Posted by: Rick | Thursday, December 3, 2009

Do Republican Senators Have to Lie About EVERYTHING?

Nobody in his right mind should pay any attention to Mike Enzi (R-WY), but something he just said during the Senate health care debate really pissed me off.

He referred to this piece of corporate propaganda on The Wall Street Journal’s “Review and Outlook” page as an “article”.  Earth to Enzi:  It’s a goddamn right-wing editorial!

I’m a C-SPAN junkie, and believe me, Republican Senators and Congressmen do this all the time.  (I don’t think it’s an accident.)  Editorials become articles.  Republicans have such little respect for honest journalism that they’ll brazenly misrepresent the source of their own bullshit.  The truth is what we say it is!

I doubt that the excellent reporters at The Wall Street Journal appreciate hacks like Enzi lumping them in with Paul Gigot and his right-wing puppet show.

Advertisements

Responses

  1. Yowza! You make it sound like the Dems are a pure as the driven snow. Should I change parties so I can get a taste of truth?

    I’m just sayin’

  2. Amanda Kowalski of MIT, William Congdon of the Brookings Institution and Mark Showalter of Brigham Young have found similar results initially reported by the CBO.

    In a 2008 paper in the peer-reviewed Forum for Health Economics and Policy, these economists found that state community rating laws raise premiums in the individual market by 20.9% to 33.1% for families and 10.2% to 17.1% for singles. In New Jersey, which also requires insurers to accept all comers (so-called guaranteed issue), premiums increased by as much as 227%.

    You’re right. Somebody’s lyin’

  3. Branding Republicans as liars, especially in the midst of the Climategate scandal, for one, seems a bit ridiculous and far-fetched.

    For another, editorials can relay facts and sources without having to be an “article”. Someone can also be wrong with out being “a liar”.

    “The truth is what we say it is” definitely applies to the Liberal position on climate change, and we’re continuing to see to what lengths they’ll go to protect their lies and brand others as Nazi’s and Neanderthals in the meantime. If that’s what they’ll do on something as (seemingly) fact-based as climate change, what are they doing on matters more soft, like the economy and health care?

  4. Name-calling is a common tactic. In fact, it’s Rule #5 from from Saul D. Alinsky’s (1909-1972) out-of-print book – “Rules for Radicals”

    RULE 5: “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions. (Pretty crude, rude and mean, huh? They want to create anger and fear.)

  5. I would have to agree, but it’s human nature I guess. What concerns me even more is that you keep a book like that on your shelf! Haha

  6. Robert Gibbs pulled out Rule 5 yesterday when he called Gallop a bunch of 6 year olds with crayons.

    Now really, how immature does one have to be to stoop that low to attempt to discredit one of the most respecting polling organizations in the country?

    Gallop seemed to be important to them before, but not when it doesn’t paint the dems in a flattering way.

    We should expect to see Rule 5 from Gibbs and this administration more often. Watch for it.

  7. RE:What concerns me even more is that you keep a book like that on your shelf!

    I don’t have the book. It’s out of print. But I have the internet and got it that way.

    You can read the list of 12 rules he created to use to bring down America here.
    http://ourobamanation.wordpress.com/the-obama-revolution/saul-d-alinsky/

    It can also be used to tear down an established institution, whether it be a political opponent, Gallop, the Boy Scouts, or a country.

    To be clear, Alinsky was a radical with goals of tearing down our government.

    Alinsky was also a community organizer.

    In the opening paragraph of his book, Rules for Radicals, published in 1971 (the year before his death), Alinsky says, “What follows is for those who want to change the world from what it is to what they believe it should be. [Sound familiar?] The Prince was written by Machiavelli for the Haves on how to hold power. Rules for Radicals is written for the Have-Nots on how to take it away.”

  8. An interesting post re: one of your favorite topics(!) – Centrists – from Glenn Greenwald over at Salon:
    http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2009/12/16/white_house/index.html

    Quote: ‘The White House is playing hardball with Democrats who intend to vote against the supplemental war spending bill, threatening freshmen who oppose it that they won’t get help with reelection and will be cut off from the White House, Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-Calif.) said Friday. “We’re not going to help you. You’ll never hear from us again,” Woolsey said the White House is telling freshmen.’ (external source)

    Greenwald: “That’s what the White House can do when they actually care about pressuring someone to vote the way they want. Why didn’t they do any of that to the “centrists” who were supposedly obstructing what they wanted on health care? “


Categories

%d bloggers like this: