NBC's Myers advanced "value[s] voters" myth, cited Tony Perkins
SUMMARY: During a report on the fallout from Sen. Larry Craig's guilty plea for
misdemeanor disorderly conduct, NBC's Lisa Myers reported that Tony Perkins says
"value voters have lost
faith in the Republican Party and warns that Republicans had better be sure
their members are living up to pro-family rhetoric." In doing so, Myers joined
other media figures in advancing the myth that social conservatives are more
concerned with "values" than other voters.
In an August 30 report on NBC's Today regarding the Republican reaction to Sen. Larry Craig's (R-ID) August 8 guilty plea on charges of misdemeanor disorderly conduct following his June 11 arrest during an investigation of "lewd conduct" in a restroom at Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport, NBC News senior investigative correspondent Lisa Myers reported that Family Research Council president Tony Perkins "says value voters have lost faith in the Republican Party and warns that Republicans had better be sure their members are living up to pro-family rhetoric." Through her paraphrase of Perkins, Myers joined other media figures in advancing the myth that social conservatives are more concerned with "values" than other voters. Like The New York Times' Sheryl Gay Stolberg and MSNBC host Chris Matthews, she also cited Perkins as a representative of "value[s] voters," without noting his reported ties to both the white nationalist Council of Conservative Citizens (CCC) and former Ku Klux Klan Grand Wizard David Duke.
Media Matters for America has noted reports in the media and by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) that Perkins met with the Louisiana CCC in May 2001. The SPLC characterizes the CCC as a "white nationalist" organization and has reported that the group is "the reincarnation of the racist White Citizens Councils of the 1950s and 1960s."
Furthermore, while managing Republican state Rep. Louis E. "Woody" Jenkins' 1996 campaign for the U.S. Senate, Perkins paid $82,500 to use former Ku Klux Klan Grand Wizard David Duke's phone bank for Jenkins' run-off election with Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA). Jenkins was later fined $3,000 by the Federal Elections Commission (FEC) for "knowingly and willfully fil[ing] false disclosure reports showing Courtney Communications as the vendor" for services that were actually provided by a company called Impact Mail Ltd. The February 2002 FEC conciliation agreement noted that Perkins entered into a contract with Impact Mail after Duke recommended its services to Jenkins.
From the FEC conciliation agreement:
After the 1996 primary election in Louisiana, David Duke contacted Woody Jenkins and recommended that he use the services of a computerized phone bank system run by Impact Mail. Jenkins purchased several rounds of calls from Impact Mail. After the first round of calls, Jenkins began hearing complaints that Duke's name would appear on the caller ID when a phone bank message would arrive. At that point, Jenkins tried to cancel the transaction but was unable to because Tony Perkins, his campaign manager, had signed a contract with Impact Mail. Subsequently, Jenkins instructed Perkins to put a stop payment on the check issued to Impact Mail and directed that Impact Mail be paid through Courtney Communications, the campaign's media firm. The Jenkins committee issued three $27,500 checks to Courtney. Courtney, in turn, made out three checks in the same amount to Impact Mail.
While Perkins and other high-profile conservatives are often treated as representative of those conservative voters whom the media characterize as more concerned than others with family values, Washington Post staff writers Jonathan Weisman and Alan Cooperman, in a December 14, 2005, article, raised the question of what their "values" actually encompass, asking: "Why in recent years have conservative Christians asserted their influence on efforts to relieve Third World debt, AIDS in Africa, strife in Sudan and international sex trafficking -- but remained on the sidelines while liberal Christians protest domestic spending cuts?" The article quoted Perkins saying: "There is a [biblical] mandate to take care of the poor. ... But it does not say government should do it. That's a shifting of responsibility." The article also reported that Perkins "said the government's role should be to encourage charitable giving, perhaps through tax cuts."
From the August 30 edition of NBC's Today:
CRAIG: I am not gay. I never have been gay.
MYERS: Many said Craig's defiance and denials only compounded the damage to himself and his party.
PERKINS: It does appear that he may be covering up and that only makes matters worse.
MYERS: Tony Perkins, an influential social conservative, says value voters have lost faith in the Republican Party and warns that Republicans had better be sure their members are living up to pro-family rhetoric.
PERKINS: There needs to be, you know, some real evaluation and I think if people have things in the closet, they need to -- they need to clean out those closets.
MYERS: Some Republican strategists also fear that what some see as still another example of Washington hypocrisy could be the last straw for grassroots Republicans who already believe Republican leaders have abandoned party principles.
SCOTT REED (Republican strategist): The grassroots are as disenfranchised with the Republicans in Washington, as I've seen them in 25 years in national politics.
Tony Perkins needs to shut his piehole.
Could it be that the troglodytes have finally noticed the ring in their nose?
social conservatives are more concerned with "values" than other voters.
Well it does seem that when Republican/Conservatives do *wrong*, Conservative voters boot them out, if their own fellow R/C lawmakers haven't already asked them to take a hike.
Here in Massachusetts, Democrat/Liberals that get caught doing *wrong*, get re-elected [by a Liberal majority population] Teddy Kennedy & Barney Frank come to mind... & when a Massachusetts Democratic member of Congress gets censored by Congress for playing around with a male page [Gary Studds] & turns his back on those censoring him...his D/L fellow lawmakers give him a standing ovation.
I'm not so sure that's always the case, Jeter.
Senator Vitter came out, admitted, and apologized for partaking in illegal prostitution.
Senator Craig pleaded guilty to playing footsy in a bathroom stall.
Both incidents involved concealment by the accused, but Craig is the one getting thrown under the bus, while Vitter is still a Senator.
Good example [Vitter] Pete, though I wonder if he'll be re-elected?
I do agree about the voters, absolutely.
Holy cow, I almost forgot The Hammer.
He was indicted in the fall of 2005, but didn't resign until April the following year.
Not only that, but when it was clear Tom DeLay was about to be indicted, the Republican-controlled House of Representatives actually changed the rules to allow house leaders to keep their leadership positions whild under indictment. I almost fell over laughing when I saw pesticide-soaked Tom DeLay spewing that garbage on Faux News (of course) about Republicans always ostracizing their scumbags while Democrats always re-elect theirs. Typical right-wing hypocrisy.
BTW, after Vitter's admission, he was literally met with "thunderous applause" from his GOP colleagues during a policy lunch.
Pete I answered your post but forgot to hit *Reply To This Post*
So if you scroll down you'll find my response.
Well it does seem that when Republican/Conservatives do *wrong*, Conservative voters boot them out, if their own fellow R/C lawmakers haven't already asked them to take a hike.
Jeter conservatives have no choice but to boot out individuals who are caught going against the “family values” platform. The Democratic party has a openly gay man where Republicans does not. Dems are more liberal and what people do in the privacy of their bedroom is their business. Republican have ran on if your family is not like my family you don’t meet our definition of family and there is no room for you in our party. When you appoint your self as superior to someone else you have no choice but to boot anyone who does not meet the standard you required. Republicans have no choice if they want to continue to run on the "family values" platform that has served them well in the past. It’s kind of funny that Republicans set themselves up for all the heat they're receiving by saying their "family values" was superior when in fact they're just human like the rest of us.
"Well it does seem that when Republican/Conservatives do *wrong*, Conservative voters boot them out, if their own fellow R/C lawmakers haven't already asked them to take a hike."
Your framing of the issue is exactly the problem, in my opinion. You seem to imply that *wrong* means only sexual hanky-panky-style scandals. But George Bush, et al, who, at best, precipitously and unwisely led us into an unwinnable war that's killing thousands, attempted to undo social security as we know it, rewrote bankruptcy law to help only businesses, etc., etc., have also done *wrong* - if you ask me, a much greater *wrong* than someone fooling around on his wife - but Republicans stood by them for years.
On the other hand, this is all too serious for a Friday. When's happy hour start?
One wonders how many Republican hypocrites have to be exposed before the press/Repub voters get that these people are not walking the talk? My gosh, the list is getting really long.
From Newt, Bob Barr and David Vitter
You'd think value voters'd be bitter
But they don't give a whit
If their sins involve Kit
Disdain's for the gays and switch hitters*
*perjorative connotation not mine
"Kit"?
I've long been annoyed by the uncritical use of the term "values voters" by the national media to describe the religious right. For those who haven't seen it, I recommend Glenn Greenwald's article on the GOP's disparate reactions to the Craig and Vitter scandals.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/08/30/craig_vitter/
That's a good article by Greenwald. It's very interesting that Vitter is applauded, but Craig is asked to leave because his "sins" are not of a heterosexual nature. And there's no cost to Craig resigning since his successor would be appointed by a Republican and Vitter's would be by a Dem.. Family values indeed!
Well, sort of. Remember the lather into which they worked themselves over l'affaire Lewinsky and Barney Frank (or "Barney F*g" as Dick Armey -- who should never comment on the sexual proclivities of others as his name lends itself to so very much comedic ridicule)? I think it's less of hating the gay and embracing the lothario than hating the gay and all Democrats.
I'm with you, man. I hate it when it is taken for granted that democrats are somehow "anti-family," or however it is termed at the moment.
For example, my parents, who are just a little to the left of Dennis Kucinich, have been married to each other for 30 years. They have raised three kids, put them all through college, and taught them to act with respect and morality in dealing with other human beings. Right now, they are taking care of my elderly grandparents in their home, which they started doing as soon as they reached retirment. They are wonderful, caring people who dedicate themselves to their family and their family's ultimate success. They are utterly selfless, upstanding people. And somehow, they manage it all without any instructions from Tony Perkins, Jesus, or the republican party. So how is it that they are somehow AGAINST family values, because they have "democrat" checked off on their voter registration? Can someone explain how that myth got started?
Geez Pete you sent me to a Gay website...not that there's anything wrong with that ;-) But I'm at work! I just deleted it from my history!
There is a difference. Studds was being censured by Congress for his behavior. And he turned his back on his fellow Congressmen. That was no time to be giving the guy a standing ovation.
Though I don't believe Vitter deserved one either.
LOL. It was either that or the loony leftwing blog that linked to it. I figured I'd be damned either way. ;-)
"There is a difference. Studds was being censured by Congress for his behavior. And he turned his back on his fellow Congressmen. That was no time to be giving the guy a standing ovation."
I basically agree, but just to clarify... The standing ovations were given by supporters in his home district, not by congressional Dems as is frequently told (or inferred). The censorship was carried out by the Democratically lead House and he was also stripped of his subcommittee chairmanship.
Thanks for that info Christopher. I didn't know that was the case. Only goes to show that some things get repeated so often...you just figure it's a fact.
Don't mention it. If it makes you feel better, I had to debunk an attractive liberal myth this morning. A friend sent me the spurious 1986 Reagan diary entry in which he purportedly describes a young, ne're-do-well George W Bush. A funny story but sadly false (Snopes is a useful resource).
What about the "values" voters who like McCain, Gingrich, and Rudy? And why do "values" only encompass homosexuality and abortion to these people who keep advancing this theory?
If we look at two of the previous three Republican Speakers of the House, we have "Hot Tub Tom" DeLay and Newt "I married my geometry teacher" Gingrich who is currently on marriage #3. These two were elected by majorities of Republicans to hold their positions. I wonder if Representative Craig thinks he deserves a promotion.
I think your observations are dead on. The "values voter" moniker is for all intents and purposes a Madison Ave. marketing hook. Some believe that in the last Presidential election the "values voter" was used quite effectively by Rove and his accomplices as cover to explain the unbelievable increases in Smirky's vote tallies in certain areas.
Values voters, huh? Would that include me? I'm an independent, but I value freedom, civil rights, and the constitution. I also value the right to privacy, to own land, and to practice religion (or not!)
I guess my values are not as important as discriminating against gays and women, though.
Bingo. When the troglodytes use the word "values", it's a code word for narrowly defined Evangelical Christian prejudices. These "values" obviously don't include honesty...and they don't seem to mind embezzlement so much, or ripping off the taxpayer through defense contracts...but Janet Jackson's nipple? They're all over that!
Concerning the latter, I think that many would have liked to have been all over that. ; - )
Rick, you're a nasty, bad, naughty boy! :-)
you're a nasty, bad, naughty boy!
Juliajayne can you imagine Craig repeating that over and over with background music, Janet Jackson's Nasty Boy. ;-)
Republicans are values voters--what a laugh. Does that mean that Democrats are anti-values?
Health care, jobs and good wages, affordable housing, good education, strong economy, good foreign relations, and taking care of our troops, are just a few of the many important Democratic values. None of these appear to be the least bit important to current Republican lawmakers.
It's very simple...most of the things you mentioned cost money. This hurts the Country Club Republicans either through higher taxes or higher payroll expenses. Hence, they have conditioned their slavish sycophants in the Evangelical community to actually oppose such measures, and concentrate on the relatively cheap stuff...like Abortion, Flag Burning Amendments, Protection of Marriage Amendments, Posting the Ten Commandments on the Courthouse...you know...real important stuff.
It has worked very well for them.
Calling Democrats "anti-values" is every bit as unfair as calling those who disagree with the extreme environmentalists and with the advocates of racial quotas as being anti-environment" and "anti-civil rights."
When the shoe's on the other foot, it really isn't too comfy, is it?
I take it you failed Analogy 101.
Hey, TheRick, aside from taking care of the troops and maintaining good foreign relations, none of your examples are constitutional functions of the federal government, but for some reason they are at the forefront of the democrat platform? Wonder why? Could it be that the democrat party is more concerned with government control over the lives of individuals? When the term "values" is applied to governmental matters, to me, it means freedom, the rule of law, the defense of the nation (including the borders), and the rights of the individual.
Health care and affordable housing are not "values", they're issues. More specifically, they are examples of the federal government overstepping it's constitutional authority and meddling in the lives of the individual.
Warren Buffet, the 3rd richest man in the world, worth an estimated 52 billion says:
"Last year I paid taxes at a rate of 17%. My secretary paid taxes at a rate of 30%. This is wrong and a disgrace to Democracy."
Sounds like Mr. Buffet (God Bless him) is not opposed to a little crimp on his "freedom."
There is no such thing as a Democrat platform or Party, there are a DemocratIC Party and platform and a ReNAMBLAcan Party and platform. I gues you missed that part of the preamble of the constitution that says promote the General Welfare. Adult education look into it.
Ok, so I looked into the whole education thing. Not in the constitution. AND I did re-read the whole "general welfare" part, too. Still don't see a single word about health care coverage.
You dont see anything about invading Iraq either. That is an interpertation of providing for the common defense in the EXACT same way that investing in the social fabric can be interpreted as promoting the general welfare. If it has to be SPECIFIED then we better get rid of the Air Force and the CIA because I certainly didnt see THEM named in there. Give it up, your attempt at a point was dumb
yawn......Solon, you're yak is weak.
noticed my own typo, so no need to point it out.
I never point out typos. I make far too many of my own basic stupidity like YOURS however is another matter. Just because you are too ignorant to GET the point or as is more likely just because you cant make a cogent argument about my point doesnt mean there wasnt a good one. As I said adult education, you are in dire need of it, though it may be a waste of time with your diminished capacity.
Thats DEMONRATic Party.
No it isnt you ReNAMBLAcans are just illiterate
"Health care and affordable housing are not "values", they're issues. More specifically, they are examples of the federal government overstepping it's constitutional authority and meddling in the lives of the individual."--J4son
I understand. The "issues" I mentioned are not the responsibility of gov't because gov't has no business helping it's citizens. Is that about right?
Anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage, and pro Christian are issues, but Rape-publicans try to sell them as values. Show me where the Constitution addresses these.
Why are Rape-publican's so immoral to believe that health care, education, good wages, and housing should not be available to every citizen?
[NOTE: Rape-publican is the new retaliation for those who porposefully use "Democrat party" when the correct usage is Democratic party. Those who are brainwashed by Rush Limbaugh tend to talk in his semi-illiterate manner. Just thought I'd point that out, in hope that you aren't one of those people.]
TheRick, are you confusing me with a Republican?
Nope. In fact, I said "I hope you aren't one of those people."
Now, care to answer my questions?
TheRick wrote: Why are Rape-publican's so immoral to believe that health care, education, good wages, and housing should not be available to every citizen?
Ok, I'll answer your question. The truth is that healh care, education, good wages, and housing ARE available to every citizen RIGHT NOW!! Just like iPods, fast food, cell phones and microwave ovens are available to every citizen. The federal government has no obligation or authority to provide any of these things.
It has no OBLIGATION but there is no QUESTION it has the authority. Education isnt mentioned in the Constitution but the government provides it. Social Security. Roads. Rural electrification wasnt mentioned in the constitution. All those things are wildly popular and the American people are GLAD the government provided them. To say they dont have the authority to do so is flat out dumb.
The Constitution also doesn't have anything about inspecting food to make sure that it's safe, but I'm glad the government does it anyway. You say you're not a Republican, Jason. Are you saying that you are a Libertarian?
Yes, give that man a prize!! He figured out my political persuasion. Now tell all the "non-judgmental, accemting, tolerant" posters on this site to stop calling me a right-wing ditto-head chickenhawk.
I think he was confusing you with someone that has a functioning cerebral cortex
Take your ball and go home.
Take your WWAAHHHH out of your mommy's basement and let the adults talk
J4son Furthermore . . .
"When the term "values" is applied to governmental matters, to me, it means freedom, the rule of law, the defense of the nation (including the borders), and the rights of the individual."--J4son
I would certainly agree that most of these items would apply as values. However, as the old legalese states "includes, but not limited to..."
Laws are decided by how a society interprets it's value's, not vice-versa. In some places prostitution is legal, in others, drinking alchohol is illegal, still other places one could be jailed for eating a ham sandwich. Values and morals ultimately decides what becomes law.
I might be able to worry about your statements if and when you learn to spell correctly. It is the DemocratIC party ya know. Only the person with the simplest or hate filled mind would so purposefully use such a juvenile approach.
Hmmm...like somebody who would use the terms Dubya, BushCo, and Shrub instead of the correct term "President George Bush"?
Juvenile, indeed.
Yeah, like President Numbnuts?
See, this is what I mean. You rail on me for calling democrats what they are, democrats, but what, you're name calling is OK?
Actually, you won't find me railing on anyone for namecalling. Then I'd have to stop using terms like President Numbnuts, Puddinhead George, Moron In Chief...and it's just too fun.
I think you'll find that those who do rail on you for namecalling do not indulge in the practice themselves.
Great!! Then I hope everyone else follows suit and leaves me alone when I say Democrat Party, or Defeatocrats, or Demoncrats. Let's all be petty juvenile name callers together. Kumbaya, moonbats.
I wont attack you for it I will just point out how the ReNAMBLAcans want to get as many Americans killed as they possibly can.
Alright, Solon, since you're so smart and versed in the functions of the federal government, please, please convince me that providing "universal health care" is a necessary function of the federal government.
Convince me that some government bureaucracy has the authority and ability to provide me with the same quality health care that I get today.
Please explain to me how going to see a medical professional will be so much better, faster and easier after the federal government takes over.
You have the floor.......go.
Well you have changed your argument. There is no QUESTION they have the authority or we wouldnt have Medicare. I dont really understand the nature of the rest of your argument. The government wouldnt be giving out prescriptions. The medical community would remain unchanged and only the manner in which it was paid for would change. Right NOW HMOs do that job, why in the world couldnt the government do it? Right NOW about 18000 people a year DIE for lack of access to healthcare. Why would it be a problem for the government that created and runs the most efficient and skilled military the world has ever seen to do what the rest of the civilized world already does, that is assure that all Americans are provided with healthcare?
There is no QUESTION they have the authority or we wouldnt have Medicare.
And Medicare is such a wonderful, efficient system.
I dont really understand the nature of the rest of your argument. The government wouldnt be giving out prescriptions. The medical community would remain unchanged and only the manner in which it was paid for would change.
So the people who succeed and have the resources to pay for a GOOD health care plan would also foot the bill for the ones who haven't bothered to insure themselves. Great.
Right NOW HMOs do that job, why in the world couldnt the government do it?
Because aside from waging war, the federal government doesn't do ANYTHING well.
Right NOW about 18000 people a year DIE for lack of access to healthcare.
That is complete B.S. and you know it. Hell, even illegal aliens have access to health care. Where are these people being turned away from? Which hospitals are refusing to treat the ill? Doesn't happen, does it?
Why would it be a problem for the government that created and runs the most efficient and skilled military the world has ever seen to do what the rest of the civilized world already does, that is assure that all Americans are provided with healthcare?
See, this is how we have been duped to think that the problem is that there is no access to health care, but that's wrong. The problem is health care insurance!! It's expensive. And if the government would get it's fingers out of the medical community, guess what? It wouldn't be as expensive.
What's next? "Universal car care" for the uninsured? The problem is insurance, not access. Medicare and the Part D prescription programs have inflated the costs of services and prescriptions because the medical community knows that every eligible person will exhaust their Medicare plan before they come out of their own pocket. Ever notice how medical services tend to get cheaper AFTER the Medicare limits have been reached? The medical community charges for service based on "allowable maximums" through Medicare. Private plans (HMO/PPO) must set their maximums at the same levels that Medicare does, or else they can't function.
Solution? Make health insurance more like life insurance or car insurance. Get the government out and the consumer will force the prices down, the plans will become MUCH more affordable, and the providers will focus more on providing better service. More government is NOT the answer!
"the ones who haven't bothered to insure themselves."
Ah, the old familiar "immoral poor" argument. They're poor because they're lazy, stupid, or evil...is that about it? Does holding that opinion ease your money-grubbing conscience?
Here's the bottom line, Mr. Faux Libertarian...we, as a society, can give the Federal Government that authority if we so choose. Nothing in the Constitution forbids that.
People in this country cannot be morally characterized as "poor". That would be an insult to the people of this world that truly are "poor".
In America, if you want to eat, you WILL be fed, if you want a place to sleep, you WILL be housed, and if you are ill and want to be treated, you WILL be treated. That is not "poor", my friend. Take a journey into REAL poverty (Africa, India, etc) and tell me that ANY person living in this country is truly POOR.
Nice channeling of Rush Limbaugh talking points. He's been using that argument for years. Go tell the people living in FEMA trailers that they aren't poor.
You're right, "poor" is relative. Poor people in Africa are much worse off than our poor people. Our poor people should stop whining, right? Let's turn that argument on its head. CEOs in this country make around 300 times what their workers make. CEOs in other countries get by with far less, and most pay higher taxes. Maybe our CEOs should stop whining about their tax burden...you think?
Maybe we shouldn't be so concerned about what CEO's make, and do our best to succeed for ourselves. Jealousy and class envy only placate those who have accomplished nothing and aspire to accomplish nothing. Besides, if you don't like that the CEO of PepsiCo makes so much money, then stop buying Pepsi. He'll be out on his arse in no time.
Nice dodge, but your objectivist crap doesn't surprise me.
The class envy is from you rightwingers who think if you kiss enough rich butt while pressing your face to the window of their fancy restaurant maybe they will give you some crumbs off their table. Those of us arguing that the rich should have some social responsibilty beyond the economic Darwinism you espouse are not showing envy, we are showing social responsibility. The economic Golden Age of America was when the middle class grew not when it shrank like it is doing now. We get that you love your pin up posters of Ebeneezer Scrroge but he is NOT a role model. Conservatives are always looking for the holy grail of conservative philosophy the rationale why greed and selfishness are the epitome of social good. I think you will find it next to the fountain of youth and Godot will be there riding a unicorn
You are WRONG if you are ill you will NOT be treated beyond emergency medical care. Stabalized then left to go somewhere and DIE.
Let me debunk a couple of your delusions. Lets start out with the stat that 18000 Americans die each year due to lack of access to healthcare. Its a well known fact and you pull the irrelvant fact that Hospitals are required to do emergency medical care as IF that meant it wasnt true. What it means is you dont know what you are talking about. A pattern for you. Yes they have to stabalize you but are NOT required to give you ongoing treatments you can not afford. IF you need a kidney transplant and cant afford one YOU DONT GET ONE.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/healthcare/2002-05-22-insurance-deaths.htm
<!--OAS AD="Top468x60"--><!-- BeginEdSysObject ID="Ribbon" LAYOUTID="1486625" FRAGMENTID="312776" TYPE="CONTENT" LASTUPDATE="01/30/2002 02:51:57 PM" --><!-- #BeginEditable "banner" --><!-- #EndEditable --> <!-- EndEdSysObject --><!-- BeginEdSysObject ID="EmailNav" LAYOUTID="1486626" FRAGMENTID="577781" TYPE="CONTENT" LASTUPDATE="10/01/2001 04:42:24 PM" --> <!-- EndEdSysObject --><!--OAS AD="Zaplet1"--><!-- BeginEdSysObject ID="NavBar" LAYOUTID="1486627" FRAGMENTID="0" TYPE="CONTENT" LASTUPDATE="" --><!-- EndEdSysObject --><!-- BeginEdSysObject ID="SandboxLede" LAYOUTID="1486628" FRAGMENTID="0" TYPE="CONTENT" LASTUPDATE="" --><!-- EndEdSysObject --><!-- BeginEdSysObject ID="SandboxVA" LAYOUTID="1486629" FRAGMENTID="0" TYPE="CONTENT" LASTUPDATE="" --><!-- EndEdSysObject --><!-- BeginEdSysObject ID="SandboxMore" LAYOUTID="1486630" FRAGMENTID="2608821" TYPE="CONTENT" LASTUPDATE="05/22/2002 04:54:14 AM" --><!-- #BeginEditable "sandbox" -->18,000 deaths blamed on lack of insurance
By Steve Sternberg, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON — More than 18,000 adults in the USA die each year because they are uninsured and can't get proper health care, researchers report in a landmark study released Tuesday.
The 193-page report, "Care Without Coverage: Too Little, Too Late," examines the plight of 30 million — one in seven — working-age Americans whose employers don't provide insurance and who don't qualify for government medical care.
http://www.iom.edu/?id=19175
Lack of health insurance causes roughly 18,000 unnecessary deaths every year in the United States. Although America leads the world in spending on health care, it is the only wealthy, industrialized nation that does not ensure that all citizens have coverage
People overall are satisfied with medicare
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/78183.php
The Medicare Contractor Provider Satisfaction Survey (MCPSS), conducted by CMS for the second year, is designed to garner objective, quantifiable data on provider satisfaction with the fee-for-service contractors that process and pay Medicare claims. Sixty-five percent of those who were surveyed responded. The survey revealed that for the second consecutive year, 85 percent of respondents rated their contractors between 4 and 6 on a 6-point scale.
As for saying the Government cant do anything well except the military its another dumb baseless assertion. Ever hear of rural electrification? Why in the world would they be totally incompetent then suddenly find out the competence to field the greatest military machine in the history of the world? It makes no sense and you SAYING it doesnt make it true. Ya got nothin strip your posts of their proven delusions and your baseless assertions and that is exactly what is left NOTHING.
WOW, I sure screwed that one up. Sorry, I am not very computer savvy. I guess you noticed
Universal Health Care will be a nec. function of the federal government when the overwhelming majority of the people decide it must be so. Just like government regulation of business (not in the Constitution) or the Progressive Income Tax (not in the Constitution, until amended,) just like the ban on slave ownership (not in the Constitution until amended,) etc. Changes to the Constitution occur when the majority decides that something is Valued enough to deserve the protection of the federal government and, if nec., it's financial support as well. This isn't just a liberal argument- we've never had Constitutional protection for the American flag, but if the great majority of Americans want an Amendment to ban flag burning and make it a federal crime, then so be it. If the great majority decide to ban Abortion or Gay Marriage by Constitutional fiat, again, those are examples of modern Values being written into law. I really don't understand all of these "The Constitution doesn't allow for...." or "those aren't real Values.." arguments. And I SURE don't understand the "Health Care already IS available to everyone" argument- nothing is "available" to someone who can't afford to pay for it, unless by "available" you mean "there to steal." That philosophy comes from the "if you can't afford it, you must be a lazy, stupid bum, so screw you and progeny" mindset. According to my values system, we live in a Society, not on individual islands, and we need to cooperate with eachother to survive and prosper. So I get to use publicly-financed roads to get to work, and in exchange I surrender part of my hard-earned money to contribute to the maintenance of those roads, etc. It really isn't hard to understand, even if roads aren't mentioned in the Constitution.
WOW!! Where do I start with this stinking pile of rat squeeze? The majority decides what becomes law? Since when? When was the last time we all got together and voted on a Constitutional amendment? Heck, we don't even vote for the President of the U.S.!! If we did, we would be a Democracy. But we're NOT a democracy, are we? Democracy is a form of government in which majority rules.
Democrats and liberals don't like to believe this. That's why they're so angry that the Demcorat Congress hasn't managed to end the war in Iraq. The philosophy is "Hey, we the people, elected a majority of Democrats, so why are we still in this war. Why aren't they respecting the will of the majority?" Well, because that's not what they do.
Fair enough, Rat Boy, but please show us which part of the Constitution prevents us from providing Universal Healthcare, if we can persuade our representatives to do so?
There is no such thing as a Democrat Congress just like there is no such thing as a Democrat Party. There is a DemocratIC Party and a ReNAMBLAcan Party. Public opinion brought about the end of Jim Crow, pulled us out of the Vietnam war, gave women the right to vote. According to your specious logic there is no such thing as a Democracy anywhere in the world so why are we trying to bring democracy to Iraq? A REPRESENTATIVE Republic IS Democratic. What part of REPRESENTATIVE arent you understanding?
Furthermore, the Constitution bestows rights on INDIVIDUALS, not SOCIETY or GROUPS.We hear political types rant about "gay rights" and "minority rights", but when it all boils down, there really are no such things. A homosexual has the EXACT same rights that I have. Ditto for minorities. Why? Because our wonderful country treats it's citizens as individuals. Proponents of "democracy" struggle with the concept of "individual rights", to which each and every one of us are entitled to equally, because democracy relies on the will of the majority, the greater good, and the Great Society. Individual rights infringe on the agenda of the majority.
But, oh happy day, we live in a country that operates on the rule of law. Our governing document says that I have the right to certain things. Legal counsel, for example. Therefore, it is perfectly within the government's scope and authority to allocate money to provide me with a defense attorney should I need one.
Now, let's say, hypothetically, that the majority of people in this country decide that I should pay for my own attorney instead of using taxpayer dollars for my defense. Polls show that every person in the country except me are in favor of making me pay for my attorney. Elections are held, and lo and behold, politicians who favor the "pay for your own defense" issue are voted into the legislative branch at a rate of 100%. Predictably, legislation is introduced and passed unanimously through both the House and the Senate, and then the President (who, of course was elected on the "no tax dollars for attorneys" platform) signs the legislation into law. Great! The will of the majority is served, and I start to reach into my savings account to pay my lawyer.
But wait!!!! We live in a country that operates under the premise of "individual rights" and the rule of law!! The governing document bestows this specific right onto me. So, I scream "individual rights" and every other person in the country (proponents of democracy) clench their fists and say "Dammit!!" The Supreme Court, regardless of political leaning, has no choice but to declare the law unconstitutional, and my defense is still provided at taxpayer expense.
Now when it comes to health care, the issue is not ACCESS, it is COST. So this issue is about INSURANCE, NOT the health care itself. Today the government has it's hands way too far into the medical industry (ask ANYONE who works in the field before you disagree with that statement. Ask a pediatrician, more specifically). Our health care is expensive because of government intrusion and employer provided plans. The coverage is NOT adequate. If you were to make health insurance more like automobile insurance, then the "individual" would be more involved in making the choice of what plan they would choose. This would open up the opportunity for new business (and jobs) through the commercial private health insurance policies. Imagine if insurance companies like Geico and Progressive, Esurance and State Farm competed with each other to provide YOU, the consumer, the health insurance that you demand at a price that YOU can afford. You would see the plans get better and better, and you would see the medical providers adjusting their rates and behaviors to suit these types of plans. Market forces are what have shaped our economy. Less government IS definitely the answer. Look at what happened to the telephone industry once the government sponsered monopoly was deregulated. Now we have phones the size of a saltine cracker that can reach anyone in the world. And it's all thanks to the government butting out of the industry and letting the market forces run their course. That's my libertarian lecture for the day, see ya.
Darn! I must ask this. Are you <a href="[link to www.ktlkfm.com] Jason Lewis</a>? Your style and arguments are so similar.
The correct link [link to www.ktlkfm.com]
I plead the 5th.
Wow someone PAYS you to spew this bilge? And you dont even have a dim idea what you are talking about anyone MINIMALLY informed knows the stat about how many people die each year due to lack of access to health care it was a fairly big story when it happened. How do you get a job where not knowing what you are talking about and incompetence is considered a job skill. Besides being a conservative president that is.
No, I do this pro bono. Show prep, you know.
But someone pays you to incompetently spew your baseless, misinformed propaganda to actual human beings?Wow.
Objectivist Rat Squeeze Boy, which Constitutional Right is violated if the Federal Government provides Universal Healthcare?
You make a good point about the fact minority rights are protected no matter how many people decide they want everyone to pay for their own lawyer or they dont get one it wont happen. Much of the rest of your post is specious at best. NO a homosexual does NOT have all the rights you have. HE can be fired for being a homsexual in many states. YOU cannot be fired for being a heterosexual. He can be denied access to his loved ones bedside at a hospital. He cannot marry anyone he chooses. As for the free market being some kind of religious dogma there are things it does well and other things it does poorly. Social responsibilty is one of the things it does poorly. Business is in the business of maximizing profits. So when Ford makes a design flaw that causes their Pinto to explode they go ahead and market it anyway KNOWING it will kill hundreds of people because THAT is who to maximize profits. Some corporation bought the toxic wasted dump at Love Canal and built a housing tract on it. It doesnt take much scrutiny to figure out there are times when maximizing profits and societal goals will be in conflict.
I guess, in Jason's world, billionaires are an oppressed minority.
Excuse me, I believe we were speaking about Constitutional Rights. A homosexual has the EXACT same rights as a heterosexual. Are you implying that if a gay man were to suddenly declare himself straight, he would receive some Constitutional Rights that he doesn't have now? Nonsense.
Yes he would be able to marry the person of his choice for instance. AND he would LOSE the discrimination that LIMIT his rights like what job he can have and where he lives. This is pretty simple.
Ok, look. This IS pretty simple. A homosexual man is free to marry the person he loves, as long as it's NOT another man. Just like I am free to marry the person I love, as long as it's NOT another man. Identical treatment under the LAW!! We have the SAME RIGHTS UNDER THE LAW AS IT IS WRITTEN. Now don't go thinking that I am against gay marriage, either. Quite the contrary. But until the law changes, it is what it is. And when the law DOES change (which I truly hope it does), then guess what? The law changes for everyone!! Group rights are not conferred upon society. The basis of our legal system is that rights are bestowed upon individuals EQUALLY. Equal protection under the law. I merely pointed out that today, at this moment, under the law, a homosexual is not deprived of ANY rights compared to ANYONE else in the country! Now, as to your claim that a homosexual has a right to a certain job or a certain place to live, well you are flat wrong. I do believe that a homosexual may not be denied employment or residence on the basis of their sexual orientation, race, religion, national origin, etc.. Same as you, me, and every other INDIVIDUAL is afforded the same protection under the law. See, that wasn't so hard, was it?
That is flat out wrong for two reasons. First it is less accurate to say rights are bestowed than to say that the government is limited in its ability to RESTRICT rights. For instance the first amendment doesnt say everyone has the right to free speech but that GOVERNMENT has no right to restrict that speech. SO they HAVE restricted the right of gays to marry whoever they want. YOUR argument would still allow miscegenation laws. Since you would be saying Blacks have a right to marry anyone within THEIR race just like you do. As long as an employer can fire someone for being gay or a landlord can evict someone for being gay their rights are restricted MORE than the majorities rights which have no such restrictions. So a heterosexual CAN marry who he wants and a gay person CANNNOT. SAYING they have the same rights because they can do what YOU want just like you can but they cant do what THEY want is disengenuous. Look at this Sue can marry John but Steve cant marry John. So Steve doesnt have the same right that Sue has. It wont wash. Every argument I have ever heard against gay marriage is a rehash of the miscegenation laws. Are you saying that Blacks DIDNT have their rights restricted?
Also you are WRONG, I guess you just make things up to bolster your arguments. All workers not under a contract can be fired for ANY reason NOT protected by civil rights laws. Whenever there is an attempt to include sexual orientation to those laws they are usually defeated. Now some states DO include sexual orientation but not all states. What about the well covered case of the Army translaters fired for being gay?
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_kmnew/is_200205/ai_kepm312788
http://content.timesdaily.monster.com/articles/3465/18018/1/factor/7/home.aspx
Colleagues of a young gay South Carolina worker constantly harassed him with name-calling and abuse. He complained to his supervisor -- and was fired.
This worker lived in one of more than 30 states that do not recognize sexual orientation as a protected class in employment. He was also not protected at the county or city level. No federal law explicitly mentions sexual orientation discrimination either. So from a legal standpoint, his termination was legitimate.
Perhaps you should have some dim idea what you are talking about before your give out this kind of misinformation.Salon, I think he has confused sex (gender) with sexual orientation. Certainly there is a national law against gender discrimination, however, I know of no law protecting someone because of their sexual preference.
(but hey, I'm no lawyer)
So this guy is PAID to spew his uninformed BS to an actual public that might accidentally think he knows what he is talking about?
Amazing isn't it? The right always follow the one who shouts the loudest. His flaws are so gaping and frequent. My impression is he's a Rush Limbaugh wannabee--as long as that's where the money is.
Don't you just love the way they make a sharp turn onto another subject everytime we knock their Dicks in the dirt?
So true. Its as predictable as a Sunset
Hey! He is RIGHT.. how do I know? because he is America's Mr. RIGHT! =) so you can not win SOLON =)
What an absolute load of crap!!! It IS true that a man can marry anyone he wants--as long as it's not another man, and this applies equally to all. Boil it down, and you're saying we are all subject to equal discrimination.
The reason your argument is twisted is that not everyone is homosexual. Therefore, a man can't marry anyone he may want to. He is limited by the wills and values of others. That IS discrimination, and we have laws AGAINST discrimination. Remember the laws against interracial marriage?
Laws are for the protection and rights of individuals, but sometimes these individuals happen to fall into groups such as women, minorities, homosexuals, dog catchers, right wing talk radio hosts, evangelicals, carpenters, etc.
As I mentioned in a previous post, law is decided by moral values of societies, not vice-versa. One of the values we hold high in importance is freedom, a word you use a lot.
If any of us are one illness away from filing bancruptcy, if we are without means to support ourselves, if we are subjected to the will of others, then we have no freedom. And when any of us aren't free--all of us aren't free.
Try not to be a Rush Limbaugh wannabee. Intelligent people realize what a fool this person really is. Personally, I've never cared what fools thought of me.
Pardon my language but what a load of garbage Perkins is handing out. I would fall dead before I even entertained the idea of being a conservative Republican in these times. However, I have been a moderate Javits sort of Republican for years. But the last 8 to 10 years the pious, judgmental attitudes of the Party finally drove me away. This sort of party behavior explains why so many of us moderates are out of the party.
I am also chagrined that folks like Mr. Perkins hold up the far right Republicans as paragons of morality. The Bible is explicit about judging others.
My response to Mr. Craig is to pray for him. I can only imagine the hurt his family is enduring. But I trust the same consideration will be given to any Democrat who falls. If we all considered the hurt this family is going through, I think it would certainly reduce the hate filled tone in politics these days.
I was a Republican for most of my life, partly because I lived in the South and the Democrats were the party of lynchers. When my daughter became 18 she asked me if we were Democrats or Republicans. I have been a Deomccrat since that time. Anyway, your comment touched me, MARI2ROSE1640 and I nominate it as the best post in this thread. Thank you.
I found Mari's comments poignant, as well. However, after watching these cretins in action over the past 15 years, I find it hard to feel sorry for one that is exposed as a four-star hypocrite and phony. I feel sorry for his family, but not for him.
If you can stand it, listen to Rush Limbaugh for a few days...you may find that your sympathy is misplaced.