Sarah Palin and the Demise of Public Discourse

Well, you can also say the same for Ronald Reagan being the furthest right --
but that too is an exaggeration. In fact, everything you say about Obama can
be applied to Reagan -- but, of course, Reagan was Reagan while Obama is, well
...

Well, that happens when you try to do something -- because it's easier to
complain about the "other guy" than support what your guy is doing. And as
for Dobson, he wouldn't endorse McCain for president until Palin became his
running-mate and in fact made very clear that he was voting for her.

What Obama meant was that "I can't do it alone -- we need a grass-roots
movement and you need to do your part if you want change," and he has never
played the "class-warfare" game. By contrast, that's all Palin does --
she has no message, no program, just criticizes "them" for not bowing down to
her and people like her. Now, there's a segment of the electorate who does
want that; however, I'm convinced that it's a minority.

*sigh* So we are polarized simply because we were polarized 8-16 years ago. Great. And you can bet die-hard Bushites will be saying the same when we get our next right-wing POTUS.

I'm not sure the right started it, but I know it's too bad we don't have a parent to scream at both parties to shut up and go to their rooms.

One thing you need to remember: Folks were carping at Bill Clinton every
chance they got when he was president; we now know there was an actual
movement to hamstring him. That folks feel they need to defend him for that
reason thus doesn't mean that they worship Obama. But you never hear about
anything that's wrong with Palin from those who supported her.

Here are some links regarding the Coordinating Council and you can "google" to discover others:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100014240529702...

http://www.hhs.gov/recovery/programs/os/cerbios...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123318915075926...

As you'll recall, Congress had no time to read the stimulus bill so we can hardly be faulted for not knowing the contents!

She doesn't need to have a message or "program." She's not running for office.

When she was running for v.p., she also didn't need to have a message or "program." Did Biden? No. It's the President's message and program. Not the v.p.'s.

No, that happens when you are an extreme left-leaning President in America! That happens when you ignore America's Constitution. That happens when you push health care while millions are out of work and suffering from a recession.

That also happens when you cause the nation to have the hugest deficit in history... a totally unmanageable one... because of your TRILLION dollar stimulus plans, which have wasted money and provided very little of the jobs it was supposed to provide.

That happens when you are constantly on t.v., magazine covers, and seem to enjoy the celebrity status of your Presidency far more than the actual JOB of leading the nation.

That whappens when your agendas are far more socialistic than they are democratic.

It's not about him trying to do something. It's about what he's trying to do. You obviously have no problem with his agenda. I do and so do MILLIONS of other concerned citizens in this nation.

Another reason it was "historic" is because he is the most far left President ever elected, and because he was mainly elected on his charm and rhetoric, not his experience or ability. It was historically a very sad day for this reason.

We elected a President based on the fact that we wanted the euphoria of the "historic moment" and we were captivated by his charm and smooth talk. He is the first President of our reality-show, celebrity-obsessed society, and we voted him the way we'd vote for the next "American Idol."

So sad.

Well, you can also say the same for Ronald Reagan being the furthest right --
but that too is an exaggeration. In fact, everything you say about Obama can
be applied to Reagan -- but, of course, Reagan was Reagan while Obama is, well
...

Huckabee was my first choice. At this point and time, I don't know which I'd vote for... Huckabee or Palin. I like them both. But I don't think Palin will be running. And there's some others who look good... like the new governor of Virginia, Bob McDonnell. I've read some talk of him running, or people wanting him to run. Don't know a lot about him but I like what I do know. All I know is it's gonna need to be someone with a real, REALLY strong backbone because there's gonna be some majorly hostile anger if a Republican beats Obama in 2012.

Here are some links regarding the Coordinating Council and you can "google" to discover others:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100014240529702...

http://www.hhs.gov/recovery/programs/os/cerbios...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123318915075926...

As you'll recall, Congress had no time to read the stimulus bill so we can hardly be faulted for not knowing the contents!

What Obama meant was that "I can't do it alone -- we need a grass-roots
movement and you need to do your part if you want change," and he has never
played the "class-warfare" game. By contrast, that's all Palin does --
she has no message, no program, just criticizes "them" for not bowing down to
her and people like her. Now, there's a segment of the electorate who does
want that; however, I'm convinced that it's a minority.

You're right... Every time we shift parties the nation gets pulled apart more. And this is not the best time to be quarrelling.

Really?! Could you please provide some links or sources where I can find out more about this?

I believe that this administration does many things in very subtle, underhanded, and "behind closed doors" ways. It's pretty sly of them to begin rationing in the stimulus bill, where not many people would look to find evidence of "death panels" or the sort. I doubt that many people even know about this. Perhaps we've all been duped into believing it'll be in the health care bill. When it's not, there will be less outcry and more support. But alas, here it is in the stimulus bill, where no one would think it would be.

Earl Bleumauer, not Bleumental.

The above quote is from an OP ED. It's one man's opinion. He's also a Democrat pushing for the health reform bill.

Palin's comments regarding Medicare were valid due to the fact that if this bill passes, cuts will need to be made somewhere due to the high cost of the bill. Both the current Senate and House bills plan on cutting $400 billion from Medicare (which will surely be higher since govt. always gives numbers that underestimate the true numbers in the end).

Our society does not exactly place a high value on the elderly. When a Democrat talks about end-of-life counseling (done by govt. officials) in a govt. plan that will expand govt. decisions and make monetary cuts, there is cause for concern. Esp. when you consider the mentality of some that the life of an elderly person is not worth saving in comparison to the life of a young person. And also considering that the elderly often need costly medical care.

It's not that difficult to realize that there are people in this world who believe that the elderly should be assisted and helped in ending their lives as a means of saving money. I don't know if that was necessarily Bleumauer's motive for writing the amendment, but Palin did bring about some discussion on something that is valid and should be discussed.

As for her saying "death panels," there is nothing different in that kind of discourse than there is with Obama talking about Americans who bitterly "cling to their guns and religion." Is there?

Public discourse also deteriorates when people are so adamant in their opinions that they insult someone's different view. Clearly, the person you are referring to does not agree with you that Palin has been responsible for causing public discourse to deteriorate. I happen to agree.

How does one say, "Obama is not doing a good job," in a manner that will please him or his supporters? It's a statement of opinion that is perhaps based on factual evidence, and speaking one's mind in this manner does not cause discourse to "deteriorate." It's the exercise of free speech, and in this nation, we are allowed to criticize our Presidents and speak out when we disagree with their agendas. Both Democrats and Republicans do it. And Bush was vehemently criticized for the 8 years he was President. The difference is, he rose above it, he did not try to silence it, and he endured it.

Sometimes I think some Americans would prefer that we be more like Cuba or China where free speech is suppressed. I am certain our administration would prefer it, as long as those suppressed are opponents or "dissenters." I do not see the Obama administration encouraging criticsm, accountability, or dissent. After all, it wasn't long ago that conservative critics of Obama were considered to be "extreme right-wing terrorists" according to the Dept. of Homeland Security.

I read about this, too. It's interesting because of the types of claims made about her, yet, money is being raised to "push back" against her. She is not in office nor running for one. Nor has she said she will run. Yet, they are raising this money and sending emails.

I have never ceased to be amazed at the depths of hatred towards Palin. I saw her interview on O'Reiley (which was exellent), and they discussed the motive behind the furor. He believes it's due to her outspokenly pro-life stance. My suspicion is that it's a combination of things but primarily that she's female, conservative, Christian, and pro-life. Conservative pro-life Chrisitans are most definitely some of the most despised people in this nation, and Palin, who is unashamed and unintimidated by her critics, makes her a "threat" because she speaks for them.

Of course, she also criticized Obama, and she did it with a wink, smile, and a lot of applause, and it angered them. They've never quite gotten over it.

Organizing for America is the successor to Obama for America, and it serves as a fundraising arm for the DNC and for Obama's never-ending campaign. You may wish to visit the website where you can sign up for Obama Mobile and make a donation.

As I wrote earlier, once the convincing reply has been given, the defeated party
must either: a. admit the answer as true, b. belittle or ignore the original question, c. attack the replier, or d. change the subject.

It appears you have chosen options b.
and d. insofar as you have not argued against Ms. Palin's obvious misrepresentation (type b) and introduced a new subject--bureaucracy and the relative abilities of private corporations vs. the government to assess properly what society as a whole can make available to anyone (type d).

I would ask, if you cannot admit that Ms Palin was grossly deceptive about a topic vital to caring for the citizenry, please leave the discussion as we are dealing here with Ms.Palin's responsibility for deteriorating public discourse not the new subjects you wish to introduce.

This is not a Republican talking point; it's a fact about the inclusion of this new bureaucracy in that stimulus bill intended to "create or save" 3 to 4 million jobs. Will the Council commission and oversee the multitude of clinical studies essential to providing definitive information on the medical treatments that will produce the best outcomes? And if so, what will be the cost of underwriting those clinical studies?

Britain's National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) is a comparative-effectiveness body that has an outstanding record in not only controlling the costs of treatment but also in rationing treatment.

Personally, I would rather argue my case for treatment with a private insurance company concerned about profits than with a government bureaucracy that's managed Medicare into a $37 trillion unfunded liability.

I beg to differ. When questioned about this Ms. Palin never refers to this as her objection to the stimulus, rather as an objection to the health care reform proposal as did Senator Grassely who worried about whether the proposal would enable government to "kill Grandma." But don't just ask me, ask anybody (other than you or me) and they will tell you she referred to the health care reform proposal.

The comparative effectiveness research is a very necessary
discussion which will entail evaluations of medical procedures for maximizing the effectiveness of limited resources in the light of ethical standards. If that sounds like rationing to you, the same considerations are made by private health insurance companies except with profit as their major determinant.

Please read the referenced material with an open mind before trumpeting the Republican talking points to us, or when you do at least say so.

The stimulus bill is already funding ($1.1 billion) a Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research, which is directed to research "the relative strengths and weaknesses of various medical interventions" to provide "clinicians and patients valid information to make decisions that will improve the performance of the U.S. health care system."

This is the "panel" about which Palin and others have expressed concerns, specifically to what extent will this Council advocate rationing of services and procedures and be empowered to do so.

Like Bill Clinton.