On social policy, the New Democratic Party ushered in by the Clinton/Gore administration rejected the very soul of the progressive agenda begun with FDR. Precisely because it was a Democratic administration
that shredded the social safety net, transferring public dollars from aid to the poor into funds to cover the quarter-century long string of “tax breaks” for the wealthiest.  Because it was a Dem. administration that enacted these regressive policies, America decided it was OK to abandon our social/moral responsibilities to those in need. The results are obvious: we now have the greatest social/economic disparities among all modern nations, infant mortality has increased and the life expectancy of the poor has plunged to Third World levels, workers’ rights and protections have been wiped out, the quality of life has dramatically deteriorated, and so on.

Your latest post, Ardee, as usual, contains thoughtful reflection.  Since you ended it on the question of the substantive difference between left and right, I thought I might add some quotes which underscore that difference.

“The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little."--Pres. Franklin D. Roosevelt.

“The greatest challenge we face is the growing gap between the rich and poor people on earth."--Pres. Jimmy Carter.

“More than anything else, I want to see the United States remain a country where someone can get rich."--Pres. Ronald Reagan.

“I think in our system everyone should be a little greedy."--Ivan Boesky.

“Crony capitalism is the name of the Rebupblican game.  Their slogan is ‘take care of your friends and leave the risks of the free market for the suckers.’"--Robert Scheer.

Then, of course, there is America’s “hard-right.” On April 9, 1944, while this nation was locked in a life-and-death struggle with fascism in Europe, The New York Times published a description of “the American fascist,” penned by Vice President Henry Wallace:

“The American fascist would prefer not to use violence.  His method is to poison the channels of public information.  With a fascist, the problem is never how best to present the truth to the public, but how best to use the news to deceive the public…

“They claim to be superpatriots but they would destroy every liberty guaranteed by the Constitution.  They demand free enterprise but are the spokesmen for monopoly and vested interest.  Their final objective toward which all their deceit is directed is to capture political power so that, using the power of the state and the power of the market simultaneously, they may keep the common man in eternal subjugation.”

#76458 by Ernest Canning on 6/08 at 6:42 pm

I appreciate the response Mr. Canning, truly I do. I have been active in politics for more years than many here have been alive, since the aarpanet days in fact, and therefore I appreciate even more the rationale, thoughtfulness and intellect your posts display.

I also see this site, not very different at all from most of the centrist, moderate or leftist forii one finds out here, as comprised of far too many who have simply forgotten how to debate, how to research or how to be civil. When one peruses the right wing sites, and I do so for as long as my stomach can take it, one notes a universal agreement that overrides individual differences. It is a sort of “bury the hatchet for now and once we’ve won my ideologies will beat yours” sort of thing.

My main reason for posting to you on the subject of our resident “freerepublic” intellectual ( and man alive they are scarce indeed) was to note that I believe your responses give him credibility that he does not deserve, and by ignoring him one defuses his intent at obfuscation and distortions. I credit your desire to “set the record straight” and oppose his lies and attempts at minimising the effects of the truth upon politics but think it is wasted on the general caliber of poster here, frankly, and does the double duty of lengthening his stay here.

I have stayed here this long primarily because of posters like you and a few (too damn few) others. In my dotage I have become less able to tolerate the imbecilities one notes here and everywhere in our society. Is it any wonder , given the obvious dumbing down so blatantly noted among so very many here and elsewhere that a small coterie of agendised and powerful folks have subverted our nation and stolen the wealth that belongs to all in common?

Some six months after the founding of Freerepublic.com, that nest of imbecility on the far right, I had occasion to debate its founder, Jim Robinson, when he appeared on a forum I attended, Fresh Press. His final words have remained with me and came after he was roundly castigated for an agendised pursuit of distortions and blind patriotism covering constitutional corruption and violation of law. He blustered that, barely six months after its founding, he had garnered over $200,000 in profits from that site. What can one say to such monumental selfishness, a trait that makes law and justice , compassion and humanity secondary to self interest?

That, in a nutshell sums up the Marshalls of this world, highlights the real differences between left and right, that we on the left judge by how the least of us is cared for while they only seek their own successes and the rest be damned, and highlights the real waste of time in acknowledging his efforts.

Thanks for listening and, while I remain here, I will continue to look forward to your posts.

Ardee:  When it comes to posters who do not have a clue as to what vigorous but polite intellectual discourse is about, I am inclined to ignore them if my efforts to reach out only trigger a diatribe.  There is never a point when we should decend to the level of their infantile rants.

Posters like Marshall are another matter.  While I haven’t heard the man speak, I suspect that he would more closely resemble the vice president’s level of discourse rather than our bumbling president.  If you go back and watch Cheney’s performances, you will find that he has perfected the technique of the quiet lie.  As he delivers an especially damnable lie, like his efforts to link Saddam to al-Qaeda and 9/11, his voice will drop off to a level of “matter of factness.” He doesn’t merely lie with a straight face, he does so in a manner that would suggest to the listener that his canard is so well accepted that one should not even consider it news.

While it may not be possible to know whether Marshall is merely a deluded ideologue, a sociopath or simply a pathological liar, the one thing that is beyond question is that the false information he deposits on this site arises to the level of “damnable lies.” It is no more appropriate to permit them to go unchallenged than it is to cede the scope of discourse to Dick Cheney.

While there is no doubt that the already educated--specifically you--are not taken in by the lie, there is a risk that numerous readers at this site who do not know better will be misled.  That is why, in this instance, I took the time to set the record straight on the advantages of single-payer health care.

#76237 by Ernest Canning

I am torn, frankly, by the dichotomy of responding to the increasingly erroneous deceptions of this Marshall person. His posts indicate intelligence so one cannot simply chalk up his incorrect assurances to error. Thus one is left to believe that he intentionally deceives, that he knows full well the fallacies he posts and follows an agenda.

I would not descend into pointless theories as to why exactly he does this, you are obviously perceptive enough by far to be aware of the possibilities. Rather I would put forward the idea that ignoring, rather than responding to this sort of outright propaganda is the best course of action.

At first blush one might think that exposing his ,sometimes subtle, sometimes not, lies and distortions performs the greater good. I conjecture that it (responding) lends an air of credibility most undeserved and, worse, may act to actually assist him in his goal.

If we simply ignore his posts he will gain nothing from them, if we just do not respond he may soon tire of gaining no reward, however subtle or perhaps psychological that reward might be. I find, in a longish experienciality with these forums, that the childish posters like our resident Dik or the apparently and blessedly absent cupera1, leave soonest. But even the ones like Marshall soon depart when ignored.

Perhaps he isnt test marketing right wing spin, perhaps he even believes the stuff he tries to foist upon us, perhaps he doesnt see the insult in the assumption that we are stupid enought actually lend credibility to a well crafted falsehood, I simply do not know. What I do know is that anyone here worthy of exchange should either see through Marshall or take the time to research his claim and then perforce see the distortions.

I only suggest obviously and understand that you act upon your own experiences. I fully trust your judgment and only offer this to you, and to any who might read and understand my points, as suggestion. I do intend to follow through and only post this having read your wonderful response, one that will make no dent, one that very well might help make his spin more effective, either here or elsewhere.

“Shill” is a proper description of E. J., himself.  If it’s pro-bono, the jokes on him.  It would probably be best to ignore him.  And judging from the avalanche of comments, someone might mistake this for reverence.  fnord fatang pit-stains fnord…

Joe Biden, has some nasty baggage, he will never live down, namely bankrupcy reform, he’s identifed as a shill for the credit card industry..

No matter what his views on other topics, he will never be president…

As usual, Marshall conducts his research at right-wing spin sites, then deposits his little tidbits of disinformation at Truthdig.  In this instance, about the supposed superiority of the U.S. healthcare system.
Here are the facts:

1.  Citizens of 34 nations live longer than U.S. citizens.  The World Health Organization ranked the U.S. as 37th in the world in healthcare performance.  Americans have lower odds of surviving colorectal cancer and childhood leukemia than Canadians.

2.  Same-day access to primary-care physicians in the US (33%) is far less available than in the UK (41%), Australia (54%) and New Zealand (60%).  Per capita health care spending in single-payer countries averaged $2,696 as compared to $5,267 in the US.

3.  47 million Americans have no health care insurance--up 7 million since 2000.  The National Academy of Science Institute of Medicine estimates that 18,000 Americans die each year because they have no insurance.  As revealed by Paul Krugman, “The Health Care Racket” (NY Times 2/16/07), having insurance does not always translate to being “covered” as healthcare insurers have devised multiple schemes for evading approval of necessary procedures.

4.  As noted by Mr. Kucinich, “almost 31% of the spending that goes for health care goes for the for-profit system; corporate profits, stock options, executive salaries, advertising, marketing, lobbying....” One might add to this corporate waste, a pharmaceutical industry that spends far more on advertising and lobbying than for research and development; an industry that routinely charges Americans as much as four times what it charges Canadians for the same prescription medication.

As noted by Dr. Marcia Angell, in introducing the Conyers-Kucinich single payer bill, “Americans have the most expensive health care system in the world.  We spend about twice as much per person as other developed nations.  That’s not because we are sicker or more demanding....The underlying problem is that we treath health care like a market commodity instead of a social service.”

The so-called “universal healthcare” proposals of Clinton, Obama & Edwards are all variable schemes to subsidize the for-profit healthcare insurers.  The Conyers-Kucinich bill offers true reform that eliminates this unnecessary middle man.  This nation’s health is “not” a commodity!

#75972 by Marshall on 6/07 at 1:33 am

If France’s system has three sources of funding, that does not mean it is not single-payer.  It is single-payer.  There is one administrative system.

#76051 by Leefeller on 6/07 at 9:42 am: “Since I do not like insurance companies, I lean toward a bureaucratic system, which may or may not be a better way to go?”

It is the US’s system that is the bureaucratic nightmare that costs us $250 BILLION every year more than single-payer would.  This figure includes only administration!!!  The current system is two thousand different insurance companies each one having about six plans (single gold, single silver, married gold, married silver, family gold, and family silver).  Someone goes to a hospital and it is a nightmare trying to determine what they can get or cannot get and who pays what percentage of what.

The last I heard, about 92% of Canadians were very happy with their healthcare.  If it needs improving, then improve it.  They are in a democracy--they can vote.  I do not have a vote on the board of a major health insurance corporation.  There are a hell of a lot more Americans traveling to Canada than there are Canadians traveling to the US.  I would rather wait a year for hip-replacement surgery than have the US system.

BTW, I am American and lived in US 45 out of 57 years.  Currently in US with no healthcare.

#75972 by Marshall

From what I understand, you are correct, the Canadian healthcare system is in trouble.

It boils down to if you believe health care should be a right for all the people or a privilege of the few.  If we decide all the people, then we must decide how to pay the bill.  Since I do not like insurance companies, I lean toward a bureaucratic system, which may or may not be a better way to go? 

Wasting most of our money on the military and warmongering, seems such a waste.  We could use the money to fix our broken country here at home.

I know, simplistic!

Verne Arnold,

You are right, “Humble Servant” is bating Truthdig posters, a tactic to bate and switch us away from the issue at hand. I picture “Humble Servant” (one I prefer not to have) with his rubber blow up doll of Russ Limbaugh, full-filling his simplistic political fantasies.

You are also correct, all in all, it is a sick form of entertainment to humor such as he and a total waste of time.  All reason is absent.

#75684 by Leefeller on 6/05 at 10:30 pm

For example Look at the posts from “My humble servant” if he is for real and I believe he is; the numbers of people informed with logic like him may be the answer to your question? 

I believe “Humble Servant” is baiting the posters here.  That’s my gut feeling on this...that’s why I never respond.

Universal Coverage can be accomplished very expensively and with a gift to the health insurance corporations if it is not government-controlled single-payer like Medicare.  Kucinich is the only one advocating single-payer.

Every other developed country in the world has single-payer and none would want our system.  Ours is twice as expensive as the next closest and it leaves 47 million with nothing.  Some Americans have healthcare, but cannot afford to use it because of deductibles or co-pays.  Some Americans have no coverage for dental, optometric, or behavioral.  Others can’t use it because of a pre-existing condition.  Others are stuck in a job they don’t want because they are afraid they would lose their healthcare.  Veterans have to travel hundreds of miles to a VA center.  These problems exist only in the US--not in the rest of the developed world.

In 1996, Consumer Reports said the US would save $175 billion each year administratively-alone by switching to single-payer.  Since it is a percentage, it would be at least $250 billion every year now.  When Edwards or others (except Kucinich) talk about it costing maybe $100 billion per year, it is because they are not advocating single-payer.  Don’t believe the myths about single-payer---I lived in Britain for twelve years.

I thought that Biden was not wholly giving the correct answer as opposed to the politically correct answer. Sure on the examples you cited, but overall my impression was that his answers were a little too carefully crafted to not offend. The winners on honesty go to Kucinich, and Gravel, who truly are running to get their opinions heard, and know they have no chance of winning -or even being selected for VP. It was refreshing to hear their answers. I think Joe hasn’t yet come to the realization that his career won’t advance past senator.

The problem for Hillary is not her sex, I think she will garner more votes for her sex, than she will lose. Likewise for Obama. I think his race is likely a net positive (i.e. for any voter he/she loses because of their race/sex they are likely to gain two more). Hillaries problem is the publics dynasty fatigue. Too many just don’t want to see the presidency go Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton. The public wants fresh blood (i.e. someone who isn’t a Bush or A Clinton).

You are right, other than some healthcare talk, I saw little attempt by the candidates to go after the Lou Dobbs Democrats.

#75722 by chabuka on 6/06 at 4:59 am
(Unregistered commenter)

“Why is corporate news media ramming Clinton-Edwards-Obama down our throats...? (Seems as though the GOP also want them to run and win, why?) Are these three democratic candidates the most corporate, military industry complex, Israel, “friendly” of the bunch..?

Could it be possible that these three are simply the front runners and our sorry third estate has lost the will or the energy to dig into backgrounds, to do searching in depth analysis and simply skims the surface of everything?

#75878 by rowdy on 6/06 at 5:13 pm
(70 comments total)

the only difference between either party is a simple one. one spins around in circles to the left, the other spins around in circles to the right. both get dizzy and fall to the ground. we all get covered in their vomit.

this is genuinely funny, Thanks for it...However there are many Dems who spin to the right as well, sad to say.

the only difference between either party is a simple one. one spins around in circles to the left, the other spins around in circles to the right. both get dizzy and fall to the ground. we all get covered in their vomit.

#75686 by Marshall on 6/05 at 10:54 pm
(Unregistered commenter)

”...Let me tell you something, nobody asked anybody else whether they’re gay in ... those foxholes.”

Ummm… duh!?  There’s a “don’t ask don’t tell” policy!!

.................

OK so I know I said I would not respond to this agendised Josef Goebbels but ths last is so smarmy as to be irresistible. Note how Marshall intentionally distorts the meaning of Biden’s perceptive remark about combat troops. As a former one I do not see a devil dog, under fire, musing about the sexual orientation of his immediate neighbor but refraining from asking because of a policy.

This is a perfect example of why this poster should be ignored until he scurries back under his rock and ,hopefully, cleans up his slime trail first......I now take the pledge to respond to nothing further from this sad and pseudo American.

Dr. Knowitall, PhD, PhDDr. Knowitall, PhD, PhD

No need to apologize for ranting, can be soothing to the soul.  At least you are not writing in all caps. Sanity is still with you, as long as you know you are ranting. 

Your rants make some sense, we are constantly being manipulated probably even more than we know.

Your questions may be answered by the success of the Ann Coulter and Russ Limbaugh media types.  We see Republicans, who have a demented loyalty that has little or nothing to do with reason.  An agenda of fear and an obedient desire to protect the status quo.

For example Look at the posts from “My humble servant” if he is for real and I believe he is; the numbers of people informed with logic like him may be the answer to your question? 

During a recient converstation with a religious conservative person.  His priorities and concerns were few and simple.  Our nations problems steam from gays, and illegal aliens, these were more important to him than the war, even though he agreed with me we should not have gone into Iraq?

911 Student -

Excellent post!

The RepubliDems are in the same snake pit.

I absolutely believe that if ANY of the so-called candidates came out and, at the very least, called for a new, true 9/11 investigation, they’d be unstoppable!

We are craving the truth!

This country can and must handle the truth!!

Google videos: 9/11 Press for Truth, Loose Change 2nd Edition

I found some interesting stuff at Common Dreams.org. after watching the Dem. debate.  Abid Aslam set forth some interesting research about American voters in an Inter Press Services article.  I have been greatly puzzled by this ?: There are 217.8 million people of voting age in America.  5% of them are considered wealthy.  2.8 million took home more, after taxes than 110 million of the poorest 40%, combined.  90% of those earning over 75K annually voted in the last election.  50% of eligible voters did not vote.  Why is it that, with such potential power for change embodied in the numbers of working class and poorer voters in this country, no one has been able to convince them they have that immense power and can have whatever they want, like universal healthcare, for example?  Why has no candidate spoken to this block?  Why are working class people content to allow themselves to be governed by the wealthy?  I’m more convinced than ever, as irrational as it may sound, that there is a conspiracy in this country on the part of the aristocracy to keep working class people uneducated--therefore realtively poor--in order to protect their own wealth.  I think they know this potential power exists and fear that someone will come along someday and unleash it (and I don’t mean JC)which is why the Dems. lie about their agenda being for the working class and why they lie about their position on ending the war and lie about universal healthcare (Zeus bless Michael Moore) They’re all a bunch of lying F**KERS.  Just about everyone on that stage is guilty of putting us where we now are and they stand up there and ask for our votes.  F*** them.  What are we, idiots? The Republicans don’t even regard us.  We need a real GRASSROOTS. We need articulate people who can press the flesh of the workers in this country and convince them that there’s enough F***ing money for everyone to live a life of dignity and plenty.  All they have to do is put up candidates who speak their language and vote for them.  We can reform our gov., end the role money plays in legislation, end pork, reform campaigning, we can do it all. Hell, we could even change the constitution.  Do people care?  I doubt it.  How is it that the engine of this country and its economy is the middle class and it is the middle class that is so totally disrespected if even regarded by its elected reps?  We are nuts! AND WE ARE MASOCHISTS! (Sorry for ranting; I’m so pissed)

I cannot stomach commercial Television never watch it.  Checked out the web videos and saw what I expected.

It seems I missed “The Wolf Blitzer Stump the Candidate Show” a choreographed puppet show of sound-bites.  I agree, Both Mike Gravel or Dennis Kucinich do offer us a refreshing change, only. to be swept under the rug, did not hear a peep from them.

A real debate would discuss important issues of the day in depth. The inane questions from second rate celebrity Wolf Blitzer provided a safe haven for the top three candidates. Having CNN and Blitzer selecting our president for us, is commercial turpitude.  The Republican debates will do the same to Paul and simply sweep him under the rug.

Big money will make sure that we get to choose between the best of the worst again.  Sitting in our sailboat with no wind to guide us away from the white water falls, big money pours open the flood gates. 

It is quite simple, once the big three candidates start dumping money into the coffers of mass media, Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel will be shoved down even lower.

Our only hope, is that the public debates will be real debates.

Does Joe Biden have to set himself on fire to get attention you ask; It would probably not help much, nor would it help Kucinich or Gravel either. The system under which we decide our candidates is as flawed as is the mistaken belief that we actually have a two party system.

Edwards makes some great arguments, Kucinich is the best on health care , cutting through the bullshit and placing the blame where it belongs, on the insurance industry. Gravel has his moments as well, but he is more curmudgeonly that even I......Ron Paul, on the other side of the aisle, can speak to the failings of his party, though I cannot get on board with a Libertarian, at least on the issues of social safety nets etc....

We waste our time thinking that this nations course can be altered for the better by either major political party. Until and unless we either take back those two parties or leave them completely and make a third party a viable force on the American political scene we will continue to see a diminishment of the progressive agenda.

In referring to a debate amongst eight democratic candidates as “Monday night’s Clinton-Obama-Edwards” debate, E.J. Dionne has once again proven that he is but a stooge for the corporatocracy.  It entials an effort to narrow the field to those candidates who have received the massive influx of corporate cash needed to feed the conglomerated media noise machine, which does not “inform” the citizenry of where candidates stand on issues that truly matter to the vast majority of the electorate, but instead treats the electorate as passive consumers and the candidates as commodities to be packaged and sold.

It was reflected in the placement of Obama-Clinton-Edwards at center stage as the disfavored candidates, Kucinich and Gravel were relegated to the margins at the far right and left of the stage.  It is a deliberate tactic, calculated to send subliminal messages to the voting public--those at the center deserve to be the center of our attention. (The tactic was repeated for the Republican debate with Ron Paul standing at the same spot as Kucinich).

Obama-Clinton-Edwards were the only candidates permitted to truly interact with one another as the camera focused on the three of them together, while shots of the other candidates were in isolation and only when they were permitted to speak.  Obama got 17 minutes air time.  Outside of the favored three, none of the others got as much as 9 minutes.

And now comes Dionne to close the deal.  This, he tells us, was the Obama-Clinton-Edwards debate.

Once again, I ask the editors of this site.  Why do you keep printing the tripe from this corporate stooge?  We can get that garbage by watching the propaganda networks, otherwise known as cable TV.  Why does it have to clutter up a site where people are hungry to read what real journalists, for example, Amy Goodman, journalists who are not afraid to speak truth to power, have to say?

If we can actually get an answer to those questions, I certainly hope it will not contain the words “fair and balanced!”

How’d I get on apologist.com ? E.J. Wake The F*** Up already. You need to start reading the comments posted [ ironically ] UNDER your drivel. Try reading something a little more current as well. A historical perspective is only helpful if you recognize ALL of the similarities and differences. It doesn’t work if you cherry pick your information in other words.

B

http://b-political.blogspot.com/

Joe Biden’s fabricated bluster was as fictitious as the president he stands behind. If the writer of this bit is unable to discern between genuine passion and an unconvincing attempt to act passionately, they should be reviewing American Idol instead, football or wrestling.

As in the first debate, only Mike Gravel and Dennis Kucinich dared stray from the Orwellian party line. We sure as hell don’t need to read childishly inane reviews like this on these otherwise unique pages.

A)"Does Joe Biden have to set himself on fire to get serious attention?”:  No.  We’re all well aware of Joe Biden, lol.  Unfortunately for Joe, the American people may be a little leery of an ostensibly passionate and sincere “bull in the china shop” approach to foreign policy (see: George Bush).

B)"And whatever happened to the lunch bucket issues that once made Democrats the dominant political party in America?”:  I think that may have gone south following secret trade deals and a strict adherence to the wishes of corporate oligarchies (See: Rahm Emmanuel, DLC, Joe Biden et al.).

But I’m sure you can steer me straight w/ some kick-ass Barry Goldwater quotes.  Or maybe this time, Cornilus Vanderbilt?

“It only takes 20 years for a liberal to become a conservative without changing a single idea...”
--Robert Anton Wilson

As Dionne seems to indicate, the media spin on the candidates and issues may be manipulating citizens about who to support and vote for.

The major media have been accused of being in bed with major political and business interests, and therefore providing biased and slanted impressions.

It seems that Americans may need to dig deep for good “intel” on candidates, political and social trends, scientific information and a wide range of accurate information about what is going on today, since the “mainstream media” may not be trustworthy in many important ways.

More on this in:

“Gathering intelligence: Grassroots intel by and for the people”

PopulistAmerica.com
Populist Party of America

http://www.populistamerica.com/gathering_intelligence_ grassroots_intel_by_and_for_the_people

The Dems lost their way, when they gave the cookiejar to Bush!