After "insulting" seniors below, now I take a shot at the younger generation - in this case Matt Yglesias and Ezra Klein, who come to pre-excuse a potential political failure by the Obama Administration on health care. Yglesias cites Klein:

I don’t know how many times a president has to fail to solve this problem before we admit that it’s not a matter of presidential messaging, or toughness, or will, or strategy. FDR, Truman, Nixon, Carter and Clinton all took runs at this prize. All of them failed.

This is ridiculous. 2008 is not 1994. Or 1976. And so on. And to say FDR "failed" or LBJ "failed" on health care reform is beyond ridiculous. Hell, if Obama can achieve "the failure" LBJ did, how exciting would that be?

Here's a question though, why are Yglesias and Klein intent on excusing a potential Obama failure on health care reform? What do they know that we do not? We know Klein is an Obama Administration apologist and pet (I'm sorry if that offends, but that is simply what the evidence demonstrates.) Is the inside word that health care reform is gonna fail? And if so, do Rahmbo and Axelrod really think that whispering this nonsense into the ear of young Klein is gonna ameliorate the resulting political debacle? Really?

Speaking for me only

Via Yglesias, Andrew Sabl calling the seniors opposed to health care reform (what I have termed Laffer-ism, but "Selfish Socialism" works for me too) selfish socialists:

Some of the most virulent opponents of health reform are the elderly, who already have government-provided health insurance. While some may be too silly to know that that's what they have, a great many assuredly do know it, and are happy to pull up the ladder behind them. Medicare is already very successful and very generous. Under universal coverage, it's unlikely to get much better (except for prescription drug coverage, but not all the elderly take a huge number of pills). And it could, for all one knows, get worse. To avoid that risk, better that some youngsters go without.

This reasoning, though, is brutal--too brutal to acknowledge. While we're a pretty selfish country, "I'm all right, Jack" is not an argument people comfortably make when others' lives are at stake. But "if this passes, they'll euthanize me and my friends" is another kind of argument altogether. It's false, but easy to seize on as a morally comfortable pretext for opposing a bill that threatens one's self-interest.

Let the generational pie fight begin.

Speaking for me only

From the comments, this excellent post on the NYTimes web site is pointed out to us. I recommend it be read by all. It makes some good points about "the question" brouhaha and gets the facts straight - something the Media does not do very well. But just as importantly, it links to this video, which, unfortunately, will not make the evening news or be the subject of a Maureen Dowd column.

Speaking for me only

The latest Gallup poll demonstrates, for the umpteenth time, that political analysts and reporters do no understand polling:

In a survey of 1,000 adults taken Tuesday, 34% say demonstrations at the hometown sessions have made them more sympathetic to the protesters' views; 21% say they are less sympathetic. Independents by 2-to-1, 35%-16%, say they are more sympathetic to the protesters now.

The findings are unwelcome news for President Obama and Democratic congressional leaders, who have scrambled to respond to the protests and in some cases even to be heard. . .

The reporter who wrote this, Susan Page, is a classic CW type who basically spouts whatever her colleagues are saying. This is another example. My reaction to the poll is this - only 34%? That's great news for Obama. These type of polling questions are simply restating the basic question - do you oppose health care reform? Only 34% say they do? That's not bad at all. As for the "independents" nonsense - it is important to realize that true independents are a small percentage of "independents." 75% of "independents" are weak Dems or Republicans. This silly trope is trotted out all the time. Anything else worth noting in this Gallup poll? Let's see on the flip.

As regular readers know, I never have had a strong opinion on health care reform. I think it sounds like a good idea but I can't pretend to have studied the issue in detail. But, I have reacted to the Tea Party "arguments," such as they are, against health care reform, and they make me want to be on the other side of the issue from them. Again, from the NYTimes report on the Arlen Specter town hall:

“This is about the dismantling of this country,” Katy Abram, 35, shouted at Mr. Specter, drawing one of the most prolonged rounds of applause. “We don’t want this country to turn into Russia.”

(Emphasis supplied.) What does this mean? Health care reform would "dismantle the country?" Like Medicare did? Or Social Security? It sounds like a time warp hit these folks and sent them back to fight against the New Deal. Which leads me to my next question - what is this supposed to mean? "Standing two feet from the senator, Craig Anthony Miller, 59, shouted, “You are trampling on our Constitution!” (Emphasis supplied.) How would health care reform "trample on our Constitution?" This must have some connection to the Constitution In Exile people, who want to roll back the New Deal (except for their Medicare of course.) More. . .

The business about “death boards” is over-the-top nonsense and is indeed being presented in a dishonest, unhelpful manner. But nobody — not even Sarah Palin — is arguing that the Democrats actually put a measure into writing that requires offing granny when she gets too sick to be worth the cost of healing her.

From a NYTimes story on the Arlen Specter town hall yesterday:

Many seemed concerned about issues that are either not in the health care legislation or are peripheral to the debate in Washington — abortion, euthanasia, coverage of immigrants, privacy. “It says plainly right there they want to limit the type of care elderly can get,” said Laurel Tobias, an office manager from Lebanon, referring to a bill in the House. “They are talking about killing people.”

(Emphasis supplied.) Somebody is arguing it, Mr. Joyner.

Speaking for me only

The AP factchecks Sarah Palin's claim that the proposed health care reform bill would create death panels by depriving seniors of life-sustaining treatment.

Palin's claim:

Federal bureaucrats would play God, ruling on whether ailing seniors are worth enough to society to deserve life-sustaining medical care. Palin and other critics are wrong.

So, it's not true. It's another Sarah Palin lie. Either she's not intelligent enough to understand the plain English of the bill or, like Supreme Court opinions, she hasn't read it....or she's just an opportunist out for headlines that will mobilize the right-wing. Take your pick. I'll choose all three.

There's an interview with former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales in tomorrow's New York Times Magazine.

He has finally landed a new job. He'll be teaching at Texas Tech University. Among his courses will be one in political science, "Contemporary Issues in the Executive Branch."
Among his other disclosures:

• No company or law firm has offered him a job since he resigned
• He hasn't spoken to former President G.W. Bush since Bush left office.
• He has substantial legal bills (and people are raising money for them, but he hasn't asked Bush or Cheney for help
• He's writing a book on his time in office but has no publisher yet.

Really bringing the stupid - the new leader of the idiots - Sarah Palin:

As more Americans delve into the disturbing details of the nationalized health care plan that the current administration is rushing through Congress, our collective jaw is dropping, and we’re saying not just no, but hell no!

. . . The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama’s “death panel” so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their “level of productivity in society,” whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil.

These people have the "collective" brain of a 4 year old. And I bet he was glad to get rid of it.

Speaking for me only

John Edwards' former lover, Rielle Hunter, spent 9 hours at the federal courthouse in Raleigh, N.C. yeterday. She brought her daughter and was escorted into the courthouse by two F.B.I. agents.

Maybe she couldn't get a babysitter, but this seems a little over-the-top.

The grand jury is investigating whether Edwards' campaign misused funds in paying Hunter for her video work. [More....]

"Adolf Hitler issued six million end of life orders--he called his program the final solution. I kind of wonder what we're going to call ours." - Right wing opponent of health care reform

Via Brian Beutler:

Speaking for me only

Paul Krugman:

There was a telling incident at a town hall held by Representative Gene Green, D-Tex. An activist turned to his fellow attendees and asked if they “oppose any form of socialized or government-run health care.” Nearly all did. Then Representative Green asked how many of those present were on Medicare. Almost half raised their hands.

There is a phrase I am trying to coin for this phenomenon - Laffer-ism - see also this.

Speaking for me only