« Major cash importers finally discovered (updated 6mar12) | Main | ‘Greece Passes Key Debt Test’, NOT! »

07 March 2012

Comments

Douglas Keachie

Call into KNCO.this Wednesday morning. Tom FitzSimmons has preempted Rush to get listener opinions. The switchboards are jammed, but this morning is a chance to keep Rush Limbaugh off the air for at least the entire three hours today. You have to pay for Bill Maher, so Rush and Bill are not comparable. Rush is no more “just an entertainer” than the Tea Party is “just a group of like minded people.” Post anti-Rush Limbaugh (using full name) anywhere you can. It is not a free speech issue, or we’d all have a 3 hour show. Rush can go to 6th and Mission and spout off all he wants, he’d fit right in.

Paul Emery

George

You won't hear them (Repubs) on this for sure. They are ducking for cover and wish it never happened. A gift from above for the Dems who should be on their knees in prayer and appreciation for this gift from Rush and his clones.

Gregory

Limbaugh certainly Fluked himself, and if KNCO thinks they can attract more listeners and sell more advertisement with other programming, they should. I usually tune into KNCO for a time in the morning but the whinefest wasn't tolerable.

I suspect they'll manage to return to their reliable cash cow as long as the milk flows, and this election season is probably not the prime time to send Bessie to the slaughterhouse.

"It is not a free speech issue, or we’d all have a 3 hour show."
Keachie again shows how he misunderstands freedom. Free speech doesn't mean you have an entitlement to someone else's printing press. It means the government can't stop you.


Douglas Keachie

That's right Greg, but you misunderstand me. Rush has lived by capitalism and he shall die by capitalism, as more and more people make it clear to advertisers than he has his head up his rear end, and it's pretty dark and gloomy in there. As the American public moves into the 21st century, Rush will go out to pasture, slowly but surely. His future is speaking to inhabitants of elder care facilities. I posted the following to the Facebook page of SPD Market, and most of Facebook KNCO comments are negative towards keeping Rush.

"Love SPD, don't want your commercials on during Rush. thanks!"

Gregory

Everyone understood you just fine, Keach. "It is not a free speech issue, or we’d all have a 3 hour show" is spectacularly silly. It's actually nicely aligned with the current demands that a woman isn't free to use contraceptives unless the government gives, or compels someone else to give, her the contraceptives.

From Reason today:

"Last week Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius said "the Obama administration believes that decisions about medical care should be made by a woman and her doctor, not a woman and her boss." Yet her boss not only retained the market-distorting, price-inflating tax policies that create an artificial incentive for employer-provided health insurance; he made the connection between employment and medical coverage mandatory, then decreed exactly what it would include, thereby precipitating this whole controversy. If President Obama does not want employers involved in medical coverage, why is he forcing them to be?"

http://reason.com/archives/2012/03/07/sandra-flukes-protection-racket

Ryan Mount

I don't get it. Why don't we just turn him off if we don't like him? Is there some law or regulation that requires us to listen to that cretin Mr. Limbaugh? Are people incapable (read: too stupid) of turning off their radios?

I guess I'm missing something. People that like him and his incendiary(IMHO) speech listen to him. Those that don't, seem to listen to him as well, which is weird.

Is this some kind of "public/these are our airwaves" complaint? Actually, what the hell is the beef here? What the hell does everyone want? And why?

Gregory

Ryan, Limbaugh's arguably less incendiary than Olberman, Maddow and Maher are against the right. At least Maddow doesn't use epithets like "cunt" or "stupid twat" on the air (so far as I know) to describe right wing women she doesn't like.

It isn't that the left wants to retain the right not to listen to Limbaugh, they've been exercising that right for years. The left doesn't want anyone else to listen.

Douglas Keachie

It's the Great Divide in action. Let all the Repubbys move to northern Idaho, and pay via advertisers up there to have Rush pollute their minds. i like to have our local station stop providing 6 hours of right wing propaganda everyday. Some would prefer 24 hours of rtwg propaganda every day. It's a difference in opinion. These day anyone who wants to can set up their own radio station on the Internet. You can buy software that makes it a piece of cake to listen to and record all kinds of sources, including Youtube and radio stations all around the planet. Search for AUDials 9.

Ryan Mount

Hi Gregory-

I don't care what those cretins say either. I guess you're point is that there's a double-standard there. What a surprise, eh? Frankly I don't care about that either. Stupid is, as stupid does. Too bad P.J. O'Rourke is old and useless now. We could use some of his observations on all of this, if just for a laugh.

These all seem like silly issues. Are we really that sensitive? Is this the same America that marched onto the beaches of Normandy? Or marched against attacking dogs during the Civil Rights marches? Have we really become huge-ass, whiny, humorless pussies? (Two things: 1) That's a rhetorical question 2)Is it OK to use "pussy" like this? I guess I'll find out.)

We seem have much bigger fish to fry. Seems to me that a Leftie, a "Liberal," would want a broad spectrum of media noise. But I guess your point is they only want the ones that agree with their agenda. In my mind, that sounds like a Conservative. It's sad and embarrassing when you think about it.

I'll choose not to listen to these blowhards. But then again, I was already was not listening. I choose not to reward bad behavior with my attention.

George Rebane

For completeness we should consider the role of blatantly leftwing KVMR as a "voice of the community". Its political commentary contributors, with perhaps the exception of me, are all from the progressive persuasion. This community has had a choice, at least until now. Greg's 1209pm is on the mark with "The left doesn't want anyone else to listen to (Limbaugh)."

Please don't misconstrue this as my wanting, say, Amy Goodman off KVMR - au contraire, more power to her and her loyal KVMR audience.

Re the GD - It is always noteworthy how instinctively the left (e.g. DougK's 1236pm) identifies "mind pollution" with the right, and considers it pro forma to demand that conservatives move away. As Woody Guthrie sang, 'This Land is MY Land', and he did not intend it in the inclusive sense that it was subsequently promoted when his communist sympathies became an embarrassment.

Douglas Keachie

If you don't like KVMR, don't join. You want Rush, and it turns out that KNCO no longer finds him, or at least not three hours of him, profitable, you can form a rtwg equivalent to KVMR. Matter of fact, how come you haven't done that already? Why should my local purchases support a rtwg windbag, any more so than you don't want to help pay for a coed's sex life? BTW, your last sentence (George, 12:57) doesn't really work very well. Who promoted the new meaning?

Gregory

Ryan, the left has slowly squeezed "liberty" from liberal over the last 80 years or so. As popularly understood, Liberal is now indistinguishable from democratic socialist in the body politic.

If the current Liberal brand goes into a tailspin in New Deal II (cue The Return of the Jedi?) maybe liberal will again be understood as libertarian or Jeffersonian.

Gregory

"any more so than you don't want to help pay for a coed's sex life?"

Keach, you again need your chain pulled... you've again missed the point... the Obamacare Approved Insurance Plan requires a christian ministry to pay for whatever contraceptive or abortion service a staffer or student can cajole their doctor to prescribe, without copay or limit.


They don't want to, and believe they have the right to refuse. Pretending all insurance companies will provide the benefit for free to institutions that object is so transparently an empty dodge that it shatters the credibility of anyone who manages to utter it with a straight face.

Nancy needed to pass this legislation so we could see what's in it. I still can't see it all but it smells like the dead skunk in the middle of Newtown Road last night.

Gregory

"Let all the Repubbys move to northern Idaho, and pay via advertisers up there to have Rush pollute their minds. i like to have our local station stop providing 6 hours of right wing propaganda everyday."

The left wing 9/11 Truthers I know seem to love Coast-to-Coast AM with the foil hat brigade, brought to you on KNCO for more hours than Limbaugh.

Yes, Keachie and Pelline's other lickspittles would like everyone not like them to either move away or shut up. Good luck with that.

Paul Emery

"the Obamacare Approved Insurance Plan requires a christian ministry to pay for whatever contraceptive or abortion service a staffer or student can cajole their doctor to prescribe, without copay or limit.
They don't want to, and believe they have the right to refuse."

So Gregory in general should we have the right to violate Federal law because of religious reasons?

They may not like the law but there's lots of laws I don't like but I can't violate them without possibly suffering the consequences.

Ryan Mount

Paul wrote: "So Gregory in general should we have the right to violate Federal law because of religious reasons?"

It's going to be fascinating to see how the post-New Deal Commerce Clause jurisprudence, which is what this is all about, holds up in the current Supreme Court with all of these health care mandates.

Care to wager?

The question seems to be this: can individual inaction (to your point Paul) be regulated. IOW, a lack of commerce or participation which is what the 28 or so States are arguing. That the Commerce Clause does not, and this is critical, apply to transactions that people never entered into.

OK, how about this for a convenient Straw Man? What if the Federal Government mandated that everyone be required to receive, I dunno, some vaccination shot and some people objected for personal or religious reasons? (unwise in my opinion, but people do it all the time). Should we throw them in jail? Hold them down and stick them with needles? Fine them? Make them live up on the Ridge in quarantined areas? Make them watch Dr. Oz 4 times a week?

Steven Frisch

Yes Greg the PPAC does require religious institutions to provide coverage to people in 'non-religious functions" consistent with the general rule for health care coverage. This issue has been thoroughly discussed on the previous thread, with specific citation regarding the provisions in the Civil Rights Act as amended in 1972, and the Equal Employment Opportunity Act which require this.

If you wish to change that you may amend the legislation....which is what the Blunt amendment was trying to do.....through a rider on the Federal Transportation Bill by the way....but I suspect that a week of this nonsense has not only eliminated Republicans chances to amend the law, it has so invigorated the vast majority of women who use or have used contraception (98%) that at least 10% have switched from anti-Obama to anti-Repubican in the last week, and Republicans won't have a chance to get this through the Senate for at least another 3 years.

In the mean time the Republican party is so weakened by this, and the fight it exemplifies within the party between the real Republicans versus "Candyass Republicans" (or put another way the Tea Party Republicans versus the traditional Republicans), that voter turnout is down, the party is divided, and the re-elction of the arch-nemisis is almost guaranteed. Ah, the effect of the Tea Party coming home to roost. I have got to love it!

Brad Croul

What is good for the Dixie Chicks is good for the Bloviator. I have heard the Right call for boycotts many a time. They just don't like it when their Idol is threatened.

Personally, I think The Blov make some good points, here and there, sometimes. But I tire of the same old rants. I never listen to him by choice, unless he is the only choice between Stockton and Bakersfield, which he pretty much is when you consider the alternative is a bunch of Christian and Mariachi music.

Do they still call the Blov's minions Dittoheads?

Steven Frisch

Ryan is precisely right that the PPACA question itself is a commerce clause question (as opposed to what coverages are required which is a EEOC and CRA question). The oral arguments will be held in the SCOTUS on March 26-28. In a relatively unprecedented move the SCOTUS allotted 6 hours for oral arguments.

The initial briefs in the case have been filed and can be found here under the January 6th posting::

www.lawprofessors.typepad/conlaw/commerce_clause/


Steven Frisch

Here, lets try that again...it appears the link ws not entered correctly:

http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/conlaw/commerce_clause/

Douglas Keachie

"hich he pretty much is when you consider the alternative is a bunch of Christian and Mariachi music." somebody recently described Mariachi music as "techno for the electrically challenged." Tosh O or one of the others.

Douglas Keachie

Occasionally listen to the Coast to Coast show with the same distaste I have for Rush. Non science for the stupids, it's running rampant on what used to be the History Channel. My tastes run screaming to --> James Burke (born 22 December 1936) is a British broadcaster, science historian, author, and television producer, who is known, among other things, for his documentary television series Connections (1978), and for its more philosophically oriented companion series, The Day the Universe Changed (1985), which is about the history of science and technology. The Washington Post called him "one of the most intriguing minds in the Western world".[1]

Gregory

In the previous thread, Frisch also tried to ignore that the interstate commerce clause was central to Obamacare.

While power to create the regulation was given the executive branch by the PPAC/Obamacare law, I believe what passed Congress without a single Republican vote, a bipartisan opposition, and signed by Obama didn't have the core of what Fluke was testifying for.

It was the call of Obama's employees that the third party guide being used allowed them the power to require all insurance policies to provide the coverage, without copay or limit, and require all employers to buy it.

Paul and Steve, I've always thought that unjust laws should be violated by people willing to stand up, fight them, and take the punishment if an unjust system metes it out. Don't you?

Gregory

Let's recall that the injection of contraceptives into the debate was by Democratic operative and Clinton lickspittle George Stephanopoulos when it he asked Romney if he thought states could ban them. In four years, maybe Limbaugh should be the moderator for the Democratic Presidential Debates.

It seemed bizarre at the time, but it was obviously the strategy that the Obamanauts had hit upon to do what Frisch so hopes will work.

I doubt this topic will stay on top for long.

BTW, a blast from the past. I recall when women in the Black Panthers asked the leadership what their policy positions should be, Stokely Carmichael replied their position should be "prone". The hard left has lost a lot of testosterone.

Steven Frisch

I never "tried to ignore that the inter state commerce clause was central to Obamacare", I stated that the issue relative to the rules the Blunt amendment was trying to amend was the CRA and EEOC. They are two entirely different issues.


Absolutely unjust laws should be resisted. That's exactly what I asked about on the other thread: what are you (and the other regressives who post here) willing to do to resist? I would be thrilled if you resist and spend a few days in jail. It's an experience I would recommend to every red blooded American!

Gregory

Ryan, Dr. Oz 4 times a week would be struck down as cruel and unusual punishment.

The *Interstate* Commerce Clause is ripe for a fresh look by the Supremes, and I would not bet against Obamacare being the vehicle for a slapdown.

Let's see, a California employee of a California employer is forced to buy specific insurance coverage from a California insurance company that substantially pays for health care delivered by California doctors and technicians, and the interstate commerce clause is the rationale. Say again? And it's not only the lack of interstate commerce here, but they can even force that California employee to buy if their employer doesn't provide insurance because the lack of interstate commerce is also being regulated.

Oh, what a tangled web we weave...

Gregory

"what are you (and the other regressives who post here)"

Fluke you, Frisch.

Gregory

I forgot to mention the name calling apparently "progressive" Stephen Frisch is the President and CEO of the wretchedly misnamed Sierra Business Council, a position he is uniquely qualified for by his experience as an executive chef and Cal State BA in polysci, and one of the few (only?) six figure salaried non profit administrators in the Sierra Nevada.

Todd Juvinall

Greg maybe we are progressive regressive? LOL! Frisch likes jail eh? Well maybe there is a good reason. Perhaps Fluke and her desire for taxpayer money is the true connection he as with her since that is his bag. As far as his failed restaurant, that is something you must ask the three levels of government about.

Paul Emery


Since the question has been raised that the law should be resisted on religious grounds is a Christian or
Buddhist pacifist, for example, be justified in not paying taxes for war because of religious reasons?

"the Obamacare Approved Insurance Plan requires a christian ministry to pay for whatever contraceptive or abortion service a staffer or student can cajole their doctor to prescribe, without copay or limit.
They don't want to, and believe they have the right to refuse.""

Paul Emery

That was from Gregory 07 March 2012 at 01:55 PM

Gregory

Todd, there really isn't a "we" here... I consider myself a liberal and am just waiting for the coersive left to abandon the label. In the meantime, I'm comfortable relating to my Neanderthal-American friends and neighbors who find the two faced Frisches to be a big part of the problem.

:)

Todd Juvinall

That's OK Greg, I found a mouse in my pocket.

Douglas Keachie

How many levels of government and banks do you have to ask to find out about Todd's failed house?

Greg is having such fun with his new vocabulary find. I can't help but think of LickGiggle every time I see it, and sometimes even LickGreggle. Finding such a word with it's obvious homosexual undertones, and dancing with it daily, is very funny. Lick rhymes with Dick, and spittle just screams, "one eyed midget" and "NOW!" and the resulting outflow. Wonder why he is so obsessed?

Douglas Keachie

Let him use the term again, and I'll just reference him as "Lickspittle Greg," in each successive post.

Muddball Fight! or is it a Spittleball Fight?

billy T

Ah, the squeaky wheel gets the grease. Just came home to some laughs. Progressive regressives? That"s a good one. Dittos, mega dittos. Perhaps Rush and Ms. Fluke can get together and settle this matter like two consenting adults. He could call her slut, slut, slut and she could call him pig, pig, pig. I still think this whole thing is now about abortion and putting those bigoted people of faith in their place. Sure, government has every right to tell religions what they can and cannot practice. Yeah, right. And government has to right to force me to buy a product simply cause I am breathing air and a condition of residency? Yeah, right. Hm. Voting is a choice. Driving a vehicle is a choice. Not buying a product is a choice...oppps, government can tell me I have to buy something? I think not. I thought the Constitution is a document that basically contains prohibitions on what government can do. A lot of words spelling out what government cannot do. Guess I should say "I thought the Constitution WAS.....Oh, I see the grease gun lubing them squeaky wheels...squirt squirt, ah, libs, do ya feel better now?

billy T

Double standard? Bull pucky. Nothing to see here, move on2364_100000846429384_949422_1717167481_n

billy T

Darn, try this. http://zionstrumpet.com/2010/12/22/desecrate-the-bibleart-desecrate-the-koran-hate-crime/

Douglas Keachie

Btecha never seen a CandyAss Republican before:

RebanesCandyassRepublican copy

Bonnie McGuire

This entire subject has been very educational about who the real liberals are. Thank you Billy T. You said it right. I listened to KNCO this morning it was wonderful. The guy who said he didn't alwaysagree with Rush, but listened anyway because the program stimulates thinking. I've always noticed that. In fact when I first heard Rush I thought it was great to hear the rest of the story...another side of issues. I consider myself a real liberal because I enjoy listening and learning all kinds of things. It's wonderful not to have someone dictating how I should think. If you don't like Rush just turn him off, but don't make it so we can't listen to him. I don't particularly like Letterman's insulting behavior at times, but others do. Plenty of insults on the current subject from those who claim to be open minded and despise dictators. Very interesting double standard.

John Galt

Yes Bonnie, we're re-learning the truth about just how tolerant liberals are.

But in addition to debating with our self-described expert on "Women's Rights", Douglas Keachie, and others with his same persuasion--let's be sure to take the time to email Tom@KNCO.com and express our support for Rush.

Keep it brief, and include the word "Rush" and "Keep" in your subject line.

Pass the word.

--John Galt.

Douglas Keachie

We are just as tolerant of Rush as you are of Obama.

Perfect Symmetry.

Michael Anderson

Perhaps not allowing medical insurance sales across state lines will be PPACA's Achilles heel? How ironic.

For a tutorial on "regressive progressives," please see my comment over at RL Crabb's site. Sorry, I have to be terse tonight since I had my first NCLL practice this afternoon...

Keach, your crayons are leaking. Did you leave the caps off or something??

billy T

oh my. Maybe I should post this on "The Great Divide". http://www.theblaze.com/stories/high-school-students-usa-usa-victory-chant-deemed-racial-insult/

billy T

Opps, now that Bill Mahr has weighted in, he will be a target as well.http://www.theblaze.com/stories/bill-maher-defends-limbaugh-liberals-looking-bad-not-accepting-his-apology/

Douglas Keachie

"today Rush Limbaugh tried to drag me into this bullshit he caused.... 4 wives, he's had no children. Dude, you ARE birth control....SuperPac has to give money back because I sometimes called Sarah Palin a bad name....This analogy breaks down in so many ways. First, I'm on HBO, {no advertisers needed}" ~ Bill Maher ~

I am reviewing latest Bill Maher show to find the part where Maher attacks liberals for attacking Rush, still haven't found it.

Goofing around and learning new stuff about Photoshop, Michael. It looks really zippy as a small icon.

"USA! USA!" from an all white team to an all Hispanic backgrounded team in Texas, well what exactly is that supposed to mean? In that context? Give me a break, the POTUS had not just arrived on the scene. At least the coach had enough sense to understand what it meant.

Todd Juvinall

A just released poll by the WSJ/NBC News of 800 women across the country is a mixed bag for just about any interpretation. I found this in the article to be very revealing. I am searching for the underlying data since the results are quite a mixed bag of goo.

From the Politco article,

"The poll also found overall support for the president’s contraception coverage mandate, with 53 percent of those surveyed approving of the federal requirement that employers cover birth control as part of a package for preventive services for women. One third opposed it.

Support split — 43 pro and 43 against — when respondents were told specifically that the coverage includes the “morning after pill.” And it dropped to 38 percent when respondents were asked about how they felt about the same requirement for religious employers, even if insurance companies picked up the costs."

So if I was trying to interpret this I would say the Prez is in deep trouble. We see now why he and democrats changed the subject from forcing the Roman Catholic Church to supply condoms to the broader issue of government supplied condoms in general. These polls are meaningless since the election is far down the road and there will be many more issues discussed.

What I find fascinating though is the left, even the local lefty bloggers, latch on to this stuff and run with it as if it were cast on concrete. If only 38% of the polls female (<320 out of 800 polled)respondents favored the government shoving their contraceptive mandates on to religious folks, I would say that proves the liberals are in the minority by a long shot. But those liberals in my view do not understand the reality of this in their fogged over state to boot Limbaugh.

Douglas Keachie

Todd, what are you willing to wager that Obama will lose in November? I've already got one bet that will result in Hospitality House getting richer by $100 of someone elses money when Obama does win.

Douglas Keachie

"The Republican Party is doubling down on the birtherism...They are what they are...."

"The Republican Party is Rush Limbaugh, the establishment is Glenn Beck, is Sean Hannity....they hijacked the party.

~ James Carville ~

BTW, the coloration of my graphic is very much like the coloration of a clown car.

Michael Anderson

"BTW, the coloration of my graphic is very much like the coloration of a clown car."

Oh c'mon Keach, lighten up. I was just giving you a gentle poke in the ribs. Why the need to wear your serious pants all the time?

Douglas Keachie

Michael, I don't quite see me wearing "serious pants" in creating that image, which, BTW, is doing OK on Flickr.com at 21 views already.

Ryan Mount

You guys get off topic quickly. My suspicion is that everyone in Nevada County as a "script" judging by the all the 45mph drivers on 49.

Anyhow, regarding the individual mandate, and by extension this contraception mandate (I believe they are related), the issue before the SCOTUS is the Interstate Commerce Clause. And this is huge because it could be a referendum on New Deal policies that have informed (and funded) our government for the past 70 or so years.

Will they (the SCOTUS) throw it out? I honestly think it's up in the air given the construction (pardon the pun) of the current court. It will probably pass because of judicial precedent. But it may not, and if it doesn't it could really turn things on it's head.

BTW, the Supreme Court has uploaded all of the PPACA initial briefs here:

http://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/PPAACA.aspx

(Note: you'll probably need a fire under your butt in order to keep you awake while reading these pleadings, but none the less, they're interesting.)

George Rebane

RyanM 944am - thanks for that link; probably more than we want to know, but it does make the point. And I agree that the big issue is the modern review of the Commerce Clause. It's like a big old lumpy rug that has had so much garbage swept under it over the years that it's now hard to navigate across it.

DougK 751am - for a man staring at what sounds like certainty in November, what kind of odds are you willing to give on Obama's victory?

Douglas Keachie

George, odds, 1:1, why give away the store, when suckers roam the planet?

Ryan Mount

George-

Obama's a shoe-in 2012 unless there's a massive unemployment upswing or someone discovers a gimp under this Whitehouse bed. If Romney gets the nod, just think how the "Obamacare" debate will go:

Obama: "I'd like to thank Mitt model for my healthcare reform."

I'm not going to be voting for Obama as I've said here and elsewhere (nor the GOP for that matter), but I'm willing to wager $50.00 on Obama being President November 8th and put that towards the Hospitality House. Anyone in for the bet?

A more interesting and difficult wager would be on the upcoming SCOTUS/healthcare mandates.

Tony Loro

You guys all miss the point of this. Here it comes
George Rabanne's daughter is a slut who has exorbitant sex and when she was in college her dad paid for her contraception. Let's watch videos of her having sex.
Now George you know what was going through the minds of her parents.
Or the minds of millions of other parents who wisely paid for or arranged for contraception for their daughters. Anyone with a daughter old enough to use contraception was painted with the same brush that this fat ex-drug addict used.

Steven Frisch

Ryan, thanks for posting a better link to the briefs. As I said over in a previous thread the issue of individual rights to specific coverages are not an ICC issue, but of course, if the entire PPACA is tossed due to ICC issues, the issues around coverages are moot.

And if the PPACA is tossed, the previous status quo antebellum reigns, and women's reproductive rights, and the general law of who gets what coverages stands.

What I find most interesting here is that anyone would object to covering women's reproductive health, since it is a clearly established medical right, upheld by the SCOTUS on several occasions. To say this is a "freedom of religion" issue is equally specious, since there is clearly defined law that defines which classifications of employees are covered under a conscience objection, laid out in the 1972 law and the EEOC.

So what the Blunt amendment was trying to do was expand the definitions of who could be denied coverage under conscience objections. But the Blunt amendment, and two others, failed to pass. If they had passed they would have likely been quickly challenged and overturned in appellate corts.

Consequently, the opponents of the current law really only have ONE other path to having thier will be done---take the Senate(and now they will need a 60 seat majority because you better believe this will be a Democratic litmus test) and hold the House, pass the new law, and either a) hope the appellate and SCOTUS uphold it, or b) gain the Presidency and wait for a more favorable SCOTUS.

If this is the case, then the strategy they are pursuing, demonizing the messengers, alienating women and fighting the battle on the grounds of contraception rather than religious liberty, is exactly the wrong way to win thier case.

Thus, every day this ridiculous fight goes on is a victory for women's reproductive rights.

So, keep it up boys; you could not be doing more to re-elect the President.

Steven Frisch

By the way, I did read most of the briefs last night, and although I think it will be a close vote, I would find it hard to believe that the SCOTUS would throw out more than 75 years of precedent. My guess is the swing in a 5-4 will be Anthony Kennedy.

The problem with throwing out 75 years of precedent is that they will be faced with dozens of cases trying to re-define the Commerce Clause, many of them playing out over a 10-15 year period. The conservative justices, looking ahead to the next election, and the likelihood that Obama may have 1-2 more SC nominations, has got to be worried that we may end up with an even broader interpretation of the commerce clause, one closer to what Alexander Hamilton proposed.

Cooler heads will prevail.

Steven Frisch

I'd say Tony just laid it out pretty well......George may not want to hear it, but that is what at least 80% of parents and 30% of swing women voters heard, whether he likes it or not.

Ryan Mount

Steven wrote: "...it hard to believe that the SCOTUS would throw out more than 75 years of precedent."

I agree with that. But the debate will be fascinating. And to your "slut" alienation comment, you're right, the GOP is in trouble with swing voters now. Big trouble.

Steven Frisch

The vote will be Ginsberg, Kennedy, Kagan, Sotomayor, Breyer / Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Scalia.


But I guess we will need to listen, wait, and see eh?

Steven Frisch

Here is an interesting commentary go Justice Kennedy's previous opinion re: the commerce clause:

http://www.examiner.com/progressive-in-los-angeles/health-care-reform-s-constitutionality-part-2-what-will-justice-kennedy-do

George Rebane

DougK 1016am - I think your odds and assessment are both questionable. You will verify this yourself by counting the number of planet roaming suckers who will take your bet at 1:1 odds, which are a verifiable indicator of a belief tenet of extreme doubt, or of total ignorance of the underlying matter.

George Rebane

TonyL 1020am - I'm afraid your little bon mot needs a tighter connection to the issue at hand. What on earth does parents voluntarily paying for their daughter's contraception costs in college have to do with the interpretation and/or expansion of government mandated entitlements for providing the same benefit to a putatively self-sufficient adults?

Rabanne??

John Galt

I see that Steve brought in another Saul Alinsky team member. Welcome Tony Loro. I presume Steve's declaration that he hadn't read the full version of "Rules for Radicals" inspired you to jump in. (Still he's pretty good for having read only the Cliff Notes.)

So here's what the Rules for Radicals team would like us to understand:

One wrong does make a right (a la Bill Maher)
Two wrongs Do NOT make a right (a la Rush Limbaugh)*
Three Wrongs make a right again (a lo Tony Loro)

* Note, Exception, 2 wrongs do make a right for liberals (a la Ed Shultz)


In summary, debate for the radicals is merely a means to occuly the conservatives while they busy themselves writing letters to the editors and collecting petitions. The notion of an exchange of ideas with such radicals is a masquerade.

--John Galt

Ryan Mount

"John Galt"-

I thought Steven's observations were right on the mark. I'm not sure why you guys keep dragging this Saul Alinsky guy into the equation, but it seems, and pardon my criticism, a weird obsession. I've been around plenty of "radicals" (some wacky, some reasonable) in my time and never heard Alinsky once mentioned until Glenn Beck and Newt Gingrich recently evoked his name. Yeah, that's an anecdotal observation, but I've done plenty of tours through the Liberation/Marxist hoopla in college many years ago, not once hearing his name until recently.

"John Galt" wrote: "The notion of an exchange of ideas with such radicals is a masquerade."

That is quite overstated. From what I've observed here, we have people talking past each other followed by some name calling and slurs. And Mr. Frisch seems to being trying to take the high road here. Mr. Loro seems to be talking past the discussion with some heated rhetoric. But if you read through the fire, as Mr. Frisch did, you'll see that he has a good point: the Mr. Limbaugh's comments really screwed the GOP's pooch. And to George's original "candy ass" post, it's relevant. Where's the GOP's response? Where's the leadership? Where's the damage control for the swing voters? It's nowhere to be found.

BTW, I give Mr. Rebane a great deal of credit for trying to keep people on target.

Douglas Keachie

I already have one such sucker, Woodsy on The Union Towntalk, previous a commenter there, along with myself, back before the Evil Empire (Swift) shut down the fun. Made the bet over a year ago, he has stopped referencing it as of late. I wonder why?

Douglas Keachie

"You will verify this yourself by counting the number of planet roaming suckers who will take your bet at 1:1 odds, which are a verifiable indicator of a belief tenet of extreme doubt, or of total ignorance of the underlying matter."

Nope, it's a simple matter of controlling risk, to match my available budget. I gather nobody one Rebane's blog is going to bet against Obama at 1:1. What sort of odds would you consider, then? Do you need $10 return for every $1 risked? Would that level the playing field for you? Nope, not even Todd? I'm rather guessing there will be no takers at anything less than 3:1, that would be read as three of my dollars to one of yours, for the uncertain out there.

Douglas Keachie

You can see the odds offered by the pros at http://www.politicalbettingodds.com/2012-us-presidential-election-odds.html and notice that I am not too far out of line. They give Obama at 4:9 and Romney at 2:1 and Hillary at 100:1 .

Douglas Keachie

I'm glad to see that Vegas has a good deal of faith in the the Secret Service, otherwise the Hillary payout would be much lower.

George Rebane

DougK 137pm - Yes, I'd agree that 3:1 would be the threshold odds to start attracting bettors at this date. Today my own belief that Obama will go on to win 2/3. This will, of course, change as the weeks pass and things happen.

RyanM 1244pm - Saul Alinsky is not an "obsession" in the sense you (de)mean it. Alinsky is cited here and elsewhere only because he describes a behavioral model for political thought and activism. Reading his prescriptions for radical leftists is a reliable predictor of what such people do and will do, and it efficiently explains away what they have done. Therefore it has value for that per se, and also serves as an efficient way to compactly communicate such notions with others familiar with his work.

Ryan Mount

George, Hi. Again as always, thanks for the forum.

I'm pretty sure the only people who pay attention to Alinsky are American Conservatives. Much like the only people who pay attention to Rush are American Progressives.

Douglas Keachie

So Alinsky's tome is in effect a Bible, from whence all manner of preachers can derive meanings to suit their preferred frames of reference?

George Rebane

RyanM 224pm, DougK 233pm - Actually, I can only confirm that many conservatives do indeed pay attention to Alinsky's writings and have done so for years for the reasons stated. I don't know whether his material "is in effect a Bible" for collectivists, but one does not stray far from the observables to ascribe it such influence.

Re RushL - if our progressives also pay attention to Rush, then the man does indeed have a wide audience on both sides of the political spectrum, because he does have a large conservative following.

Ryan Mount

My point was about the people who are ironically getting their panties in a bundle: American Conservatives over Alinsky; American Progressives over Rush.

I don't know how I can be any more clear about this, but radicals nor their handlers aren't reading Alinsky. Maybe they should so they can join the discussion. From what I understand, Rules for Radicals seems to be the flip side of Machiavelli's The Prince, which I have read and enjoyed.

Now if you said Chomsky, Foucault, Zinn and Flamboyowitz (OK, I made that one up), you'd be onto something.

George Rebane

RyanM 257pm - using a reliable model to predict/explain the behavior of an important cohort in our society is definitely NOT getting anyone's "undies in a bundle". You seem to be contending something which I'm not following. Please reread - I did not claim that collectivists read Alinsky, only that they behaved according to his prescriptions. Alinsky's advice has been given and deduced by others of the Left.

Steven Frisch

There can be no damage control with the swing voters because Republican leadership is giving thier Presidential candidates such a wide berth. They can't weigh in because if they do they create havoc in the electoral process for themselves. This is a natural outgrowth of the rise of social conservatism exemplified by the Tea Party movement. The ultimate irony here is that the Republicans are probably more divided now than they have been at any time since 1964 but the Democrats are increasingly more united as the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan recede in importance. ( This is also analogous to the divide in the Democratic party in 1968).

It's a Barry Goldwater moment.

Many of us here, and on other blogs, we're saying that the TP would end up dividing the Republican party and now the chickens are coming home to roost.

The big question in December of 2012 for Republicans will be "where do we go from here?" Do they try to rebuild the party on a more conservative base as Ronald Reagan did? Or do more moderate Republicans attempt to reign in the conservative radicals, betting that the American people are actually more centrist?

I really think that George and others here are betting on the first scenario, and sincerely believe that that is a more prudent course. I really don't doubt thier sincerity.

Ryan Mount

OK. I'm not getting anywhere with Alinsky thing. So I'll drop it. But I still think it's weird.

Mr. Frisch (above) is probably right. The only thing missing is the Daisy commercial from Obama, but that's probably coming.

George Rebane

Given that the Repubs do poorly this November, I also agree with SteveF's 306pm. There will be a lot of soul searching, rending of garment, gnashing of teeth, and a wail of "where do we go from here?" An historic outcome may be the rise of a third (and possibly a fourth?) significant party on the national stage. However, looking at Obama's swings to the left, I'm not so sure that the Democrats are flying in all that tight of a formation.

Brad Croul

@GeorgeR, why should Republicans tell Obama, "Suck it up, this is what free speech sounds like. Limbaugh has plowed no new ground with his remarks, but followed in your own well laid and deep furrows. You are piling this crap into a high mountain only to hide your bankrupt social and economic policies during the election year."?

Obama did not have anything to do with the backlash and made no statement challenging Limbaugh's free speech rights.

Here is a link to the video containing his response to questions asked during a recent press conference:

http://video.msnbc.msn.com/msnbc-tv/46643420#46643420

Paul Emery

Yes Brad

El Rushbo is Obama's best pal and biggest asset right now. Why would they want to shut him up? With enemies like that who needs friends?

Steven Frisch

Actually George, this is where Ben and I really agree. I would rather see a multi-party system because I think it would be a more accurate representation of the political diversity of our country ( and state for that matter). I often find myself out of step with the Democratic party on foreign policy, taxation, budget and environmental issues, falling more to the centrist side. With that said, this year Democrats and liberals and progressives will largely fall in line behind President Obama, because the see the pragmatic choice, I believe the Republican party has lost its sense of pragmatism and will need to feel the fire of thier hopes being dashed to recoup. But as I have said here many times, we are a hell of a lot closer to 4 tribes than 2.

George Rebane

SteveF 551pm - well then, it appears we have discovered a longstanding agreement between several of us here.

Given such a, say, four party shakeout, how everyone characterize the distinction in the core values of such a political gaggle?

Todd Juvinall

We already have many parties but those stubborn Americans for some reason unknown to me keep populating the democrat and Republican organizations. If someone wants to take the path of a third or fourth then there are ready-made partys to use. In New York there is even a conservation party you can register in. I watch the British Parliament on CSPAN and we see the top three parties in the chamber. The Tories had to cut a deal with the liberals and labor is now out. I just love listening to them trying to make something work. Almost impossible.

Douglas Keachie

Well Todd, the British situation sure contrasts with the Republicans and Democrats in the House getting along so well and fixing the economy.

Douglas Keachie

"I don't know whether his material "is in effect a Bible" for collectivists, but one does not stray far from the observables to ascribe it such influence."

I was ascribing the "Bible" aspect to how the right wing uses it to frame their versions of what they think that the folks on the left are doing.

Todd Juvinall

He had the teachers of America. They have wrecked our youth.

Douglas Keachie

Wussy, underpaid, under skilled parents wrecked our youth.

Todd Juvinall

So if those parents had no kids what would you have done for aliving? I see you signed the anti free speech petition. Don't you feel a little dirty?

Douglas Keachie

I signed the let's not donate to Rush Limbaugh's old age pension fund via advertisers. What do you think he's got? A government entitlement to be the most overpaid talk show host in America? Who appointed him King? Go buy from his advertisers and keep him on the air. He has all the rights to free speech as any other American citizen. Let him buy a megaphone and go stand at 6th and Mission with the rest of the nutcases. You can buy hi batteries. Nobody is denying him a right to speak. God is sending the Repo Man for the Golden microphone.

Paul Emery

I've said it before and it bears repeating. All it would take is one election cycle where an overwhelming majority vote anyone but Republicrats to competently change the landscape. Imagine, the entire House wiped out in one cycle.

The Republican sponsored and and voter approved so called "open primary" will make it more difficult for sure.

Douglas Keachie

I would have sold real estate, insurance, or gone into law. Actually originally intended to be an ethnographic cinematographer. Divorse made grad school messy, along with child support.

Russ Steele

Michelle Malkin is putting her money where her conservative, free-market principles are.

The full announcement about our new Twitchy.com ad buy with Rush Limbaugh is here.

A snippet: “As a small business owner, defender of capitalism, and advocate of free speech, I am putting my money where my conservative, free-market principles are. TWITCHY.COM is proud to join companies across the country that advertise with talk show giant Rush Limbaugh and his Excellence In Broadcasting network. Today, we will begin running ads on the RushLimbaugh.com website.”

Like I said yesterday and have been saying for years, we need to unite against the progs’ collective, coordinated whitewash of Barack Obama and the organized effort to criminalize and silence conservative dissent. However you can do it, large or small, please step up!

Gregory

"What I find most interesting here is that anyone would object to covering women's reproductive health" - Frisch

No one is; that's the false Democratic talking point the whole brouhaha was meant to enable, starting with Stephanopoulos' introduction of the topic as a debate "moderator".

The objection was over the Feds forcing the coverage of birth control pills without copay or limits, no matter the objection of the folks forced to pay for the policy.

It ain't over till it's over, and the fat lady hasn't even arrived at the Met, let alone started singing. Charlotte should be interesting; who isn't expecting the stone cold loony 1% of the 99% to make Charlotte look like Chicago '68?

Gregory

European style proportional representation isn't likely to catch on in the US. Dream on.

"I believe the Republican party has lost its sense of pragmatism and will need to feel the fire of thier [sic] hopes being dashed to recoup." -Frisch

I think Frisch is just longing for the good old pre-Gingrich and later Nancy Pelosi days when Republicans were too few in the Congress to do anything but vote for Democratic bills with a few bones tossed in their direction.

Steven Frisch

Sorry Gregory, It was not George Stephanopoulos who introduced the Blunt amendment. Nor did he ask the question in a vacuum; he asked it after Rick Santorum brought it up on the campaign trial.

By the way, I notice no one has answered my question about why we should pay for diabetes medication for people who eat too much sugar, or blood pressure medication for people who eat too much fat, or viagra for the guys who can't get it up any more, or dental care for people who don't brush their teeth.

I object to paying for these things (I don't really, but I'm making a point).

Reproduction is as much a fact of life as heart disease...or ...going bald....or whatever.


Russ Steele

Jennifer Rubin at the Washington Post: Limbaugh attack boomerangs on the White House

Perhaps the left carried on a little too long and a little too loudly regarding Rush Limbaugh’s nasty language about Sandra Fluke. Conservative activist Penny Nance, executive director of Concerned Women for America, has sent a letter to the White House chief of staff demanding President Obama’s super PAC live up to the same standard Democrats have articulated for Republicans and Rush Limbaugh.

ooo

Why have all the lefty bloggers crying foul about Limbaugh fallen silent on this subject. When will own lefty blogger get the Democrat memo to back off?

George Rebane

SteveF 825am - The extension of entitlement 'medical' care has no end as I have pointed out here and you again bring to the fore. It is the logical analog of the Constitution's interstate commerce clause, only without constitutional basis. With arguments that you have given, where indeed are the limits before the entire field of medicine, cosmetic procedures, transgender manipulations, ... is an ever expanding area of state enterprise. It is a valid issue to discuss, and I'm afraid that the boundary, if one is ever imposed, will be quite arbitrary.

I'm looking at the latest issue of IEEE Spectrum that reports on recent advances in "becoming bionic" that describes how AI, neural interfaces, and robotics are promising the remaking of our bodies. I'm sure all of that will be melded in as a soon to be pursued 'right' that government will guarantee through another entitlement expansion.

But coming full circle, the more government demands to spend and redistribute, the less freedoms and money I have to live my life as I see fit. Somewhere a line must be drawn under the current system, because none of it is sustainable and Obamacare is the current Big Lie bilking the nation. I am for drawing it sooner than later. Other solutions have been suggested and rejected for reducing healthcare costs and making it more broadly available.

Douglas Keachie

No need to back off. It is not a free speech issue. The beauty of SuperPacs, Obama has no control over returning donations, and people including Russ Steele have to PAY to listen to Bill Maher, and thus it is NOT a public use of the airwaves. You don't like Maher? Boycott your private tv dish or cable provider. In the meantime plans are afoot to have a trailer that is pulled about town with the names of local advertisers who support Rush on KNCO. Of course it will absolutely up to code for everything, and equipped with front and rear videocams, and obeying the laws religiously. Now that's free speech! I have no desire to have KNCO go silent, I just want them to make better use of those three hours. If reducing local advertising revenue is going to "hurt" them, then consider the following:

If KNCO gets national attention directed at GV/NC for dropping the Rush show, it may bring a lot of interest, new people, moving in, and/or being tourists. In short, more money, and more local advertising. losing Rush could be the start of a whole new and more prosperous world, and I really doubt that the major advertisers dropped him without doing a lot of market research, and realized that he was becoming a liability even before he psuhed the slut button. It was a great out for them. "Gee (to loyal ditto-ites) we're so sorry we had to drop him, but you do believe in family values, don't you?"

Speaking of which, should a school teacher EVER even vaguely suggest, even in unintentionally overheard private conversation, that a colleague, an administrator, a parent, or God totally forbid, a student, was a SLUT, Steele and Todd would have their job instantly. So, the moves against Rush are payback for your and Rush's attitudes towards teachers, as seen everywhere. Rush can go to 6th and Mission, and blab all he wants. He has no special entitlement to a nationwide microphone, or an Armed Forces radio network microphone.

The comments to this entry are closed.