Rick Perlstein on Right-Wing Retardation

[Sheilbh]

To be fair, in that long list of quotes you provided earlier it wasn't clear whether the speakers were ginning up death panel fears or responding to requests for comments on the death panel phenomenon.  Except for Caribou Barbie.

You're right.  But surely the responsible thing to do in response to any question about it would be to say something like: 'there's no death panel in any version of this bill and if anything like that comes near it I'll oppose it absolute.  Here are some real reasons to oppose this bill and this process...'

Now Obama *could* take the tack of admitting that he raised a related issue previously, but it has since been dropped and guarantee that it won't be in any final bill, but he has opted for the easier path of telling people not to believe all those nasty lies.

My understanding is that the death panel stuff came from a reading, by Betsy McCaughey (I think), of the House Bill.  Not in response to anything Obama's said.  It has been dropped, no-one is supporting it any more.

[Admiral Yi]

You're right.  But surely the responsible thing to do in response to any question about it would be to say something like: 'there's no death panel in any version of this bill and if anything like that comes near it I'll oppose it absolute.  Here are some real reasons to oppose this bill and this process...'

First of all, it's Obama's bill, it's his job to sell it.  I don't remember Hillary giving speeches about the silliness of no blood for oil.

Second, a GOP promise to oppose such and such provision is completely irrelevant.  You've already posted several articles to this effect.  The legislative fight is between Blue Dogs and progressives.

My understanding is that the death panel stuff came from a reading, by Betsy McCaughey (I think), of the House Bill.  Not in response to anything Obama's said.  It has been dropped, no-one is supporting it any more.

That's great.  I promise to not attend any town hall meetings with Obama the Nazi posters.  Now either you can convince all the death panelists or Obama can try.

[Valmy]

Yeah, but Moveon.org is nowhere near as crazy.  I mean the most offensive thing I can think of is the General Betray Us ad.  When a political movements most distasteful moment is a pun I don't think they're that concerning.

I have to admit I do not read or have much to do with moveon.org.

But the insanity the talking heads on MSNBC spew is good enough for me.

[Valmy]

First of all, it's Obama's bill, it's his job to sell it.

Yeah for all his electioneering skill he is rather impotent in getting legislation passed.  But then he was hardly a big wheel in the Senate IIRC.

[Sheilbh]

First of all, it's Obama's bill, it's his job to sell it.  I don't remember Hillary giving speeches about the silliness of no blood for oil.

She voted for the war so I think she made a few.

I agree it's his job to sell it, but surely it's every politician's job to fight bullshit.

Second, a GOP promise to oppose such and such provision is completely irrelevant.  You've already posted several articles to this effect.  The legislative fight is between Blue Dogs and progressives.

That's not entirely right.  There are two big negotiations.  The Blue Dogs and the Republicans on the Senate Finance Committee, which look like passing a considerably more conservative bill (though still to the left of Obama's campaign plan).  Though maybe not given Grassley's latest statements.

At the same time there's a legislative battle between Blue Dogs and progressives, in which the White House is generally seen as being on the side of the moderates.

[Sahib]

This is much ado about very little.

Moveon.org is a couple of orders of magnitude greater in size and impact that the luny "liberty tree" nutjobs. They are getting lots of attention due to the nuttiness of their positions, and I would guess they are completely aware of that.

It is a bit sad that the ROTW will look at this and think "Gosh, the American right are all a bunch of raving lunatics!", since of course the media does not really bother to highlight the crazy left and pretend that it defines the left the way they do the right.

What about all this extremist rightwing pundits? They seems pretty popular

[Admiral Yi]

She voted for the war so I think she made a few.

The vote was like 98-2.  That's hardly proof.

[Savonarola]

First of all, it's Obama's bill, it's his job to sell it.

Yeah for all his electioneering skill he is rather impotent in getting legislation passed.  But then he was hardly a big wheel in the Senate IIRC.

With hindsight this seems obvious.  Obama was a one term Senator who began his run for president two years into his term.  He didn't have time to make connections or gain experience; he simply couldn't be Lyndon Johnson.  While he was running, though, he had such an extraordinary ability to unite the party that I thought he would be able to line up votes in Congress.  Carter was the same way; an incredible speaker, but had difficulty dealing with Congress.

[PDH]

Carter was the same way; an incredible speaker, but had difficulty dealing with Congress.

Well, Carter had that whole "attack of the killer rabbit" thing to live down as well...

[Berkut]

Well maybe the right should get their party leaders to stop saying insane shit then eh?  Probably a good start if you do not want insane shit to define you.

It won't matter though, since right party leaders NOT saying insane shit isn't newsworthy, and won't be reported.

[Berkut]

This is much ado about very little.

Moveon.org is a couple of orders of magnitude greater in size and impact that the luny "liberty tree" nutjobs. They are getting lots of attention due to the nuttiness of their positions, and I would guess they are completely aware of that.

It is a bit sad that the ROTW will look at this and think "Gosh, the American right are all a bunch of raving lunatics!", since of course the media does not really bother to highlight the crazy left and pretend that it defines the left the way they do the right.

What about all this extremist rightwing pundits? They seems pretty popular

Are they though? They are popular with other nutjobs sure, but then, the leftwing pundits are rather popular with the leftwing nutjobs as well. So what?

This idea that the left is defined by their nuttiest members and the right by THEIR nuttiest members does rational discourse no good. The problem is that even the reasonable members *insist* that the other sides nutbars are the real representatives, because it is so much easier arguing with the loonies.

So people like Shelf make a big deal about the liberty tree whackjobs, even though they really do know that they are just the fringe.

I actually think that the left has a much larger percentage of their support base inclined to believing ridiculous crap than the right - but the rights nutbar group is willing to believe a LOT nuttier things. But both of them are more driven by what they want to be true about the "enemy" than what is actually true.

[Admiral Yi]

I've said several times that right wing fruitloops are fruitier but left wing nutbars are more numerous.

[Berkut]

I've said several times that right wing fruitloops are fruitier but left wing nutbars are more numerous.

[Razgovory]

However, as a minor digression I think to call the death panel opponents conspiracy theorists is somewhat inaccurate.  Conspiracies are secret.  AFAIK no one has suggested that Obama has a secret, unstated agenda to pull the plug on grandpa.  They just have it wrong.

No, alot of them have been talking about how this is what Obama secretly wants even if they can't find it in the bill.

[Razgovory]

First of all, it's Obama's bill, it's his job to sell it.  I don't remember Hillary giving speeches about the silliness of no blood for oil.

So the responsibility to stop scurrilous claims is on the the defender not the attacker?