RSS Feed MenuTwenty minutes into my two-hour wait to get a seat at Senator Ben Cardin’s town hall event, I started keeping a “Nazi tally” by counting references I overheard to Adolf Hitler, Germany, or the Nazi Party. Besides the usual suspects, the Lyndon LaRouche brigade was out in full force handing out fliers and pamphlets likening Obama to a new Hitler (although the real problem is the Jews, if you ask them, so I’m not sure why they don’t welcome that). It was a common theme, and not just amongst the anti-Semites: “This is exactly how Nazi Germany began!” was a standard echo heard in line.
After a couple of arguments with Christian fundamentalists who accused me of not really being on their side because I’m a godless libertarian-type, the lines funneled in. “Welcome to an exercise in democracy, son,” a guard told me. Indeed. By way of contrast, while standing in line to question Cardin, I spotted an eleven-year-old boy being told by an older woman that “this isn’t what democracy is about.”
The town halls are exactly what you’re seeing on television. The crowds are overwhelmingly conservative — and I mean Glenn Beck conservative, not David Frum conservative. I’m talking angry, ready-to-roll conservative, not rational, let’s-discuss-philosophy conservative. I can’t think of any more appropriate word than ‘redneck’ to describe most of the crowd. Literally every person who took more than ten seconds to preface his question was shouted down by “Ask your question!” by an array of overfed hicks. They were also prone to shout “You work for us!” and “You just don’t get it!” at Cardin, as if Cardin should be expected to represent the ideals of the 9/12 Project or something.
A reporter for The Hill interviewed me afterward, asking me about the tone of the locals. I apologized for their behavior, of course, but hastened to assure her that she should not neglect the rational, capitalist case against “universal health care.” That same theme tied into the question I asked Senator Cardin. “My question cuts to the philosophical root of the issue,” I said. “Strip away the histrionics of the crowd, the specific provisions of the individual bills, and what you’re left with is a question of its philosophical core. So I want to know: in your political philosophy, how do you determine what a right is? And more importantly, how do you determine what a non-right is?” The crowd clapped, though not as enthusiastically as they did for those filled with anger. Cardin’s response was typical political mush about how he believes in corporate responsibility and good government. Okay, whatever. I tried to follow up, but the microphone — understandably — had been turned off.
After the town hall ended, an obese women in a plain white t-shirt attracted the attention of about a dozen reporters. Practically in hysterics, she explained that her liver was thrashed and that under Obama’s plan, she’d be killed off as an unproductive member of society. The woman was bawling her eyes out, the reporters taking in every tear. Nobody wanted to talk about the issues. They wanted their narrative. And they got it.
Cardin himself is useless; if there’s a bigger nonentity in the Senate, I can’t think of one. Every last one of his answers were pathetically canned, although someone managed to squeeze out support for investigating tort reform from him (don’t hold your breath). But nobody left the town hall knowing anything more than they did when they arrived. On the other hand, though, nobody actually showed up to learn anything about the bill. I’m not sure who’s more responsible for the pointlessness of the event: the audience or Ben Cardin.
All in all, I’d have to say that I learned something today: what we need is not health care reform. What we really need is education reform.
Image courtesy of Gracie Films and 20th Century Fox Television.
IndependentGirl // Aug 13, 2009 at 5:21 pm
Chekote – If you truly wanted competition, you would want the government to enter the market. Yes, competition works, but the so-called “barriers to entry” as you put it do not exist. I can start an insurance company tomorrow if I want. That is simply not the problem. The TRUE barrier to entry in the health insurance market is the oligopoly that the big companies have created. Small companies are being pushed out of the market or taken over by the giants. In fact, it’s not just happening in the insurance industry, it’s happening to some degree in every industry. How does that equal more competition?
I just stated that we pay slightly less taxes than the European countries. What part of that did you not understand?
As far as the deals go, yes plenty more will be made. Are you aware of how our political system works? In order to pass a bill, you need votes & support.
ottovbvs // Aug 13, 2009 at 5:26 pm
Chekote // Aug 13, 2009 at 4:50 pm
“How about limited government?”
……..Chek my son….are you kidding…..the Federal budget is something over $3 trillion….add in another trillion or so for state budgets and we have total govt expenditures around $4.5 trillion which is by a factor of several times greater than govt expenditures in any other sovereign state in the world. I know there are per capita bigger one’s but sometimes sheer volume counts……limited govt is a complete mirage……because the minute you start taking the goodies away from a lot of those idiots protesting at townhalls they are the first to scream……there is never again going to be “limited govt” the issue is how do you run the govt and fund the social contract in the most efficient and cost effective way.
IndependentGirl // Aug 13, 2009 at 5:26 pm
…Actually, let me expand on my last statement: Are you aware of how BUSINESS works? You strike deals by making compromises. I’ll do something for you if you do something for me. That’s the definition of capitalism, which you’re now opposed to?
ottovbvs // Aug 13, 2009 at 5:35 pm
independentgirl // Aug 13, 2009 at 5:21 pm
” but the so-called “barriers to entry” as you put it do not exist. I can start an insurance company tomorrow if I want. ”
………Actually they do…..in capital, organizational, competitive and regulatory terms there are effectively insurmountable barriers to entry…..no one is going to start a health insurance business on any scale……as you say the insurance companies are an oligopoly (I actually think they constitute a de facto cartel although you could argue about that)…..in fact in many state markets it’s almost a monopoly with one or two companies being the only real players.
IndependentGirl // Aug 13, 2009 at 5:38 pm
Chekote: “It has been shown that lawsuits contribute to higher health care costs. Yet, tort reform is not part of the solution being offered by the Dems.”
First of all, why would you put that in a health care bill? They are not one & the same. They are two totally different animals. Actually while Obama was a Senator, he voted pro-tort reform on acts. That is not a Democrat vs. Republican issue. Congress has been mixed all along as to who wants it & who doesn’t.
IndependentGirl // Aug 13, 2009 at 5:46 pm
Ottovbvs: Yes, of course there are different terms but there are ways to start a health insurance business. The regulations that are out there are not the problem. The bigger issue is why WOULD I start one when the industry is the way it is? It certainly wouldn’t make good financial sense to do it, but there is nothing major to keep me from actually entering the market.
ottovbvs // Aug 13, 2009 at 6:12 pm
independentgirl // Aug 13, 2009 at 5:46 pm
……….If you don’t think the existence of an oligopoly sitting in a market doesn’t constitute an essentially impassable barrier to entry particularly for a product that is to a large extent a commodity you might want to revisit the text books…….no one is going to start a major health insurance company for godsake…..you’d buy one!…..If it was easy to enter from a startup there are lots of reasons why you would try because it’s a relatively low risk cash cow……..I know some major industrial companies have tried setting up their own captive operations but most have ultimately exited I understand………. I don’t disagree with the thrust of a lot of your comments but you’re wrong on this narrow issue I fear
IndependentGirl // Aug 13, 2009 at 6:21 pm
Ottovbvs – You missed my point. My original statement was just to state that the government regulations do not constitute the barriers to entry or lack of competition. I agree with what you’re saying wholeheartedly. I was simply speaking to Chekote’s statement that “Government can lower the barriers to entry into the market so that insurance companies that have a reputation of refusing to pay for treatment will lose customers.”
In other words, the government regulations aren’t the problem (& thus, simply lessening the regulations will NOT be a solution)…having an oligopoly is!
brutus1791 // Aug 13, 2009 at 6:41 pm
Barker13:
You’re young. We have another young guy who posts here – he goes by the handle Brutus. I’ve read plenty of your stuff… I’ve read plenty of his… he’d wipe the floor with you.
Bill, I must thank you for the vote of confidence. Sadly, I feel as though should myself and Alex had crossed paths across from HCC at, say, Maloo’s for beers, we might have agreed on a fair number of points. That being said, I was there in a more official capacity and am obliged to refrain from addressing Senator Cardin’s town hall as it pertains to my humble abode. Nevertheless, a glass on me, of a good single-barrel bourbon whenever the opportunity should present itself! Also, did the soundtrack for ‘Les Miserables’ come to mind for anyone else when reading this
Once again, I find myself “sorry to be tardy to the party.” I am just not going to be able to address the myriad directions this thread has progressed, so hopefully my comments on the initial piece will indirectly address some of the other side conversations.
Alex: When reading your first paragraph, I had to laugh. I get it. Leo Strauss used to have a term, “reducto ad Hitlerum” which has been common-place in politics on both sides since World War II. People have been going over-board with the Nazi and Hitler references; but there are some aspects of their argument which ring true, and we have to at least acknowledge their points. Wiemar was a liberal republic, and when they faced stressful economic downturns (lightly put) and a culture that was open to everything, including the very ideas that lead to the ultimate destruction of Germany, they turned to a figure who seemed to transcend the moment. Eh, deja vu for some. I have an Oma who lived through WWII in Berlin, she is the most vociferous advocate of standing up against people who loosely throw around “Fourth Reich” and Hitler and whatever the LaRouchites, Alex Jones’, and Tex Marrs like to say. But hell, even she admits to seeing similarities. I always liked this quote, “You know who gave Hitler his power? The clerks and the bookkeepers, the civil servants. I have this one weakness: I believe in a just God. I always seem to err on the side of democracy.” –Bill Sullivan, The Good Shepherd. We’ll leave the “God” part out for your consideration I suppose. Funny enough, I have been accosted at the MVA by LaRouchites as well. They are just hateful people, and I fall more into the NeoCon(which I am not)/Masonic/Jewish/P2Lodge/Catholic Cabal than a libertarian atheist would. But they are people. And Americans at that. I found it ironic, for the most part, that you abhor these people (name-calling aside) for being close minded while demonstrating that you are close-minded to their culture and pleas. NOW, I am no apologist for the bourgeois, but being raised as I was, I still respected my fellow countrymen. Not everyone is made to be a philosopher-king, but you cannot call yourself a philosopher-king by comparing yourself to those you already look down on.
The second point to be made, is that of your being “an elitist.” I have to agree with Barker here, it seems odd for one to have to call himself an ‘elitist,’ allowing their actions to convey that point instead. It does come across as something that a faux-elitist would do, as if trying to fit into a high-school clique. Responding to a post “Um. Well, I know what happened, and I reported it accurately, so, um…yeah.” Does not strike me as very elite. I laughed actually, because my 17y/o brother writes out “um” when he types as well. I figure that the elitist thing to do would be to write your contributions, sit back and let the nugatory peons post and comment, and take with a grain of salt. I do not need to remind people “I am a Cowboys Fan” because when I wear my jersey, and hat, and root for them, and name all of the starters (from the mid-90s team) I hope that my actions speak for themselves. I am surprised to find you down here in the trenches getting your Class A’s covered. Besides, what exactly makes you an elitist? In what sense? Smarter than they? Richer than they? More virtuous than they? (Aristotle addresses the claims to rule and can fit with your claim as a member of an elite).
Do I agree with some of your points? Yes. Is there something romantic about the collective wisdom of our republic? Yes as well. Ultimately, popular sovereignty and the likes are proven to lead to the prolonging (or in Germany’s instance, initiation) of what is truly unjust. A great dialogue regarding elitism versus populism; Willmoore Kendall v. Leo Strauss (http://www.nhinet.org/havers18-1&2.pdf) is out there for consumption. In the end I wondered what exactly this article added to a debate, or how was this expected to bring the more populist-minded to our side? If we want the people to pick the natural aristocracy to send to the bowls of DC, perhaps we should stop giving them reasons to hate ‘elitists’ right? Tocqueville didn’t crap on the Average Americans, he kindly observed. You observed, just missed the old adage “you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.”
balconesfault // Aug 13, 2009 at 7:12 pm
Umm … one can be an elitist in today’s political parlance simply by believing that government runs best when run by highly trained, highly educated people … and by believing that “inside the beltway” isn’t a perjorative. It’s not like calling yourself a member of the elite – which is properly an attribute bestowed upon you, and not claimed for oneself.
So you could actually be an elitist without being a member of the elite (or even having a functional definition of elitist). Just as one can be a Dallas Cowboys fan without actually being a Dallas Cowboy. In other words, you too could be elitist, Brutus!
barker13 // Aug 14, 2009 at 10:40 am
Re: Balconesfault // Aug 13, 2009 at 1:13 pm (#110) –
* First of all… JEEZUS… I take an afternoon and evening off and when I come back there are four or five new threads and dozens and dozens of new comments! (*GRIN*) Wow!
OK… now to your comments, Balc…
“…if you want the details of the bills to be specified by Congress, rather than being wholly decided upon by bureaucrats in agencies throughout Washington DC.”
You’re contradicting yourself again, Balc. (*CHUCKLE*)
First you say it’s ok that the Members of the House and Senate aren’t reading the bills they’re voting for or against because their AIDES are reading the bills and giving them the short version…
(*SMIRK*)
…but now you’re the champion of Congressional perogatives… yet Congress has outsourced these perogatives to unelected staff… so…???
(*GRIN*)
Anyway, Balc, I’ll stick with my original comments #90 and #99 as far as this matter goes.
Again, Balc, basically what you’re doing is defending individual legislator’s refusal to do their jobs. I consider you part of the problem, not part of the solution. It’s not personal… I’m just calling it as I see it.
As I’ve written previously, we need some sort of “reasonable standard” for legislation creation. This standard must be based upon a reasonable expectation of what the average educated American can take in and understand – both sheer size as well as basic “readability.”
I’d say we start with the original Constitution itself. Have the appropriate English language experts “assign” it a “comprehension” value. (Say 12 grade readability… perhaps college graduate readability… hell, the way standards are today perhaps even grad school grad readability) and then you factor in sheer size… number of words. How many words… how many pages… should be considered a line in the sand that a single piece of legislation can’t cross… how many pages (words) are “the max” in terms of expecting the average educated American to be able to follow in such a way as the law is clearly understandable.
Well… you come up with standards like that and you stick to them. No more 1,000+ page bills that no elected official (ok, almost none… how’s that?) has actually READ prior to voting to make it a LAW.
Are we talking limiting bills to the size of the original Constitution? Perhaps. Two times… three times… four times the length (number of word) of the original Constitution? Perhaps. The size of the longest Supreme Court majority Decision…? OK. Perhaps that would be the max…
(*SHRUG*)
Anyway, I’m getting my point across. You disagree, Balc. Fine. Again… I believe people like you – the enablers of the situation we’ve got here in America 2009 – are the problem, not the solution, as relates to out of control and largely incompetent and unresponsive government.
BILL
barker13 // Aug 14, 2009 at 10:58 am
Re: Independentgirl // Aug 13, 2009 at 1:48 pm (#116) –
“I majored in Economics…”
(*GRIN*) Yeah… so did Hank Paulson and Ben Bernanke! Somehow this doesn’t allay my concerns.
(*WINK*) (BTW, the snark is directed at the idiots who got us in this mess, not you, IG!) (*SMILE*)
Anyway… with regard to your post…
(*SIGH*)
Round and round and round we go…
More posts… more threads… same comments… same rebuttals…
(*HEADACHE*)
I don’t know how many of my posts you’ve read over the months, but to reiterate, I’m for true catastrophic insurance with a social safety net.
What this means is that EVERYONE pays for insurance – catastrophic insurance – ideally aligned with an HSA/MSA.
EVERYONE pays from birth on… children covered by their parents.
EVERYONE pays for their own day to day medical care and EVERYONE pays for their own “bumps in the road” UP TO THE POINT where catastrophic insurance kicks in.
Once catastrophic care kicks in YOU ARE TREATED. You are treated with no copays, with no additional medical bills.
IF we’re talking an ongoing condition that is going to put you in catastrophic territory (in terms of costs) year after year then you’ll be expected to keep on kicking in X% of your income year to year as your share of your treatment.
IF you can’t work… then that’s where the social safety net comes in.
This is a CONCEPT. I’m not trying to dot all the “i” and cross all the “t” – I’m simply advancing the two-fold argument that we must expect our medical care throughout our lifetimes from year to year, good year, bad year, in between year, to be our own individual responsibility in the same way food, shelter, clothing, and fine single malt scotch are individual responsibilities. At the same time, we must have a catastrophic system ready to kick in so that Americans aren’t left bankrupt and broken (socially) by catastrophic medical expenses. At the same time we must ensure that the actuarial math “works” to the best extent possible so that we’re not talking income simply income redistribution.
Am I making the “concept” clear…???
Now whoever disagrees with the CONCEPT… speak up!
(*SMILE*)
BILL
barker13 // Aug 14, 2009 at 11:39 am
txanne // Aug 13, 2009 at 1:54 pm (#117) –
http://www.healthtransformation.net/
Just so we’re all reading off the same page… (*WINK*)
Re: Sinz54 // Aug 13, 2009 at 3:08 pm (#118) –
“A public option that is heavily subsidized through general revenues represents UNFAIR competition, with ARTIFICIALLY low reimbursement rates and premiums.”
EXACTLY! (*POLITE APPLAUSE*)
Re: Spartacus // Aug 13, 2009 at 4:11 pm (#135) –
“It’s unclear to me how any of your proposals control costs…”
That’s because they don’t – not initially. (*SMILE*)
(And no… beyond “initially” I haven’t really fleshed out any argument about costs longterm – which is probably why you’re unclear.) (*GRIN*)
No, Spart… my arguments mainly deal with my conceptions of “fairness” and try to deal with the reality that life ISN’T fair. (*SHRUG*)
See… there’s a natural tension there. I acknowledge that! This is why I keep reiterating that there has to be some social safety net and that ultimately there’s no one beside government to ultimately guarantee “payment” since only government can simply print money at will.
(True… not my idea of the ideal “plan b,” but I’m just acknowledging reality.)
Of course I believe personal responsibility would lead to more prudent expenditures and more “warning bumps” when pricing is obviously skewed and everyone is noticing the same skew… but again… you’re correct… price control is a secondary vision to “fairness” as I see it in how we view healthcare and how we few personal freedoms and responsibilities.
Thanks for bringing this up btw – I do appreciate the question. I hope you take my “answer” such as it is at face value. Again… I’m not trying to duck the “cost containment” issue but to me “cost containment” is a secondary matter. (And yes… I know many – perhaps most – will disagree with me; I’m simply outlining my reasoning and my priorities.)
BILL
barker13 // Aug 14, 2009 at 12:11 pm
Re: Brutus1791 // Aug 13, 2009 at 6:41 pm (#161) –
“Bill, I must thank you for the vote of confidence. Sadly, I feel as though should myself and Alex had crossed paths across from HCC at, say, Maloo’s for beers, we might have agreed on a fair number of points.”
1) You’re welcome. (*WINK*)
2) Oh… Alex isn’t totally off base; he’s actually mainly “on base.” It’s just some specifics and some “tonal” issues that I have problems with re his initial post and some of his follow-ups.
You know, me, Brutus… I’m a very focused, specific guy and that’s the prism through whic I read and reply to others’ writings.
“In the end I wondered what exactly this article added to a debate, or how was this expected to bring the more populist-minded to our side?”
(*SMILE*) Exactly.
* Now… working backwards… RE: IndependentGirl just in general…
Yes. Most of us (all of us?) (*CROSSING MY FINGERS*) believe in the benefits of competition.
Still… when you talk about government engaging in “competition” with private citizens and entities you’re not talking an even playing field. Not nearly! We’ve (the group here at NM) gone over this again and again and again… no need to reinvent the wheel with every other post.
(*WINK*)
That said… in line with many of your points and in line with Spart’s #135 post question to me let me just throw something out for consideration and comment:
Do you possess an actual “apples vs. apples” comparison of costs associated with American “governmental” medicine vs. the private sector?
I’m thinking along these lines…
A military hospital… a VA hospital – either/or vs. a private hospital.
I’m talking as if we could model number of doctors vs. number of doctors… number of nurses, aides, technicians, support staff, the whole shebang government owned/run vs. privately owned and run.
Same number of gadgets… same equipment… same patient load… same outcomes…
(You’re getting the picture, right…???)
Now… two things I’d want to know:
1) What are actual costs.
2) What are actual results.
Now unless I’m misreading your attitude and beliefs, it comes across to me as if you’re absolutely certain that an “apples to apples” comparison would lead to some huge “government win” in terms of FAR lower costs while retaining (or perhaps even advancing!) patient outcomes.
I don’t believe this would be the case.
(*SHRUG*)
Hey… maybe I’m wrong! But shouldn’t we start out by really digging into the numbers…??? Shouldn’t we compare “apples to apples” as opposed to broad cross-cultural, transnational comparisons that are even at their best more “apple to orange” comparisons?
I have a buddy who’s a doc. He’s worked for the VA Hospital system. The pay there kinda sucks… for a doctor that is… but the hours were good. He left the VA system a while back and has been bumming around deciding his next career move. Well, he just got hired by “the government,” a branch of the military. He’s gonna be working on a military base here Stateside.
Now the reason I put “the government” in quotes is because he’s actually being brought on as a contract employee. He’s technically employed by some private firm that specializes in providing contract medical personnel pursuant to government contract. For a one year contract he’s getting a $15K sign-on bonus and initial year salary of $225K.
Again… he’s the contractor… the firm technically employing him is obviously making a profit from the government to provide the staffing service.
My point… (*SHRUG*)… from everything I know about government, if you’re looking for relatively inexpensive “action/achievement,” government ain’t exactly the first place to look.
(*SHRUG*)
Anyway… just a point to ponder.
BILL
ottovbvs // Aug 14, 2009 at 12:45 pm
independentgirl // Aug 13, 2009 at 6:21 pm
“In other words, the government regulations aren’t the problem (& thus, simply lessening the regulations will NOT be a solution)…having an oligopoly is!”
………..We’re basically agreed……Regs are way down the totem poll in barriers to entry……I do understand you know what you’re talking about…..sorry if I conveyed any contrary impression
Spartacus // Aug 14, 2009 at 1:33 pm
Barker:
“It’s unclear to me how any of your proposals control costs…” – “That’s because they don’t – not initially. (*SMILE*) (And no… beyond “initially” I haven’t really fleshed out any argument about costs longterm – which is probably why you’re unclear.) (*GRIN*)”
No matter how much I disagree with you (which is an awful lot), I always appreciate your intellectual honesty.
As I’ve said before, I don’t favor a public option (or similar govt intervention) out of ideology. I favor it because it’s the only method I’m aware of that has demonstrated its ability to contain costs on a wide-scale, sustainable basis. I think universal coverage is imperative, but completely unachievable without cost containment. The two are equally important and you can’t do one without doing the other.
This is why I’ve always argued that healthcare reform simply reflects different values between conservatives/GOPers and Dems. It seems that if you really believe, as Dems do, that universal coverage is important, then you have to have a meaningful way of containing costs, which is why the public option is necessary. On the other hand, if you believe, as conservatives/GOPers do, that universal coverage is important, but not worth govt intervention or additional govt spending, then you will oppose the kinds of reform that will result in meaningful cost containment not because you’re opposed to cost containment per se, but because you’re opposed to the only proven methods of cost containment.
Until this country adopts Social Darwinism, it has to come up with a meaningful way of containing costs. You can’t avoid both Social Darwinism and cost containment.
barker13 // Aug 14, 2009 at 4:35 pm
Re: Spartacus // Aug 14, 2009 at 1:33 pm (#168)
“No matter how much I disagree with you (which is an awful lot), I always appreciate your intellectual honesty.”
(*SMILE*) Thanks. Next time you’re visiting or traveling through New York’s beautiful lower/mid Hudson Valley give me a shout – I’ll stand you a beer!
“As I’ve said before, I don’t favor a public option (or similar govt intervention) out of ideology. I favor it because it’s the only method I’m aware of that has demonstrated its ability to contain costs on a wide-scale, sustainable basis.”
But this whole “demonstrated ability to contain costs” is what I worry about. HOW will costs be controlled? It seems to me you’ve either got to limit care across the board generally to get across the board in general saving, or, you save money by telling everyone connected in any way to medical administration/care, “hey… the good news is you’ve still got a job – most of you that is – the bad news… we’re gonna be slashing pay something awful.”
(*SHRUG*)
I just don’t see any way around that.
And again… while doctors earn damn good incomes and in the abstract one might say “sure, they can afford to take a haircut,” what will this do to our system over time; will it mean fewer doctors… fewer of the BEST doctors the capitalist system creates…???
(And, yeah… no doubt other systems create great doctors… but there’s a reason the rich and powerful from around the world more often end here than anywhere else when the $hit hits the fan with regard to their health. Just in case I ever develop a “House” disease… I wanna know “House” is still practicing.) (*SMILE*)
You and me need to keep on chatting, Spart! (*GRIN*) Between us we’ll “solve” the problem. (*WINK*)
BILL
CJ75 // Aug 16, 2009 at 12:42 pm
Mr. Alex Knepper,
You are one elitist fool. Rednecks, hicks? are you serious?
Why don’t you open up a history book and find out about the screaming matches that went on between our Founding Fathers?
Why don’t you open up a history book and find out about the screaming matches that went on while the Articles of Confederation were the law of the land? Why do you think the States decided that they needed something better than the Articles of Confederation? Do think America’s ancestors sat around talking nicely to each other during the birth of our Nation drinking lattes?
Open up an American history book and learn something about the great protests that went on.
What you are seeing is democracy at work.
By your article and your posts, it is obvious that you believe that only an elitist group should make decision for us, the idiots. No different than what most Liberals think, people are too stupid to make their own decisions. They need to be led by the best and the brightest.
The saddest part is that you are not ashamed of what an incredible poorly informed snub you are. You are actually proud of it.
I find you uncouth and poorly educated.
By the way, maybe you can answer? Where were you, David Frum and the rest of the fake Conservatives on this site who said nothing, who sat idly by when left-wingers were disrupting Republican town hall meetings during the past 8 years, eh? And please don’t make me school you on this historical fact!
You went with a preconceived notion of who these people at the town hall meetings were and you fulfilled your own prophecy. You are as closed minded as any Liberal that I have ever come across.
ottovbvs // Aug 16, 2009 at 5:43 pm
cj75 // Aug 16, 2009 at 12:42 pm
“I find you uncouth and poorly educated. ”
……..So now you know Alex……someone who has wandered of the Redstate reservation considers you etc etc…..I’m sure you’ll learn to live with it
Spartacus // Aug 17, 2009 at 2:39 am
barker13 // Aug 14, 2009 at 4:35 pm: “Next time you’re visiting or traveling through New York’s beautiful lower/mid Hudson Valley give me a shout – I’ll stand you a beer!”
Hey, thanks, Barker. Of course, being a Left Coast Liberal, I would prefer a latte instead of a beer!
barker13 // Aug 17, 2009 at 9:31 am
Re: Spartacus // Aug 17, 2009 at 2:39 am (#172) –
“…being a Left Coast Liberal, I would prefer a latte instead of a beer!”
(*SHUDDER*)
OK. How’s this… either a glass of wine or a double espresso?
(I’m trying to work with you, here, Spart!)
BILL
Spartacus // Aug 17, 2009 at 1:24 pm
barker13 // Aug 17, 2009 at 9:31 am
“I’m trying to work with you, here, Spart!”
I know you are; my comment was for your entertainment:)
SteveShives // Aug 17, 2009 at 5:12 pm
Alex (and cj75), as someone who has lived in the Hagerstown area (where this Cardin town hall took place) all of my life, let me say with some sadness and embarassment that “an array of overfed hicks” comes as close to Hagerstown in a nutshell as anything could. I almost got out to this one (I live in Sharpsburg now, close to where I attend school, and actually used to take classes at the community college where the town hall was held), but decided a two-hour wait for a one-hour event wasn’t worth it. I’m glad I stayed home. Judging from the reporting and videos I’ve seen of the event, I likely would have spent most of the hour slumped in my chair with my hands covering my face.
Good on the lady who told the child, “this isn’t what democracy is all about.” I only wish she were right. This summer, it seems like demagoguery, pandering histrionics, and outright lying are all democracy is about.
But what the hell else is new, right?
Anonymous // Oct 10, 2010 at 9:21 pm
[...] first came to my attention in August 2009, after he had written an informative and entertaining piece about a Maryland town hall meeting involving Democratic Sen. Ben [...]