Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

GOP Antics

Two months ago, I thought that the GOP was poised to make huge gains in this year's elections.  But with Republican House members shouting about how the health reform bill is a "baby killer", with Tea Party activists using racial epithets against John Lewis and other African American Democrats and calling Barney Frank "a faggot", and now with this, I don't think so anymore.  No one overplays a hand like the GOP, and they are fast turning themselves (back) into laughingstocks.

Keep it up there, guys.  You're making this easy for the rest of us....


( 25 comments — Leave a comment )
Mar. 24th, 2010 09:42 pm (UTC)
If they keep this up we might be able to hold our own in the elections this November.
Mar. 24th, 2010 10:58 pm (UTC)
I think so.
Mar. 24th, 2010 11:10 pm (UTC)
Will they still have Congress people to vote for?

1/3rd aren't filling out the census... :)

And...1/3rd aren't going to pay taxes...tough to vote in jail...

And the final 1/3rd are in their basements cleaning their guns...

Who will be going to the polls?
Mar. 25th, 2010 12:31 am (UTC)
Interesting point. I love the idea of the wingnuts thinking that they're outsmarting everyone by not filling out the census, and all they end up doing is costing Utah and Texas and Nebraska Congressional seats
Mar. 25th, 2010 01:53 pm (UTC)
I usually clean my guns in the sunroom, but that's because the light's better.
Mar. 25th, 2010 11:30 pm (UTC)

Probably less dust as well... :)
Mar. 24th, 2010 09:51 pm (UTC)
My middle school students have more decorum than most of the GOP these days. *sigh*
Mar. 24th, 2010 11:01 pm (UTC)
Agreed. I'm pretty partisan, but even I believe that a vibrant two party system makes us stronger. But the behavior of this GOP is just too ugly....
Mar. 25th, 2010 03:47 pm (UTC)
Of course you can only have a viable two-party system if both parties participate. The GOP's skulking around only shows they're willing to make things harder for everybody when they don't get their way. It's clear, however, the message they're sending and the lesson the REST of us are learning about them from this is not the one they think they're teaching us. Will they NEVER learn? *double-sigh*
Mar. 25th, 2010 04:07 pm (UTC)
Valid point, John. Participating ought to mean engaging with the issues, addressing them maturely and substantively, and being willing to debate and compromise. We've moved away from that. both sides have, to be honest, although I think the most egregious abuses have come from the right.
(Deleted comment)
Mar. 24th, 2010 11:04 pm (UTC)
Yes, Tiffany, I do. But I know that we as a nation have survived worse than this, and always at times when progressive movements are on the rise. The nativism and anti-government rhetoric in the 1930s during the New Deal was pretty appalling, and of course the resistance to the Civil Rights movement was horrible. Even during the Clinton years, when Rush Limbaugh was doing his "America Held Hostage," schtick, things got ugly. The right in this country is often virulent in its resistance to change. So I don't see anything now that is much worse than what we've seen before. Still, it is worrisome.
Mar. 24th, 2010 11:07 pm (UTC)
Once you light the match...let the genie out of the bottle...let the Beck on TV...it's hard to go back.

The most recent poll shows self-ID with the GOP at 23% and these:

Strong Democrat 18%
Not strong Democrat 12%
Independent, lean Democrat 17%
Independent, not lean 20%
Independent, lean Republican 13%
Not strong Republican 8%
Strong Republican 13%

And, they had a Research 2000/Daily Kos poll out a few months ago that was savaged on the right because of who put it out and that the GOP wasn't really insane. Harris just put out a poll that proves a lot of them are....

Mar. 25th, 2010 12:40 am (UTC)
Others reading this comment should check out Hedwig's post -- the numbers above are promising. The numbers from the Harris poll he mentions are terrifying.
Mar. 25th, 2010 01:04 am (UTC)
We can't. She has it friends-locked. *smile*
Mar. 25th, 2010 01:11 am (UTC)
Oh. Oops....
Mar. 25th, 2010 04:23 am (UTC)
What is the line about sanity...only the insane don't fear for theirs... :)

And, I have all my LJ posts on friends lock so it's not likely anyone on yours would be able to see my posts...

Can find the poll results here:

Mar. 25th, 2010 02:47 am (UTC)
David, if the media focused on the bad boys of the Democratic Party what would your impression of Democrats be? All movements attract dweebs and jerks, and all movements can be made to consist mostly of dweebs and jerks by how they are studied. I remember when D&D players were presented as dorky Satan worshippers with body odor and obsessive habits Being a D&D player at the time I can assure you no one I knew even knew any Satan worshipper, or even why you'd want to.

I learned about media duplicity back in the 80s, and nothing I've seen since then has changed my mind.

We tend to remember the disruptions and the bozos, the quiet and the reasonable tend to get over looked.
Mar. 25th, 2010 03:36 am (UTC)
What you say about the media looking for the worst in people is probably true. But who do you look at for the GOP to use as an example of "quiet and reasonable"? Certainly not Sarah Palin, who was the first to popularize the "Death Panel" nonsense. Certainly not Michelle Bachman, or Steven King (R-Iowa), Certainly not Limbaugh, or Beck, or any of the other clowns at Fox News. Do we look at Boehner or McConnell? They've been repeating lies about the health care package, too: "It's socialized medicine, it's being passed using fraudulent legislative strategies (which, by the way, we've used again and again, but never mind that). We need to start from scratch because we've been left out of the process. We can do this piecemeal." They never mention that in fact they've been brought into negotiations on this bill again and again from the beginning, but never offered any positive suggestions. They opposed it from day one, not because they disliked the policy, but because they disliked the politics. They know that passage of this bill will help the President and hurt them, and that's been the only calculation that mattered. The very suggestion that you can do this piecemeal is a lie. The one thing that EVERYONE agrees on is the need to get rid of insurance company abuses and number one on that list is the pre-existing conditions thing. And you can't fix that without an insurance mandate. Eliminating prohibitions on PECs drives costs up; you mitigate that by widening the pool. And you save people and governments (state and Federal) money by getting people insured so that they don't use ERs as "health insurance." But you never hear about this from the right, because the policy equations don't work for them. The only they have going is "NO." The rest is bull.

Yes, my little post focused on the most egregious examples, but the GOP has been shameful in its attacks on this bill and this Administration. Find me a quiet, reasonable Republican in Congress right now, one who is addressing these issues in an honest way. I'm looking, and I don't see any.
Mar. 25th, 2010 08:38 am (UTC)

How much do you think it would cost if your car insurance paid for oil changes and tire rotation?
Mar. 25th, 2010 02:59 pm (UTC)
I find it funny that opponents of health care reform use the car insurance analogy selectively to make points. How many states in the US REQUIRE people to have car insurance in order to drive? And how many of those states are the same ones talking about challenging the health insurance mandate? (My state is one of them, sadly.) Are our cars more sacred than our health? Than our children's health?

Sure, car insurance would be more expensive if it covered maintenance, but it's a faulty analogy. If my car needs work because I couldn't afford preventative maintenance, the expense is mine, no one else's. But if I get sick because I can't afford preventative medicine, and if I don't have insurance and so wind up in an ER, that costs everyone money. It costs local governments money, it drives up hospital costs, which in turn drive up insurance costs. Poor health care and insurance in this country has social and economic costs that this bill seeks to address. That's why the bill will SAVE money over the course of the next twenty years, and even more beyond that.
Mar. 26th, 2010 01:58 pm (UTC)

Does preventative medicine work? Don't people get sick anyway? Don't people get injured, die no matter how often they see the doctor? Is preventative medicine all that cost effective? I see the doctor when it's time to get more medication. She limits my visits because I cost her clinic money. I cost the clinic money because they accept my insurance, my insurance doesn't may the full cost of the visit, and my insurance demands paperwork.

Ever thought about how much doctors etc. spend on insurance paperwork, private and government? All so you don't have to pay out of pocket. (Yes, I just said you bear responsibility because you don't feel like paying cash when you could afford it.)

I need to see a dentist I have to pay cash. California will not disburse Medicaid funds for dental care. The same for optometric treatments. California continues has she has, she'll flat out bar paying for basic care out right. While your private insurance covers basic care, my government insurance won't, mark my words.

My point is, you pay for the service, and the service is having your insurance company cover your basic care. You really want to save money on your medical care? Here's what you do:

Pay cash for basic treatment. Get generic medications where possible and pay cash for that. Outside of an annual check-up see your doctor when you get sick. Save emergency room visits for emergencies; for injuries and the like. Get out more, do more. Exercise and eat right. Set priorities and do without. Take care of yourself and stop relying on other people to take care of you.

I'm for effective health care reform. I don't see where continuing with the failed policies of the past does us any good, and a lot of harm. Sir, universal coverage is not the solution to the problem, universal coverage is the problem. Can't afford preventative care? Join the club. When I need to pay cash for routine visits (and the day will come) preventative care will not just be discouraged, it will be outright barred to me. Already I'm asked to save my visits for when I have a problem, so I save my visits for when I have a problem. Guess what? Other than Type 2 Diabetes and a possible Vitamin B complex deficiency I'm damn healthy. My diabetes is under treatment, and my vitamin deficiency soon should be; but both are due to my behavior, not because I didn't see a doctor on a regular basis just in case.

What I trying to say is, you'll get sick even with preventative care. By paying for your basic treatment yourself and saving your insurance for catastrophic events you'll save money, and be able to pay for your basic care. Get an annual check up, see your doctor when you need to otherwise, and go to the emergency department when you have an emergency.

I'll end this with a bit of news I caught recently. My Aspergers stopped me from remembering the details, but the story goes that a California hospital investigated why so many people visited their emergency so often. They found out that most of their repeat customers went their because they had no primary care physician. Indeed, many of them were homeless. So they started a program, getting people hooked up with primary care physicans, and getting their homeless clients hooked up with social programs that would get them off the streets. According to the story, they're saving millions a year.
Mar. 26th, 2010 03:26 pm (UTC)
Yes, preventative care works. Of course people get sick anyway. But over the long term catastrophic illnesses are caught earlier or prevented altogether when people have access to routine check-ups and screenings. That saves them money and the system money. The "pay cash" approach you outline doesn't work for those who are unemployed or even for the working poor. And universal coverage can't be the problem because it does not exist in this country; it never has.

I am fortunate in that I can afford preventative care for my children as well as for my wife and me. We have good health insurance that covers that care, which includes not only check ups but regular immunizations for my kids, mammograms and other routine tests for my wife, periodic checks of my high cholesterol. Without insurance, we couldn't afford all those things. And my point is that everyone should be as fortunate as my family. We live in a country that thinks nothing of spending billions on weapons systems and tax breaks for the wealthiest few. I think that health care for those who can't otherwise afford it is a far better use of that money.

Clearly though, you and I disagree. And that's fine. I thank you for your thoughts, your courtesy throughout this exchange, and your willingness to debate the issue on its merits. I think that if people in Washington (on both sides) had approached the debate as you and I have, this would have been a far less painful process.
Mar. 25th, 2010 02:19 pm (UTC)
Thought you might want to see this. They're going to push petty to defeat in Nov... Thanks for using the Newt Gingrich playbook guys...

Mar. 25th, 2010 03:00 pm (UTC)
Yes, this was the same link that I had in my post. Amazing that they think this is a winning strategy.
Mar. 26th, 2010 01:27 am (UTC)
One more thing...that I thought you might like...

I don't care who ya are, that's just funny...

( 25 comments — Leave a comment )


Australia, Ghost Gum
David B. Coe

Latest Month

September 2014


Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by Lilia Ahner