how to manage costs without effecting quality, why don’t they try it out with Medicare *first?*
Think of it: the critics would be silenced! Countless tax dollars would be saved! A vertiable heaven on Earth!
Yet, they won’t… is anyone curious why?
Best wishes,
-MFS
Comment by MFS — August 11, 2009 @ 10:49 pm - August 11, 2009
Livewire
He used his millions gained from fraud and opened a health care group that specializes in care to folks who are uninsured.
think about that for two seconds
Comment by gillie — August 11, 2009 @ 10:52 pm - August 11, 2009
“Why is Medicare broke then?”
Part of it medicare part C & D. Part C allows private groups to insure and the fees that have been incurring are no good.
Part D was basically written by the insurance companies and have done nothing to control the insane cost of prescriptions
Another aspect was tax cuts that cut off revenue to those programs. Unfortantly those tax cuts did not generate enough economic stimulous to compensate for that lost revenue
Comment by gillie — August 11, 2009 @ 11:01 pm - August 11, 2009
Tax cuts… I’d hear more, gillie?
Alas, Orzag’s non-response on why his voodoo won’t work within existing government programs is out there like a dead dog on the table with nary a defender.
But, maybe you’ve read something I haven’t.
Best wishes,
-MFS
Comment by MFS — August 11, 2009 @ 11:10 pm - August 11, 2009
…Plus, we know that the large insurance players are also on board with this new program.
What’s to stop them from setting up another nefarious “Part D” plan like you describe?
Best wishes,
-MFS
Comment by MFS — August 11, 2009 @ 11:14 pm - August 11, 2009
“He used his millions gained from fraud and opened a health care group that specializes in care to folks who are uninsured.”
Really sounds like Robin Hood!!
Comment by GoCon — August 11, 2009 @ 11:17 pm - August 11, 2009
The article you posted is that indeed change is hard because of the politics involved but Obama and crew are working on ways to cut costs.
With all of our support it could work.
Are you suggesting we write our congressperson and tell them to support Obama’s reforms?
If so I agree!
If not, please explain further.
Comment by gillie — August 11, 2009 @ 11:21 pm - August 11, 2009
No, I’m saying that Orzag is selling a pig-in-a-poke. Even more people covered at even less cost is – on it’s face – fantasy.
Philosophically, I don’t like it. But this is not me saying it won’t work, it’s the non-partisan CBO. Why would I call and support something Congress itself doesn’t even believe in? Is it that surprising that the day the CBO numbers went public support for this plan dropped like a stone?
If you like Single Payer, feel free to make the case for it. I might be persuaded that “security” has some nebulous quality that’s worth the hefty price tag. But cost savings is unquestionably the worst thing this plan has going for it.
Let me say that I appreciate your comments though. Nite Nite.
Best wishes,
-MFS
Comment by MFS — August 11, 2009 @ 11:34 pm - August 11, 2009
Part of it medicare part C & D. Part C allows private groups to insure and the fees that have been incurring are no good.
LOL…and of course, gillie’s racism comes out, as expected.
MA plans — private health plan options that provide coverage to 8.3 million Medicare beneficiaries — disproportionately provide coverage to low-income and racial and ethnic minority beneficiaries. Specifically, 40 percent of African Americans without Medicaid or employer coverage rely on comprehensive health insurance coverage provided by MA plans. By providing more comprehensive benefits and lower cost-sharing than traditional Medicare, MA plans help racial and ethnic minority populations gain access to health care services that are critical to their long-term health and well-being.
Moreover, minorities also benefit from the care and disease management offered by MA plans. These programs help assure that members with chronic conditions such as heart disease, diabetes, and asthma receive high-quality care by encouraging timely and regular check-ups, access to preventive services, and chronic care management programs. Access to coordinated care and disease management services are especially critical to minorities who are more likely to suffer from common chronic health conditions, such as diabetes, asthma, respiratory disease, and certain forms of cancer.
Reduced funding for the MA program would have a negative impact on the health and health care of millions of Medicare beneficiaries — particularly for low-income and minority beneficiaries. A study by Emory University’s Kenneth Thorpe, Ph.D., found that without MA, 2 million Medicare beneficiaries would lose all supplemental coverage. Racial and ethnic minorities would be especially hard hit, with the number of African-Americans without supplemental coverage rising to 59 percent.
Why do Gillie and Barack Obama hate minority senior citizens?
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — August 11, 2009 @ 11:46 pm - August 11, 2009
And here’s a funny one.
Part D was basically written by the insurance companies and have done nothing to control the insane cost of prescriptions
Why not? After all, it did exactly what Barack Obama wants to do, which is to extend coverage to more people.
Do you mean that extending the number of people covered increases costs and does not produce savings? What a surprise! That’s exactly the opposite of what your Barack Obama has been pushing. Why the sudden change, racist gillie?
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — August 11, 2009 @ 11:51 pm - August 11, 2009
And the latest hilarity: Obama Party members who oppose requiring photo IDs to vote are now requiring them for entry to their “town halls”.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — August 12, 2009 @ 1:04 am - August 12, 2009
And also: the Obama Party is now blatantly admitting that their plan is to force single-payer.
Got any more lies, gillie and Tano? After all, your black thug made it clear that he’s a complete liar today with his blabbing that he has never supported single-payer and that the AARP endorses his “plan”.
Why does the black thug have to lie so much, Tano? Why can’t he just be honest and state publicly that he wants single-payer and that the AARP doesn’t endorse him?
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — August 12, 2009 @ 1:10 am - August 12, 2009
Is there anyone who is on the Administration team that is not corrupt? Most of the people picked have been involved in corrupt activities. There are many of the picks for a czar position that have been known to have a propensity for corrupt activity.
Comment by thestraightaussie — August 12, 2009 @ 1:26 am - August 12, 2009
Also pharmaceutical costs will not be brought down with the proposed system.
This has not happened in Australia even with the encouragement of using generic brands for scripts. The difference is usually minimal anyway. The method used to reduce the costs of the pharma scheme is to take drugs off the free list and force patients to pay very high prices or to refuse to put the drugs on the free list forcing patients to pay a high price. I am talking 100s of dollars here, not just a dollar here or there.
Comment by thestraightaussie — August 12, 2009 @ 1:31 am - August 12, 2009
The article you posted is that indeed change is hard because of the politics involved but Obama and crew are working on ways to cut costs.
Any suggestion that Chairman Obama “and crew” give a damn about cutting costs must be laughed at derisively.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — August 12, 2009 @ 3:49 am - August 12, 2009
Ooops!
Forgot Bernie Maddoff’s $65 billion beats the snot out of $1.7 billion anyday.
*YAWN*
Comment by ThatGayConservative — August 12, 2009 @ 3:56 am - August 12, 2009
gillie,
Source for that accusation? You’ve been able to follow the money that accurately? if your detective skills are that good then certainly you can get a hold of those sealed documents from the Annanberg foundation, or follow the kickbacks to Michelle Obama after her husband got elected.
Or maybe you can explain why the CBO says it won’t work.
*yawn*
Comment by The Livewire — August 12, 2009 @ 6:43 am - August 12, 2009
I knew it. Gillie in #24 goes back to a debunked talking point he cited here and was subsequently ripped apart.
The actual George Will article says nothing of the sort.
Once again it’s gillie-gobbels, trying to repeat a lie often enough that it becomes truth.
*yawn*
Comment by The Livewire — August 12, 2009 @ 2:01 pm - August 12, 2009