Gay Patriot Header Image

Unhinged Larouche Democrats Not Representative of Obamacare Opponents

Over the past forty-eight hours, a number of my Facebook friends have linked the AP article reporting the unhappy Barney Frank’s takedown of a LaRouche Democrat for asking her fellow Democrat why he “supports what she called a Nazi policy.”  Not aware of her background (because the AP didn’t divulge it), it seems my friends see this unhinged woman as representative of the growing number of Americans gathering to protest Obamacare.

When they promote this article, these friends and others only further misconceptions about the protesters while making the mean-spirited Massachusetts Democrat seem like a knight in shining armor standing up to an angry mob of astroturfers.  To be sure, they have indicated they wish to point out the excesses of some of those protesters–and they are right to do so–and right to criticize them for it. Despite the President’s flaws, he, like his predecessor, is not another Hitler nor are their policies akin to those of the German National Socialists.

Let us hope that the promotion of this article does not serve to delegitimize the overwhelming majority of protesters who have genuine concerns about a major government overhaul of an industry with which most Americans are happy.  (Well over twice as many Americans are satisfied with the health care they receive than approve of the job Congress is doing.)

And anyway, if they’re going to feature the nuts addressing Barney Frank, why don’t they feature some of his nutty statements?

Instead of referencing articles which suggest unhinged leftists asre emblematic of a growing movement, it would be nice if the media and other supporters of Obamacare actually took the time to listen to those taking to the streets and participating in the townhalls so as to better understand what really drives them.

(Oh, and, as to that article, the AP still has not corrected its erroneous description of left-wing activist Sheila Leavitt as a physician.)

Share

35 Comments

  1. It’s odd to see extremists like the LaRouchies condemning anyone for fascistic tendencies (pot, kettle), but an article I read several decades ago quoted Lyndon LaRouche as vowing that there would be no successful left-wing movement without him at the head of it (or words to that effect.)

    Comment by pst314 — August 21, 2009 @ 10:15 am - August 21, 2009

  2. Despite the President’s flaws, he, like his predecessor, is not another Hitler nor are their policies akin to those of the German National Socialists.

    Dan, Jonah Goldberg has a book that disagrees with you on the second half of your statement. While Obama clearly isn’t another Hitler yet, in terms of starting wars or killing millions of Jews, his policies are like the policies of the German National Socialists in the following ways:

    – Creepy personality cult around an alleged Leader – check.
    – Claiming the mantle of religion and morality and creepily telling people that they are religiously and morally obligated to support him – Check.
    – Bailing out friends of the regime, rich (Wall Street) and poor-ish (ACORN) alike – Check.
    – National heath care, seeking to make everyone dependent on the State and/or an agent of the State, and to reduce costs to the State by minimizing the care given to the nation’s alleged undesirables – Check.
    – Telling people that the State is the answer to all their problems – Check.
    – Ever bigger and bolder lying – Check.

    Fascism was and is a phenomenon of the Left. Which is why they called it National *Socialism*. Its root is collectivism: the belief that the individual belongs to the collective, can only gain meaning or deserve life by serving the collective, etc. Fascism is nothing more or less than that variant of collectivism which keeps fig leaves of nationalism and of (alleged) private property ownership – as contrasted to communism, say.

    The fact that a Lyndon La Rouche nutcase made the point to Barney Frank is nothing against the point. Even a broken clock is right twice a day. We should not disavow a legitimate point (that Obama’s policies are eerily reminiscent of Hitler’s) because a nutcase showed greater courage in making it than we have. Rather, we should step up to the plate and make sure that we are seen making the point, thus pushing aside the nutcase. To do otherwise is to concede the (wrong) premises of our opponents, thus dooming our efforts to fight them.

    When they promote this article, these friends and others only further misconceptions about the protesters while making the mean-spirited Massachusetts Democrat seem like a knight in shining armor standing up to an angry mob of astroturfers.

    Dan, perhaps a quotation from _Animal House_ will make my point here.

    I’ve got news for you, pal. They’re going to nail us, no matter what we do. So we might as well have a good time!
    TOGA! Toe-gah! Toe-gah!

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — August 21, 2009 @ 10:32 am - August 21, 2009

  3. “An article I read several decades ago quoted Lyndon LaRouche as vowing that there would be no successful left-wing movement without him at the head of it.”

    Logically speaking, that may be true. What LaRouche seems to have omitted is that there will be no successful left-wing movement *with* him at the head of it, either. The point is, there will be no successful left-wing movement.

    Comment by Scott Spiegel — August 21, 2009 @ 10:42 am - August 21, 2009

  4. Oddly enough, you misquoted the article.
    …who have genuine concerns about a major government overhaul of an industry with which most Americans are happy
    Nope. A substantial majority are happy with their own insurance and care. But over half still think the system itself still needs reform and/or alteration, as most “harbor deep concerns about losing their coverage or their ability to afford it and medical care if costs continue rising.”

    In other words, most favor reform. It’s almost like Americans aren’t driven entirely by self-interest. Or steak dinners.
    Nice try though.

    Comment by torrentprime — August 21, 2009 @ 10:47 am - August 21, 2009

  5. I should have included:

    – Compiling lists of domestic political opponents, from the White House no less – Check.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — August 21, 2009 @ 10:50 am - August 21, 2009

  6. I don’t have any quarrel with Barney Frank regarding his righteous put-down of the LaRouche twit. The interesting thing is that LaRouche, a seven-time candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination, opposes ObamaCare because it doesn’t feature a fully-socialist, single-payer structure.

    Frank is fending off an attack from his LEFT.

    Comment by Kirk Petersen — August 21, 2009 @ 11:13 am - August 21, 2009

  7. Gotta love the fact that ILoveCapitalism‘s comments supporting loopy lady’s Hitler analogy actually REFUTE the ‘not representative’ thesis of the OP.
    More so, I enjoyed the Hitler check list, which reminded me more of Bush than Obama. Let’s take a look:
    – Creepy personality cult around an alleged Leader – it’s a tie.
    – Claiming the mantle of religion and morality and creepily telling people that they are religiously and morally obligated to support him – Bush wins by miles.
    – Bailing out friends of the regime, rich (Wall Street) and poor-ish (ACORN) alike – Haliburton, anyone? Bush Wins.
    – National heath care, seeking to make everyone dependent on the State and/or an agent of the State, and to reduce costs to the State by minimizing the care given to the nation’s alleged undesirables – Tough, Obama gets NHC, but Bush wins the undesirables.
    – Telling people that the State is the answer to all their problems – Obama (“All”?WTF?).
    – Ever bigger and bolder lying – Bush wins handily
    – Compiling lists of domestic political opponents, from the White House no less – And having them fired…Another Bush win.

    Godwin’s Law, people, Godwin’s Law.

    Comment by Al — August 21, 2009 @ 11:34 am - August 21, 2009

  8. No, I didn’t misquote the article. Check the article on what it says about the polls and what I wrote–note I said “health care they receive.” I don’t think an apology is forthcoming though one is due.

    And, I’m one of the “over half” who believes the system needs reform, except the reforms I favor are free market ones. That is, just because someone favors reforms doesn’t mean they support Democratic reforms (i.e., greater government control).

    Remember, there’s a difference between reform and overhaul.

    So, once again, please read the post before you comment.

    Al, please provide examples (not from left-wing blogs) of evidence of a personality cult around George W. Bush and please identify some Bush lies (that is, specific statements that he knew to be untrue at the time he made them). Thanks.

    Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — August 21, 2009 @ 11:53 am - August 21, 2009

  9. LOL….and Al demonstrates once again the intelligence of the average Obama voter by trying to attack Bush for all of Obama’s faults.

    What you continue to make obvious, Al, is that you really don’t think what you alleged Bush doing was wrong because of what it was; you think it was wrong because of WHO did it. Hence you can with a straight face scream “Halliburton” while ignoring the fact that Obama just gave $2 billion dollars to the state oil company of another country, which directly benefits one of his biggest investors. You simply don’t see anything wrong with Obama doing that which you shriek and scream was “immoral” when you allege Bush did it.

    People have figured out, Al, that the morality of the left is perfectly relative. You oppose killing people — unless they’re inconvenient babies or expensive old people. You oppose no-bid contracts or giveaways — unless they’re being given to your investors. You oppose racism — except when you practice it. It’s all relative.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — August 21, 2009 @ 12:29 pm - August 21, 2009

  10. At the risk of pissing people off, I think the townhall strategy may have run its course. Like the Borg they so resemble, the Obamacrats have adapted. Now, they are strictly controlling townhalls, stacking them with union supporters, and making sure the media has footage of Larouche nutjobs to smear the principled opposition to ObamaCare.

    It’s time to think about and implement the next strategy.

    Comment by V the K — August 21, 2009 @ 1:07 pm - August 21, 2009

  11. – Creepy personality cult around an alleged Leader – it’s a tie.

    Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzt. Wrong answer. Not even close. There was never any cult of personality around Bush. For example, no one ever produced creepy posters of his exposed chest beaming forth radiant spiritual light, as Obama supporters have done.

    – Claiming the mantle of religion and morality and creepily telling people that they are religiously and morally obligated to support him – Bush wins by miles.

    Wrong again. Bush NEVER, ever told religious leaders that they have an obligation to support him, as Obama did recently.

    – Bailing out friends of the regime, rich (Wall Street) and poor-ish (ACORN) alike – Haliburton, anyone? Bush Wins.

    Wrong again. Bush started the Wall Street bailouts that Obama has intensified (rather than reversing), and Bush was wrong to do so, and many conservatives and Independents (like myself) have knocked Bush heavily for it. But Halliburton? WTF? Please cite some way in which Bush gave Halliburton an inappropriate bailout, Al. (Do NOT include contracts for services rendered, services that no other company was willing to perform at the time for the same price. That’s not a bailout.)

    – National heath care, seeking to make everyone dependent on the State and/or an agent of the State, and to reduce costs to the State by minimizing the care given to the nation’s alleged undesirables – Tough, Obama gets NHC, but Bush wins the undesirables.

    Referring to what now? Wrong again, I have no doubt.

    – Telling people that the State is the answer to all their problems – Obama (”All”?WTF?).

    Every time anyone has a problem that enters the political discussion space, Al, Obama thinks a government program is the answer. Care to provide an example where he has said it isn’t, and has supported greater private action? Bet you can’t.

    Ever bigger and bolder lying – Bush wins handily

    Like what? Kindly cite something you think Bush lied about. Remember, a lie is a statement that is not only false, but false by conscious intention. That’s the criterion. Don’t say try to say “Iraq” because that would be bullsh*t on your part. Maybe Bush lied about the cost of the prescription drug benefit – we could talk about that.

    – Compiling lists of domestic political opponents, from the White House no less – And having them fired…Another Bush win.

    Again – How? What on earth or in heaven are you talking about, Al?

    Godwin’s Law, people, Godwin’s Law.

    Brains, Al. Brains.

    Altogether, Al: Your comment was a big fail. Please try much harder.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — August 21, 2009 @ 1:10 pm - August 21, 2009

  12. What you continue to make obvious, Al, is that you really don’t think what you alleged Bush doing was wrong because of what it was; you think it was wrong because of WHO did it.

    I don’t know for sure that Al was trying to defend Obama, NDT. But his comments tend in that direction. And we certainly have seen a lot of leftists, over the years, who can’t admit when their guy is bad or wrong, and think that changing the subject to some Republican (usually on the basis of B.S.) is an excuse, or somehow an effective tactic.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — August 21, 2009 @ 1:17 pm - August 21, 2009

  13. P.S. It might be cool, at least for straight guys, if there is one day a cult of personality around Sarah Palin where supporters make poster of her exposed chest beaming forth radiant spiritual light 🙂

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — August 21, 2009 @ 1:20 pm - August 21, 2009

  14. Also to be included, in my list of Obama policies resembling the German National Socialists:

    – Wanting a new, national/centralized, para-military police force – Check. (Obama proposed it during the campaign.)
    – Wanting mandatory youth service – Check. (Another that Obama proposed in 2008.)
    – Hiring thugs to start fights with peaceful protestors – Check. (The Democrats and their ACORN and SEIU goons, especially in recent weeks.)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — August 21, 2009 @ 2:25 pm - August 21, 2009

  15. Wow, talk about knee-jerk

    I did submit a comment – directed to Daniel, and apologizing for entering the “Who’s more like Hitler?” arena, when my point was that ILC was proving the OP wrong. It somehow failed to post.
    But here comes ILC & NDT making my point for me. ILC’s rebuttal is hilarious – I was quite happy to concede I had been wrong about the cult followings, but ILC’s poster argument. ROFL! Seen any posters of GWB superimposed on the Stars and Stripes, the Eagle and the Statue of Liberty?
    The rest of it is just as funny – “give me an example of Bush lieing, but Iraq doesn’t count.” And pretending not to get my reference to the dismissal of the US attorneys. Epic.
    I am not an Obama supporter, BTW. I just find the Hitler analogies an offensive distraction from a very important debate, and so should you.

    Comment by Al — August 21, 2009 @ 2:29 pm - August 21, 2009

  16. Wow, talk about knee-jerk

    Indeed, Al. You seriously think Bush told intentional falsehoods, on Iraq? Nothing could be more knee-jerk. Or stupid.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — August 21, 2009 @ 2:35 pm - August 21, 2009

  17. I did submit a comment – directed to Daniel

    You answered my points specifically, Al. Come on now, cut the bullcrap tactics.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — August 21, 2009 @ 2:37 pm - August 21, 2009

  18. I did submit a comment – directed to Daniel

    You know the saying, you mess with one bean, you fight the whole burrito.

    Comment by V the K — August 21, 2009 @ 3:03 pm - August 21, 2009

  19. V, that reminds me. At the bbq last weekend with Dan and others, I figured out what I am, on this blog: one of his and Bruce’s “flying monkeys” 🙂 Charles Winecoff used the phrase; it’s delightful. He was saying something about how he got a troll on his blog, and sent a couple of his flying monkeys to take care of it.

    In truth, of course I have my own positions, e.g., disagreeing with Dan on some things – but to the extent I have am sometimes one of his flying monkeys, it’s been an honor.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — August 21, 2009 @ 3:08 pm - August 21, 2009

  20. My comment to Daniel failed to post, so how can you critique it, ILC?

    Daniel,
    I did a bit more research, and you are right – GWB doesn’t have the personality cult I thought he did. Only 94 people in his Yahoo fan club. I guess I was just rationalizing his 2004 victory. As for the lieing, how can one distinguish things he knew were false from things that he clearly should have known were false : the 9/11 – Hussein connection, for example.
    The point I was trying to make to ILoveCapitalism was the Godwin’s Law one, with which I think you agree: let’s leave the inflammatory rhetoric (‘Death panels’, ‘Heil Hitler’) at the door. So I probably should not have entered the “Who’s more like Hitler?” arena, but the crassness of his support for crazylady was irresistable.

    Onwards to the lieing CinC bit.

    The use of armed forces against Iraq is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.
    GWB letter to congress 3/21/03

    First, just if I might correct a misperception, I don’t think we ever said – at least I know I didn’t say – that there was a direct connection between September the 11th and Saddam Hussein.
    GWB on Fox News 3/20/06

    Which could be considered a lie, in and of itself, but a minor one. However,

    Dr. Robert S. Leiken of the Nixon Center stated “the joint FBI-INS-police PENTBOM investigation, the FBI program of voluntary interviews and numerous other post-9-11 inquiries, together comprising probably the most comprehensive criminal investigation in history—chasing down 500,000 leads and interviewing 175,000 people — has turned up no evidence of Iraq’s involvement; nor has the extensive search of post-Saddam Iraq by the Kay and Duelfer commission and US troops combing through Saddam’s computers.”

    “We could never verify that there was any Iraqi authority, direction and control, complicity with al-Qaeda for 9/11 or any operational act against America, period.”
    Former Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet 60 Minutes 4/29/07

    Now, I fully expect some weaseling of the form ‘provided succour to al-Qaeda at some point in time’ = ‘aided 9/11’, closely followed by ‘he didn’t know it was wrong at the time’. But argument 1 leads to some interesting conclusions about countries that would be justified in nuking the USA, and argument 2 leads to the rebuttal ‘he had no reason to believe it was right, either’
    That’s a big lie, which leads me to re-enter the “Who’s Hitler now?” contest with, let’s face it, the Austrian’s most significant characteristic :

    Wages War of Aggression

    ‘Nuf said.

    Comment by Al — August 21, 2009 @ 3:33 pm - August 21, 2009

  21. My comment to Daniel failed to post, so how can you critique it, ILC?

    More game-playing. This time, a crude bait-and-switch. Obviously, the only comment of yours that anyone could be discussing in this thread is the comment that has posted, presently numbered 7.

    Al, as for the rest of your rubbish: Saddam Hussein did have connections with terrorists. He was a major sponsor of terrorism. No lie there. Yet, George W. Bush never connected Saddam to operational involvement with 9-11. NEVER. If you think Bush did, you are sorely mistaken. Hmm – Could it be a lie, on your part? Or just knee-jerk regurgitation of trash you’ve let yourself be programmed with? But my point is, no lie there either.

    I asked you for examples of Bush telling intentional falsehoods about Iraq, Al, and you’ve got nothing. Proving my point, that you’re spewing knee-jerk rubbish, at this point.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — August 21, 2009 @ 3:52 pm - August 21, 2009

  22. And P.S., yes, Saddam did harbor al Qaeda terrorists starting in the fall of 2001, after the U.S. drove them from Afghanistan, which would be a further instance of Saddam’s involvement with terrorists. (There are many others.) But that obviously isn’t an *operational* connection to 9-11 and Bush never tried to suggest it was.

    You don’t get to invent Bush’s positions on these things, Al, for purposes of bolstering your own entirely false narrative that Bush somehow lied there. You get to have your own opinion – Not your own facts.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — August 21, 2009 @ 3:55 pm - August 21, 2009

  23. Likewise ILC, you don’t get your own facts.
    Are you disputing that, when he obtained congressional authorization to attack Iraq, Bush had to certify that the war was necessary, and he did so saying, in part

    acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001

    Sooo, you need to pick one, did Iraq :

    plan
    authorize
    committ
    aid

    the 9/11 attacks. Anything that happened after 9/11 is not relevant.
    Or are you going to run and hide behind the “including doesn’t mean only” argument, which doesn’t make much sense given the context.

    Comment by Al — August 21, 2009 @ 4:40 pm - August 21, 2009

  24. Al, now you’re asking me to do basic English interpretation for you. There is no lie in what you’ve quoted, and no weaseling either. Saddam harbored al Qaeda refugees starting in the fall of 2001. Get over it.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — August 21, 2009 @ 4:47 pm - August 21, 2009

  25. P.S. If you have trouble doing basic interpretation of English – and apparently you do, because you’ve managed to construct an essentially false question from Bush’s words – then we wouldn’t have much to talk about, and I’ll feel entitled to ignore you.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — August 21, 2009 @ 4:52 pm - August 21, 2009

  26. P.P.S. For the full case against Saddam and reasons for the Coalition invasion, intellectually honest people (you know who you are) may study the text of this: http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/iraq/libact103198.pdf (1998 law authorizing and requiring the President to pursue regime change in Iraq)

    And of this: http://www.c-span.org/resources/pdf/hjres114.pdf (2002 authorization for the use of force against Saddam, discussing his involvement with international terrorism among other things)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — August 21, 2009 @ 5:00 pm - August 21, 2009

  27. P.P.P.S. For the record, what you quoted wasn’t even Bush’s words. It was Congress’ words.

    So you should ask Congress, Al, if Bush had duly certified to them that the Iraq war would involve “actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations.. who planned, authorized, committed, or aided… September 11.” My guess would be that he did, and truthfully so. Because, again: Saddam starting harboring al Qaeda refugees no later than October 2001. And al Qaeda is one big part of who we’ve been fighting in Iraq all this time. Get over it.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — August 21, 2009 @ 5:16 pm - August 21, 2009

  28. Now I understand. I was laboring under the delusion that it was Saddam’s regime that was the target, rather than al-Zarqawi. Now your ranting makes some sense.

    I’m just enjoying the fact that you are defending a LaRouche wingnut who likened Obama to Hitler by maintaining that one country is justified in bombing the crap out of another country because the 2nd country harbored a terrorist. In your world, the Brits would have bombed New York long ago.

    DNFTT, indeed.

    Comment by Al — August 21, 2009 @ 5:32 pm - August 21, 2009

  29. Tell me, Al. Is Mayor Bloomberg in violation of 17 UN Resolutions to disarm? Is Governor Patterson?

    Comment by V the K — August 21, 2009 @ 6:22 pm - August 21, 2009

  30. […] Every now and again, I include something up in a blog post, hoping some supporter or critic will catch it and build on it. Last night, I did just that, linking a Washington Post/ABC News Poll, to help set up this post.  One of our critics noted that the poll, which i cited in order to show that an overwhelming percentage of Americans are happy with their health care, also showed “over half still think the system itself still needs reform and/or alteration.” […]

    Pingback by GayPatriot » Obamacare: Not the Only Path to Health Care Reform — August 21, 2009 @ 7:18 pm - August 21, 2009

  31. I was laboring under the delusion that it was Saddam’s regime that was the target, rather than al-Zarqawi.

    Ah. You admit Zarqawi exists and was in Iraq. I suppose that’s progress.

    Someday, if you try hard Al, perhaps you will make enough progress to understand that the terrorist’s willing host is on the same level as the terrorist, and both can be legitimate targets. At the same time, even.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — August 21, 2009 @ 11:02 pm - August 21, 2009

  32. I’m just enjoying the fact that you are defending a LaRouche wingnut

    Not at all. I actually called the person a “nutcase”. But Al, I shouldn’t be surprised at your lack of reading comprehension, now should I?

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — August 21, 2009 @ 11:04 pm - August 21, 2009

  33. (I mean: Based on your poor claims, tactics and performance thus far in this thread. Based on some other stuff, I am surprised.)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — August 21, 2009 @ 11:06 pm - August 21, 2009

  34. So, back to topic.

    Dan – A LaRouche nutcase has, perhaps through dumb luck, said something which is valid and which left-liberals desperately want to prevent being said: that Obama’s policies and proposals are like the German National Socialists. Will you be disavowing any other valid small-government points that left-liberals don’t want said, because there happens to be an instance of a LaRouche nutcase agreeing?

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — August 22, 2009 @ 1:45 pm - August 22, 2009

  35. […] Larouche nutjobs as typical ObamaCare […]

    Pingback by Don’t We Deserve an Apology? « Teh Resistance Blog — September 10, 2009 @ 3:01 pm - September 10, 2009

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.