Archives

Categories

Vicious New Talking Point

The short form of the new, revoltingly vituperous talking point, and a response to it is here. However, this is just a small part of appears to be a large scale coordinated message campaign.

Fred Thompson hosted a much longer session of … what do you call it when distortion follows insinuation follows distortion, and every bit of it is accusations of unimaginable wickedness? Anyway, whatever you call it, the AARP has responded. Unfortunately, Mark Twain was very correct in his observation that a lie will make it halfway around the world while the truth is still putting on its shoes. I expect large numbers of gullible Americans to be outraged at the Democrats’ plans to kill the elderly… and no amount of fact-checking will cure it. That’s the sad thing.

Update: Yes, it’s a coordinated campaign.

60 comments to Vicious New Talking Point

  • “The main opponents of this research are those groups with a vested interest in a health care system that wastes billions of dollars each year on ineffective or unnecessary drugs, treatments or tests. Given Ms. McCaughey’s position as a Director of a medical device producer, I would hope that any potential conflict of interest has not influenced her commentary.”

    Yeah. I think maybe Betsy is just afraid the teat is gonna dry up.

    This talking might might get legs but I seriously doubt it it going to get as big as a tea party or the birth certificate issue.

    And I didn’t even know Fred Thompson had a show. It was funny that he had this kind of segment and during it accused Democrats of trying to scare old people.

    I really don’t think there will be much if any change in our current system. I am only about 14 years from socialized medicine anyway.

  • Heck…I got an email July 21 http://baarswestside.blogspot.com/2009/07/statement-by-house-gop-leaders-boehner.html

    I remember when Carter tried EOL planning as a cost-savings-measure in 1977. The link has the memo. Get Government directly involved in biotihical decisions as payor, and you go down some troubling paths. Get Gov involved as the only payor, and you have some real big ethical issues.

  • Buck, I don’t know if there will be or not. Our current healthcare system sucks for me & a lot of people I know, but it’s not the top of my agenda… The only reason I posted this is because I’m so infuriated by the depravity of these people for whom vicious slander is just part of the workday – not even a second thought about accusing health care advocates of wanting to kill off the old folks.

    And I’ve already had an e-mail about it from One News Now and Townhall.com, and seen my first e-mail chain letter on it. All in the last 24 hours. It may not get as big as the Tea Parties, but it’s a lot more wicked… and it’s definitely getting legs.

    I’ll get over it. Blogging as therapy, I guess. I’ll say my piece and move on…

    Bill, I can appreciate your position. If having the provider’s side of EOL planning corporate based instead of government based is more compatible with your ethical judgments, that is perfectly fine. I have little opinion on that matter. To my thinking, the only decision-making role is whether the patient and family wish extraordinary measures or not. And, of course, that is currently the case for many people covered by medicare or who can afford the pricey providers.

  • Jan

    What disturbs me most is the “we” that Obama keeps saying. Should the government be deciding who gets cat scans, who gets chemo, who gets any health procedure?

    Medicare restricts medical tests that are said to save lives, and I expect government health care will do the same, so the lie is in the ear of the listener, I suppose.

    There is another lie being perpetuated on commercials. The commercial tells us that doctors do not try the cheapest generic drugs first. That has not been my experience and I have been to a lot of doctors. Also, a patient who has a brain is able to ask for the generic. Insurance only pays for generic in most cases, so national health care will not change this.

  • Jan, it disturbs me that the Government might restrict those choices, but it disturbs me equally that insurance companies restrict those choices now… and further that insurance isn’t even available to many. But you are welcome to your point of view on health care reform. I don’t feel strongly enough about it to debate it.

  • RW

    I don’t think it’s a coordinated campaign, not that it’d be difficult to find advocacy groups forwarding e-mails/fliers that would be damaging to the opposition no matter what the case may be, it’s a legitimate case of fear about some new propsed system and the President mangling his answer. This was the original question (which C&L conveniently forgot to highlight, go figure):

    [person's mother]…She’s 105 now, over 105. But at 100, the doctor had said to her, I can’t do anything more unless you have a pacemaker. I said go for it, she said go for it. But the arrhythmia specialist said, no, it’s too old. Her doctor said, I’m going to make an appointment, because a picture is worth a thousand words. And when the other arrhythmia specialist knew her, saw her joy of life and so on, he said, I’m going forward. So that was over five years ago. My question to you is, outside the medical criteria for prolonging life for somebody who is elderly, is there any consideration that can be given for a certain spirit, a certain joy of living, quality of life? Or is it just a medical cutoff at a certain age?

    The president rambled and went on and on about cost savings & his grandmother so the person interrupted to say

    Q But the money might never have been there for her pacemaker or for your grandmother’s hip replacement.

    Then the president rambled on more & then summed up his answer by saying “that at least we can let doctors know, and your mom know, that you know what, maybe this isn’t going to help, maybe you’re better off not having the surgery, but taking the painkiller.”

    The question was originally about a PACEMAKER & the president answered, after bloviating incessantly, by saying that maybe a pain pill is better than a PACEMAKER. Now, I don’t think that he intentionally *meant* to say “your mom is too old and the surgery is too expensive, she should accept the inevitable and take a pain pill”, but that’s what it ended up being the case. In retrospect, a simple “that’s not what he meant” from the WH communications office would clear things up, but that hasn’t been forthcoming and I expect nothing other than water-carrying and flack-ism from the likes of Dave Niewert, so he’s a dead end because he’s more interested in (a) smearing the opposition; (b) pimping his side, than presenting the facts and letting people decide.

    If you don’t think that a LOT of people are scared about a gov’t run health care system where some politician or paper pusher allows someone to die because it’d be better off for the “system”, then I have a revisit to the link I provided about the former French Prime Minister who escaped just that scenario because he was able to come to America & avoid that system.

    Do I think Barack Obama is indifferent to someone’s 105 year old mother? Of course not.
    Was his answer? Yes, “better off not having the surgery, but taking the painkiller” can’t be spun any other way., but I don’t think he meant for that to be the case. He mangled the answer, that’s all.

    ————-

    Given Ms. McCaughey’s position as a Director of a medical device producer, I would hope that any potential conflict of interest has not influenced her commentary.”

    Lovely, we have a case of people being personally smeared because they dare to work in the private sector. If Ms. McCaughey’s position was in the government, then she’d have more cred. Oh, wait, she’d have to be pro-universal health care, like the AARP is (their motives are not to be questioned). Well, Ms. McCaughey WAS in the government, serving as Lt. Gov in NY & serving on a medicaid task force under Pataki (that, my friends, means “street cred on the topic”). Lest you think she’s a RW hack, she switched parties & tried to run for Gov as a Democrat & ended up being the candidate of the LIBERAL party (actual name). Much like global warming-now-named-climate-change, unless you’re a government employed climatologist who supports statist government policies and embrace big-government actions vis-a-vis the climate, you’re not a credible source. If you go up against the wishes of Black Jesus from Telepromptereth, you must be destroyed. Now, it’s Ms. McCaughey’s turn to face the gauntlet. Jim Cramer, Sarah Palin, Bill Clinton, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Joe the plumber, Lou Dobbs and many others welcome you to the fold, Ms. McCaughey.

    Ironically enough, the vehicle used to attack Ms. McCaughey: vicious talking points.

    If Barack Obama don’t want people to think he’ll allow them to die via painkiller instead of a surgery, then he shouldn’t say so.

  • Now, it’s Ms. McCaughey’s turn to face the gauntlet.

    It couldn’t happen to a nicer vicious, wicked person.

  • If having the provider’s side of EOL planning corporate based instead of government based is more compatible with your ethical judgments, that is perfectly fine.

    Remember this plan will be implemented and managed by corporations under contract to the Government. Given Michelle Obama’s ties to Walmart and Walmart embraces of Health Care Reform, I’m guessing WalMart will have a big role in all of this if it passes.

    So imagine discussing your EOL with a Walmart rep in one of their clinics. That’s where this is headed. A lot to learn from Walmart, but I don’t want them my only option as the Single Payor’s Program Administrator.

  • Single payer… In this lifetime? I doubt Wal-Mart will accept any work they can’t outsource to the Mariana Islands. Anyway… like I said – you’re welcome to you perspective on that. It’s only tangentially related to my rant… Has little to do with the campaign that I’m fuming about. As a matter of fact, I’m very glad to hear you expressing an honest (if unlikely) opinion opposing health care based on real or perceived risks. Honest debate based on honest opinions and honest perspectives is the very opposite of what I’m complaining about.

  • Your rant was on corporations Smigher, and one Corporation Liberals hate most is making a big push for ObamaCare http://chicagoist.com/2009/07/27/wal-mart_wants_healthcare_for_illeg.php You can bet they’ll make a profit on it and they have to see potential for the clinics, and drug programs through it. When I started with Medicare as an auditor, the guy from Blue Cross who taught my principles of reimbursement class said many people thought Medicare was for the elderly, but he liked to think of it as the Accountants Retirement Act. Obama Care offers plenty of income opportunities too. Don’t think Corporations aren’t going to win out administering this program. Obama wins, and we could easily find ourselves in years to come having those mandatory end-of-life meetings with a Doc at Walmart, under contract to the Gov, in the only plan left standing.

  • smijer

    Bill, you misunderstood my rant. If anything it was on assholes in the media … or on assholes in think-tanks, PACs, or the PR departments of corporations, who are engaged in some major assholery on the internet and the TV. Not corporations or commoditized healthcare.

    Yes, I know that until we have a single-payer public health care program that corporations will be sacrificing care quality and quantity in favor of profit, and I’m under no illusion that Obama’s plan will change that. Unfortunately, the only people who would go to bat for a plan that will really reform the system are the people who have nothing to lose politically – i.e. the powerless whack-jobs of the world. Dennis Kucinich for instance.

    So, no – I’m not here to debate the various plans and various areas of opposition to them. I’ve mentioned before and will mention again – the system as it is SUCKS – it leaves people who are willing to work without an option for insurance – it leaves people who have “pre-existing conditions” or who change jobs without an option for care. It is geared around denying claims for profit. It increases my costs and decreases my benefits every year. There’s nothing good about it.

    And I don’t expect much, if any, of that to change under the next corporate-sponsored plan to come out of Congress.

    So, whether reform passes or fails is not of major importance to me. My rant is about the kinds of libel being coordinated in an effort to beat it, pure and simple. Beat it if you want to – it won’t make much difference. But beat it with your own honest opinions… not the kind of crap that is in the post at the top of this page.

  • Jan

    Jan, it disturbs me that the Government might restrict those choices, but it disturbs me equally that insurance companies restrict those choices now… and further that insurance isn’t even available to many.

    I agree that honest opinions and honest discussions are helpful. I am probably the only old codger who comes here often, so I am able to offer a little first hand information.

    Insurance companies do control or limit treatment options. Here is the difference. Insurance companies DO offer other plans that will give people better coverage if they choose to pay for them. Insurance companies are subject to the laws of supply and demand and are competitive. With insurance companies, I am free to shop around and find the best coverage. None of this is possible once you switch to medicare.

    As for those who are not insured, the vast majority are being covered by medicaid already. It is true that a small percentage of unemployed people (over 10% under Obama) may not have coverage for a time, but why screw up everyones coverage and everyone’s life to solve the problem of 10% of the people. Let’s get the unemployment number down and then they will be able to have coverage. There are private groups who buy coverage available for those who work for companies that do not offer group plans for employees. This would be a new business opportunity if small businesses were encouraged to thrive in this country.

    Please know that I am not trying to rub it in, because I want what is best for you and all of my children, but I knew that when Obama became president, taxes would go up. Here is what has promised or already passed:

    1. Bush income tax cut expires. That means everyone pays more income tax under Obama.
    2. Capital gains tax has gone up and this is one reason for the high unemployment numbers.
    3. Obama is pushing for a sales tax nationwide that will go to the federal government, but not ending income tax, hence a new tax.
    4. Spending so much that higher taxes are a necessity.

    Even ABC ( the most liberal of the networks ) says:

    President Obama’s budget proposes $989 billion in new taxes over the course of the next 10 years, starting fiscal year 2011, most of which are tax increases on individuals.

    Now I am telling you that the citizens of this country are much better off without government insurance or what Obama calls healthcare reform. There are probably some reforms that could help, but you will not get true reform from career politicians in Washington. They have as their priority creating new buracracies and more “insurance” that electors will be dependent on them and therefore re-elect them. The Republicans did not help when they were in the majority and the Democrats are not going to help either.

    What we need is a cleansing of Washington DC and a return to self reliance. We need factual information and not propaganda. The truth is that both of these solutions will require us all to put away our electronic toys, learn the truth, and then vote for statesmen and not politicians. In my opinion, it is going to take an act of God.

  • @Smeijer,

    So you have no opinion one way or the other on Obama’s plan? It’s just the same-ole system? It makes no difference, good or bad, to what we have?

  • smijer

    @Jan: Well… like I said… I appreciate your opinion on the matter , but it doesn’t make enough difference to me to debate extensively. I do appreciate you expressing your views.

    One small correction – ABC is the most conservative of the old “Big Three” networks over the past few years. Of all the major news outlets, Fox is the most conservative, and MSNBC is the most liberal. CBS & CNN are about leftward of ABC/FOX and rightward of MSNBC. I don’t know much about how the traditional NBC outlet operates these days… I assume they are close to MSNBC in their bias.

  • @Bill Baar – I am not optimistic that America will ever have a system that is affordable and effective, because the political climate here won’t tolerate it. I expect that the Obama/Democrat plan is slightly better than the status quo all things considered… just not enough better to make it a big issue to me.

  • When I lived in Germany, a German told me she would never consider using a Doc who didn’t speak English. She said a Doc who couldn’t speak English simply could not be up to date on Medicine. Innovation and quality of care came from the United States. I’ve always thought that her comment a powerful comment on the quality of our care.

    All sorts of improvements to be made and in fact part of our attraction is we continually make improvements both clinical and administrative. This so called reform plan though will do some damage. Probably considerable damage. Go to Buffalo New York and look at the refugees from Canada’s system using the system there. People accustomed to reading the Obits each day to find a slot on a primary care panel. Health Care is an industry Gov should be growing and figuring out ways to export. Not something to slap price controls on the way Nixon did the whole economy in the 70s. (I remember drawing the sign for my Dad’s dime store saying we complied with mandatory Federal Wage and Price controls).

  • RW

    One small correction – ABC is the most conservative of the old “Big Three” networks over the past few years.

    In much the same manner that Ray Goff was the most successful head coach amongst the members of the immediate Goff family.

    ABC & CBS are left of center, NBC is further to the left. FNC, talk radio & the WSJ & WaTi op-ed pages are the only major media sources that are consistently right of center with Greta Van Susteren being the only prime-time FNC personality that isn’t solidly right-of-center (Shep isn’t prime time & he isn’t very political, but it’s obvious that he’s left of center).

    I am not optimistic that America will ever have a system that is affordable and effective

    There is no such thing as “affordable” AND “effective” health care, as the best health care is expensive. Someone has to pay for that MRI machine, someone has to pay for that life-extending drug, someone has to pay for those cancer treatments. This looks to be the first year in the last 7 that I won’t be paying around five-figures in health care bills (knock on wood), so I know a thing or two about the business as opposed to reciting what my professor told me, a-la Ezra Klein. If you want to repair your engine, you must pay the mechanic, yet a lot of people seem to think that they should only be held accountable for a $25 co-pay for darn near any medical necessity. It’s nirvana, folks. There is no such thing as a free lunch. Yes, let’s look at curbing the costs, but let’s stay grounded in reality, as well.

    Oh, wait, they have “cheap” health care in Cuba, China and North Korea. Yeah, let’s emulate THAT.

  • ABC & CBS are left of center

    It’s apparent that ABC appears left-of-center to righties, and appears right-of-center to lefties. Maybe that puts it really in the center (I doubt it)… or maybe it just means they are extremely sloppy and righties notice when they screw something up on one side while lefties notice when they screw something up on the other side (more likely)… or maybe it has to do with which issues each side cares most about.

    There is no such thing as “affordable” AND “effective” health care, as the best health care is expensive.

    1) Poor quality health care is also very expensive the way we do it.
    2) I didn’t say “best” – I said “effective”. The best is an expensive option for the wealthy, and I don’t doubt their ability to procure it under any system. I have seen evidence that effective healthcare can be affordable outside the third world.

  • … ok … since the bait is out there…

    Oh, wait, they have “cheap” health care in Cuba, China and North Korea. Yeah, let’s emulate THAT.

    Cuba’s health-care system carries a WHO rating about the same as the U.S. in terms of quality. Here’s a perspective. I don’t know – I’m sure Cuba has their problems (absolutely if they are ranked as low as we are!) – but we have our problems, too. If you want substandard care, you should at least do it cheap.

  • That people willing to risk the raft to Florida really all one needs to know about Cuban health care.

  • So you think that they come here for better health care? I’m surprised.

  • RW

    The former French PM decided against saving a whole lotta cash & heading to Cuba for his heart surgery instead of Cleveland. There is a reason for that. Occam’s razor tells us that it is obvious.

    It’s apparent that ABC appears left-of-center to righties, and appears right-of-center to lefties.

    I’m not sure that George Will’s COMMENTARY moves the network news to the right, outpacing George Stephanopoulus, Charlie Gibson, Robin Roberts, the entire GMA gang, etc. To the left (I guess I should say “far” left), having Ann Coulter appear on GMA and the hostess refusing to call her the C-word or, at least a bald faced transvestite liar, means ABC is catering to their corporate toadies while letting Ann “demagogue” and lie, lie, lie. Heck, the GMA weatherdude is one of the bigger Al Gore-ites out there.

    Their newspeople are no-doubt Obama supporting lefties, from Gibson on down.

  • The former French PM decided against saving a whole lotta cash

    As I mentioned before – the very wealthy will always find a way to pay a lot and get the very best. That’s just a given. It’s like saying that Ace Hardware isn’t better than Wal-Mart because Warren Buffet has his tools custom made.

    … Seriously – Charlie Gibson? A Lefty?

    Without digressing too much into point and counterpoint about ABC, I want to notice something else out loud – equally rabbit trail… but more interesting to me.

    Heck, the GMA weatherdude is one of the bigger Al Gore-ites out there.

    So, let me ask you this…

    If Al Gore made a statement that the Sun was the center of the solar system, would that make Galileo a leftist?

    If Fox News decided that lightning was the strike of Thor’s hammer and plugged that point of view in every newscast – would the theory of static electrical discharge become a “liberal” perspective?

    I don’t get it. I mean – seriously… the right could endorse a puppies-only policy and kittens would suddenly, by magic, become liberal. I don’t like that. It’s among the most irksome things I know of about the two-party, polarized ideology system we have here. There’s no reality any more. No true and false. Only left and right. I don’t like left. I like true.

  • RW

    As I mentioned before – the very wealthy will always find a way to pay a lot and get the very best. That’s just a given. It’s like saying that Ace Hardware isn’t better than Wal-Mart because Warren Buffet has his tools custom made.

    This wasn’t a case of “the best”, this was a case of needing heart surgery and not being in the position to wait months for the gov’t health care system to decide when it was okay.

    … Seriously – Charlie Gibson? A Lefty?

    Yes, seriously. I remember people denying a few years ago that Keith Olbermann was a lefty; it took his ‘special comments’ before some would even acknowledge. I remember people thinking Helen Thomas was just a reporter. I remember people thinking that Maureen Dowd wasn’t a lefty because she disliked Clinton’s philandering. I remember arging with people on Yglesias’ old blog who swore that Paul Krugman was more conservative than liberal. I remember people accepting that David Shuster was just a reporter. Oh, and two words: Dan Rather. Well, the cat is out of the bag on all those folks. Granted, Charlie Gibson is NOT of the ‘advocate’ sort, but he’s just another in a long (very) line of journalism grads who are more ideologically inclined to be on the left & who usually do their best to play it down the middle, it’s just that their middle isn’t where the USA political middle is. To many liberals, being pro-choice, pro gay marriage, pro universal health care, pro affirmative action, pro tax hike on the wealthy, pro estate tax, is “moderate”. I still have the mp3 of Joe Klein swearing that he’s “moderate” to Dennis Miller earlier this year; his rationale? He was for the first gulf war.

    Sam Champion is one of the folks who thinks that there is only one truth, and that truth is that the debate is over and you’re a “denier” if you don’t agree with Al Gore, to the point that he’s one of those folks that the climate change people pretend doesn’t exist: he blames bad weather on global warming.

    I try to use the same gauges. If people want me to acknowledge that FNC, Brit Hume, etc., are on the right, then I expect them to act accordingly. I think the Obama administration is now up to 8 members that were former journalists who covered his campaign.

    Yes, I’ve seen my share of people who others have denied having a bias. Sorry, buddy, but Al Gore said we’re now 8.25 years from the point of no return. That ain’t truth, that’s demogoguery & his opinion. Sam Champion, er, champions his cause. All well and good, but please don’t tell me that he’s unbiased.

    Remember, I recall when Atrios was one of the leading “Keith Olbermann isn’t liberal” proponents. An old rule of thumb: a self-made entrepreneur or wealthy businessman isn’t automatically a Republican and a journalist isn’t automatically a liberal. If I were to be putting down a bet, though…..

  • RW

    BTW, isn’t it a bit soon after ABC’s televising of the Obama health care infomercial (and refusal to air dissent thereof) for us to write off the network’s news division’s willingness to, ahem, accessorize their schedule with some good old fashioned advocacy for “the one”?

  • RW

    I guess I should ask: what does ABC news do that makes them appear right-of-center?

  • I don’t think that a liberal journalist would do something like this.

    Another choice Gibson quote on the media’s responsibility for the run-up to the Iraq war – doesn’t sound the least bit liberal to me:

    I respectfully disagree with the gentlelady from the Columbia Broadcasting System,” said Gibson, the ABC anchor, with facetious grandiloquence. In a serious tone, he continued, “I think the questions were asked.” Gibson remembered skepticism expressed about then-Secretary of State Colin Powell’s speech to the United Nations that alleged that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction — allegations that proved to be wrong.

    “I think the questions were asked,” Gibson repeated. “It was just a drumbeat of support from the administration. It is not our job to debate them. It is our job to ask the questions.”

    Another incident that doesn’t point to liberal bias on Gibson’s part:

    Even his endorsement by the United Mine Workers of America, outside a coal mine near Wheeling, W.Va., was overshadowed by his appearance on ABC after ”Good Morning America” aired the 1971 footage. Kerry appeared on the program from the mine site, scrapping tensely with interviewer Charlie Gibson, who at one point intimated that the medals controversy might derail Kerry’s presidential bid. When the segment was over, Kerry turned to two aides and complained, ”God, they’re doing the bidding of the Republican National Committee.”

    As to why we see ABC as conservative – four words: News Director Mark Halperin.

    I think I better understand your point now about Sam Champion – it isn’t that he’s liberal because he accepts the basic facts of anthropogenic climate change… it’s that he’s liberal because he emphasizes the more alarmist possibilities, and possibly overrepresents their probability? I can live with that viewpoint at least.

  • So you think that they come here for better health care? I’m surprised.

    Among other things….

  • RW

    I don’t think that a liberal journalist would do something like this.

    Asking a politician to give the justification for tax hikes is conservative?

    Another choice Gibson quote on the media’s responsibility for the run-up to the Iraq war

    The war was supported by 60% of the nation, by the majorities of both parties, by Kerry, Edwards, both Clintons and the sitting Veep, and they all stated that their decisions were based on the intelligence available. I don’t see how that is liberal or conservative, since you had liberals and conservatives supporting the war (the liberals aborted when it became convenient, being pro-choicers). Been waiting to use that line. :)

    Kerry turned to two aides and complained, ”God, they’re doing the bidding of the Republican National Committee.”

    A liberal claims bias, therefore it’s bias?

    Sorry to disagree, but nothing presented showed a rightward tilt. A reporter questioning someone is SUPPOSED to take the role of “devil’s advocate”, I.E., challenge the interlocutor’s contentions. That’s what the left didn’t think was happening in the run-up to the war & what the right has said about the media’s love affair with Obama. Now, if you’re going to criticize the media during the runup to the war, that’s fine, but I don’t think it has anything to do with conservative bias. For goodness sakes, you have lefties blaming the New York Times for not being aggressive enough during that period. All of which goes to my Coulter analogy above: that unless the media is caught doing the bidding of the left, then they cannot be left. I don’t think Charlie Gibson is as obvious as, say, Katie Couric, but his history shows that he’s more likely to tilt leftward.

    As to why we see ABC as conservative – four words: News Director Mark Halperin.

    Halperin is one of those folks who is tough to pin down. Conservatives will never forget that 2004 memo that said that Bush was the distorter & Kerry not so much. I also remember the homeless quote when Bush was elected in ’00, so that was a red flag. Then again, he’s been ardent in questioning Gibbs. I don’t see very much by way of his being ‘liberal’ and NOTHING AT ALL that points to him being conservative. Saying something positive or predicting something positive about a politician isn’t part and parcel of bias. Someone at ABC that I think is a straight-shooter & who was tough on Bush and is tough on Obama (which is what they’re supposed to be): Jake Tapper. If he says something damaging about a Republican, I take it to heart. If Steffy says it, I blow it off, he’s a flak.

    it’s that he’s liberal because he emphasizes the more alarmist possibilities, and possibly overrepresents their probability?

    Not that he’s liberal, but that there’s no way he’s conservative.

    I look over the ABC news roster (omitting Champion) and I cannot fathom how they could be construed as being right-of-center. Assuming that Halperin was, which I don’t accept, that certainly wouldn’t outweigh Steffy, Radatz, Robin Roberts, Kate Snow, etc. I want to reiterate: I don’t think most newspeople are Olbermann-esque advocates. Other than Steffy & Roberts, I think that most of ABC are simply people who are trying to do their jobs, they just have a liberal ideology that seeps through in their reporting. Heck, if I were reporting on politics & tried as best I could, I sincerely doubt that I’d be able to hide everything. I think Carl Cameron is pretty much down the middle in his REPORTING and I trust him, but I think I’ve seen a few things seep through that lead me to believe that he’s more rightward than leftward. Martha Radatz….just the opposite. Eh, eye of the beholder. I realize that someone could take quotes from ANYONE and make it appear that they’re nefarious.

    Steffy, Couric, Shieffer, Bill Schneider, David Shuster, Robin Roberts, Meredith Viera: they don’t even hide it. Rather didn’t, either, but it took the TANG memos for everyone to realize it. And, let’s not forget the “Democrat book of the month club”, 60 Minutes, which are the epitome of liberal journalists who swear by their independence. They are the poster children for what I’m putting forth.

  • Ok – it’s clear you have your reasons for thinking of ABC as left-leaning (and I reserve the right to view it as right-leaning)… (and no – it’s not *liberal* to argue that a tax “hike” over $250k is hurting the middle class and to invent school teachers who make that much to support the case)… (And if Halperin is a liberal, then I am not one…)

    The overriding point I was trying to make is that ABC is decidedly *not* the most liberal news outlet out there.

  • RW

    The overriding point I was trying to make is that ABC is decidedly *not* the most liberal news outlet out there.

    We are sympatico. I’d say they’re nowhere near as left as the other two networks. NBC has a lead in that category that is similar to some of the NBA records that Wilt Chamberlain owns; 2nd is nowhere near. Which, is fine, as long as they’re honest about it.

    (and no – it’s not *liberal* to argue that a tax “hike” over $250k is hurting the middle class and to invent school teachers who make that much to support the case)

    No, it’s not.

    Sorry to take the post off topic.

  • This wasn’t a case of “the best”, this was a case of needing heart surgery and not being in the position to wait months for the gov’t health care system to decide when it was okay.

    Are you Talking about Silvio Berlusconi? He was Italian, but that’s the closest case I’ve heard of. And, I’ve never heard anything suggesting he came to Cleveland to avoid waiting. I do understand he had a heart dysrhythmia and needed a pace-maker.

    I do know that in some countries with nationalized or quasi-nationalized health care there can be waiting times for non-life-threatening procedures, but often U.S. media reports of same are overblown. Italy isn’t known for having a lot of problems of this sort (Canada is, but probably unfairly so. Britain is, and they do deserve the rap. They are one of the few first-world nations with nationalized healthcare that performs worse than the U.S.). And, of course, Silvio Berlusconi can get whatever he wants, wherever he wants, whenever he wants. I cannot, under any circumstances, believe that he came to Cleveland because they put him at the end of a nine month waiting list. Ok – under the circumstances that I saw some evidence of it, I guess I could believe it… but it certainly doesn’t make any sense on the face of it.

    Anyway – chances are that whatever program is put in place here, if any, will not significantly alter the commoditized program we have now. It certainly won’t be anything like Italy’s program.

  • *You* may be sympatico. I reserve the right to be divertido.

  • RW

    Are you Talking about Silvio Berlusconi? He was Italian, but that’s the closest case I’ve heard of.

    Whatever. Substitute “Eurotrash” at your leisure. (I kid!) :)

  • Funny. Do you remember Eurotrash Girl? By the … ??? somebody? I liked that song.

  • Jan

    I admit I haven’t read all of these post, but I would like to clear up something that I said concerning ABC. ABC news reports on the AM radio station that I listen to are so obviously biased that perhaps I should have said they are the most obviously biased and they do have a liberal bias. They may not be the most liberal of the three, but they are, in my opinion, just so blatantly biased. Either that are they just lousy at news reporting.

  • RW

    Do you remember Eurotrash Girl? By the … ??? somebody? I liked that song.

    Nope. Stopped listening to “popular” radio many years ago when hip-hop took over. My daughter keeps me up to date on the ‘good’ songs, but they are few and far between.

    ABC news reports on the AM radio station that I listen to are so obviously biased that perhaps I should have said they are the most obviously biased and they do have a liberal bias.

    My fav AM station used to carry ABC news & I noted a bit of a swing to the left, but that’s pretty much the norm for the major nets. But, again, all that is in the eye – er, ear – of the beholder and what you & I consider bias may not be anything at all to smijer.

    Want to revisit one thing:

    As to why we see ABC as conservative – four words: News Director Mark Halperin.

    If Mark Helperin were Rush Limbaugh’s stenographer, the name George Stephanopoulus more than balances him out (imagine Karl Rove taking over for Tim Russert!), leaving the rest of the network exposed. That’s what I meant with the throwaway Coulter line, unless it’s 100% left then it cannot be called “liberal”. If the NYT hired Bill O’Reilly for a column, that would, in some quarters, make the paper an unreliable source for being labeled “liberal” despite what the rest of the paper prints.

    Bernie Goldberg works for HBO. Bernie is an admitted conservative who used to be a raging liberal. Trust me, Bernie doesn’t make the program that he works for, Real Sports with Bryant Gumbel (one of the most liberal people on television) swing right any more than the hiring of Alan Colmes would make the WSJ editorial page swing left.

    I think the political prism we all view things causes our sense of proportionality to often become skewed. Shocker, huh? :)

    Back on topic: can we agree that the president kinda screwed up his answer, but prolly didn’t mean for it to come out that way? Reminds me of Ari Fleisher’s “we should watch what we say” line.

  • It looked to me like he engaged in the common practice of answering the question you wanted to be given rather than the question you were given. It was extremely clear that he was no longer talking about a pacemaker when he gave the answer that is being highlighted.

  • RW

    “And all we’re suggesting — and we’re not going to solve every difficult problem in terms of end-of-life care; a lot of that is going to have to be we as a culture and as a society starting to make better decisions within our own families and for ourselves. But what we can do is make sure that at least some of the waste that exists in the system that’s not making anybody’s mom better, that is loading up on additional tests or additional drugs that the evidence shows is not necessarily going to improve care, that at least we can let doctors know, and your mom know, that you know what, maybe this isn’t going to help, maybe you’re better off not having the surgery, but taking the painkiller.”

    Saying that a pain pill might be preferable to surgery for a discussion on END OF LIFE options because it may cost too much……sorry, he opened himself up to criticism and it doesn’t take a coordinated campaign to point out that he flubbed the answer.

    I just reread the entire exchange, again. President Obama screwed up. Wasn’t the only time, either, as he earlier had charged general physicians with needlessly removing organs in order to cash in (GP’s are now surgeons? Kickbacks?). Would that he were as suspicious of Iranian leaders…

    His inexperience and difficulty communicating sans teleprompter is becoming more and more apparent. Let’s hope he’s a quick learner.

  • Buck

    My sister called me on my way to work this morning to asked me if the Democrats really intend to start just letting old people die. Her boss had told her that. I have laughed all morning about it.

    There are times when just a little too much morphine is the answer.

    Not a comfortable question to deal with but it is one that folks have to deal with every day.

    I can tell you this. If I were offered a public option that said up front that if I was clearly dying there would not be half a million dollars spent on me to keep me alive 3 more days I would still sign up.

  • Can I ask you that again when it’s going to take a half mil to keep your eyes open for 3 more days? ;)

  • RW

    If I were offered a public option that said up front that if I was clearly dying there would not be half a million dollars spent on me to keep me alive 3 more days I would still sign up.

    There is a private option for that: living will.

    No need to get Harry & Nancy involved, and especially not The One.

    …..nor, your neighbor (against their will).

    My sister called me on my way to work this morning to asked me if the Democrats really intend to start just letting old people die.

    At least there’ll be a pain pill to lighten the load. :)

  • Jan

    We have a thing called, a Living Will, whereby the elderly are able to make their wishes known to family and to their doctor. Every elderly person needs to consider what they want, provide written instructions, and then choose a family member they trust to carry out these instructions. I really do not want Uncle Sam or Uncle Obama making those decisions for me.

    Being able to keep enough of the money we have earned to care for ourselves throughout life is important to me as well. When a person is robbed of their income by a bloated, out of control government, that person will be unable to provide care for themselves or to leave an inheritance to their children. It is difficult already. With the spending going on in Washington under Obama, it will be a thing of the past by the time my children are my age.

  • Millions of old people died under the Clinton Administration!!!!

  • The one thing I do like about the Obama administration – and there isn’t much to like about it – is that it is causing Republicans to start to care about out of control deficit spending!

  • Buck

    it is causing Republicans to start to care about out of control deficit spending!

    TEA PARTY!!

  • RW

    Mocking Jan because she dares to question the outrageous spending levels?

    Really?

    ——–

    Meet ABC’s new health correspondent, an Obama donor. Gee, I wonder where he’ll come down on the president’s proposals?

  • Not mocking Jan… nothing personal. If you were sitting on this side, you’d be laughing as hard as we are. Approximately one half of the country woke up one morning in January of 2009 and started caring about spending and debt. It is a very funny thing, and we cannot help but laugh.

    And, I would be serious in being glad about it if 1) I expected it to last into the next period of Republican governance, and 2) Democrats hadn’t just as suddenly stopped caring about it.

  • smijer

    Another funny thing is that the same people who get extremely upset over money being spent on a research project in Minnesota don’t mind the same amount being spent on a research project in Alabama. And money for education is just fine, but moeny for a tank is going to ruin the economy. Or money for tax breaks for the top 1% is just fine – but money for healthcare is socialism.

    But the funniest thing is record spending and record debt is GREAT! if my president is in office but CONFISCATION! if your president is.

  • And, btw, RW – you are a lovely exception to at least part of that. You disavowed the spending under Bush, and so far, I haven’t seen your head spinning around now that Obama is following the same pattern.

Leave a Reply

 

 

 

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>