Obama campaign turns on media

It's about time that the traditional liberal media recognizes that Democrats are not their friends. No, the Obama campaign is simply using a compliant media as another tool in their propaganda machine. It's probably too late to save us from electing the most liberal, least experienced president in our history, but at least it seems that the media is starting to push back. Here's my Sunday article for Human Events on the subject: Obama Campaign Turns on Media
  • Mister Guy
    Comment from: Mister Guy
    11/03/08 @ 02:58:43 pm

    "the most liberal, least experienced president in our history" Of course, there are ZERO facts to back up a claim like this, period. Yea, and you write for Human Events of all places and you're not a "conservative"...please...

  • Comment from: Rossputin
    11/03/08 @ 03:15:05 pm

    Mister Guy: First of all, there are plenty of facts to back of that claim, and lots of people have made them in lots of places. Why don't you show us presidents whom Obama is more conservative than, or more experienced than. Second, Human Events is quite a conservative publication. As for me, I'm for limited government, liberty, low taxes, and a strong national defense. I'm also atheist, pro-choice and for drug legalization and have not voted for a Republican for president since 1992. In my world, that makes me a libertarian rather than a conservative.

  • Mister Guy
    Comment from: Mister Guy
    11/04/08 @ 10:15:38 am

    "there are plenty of facts to back of that claim, and lots of people have made them in lots of places." Like where?? This ought to be good... "Why don't you show us presidents whom Obama is more conservative than, or more experienced than." All we need to do is look at the last few Presidents that we've had to bust this *myth* wide open. Bill Clinton is and was more liberal than President Obama...President Obama is NOT for a mandate that everyone should have health care insurance. GWB was less experienced than President Obama...he only had 6 years in elected office, while President Obama had 11 years in elected office. As per sual, one only need to know a little history in order to debunk your wild claims. "In my world, that makes me a libertarian rather than a conservative." Sounds about the same to me.

  • Comment from: Rossputin
    11/04/08 @ 01:03:19 pm

    How can you possibly suggest that Obama is less liberal than Bill Clinton? That's utterly ridiculous. I'm not going to do your homework for you, especially since you refuse to consider answers which don't support the leader of your cult.

  • Mister Guy
    Comment from: Mister Guy
    11/06/08 @ 07:57:54 pm

    "How can you possibly suggest that Obama is less liberal than Bill Clinton?" Did you forget how to read?? The Clinton's are FOR a mandate in order to enact true universal health care...President Obama is not. All he really wants is for regular, ordinary Americans to have access to the same set of *private* health care insurance plans that Congress & federal employees have access to right now, if they don't like their own health care plan or don't have health care right now. "I'm not going to do your homework for you, especially since you refuse to consider answers which don't support the leader of your cult." I accept your surrender then...

  • Comment from: Rossputin
    11/06/08 @ 08:16:39 pm

    Indeed, you found the one issue on which Obama was not to the left of Clinton. Big deal. But he's not far from her, and what he wants is still socialized medicine. And it's not just "access" that he wants. he wants to give people health care coverage. look what happens with SCHIP, some remarkable number of participants, almost certainly more than 1/3 simply drop their private coverage to get the "free" government coverage. There is NO DOUBT that Obama is by far the most liberal president we've ever elected, with only FDR a close second in the past couple of generations, and maybe Woodrow Wilson third if you go back further.

  • Mister Guy
    Comment from: Mister Guy
    11/06/08 @ 09:22:14 pm

    "Big deal." It's called a debate, and you have to have actual FACTS to win one IMO. You really need to learn that, seriously. "he wants to give people health care coverage." The people have to WANT what he is offering though...it's not a requirement. "some remarkable number of participants, almost certainly more than 1/3 simply drop their private coverage to get the 'free' government coverage." In 2007, researchers from BYU & Arizona State found that children who drop out of SCHIP cost states *more* money because they shift away from routine care to more frequent emergency care situations. The conclusion of the study is that an attempt to cut the costs of a state healthcare program could create a false savings because other government organizations pick up the tab for the children who lose insurance coverage and then later need care. http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/119/5/e1026 In a 2007 analysis by the CBO, researchers determined that "for every 100 children who gain coverage as a result of SCHIP, there is a corresponding reduction in private coverage of between 25 and 50 children." http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/80xx/doc8092/05-10-SCHIP.pdf There is nothing "free" when it comes to expanding the ability of people to use their own money to participate in the FEHBP, period. If the actual health care coverage (regardless of cost) is acually "better" on a government-initiated program (like the FEHBP), that says more about the ability of the govt. to get a better deal from the private health insurance industry than it does about anything else IMO. "There is NO DOUBT that Obama is by far the most liberal president we've ever elected" ...in your own mind...fine.

  • Comment from: Rossputin
    11/06/08 @ 09:41:24 pm

    Do you seriously believe government will get a "better deal"? Do they get a "better deal" in education, which is probably the best comparison? Or in Medicare, which is rife with fraud, or in Social Security, under which they steal people's payroll taxes to cover their profligate spending? Furthermore, even if they could get a better deal, it's still not a legitimate function of government. As far as Obama being the most liberal, I believe his record says that, and his rhetoric clearly does. However, if you believe it's "in my own mind", I can live with that since that's what this blog represents. Go get your own blog to represent what's in your own mind.

  • Mister Guy
    Comment from: Mister Guy
    11/07/08 @ 12:21:23 am

    "Do you seriously believe government will get a 'better deal'?" There's no "will they"...they *are* getting a better deal in terms of the private health care coverage that's offered *right* now to members of Congress & federal employees. There are basically no issues with "pre-existing conditions" or getting a fair price for prescription drugs under a whole host of those private plans, right now. You've seriously never heard of people pooling together to get a better deal in the marketplace?? "Or in Medicare, which is rife with fraud, or in Social Security, under which they steal people's payroll taxes to cover their profligate spending?" Only the most ardent Right-wing shill would consider taxation to be "stealing". I'm sure those stock investments of yours are doing "real good" compared to the guaranteed return from the govt. securities that the SS Trust Fund is made up of...not... Also, you're right that, under the previous will of the GOP, Medicare is not getting the best deal that it could get when it comes to prescription drug prices. Hopefully the Dems can change that for the better. "Furthermore, even if they could get a better deal, it's still not a legitimate function of government" ...according to you. "I believe his record says that, and his rhetoric clearly does" ...again, according to you. You're really never going to learn the difference between backing up your positions with facts vs. backing your positions with just more of your opinion.

  • Comment from: Rossputin
    11/07/08 @ 06:38:26 am

    First, even government could probably do a good job when it's only serving 500 people and when they're the most powerful people in the country. Second, while I oppose Social Security, that wasn't my point about "stealing payroll taxes". What I mean is that payroll taxes go into general revenue, not any sort of fund, and then gets spent along with all other government money so that they can make the spending deficit look less than it is. I do not think gov't negotiation for drug prices will work out well for taxpayers. yes, according to me. and as far as Obama being a far-left liberal, the fact that you refuse to admit it and demand proof from me after hearing so many thing which prove it in the past months, directly from his mouth, show that you're only interested in foaming at the mouth, not in an actual debate.

  • Mister Guy
    Comment from: Mister Guy
    11/10/08 @ 12:13:23 am

    "even government could probably do a good job when it's only serving 500 people and when they're the most powerful people in the country." Too bad that's NOT what the FEHBP does...it serves millions of people. "I do not think gov't negotiation for drug prices will work out well for taxpayers." Right, because paying more for prescription drugs is really what Americans want...please... "and demand proof from me" It's not my job to back up YOUR arguments with actual facts...that's YOUR job, and you're just not very good at it apparently.

  • Comment from: Rossputin
    11/10/08 @ 07:24:47 am

    If you want to see what government-run health care could look like, I suggest you look at the Veterans Administration. I didn't say that Americans want high drug prices. I said that there are so many problems with government being one party to the negotiation that it's a bad idea. Furthermore, if the government doesn't get the best price (and do they ever?), then it's millions of people stuck with the bad price with no ability to go elsewhere. I've already proven Obama's wild liberal ideas in multiple articles and they've been documented in hundreds of other places. Your refusal to admit that Obama is extremely liberal says all about you that readers need to know.

  • Mister Guy
    Comment from: Mister Guy
    11/11/08 @ 08:51:14 pm

    "If you want to see what government-run health care could look like, I suggest you look at the Veterans Administration." And who, praytell, is advocating for government-paid health care workers to dole out health care to all Americans?? Nobody, that's who. The FEHBP is made up of *private* health care insurance plans that give you access to the same set of health care providers that people have access to right now, period. Yet another strawman argument... "I said that there are so many problems with government being one party to the negotiation that it's a bad idea. Furthermore, if the government doesn't get the best price (and do they ever?), then it's millions of people stuck with the bad price with no ability to go elsewhere." What your describing here is what Medicare has already ended up with due to the GOP's insistence that the federal govt. NOT be able to negotiate over prices. In the FEHBP, the prices that one pays for prescription drugs is much lower. Heck, why do you think people go to Canada or out of the Internet to by drugs?? Because it's cheaper!

  • Comment from: Rossputin
    11/11/08 @ 08:55:10 pm

    You're wrong about Medicare Part D. Because there is real negotiation by many companies and not just the dead hand of government, the cost of the prescription drug benefit has actually been declining versus expectations. That said, it's still unconstitutional and a financial disaster. I wonder how many people know that Medicare Part D (the prescription drug benefit) already has a larger unfunded liability than the entire Social Security system.