Fox News personalities advance Palin's "death panel" claim
In a Facebook posting, former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin claimed that under Democratic health care reform, "Obama's 'death panel' " would "decide" whether her parents or her son Trig, who has Down syndrome, were "worthy of health care." Since then, several Fox News anchors, hosts, and contributors have adopted Palin's "death panel" term or advanced or expressed support for her assertion -- which is based on the widely debunked claim that the House health care reform bill would require end-of-life counseling -- while others have termed it "crazy" or "over the top."
Palin's claim based on debunked end-of-life counseling myth
Palin suggested that under Democratic health care reform, "[M]y baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama's 'death panel' "
The Democrats promise that a government health care system will reduce the cost of health care, but as the economist Thomas Sowell has pointed out, government health care will not reduce the cost; it will simply refuse to pay the cost. And who will suffer the most when they ration care? The sick, the elderly, and the disabled, of course. The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama's "death panel" so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their "level of productivity in society," whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil.
Health care by definition involves life and death decisions. Human rights and human dignity must be at the center of any health care discussion. [Sarah Palin Facebook post, 8/7/09]
Palin's spokesperson reportedly said Palin's assertion was a reference to House bill's "Advance Care Planning Consultation" provision. On his blog, ABC's Jake Tapper reported:
Asked specifically what the former governor was referring to when painting a picture of an Obama "death panel" giving her parents or son Trig a thumbs up or down based on their productivity, Palin spokeswoman Meghan Stapleton responded in an email: "From HR3200 p. 425 see 'Advance Care Planning Consultation'." [Political Punch, 8/7/09]
Provision Stapleton pointed to requires Medicare to cover voluntary end-of-life counseling sessions. Section 1233 of America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 -- which includes "p. 425" -- amends the Social Security Act to ensure that advance care planning will be covered if a patient requests it from a qualified care provider [America's Affordable Health Choices Act, Sec. 1233]. According to an analysis of the bill produced by the three relevant House committees, the section "[p]rovides coverage for consultation between enrollees and practitioners to discuss orders for life-sustaining treatment. Instructs CMS to modify 'Medicare & You' handbook to incorporate information on end-of-life planning resources and to incorporate measures on advance care planning into the physician's quality reporting initiative." [waysandmeans.house.gov, accessed 7/29/09]
Numerous media conservatives have advanced myth that provision provides seniors mandatory counseling to end their lives. On July 16, former New York Lt. Gov. Betsy McCaughey falsely claimed that the House health care reform bill would "absolutely require" end-of-life counseling for seniors "that will tell them how to end their life sooner." Since then, numerous media figures -- including Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, and Rush Limbaugh -- have echoed McCaughey's claim -- even after the falsehood was debunked and McCaughey herself backtracked.
Fox News personalities have advanced Palin's "death panel" claim
Gingrich on Palin's assertion: "[P]eople are very concerned" because "you're asking us to trust the government." Interviewing former House Speaker and Fox News contributor Newt Gingrich on ABC's This Week, host George Stephanopoulos cited Palin's Facebook comment as an example of "opponents ... spreading the idea that the president's plan will encourage euthanasia," even though "[t]he only thing in the bill is that it would allow Medicare to pay for what they say is voluntary counseling on end-of-life issues." Gingrich responded, in part: "I think people are very concerned when you start talking about cost controls, that a bureaucracy -- we don't -- you're asking us to trust the government. Now, I'm not talking about the Obama administration. I'm talking about the government. You're asking us to decide that we believe that the government is to be trusted. We know people who have said routinely, well, you're going to have to make decisions. You're going to have to decide. Communal standards, historically, is a very dangerous concept." Gingrich later added, "[T]he bill's 1,000 pages of setting up mechanisms. It sets up 45 different agencies. It has all sorts of panels. You're asking us to trust turning power over to the government, when there clearly are people in America who believe in -- in establishing euthanasia, including selective standards." [ABC's This Week, 8/09/09]
Malkin: "What death panels? Oh, yeah, those death panels." Conservative columnist and Fox News contributor Michelle Malkin wrote on her website: "Sarah Palin's warning about the effects of Obamacare on the elderly and infirm have been met with derision and ridicule. William Jacobson has a good round-up. Meanwhile, the effects of socialized medicine in Britain -- engineered by government-run cost-cutting panels on which Obamacare would be modeled -- continue to wreak havoc on the elderly and infirm." Malkin concluded, "Death panels? What death panels? Oh, yeah, those death panels." [MichelleMalkin.com, 8/9/09]
Kilmeade adopts Palin's "death panel" terminology to advance end-of-life care myth. On Fox News' Fox & Friends, co-host Brian Kilmeade said, "[E]veryone's talking about seniors, and they're talking about the middle class and affordable health care. If the upper class is paying for the next two classes, and are seniors going to be in front of the death panel? And then just as you think, OK, that's ridiculous, then you realize there's provisions in there that seniors in the last lap of their life will be sitting there going to a panel possibly discussing what the best thing for them is." [Fox & Friends, 8/10/09]
Beck on Palin's "death panel" claim: "I believe it to be true." On his radio show, Fox host Glenn Beck stated, "So, why is there no more discussion than there is on Sarah Palin and what she said over the weekend that there would be ... [a] death panel for her son Trig. That's quite a statement. I believe it to be true, but that's quite a statement." [The Glenn Beck Program, 8/10/09]
Napolitano called Palin's claim "a legitimate concern from a fair reading of this bill." On his Fox News Radio show, Fox News senior judicial analyst Andrew Napolitano said:
NAPOLITANO: I mean, at first, I thought that Governor Palin was a little over the top over the weekend when she put on her Facebook the potential for panels of health care professionals from the government to talk to you about suicide and euthanasia. But if you read segments of this bill, the language is so loose, it allows the Department of Health and Human Services to set up panels of experts to advise doctors and patients on various things.
Think about it. If it's federal money, the federal government can say, we're not gonna give Grandma a new knee, or Grandma a new kidney. We're just gonna give her painkillers. We're gonna save that money for that knee or that kidney for somebody who's 25 instead of somebody who's 85. That is power that Americans have never conferred on the government. That was Governor Palin's concern, and that is a legitimate concern from a fair reading of this bill, which most members of Congress have not done. [Brian & The Judge, 8/10/09]
Other conservatives have dismissed Palin's claim
David Brooks: "That's crazy." On NBC's Meet the Press, host David Gregory said to conservative New York Times columnist David Brooks, "There is the rhetoric; there's also the question of what's true and what's false in what people are arguing about this notion of a death panel." Brooks responded, "Again, that's crazy. If the -- the crazies are attacking the plan because it'll cut off granny, and that -- that's simply not true. That simply is not going to happen." [Meet the Press, 8/9/09]
Larry Elder: Palin's "death panel" comment is "over the top," "irresponsible," "incendiary." Libertarian radio host Larry Elder said of Palin's comment, "I don't know what she was referring to; I suspect she was referring to one proposal that had a voluntary panel that would look at certain kinds of health care decisions. But to call it a death panel, I agree with Ron [Reagan], is over the top." Asked whether "saying things like that takes away from the debate," Elder replied: "I think any kind of irresponsible comment takes away from the real issue here, and that is whether or not you can provide universal coverage, high quality, at low cost. Any kind of incendiary comment takes away from that debate." [CNN's American Morning, 8/10/09]
From the August 10 edition of CNN's American Morning:
KIRAN CHETRY (co-host): This is what Sarah Palin said -- or wrote -- "The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama's," quote, "death panel." She also called it "evil." What is your reaction to what she said on Facebook?
RON REAGAN (radio host): You know, Sarah Palin only needs a red rubber nose and some exploding shoes, and she could go to work for Barnum and Bailey. The fact that we give this clown any time at all is shocking and silly and a little bit stupid. So, you know, I find that offensive, frankly, and Larry, it's a perfect example of the sort of dishonesty that's being peddled out there in this debate.
CHETRY: Larry, were you -- what did you think of Sarah Palin's comments?
ELDER: Well, I think, certainly, it is unfair to call her a clown and stupid.
REAGAN: Oh, I don't think so.
ELDER: There are about four or five competing programs -- competing programs in the Congress, and we don't know what's going to come out. So I don't know what she was referring to; I suspect she was referring to one proposal that had a voluntary panel that would look at certain kinds of health care decisions. But to call it a death panel, I agree with Ron, is over the top -- especially since we don't know what's going to come out of Congress, what's going to come out of the House, what's going to come out of the Senate, and then they have to reconcile the two bills when they do come out.
CHETRY: But I'm just saying, Larry, as a conservative --
ELDER: So we're a long way to finding out what the details are.
CHETRY: As a conservative commentator, do you think that saying things like that takes away from the debate -- just feeds into the argument on the other side that, at times, perhaps, people are greatly exaggerating what may or may not happen?
ELDER: I think any kind of irresponsible comment takes away from the real issue here, and that is whether or not you can provide universal coverage, high quality, at low cost. Any kind of incendiary comment takes away from that debate, just as throwing pies at people like Ann Coulter and my good friend David Horowitz and William Kristol takes away from their debate.
From the August 10 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends:
GRETCHEN CARLSON (co-host): Every single member of Congress should be held to some sort of a level up here, and they should all be asked whether or not they have read this bill. If, in fact, this op-ed is true and it's the most important domestic debate out there.
KILMEADE: It's 17 percent of the economy, $2.4 trillion in costs are out there, and basically everyone's talking about seniors, and they're talking about the middle class and affordable health care. If the upper class is paying for the next two classes, and are seniors going to be in front of the death panel? And then just as you think, OK, that's ridiculous, then you realize there's provisions in there that seniors in the last lap of their life will be sitting there going to a panel --
STEVE DOOCY (co-host): Sure.
KILMEADE: -- possibly discussing what the best thing for them is.
From the August 10 edition of Fox News Radio's Brian & The Judge:
NAPOLITANO: I mean, at first, I thought that Governor Palin was a little over the top over the weekend when she put on her Facebook the potential for panels of health care professionals from the government to talk to you about suicide and euthanasia. But if you read segments of this bill, the language is so loose, it allows the Department of Health and Human Services to set up panels of experts to advise doctors and patients on various things.
Think about it. If it's federal money, the federal government can say, we're not gonna give Grandma a new knee, or Grandma a new kidney. We're just gonna give her painkillers. We're gonna save that money for that knee or that kidney for somebody who's 25 instead of somebody who's 85. That is power that Americans have never conferred on the government. That was Governor Palin's concern, and that is a legitimate concern from a fair reading of this bill, which most members of Congress have not done.
From the August 10 edition of Premiere Radio Networks' The Glenn Beck Program:
BECK: So, why is there no more discussion than there is on Sarah Palin and what she said over the weekend that there would be death -- what did she call it? -- a death squad? Or a death --
STEVE "STU" BURGUIERE (executive producer): Death panel.
BECK: A death panel for her son Trig. That's quite a statement. I believe it to be true, but that's quite a statement. She also called health care this -- Obama health care -- "evil." Did she not? Am I misquoting her, Pat?
PAT GRAY (radio host): Let's see. I think she -- yes, she did.
BECK: OK.
BURGUIERE: She did.
PAT GREY: Former -- yeah, called health plan "downright evil."
BECK: Downright evil.
PAT: Hm-mm.
BECK: That's quite a statement. But, again, I believe -- I believe she at least should be listened to and you should question, "Is it evil?" Would there be -- what would make her say that there would be a death panel?
I mean, tomorrow on Fox at 5 o'clock, make sure you're joining us, because we'll ask some of those same questions. We will show you some of the reasons why you could read it this way. It'll be up to you whether or not you find it credible enough to say, "Well, now, wait a minute. Those are really bad seeds that have been planted before. Maybe we shouldn't plant those seeds." But it's up to you to decide.
From the August 9 edition of ABC's This Week with George Stephanopoulos:
STEPHANOPOULOS: One of the other claims being made about the bill, and it's related to cost control, is -- and opponents are spreading the idea that the president's plan will encourage euthanasia.
Most recently, Sarah Palin, on her Facebook page yesterday -- I think it was Friday night, actually -- said, "The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama's 'death panel' so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their 'level of productivity in society,' whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil."
Now, as you know, Mr. Speaker, the president called that outlandish. He said --
GINGRICH: But why -- why didn't you put up what Dr. Zeke Emanuel said? Because Dr. Zeke Emanuel, who's the chief adviser to the president and brother of the chief of staff, said, in writing --
STEPHANOPOULOS: He's not the chief health care adviser. He's written three articles between 1996 --
GINGRICH: OK.
STEPHANOPOULOS: -- and 2008 that include some of those phrases --
GINGRICH: Include communal standards.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Those phrases appear nowhere in the bill.
GINGRICH: But you --
STEPHANOPOULOS: The only thing -- but let me just explain what's in the bill and then get you to respond to that.
GINGRICH: All right.
STEPHANOPOULOS: The only thing in the bill is that it would allow Medicare to pay for what they say is voluntary counseling on end-of-life issues.
GINGRICH: I think people are very concerned when you start talking about cost controls, that a bureaucracy -- we don't -- you're asking us to trust the government. Now, I'm not talking about the Obama administration. I'm talking about the government. You're asking us to decide that we believe that the government is to be trusted.
We know people who have said routinely, well, you're going to have to make decisions. You're going to have to decide. Communal standards, historically, is a very dangerous concept.
STEPHANOPOULOS: It's not in the bill.
GINGRICH: But the bill's -- the bill's 1,000 pages of setting up mechanisms. It sets up 45 different agencies. It has all sorts of panels. You're asking us to trust turning power over to the government, when there clearly are people in America who believe in -- in establishing euthanasia, including selective standards.
From the August 9 edition of NBC's Meet the Press:
GREGORY: David, Sarah -- Sarah Palin on Facebook, to the point of the opposition, this is what she writes: "The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama's 'death panel' so his bureaucrats can decide ... whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil."
There is the rhetoric; there's also the question of what's true and what's false in what people are arguing about this notion of a death panel.
BROOKS: Yeah. Again, that's crazy. If the -- the crazies are attacking the plan because it'll cut off granny, and that -- that's simply not true. That simply is not going to happen. The real reason for public skepticism is that Obama very eloquently and very truthfully said, "We've got to bring down health care costs." Everybody's health care costs are rising. It's eaten into your wages, it's eaten into the budget, it's eaten into everything. And the problem with the House plan is that instead of bending the cost curve down, it would increase the cost curve so inflation would be 8 percent a year when it's all implemented, and that's just a disaster.
So what the Obama administration has got to do, and I agree with Jon [Meacham] about this, is make this Obama-like; which is to say, "We're going to produce a plan." And from what I hear, by the end of this month, they will have a plan. And they are going to say, "This is what we stand for." And you can't sell anything without a plan. But it's got to be a plan that actually cuts costs so you can have a rational discussion instead of the scare stories about cutting off Grandma.
Same reason you put out a fire: To keep it from spreading.
--Obi-Wan Kenobi
They have scared away the seniors, some of our most vulnerable citizens, from believing in the plan. They mention how Medicaid money will be redirected. Death squad and one site said they will bring several cocktails and let you chose you poison. And a guy stands and says, "I don't want the government touching my Medicaid". How do you prey on a guy like this?
They are preying on the vulnerable to accomplish their goals. I think they have sunk to an all time low.
CBO
In yet more disappointing news for Democrats pushing for health care reform, Douglas W. Elmendorf, director of the Congressional Budget Office, offered a skeptical view Friday of the cost savings that could result from preventive care -- an area that President Obama and congressional Democrats repeatedly had emphasized as a way health care reform would be less expensive in the long term.
Obviously successful preventive care can make Americans healthier and save lives. But, Elmendorf wrote, it may not save money as Democrats had been arguing.
"Although different types of preventive care have different effects on spending, the evidence suggests that for most preventive services, expanded utilization leads to higher, not lower, medical spending overall," Elmendorf wrote. "That result may seem counterintuitive.
Seriously though, I'm working in healthcare devices for chronic illnesses, starting with diabetes. For about $600 a patient per year we can save about $1,400-2,000 per patient per year, and more if we're very selective.
Oh yeah, we could probably extend the lives of diabetics by 10 years which would....eat up all those cost savings.
Perhaps we need death panels after all? (sarcasm)
Reich
Last week, after being reported in the Los Angeles Times, the White House confirmed it has promised Big Pharma that any healthcare legislation will bar the government from using its huge purchasing power to negotiate lower drug prices. That’s basically the same deal George W. Bush struck in getting the Medicare drug benefit, and it’s proven a bonanza for the drug industry. A continuation will be an even larger bonanza, given all the Boomers who will be enrolling in Medicare over the next decade. And it will be a gold mine if the deal extends to Medicaid, which will be expanded under most versions of the healthcare bills now emerging from Congress, and to any public option that might be included. (We don’t know how far the deal extends beyond Medicare because its details haven’t been made public.)
Let me remind you: Any bonanza for the drug industry means higher health-care costs for the rest of us, which is one reason why critics of the emerging healthcare plans, including the Congressional Budget Office, are so worried about their failure to adequately stem future healthcare costs.
...
In return, Big Pharma isn’t just supporting universal health care. It’s also spending a lots of money on TV and radio advertising in support. Sunday’s New York Times reports that Big Pharma has budgeted $150 million for TV ads promoting universal health insurance, starting this August (that’s more money than John McCain spent on TV advertising in last year’s presidential campaign), after having already spent a bundle through advocacy groups like Healthy Economies Now and Families USA.
I want universal health insurance....
But I also care about democracy, and the deal between Big Pharma and the White House frankly worries me. It’s bad enough when industry lobbyists extract concessions from members of Congress, which happens all the time. But when an industry gets secret concessions out of the White House in return for a promise to lend the industry’s support to a key piece of legislation, we’re in big trouble. That’s called extortion: An industry is using its capacity to threaten or prevent legislation as a means of altering that legislation for its own benefit. And it’s doing so at the highest reaches of our government, in the office of the President.
I can't even find the letters or icons on my keyboard!
Stupid encoding problems!
The US is currently ranked 39th in the world in the quality of health care we provide. Yet, we spend *twice* as much as nations like Italy and Spain, ranked number 1 and 2. Italy and Spain have a universal health care system. Go figure.
I posted this on another (dying, sorry couldn't resist) thread so forgive me if you've read it but it needs to be pounded in peoples heads.
Wow we're ranked 39th now? I thought it was 37th but either way it's bunk. This data (ranking) comes from the WORLD HEALTH ORG. (WHO) Their data is faulty at best and even admit that their data has an 80% uncertainty level. Three of the five "criteria" used is biased towards nationalized single-payer systems.
None of the five criteria (1. Health level, 2. Health distribution, 3. Responsiveness, 4. Responsiveness distribution, 5. Financial fairness) take into account actual health outcomes like cancer and heart attack survival rates which in the US we lead the world in 13 out of 16 cancers. Their methodology is so flawed Morocco and Columbia are ranked ahead of the US.
When's the last time you heard of people running to Morocco to get cancer treatments? I'm all for a good debate on health care, but using data (especially WHO data) is not the place to start.
WHO data biased
More flawed WHO data
You're saying WHO is wrong because they rank Morocco and Colombia ahead of the US. How do you know they're wrong? Have you been to a doctor in either of those countries? You're indulging is circular reasoning ("Our system is better; WHO is wrong for saying other systems are better because ours is better").
Your premise of people coming to the US in extraordinary cases is badly flawed, too. So we have the best system for the rich and well-connected. What about those of us who are neither? Having the best cancer treatments is nice, but wouldn't it be better if we all could draw on such treatments without being bankrupted?
I notice you provide no data at all to support your argument.
That tells me nothing. You keep saying you are giving facts, when you have provided only an editorial and anecdotal evidence (if even that). Again, the US is ranked 39th in the world in health care, but we pay *twice* as much as other countries.
Again. Your reading comprehension is nill or you just want to be the contrarian. The World Health Org. ranked the US 37th not 39th to start with, but the data is faulty. If you believe for one second that Columbia and Morocco have better health care then you can't be helped. I've given you the data yet you still stick to the tired talking point.
Refute the five criteria that the WHO used. You can't do it or justify it.
As for the little clinic in Rochester, it goes by the name of Mayo. Do some research on how many foreigners they treat every year. That is the point. I can't spoon feed you everything. Stop being lazy and do some leg work for a change.
No it's not. You think you have debunked the WHO because you posted to two links that do neither. When you make statements like "If you believe for one second that Columbia and Morocco have better health care then you can't be helped," then you are the one that can't be helped. That's not logic; that's just repeating an assertions as if it were fact.
You have yet to link to any real report refuting the WHO. Failing to do so, you simply pull one of the oldest tricks in the book, telling me I have to find the evidence.
So my contention still stands: the US is ranked 39th in the world in health care, and yet we pay *twice* as much as other industrial countries.
My bad. WHO actually ranks the US *72nd* by overall level of health. What a great health care system we have!
"The CIA World Factbook ranked the United States 41st in the world for lowest infant mortality rate[83] and 46th for highest total life expectancy.[84] A recent study found that between 1997 and 2003, preventable deaths declined more slowly in the United States than in 18 other industrialized nations."
AND
"The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) found that the United States ranked poorly in terms of Years of potential life lost (YPLL), a statistical measure of years of life lost under the age of 70 that were amenable to being saved by health care. Among OECD nations for which data are available, the United States ranked third last for the health care of women (after Mexico and Hungary) and fifth last for men (Slovakia and Poland were also worse). See the table and source at YPLL for details."
link
Yes, it strikes me that WHO understated their case!
Oh, and I love your use of facts: watching TEE VEE and seeing a lot of foreigners around the Mayo Health Clinic.
You claimed 'people are rushing to US' for treatment. I said, without proof, it may or may not be true.
The onus is on YOU to provide proof, not me to provide contrary proof.
I gave you the criteria the WHO used. That is fact. I told you how they neglect certain facts. That is fact. Feel free to try and justify it with facts, you wont be able to though. The facts are WHO data is faulty and I've proved that point.
Thanks for proving my point though...I knew you had nothing, and well...
The data certainly does take this into account. Again, show me some valid criticism of WHO.
My contention stands: the US is ranked 39th in the world in health care, and yet we pay *twice* as much as other industrial countries.
I certainly did, and so what? Do you mean the same UN that said there was no WMDs in Iraq. Too bad people didn't listen to them.
I am not aware of any serious criticism of the WHO report.
You should stop reading propaganda. The first criteria most certainly does take that into account. It also looks at statistics like infant mortality, a statistic that shows the US doing very poorly. And stating that people don't run to Moracco as a criteria for proving our so-called superiority is just outright silly. You have no way of knowing where people go for cancer treatment, and getting treatment for cancer is just *one* aspect of being healthy.
The WHO is a well-respected organization and I have seen no serious criticism of the report. I am certainly going to trust it over the editorial that you linked to.
Good grief! Apparently, you are following the AA rule: you post to links that don't back up your argument! The first link is a *letter* to a medical publication that doesn't even talk about survival rates. It is basically a rant.
The second link points out a serious flaw in WHO--but not in the report in question! The link deals with abortion and how WHO has a flawed definition of safe and illegal.
This is just sad...
Why it's phlogiston plain & simple.
Emphasis mine
This is what Ezekiel Emanuel has written this year in The Lancet:
Emphasis mine
This is the man that is a POLICY ADVISER for ObamaCare, and brother of Rahm "They're Dead" Emanuel. A little nepotism going on? This is who is influencing the writing of the health care "reform". Either way he clearly hasn't changed his views on end of life measures in the last fifteen years.
.
Not many.
I think it's safe to say you've joined the other three head cheerleaders on this forum who never bring anything to the debate other that snarky comments.
Sorry, but again: IT IS NOT IN THE BILL. If it is a fact it will find its way into the bill, then why hasn't it?
As opposed to you, who links to letters to the editor and an irrelevant report to back up a claim. When pressed further, you tell *us* we have to look it up.
"A press release from the AARP describes McCaughey’s description of the health care bill as “rife with gross – and even cruel – distortions."
linkYour text to link here...
Gov. Palin could not have written her recent post(s). With a disagreeable position, her statement(s) make sense, grammatically.
Now backpedaling, her view(s) are steeped with oligarchical menace.
From a word conjuring Texan,(Bush), to a disjointed orator, (Palin), neither had/have a clear perspective of overall democracy. Humanity must consider all within its world, not favored contributors. It is, what can I get for me, vs. what is best for us. Politics is not about the whole, but enrichment of the few.
Speaker Gingrich, facts expounded by others, continues to promote the baseless fantasy. Claiming the unwritten as chiseled granite, he continues to move to a puppet-masters cadence.
Last place in a race reaches the finish after dark. Most are home and supporters have a vested interest. The sun will come up, and they will continue to say, we are winning.
This century, with the WWW, and global networking will change the political complexion of the masses.
Best wishes,
Ronin Kannushi.
This is nutty stuff. Paranoid delusions.