We recall when the L-word was Limbaugh: Watching MSNBC has become increasingly painful.
The station churns endless propaganda with its teams of propagandists. It’s often wrong on the simplest facts. For one especially embarrassing episode from Politics Nation, cover the eyes of the kids, then fight your way through this three-part report from PolitiFact.
(One example from that program, uttered by Goldie Taylor: "You know, our national debt is as low as it has been since World War II.” Good God.)
The channel is painful to watch. Even by its own declining standards, we thought Chris Matthews was especially clownish last Friday.
As he started, the irate talker was extremely upset. He was horrified by something Dick Cheney had said:
MATTHEWS (11/15/13): A new low from Dick Cheney. Let’s play Hardball.Needless to say, Chris immediately advanced the idea that Obama was being accused of lying because he’s black. Surely, no white president has ever been accused of lying about something, or has even called a liar!
Good evening. I’m Chris Matthews out in Los Angeles. Let Me Start tonight with this.
The political right in this country has reached a new low, as I said. It has shown from the beginning that President Obama doesn’t deserve the decency accorded other American presidents. His enemies have called him an illegal immigrant, a street corner con artist, a fraud, a Manchurian candidate brought to this country to undermine all we stand for.
Well, now Dick Cheney comes right out and calls him a liar. When a right-wing back-bencher did that four years ago, he was called out for rebuke even by his own party. Well, now what was condemned as historic bad behavior comes snarling out of Dick Cheney’s mouth, and nobody says to shut up.
Well, we can argue, as we do here, about the problems implementing the Affordable Care Act, but is this, calling the president a liar, the new language of American politics, or is it a language specially treated for the country’s first African-American president?
Is this president of a lower caste than those elected to the office before him? Or do those on the right believe he even is the legitimate president of the United States, or that someone like him could be?
For ourselves, we rarely use the L-word; it’s hard to know when someone is lying as opposed to simply being mistaken. But the foolishness was already extremely thick at this point.
One example: Four years ago, Joe Wilson was widely condemned for yelling “You lie” during a State of the Union address. All through the segment, Matthews pretended he didn’t see the distinction.
To be fair, Matthews suggested at one or two points that he was only offended by the idea that politicians would drop an L-bomb on a president. But he made that distinction only intermittently, and he soon threw to regular guest David Corm.
As noted, we think people should stay away from the L-word, as was the norm long ago. That said, Corn was a slightly odd guest for this particular segment. His first book, published in 2004, bore this title:
“The Lies of George W. Bush”
Whatever! David even reinvented the definition of the word “lie” to give that book more punch. We’re not even saying he was wrong to do that, although he plainly was.
That said, the analysts roared at David’s reply to Chris. How odd!
David did the thing his host hates most! He dropped serial L-bombs on Cheney:
CORN: Well, can we just say of all the people to call anyone else a liar, Dick Cheney should not be at the top of that list? I mean if you go back to Iraq—we`ve talked about this over the years—he was the one who said that Saddam Hussein was amassing weapons of mass destruction, no doubt, to use against the United States.We’re not even saying that David was wrong. But just like that, there he was calling a big pol a liar! It’s the very thing Matthews hates!
He kept talking about the lie that Mohammed Atta had met with Iraqi intelligence officials in Prague. He talked about the aluminum tubes. He said there was no doubt there was strong evidence of strong connections between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein. He lied repeatedly.
And he really, for all that, should sort of be drummed out of polite society and that of the media. But unfortunately, he’s not. Those lies actually were done, I think, maliciously to get the American public to back a war which they might otherwise not support.
Suddenly, Chris didn’t seem to think the L-bomb was so offensive. But so it goes on this increasingly clownish cable pseudo-news channel.
Corn’s reaction provided a bit of short-term humor. Still, we really had to marvel at Chris. Was he really pretending that Obama is the first Democratic president or vice president to be attacked this way?
Back in the day, President Clinton and Candidate Gore were called liars until they were blue. As we mused, we recalled one of the most significant Hardball programs in history.
It was Thursday night, October 5, 2000. Candidates Bush and Gore had staged their fateful first debate two nights before.
On the night of that first debate, something unusual happened. Matthews was part of a five-member MSNBC panel which judged, unanimously, that Gore had cleaned Bush’s clock.
Even Peggy Noonan said it. Members of The Jack Welch Five searched for explanations for Bush’s gruesome performance. Matthews: “I don’t know whether he's tired tonight. People say he had a cold. People say he goes to bed normally before this time of night at 9:30.”
All five panelists said that Gore had cleaned Bush’s clock. The next night, Wednesday, October 4, Matthews took things one step farther. In a segment with Christopher Hitchens, he marveled at the fact that his colleagues in the press corps were largely refusing to say that Gore cleaned Bush’s clock.
(Matthews: “I couldn’t believe the number of people who chickened out last night. It was clear to me—and I am no fan of either of these guys entirely, and I can certainly say that about the one who I thought won last night, that’s Al Gore. I thought he cleaned the other guy’s clock, and I said so last night, and all four national polls agreed with that. In fact, the one with the largest sample, which was CBS, found a 14-point spread of those who thought that the vice president really leveled the other guy. I don't understand why people are afraid to say so.”)
Matthews had been trashing Candidate Gore in reprehensible ways for two solid years at this point. Suddenly, he was light-years off the reservation. And then, sure enough! On Thursday night, October 5, he reversed himself!
All of a sudden, Matthews said that Bush came across so well in the 15-second clips from the debate that he had pretty much won the debate after all! He began reciting all the standard new attacks on Candidate Gore. And who do you think he brought on the air for a very long segment as his honored guest?
Brother Matthews brought on Brother Limbaugh! Needless to say, the pair took turns dropping L-bombs on Clinton and Gore:
MATTHEWS (10/5/00): Joining me here in the studio, as advertised, is a true American hero and patriot, many millions of listeners believe, talk show host Rush Limbaugh.The L-bomb felt different to Matthews back then.
LIMBAUGH: Great to be here. But you need some new video. You had a 100-pounds-ago video of me.
MATTHEWS: OK, let’s talk about this, if it happens. If Gore wins, how do you explain it? Is it just simply the power of the economy? Because Gore is not exactly, you know, Mr. Congeniality. He's not exactly your idea of the best guy to sit next to you on an airplane.
LIMBAUGH: I would— No, he's not. He’s not somebody that you want to go to a ball game with and chase women afterwards. He's not somebody that you want to go out and have a good time with. He's the guy that irritates you. I think that the explanation for a lot of things that you and I and a lot of people look at and don't understand is prosperity. Prosperity breeds contentment, which can breed laziness...
Bush has to make a case as to why there is a reason to change right now. And there are any number of ways he can go about doing it. I think he is succeeding in doing it. I think he will succeed. I think his performance in the debate as time goes on— You look at what’s happened since this [first] debate. The media's focused on Gore and on what specifically—that he lied, that he made things up. And now they're starting to ask, “Why is he doing it?”
He didn't have to grab Winifred Skinner. He could have gotten a legitimate woman with trouble.
MATTHEWS: This is the woman who went out to collect cans to pay for her—and now has a Winnebago courtesy of the Gore campaign.
LIMBAUGH: He could have gone to a school with a Winnebago and a crew that was paid for by the Democrats. He could have found a school that was in trouble, but he made one up, a school that's not in trouble. People are beginning to ask, “Why does he lie?” And when you start these psychologically—
MATTHEWS: Does anyone care? Clinton lied all of 1998 and it didn't bother anybody.
Matthews interviewed Limbaugh for the first half of the program. He completely abandoned his stance of the previous two nights.
We’ll guess that this astonishing flip was executed at the request of Matthews’ owner, Jack Welch. But whatever the reason might have been, Matthews went back to playing all the familiar old cards:
MATTHEWS: Forget the fact you are on the more conservative side of things than I am. I think we share some reverence for the White House and the presidency in this republic.Chris clambered back on message that night. He made himself right with the team.
MATTHEWS: And when I watched The West Wing last night, which was absolutely spectacular, although they have a liberal point of view for the president, Josiah Bartley, the reverence for the office of the presidency is almost religious. The reverency, reverence for the White House, for the place, is sacred.
How can the American people on Wednesday nights when they watch that show have this unbelievable romance with the office of the presidency and let a guy like Clinton prance through the office?
LIMBAUGH: I don't know.
MATTHEWS: How does that happen?
LIMBAUGH: I don't know.
MATTHEWS: The disconnect doesn't make sense to me.
LIMBAUGH: I don't know that there's a connection there. I haven't seen The West Wing, I have to tell you, so I don't know specifically to what you refer. But I don't think—
MATTHEWS: The romance of the office, that this is where a great man rules.
LIMBAUGH: OK, but they're not watching the show for that reason. For instance, if they were, Clinton would be long gone. If they're watching that show for any reason, it's because it entertains them. They're not associating the reverence for the office that may be in that show with real life. I don't—they can't possibly be, as you point out.
MATTHEWS: That's the problem.
He returned to his Clinton/Gore-hating stance of the previous several years. The L-bombs didn’t faze him.
Matthews let Rush rant for half an hour. The interview aired at 5 PM. It was re-aired by Brian Williams in the 8 PM hour, during the lead-in to that evening’s vice presidential debate.
In other words, Jack Welch’s cable “boy toys” went deep into the bag on that high-profile night.
Just for the record, Clinton and Gore were trashed as liars for years. But Matthews is one of the biggest frauds ever let loose on TV.
Joan and David pretend they don’t know what he did in the bad old days. They do know what he did, of course. It’s just that they’re being paid.
Chris was paid to say those things back in the Jack Welch era. Today, he’s being paid to pretend that the L-word was never uttered before—that it must be happening now because Obama is black!
When we liberals tolerate this sort of thing, we prove again that we’re dead in life. We show why we'll never be up to the task of achieving progressive reforms.
You got scammed by Chris back then. Chris is also scamming you now. David and Joan are along for the ride. The Benjamins help them forget.
Bone-gnawer is going to lose it now:ReplyDelete
Posted: 1:00 p.m. Monday, Nov. 18, 2013
George Zimmerman arrested on domestic violence charges
Its all the librulz' fault.
Please stay in your car.Delete
According to Shawn Vincent, a spokesman for defense attorney Mark O'Mara, "Mark O'Mara is not representing George Zimmerman in today's matter," won't represent him in any other new criminal complaints and "as such, it is not appropriate for him to make any comment."Delete
Yes, Mental Giant Trolls, if only juries would just throw the book at defendants based upon no greater evidence than their being troubled.Delete
And goodness knows that fact absolves the media from any responsibility for accuracy.
What does this say about the judgement of your God who was carrying a brief for Z for months and used the case for librul-bashing?Delete
Who needs juries, CeciliaMc?Delete
Zimmerman tried, convicted, and executed Martin (for being someplace Zimmerman didn't think he should be) without any jury at all.
But I do see Bob's point that just because Zimmerman is prone to violence (and most assuredly is someone who should never be allowed to possess a firearm), doesn't definitively mean he's a racist.
Anon4:18, liberals like you who thought a man should be convicted for murder on the basis of his not being the most stable element on the Periodic Table, should be bashed.Delete
You're dumber than a steamer trunk full of rocks and the essence of an angry mob.
God you people are tiresome. But you do LOVE your StrawSomerby!!Delete
- StrawSomerby "carried a brief for Z" ??? (that's what it is, I guess, when you accurately point out that "liberals" misled their viewers/readers about the case)
StrawSomerby's point is that Zimmerman's not "definitively" a racist??? (I guess that's what your point must be when you show that someone's supposed racism isn't even being being introduced as a factor in his trial, much less supported by evidence)
Boring Z trolls are still boring -- whod've guessed?
Anon4:28, too bad you can't also see that you haven't accurately described the claims in the case.Delete
Zimmerman tried, convicted, and executed Martin (for being someplace Zimmerman didn't think he should be)Delete
By "being someplace" you mean sitting on top of him raining blows and smashing his head into concrete. I agree with the jurors and the law that Martin being in that "place" gave his victim the right to use deadly force.
"....liberals like you who thought a man should be convicted for murder on the basis of his not being the most stable element on the Periodic Table..." CeceliaMcDelete
That is your own dishonest characterization. Zimmerman should have been convicted because he so obviously was a lying sack of shit. It is offensive for you to mischaracterize the opinion of people who weighed the evidence and reached a different conclusion than you did.
mm, again, you need to be bashed.Delete
Nothing proves that more than your issuing nothing more than an assertion ("he is so obviously a lying sack of shit"), utterly clueless to the fact that a defendent does not have to prove himself innocent, and the witnesses did nothing to prove his guilt.
That's not a dishonest characterization, you haven't got anything other than a claim that he was lying based upon his finding Martin suspect in the first place.
Another day and Zimmerman may well do something that lands him in jail. That too will have to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
I'm sorry that you have such a low regard for that standard. However, I'm happy as hell that there are bloggers around to bash the hell out of your dumb ass.
CeceliaMc, you are without a doubt the most annoying ignoramus to post here regularly. You're the one that made an assertion,Delete
"....liberals like you who thought a man should be convicted for murder on the basis of his not being the most stable element on the Periodic Table..." CeceliaMc
How the fuck do you know? I'm not going to waste my time going over the evidence again because you are truly a waste of time. Now you mischaracterize what I said and argue that a defendant does not have to prove himself innocent, a claim I never made.
There was sn argument offered up, mm. That is that Zimmerman tried, cionvicted, and executed Martin upon the basis of Martin being where Z. didn't that he should be.Delete
That Zimmerman left his car.
I made an assertion about your intelligence andressoning, not. the guilt of a guy who has been tried.
You want more respect, then your side needs to be a lot more coherent than these sorts of silly maudlin "bon mots" you endlessly toss about when it comes to the case.
Why did Zimmerman follow Martin in the first place? What exactly made him suspicious of Martin?
"That's not a dishonest characterization, you haven't got anything other than a claim that he was lying based upon his finding Martin suspect in the first place."Delete
What made him suspect Martin in the first place?
And from there, how did he prove upon a reasonable doubt Martin was doing something criminal?
Finally, Zimmerman shouldn't have been found guilty of murder for not being the most stable element on the Periodic Table. He should have been (and still should be) denied the right to carry a firearm for being so.
Shame on liberals for getting together and voting to keep Chris on the air after his performance with Rush.ReplyDelete
And shame on you for reminding us that after he created the Internet, Al Gore almost created Vice President Lieberman.
Gore mistakenly thought he had to distance himself from Clinton, not an unreasonable view given the trashing of Clinton by the media elite. Lieberman was the voice of prudery at the time. He later became Bush's pet Democratic hawk, but it doesn't seem fair to blame Gore for not being prescient.Delete
Then what makes one think Gore wouldn't have mistakenly attacked Iraq after 9/11, to please those same media elites who were leading the charge for war?Delete
He might well have, Berto -- and on that point Somerby has been on speculative ground re Gore. We can't know what evil he'd have done in Iraq to a certainty. But we do know to a certainty what evil Bush did.Delete
But on the substance of media malfeasance, Somerby was exactly correct.
There is nothing in Gore's history to suggest he would go out and attack someone (anyone) just to demonstrate the strength of the US after 9/11, as Bush/Cheney did.Delete
AnonymousNovember 18, 2013 at 5:18 PMDelete
Don't drink Bone-gnawer's cool-aid. Gore is on record that he wanted Papa Bush to go all the way to Baghdad (I think it was in one of the Bush debates).
Give me Baby Bush's unvarnished cruelty any day over the sanctimonious Clinton/Gore administration that kept inhuman cruel sanctions on Iraq for their entire tenure and undertook periodic air-attacks on Iraqi soldiers going about their business in their own country.
The US has been cruel and minatory in its foreign dealings throughout its existence and Republican vs Democrat is not something that can change that.
Anonymous at 5:18 pm,Delete
What in Gore's history suggested he would have to distance himself from Clinton in the 2000 election?
Two words, Berto. "Joe" and "Lieberman."Delete
I would be more inclined to believe that Matthews had sold out completely if not for a statement he made of the Clinton Era.ReplyDelete
Chris said that he caught a lot of flak from liberals about his disapproval of Clinton during the Lewinsky scandal. He said he found that ironic because he agreed with Pres. Clinton in his policy positions, whereas these same liberals didn't and thought the president too conservative, but had his back about Lewinski.
I think Matthews is an egotistical social-climbing boor, who thinks that his support for the most powerful man in the world is the same as being a Freedom Rider facing death threats.
However, I do remember that remark and his seeming sincerity, and I think that he still may possess his soul.
FWIW, the soul is not ours to possess. It is given from God who may take it back upon death, or give it to Lucifer to crush, along with the body, forever in Hell.Delete
What is the good of supporting Clinton's policies if Matthews is going to trash him regularly over the other stuff?Delete
When Somerby tries to link this group of Irish Catholic media pundits to their shared heritage, it is largely over lingering issues of Catholic prudery, learned from the nuns and never quite outgrown (if you believe James Joyce). The condemnation of Clinton over some trivial sexual behavior arises not from any shared moral repulsion, since the overwhelming majority of those polled across the US didn't care about Lewinsky, admired Hillary, thought it was no one's business what they did (in the oval office or elsewhere) and saw this as the Republican plot to disable Clinton's presidency that it was. Only this group of New England pundits were upset about the sex stuff, and unfortunately they controlled a visible part of the media. It was odd how out-of-step those essays were at the time, but it makes sense when Bob Somerby points out that shared Irish Catholic background, since that is exactly the way a bunch of disapproving old-country Irish women would have discussed the so-called scandal in their kitchen conversations, or the neighbor kids holding hands, for that matter.
Anon4:07, but while we're still here and hooked on oxygen, we most certainly can sublease it.Delete
Anon4:07pm, not everyone was raised in Gomorrah.Delete
Your Biblical understanding is appalling. I'll pray for you.Delete
Selling your soul is a conventional expression used to convey moral compromiseDelete
It's not a Biblical exegesis, Anon10:58pm, so quit being a putz.
Perhaps the former Vice President should be credited with having what it takes to spot a liar.ReplyDelete
Great article. I'm going to blog about this in a liberal message board so that Democrats get really angry. I love to see Democrats angry. Somerby disrespected Obama-asskisser Chris Matthews. That's a no-no.ReplyDelete
You go do that and don't come back.Delete
Strawman sock puppet alert.Delete
Cecelia is fuming because Tweety got caught playing the race card.Delete
"Got caught"? He has played it relentlessly and proudly.Delete
He dresses for parties at the White House while looking in the mirror and imaging how heroic he'd be when faced with fire hoses.
The ability of a partisan, on either side, to see and present only his side is amazing. Matthews talks about maintaining reverence for the White House and the presidency in this republic. But, Mr. Obama did more than his critics to reduce reverence for he White House when he falsely repeated that we could keep our insurance and our doctor. Mr. Obama's actual falsehoods were the primary problem, not the fact that his opponents used the word "liar".ReplyDelete
Mr. Obama also gave a boost to racism. Lying is a negative stereotype that blacks are burdened with. Mr. Obama strengthened this stereotype.
The idea that all members of minority groups must be exemplary because their behavior will reflect negatively on their group -- is bunk. Don't blame Obama or anyone else for the nasty racial stereotypes others hold. Every minority group has been accused of lying, being dirty, being too sexual, being stupid and lazy, stealing, etc.. It is part of the definition of "other."
If you took Obama's statement to mean you could force the insurance company to keep offering you the same insurance if you liked it, or that you could keep a policy with a $10,000 annual cap on coverage because you "liked it," then you are extremely stupid. To people not salivating over the chance to accuse the President of "lying" -- and you do not know the definition of that word, either -- some obvious qualifications were built into the statement.Delete
"Mr. Obama also gave a boost to racism. Lying is a negative stereotype that blacks are burdened with. Mr. Obama strengthened this stereotype".
Go fuck yourself!. And eat shit.
You racist bastard.
AnonymousNovember 18, 2013 at 5:25 PM -- I agree that just about every minority group has been accused of lying, etc. But, I think minorities should bend over backwards to refute these stereotypes. It isn't fair that they should need to do so, but OTOH bending over backwards actually works.Delete
Many years ago, I read an article about a black tennis coach when tournaments were just becoming integrated. He instructed his players not to call an opponents ball out, unless it was out by at least 2 feet. This was utterly unfair, of course. OTOH this extra-good behavior led to the rapid acceptance of black tennis players.
Urban legend -- The President repeated said, "If you like your insurance, you can keep your insurance, period." IMHO the word "period" effectively told the listener that the President's promise was unqualified.
BTW here's a challenge for you, ul. Write a clear statement of what you think the President did mean. I bet you can't find any interpretation of his promise that will turn out to be fulfilled.
BTW 3 days ago it was reported that UnitedHealth was dropping thousands of doctors from insurance plans. I'm waiting to find out if my doctor was one of them. So, Obama's promise that I could keep my doctor was untrue. Not to mention his promise that I'd save $2500.00.
Hey, jackass. When the president said you could keep your doctor did you take that to mean that Obama could prevent your doctor from moving, retiring, losing his or her license etc etc etc.......Delete
Hey, rude anon. I took that comment to mean that I wouldn't lose my doctor as a result of Obamacare coming into effect. The thousands of doctors being dropped by United Health are being dropped because of certain provisions of the ACA.Delete
David, you frustrated warped little old man. Why so bitter? Why does it burn your sorry ass to have this president try to address the health care problems in this country? You think everything was just peachy-keen before? I have been continuously employed by the same company for the past 26 years. You want to know how many times during the 90's and 00's I have been told that my company had to change our health care and I would have to change networks. And how many times, at some points twice a year, our contributions would have to increase and our benefits would have to decrease? It was a running joke.Delete
Now tell me, what specific "certain provisions" of the ACA forced United Health to drop thousands of doctors?
it was a dumb statement by Obama. What percentage of people get to keep the exact same insurance policy with the exact same premium and exact same coverage for 2 consecutive years?Delete
I'm going to guess it's less than 1%. But, even if my guess is off by as much as an additional 98%, that still makes Obama's statement dumb.
"One example from that program, uttered by Goldie Taylor: 'You know, our national debt is as low as it has been since World War II.' Good God."ReplyDelete
The "Good God" here without explanation is irresponsible. I don't think I believe someone who is really a novelist to understand the intricacies of the national debt, but there is substantial truth behind what she said even ijf she was technically wrong: (1) as a percentage of GDP, the only really valid way of measuring its significance, the national debt is now lower than it was at its peak during and for several years after World War II -- levels, by the way, we easily handled with strong economies that raised the denominator of the ratio (GDP), brought in more tax revenue and reduced the need for unemployment compensation and other safety net expenditures; (2) because of historically low interest rates, the cost of servicing the national debt is as low as it has ever been since World War II either as a percentage of GDP or a percentage of the Federal budget.
These are important considerations in how much we should be worrying about the national debt (not much, if at all), a crucial public policy issue that affects the lives of tens of millions of people. It is worth a lot more than an unexplained "Good God."
She has a degree in political science from Emory and training as a deputy press secretary before writing her first novel. She can be expected to get that one right. The lazy shorthand way in which people throw things around these days is part of the problem when viewers must make informed decisions at the polls. Close enough is not good enough. It would be nice if Bob explained the way you did, but it is also kind of obvious what's wrong with her statement. Why should someone with so visible a podium be given a pass?Delete
The true statement would be "The ratio of national debt to GDP is the highest ever in our history, except for during WW2." Taylor's actual words bear no relationship to this version.Delete
BTW Relating the national debt to GDP is better than using actual dollars, but it's far from perfect. In 1945 the debt could be expected to reduce because many men were re-entering the civilian workforce and because military expenditures would come way down. Neither of these conditions applies today.
At this point, most people who are political junkie enough to at least occasionally check in with The Daily Howler know the strange saga of Chris Matthews, how when MSNBC decided to change it's target audience they brought in Rachel Maddow to lightly slap Chris on the wrist for his years of ugly sexism in the manner of Hillary Clinton (boys will be boys) while letting progressives of the Clinton hating mode know what a great guy he was. I've gotten various reactions from people of the liberal stripe when I bring up Matthews highly checkered past: A) they don't know, seemingly only to have started paying attention to talking heads in the Obama era, B) they know and don't care, as long as he's on our team now all is forgiven, this is, after all, Roller Derby.ReplyDelete
Many people were downright unseemly in there praise of Matthews during the primary, but the late Nora Ephron was an social climbing political hanger on anyway. The Daily Howler's pal Bill Maher never got "realtime" enough to call out Mr. Flippy Floppy either.
So, it's a dead, dead horse. During Katrina, when it finally became somewhat permissible to point out that The President was a raving and belligerent incompetent, a slightly embarrassed Mathews kept proclaiming that New Orleans needed a major talent to whip things into shape, like Cheney or (his then favorite Presidential Candidate) Rudy G.
Americans eventually saw through Rudy and most have seen through Matthews. They will not call Matthews out until he starts singing Hillary's praises in a couple of years. It will be car wreck entertaining…..
I fear that the mental gymnastics required to believe that "If you like your policy, you can keep your policy. Period" was not a lie may cause permanent damage.ReplyDelete
I fear that the mental gymnastics required to make Obama's statement a lie has already caused you permanent mental damage.Delete
The statement was made in the context of the Republican disinformation campaign that tried to stoke the fear that the ACA would automatically force people to buy insurance on the exchanges.
So, now bad policies that don't meet standards have been cancelled, and people are pining for them. Can these people get as good or better insurance on the exchanges? Some can, and some still won't be happy. And Obama didn't figure on that.
Not just a mistake in your book. It has to be a lie.
That's why I fear for the damage already done.
So the president simultaneously reassured people that they could keep their policies, while being unaware that they feared losing these policies and being forced to buy new ones?Delete
You once said that I demanded an unreasonable standard of proof that the Million Vet March folks were comfortable with white supremacist thinking.
The president knew that certain mandates about maternity coverage and pediatric dentistry would indeed void many "bad" plans.
Even if he considered the new offerings to be the same as their old plan (only better) so therefore these people were not effectually "losing" their plan, but having it expanded, he still knew that the old would be done away with.
Unreasonable person that I am when it comes to standards of proof against people, I'm still quite able to believe that the president was not lying to his thinking.
However, he most certainly was finessing this issue during an election when it would have had personal consequences.
I have no problem with the notion that Pres. Obama thinks folks are better off now, and have "lost" nothing, but he knew their fears, was under no illusions about what they wanted to know, and he finessed the issue.
Boy, did he finesse it. You are right in your suggestion that he inexplicably failed to calculate a great many people's reaction to that.
I agree with this completely. I just think its sad that so many people actually want to keep their awful and expensive policies.Delete
It would be like complaining about being forced to turn in your leased vehicle (in exchange for a cheaper better vehicle) because of a law mandating that cars be manufactured with airbags.
Better analogy would be like complaining that a law prohibiting you from taking a motor scooter with a top speed of 30 mph on a freeway highway is forcing you to buy a brand new Cadillac.Delete
The theme of your blog is very beautiful and the article is written extremely well, I will continue to focus on your article.Horse Stable Suppliers in Australia which provide you varieties of horse stables of unique modular design.ReplyDelete
Porno, Porno izle, Türk PornoReplyDelete
Porno, Porno izle, Sikiş izle
Porno, Porno izle, Sikiş izle, Sikiş
Porno, Porno izle, Sikiş izle, Sikiş
Porno, Porno izle, Sikiş izle, Türk porno
Porno izle, Porno, Sikiş izle
Porno, Sex, Porno izle
Porno, Porno izle
Porno Sikiş, Porno, Porno izle
Porno, Porno izle, Sikiş izle
Porno, Porno Sex Sikiş, Porno izle
Porno, Sikiş izle, Türk Porno, Kızlık Bozma
Porno, Sikişme izle, Türk Porno, Kızlık Bozma
Türk Porno izle, Türk Pornosu, Türk Sex, Türk Sikiş
Porno Film izle, Türk Porno, Sikiş
Porno izle, Porno video seyret
Türk Porno Resim, Türk Porno, Türk Porno izle, Türk sikiş,ReplyDelete
Porno, Porno izle, Sikiş izle, Türk porno,Mobil Porno,
Porno, Porno izle, Sikiş izle, Türk porno,Mobil Porno,
Porno, Porno izle, Sikiş izle, Sikiş, Türk porno, Mobil Porno,
Porno, Sikişme izle, Türk Porno, Kızlık Bozma, Porno izle,sikiş,
Porno izle, Porno video seyret, Türk porno ve sikiş seyret, Porno,
Türk Porno izle, Türk Pornosu, Türk Sex, Türk Sikiş,Türkçe Sex,
Türk Porno, Türk Pornosu, Türk Sikiş, Türk porno izle, Porno izle, Porno,
Porno, Sikiş, Porno izle, Mobil Porno, Türk Porno, Sikiş izle, Seks izle