U.S. Senate See Full Big Line

(D) J. Hickenlooper*

(R) Somebody

80%

20%

Governor See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse

(D) Phil Weiser

(D) Jena Griswold

60%

60%

40%↓

Att. General See Full Big Line

(D) M. Dougherty

(D) Alexis King

(D) Brian Mason

40%

40%

30%

Sec. of State See Full Big Line

(D) George Stern

(D) A. Gonzalez

(R) Sheri Davis

40%

40%

30%

State Treasurer See Full Big Line

(D) Brianna Titone

(R) Kevin Grantham

(D) Jerry DiTullio

60%

30%

20%

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(R) Somebody

90%

2%

CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Somebody

90%

2%

CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Hurd*

(D) Somebody

80%

40%

CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert*

(D) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank*

(D) Somebody

80%

20%

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen*

(R) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(R) Gabe Evans*

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(D) Joe Salazar

50%

40%

40%

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
August 14, 2009 06:46 PM UTC

Town Hall Mobs Give Democrats Cover to Vote Yes

  • 92 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

Whether you’ve been reading Colorado Pols or just following the local or national news, you’ve no doubt seen story after story of the angry anti-healthcare mobs that have been converging on Congressional Democrats holding town hall meetings.

Yet a curious thing has begun to happen: The angrier and less coherent that these mobs have become, the more that these anti-healthcare events might actually end up having the opposite effect intended. If Democrats end up voting down meaningful health care reform, they risk validating this kind of behavior by rewarding it; instead, many seem to be strengthening their resolve. Take a look at the first few sentences in an email recently sent out to supporters by Sen. Michael Bennet, who until a few weeks ago had been relatively silent on health care reform:

As I saw in Pueblo last week and in town halls across the country, angry protesters are working to disrupt substantive discussions on health care reform.

But we will not be intimidated.[Pols emphasis]

When President Obama arrives in Grand Junction on Saturday for a town hall to discuss the urgent need for health care reform, I will proudly stand with him.

These anti-healthcare protesters have been widely reported as being organized by Republican interest groups (with some health insurance companies said to be contributing), and if what they are doing ends up working – if Democrats lose their nerve to enact real reform legislation – then what will stop these same groups from organizing similar attacks on other issues? If this works to deep-six health care reform, what will stop organized, aggressive attacks against, say, education reforms or clean energy initiatives?

It’s kind of like the old “we don’t negotiate with terrorists” line (we’re not saying protesters are terrorists, so hold your angry comments), because if you give in once then you only embolden them to use the same tactics again and again.

The national media has started to notice the out of control nature of many of these protests, which are coming to Grand Junction tomorrow, and other Congressional members are starting to forego the town hall meeting format altogether. When all is said and done, it may well turn out that angry protests organized by well-funded conservative interest groups become the very thing that ensure passage of health care reform legislation.

Tweet
Share

Comments

92 thoughts on “Town Hall Mobs Give Democrats Cover to Vote Yes”

  1. Known Democrats are stating the facts …”it will be passed through”.  Be is Cap N Tax or Obamacare these policies have one thing in common … they are regressive.

    The fact is clear foggy policies will be seen as policy pollution on the American landscape and pollution has a cost.  Its too bad it will be born my hard working Americans who Pelosi has stated “… has to pay”.

    2. I thought everyone on the left marched in lockstep?

      In the first, place how could there be a progressive, left leaning billionaire?

      Second how could anyone differ with their party on anytihng?

      Technically, it’s mostly but completely regressive- at the margin people who consumer more energy will pay proportionately  more. You know, guys like Al Gore.

      I agree with you- let Buffet re-write the US tax code.

  2. or Guantanamo, or NSA, or cutting stem cell research?  Or were those voices not American?  I think Republicans should be glad that Democrats have even offered to listen considering the ideological monopoly of the last 8 years.

  3. I am working on my language, I have not gone wimp, I passed on a more apt description.   However, reputable polls are showing decreasing support for healthcare reform/Obama.  See the front page story in the Denver Post:”Obama’s tools used against him in reform outcry”

    denverpost.com

    To suggest that this public outpouring is a “good thing” for Obama is to be drinking the kool-aid…

    Two points:

    1) Rupblican control of talk radio, locally and nationally, allows propaganda indoctrination; information on where and how to organize and a feedback loop for the faithful.  This is incredibly effective and costs the republicans NOTHING. I predict that the repubs will defeat the health care reform bill by fillabustering if need be.

    2) What is happening now is a repeat of what happened in the Spring of 2008.  Obama lost the last string of primaries to Clinton, with the same demographic voting against him.  He was urged to “fight back,” but did not.

    He counted the votes and he knew he had the nomination.

    I think he is doing the same thing now, he has the votes to pass healthcare….and a year to figure out how to keep control of Congress in 2010.  HOWEVER, he has to be able to stop a fillabuster…I think that is the key.

    1. I know we need health care reform, but I am honestly worried that it will not pass.  I think that you are right in saying that opposition has a lot of momentum right now.  

      To be honest, I don’t see the polling numbers for support of reform ever topping 50-55%, but if you look back at the Civil Rights act, you faced a very similar situation.  Democrats may need to grow a spine, vote for what’s right, even if its not popular…and risk not getting voted back in.  We elect these folks to govern, not to get re-elected, and I’d rather pass this needed reform and lose control of congress then to ‘kick the can down the road’ and keep a Democratic majority that is too afraid to do anything worthwhile.

      1. Pols & Obama are right down the line.

        In the end, some kind of health insurance reform will be passed.

        Obama didn’t fight back – nor did he run out the clock- in the primary season because the electoral math was pretty easy to calculate: he needed enough Clinton voters to vote in the general to win.  He wouldn’t have won Colorado without them- for example.

        Once passed- and death panels and organ transplant teams* don’t start appearing and the myth and hyperbole dies away, the mid-terms will be about “other stuff”

        In Colorado- the mid-terms will be about Bennet and maybe Markey.

        That gets us to year 3 of the Obama presidency – and I can’t see what will be the legislative priorities then. But I suspect Axlerod and Obama do see it.  Of course, we’ll see- but Obama seems brilliant to me now.

        2. We’ve already begun to see that, by golly, Obama isn’t a “Muslin” and isn’t cut-and-running in Iraq and Afghanistan. Yeah, the crazy birthers are still out there, but they’re just a Larouche/Ron Paul fringe element.

          These crazy lies about death panels and the like will come back to hurt the Palins and Grassleys who’ve been espousing them.

    2. I am not a fan, but it can legally be done.

      I don’t know how I feel about it, and if the GOP was negotiating honestly I’d say no to using reconciliation.

      But in the face of bad faith you have only one option: fight back with every legal tool at your disposal.

      2. “But in the face of bad faith you have only one option: fight back with every legal tool at your disposal.” – Amen to that.

        We have seen nothing other than complete and utter bad faith from the republicans on health care, from being invited to the table, then doing nothing, then saying they weren’t invited to the table, and now stoking falsehoods and confusion among the excitable crazies.

    3. And to extrapolate on something you hinted at, this is all on Obama. He needs to lead on this issue. He simply cannot afford to put his hands behind his head, kick up his feet on the oval office desk, and hope for the best. He’s been on the road to promote it at town halls, but all that’s doing is playing into the Republican strategy of protesting such forums.

      What he should do, and I’ve said this before, is get on national TV from the oval office, talk to the American people eye to eye and speak his case. When he lets other people direct the conversation, it only plays into the hands of his opponents.

      George Bush convinced the people that the Iraq War was necessary by speaking to them in that same manner. He got on TV from the oval office multiple times before the war started, and he was smart enough not to validate the critics by letting them ask the questions.

      I applaud Obama for not giving up on trying to change the way politics are done in Washington by allowing an open dialog on this issue, but right now his presidency is resting on this reform passing. He needs to take control of the message, and run with it until this reform is passed.

      1. I agree- after there’s a bill.

        Coffman said something at the townhall similar to you. He was trying to embarrass the WH and rile the R’s in attendance , which was pretty ez.  He said the President should have [resented a bill to Congress in completion with clear boundaries on what he would support and oppose in the final bill and then taken more of a leadership roll in getting that bill through Congress.

        Politically, that would have been by far the best thing for the R’s. They could have run away from any one detail, and run against it from now through 2012.  (Just like Dole/Kemp attempted to run against HIllary-care in 1996)  And I think that’s why Coffman said it.

        But legislatively- I think the better way was to tell Congress and the directly involved agencies: “I want health insurance and health  care reform and i want it this year.”

        And then let our representatives hash it out with us, themselves and anyone else interested. I expect the “real” debate in Sep – when the Senate is back.  And that’s exactly what I would have asked for.

        Btw- when it passes, the R’s are going to have to figure out how to look like something other than the party of no. Not in CO 5th or 6th – but in some places.  When they say but we had a plan just that the Ds wouldn’t listen and then when pressed it was Ensign’s vouchers or tort reform- those don’t sound like plans. And nowhere near enough to overcome the appearance of sitting on their hands during all those years of R presidents and R Congressional majorities.

        1. Good analysis, but I would just add that I think that if Coffman and the like refuse to propose real, comprehensive options instead of these ridiculous 15-page budgets and the like, they expose themselves as not ready for prime time (i.e., not ready to govern).

          So far we have seen no real, comprehensive alternatives offered by Republicans.

  4. Maybe the embarrassing spectacle of wild eyed Republicans screaming with spittle flying will actually cause people to question what the issues are and set off in a new direction of reconciliation and contributions.  Fiscal conservatives are very much needed to contribute to the financing and cost control aspects of reform.  If nothing else Enron and the Wall Street meltdown have shown that government regulation can protect people and markets.  The obvious fact that healthy people are more productive would seem a slam dunk that health care is in the best interests of our society.  This might be the start of a beautiful friendship all because the screaming spittle flying crazies were finally brought out of the closet.

  5. The impression of some local Democrats was that the rudest, most unruly, out of control people in the crowd were from elsewhere.  Why, we even had a Lady for Liberty (or something like that) from Aurora.  Opponents to health care reform were all over the map, and some were at times contradictory in their statements.  There was even muttering about Bosheviks in Washington.  If I were Senator Bennet I would not really understand what the opponents wanted or didn’t want.  But in the final analysis, Bennet did well on the topic of health care, and in managing some truly nasty people.  [It probably helped that there was a law enforcement presence just outside the door.]

      1. and use his bully pulpit abilities.

        Obama needs to stand up in front of the crowd and use the opportunity to contrast the screamers with real Democracy and ignite a real debate.  Use the presidency to restore civility at these forums.  I don’t mind the town hall format and really tough slanted questions if they aren’t delivered with as a scream.  Let there be an open microphone and give people from different backgrounds ask their questions.

        The best case scenario is he stands up and takes on these mobs and insists on a civil presentation of the sides.  The worst case is he just lets the mob run wild and fails to insist on standards of behavior in his town hall meetings.

        Go Obama!  Lead thy unruly and rude people.

    2. So? Let’s be clear, there’s nothing wrong with driving up to Frisco to talk with your senator — especially since he hasn’t held any health care forums in the metro area. It’s not like the busload of crazies who traveled the state to confront members of Congress outside their own districts. Everyone in Colorado has a perfect right to show up at a Bennet event and shouldn’t be dismissed for exercising that right.

      1. My point was that some locals noticed that “the rudest, most unruly, out of control people in the crowd were from elsewhere.”  Just an observation.  

        2. “Opponents of the reform plan, including the Western Slope Conservative Alliance and Americans for Prosperity, have sent out the call for extra protesters from Wyoming, New Mexico and Utah.”

          See, people can go anywhere to attend anything!

  6. I can put up with legitimate arguments.  But when you have no legitimate answer to the message, you instead choose to ridicule the messengers, sinking as low as saying these people are GOP hacks, bought and paid for by the insurance industry, or even to the low, low level of using crude sexual innuendo to refer to them.  They are not “teabaggers.”  They are, in the words of JFK, fellow Americans.  Please, disagree with them.  Disagree strongly.  Tell them where they’re wrong.  But don’t come up with these (very hypocritical) lies…

    1. as they have done unto me?

      If they are such patriotic Americans then why are they pretending that Obama isn’t their president?  You have a valid point that we shouldn’t use their level of crudity in referring to them.  I hope you make the same point among your Republican brethren.  Americans should be solving problems together rather than trying to out scream each other.  That’s no solution.

    2. before they realized what it meant.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v…

      Just like the 2M4M folks, movement Republicans don’t always realize what they’re saying until they’ve said it.

      And since “the message” is designed to obfuscate the debate with deliberate misinformation, why does it deserve a “legitimate answer,” rather than ridicule and derision?

      1. …be accused of far worse and more hateful tactics in relation to anti-war protests.  But that doesn’t mean it’s all of them, or even most of them.  And it certainly doesn’t make their message a moot point.  But we have to draw the line.  George Bush (a man I don’t support politically) had several members of his staff meet with Cindy Sheehan, but Barack Obama claimed not to know of the Tea Parties until the day of, and now he openly mocks the people turning up at these town halls to dispute his claims.  We all–ALL–need to just calm the hell down and have a civil conversation.

        As for the “teabaggers,” Griff Jenkins is a bit of an idiot.  We all knew that.  He does not speak for the masses.  I was at two Tea Parties in February/April, and I didn’t not see nor hear one person refer to us/them that way.

        1. Really? What were the lies anti-war protesters told? And I’ll thank you to remember that Democrats, at least the elected ones, stampeded along with Republicans into the Iraq War after a concerted pro-war campaign built on the administration’s lies.

          As for “teabaggers,” Tea Party boosters put the term into circulation. The fact you didn’t hear it until it became a term of mockery doesn’t change that fact.

          1. …except to say that all of our allies had the same intelligence, and whether or not there were WMDs, there was mass rape, mass murder, and mass corruption going on.  Not to mention Al Qaeda did (and still does) have a base in Iraq.

            For examples of the anti-war/anti-Bush protesters, just go here:  http://www.redstate.com/absent…

              1. …ignoring the point that actually related to the debate we were originally having.  “Occasional” cooperation with the terrorist group that took the lives of over 3,000 Americans is more than enough of a connection for me.  And the fact that he publicly declared his allegiance to Al Qaeda after the invasion began simply proves that Iraq was home to the evil dirt bags we suspected it was (aside from SH).

                Now–will you continue to deny the hateful rhetoric of anti-war/anti-Bush protesters?  Is your head really that deep in the sand?

                1. You’re just making things up at this point. Anti-war protesters are protesting war, so you know what, I’m going to give them some leeway to be vehement in their protests. Is their rhetoric “hateful”? Since your side got caught on the wrong side of a campaign of lies that’s cost our nation upwards of a trillion dollars and diverted us from bringing al Qaeda to justice, I can see how you’d think that. Sometimes the truth hurts.

                  You’re trying to find an equivalence between anti-war protesters — who are aiming their protests at Democrats in the link you provided, by the way — with anti-health care reform protesters, who are parroting the talking points and outright lies of the Republican establishment.

                  Anti-war protesters manage to express their point of view without making things up, which anti-health care reform protesters can’t manage to do — you really don’t see a difference there?

                  And if you’re still grasping at straws to find a justification for the Iraq War … that’s just sad, BR.  

            2. Did you even read your link? It’s highlighting people protesting the Democrats, not, as you said, “Democrats [who] can be accused of far worse and more hateful tactics in relation to anti-war protests.” And the protesters aren’t lying about anything, regardless of how distasteful you find their methods. Stop trying to find equivalences that simply aren’t there.

              1. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v…

                As I said, Griff Jenkins is a tool.  But he didn’t deserve this treatment.  Chants of “fuck Fox News,” pushing, giving the middle finger…

                http://www.youtube.com/watch?v…

                Then there’s this one, where people deliver messages to George Bush, including “fuck off and die,” “pull out like your father should have,”fuck you,”you’re a traitor and a coward,”

                http://blogs.abcnews.com/polit…

                Blatant violence…

                I could waste my time looking for more, but my point is that the left is as hypocritical as it gets.

                1. Earlier, you said it was Democrats. Since your examples show protesters opposed to the Democrats, I guess that dog won’t fly anymore.

                  “Blatant violence”? You’re right, the police at the RNC went way over the line. What’s that got to do with anything we’re talking about?

                  Since you can’t seem to grasp the difference between fringe groups protesting the Democrats and fringe groups embraced by Republicans, I’ll just wish you well in your cocoon there.

                  1. “giving the middle finger…,” the left’s version of death threats. It’s a wonder those poor shrinking conservatives can even get out of bed in the morning in the face of such rudeness.

            3. There’s mass murder, mass corruption and worse going on in any of a couple of dozen countries in the world right now.  Do you propose we invade China tomorrow?  How about Myanmar?  Sudan?  Somalia?

              Those last two even have an Al Qaeda presence which is far stronger than the (really, really weak) presence they had in Iraq pre-war.

              We went against international treaty and our own previously professed dictates on country sovereignty by invading Iraq; Congress was lied to, as were some of our allies.  Some – aka the UK – knew, yes.  That doesn’t make it right, or even more excusable – the discussions between us and our informed ally(ies?) often revolved around how best to deceive the population into accepting the war.   That in itself is disgusting.

              1. Trying to change the subject instead of talking about specifics.

                BR still can’t respond to my original question, which I will ask him yet again:

                What specifically are you, BR, against about this plan, and what is your specific policy prescription in lieu of the Democratic plan?

                  2. It’s kind of hard to discuss the various points of a plan, pro and con, when all we’re discussing is the same shit the MSM is parading about – protesters and absurd actions.

                    Laughing Boy promised a long post, and you’re sending private e-mail when asked.  I’d love to have a diary that actually debates points and doesn’t digress in to “he said, she said”.

                    1. I really hope he does. What he sent to me he says he wrote, so if that’s true I don’t feel comfortable reposting it. I’d like to see a discussion on the merits though, and that’s what he sent me tries to do.

                      It’s by far the smartest opposition piece I’ve seen–which isn’t saying much, but it’s a start.

    3. Republicans extending that same courtesy to anti-war protesters earlier this decade, but I digress…

      What is the message exactly? I haven’t heard a single argument from people at these town halls that actually addresses what’s in the proposed legislation. Maybe that’s just because the media doesn’t care when logical questions ar eposed, but I haven’t seen it.

      What I have seen is a lot of hyperbolic fear-based concerns that have been fed to them by the right-wing media machine.

      Are the protesters and tea party attendees real people with real anger? Absolutely. But the fact that we’re questioning their rhetoric doesn’t make us deluded.

      And your denial of the existence of any medical insurance lobbyist influence on this debate–either through the bussing of protesters to events, or the attempt to control the debate through yelling really, really loud–is pretty damn dillusional too.

    4. You can blame the Beck / Tea Party / 9-12 folks for the Tea Bag term.  We just picked it up because it was so silly that they referred to themselves that way.

      Some of these people protesting really are GOP hacks.  Some are terribly misinformed by those hacks (e.g. Medicare recipients protesting government health care…).  Some are opposed to the bill but are resorting to gross distortions to express their opposition.  And some are just rationally opposed to it.

      That last group is lost in the din of folks decrying “death panels” and the end of all things.  To bring it back to the OP’s point, that makes it easier for Democrats to say “Yes” to reform because the opposition appears to be completely off their rocker…

          1. …saying is that the people actually involved with the events did not refer to themselves that way.  There might be one or two out there, but that’s like saying that because I have a purple dog, all dogs are purple.  It just doesn’t make any sense.  I’m just sick of Democrats trying to take singular incidents and extrapolating them to describe the entire movement.  Did we not see the Craigslist ads that say they’ll pay $11-16/hr for anybody who wants to “work for change” by supporting the “grassroots” effort for the health care bill?  I did.  That doesn’t mean I dismiss anybody who claims to genuinely support the bill.

            1. Like the distasteful business discussed with RSB above, defining the opposition is key in politics.  Being able to do it using the opposition’s own terminology or history makes it much more usable.

              A couple of conservatives calling it “teabagging” means liberals don’t have to do any work to make the term stick – conservatives (even if only a few) defined themselves by that term.

              I guess the new term is 9-12ers, since Tea Baggers” didn’t work too well.  Good luck with that re-definition.

            1. Glenn Beck does not have full transcripts of his shows online anywhere that I could see (what I found is a small subset of them), so you can’t just search for it.

              If someone on Beck’s show called the protesters “racists,” do you think he’d complain? He runs the show, he controls the guests, and he lets them say what he wants them to say.

              Beck thinks of you guys as teabaggers.

              Here’s the registration form in Spanish, in case that’s more convenient for you.

    5. and deserve to be called thugs.

      There are people in this country who don’t make a cottage industry of trying to screw the most vulnerable, but rather strive to do the best we can to take care of one another, as members of a society should. And there are others who aren’t content merely to oppose this simple human decency with their weak arguments, but must organize to disrupt the public discussion directed toward the public good, out of fear that we might ever becoming a society characterized by something other than mutual indifference.

      The people you are defending deserve to be reviled, as do their defenders.

    6. They called themselves teabaggers, and it has been repeated in the media over and over and over. We didn’t pick this name, and neither did any other group but the teabaggers themselves. Don’t even try passing this one off. It’s a dumb name, yes, but they named themselves.

      1. …idea what you’re talking about.  Maybe, just maybe, you might provide some proof that the name “tea baggers” was embraced by ANY significant fraction of those who attended the tea parties.  I was one of them, and I can assure you that the first time I heard the term was on Countdown and then on Rachel Maddow.  These “journalists” (I know, the jig is up…) deliberately [over]used the term a hundred different times on April 15th alone.

        1. so it’s hardly surprising that the first time they’d see the term is after Fox starts griping about all teh gai on the other networks who make fun of them.

          We were laughing about teabagging for months before they finally figured out the joke and got offended.

          1. I’d say given the vast number of Republicans in Boulder, the odds are about 7 or 8 to 1 that you’re not Caldara.

            Whoever you are, you’re entitled to your privacy.

        3. Check out the extremely well documented wikipedia page on Tea Party protests, which has a subsection devoted to the origins of the “teabagging” phrase.

          In February, David Weigel of The Washington Independent photographed a protester holding a sign that read “Tea Bag the Liberal Dems Before They Tea Bag You.” The use of the phrase “tea bag” was used by others including Fox News Reporter Griff Jenkins and reteaparty.org. Salon.com, however, pointed out that “teabagging” has long had another meaning.

    7. The Democrats have legitimate proposals. The Republicans are “just say no”. No alternative, comprehensive counter-proposals.

      And regarding civility, I agree with you that “teabaggers” should be retired – although it was actually the Tea Party people themselves who chose that term to begin with, before realizing that it had a prior sexual connotation. But the truly vile stuff in this debate has been from Obama opponents – not just GOP, but Larouche-ites, Ron Paul types, etc. – who paint Hitler mustaches on him, Joker faces, and all this crap.

      And then there’s the eye-popping, vein-bulging displays of people crying “I want my America back!” Crybabies who can’t handle that they lost the last election fair and square.

      I have read garbage in the Denver Post recently in which people actually write that the military should arrest and execute Obama. And of course, there was that sign that said “Death to Obama” – and to Michelle and Obama’s daughters as well. (What was their crime?)

      Americans don’t like it when people yell and scream and interrupt other speakers. By and large, it’s the anti-health-reform types who are doing this.

  8. None of the screamers are going to EVER vote for Dems.  The anti-immigrant, anti-choice, anti-gay comments in the media have proved this.  Therefore, if I were an elected D, even a blue dog, I would say, “these people are never going to vote for me,” and blow them off.  

  9. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08…

    WASHINGTON – The stubborn yet false rumor that President Obama’s health care proposals would create government-sponsored “death panels” to decide which patients were worthy of living seemed to arise from nowhere in recent weeks.

    Rather, it has a far more mainstream provenance, openly emanating months ago from many of the same pundits and conservative media outlets that were central in defeating President Bill Clinton’s health care proposals 16 years ago, including the editorial board of The Washington Times, the American Spectator magazine and Betsy McCaughey, whose 1994 health care critique made her a star of the conservative movement (and ultimately, New York’s lieutenant governor).

    There is nothing in any of the legislative proposals that would call for the creation of death panels or any other governmental body that would cut off care for the critically ill as a cost-cutting measure. But over the course of the past few months, early, stated fears from anti-abortion conservatives that Mr. Obama would pursue a pro-abortion, pro-euthanasia agenda, combined with twisted accounts of actual legislative proposals that would provide financing for optional consultations with doctors about hospice care and other “end of life” services, fed the rumor to the point where it overcame the debate.

    Yup, totally genuine, and no political motivation outside of the health care conversation, right? Wrong.

    “I guess what surprised me is the ferocity, it’s much stronger than I expected,” said John Rother, the executive vice president of AARP, which is supportive of the health care proposals and has repeatedly declared the “death panel” rumors false. “It’s people who are ideologically opposed to Mr. Obama, and this is the opportunity to weaken the president.”

    The specter of government-sponsored, forced euthanasia was raised as early as Nov. 23, just weeks after the election and long before any legislation had been drafted, by an outlet decidedly opposed to Mr. Obama, The Washington Times.

    1. …for the term “tea bag” and it didn’t come up with anything.  I also watched the video, and it was not there.  I also said I was looking for him using the term “teabaggers” to refer to the people at the events, not “tea bag” generally.  Although I doubt you have even that…

      1. 1.  teabagger  

        multiple meanings. 1) one who carries large bags of packaged tea for shipment. 2) a man that squats on top of a womens face and lowers his genitals into her mouth during sex, known as “teabagging” 3) one who has a job or talent that is low in social status 4) a person who is unaware that they have said or done something foolish, childlike, noobish, lame, or inconvenient. 5) also see “lamer”, “noob”

        Matt baseball, I can’t believe he skipped our lan party to go to practice. Yeah, that kid is such a teabagger.

        2.  teabagger

        A whining fool shouting loudly for liberty but not willing to pay the bill.

        After most American workers saw more money in their paycheck due to the lower tax rate, the teabaggers at Fox News railed against high taxes, but did not discuss how much Jesus hated hypocrisy.  

          1. …one picture of a 14 year old holding a home made sign, a Twitter account, and a BlogSpot blog?  Do you know how many people have Twitter/BlogSpot accounts?  Like I said, you can find one in a million.  It’s there.  But it doesn’t represent the larger picture.

            I might also add that any or all of even these few examples could be post-4/15 and therefore a mocking reaction to the liberal media so readily picking up on the term.

            2. as well as the dateline on the photo.

              The whole tea bag thing originated when tea party protesters sent tea bags to their congress critters. (One hucked a box of tea bags over the Whitehouse fence – bad idea – the Secret Service cleared the area). Then, quite logically, some the protesters referred to themselves as “teabaggers.” From there it was a short step to others referring to all the protesters as tea baggers. But, lo-and-behold, teabagging has an alternate, profane meaning. Oops.

              But in your mind, it’s all the so-called liberal media (owned by large corporations that are decidedly non-liberal in their practices and lobbying). The same liberal media, I might add, that crucified Bill Clinton and gave Bush a free pass on the way to the Whitehouse and the subsequent doctrine of preemptive war.

  12. another “vast right wing conspiracy”.  Could it be that many of the people there are passionate about the issue and do not want a public option that will eventually lead to Government run health care (per Obama in 2003 and 2007 videos on youtube).  Some are no doubt organized by the Republican party or other interests but what is wrong with that?  The Dems do the exact same thing.  

    The premise of this article is wrong.  The polls are showing less support for a public option.  These town halls help prove the polls right.

    1. Makes no difference who you are

      Anything your heart desires

      Will come to you . . .

      Or, maybe it’s the little engine that could – I think I can (get rid of health care reform), I think I can (get rid of health care reform).

      We have a broken system of paying for health care.  We need to fix it.  Let’s get to work coming up with the best plan to do this.

    2. People who are passionately against health care reform are, on average, completely uninformed about the actual issues. So obviously their opinions shouldn’t be taken seriously.

      Turns out a lot of them are just old white people who are still pissed off that they are no longer allowed to say “nigger” in public.

    3. loudly and relentlessly doesn’t make them true, but it does persuade some among the weak-minded and poorly informed that they are true.

      They also persuade the less deluded and more responsible among us to fight back with truths, such as the truth that compensating doctors for “end-of-life counseling” bears no resemblance to “death panels” (talk about shameless fear mongoring!), and the empirical truth that government run health care systems have proven themselves to be far more efficient and effective than privately run health care systems.

      You and your little cadre of Hee-Haw rejects aren’t a new phenomenon: You’ve been with us throughout human history, terrified of every advance humanity has ever made. And though you have managed to do untold damage to untold numbers of human beings by mobilizing your ignorant mobs, in the end, you always lose. Because self-destructive ignorance just can’t stand up forever against informed and enlightened self-interest.

  13. as reported by Rachel Maddow this evening.

    From The Hill

    “I think the purpose of the town halls is for people to be able to express their views in an orderly and respectful manner, and that needs to take place on both sides,” said McMorris Rodgers, the fifth-ranking Republican in the House.

    “I certainly don’t condone violence, I don’t condone calling President Obama Hitler and painting swastikas on signs at town halls,” continued McMorris Rodgers, vice chairwoman of the GOP conference.

      1. They had to first wait and see how many lemmings would buy that crap.  It’s a marketing thing with R’s nowadays.  They are so bereft of vision, solutions and ideas. Thus, there is nothing left but to appeal to the baser instincts, fear being their manta now, of humanity.

        Josh Penry is the worst of them in Colorado.  As Congresswoman McMorris Rodgers points out, there should be a free back and forth exchange of concerns and thought. But as Penry made evident this past legislative session, he is not interested in dialogue with D’s or moderate R’s.  And how can you even start that dialogue, when, as Senate Minority Leader, you leave your seat vacant out of disrespect for The President of the United States of America, as Penry did when the President was in Denver, and while Penry was getting his picture taken with swastika signs.  

        Simply put, Penry bet all of his humanity on the wrong political ploy, and lost.

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

51 readers online now

Newsletter

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!