web analytics
Your Independent Alternative!

Democrats’ Fear Is Showing on Health Care

goldberg-post1The Democratic Party is panicking, lashing out like a cornered animal, all because its effort to take over the health care industry is coming apart like so much wet toilet paper.

Nancy Pelosi, who will get her own bound volume in the annals of asininity, has outdone herself. When asked by a reporter whether the protests at various town hall meetings represented legitimate grassroots opposition or were manufactured "Astroturf" stunts, she replied, "I think they're Astroturf. You be the judge. They're carrying swastikas and symbols like that to a town meeting on health care."

Now this is a pas de trois of dishonesty, slander and idiocy. Not only is Pelosi lying when she says protestors are bringing swastikas to these town halls, not only is she suggesting that American citizens are Nazis for having the effrontery to get in the way of ObamaCare, but she's also saying that the alleged swastikas are obvious proof that these protests are manufactured by slick P.R. gurus.

How does that work? What public relations genius says: "OK, we need these protests to seem like an authentic backlash of real Americans. Make sure everyone has enough Nazi paraphernalia!"

Meanwhile, Sen. Barbara Boxer insists the protests have to be fake because the protestors are too "well-dressed." Likewise, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs says this is all "manufactured anger" because the protestors -- he calls them the "Brooks Brothers Brigade" -- are too tastefully appointed to be authentic protestors. Apparently only filthy hippies can petition government.

This, of course, doesn't preclude the possibility that the protestors are also Nazis; they were snappy dressers (Hugo Boss made SS uniforms after all). But we'll leave that there.

The White House is asking supporters to submit the names of anyone who forwards e-mail with "fishy" information. "Fishy information" herewith defined as anything that serves as a speed bump for the White House steamroller.

The DNC has put out an ad claiming that the "right wing extremist base" is out to "destroy" Barack Obama, so it has unleashed "angry mobs ... mob activity straight from the playbook of high-level Republican political operatives. They have no plan for moving our country forward, so they've called out the mob."

The DNC ad points to a memo written by an activist named Bob MacGuffie as proof that Republican political ops are pulling the strings. It turns out that MacGuffie, a decent-seeming fellow, is a rank amateur whose Right Principles PAC has collected a mere $5,017, disbursed the staggering sum of $1,777, and has 23 members on Facebook and five followers on Twitter, according to the Weekly Standard's Mary Katharine Ham.

It's difficult for mere mortals like us to fully grasp the enormity of the Democrats' hypocrisy. Put aside all that talk of dissent being the highest form of patriotism. Overlook that Democrats would have upended jerry cans of gasoline and immolated themselves in protest if the Bush administration had asked people to inform on their neighbors. You can even forget that the DNC's claims are untrue.

But how can we ignore the fact that the world's most famous community organizer is whining about community organizing?

But wait: It gets better. As of this writing, the entire BarackObama.com site was dedicated to "Organizing for America," with a special page dedicated to "Organizing for Health Care," where supporters are asked to flood town halls and "make certain your members of Congress know that you're counting on them to act."

They only thing they left out is the instruction to leave the Brooks Brothers jackets and swastikas at home.

The reason for the panic is simple. Obama and the Democrats feel entitled to have their way on health care. This sense of entitlement is understandable. They won the election and control everything.

The problem is that Americans don't like what they've heard about the plan, and Obama is incapable of selling, or unwilling to sell, it on the merits (perhaps because he knows the plan will lead to the single-payer system he has long sought but now denies wanting). That's why Obama spends most of his time either attacking critics or denouncing the status quo.

Simply put: This administration believes it knows best. It feels it is the only legitimate beneficiary of "people power." It thinks it has a monopoly on democratic organizing. And it is terrified that it will be hobbled if it loses this fight.

So, it just stands to reason that anyone who stands in the way must be a fraud, a puppet, a goon -- or even a Nazi.

(You can write to Jonah Goldberg in care of this newspaper or by e-mail at JonahsColumn@aol.com.)

(C) 2009 Tribune Media Services, Inc.

18 Responses »

  1. It’s funny we hear Republicans say that they do not want “faceless bureaucrats” making medical decisions but they have no problem with “private sector” “faceless bureaucrats” daily declining medical coverage and financially ruining good hard working people. And who says that the “private sector” is always right, do we forget failures like Long-Term Capital, WorldCom, Global Crossing, Enron, Tyco, AIG and Lehman Brothers. Of course the federal government will destroy heathcare by getting involved, Oh but wait, Medicare and Medicaid and our military men and women and the Senate and Congress get the best heathcare in the world, and oh, that’s right, its run by our federal government. I can understand why some may think that the federal government will fail, if you look at the past eight years as a current history, with failures like the financial meltdown and Katrina but the facts is they can and if we support them they will succeed.

    How does shouting down to stop the conversation of the healthcare debate at town hall meetings, endears them to anyone. Especially when the organizations that are telling them where to go and what to do and say are Republicans political operatives, not real grassroots. How does shouting someone down or chasing them out like a lynch mob advanced the debate, it does not. So I think the American people will see through all of this and know, like the teabagger, the birthers, these lynch mobs types are just the same, people who have to resort to these tactics because they have no leadership to articulate what they real want. It’s easy to pickup a bus load of people who hate, and that’s all I been seeing, they hate and can’t debate. Too bad.

  2. I find it ironic that Liberals/Democrats are quick to assign "hate" to conservatives. The reality is the liberals are one of the most hate-filled special interest groups in America today. From attacking the children of candidates, to assulting seniors who disagree with them. The left has one primary attribute: visceral hatred for anyone who dares disagrees with them.

    It has been said that one can determine the game plan for liberals by listening to how they accuse their adversaries. I've found this principle to be accurate. There are now demands for "debate" but their liberal representatives stiffled debate in Congress- and have even alienated their conservative counter-parts: blue dog liberals. Obama himself proclaimed "we just want them to get out of the way". After average Americans decided not to "shut up and move over" the administration violates the law by formulating what appears to be an illegal enemies list (we've replaced "tricky Dickie" with "Mullah Obama").

    When average Americans were ignored they became outraged. Take for example the now infamous video of Lloyd Doggett in Austin Texas. The townhall participants didn't arbitrarally start chanting "just say no". Those participants, many of whom were Democrats (one wonders why anyone with a brain would want to be a Democrat), responded to Doggetts answer to a question. The Congressman answered that he would vote for the Health care takeover in spite of his constituents desire to repudiate the legislation, ( so much for Representational Government), so they began to chat "just say no". It was a reasonable reaction to illustrate to the Representative (so called) that his district wants him to represent them with a "no" vote. It made sense to anyone, again: with a brain.

    Were Democrats truly concerned about violence at their Townhall Meetings, they would bring in qualified Security officers: not Union thugs who assult the elderly. Those who attempt to divert attention from this fact illustrates the hatred they accuse conservatives of displaying. They just aren't being honest.
    Take for example the Mullah Obamas own verbiage: "punch back twice as hard". This is as despicable as threatening to "bring a gun to a knife fight, and bring a bigger gun to a gun fight". Mullah Obama has some pretty strong language for a coward who hides behind the lives of Secret Service agents. The Mullah needs to understand that America is a much different place than the corrupt-microcosm called Chicago from which he originates. We don't back-down when threatened with violence- even from a politician.

    The soultions are Simple:
    1. The GOP should create televison commercials
    a. showing and repudiating the Democrat violence towards the eldery. We all have parents and (at least the memory of) Grandparents and the thought of Some AFL-CIO hoodlum "manhandling" them is offensive to Americans.
    b. Highlighting Mullah Obama proclaiming "bring a bigger gun"
    c. Highlight the fact that the opposition to this takeover is bi-partisan.

    2. Produce and air an infomercial highlighting the problems with the(I believe there are) 3 propsals circulating for consideration
    a. The dangers to the elderly, the health care system as a whole, and the implimentation of a caste system for who recieves adequate health care.
    b. Counter the false accusation that Rebublicans/Conservatives don't have a plan. Anyone with a brain knows this isn't true- just like they know the outrage at the Townhalls isn't "paid for by insurance companies".

    3. Vote "Republican" in the next two election cycles. The goal is to repudiate this legislation. Any Democrat who doesn't leave the Party of Oppression is now not worthy of Representing average Americas- unless of course, they represent the Average San Francisco American: their choice of Representatives certain reflects their view of society.

    4. Actively/consatntly tie any Democrat to the Party of Oppression 1 yr out from their re-election attempt.

    a. Continue to speak up, and speak out.
    b. NO EXCUSES from Democrats in the next election. No "I was trying to find consensus", no bringing home more bacon (ie: MORE GOVERNMENT SPENDING), not even an explanation that "I didn't vote for the bill" (we all know the Dems allow neo-conservative Democrats lay low prior to their re-election). Either change your party, or we're going to change your job!

    c. Don't bring a knife to a gun fight, or a gun to a knife fight: BRING A VOTE TO THE ELECTION FIGHT!

    For Americans, this is the line in the sand. Any politician who crosses it had damn-well be from a liberal district: otherwise the Republican Party should make sure your constiuents know you are a socialist. Have a problem with the word? That's good Americans have a problen with the principle.

  3. Paul, all I ask is that you present proof of the faceless organization telling the Republicans (as you put it) where to go and what to say.

  4. JDavis & Mike: It is very American to want to help our fellow countryman. I believe in my government especially our men and women in our military, firefighters and police. You two, not so much. Lets face it the previous administration did nothing (except start two wars of choice that are bankrupting our country with all the “war profiteering” contracts to Halliburton) well you and I will just have to agree to not agree. I did not believe any of the Republican rhetoric before the last election and I do not believe them now. I do not believe that your sentiments are in line with the majority, but your comments, funny stuff.

    • Paul, I don't believe in the Republican rhetoric or the Democrat rhetoric. All I asked for was proof of your accusation. Instead I got insulted.

  5. Paul, I believe in our form of government. I believe America to be the greatest nation on earth, and the envy of the world. I consider myself (as you do yourself) to be very pro-military, and very pro law enforcment. Having said that, you have nothing to substatiat your proposition, which makes it your opinion. Congratulations: Americans are allowed: in spite of hotlines to the White House.
    This, however, has nothing to do with any of my propositions. Where in your post do you show that the democrat Party is not a consortium of hate groups?
    Where did you show that the Mullah didn't say he wanted conservatives to get out of the way? Or encourage violence, up to and including firearm violence?
    How did you explain that Doggett got a rowdy meeting because of "hatred" and not because he said he would vote for the Health Care bill even if the majority of his constituents didn't want him to? I must have missed that in your post.

    I'm looking for your evidence that the Democrats aren't acting contrary to the will of the nation.All I see is "you aren't for our military or home defence personnel".
    You are grasping at straws. You are looking for any excuse to blame Bush for Health Care, and you aren't doing a very good job at it.
    I'd normally laugh at a post like yours, but quite frankly, there isn't enough in it to laugh at. I suggest you go back to your moveon.org suscription, then come back with enough for us to laugh at. Geez, what a putz!

  6. Ten months ago, the current administration won a conclusive electoral mandate. So did the Democratic Party's candidates for the U.S. House and Senate. Perhaps that's what makes the President and Congress think that are representing the will of the American people. Seems like convincing evidence to me.

    • Here's the evidence that says you're wrong:

      "Sixty-seven percent (67%) believe politics in Washington, DC will become even more partisan over the coming year. That’s up from 55% a month ago and from 40% when President Obama took office"

      This is a direct quote from the Rasmussen poll results. The more partisan the administration and the Dem party become, the lower their approval numbers go.

      "The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Sunday shows that 32% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Forty-one percent (41%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -9. . . Today’s update marks the highest level of Strong Disapproval for President Obama. Previously, the number who Strongly Disapprove had reached 40% three times in late July. Most Americans would prefer no health care reform this year rather than passage of the legislation currently working its way through Congress. "

      One can say "polls" aren't how you're supposed to govern. I would agree. However, when a President spends the weekend in the west to garner support from "independent thinkers" (which is what the vanity fair type photo shoots at Yellowstone and Grand Canyon were all about) and still loses to an approval rating of 32%- you know you'd better start paying attention. At this point, the only people giving the Mullah strong approval ratings are those who actually like his ideas: which shows they are the minority opinion in this great nation.

      So ten months ago, people voted for the Mullah because they perceieved him as a uniter (very odd conclusion, since he'd wriiten about his opinions: and they are anything but inclusive; but it was what it was). Now they are finding out the antithesis is the reality: and the American people obviously aren't happy. So much for the "mandate" you presume to incorporate into the discussion.

  7. TDiPod: Apparently you and the administration were wrong about their mandate perception. Americans now trust Republicans more than Democrats on the issue of Health Care.

    Here's what you have to learn. An election win doesn't give the victor permission to thwart the will of the people. In America, citizens have the right (and therefore the responsibility) to insist their Representatives do just that: represent THEM. Most of the time Americans allow the Representative to make judgement calls: and they are excused if they make a decision contrary to what the folks back home want, and sometimes they lose their jobs for it: they serve the people; at the will of the people. Then there are times when a Representative becomes a politician. The indication of this is when the their Party goals circumvent the constituents goals.The situation is exacerbated when the Politician (no longer a representative) comes home and misleads, and lies to those who trusted him enough to give him the job: this is where we are. People should not be expect to, nor will they be, passive in these situations: thus you have raucus townhall meetings.

    To say "we won the election, we can do what we want" isn't representative-style government. That perspective not only wreaks of arrogance, it illustrates adolecent narcissism. The reality is the current administration has encouraged and initiated violence in these town hall meetings. The Democrats have insulted and lied about average Americans coming to those meetings, and the nation has decided the adiminstration isn't representing what they voted for. You've not posted anything to illustrate the antithesis of those facts- they are irrefutable.

    To proclaim "we won, now you just get out of the way" isn't American. It's contrary to the Constitution, and is just plain ignorant.

    • Jim,
      I seem to recall plenty of times that President Bush ignored the will of the people, making point of the fact that he didnt "blow with the polls" like Clinton did. One of the time he did do what was "popular", we got the Perscription Drug entitlement, and the Republicans in congress went right along with him.

  8. So now Jose likes Geoge W. Bush? That's an interesting turn of events. I would remind you that Bush did cave in to the will of the public when he "settled" for Prescriiption drug entitlments instead of over-hauling Social Security. This is when the Democrat Party took the position that "Social Security is fine" There's plenty of money, and we don't need overhaul". So the truth is Bush DID listen to the American people in that situation. In fact, the combination of his attempt and the Mullah's attempt to euthenize the elderly have given the Republicans the upper-hand on Social Security, according to the national polls.

    I would remind you that even Abraham Lincoln said "Every administration has to take into account public opinion. Without doing so, little can be achieved."

    Your post still doesn't address the fact that the current administration has encouraged and initiated violence in town hall meetings. The Democrats have insulted and lied about average Americans coming to those meetings. Now, the Mullah Obama wants to posture like he never took a violent posture against those Americans, and "show them how to have a peaceful townhall meeting". By the way, we call him Mullah because he wants people to get out of his way and let him do what he wants to do. Here's some insight for you: Republicans can have peaceful meetings as well: as long as we stack the audience with partisan supporters. Thanks for the tip, Mullah.

    Your post doesn't address any the issue of violence, nor does it excuse the Mullahs attempts to bypass the will of the people. Again, "we can do it because Johnny did it" is an adolecent attempt at justification: especially when you get Johnnys' story wrong.
    But I have to give you credit: your post did make me laugh. Thanks for the entertainment.

    • I vote for him twice, Jim, it is not an "interesting turn of events" I have been a Republican this whole time, despite your assertions to the contrary. I would not say I am his biggest fan but he was a far sight better than Gore, Kerry or Obama.

      I did not address the other things because they were not part of the point I was trying to make, but since you seem intent on discussing theM, I do agree that brining union people to the meetings may not have been direct incitement to violence, but it was indirect and likely, the President should and probably did know better.

      You still have not addressed my point that President Bush was not in tune with the "will" of the American people either. It seems likely that you missed my point entirely so I will clarify.

      President Bush conducted his foreign policy in particular with little regard for public opinion as a whole. He did what he thought was necessary to keep america safe, which is a constitutional mandate.
      This business with Health Care is not abotu the "will of the people'. If the shifting tides of public opinion were really that important to the founders, they would have made us a direct democracy. This is about the Presidents extra-constitutional grab on health care. It is also about both sides of this debate trying to use demagougery and big flashy scare tactics to shock people into supporting them. Perhaps that kind of drivel is necessary in todays society. Hoever, the more I see people I identitify with ideologically acting like a bunch of Code Pink Maniacs at a World Bank protest, the more I become concerned.

      • You sound like a pouty teenager. Bush lives in Texas. The Mullah lives in the White House. Let me help you: you gotta let the Bush derangment syndrome go. You gotta let it go.

        My propositions stand: and they are irrefutable.

      • So I agree with President Bush and what he did and you call me a pouty teenager and tell me to let go of BDS which I do not and never did have?

        I would consider belaboring this point, but you would probably still not understand. You really need to read through before you have another emotional response and pop off at one of my posts.

      • Josey, I did read it. We agree where we agree. Your BDS just shine through, that's all. You gotta let it go. . .

      • Ummmm. OK there, Jimbo, I would like to know where this mysterious BDS shines through so I can cure myself of this ailment while I still have my own plan.

  9. One political commentator described the Mullahs situation so secinctly when he penned: ""We see this on health care reform, which the presidents pollsters told him - six months into the debate - he must instead call 'health insurance reform,' a phrase he repeated five times in his prime-time news conference and at least 20 times in five days of appearances since.

    "The problem is many Americans remember Mr. Obama started his health care push by focusing on covering the uninsured and reducing costs, not knocking insurance companies upside the head.

    "Public support for his plans shrank when Americans saw the trillion-dollar-plus price tag, recoiled from the intrusive expansion of government into patient-doctor decisions, and came to understand the plan was financed in part by huge cuts in Medicare and large tax increases.

    "So, after running into heavy opposition among congressional Democrats and growing public hostility to his plan, Mr. Obama has now recast the debate as an attack on insurance companies, with the president serving as savager-in-chief. This would be more credible if he hadnt surrounded himself with insurance CEOs and lobbyists when he kicked off his effort in March."

    This description is so very accurate that the Mullah has yet to counter any of these observations.