Echoing McCain, NY Times' Harwood falsely suggested Obama and Clinton proposed "government-run health care"
SUMMARY: The New York Times' John Harwood wrote that Sen. John McCain "prevailed over a field of Republicans who almost unanimously shared his support for the Iraq war, embrace of President Bush's tax cuts, skepticism toward government-run health care and opposition to abortion rights," while Sen. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton "both staked out opposite ground from Mr. McCain." But neither Obama nor Clinton has proposed "government-run health care"; the Times has previously pointed out that McCain has "inaccurately described Obama's and Clinton's health care proposals" by likening them to "government-run health care systems."
In a June 9 New York Times article, political writer John Harwood, CNBC's chief Washington correspondent, falsely suggested that Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton proposed "government-run health care." Harwood wrote: "Senator John McCain prevailed over a field of Republicans who almost unanimously shared his support for the Iraq war, embrace of President Bush's tax cuts, skepticism toward government-run health care and opposition to abortion rights. Senator Barack Obama defeated Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton in a Democratic race in which both staked out opposite ground from Mr. McCain." However, Harwood's suggestion that Obama and Clinton -- on "opposite ground from Mr. McCain" -- support "government-run health care" is false.
Neither Obama nor Clinton has proposed "government-run health care." Indeed, the Times itself reported in a May 3 article by reporters Michael Cooper and Julie Bosman that McCain has "inaccurately described the Democrats' health care proposals, using language that evokes the specter of socialized medicine" and quoted McCain asserting of Clinton's and Obama's plans: "[B]efore you decide to sign on to that kind of a program, go to Canada, or go to European countries that have government-run health care systems." Cooper and Bosman wrote that McCain's "suggestion is incorrect" and noted that "Both [Obama and Clinton] would maintain the existing private insurance system, providing government subsidies or tax credits to help the low-income uninsured afford premiums. And they would give consumers a new option to buy insurance from the federal government, with policies along the lines of Medicare."
In addition to mischaracterizing the Democrats' plans as a "nationalized health-care system," a "one-size-fits-all, big-government takeover of health care," and a "government monopoly" on insurance coverage, McCain has frequently accused Democrats of proposing "government-run health care" -- language Harwood uncritically adopted. For instance, in a June 6 statement, McCain said: "The wrong change for our country would be an economic agenda based upon the policies of the past that advocate higher taxes, bigger government, government-run health care and greater isolationism. To help families at this critical time, we cannot afford to go backward as Senator Obama advocates." In a May 2 statement, McCain said: "The wrong course for our country would be to follow Senators Obama and Clinton and their siren songs of higher taxes, bigger government, greater isolationism and a government-run health care system."
From Harwood's June 9 New York Times article:
Strange as it sounds, the first five months of the 2008 campaign lacked the most powerful force in contemporary politics: partisanship fueled by ideology.
Senator John McCain prevailed over a field of Republicans who almost unanimously shared his support for the Iraq war, embrace of President Bush's tax cuts, skepticism toward government-run health care and opposition to abortion rights. Senator Barack Obama defeated Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton in a Democratic race in which both staked out opposite ground from Mr. McCain.
Now those two self-contained conversations have given way to a broad clash of familiar product lines: Republican conservatism and Democratic liberalism. That clash has been obscured by the extended Obama-Clinton contest. But the huge stakes it carries for a discontented electorate ensure it will dominate the general election campaign.
The differences extend to every area of federal policy: troop levels in Iraq, America's confrontation with Iran, levels of taxes and spending, strategies for expanding health coverage, the shape of the judiciary, and social policy. As Americans focus on the Obama-McCain contrast, and millions of heretofore uninterested voters begin tuning in, the resulting crosscurrents could have unpredictable consequences.
Mr. McCain is riding a tide that has given conservative candidates the upper hand in recent American history. Mr. Obama is surfing a wave that has crested in opposition to the Bush presidency over an unpopular war and a weakening economy.
What is it with these media people? Do they do any research? Or are we in for 5 months of McCain says something so its true lets repeat it?
McBush will get the same free ride his namesake has had for 8 years, and his supporters will die demanding that their new choice never flip flopped on anything.
Slightly OT, but can you guess who said this?
It was a shameful thing to ask men to suffer and die, to persevere through god-awful afflictions and heartache, to endure the dehumanizing experiences that are unavoidable in combat, for a cause that the country wouldn’t support over time and that our leaders so wrongly believed could be achieved at a smaller cost than our enemy was prepared to make us pay. No other national endeavor requires as much unshakable resolve as war. If the nation and the government lack that resolve, it is criminal to expect men in the field to carry it alone.
Nope...
Try J. Sidney McCain.
What is it with these media people? Do they do any research? Or are we in for 5 months of McCain says something so its true lets repeat it?
It's not just the media - I heard the same lie earlier today while listening to Jeff Christie's radio pukefest, and I also heard it last week from both Sean Insanith and Mark "Dog Poop for Brains" Levin.
I heard one of the radio wingnuts this morning making his argument against national health care. According to him, only 10% of Americans are uninsured, and only 5% because they can't afford it.
I don't know if his numbers are accurate, but I really had a tough time coming up with an explanation for the other 5%. Those for whom the money isn't a problem , but just prefer to be uninsured.
Does anybody here know these people?
It wasn't Rush, it was some fill-in host, but you may be right, the numbers could have been made up.
I personally don't know anybody who's completely uninsured for any other reason than money. I was asking if anybody here knew of such a person. Maybe 18 years olds who don't think about things like death, sickness & injury?
Speaking of the propaganda war, I recently went to Sean Hannity’s site for the first time and was astounded to see that there have been a total of around 5 million posts there. I don’t know what, for example, this site’ total posts come to, but my guess is even if adjusted for the age of the sites, it’s not a fraction of a fraction of that. I think Dem friendly political sites should consider reversing the standard progression and start radio shows. If Hannity, the single least persuasive person in the world, can get that kind of internet traffic then those with the truth on their side, in addition to whatever talent is required to talk into a microphone for 3 hours a day, should be able to get an audience too. The sites could even start it on an internet-only basis to get practice and audition themselves for live local stations and perhaps even syndication after that.
From a marketing perspective, it seems to me that the way to achieve maximal propaganda dissemination at lowest cost is to start a website and eventually gain prominence/traffic with the goal in mind of eventually starting a broadcast operation capturing listeners off their established brand name/good will---then to use the broadcast audience to direct more traffic back to the narrowcast website.
A not-for profit site would, I assume, also offer the show gratis (at least initially) so what would the stations have to lose in giving them a try? (Breaking up the radio monopolies would greatly improve prospects of course.)
The web sites’ broadcast divisions would have to hit the juicier stories and not be too repetitive to hope to draw and keep an audience, and leave the rest for the websites. The radio show could be thought of as advertising for the site if the sites prefer to think of it that way.
The costs would be minimal especially since it can all be done on the internet at first. The worst that could happen is that some people gain some experience while failing to get on the air. And they would at least have an initial audience of their current site-readers which, in itself, might improve the repeat traffic to the site by giving the site a voice and a relatable personality. I would imagine it could even be farmed out to interns with journalism, communications, and poly-sci majors to minimize costs to practically zero, especially at first.
The web-sites could use their established legitimacy to promote these shows for free.
The shows could also ‘make’ news by inviting guests to come on who might do so because of the reputation of their associated website. Even big name politicians might show up who were slandered by the noise machine, for instance. These interviews could then be used to help promote the site. Picture one hand washing the other with snow, making a ball, and eventually an avalanche…......…and then the Democratic Party becomes the profiteers……... and Sean Hannity comes to the rescue...
In the first paragraph I said:
If Hannity, the single least persuasive person in the world, can get that kind of internet traffic then those with the truth on their side, in addition to whatever talent is required to talk into a microphone for 3 hours a day, should be able to get an audience too.
On second thought I should have stated :
If Hannity, the single least persuasive person in the world, can get that kind of internet traffic then those websites with the truth on their side, given whatever talent is required to talk into a microphone for 3 hours a day, should be able to develop a RADIO audience which is commensurate with their website’s traffic and site/name recognition as compared to Hannity’s websites traffic and site/name recognition..
But with 4 modifications/clarifications:
1.) I’m asserting that the new radio show would do as well as Hannity’s show multiplied by the ratio of that websites’ traffic level divided by Hannity’s website traffic level. For example if Generic Democratic Website A is getting a 25 traffic level compared to 100 for Hannity’s website, then the new radio show Dem A should be expected to get one-quarter of Hannity’s radio audience.
2.) #1 just above is assuming that there is a free market and enough time to let it work or that there is unlimited bandwidth---neither of which is true.
3.) I’m assuming that the talent level is no problem using Hannity as the comparison. But there is the celebrity factor that even the most incompetent will accrue over enough time on the air.
4.) Hannity is on so many stations (500+) which give him a comparative advantage in any promotion his company may do---nationwide versus local or regional to scattered.
And it makes it easier comparatively for him to sell ad time.
But even with these modifications to my previous speculation, given that the cost level is so low, I still believe it would bring a good return on investment/effort, just not as high or as quickly as I first thought.