« Scientology state HQ facing opposition | Main | Struggles of a small-town shul »

September 21, 2009

They heart Huckabee

Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee won the presidential poll at a Washington gathering of largely Christian conservatives over the weekend, far outpacing former Republican vice presidential nominee and former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and other potential aspirants to the White House in 2012.

Huckabee took more than 28 percent of the vote in the Value Voters Summit Straw Poll, according to results released by the sponsoring Family Research Council. The next four contenders, each with about 12 percent of the vote, were Romney, Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, Palin and Rep. Mike Pence of Indiana. Finishing in single digits were former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, former Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania and Rep. Ron Paul of Texas. All are Republicans.

“[Huckabee] is well-oiled,” Family Research Council President Tony Perkins told The Hill. “He came back with a strong message and I don’t think he missed a beat from the presidential campaign last year.”

Also at the event, the Family Research Council said announced a hit list of 16 congressional Democrats it plans to target in 2010, including Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, Sen. Christopher Dodd of Connecticut and Rep. John P. Murtha of Pennsylvania.

As a gathering of social conservatives, the Values Voters Summit (the name always makes us wonder: What voter doesn’t vote his or her values?) has become an important step on the way to the Republican presidential nomination. Speakers at this year’s event included Huckabee, Pence, Pawlenty and Romney, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, House Minority Leader John Boehner, Rep. Michele Bachmann of Minnesota, actor Stephen Baldwin and Miss Universe contestant Carrie Prejean.

Politico reports that Romney went over well.

“He speaks with a gravitas, seriousness,” Jack Klenk, an audience member from Lorton, Virginia, told Politico’s Jonathan Martin. “I was really impressed.”

Posted by Matthew Hay Brown at 1:51 PM | | Comments (63)


The blogger asks: "What voter doesn’t vote his or her values?". Answer: You might be surprised how many people vote for name recognition, or because they know the person, or because they thing a specific candidate can win, rather than on what the candidate stands for. Whether you are a conservative or liberal, you should vote your values- it is a sad thing that many people don't. Although I will concede that the average voter certainly votes with the candidate that does align with their values.

Glad to see Huckabee did well with the base of the GOP. Whoever wins the nomination will need the base and independents and independent demos in the general. Huckabee polls well with those groups as well. Looks like the GOP may have found a candidate.

Huckabee Fans come out in strong numbers at the Value Voter Summit to propel Mike Huckabee to first place.

It goes to show the Huckabee Fans are the most energetic fans out there.

Check it out, google: Huckabee Fan Club

Huckster Huckabee will not do well outside the Taliban type Christian base that wants to trash our form of government (elitist wealth driven autocracy with a thin veneer of democratic principles) in favor of a theocratic dictatorship (with a thinner veneer of democratic principles). Even the most uninterested dolt will not be fooled by this, even though they quite often are conned into voting Republican and against their own best interests. Clay will be elated, which should show everyone that Huckabee's appeal is only strong among those who do not have the capability to have an original thought.

Huckabee is all the more dangerous because he has cultivated a smooth exterior and now sounds like a balanced man. The veneer becomes him and with a guitar in hand as he strums away he almost looks like reason and logic are his twin brothers. Herein lies his insidiousness. Even those who detest his narrow brand of cultural conservatism could be taken in by his elaborate show of cloying presentations--black children playing drums and pianos, songwriters and creative artists, scientists and economists, the appearance of erudite discussions, while all the while the toxins float in his heart about more restraints on women, gays, and the young and restless. Choose him for president and we are toast. This man will keep Terry Schiavos galore breathing in nursing homes, he will make sure every woman raped or otherwise delivers her baby in deference to his Huckabeeisms, he will defund all the stem research in the pipelines--he will also shut down NASA, he will extinguish all hope for gays who want to marry, and he will return us to stone age strum, strum, strumming away to glory. I can already hear the smacking of the lips of the Huckabeeists--those who attend Sunday services on a regular basis and want to capture the state and shackle it for Jesus. Several will come after me on this blog declaring their allegiance to this con man.


Only idiots assassinate character. Get some brains and put up some real arguments.

I like Huck, I hope he wins the nom. but this was among less than 1000 people who voted in an "unscientific" poll. It's not the Iowa Caucuses or even the Iowa Straw Poll that Huck won and got second in (respectively) to Mitt Romney who proposed $50 copay abortions and State sponsored healthcare as Gov. of Mass. Romney is no conservative, but unfortunately, a republican. Hope that Huck slaughters him in 2 years.

If Romney is pro abortion he wont have my vote.

Bad Chad - Character assassination? If it looks like a Bible Nazi, smells like Bible Nazi, clucks like a Bible Nazi, it must be a Bible Nazi. I don't care how they package it, it is evil and must be exposed for what it is. That Taliban type Christian Huckabee is mildly more palatable to you than the selfish over-breeder cultist, Romney, only shows how far out of reality you seem to be.

As to your objection to abortion, there is no one holding a gun to your head (literally or figuratively) to force you to have an abortion, but that same gun would gladly be held to the head of a woman to force her to breed against her will if either of the above gained control of the government and enforced on us all their unconstitutional desires.

"Huckabee is all the more dangerous because he has cultivated a smooth exterior and now sounds like a balanced man"

That's a great discription of what we have now in Obama.

Robert I not a Huckabee supporter myself, however, as usual your posts do nothing but call names and hurl insults. You sound far worse than any conservative fundamentalist..
Your failure to give any valid reasons only makes you look bad.

Lol, so he's like the taliban and a "nazi," yet you're using the term "evil" like a taliban member or nazi would do!

Just goes to show you that "progressive" is just another name for "dislikes those who are not like themselves." And isn't that pretty much most of humanity?

Huckabee's appeal is very limited. I live in NH and he did very poorly in the presidential primary here in 2008. Nice guy but not presidential material.

You may object to my phraseology regarding my well founded disdain for what religion (a has-been concept that represents a provable danger to the survivability of our species) is doing to our planet in an effort to gain control, or fulfill their end-times nonsense (read the last chapters of their so-called sacred texts), but basically, the terms used represent the meaning that must be conveyed in the nuclear age and the mistakenly allowed reintroduction of the religious state, if the danger is to be appreciated within the limited scope of the thought processes of people who have been so easily conned for so long by delusionalism and institutionalized superstition. If it offends you, then you are the ones needing edification.

Well Robert as usual you pontificate your ideas treating anyone who disagrees as somehow flawed or inferior. I don’t believe in religion controlling the state, or state controlling religion. That has been and still is the source of many problems. That being said I don’t need to hurl insults or belittle those who differ with me as you seem to do. You pretty much repeat the same tired dogma over and over. The only real difference between you and the fundamentalist is what side of the fence you stand on. You pretty much buy into atheist dogma with the same unquestioning zeal for which you attack in the religious for believing in theirs. You’re just too blind to see it.

ravensfan - Again you attempt white-washing what is essentially a monumental lie, as being superior to admitting that one who does not have all the answers, nor do they pretend to, in an effort to inflate their existence to some kind of near god-hood, is somehow rubbing their lack of delusional importance as an ego driven fixation. I just don't see how we can continue to carry value systems forward that have as their stated, and in some cases eagerly sought after goal, the end of the world.

You demand that the discourse be polite, but as has been illustrated throughout history, those who believe they are in possession of "ultimate truth" , have never exercised any restraint in showing even the smallest inclination to not exercise the cruelest forms of punishment against those who merely disagree with them (when given free range), until the rise of the secular state and the decline of the religious form of governance. With the new rise of the religious state, (mistakenly allowed in 1948), the number of religious states, enforcing religious law (and trying to procure nuclear weapons) has increased dramatically. The religious institutions, especially the Pentecostal Taliban types, in the West are now trying to achieve the same level of fanaticism getting involved in secular states, for purposes that are never to be trusted.

Huckabee is just one of the more polished of the self deluded idiots who want to lead the nation, and the world, evidently, in directions that every citizen must rise to stop. Religion, like syphilis, always gets worse if not eradicated, or stronger if not effectively treated and the faithful only become more emboldened unless brought up short (and rudely if necessary, because they take acquiescent tones as being acceptance of their actions ) by the ones they plan to oppress.

Robert I thought your last post was full of hot air. Compared to this one it was concise. Actually most religions never claimed to have all the answers. In fact the very essence of faith is a willingness to trust without having all the answers. I would argue it's you with who's delusional that's why you attack, not debate those you don't agree with.

I’m not demanding anything. I’m simply pointing out your aggressiveness and apparent lack of respect towards those who don’t share your dogma. I’ve never disagreed that religion and government don’t mix. I think I’ve also acknowledged that some very despicable things have happened when the two are combined. Your problem is you want to lump all those who believe in the same group which simply isn’t true. Those who carried out that cruel punishment you speak of were not following the tenets of their religion. Rather they were twisting it to support their own ambitions much as we see now in parts of the Middle East. By the way several secular states most notable the USSR and China hardly showed restraint. In fact I’d venture to say most secular states have behaved in the same cruel manner you attribute to religion. The problem isn’t with religion it’s a human problem. Like many in the secular world you feel a need to look outward to cast blame instead of where it belongs inward.

All I can say about the rest of your post is if all atheists are of the same mind set as you that you and they and you are as dangerous as any fanatical group because you operate with no moral base whatsoever. The difference between us is I feel no need to eradicate you godless heathens.

Sorry Robert I have one more thing in reference to the following statement of yours.

"as has been illustrated throughout history, those who believe they are in possession of "ultimate truth" , have never exercised any restraint in showing even the smallest inclination to not exercise the cruelest forms of punishment against those who merely disagree with them (when given free range), until the rise of the secular state "

While there is some truth in that it by no means the complete truth. Once again you make a gross exaggeration without any support. Basically you are preaching your own aethist dogma yet again. Once again you fail to follow the standard you set for religion.

"“you attempt white-washing what is essentially a monumental lie, as being superior to admitting that one who does not have all the answers"

If you don't have all the answers how can you KNOW that it's a lie?

Come on God Lives--not having all the answers is not the same as having no answers or not having some answers--that may be too complicated for your brain if you are spending all your time steeped in illogic--but try, it may suddenly strike you like incandescent faith.

I think you will find that states like the USSR & China, have found substitutes for gods, be it Lenin, or Mao and that what was done in their name has more of a resemblance to what the Grand Inquisitor, Calvin, Luther and many others, did in the name of your made-up deities. I've made the case for why religion is not healthy for society that have not been addressed by anyone, instead of focusing on the nature of your made-up gods (which is pointless) and my supposed mental state because I won't let you silence someone who dares to expose the seamier side of delusionalism. Personally, I don't give a rat's butt about what you personally believe, just the impact of those beliefs on the society that you are calling on to, not only tolerate, but let them have their way in a world that should have left them back in the time of blood-letting and killing all the cats to stop witches from spreading the Plague.

I will dare to intervene in your profound Ra Ra Ra with Robert to point out that the former USSR and the present China are not secular states. In secular states there is no state sponsored religion, there is religious freedom and no persecution for practice of religion or "stupidity" as Robert would put it. But In China, and in the former USSR religion has been banned or was banned. In their Xinjiang province and in Tibet the Chinese are pursuing a purge of all religious practices and acculturation is a state policy. This is hardly secular.
Humbly yours,
The anonymous aspiring intellectual you hold in contempt.

" I've made the case for why religion is not healthy for society that have not been addressed by anyone".

Actually Robert you haven't made any case. You simply repeated the same tired atheist dogma over and over. All you really did was attribute the worst behavior of human beings to religion. You can point to no example where, and I can only speak for Christianity here, anyone did anything that harmed another that was actually following the teachings of Christianity. They were bending it to shape their own ambition. In all those cases it would have occurred even without religion. The motivating factor is human greed, lust, envy etc. not religion. If we were a world of atheists it would still happen because those faults would still be present.

“I won't let you silence someone who dares to expose the seamier side of delusionalism”

I’ve already defended your right to your opinion and right to voice them regardless of what I think about them. You’re them one saying things need to be expunged not me. Finally the only thing you’ve exposed is that you can cling to dogma as well as any fundamentalists. I’d say you’re a great example of a fundamentalist atheist Robert.

Anonymous September 22, 2009 6:11 PM – How about we call them atheist states? Does that work better for you? That’s fine by me as it actually only serves to make Robert’s argument even less valid. Although if I use his logic I’m not sure we could ever have a secular or atheist state since he’s already rationalizing the USSR & China to being religious states.

BTW I hold no one in contempt, even Robert. Anything that I did or may have said in any prior post that indicated contempt was wrong and you have my apology for that.

“Come on God Lives--not having all the answers is not the same as having no answers or not having some answers--that may be too complicated for your brain if you are spending all your time steeped in illogic--but try, it may suddenly strike you like incandescent faith”

What does strike Anonymous is how illogical people who claim to be logical can actually be. Instead of refuting my point you resort to a personal attack. Something to consider before your next post friend, is that it’s the sign of an inferior, not superior mind. Enlighten me on what answers you have if you have any. If possible without the name calling.

Having researched his time in AR for myself rather than accepting the word of people who have an agenda, it is clear that Huckabee is a man with an impeccable executive resume.

He did not put a steeple on the state house in Arkansas & he did not preach to the people he governed. He is open about his beliefs to those who ask, but he has NEVER pushed them on anyone. Nor would he since he believes, as do the vast majority of Christians, that it is not only counter-productive, but wrong to do so - as Christianity holds that the free will of man is endowed by his Creator & grants man a certain self-determining dignity that is to be respected & upheld. Comparing this religious belief with the ideologies of the Taliban & the Nazi is either brazenly disingenous or astoundingly ignorant.

Huckabee cleared out a lot of the bureaucratic bloat & improved efficiency in AR - no mean feat. Despite the smears, the only things he spent money on were exactly the things people WANT the govt. to attend to - things like improving children's health, education & necessary road improvements.

He served with a totally partisan Democrat legislature (who literally nailed his office door shut) & yet managed to turn a painful deficit around into a very impressive surplus during his time in office. This is why he was picked as one of the Top 5 governors in the country by Time magazine - hardly a group of religious fanatics hoping to usher in a theocracy.

In fact, one wonders how our country survived with so many devout Christians as president before - or are we to seriously believe that the same Christianity that served as the founding principles for our Democratic Republic has suddenly become its greatest threat? It is virtually oxymoronic.

Huckabee is a principled man who genuinely cares & loves his country more than his resume - a statesman rather than a politician -- & is exactly what our country needs to turn things around & move us back into a positive direction.

QuoVadisAnima - That Huckster Huckabee would sign any law that takes away a woman's right to freedom of choice is enough to convince me he is unqualified to be sitting in the White House, not to mention the types of Constitution wreckers he would appoint to the Supreme Court. I don't want to live in a theocratic state.

All of us should take time to research our choice for President and not make a decision based on personality. Mike Huckabee is great with one liners, he comes off as a likeable guy - but President? In response to the statement regarding $50 abortion co-pays - the poster should know that Romney vetoed this and several other parts of Massachusetts Healthcare plan. All were overriden by the Democratic controlled congress in that state. I am surprised at how many people are turning on Mitt Romney for accomplishing what no one else has even tried. He never claimed it was perfect and I heard him say that he wasn't sure it would be right for the nation. I think he said that it should be left to the states. So many are willing to throw him under the bus for having the courage to actually do something - it's sickening. Is it any wonder why we can't get healthcare reform? It's a political timebomb. Romney was raised up for his plan two years ago and now he's being villified. At least he took a chance - he was willing to risk his political future on a plan - NO ONE else had the guts! I like that a lot. Huckabee supporters might check into the numerous ethics violations filed against Mr. Huckabee - you may be surprised to find that this Christian candidate can't seem to follow the rules. As of this moment (and it's very early) I support Mitt Romney. He has brains, he behaves like a statesman and he doesn't appear to have any issues with obeying the law. The fact that he is rich (money he made as a result of good business decisions) doesn't bother me at all - it's what capitalism is all about regardless of what Mike Huckabee would have us believe...or maybe he just doesn't believe Mitt Romney should be rich. I'm just sayin...

I really like this Mike Huckabee. He is one of sound principles and a role model to many...and that excites me.

Because of a stupid football game running over, 60 Minutes came on late. I switched over to watch Huckabee on NNN (Nazi News Network) Fox. This man stood there in his smarmy down-home manner and lied his butt off, defending the Hindenburg like (as in fat Nazi gas-bag) Rush Limbaugh. His entire pitch was aimed at the fourth grade mind level and he blamed his opposition for all the crimes created by Lee Atwater and Roger Ailes, that have become institutionalized as part and parcel of mindless Right-wing politics. If you are buying his line of crap, you are being bought on the cheap.

If you're watching 60 minutes on a regular basis then that explains you obvious lack of intellect.

Fake Anonymous - Can't refute the argument, so you go for the cheap shot. There was a very interesting piece on "60 Minutes" about cancer treatment that I eventually saw when it came on later.

Bobbie Littel - Make an actual arguement rather than a childish personal attack and I'll refute it. 60 minutes does have it good moments now and then. For the most part it's a liberal propaganda machine.

Fake Anonymous - Anything that exists outside of the mentality of Fox (faux, fake, false, fraudulent......) News, has a left wing point of view. Being so far out on the lunatic fringe makes the whole world your enemy, except that sick twisted little part where you exist.

Bobbie Littel - You have no idea where I exist so to make such a statement confirms my initial observation of your thought process. Did it ever make it through that liberal self righteousness of yours that I never actually said what I thought of Fox? You assumed because I made a comment about 60 minutes that I must be a right wing extremist and Fox supporter. To get the truth you have to look at many different networks then try and sift out the political views of the network to try and get the truth. If you had any objectivity you’d know that. Since you obviously don’t keep that in mind before jumping to conclusions in the future.

Fake Anonymous - I have never answered to "Bobbie", " Bob", or any variation of my name starting with the letter "B".

As to where your notions are coming from, you are either getting them fresh from the source (Glen Beck's butt) , or your bible is a John Birch tomb from the 1950s titled, "None Dare Call It Treason". Either way, you are somewhere to the Right of Attila the Hun and marginally to the left of a gentleman who wore an interesting mustache back in the late 1930s.

My "liberal self righteousness" is based on how hard your side is working to trash the country to further enrich the rich, kill people by denying health coverage, justify the crimes of the Cheney puppeted Bush regime, and generally your penchant to go on a full court press to make President Obama fail while he tries to fix the mess YOUR side made.

Bobbie Little – I’ll stop calling you that when you act like an adult. As long as you insist on acting like a petulant child I see no reason to use an adult name. I see your complete liberal bias keeps you from seeing the truth. That’s the mark of an extremist. It’s all or nothing. You sound every bit as pathetic as Limbaugh, Beck and the other right wing nut jobs. Your paranoid rant about the right is every bit as scary yet amusing as the right’s maniacal cries of socialism, government control and others. The very fact that you try and justify any kind of bias shows how far from reality you really are. As for the topics that you mentioned, I’d be happy to discuss them with you sometime after you grow up and can look at them objectively. Until then all I can do is try and educate your immature little mind.

Fake Anonymous - Nice ploy, right out of the Karen Hughes book of how to muddy the waters by disassociating yourself from those you support, so that you can launch an attack against your opponent from a created perception of coming from neutral ground. How stupid do you think people are, that they are not going to see though your pathetic ploy to shut down someone who dares to challenge the status quo, that is so well enriching the few at the expense of the rest of us? Corporatist shills like you, are trying your damndest to control the dialogue and your simple pose as a centrist fools no one. You are every bit an example of the Right-wing ploy that is being used to denigrate the messenger when you know damn well you cannot counter the message. Your biggest fear is that you are not facing an easily intimidated child, so trying to bully through the idea that I am not worthy enough to be treated as an adult, is just a pathetic attempt on your part that will not prevail. You can take your facade of righteous indignation and put it where the sun don't shine, we ain't buying it today.

Bobbie – Do you think by quoting books and trying to use bigger words that somehow makes you sound mature? Are you claiming you have some sort of ESP that enables you by looking at a post to determine someone’s political views? If you think so they either need tuning or you need to learn how to disassociate from your own radical views and look at both sides of an issue. The only stupid one here is you. Here’s a tip for you the next time you take phrases books be sure and use quotes. Now why don’t you try and back up your accusation by showing how simply exposing your extremism makes me any of that nonsense you plagiarized. Prove your point or save it for the playground. Oh and don’t post like you represent anyone but yourself. It just makes you look desperate Bobbie.

Fake Anonymous - Now you try to whip up enthusiasm among the less educated by painting this accused child , who has the temerity to speak out against the status quo, by painting him (as in me) as an elitist wannabe. It does not take extra-sensory perception to see that you are just a pathetic Right-wing shill who, because of a colossal ego gratification problem, has been tapped, (or self anointed) as the defender of all that is not Liberal (defined by you, no doubt, as anyone, or anything, to the left of Joseph Goebbels). Like I said before, we (or I, if you insist) ain't buying it.

Bobbie – Did you run out of books to recite from? You’re the one talking in the plural looking for supporters. I speak for no one but myself Bobbie. My original post was a comment on 60 minutes and your incorrect view that somehow they are any different than Fox when it comes to bias. You simply got mad and as I expected you attacked me as being a right wing extremist revealing your own extremism. What exactly makes me right wing? That I exposed you for the left wing extremist you are? That I said all media is biased to a degree? The real truth is you know nothing about my views and are simply following the extremist notion that those who aren’t don’t support you are against you. That kind of reminds me of something Bush said once after 9/11. You are so predictable it’s not even funny. Grow up, open your eyes and use your brains. To objectively question means question all sides not only one. Truth is usually between the extremes. That’s today’s lesson. How does one become a fake unidentified individual. That is what Anonymous isn’t it?

Fake Anonymous - I consider myself a centrist. If what you consider a centrist to be, is someone who can see the logic in continuing a health care system in the hands of the insurance and pharmaceutical industries in some kind of compromise with people who would be allowed to continue to steal from us and kill many in the process, then you don't understand where the center is at all. The lunatic fringe Right-wing has used its ascendancy over the last few years, to drag the definition of centrist far to the Right, so far that the actual center, by comparison, is far in the other direction. Your sneering use of the term "Liberal" has defined where you fall on the scale and I make no apologies for standing up for the oppressed our present health care system figures are so worthless, we might as well let them die. Why don't you tell us what news sources you think are fairly relaying information to us? I'd be real interesting in hearing you define your position by what you think, rather than have to extrapolate it from the tone of your attacks and by reading between the lines. Maybe you should also go by the name you use in another venue, where I believe we have had this discussion before. (SBG2008, perhaps)

Bobbie – Your weak attempt to make your far to the left views sound moderate are laughable at best and a massive paranoid delusion at worst. I’m sure you do feel you are standing up for the oppressed. That’s pretty much standard radical left wing propaganda. It’s also about as much BS as the right wing nonsense spouted by such pea brains as Limbaugh and beck and does about as much to correct any serious problems we have today. Since you inquired let me clarify my position for you. First and foremost the current health care system does need to be reformed. Costs are escalating way to fast and too many people do lack coverage. That being said your completely incorrect and unsubstantiated claims of companies stealing and killing is so ridiculous I won’t even waste the time to comment except to ask where your proof for such nonsense came from?, Huffington Post, or was it some other liberal propaganda machine. Reforming health care is a massive exercise and one which needs to make sure we create a workable plan that gets makes essential coverage available and won’t bankrupt the country. As for where I get my news from I explained that on one of my first posts so go back and read it there. I’m not going to repeat myself because you are too lazy to check for yourself. As for some other name sorry to bust your bubble but I haven’t used any or discussed this issue before with you. Try and show me you can manage to post an adult response and leave the rhetoric for some liberal who shares your deluded version of reality.

The entire con that is our health care system had its top blown off by the revelations and testimony before Congress by former Cigna Health Care executive and long time beneficiary of the fraudulent system (15 years) by Wendell Potter. The greed, the strategy to continue the greed and the pay-offs to our elected officials are all out in the open and to continue to defend the insurance and pharmaceutical industries will only make you an accessory to their crimes, after the fact. Any "reform" of health care that leaves the above industries involved in the process is a continuation of their control over life and death and will only result in more murder for profit. The One-Payer-Plan is the only plan that will cut costs, cut paper-work, cut red tape, cut the 20-35% off the top that is currently going into the pockets of the rich (who provide NOTHING to health care) and cover EVERYONE. If my support of this plan makes me (in your eyes) a leftist, liberal, bleeding heart pinko, then so be it, I call it being an American.

I’m well aware of Wendell Potter’s testimony. His testimony was eye opening and was extremely important at getting reform moving. Did you ever consider why after 15 years he decided to testify or did you take him at face value on that? Do you have any actual financial information to support your claims? Most people who make claims such as yours usually have nothing to support it with. Do you have any idea how much is paid out by Medicare and private insurance companies related to health care? While I never seen anyone who could show how a One-Payer-Plan would generate any reductions on the actual cost of health care, how do we pay for it, I have no problem supporting it if you can provide reasonable proof, not just empty rhetoric, that it will achieve not only universal coverage, but cost containment and won’t create additional deficits. Your 20-35% savings figure is pure BS. Most countries with some sort of government run health care have considerably higher overall tax structures including value added taxes and still have fiscal problems. Support of the plan doesn’t make you anything to me. Supporting it blindly would. So explain to me with details how to make it work and don’t just quote standard left propaganda. I’m all for reforming the problems in health care I just don’t want to create new ones. Oh save the murder for profit BS for some empty headed liberal who fools who buy into it.

In the fashion of Karen Hughes, you have employed the tactic that is most helpful to your argument when faced with positions that are going to prove troublesome. First, you embrace your opponents premise, slightly, in an effort to disarm it. Then take the discussion in another direction altogether with emphasis on putting them on the defensive. Your shallow salute to the crushing evidence emanating from Wendell Potter is the first part of the tactic, then you fling as much as you can come up with, in a withering barrage in the hopes that your opponent will retreat in horror rather than face the multi-pronged attack. First you assume your opponent is only peripherally familiar with the background of Mr. Potter. He laid it out very clearly in an interview on Bill Moyers' Journal, which you can access with little trouble (7/31/2009). I had the link memorized, but have lost it due to not using it for a bit, but I have no intention of laying out so much easily found information, even if you were truly interested. Wendell Potter's revelations were not a jump-start to the debate, they should have been a death-knell slam-dunk against the abusing industries, but these industries influence (as in owning the entire Republican side of both houses and a significant part of the Democrats) has muted temporarily, what we are not going to let go by the way-side.

Paying for the One-Payer-Plan will have to come from taxation, but considering how much will not be getting paid to the extortionary insurance companies by individuals, that should end up being a considerable savings. On top of that saving, the plan will set the prices that can be charged for procedures, screen patients regularly to catch problems before the become real problems, avoiding many and cost effectively treating others in early stages. Medicines will be a huge saving, with the government the only customer, the pharmaceutical companies won't be able to sell products costing $4.00 to make, for $200. when the patient has to shell out at the end. The reduction of paperwork, redundant and unnecessary tests (now used to pad the bill), and unnecessary procedures (also padding), will make the One-Payer-Plan look like heaven for not only the ones sucking hind teat now, but for everyone. The rise in productivity alone, caused by a healthier work force should help pay for a large chunk of the costs in increased taxable income.

Right now, American business is in an unfair advantage when competing with foreign companies, that either have their employees covered by government health care, or don't provide it at all. This plan will be good for business.

The 20 -30% right off the top, is not savings, it is what is currently being skimmed off the top to pay stock-holders, who provide NOTHING to health care. That amount alone would more than pay for the uninsured and now it goes directly into the pockets of the already rich, who have done nothing to earn it except put it in their pockets. Lastly, we have the example and the results of a very successful One-Payer-Plan operating less than two hundred miles to the North, which I'm sure you can also access on-line if you are that interested.

Lastly, the 45,000 American citizens that die EVERY YEAR because they have no health insurance, is bean-counter premeditated murder in my book. We allowed the Cheney puppeted Bush regime to take us into a fraudulent war against Iraq over less than a tenth of that number dying on 911, so you better redefine BS.

thats not murder thats population control

Well your response wasn’t what I expected. I expected you’d only raise the traditional far left battle cry and attack me as being a puppet of the insurance industry, big business or just a Rush Limbaugh disciple. My complements for only trying to explain my motives wrong as you were on it. I’ve read most of that and the trouble with your argument is that while you may not like the way the industry works that doesn’t make it evil. Of course you did use one of the standard liberal lies about big business owning legislators. It does appear pretty obvious you are anti-capitalism. Of course there’s nothing wrong with that if you have a better economic solution which I suspect you don’t. I hope at least you don’t have money in 401k’s or mutual funds because if you do it’s a good bet you indirectly own some of the very companies you made the accusations against. That does bring me back to my original question do you have hard evidence to back up your accusations of such criminal behavior or is Mr. Potter all you have.
As for your one player system the flaw is the idea that it could do any better the current one. Considering how the Federal Government handles its finances and such operations as the Post Office and Social Security that’s laughable. In fact the only possible savings would be the profit margins the companies make, around 5 -7% last time I checked available data and some executive compensation. Keep in mind of course it would only be the cash paid that could be saved and that won’t get you anywhere near the 20-30 % you claim. You also didn’t address the issue of containing the cost of the services themselves which are a big part of what has driven up premiums over the years. Subtract from that the cost of the less efficiency that will come from Federal Employees and you it could end up costing us more. I’ve seen the Canadian and British systems in action so I hope you aren’t basing yours off them.

I can’t even believe you said American business are in an unfair advantage with foreign companies. To even make such a comment shows how little about international economics and business you really know. You wouldn’t happen to be an educator would you? That sounds like the kind of out of touch comment I’d expect from a career spend outside of business and industry. Why don’t you go and tell all those folks in Michigan and Ohio about our unfair advantage.
I figured sooner or later you’d equate fiscal responsibility with not caring or as you said murder. Where did you get the 45,000 figure? Does it include people who would have died anyway like cancer patients? Tell me professor what good does it do to have a system that covers everyone if we end up going broke doing it. Let me simplify it for you. You make $25,000 to support your family costs 35,000. How long before you end up in the street. We may not like it, or think it’s fair, but that’s reality. The solution needs to be able to provide the coverage and we need to be able to sustain it financially or sooner or later something is going to give. That leads me back to my original question can you support the plan you propose. If what I saw is what you have then I’d have to say you can’t.

Fake Anonymous (or should I call you AlbertJ perhaps), It is evident that we have already covered this to death in another forum and your arguments there were just as spurious, just as Glenn Beck driven and just as supportive of corporate interests above the suffering we are enduring to funnel wealth to the lucky few at the top. Is Wendell Potter all I've got? No, but it is all I need, and it galls you because he is a source you cannot slough off as "liberal lies" because we and you, know he is telling the truth.

You distort the discussion, trying to discredit it by manipulating statements to serve your purpose, which for some strange reason seems to be defending the murder for profit con being carried on by the insurance and pharmaceutical industries. You say I don't understand the nature of business because of my not being part of it, yet you try to belittle the testimony (on Bill Moyers' Journal and before a congressional committee) of a man who was committed to the cause of wealth transfer to profit the wealthiest for over 15 years, who had an epiphany and ratted out your corporatist pigs and their con against the American people. You twist a statement to make it sound like I gave the advantage to American business interests, when clearly the advantage was against them by the fact they are forced to compete with companies whose governments pick up health care costs, or don't cover them themselves as ours are trying to do. You use distorted data from sources that are not credible and are generally funded by the very industries that are trying to maintain their hold on the lucrative money suck that health care in America has become. You are lying, you are shilling for liars, and you are involving yourself in the furthering of a system that is killing people for profit. I don't know if they are paying you to do this, but I can't imagine anyone doing anything as selfish and heartless as this seems to be, for free, unless they are truly sick in the head.

Bobbie – What is evident is you are under the delusion we’ve discussed this topic somewhere else. We haven’t, but if it makes you happy to think we did it fine it makes no difference to me. As to the rest of your ravings it appears that you don’t have anything else except Potter and your left wing propaganda. You provided nothing else but a lot of anger, tired old rhetoric and name calling. Why would I be galled at a lot of hot air with no substance? You provided no quantitative information to support your position. Remember Bobbie I already agreed reform is needed. I twisted nothing your exact quote was “Right now, American business is in an unfair advantage when competing with foreign companies” Maybe you meant to say disadvantage but it wasn’t what you said. Maybe next time you should proof read better before posting. As for my data it came from SEC filings and other non industry business sources. Where did yours come from? Sorry I forgot you didn’t actually provide any. All you did was sing the song of the greed of corporations and the wealthy. You never answered my question on your retirement or investments either? Why Bobbie?

What inflames you is that you know I’m right. That’s why you resorted to the childish tactic of attacking me and not refuting data. In the end your position is invalid, without merit and lacking any economic common sense. That’s why you did the only thing you could do and attack me. Your problem is you can not think objectively or look outside your own little far left box. When you respond, and you will, try posting something with substance. Remember this from an earlier post. I said the support your plan needed to show it could achieve universal coverage, reduce cost of services not just premiums while not breaking the bank to do it. Also since we are eliminating private insurers and the jobs they create what happens to those folks.

Fake Anonymous - Considering that I already consider you an unprincipled liar, it is natural to think you may be someone I have dealt with before, despite your denial. Even if you aren't, you are using the same handbook, supplied by the insurance company, no doubt, to be used against those who dare to expose what is being done to the American people, to keep wealth flowing to the top, unabated and without concern for the Human cost. I was wondering when you would come up with all the jobs that would be lost by the minor functionaries if these industries were cut out of the equation. That seems to me like being concerned for all the guard positions that would have been lost if we closed the concentration camps in Germany a few years ago.

I am not on trial here and you will not put me on the defensive. It is the insurance and pharmaceutical companies that are on trial and those who would argue their case are going to have to explain their motives. This is not left vs. right, Republican vs. Democrat, it is GOOD vs. EVIL and you are definitely not on the good side. What is on trial here is whether we are a corporatist state, or a representative democracy. Is it government of, by and for the people, or are we just a function of a controlled market in a rigged game where the wealthiest top 1/10th of 1% reap obscene benefits at the cost of the life's work and the very lives of the rest of us.

Finally, The day I come to the point where I think you are right, is the day I put a gun in my mouth an pull the trigger. I could never envision being so totally without ethics and honor that I could stoop to be a supporter of the murder for profit shambles that is,and appears to be the totally compromised system we seem headed for. You had better get used to the idea that because of what you represent, that we are no longer going to be played by lower forms of life.

Bobbie – The only one using a handbook is you son. Your response was exactly what I expected to see. I’ve met and dealt with extreme activists before. It’s always Good vs Evil with them. You are no different. Just as all the rest you proclaim your empty rhetoric as fact and decry and attack anyone who even hints at questioning it. It seems kind of peculiar that someone who has argued so passionately against religion calling it fiction would so easily embrace the secular fiction of the extreme left. What puts you on trial is your lack of quantitative substantiating data to support your outlandish outbursts. I’d gladly concede your position was correct if you actually could support it with something besides the nonsense you are spitting out. The real tragedy is that you actually believe it. If I had to guess you’ve probably never worked in the private sector in your life. You’re probably in academia aren’t you. The trouble with extremist, both sides, is that there is no room for compromise. You would change everything with no regard for the consequences to combat some perceived evil, while the extreme right would fight tooth and nail against you crying that no change can occur because of the consequences. In the end you cancel each other out and nothing gets accomplished. It’s irrational thinking like yours and the extreme right they may well destroy any chance of getting any real meaningful reforms in healthcare.

Fake Anonymous - When I am being lectured to in a condescending manor by someone who would rather adhere to narrow rigid doctrinaire Ultra-Rightist propaganda, that defends a system that excludes people from health coverage because they are being raped by a system that is trying to extract as much as they can, from as many as they can, while providing as little service as they can, in-order to line the pockets of people who are actually doing nothing that could be construed as employment in providing health care (stockholders),it makes me want to spit in their face. When I say “MURDER FOR PROFIT”, it is a statement of FACT. People are dying because people like you are trying to justify excluding treatment from people who have been deliberately forced out of a system designed to extort as much wealth as it can from the greatest number of people, with human suffering, financial ruin and DEATH as the option for not fitting into the profit scheme, so beneficial to the few at the top. Those who persist in insisting the present system continue in the way it is, or in the compromised form that seems likely to result from Right-wing obstructive tactics, are nothing but accessories to the crime of deliberately killing people for monetary gain, or as it is more accurately called, MURDER FOR PROFIT. I will not be lectured to by the likes of people who are arguing to continue a system that is killing people. The entire effort to get the needed change, has been nothing but an insurance and pharmaceutical industry effort to compromise this effort into the toilet. Your defense of this action is nothing but a call to finish the destruction of any meaningful outcome by pretending that the very tools you are using to kill health care reform, are somehow the reasonable way to fix a system that doesn't need your transparent band-aids, but a total tear-down and rebuilding. If what you are doing and what you support, isn't evil incarnate, I'll eat my hat.

Bobbie – The fact that you can’t talk intelligently on the subject reduces you to calling me names and lying about me only furthers my opinion that you lack any common sense and are out are the far extreme left. All you did was repeat the same tired rhetoric yet again. How is murder for profit a fact? To be a fact would require evidence and you have provided none. You actually sound like the very religious believers you mock and I find that rather funny and sad.

When one calls for reform they can not be defending the system. Calling for reform which has no chance of happening is just plain stupid. No one is deliberately being killed for profit. Save the rhetoric for one of your fellow left wing nuts or back it with facts. As long as you insist on acting like a petulant child I’ll lecture you and treat you as one. Face the truth you have NO hard evidence to support your claims. Instead of coming up with the reasonable justification you attack everyone and everything in your path. That is the sure sign of a immature mind. As I said in an early post the system needs changing. Prove your solution is the best with ACTUAL FACTS and not empty rhetoric and I’ll be the first to accept it.

Before you respond put down the left wing propaganda and think with your own mind. Think about the definition of murder. Also when looking at single payer ask yourself what would this do that the reforms being discussed wouldn’t accomplish. Has the government ever shown it could efficiently run something as complicated as health care? How would single payer bring down costs to insured and more importantly actual cost of medical services. Simply reimbursing providers less doesn’t bring down cost just squeeze providers like hospitals and doctors. Also ask yourself what you know about the do you actually know about the cost of new drug development as well as what you know about the margins in these industries you attack so vehemently. Also where is your information coming from? Is it unbiased or from a group which wants the reform.

Unlike you I don’t have a ready made solution. I’m looking for one which satisfies as much as possible and can be done. An intelligent person looks at all solutions without any preconceived notions. As I said its fools like you and those like Limbaugh that are going to end up destroying any chance for real reform with your unrealistic and extreme views.

Bobbie - despite the fact that you NEVER actually backed up any of your empty rhetoric I saw this article today. I suggest you read it.

Read the article Anonymous. After the administrators and the CEOs have skimmed off all the profits there is none left to illuminate the accounting books. That is where most of the money is going Anonymous, not into paying for the patients' ailments, not into the doctors' shallow pockets--growing ever shallower--not into medical education, not into medical research, not into innovation--plain and simple into the sloshing buckets of the rapacious intermediaries who have insinuated themselves in the doctor patient relationship. True Anonymous, the deficit spending that this government is indulging in is a big concern. I will not blame the dying and the dead sick, all on the insurance industry, as Robert does. Instead I will lay a majority of the blame for that on food, fat, addictions and dangerous behaviors. Medical fraud and medical malpractice are real problems too and we are getting reform that does not tackle both. But no matter who is administering this health care, if the system, the hucksters at the center and the patients in the periphery all remain happily obese we are done for Anonymous. The biggest thing wrong with the entire shebang called health care is OBESITY--a monstrous increase in girth in all four directions of every aspect of it.
Ravensfan Anon

Ravensfan Anon - I didn’t see any mention of anyone skimming anything anywhere. You know this based on what, a divine revelation? Like Bobbie you make a lot of accusations and provide zero to support it. I believe you overestimate the amount that goes out for administration costs. As for the doctors shallow pockets the current government run plan actually pays them less than the private insurers do so I’m not sure how happy they’d be at the government being the sole insurer. There will always be intermediaries between the patients and providers. The only question is who and how many will it be? I never said reform wasn’t needed. It most definitely is needed. I never even said Bobbie’s radical single payer system was absolutely wrong. I think it is wrong, but I left it open for Bobbie to support why it was the right way to go using rational supportable logic. His response was to use the far left propaganda attack on me. I actually agree with a great deal of what you said in the second half of your post. I simply want something that has a chance of fixing and many of the problems as it can without massive deficit spending to get there.

Robert, Ravensfan Anon - So you do believe in Good and Evil afterall! lol I was beginning to think we were all delusional. Haha you guys are priceless.

Pattycakes, I see now your naked prejudice against atheists--do you believe we are blind to good versus evil? Do you think religion is essential to leading a good, ethical or moral life? As for you Anonymous, while I salute your attempts to have everything justified, I have to tell you, I can point to one article and show you that administrative spending is high in health care and you can point to another to show that is not so. You don't really think private insurers who are profiting via the illnesses and suffering of people are doing it on the cheap do you? Many studies do say administrative costs are anywhere from 15 to 25 % of health care dollars spent. You are right about the intermediaries--the more of those the more the fraud and the more the expenditures. Robert wants to take the profit motive out. Then he thinks all will be well. But not for long, in my opinion. We are an aging nation. We are a fat and addicted nation. More of us are getting disabled. Many want to live on dole without much thought as to where that dole is coming from. Politicians encourage the dole outs for votes--I mean the dole outs to the rich and to the poor. Can't sustain the ship of state too long with these attitudes. With less people able to pay taxes, the government will soon run out of money for massive mandates and programs. That's when the slash and burn, the rationing, will happen even with government run health care. All those who want to be healthy, those who want to escape from under the yoke of the government and the health care corporations must get off their butts and practice simple prevention techniques. Neither Barack Obama nor Aetna nor United Health care can save anyone from self sabotage through obesity, diabetes, heart attacks, high blood pressure and cancers--look carefully--one leads to the other. Not that health insurance is not essential for all, but we as consumers must be frugal in our use of this gift if we don't want to lose it altogether. I lived for years in a part of the Third World where there was absolutely no health insurance--I mean--none whatsoever was available.
Ravensfan Anon

Ravensfan Anon.: Bravo! . .yes, a frugal life-style, but how difficult when stuff's so easily available . . health through simple prevention techniques, like: early to bed early to rise; meditation; beautiful music; humor; hard work; fresh fruits, veggies (all the colors),legumes, grains, beans, green tea..NO milk, sugar, pastries, donuts, fast food etc. Home cooked meals like Grandma and Grandpa used to russel up out of the garden.
My oncologists graduated me early from five years of monitoring after colon/liver cancer surgery. It never came back. "I guess we win some." (Read especially THE CHINA STUDY, by Colin Campbell,PhD) The switch needs to be made from animal-based protein diets to PLANT-BASED protein diets.

A song for Robert L.: "RAMBLING ROSE", as requested by the young lady who promised to send roses from heaven:Words and Music by Noel Sherman and Joe Sherman . . . with Robert doing the singing:

Ramblin' rose, ramblin' rose
Why you ramble, no one knows
Wild and wind-blown, that's how you've grown
Who can cling to a ramblin' rose?

Ramble on, ramble on
When your ramblin' days are gone
Who will love you with a love true
When your ramblin' days are GONE

Ramblin' rose, ramblin' rose
Why I want you, heaven knows
Though I love you with a love true
Who can cling to a ramblin' rose?

Ravensfan Anon - The "pattycakes" is plural for no significant reason. After exhaustive examination I said "behold, I shall put an "s" on the end of pattycake". I think it sounds cooler don't you? I don't have a hate on for you guys. I love y'all. I like chatting with atheists too. I wish my atheist buddies talked more about their beliefs objectively.

So ya, really Rfan Anon, is "good" and "evil" just in our heads? I mean according to you, we don't need God to have good and evil. I think just the fact you used the words "good,evil" gives proof of these forces. Why not use the terms - Delusion 1 & Delusion 2? Good and Evil being just delusions of the mind? MAN! this one should be good buddy! the floor is all yours...

p.s. On an unrelated note, I think we would be buddies if we met! I love your humor in your posts though... really! you have a gift man! especially when you answer clay. It's beautiful! lol kinda strikes a chord with me, I got a tongue-in-cheek side as well... Cheers man!

O Pattycakes--I wrote you a long reply and it never got posted--I know I sent it but heck what happened? I now have to devise you another one and I haven't got the energy today--what happened to Robert Littel? I hope the man is alive. He hasn't even commented on the afterlife saga--do you think he found God on the way to the forum? I hope not.
Ravensfan Anon

Anon – I hope my boulder like weight on his back didn’t drive poor Robert off screaming into the night.

hahahaha! Rfan Anon, I would be overjoyed if Robert found God on the way to the forum or out to his contractual obligation. It would probably be a story worthy of print. Lets not rule this one out just yet...could it be that he smelled the roses that B.Lawrence sent on behalf of Therese? stay tuned I guess! I miss him too Ravensfan Anon. The man was a crusader. I am almost as sad as the first time I watched "the notebook" with my drinkin' buddy back in 06'.

Post a comment

All comments must be approved by the blog author. Please do not resubmit comments if they do not immediately appear. You are not required to use your full name when posting, but you should use a real e-mail address. Comments may be republished in print, but we will not publish your e-mail address. Our full Terms of Service are available here.

Verification (needed to reduce spam):

About Matthew Hay Brown
Matthew Hay Brown writes and blogs about faith and values in public and private life for The Baltimore Sun. A former Washington correspondent for the newspaper, he has long written about the intersection of religion and politics. He has reported from Africa, Asia, Europe, Latin America and the Middle East, traveling most recently to Syria and Jordan to write about the Iraqi refugee crisis.

Most Recent Comments
Baltimore Sun coverage
Religion in the news
Charm City Current
Stay connected