John McCormack, 11:38 am, announcing the Weekly Standard offices erupted in cheers when the US lost the Olympic bid:
John McCormack, seven hours later:
Actually, yeah, you moran. Cheering because your COUNTRY lost an Olympic bid because it might give you a fleeting moment of partisan gain is the dictionary definition of being unpatriotic. You really have to check the link, though- he actually uses the phrase “Obama’s cowboy diplomacy.”
BTW- it is pretty clear to anyone with an IQ above room temperature what is going on here. One of the uber patriots at the Weekly Standard realized how petty it made them look to be cheering America’s defeat, so they edited out the part about the WS offices erupting in cheers, and then made him puke up some nonsense about loving Rio, the 1976 Olympics, and what not.
Did they hire this guy to make Goldfarb and Kristol look smart by comparison?
It’s almost like these people take pride in being ignorant.
I, for one, am remembering all this shit and plan on throwing it in the face of every established and potential GOP voter during the next election.
Airport Men’s bathrooms.
Thanks for continuing to focus on wingnut reaction to the IOC decision. The more time passes, the more my blood boils at the ease with which the MSM has fallen hook, line, and sinker for the wingnut narrative that the IOC decision constitutes a grievous body blow to Obama. It feels as if Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and Michelle Malkin are now the news directors of the 3 broadcast networks.
Shameless doesn’t begin to describe the piss poor coverage the MSM has given this story. Just look at these fucking headlines below and you’d think the Obamas would be packing their bags this morning in preparation for their departure from the White House.
Weekend Opinionator: An Olympian Defeat for Obama
AP Analysis: Chicago’s loss is a blow to Obama, too
I wish there was a way to get the MSM to stop being so goddamn stupid and allowing the wingnuts to pull their strings.
I just made the mistake of idly clicking the NYT’s bloggingheads link and watching Michelle Goldberg (who is able to make clear points in writing, apparently not contemporaneously) and Matt Welch of Reason.
I cannot believe anyone for one second believes that any of these jackasses like Matt Welch truly and consistently give a shit about economic abstractions like “central planning” when they talk about “health care legislation as it’s written”. None of these fucks give a shit about liberty and the distribution of power and resources in society, it’s all just a bunch of bullshit to them.
No, they don’t care whether ordinary people get better or worse health care or whether ordinary people experience any better practicable ‘liberty’ in any sane sense.
These are cynical, ridiculous, jackass twerps, and should be thrown on a giant pile along with anyone who thinks David Brooks is seriously thinking about and engaging with issues instead of being yet another variant of a right wing jackass, just a different flavor of the same ass-tasting fetid beverage.
Hey, if the loony right is reduced to celebrating this as a ‘victory’ for them, fine by me.
They can have that, and we’ll take health care reform with a public option, carbon cap-and-trade, and new regulations on the Wall Street scum that put the economy in the ditch.
does the world protect your freedoms, you patchouli-soaked hippie freak?
Wow, when did the Weekly Standard become a nest of anti-military pacifists? I look forward to those future Weekly Standard articles advocating that the US bring home the troops from all overseas bases, as well as advocating a return to pre-20th century US isolationism.
They have no ideas and nothing other than oppose, oppose, oppose. The Party of No, indeed.
This is why people like Alan Grayson are important to have on our side. I watched a video of him tearing a new asshole on some flack from the SEC on Matt Taibbi’s site the other day. The guy cuts no one any slack and has a wonderful toughness and sarcasm that just melts my heart. I want Rep. Grayson to be the face of the Democrats. Taibbi says he’s crazy, but he’s my kind of crazy.
The problem with getting into the business of separating rubes from their money, is that you have to give the rubes what they want, even if what they want is non-sensical bullshit. And many rubes are being separated from their money as we speak. Good gig if you can get it.
Duh! They are the wingnuts.
I agree with the point, rooting against your country for partisan reason is beyond the pale, but as someone who lived many years in the Montréal area, has family in the Vancouver area and have seen what a boondoggle the Olympics are, I am glad Chicago didn’t get it either.
Whenever these cities “go Olympic”, the poor and homeless get the shaft as it is always their neighbourhoods that are targeted, the city is left with legacy transport systems that are meant to get athletes to sport facilities instead of the workers to businesses; even with corporate sponsorship the taxpayer will get burdened with new taxes for expensive white elephant facilities and the impact on tourism over the long haul is minimal.
Why do we need an excuse to do quality redevelopment? I think there should be a role for government to build infrastructure, parks and other facilities to make life in a city better, but it should be based on the needs of the citizenry, not a few elite athletes who will move on after a fortnight anyway.
(That said, I watch the Olympics when they are on TV. I am a hypocrite. So sue me *grin*)
>As a citizen of the world
The Weekly Standard is objectively a communist, one-world-state-loving rag.
Where has this Grayson guy been hiding? Whatever was put in his Wheaties, please give some to Harry Reid.
I just can’t get over the balls on this McCormack guy. According to his now-deleted initial statement, he is basically against every single US military intervention since WW2, and perhaps even WW2 itself and every US international military conflict before then, going right back to and including the Spanish-American War.
This, however, fails to address the rumor that Glenn Beck raped and murdered a young girl in 1990. I’m not saying IT’S TRUE THAT GLENN BECK RAPED AND MURDERED A YOUNG GIRL IN 1990, I’m just asking why doesn’t Beck provide the proof that he didn’t? The long form.
But tomorrow (or later today, probably) he’ll be beating the drum to invade Iran. Consistency is a foreign concept to these people.
Which is why they are against it. It’s foreign. Like french fries.
It’s time to go out and enjoy the sunshine. Have a good day all.
The amount of ugly, irrational, hyper-partisan rhetoric that’s been flung like poo from the right since the last election is directly proportional to the intensity of fear and blind rage they feel as a result of watching their sacred, supply-side, white is right ideology soundly trashed last November.
The necessity of America feeling compelled to elect a charismatic, black intellectual President to clean up the fucking abominable mess they created with their political dominance over the last 28 years is driving some serious cognitive mental distortions in these losers, and it shows every time they open their fetid pie holes.
This shit runs real deep with these assholes and it ain’t gonna stop anytime soon, so we better learn to fight back, and fight back hard.
And get yourself some boots.
That’s a nice gross over simplification. Brian Williams, Charlie Gibson, Katie Couric, and the Washington bureaus of the Associated Press, the NY Times, and the Washington Post ARE NOT WINGNUTS. They have allowed themselves to be pulled and stretched like Silly Putty BY WINGNUTS like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, and Michelle Malkin.
Gail Collins almost always makes me laugh. Today, this paragraph made me laugh out loud and startle my niece’s sweet, sweet doggy:
Typically, I would think that this is a boneheaded move. But because of our completely dysfunctional media, it would appear that political nihilism is a workable strategy. The sociopathic 10% are exerting power far beyond their numbers.
being for a policy because it annoys some other group of people you don’t like… sounds very much like wingnut political philosophy.
But I guess we’ll take her support if it somehow helps advance us towards health care reform with a meaningful public option.
A Mom Anon
I’d really love to have a wingnut answer WTF it is they “win” here. Putting aside for a moment that the Olympics costs more than it brings in to most host cities(due to corruption,cost over runs,shitty planning,etc),what in the hell is their win?
Same goes for health care,what do they win if things get worse? Things WILL get worse if this system isn’t seriously overhauled,so again,what is the win if more people get sick,go broke and lose everything? I want an answer to that,directly from one of these assholes who think this is a game.
For people who claim they love America the mostest and bestest,they surely seem to HATE actual,you know,AMERICANS.
@A Mom Anon:
it’s all about power. They lost it and they want it back in the worst way possible.
Which really makes McCain’s campaign slogan, “Country First”, a bitter, hollow, cynical joke. These loony right-wingers prove time and again that it’s party before country with them.
The BBC’s world radio service and the single best broadcast news show in any media, NewsHour, had an astoundingly amazing discussion of “shoot to kill” rules and policies by police in South Africa (where police are asking for more leeway given massive violence), Manchester (UK), and Jamaica.
The Manchester police chief was really interesting, given that his city experienced an 82% reduction in its murder rate, and he mainly recommended more accountability on police and better investments in investigations so that the key criminals are brought down rather than just shot & replaced.
Andrew Sullivan has learned a valuable lesson. Heretofore, Sully didn’t quite realize how utterly politically obsessed some on the right had become.
Shorter John McCormack: “If Obama’s for it, I’m against it. And vice versa.”
End of story. As someone around here said the other day, you can set your watch to these people.
@r€nato: Country First was always a joke. Palin put the paid stamp to that.
The whole thing is fascinating on a number of levels. First, its been standard operating procedure for the right wing to find an “enemy city” and an enemy people within the US itself to run against–and from that point on everything that is good or bad about that city, or for that city, is seen through the lens of a zero sum game. If its good for that city/its bad for the republicans, if its bad for that city/its good for the republicans. George Bush ran against Massachusetts over and over again, as well as against other states–naming names, distinguishing himself by denying (for example) that he was born in CT/the east coast. No modern democratic candidate would ever dream of running against an entire part of the country. Dean, for example, explicitly tried to include southerners in to what he was doing. You never saw Kerry attack Texas or Texas mores. He wanted Texan votes.
At a media level: O’Reilly, as others have noted, explicitly wished for the destruction of SF–that it be left *undefended* as a kind of non America. Cokie Roberts referred to Hawaii as not really American and Obama as somehow foreign for vacationing there. Savage (IIRC) loudly proclaimed his hatred for New York and specifically for the 9/11 victims and widows.
But the Republicans always need an internal enemy. This is just the latest incarnation.
The other thing that is going on is a similar strange over identification with the body of the king and therefore with the strength and potency of the usurper’s body. This is explicitly the case when the Republicans obsesses about our “Foreign Image” and Obama as strong dictator/weak pussy. As other people have pointed out they consistently represent him as “Chamberlain on Foreign Policy” and “Hitler on Domestic Policy” but they are happy to play off these oppositions and flip it where the flip makes Obama look bad, or worse look illegitimate.
We have to understand that the Republican Party at this point has no real program–neither foreign nor domestic. Their programs and policies are purely reactive, as well as reactionary. Senator DeMint’s pro-coup policy is a perfect example. The Republican Party and the American People have no legitimate dog in this fight. Why’s he there? Why does a dog lick its balls? All that they have is an unbroken cry of primal rage that they don’t control the horizontal and they don’t control the vertical. And all that they can try to do is get back in the game by controlling, as they see it, the optics of the situation.
So the whole focus is on trying to figure out what makes Obama look bad to other people. They don’t care whether its logical (countries like to have the Olympics, brings money in), or historically relevant (Bush wanted the Olympics to be in Chicago and would have lobbied hard for it), or even sane (Obama wears mom jeans! the sexiest man alive is not sexy! Obama uses a telemprompter! A well known author, speaker, teacher is actually really stupid!). That’s the strategy. What’s the payoff? Well, at this point, they are hoping the payoff is real, as in their “side” sort of “owns” the week in news. But really of course the payoff is purely psychological. They can’t help themselves. They are really hurt and angry that their politics and policies are dominated by “that one” from “the other side.” And they want and need to share their hurt with the rest of the country.
Can we avoid becoming part of their little psychodrama? This point was raised on an earlier thread at Baloon Juice. And the answer there–Elle’s (or Elie?) and General Winfield Stuck, I believe, argued that we have to keep politely and insultingly focused on what is important, while making fun of them a teeny bit. I think that’s right. And ultimately I think that is what is happening. The tea parties, the cheering for the loss of the Olympics, the sobbing “he’s a terrorist” and “where’s the birth certificate” and “you’re going to kill granny” is starting to look bad to the general public. They had to turn the control of the imagery over to a stupid, slovenly, fat, hysterical, angry, sobbing, spiteful, set of “not ready for prime time” losers with the August recess. They don’t fully control the image of their party anymore–not on TV and not on the streets. That is really hurting them with the general public. And they know it.
So we can’t ignore them because that enables them to maintain a two track system in which dignified elder statesmen speak up for a frightened but powerless imaginary majority of white americans. We have to let them, or force them, to own their hysterics and their holy rollers and their sobbing, bitching, whining, moaning, out to lunch minority. We have to keep pointing out just how childish, spiteful, stupid, and besides the point the right wing’s fixation on Obama is.
They are explicitly saying that if Obama is America then they hate America. And, for the duration, Obama is America on the world stage. So they are rooting for our failures as a country very publicly. Even Graham who tried to split the baby on that one yesterday more or less gave the game away and he was trying to walk back these public images of Republicans and their flock rooting for America to lose. They know how dangerous this is to them. And when your enemy is drowining, throw him an anvil.
@geg6:But the real story that day was that Obama had a major breakthrough with Iran – they will turn over 75% of their enriched uranium to Russia for further enriching (and the French will convert into fuel elements). So almost all of their stock pile will be known and put to good use. While far from an end this is a great start to the beginning. Ten times more than asswipe bush and shit eating cheney did in eight years and Obama did it in one day! Yet the NYT rag tried to down play it while making an issue of the olympic rip-of games. Go figure.
The reason that a game of peek-a-boo delights an infant so much is because an infants brain isn’t developed enough to realize that just because a person’s face is hidden by one’s hand, that person doesn’t disappear. So when the person moves his hand, the infant registers surprise and delight when that person suddenly rematerializes out of nowhere.
Sully is that infant.
The cheering really got to me for I remember what it felt like when the same emotion was shown in some countries on 9/11. Certainly losing an Olympic bid vs. losing lives is very mild in comparison. There will be other chances to bid for an Olympic bid. It’s quite sad to witness the stupidity of it all when MSNBC kept showing Limbaugh’s juvenile act on every program throughout the day.
That’s a good analysis of good old Andrew.
I always thought your name was spelled with 2 l’s.
Just wanted to remind people that it wasn’t just the Weekly Standard offices cheering. This was posted here yesterday, but here’s the video of the participants at the Americans For Prosperity (major Tea Party organizers) conference spontaneously erupting into applause at the news. They can’t contain their joy.
They don’t find ’em, they grow ’em in church basesments. The baby jesus left instructions in the bibble.
The DNC needs to take that video of Americans For Prosperity members cheering and turn it into a campaign commercial ASAP.
I thought the world was full of dark and swarthy dictators, autocrats, thugs and tyrants who were commies and socialists?
Why didn’t they reward the biggest commie thug in the world with the great honor of hosting the Olympics?
How can we compare Obama to Hitler without his hosting the Olympics?
My gratitude to calypigian for that accurate comment regarding Fifth Column Sully, and for the first good laugh of the day.
you don’t need my approval, but that’s good.
Brick Oven Bill
In all seriousness…if you were an international athlete would you feel safe coming to America right now?
People bring guns to our Presidential events.
Poor bastards. What with sanity returning to our national conversation — albeit it very slowly — as something to be sought after not sneered at, I guess the witless momma’s boys of the Standard have little enough to cheer about lately.
This is probably for the best in the long run. Had Chicago won, I think we’d be subjected to a good seven years of nonsense from the right wingnuts about Chicago politics/corruption, how the terrorist William Ayers was masterminding everything, yadda yadda yadda.
@Brick Oven Bill: A dangerous phenomenon fueled in part by the incendiary rantings of your idol Glenn Beck, BoB.
/Work on your game dude, you’ve lost any kind of traction at all.
Just another page in the false equivalence dossier:
@calipygian: Snort. You nailed it in one, and thus, my complete lack of interest in anything Sully-related. Thank you very much.
As for this whole poutrage over the Olympics, I can’t even engage my “WTF are they thinking” facilities. I am just so very weary of how inflated this crap becomes. Yahoo’s head story is about how this ‘failure’ on the part of Obama will impede his political agenda. Given how much his agenda has been impeded already, I rather think this is a minor irritant in comparison.
That said, I am glad Chicago did not get the Olympics for much of the reasons already stated (the sane ones, I mean). It disrupts the city, displaces the homeless population, and doesn’t bring in much–if any–money.
Still, I long for the days when questioning the president about invading a country based on made-up premises was considered treasonous and unpatriotic. It seemed like it was just yesterday…oh wait, it was.
Poutrage fatigue–I got it.
P.S. Lesley over at TBogg nailed it. The committee probably looked at the footage of all the crazies at the protests recently and decided to give the Olympics to a more civilized country.
Hey, my link didn’t show.
I am a Chicago who is glad Rio got the games. We are presently over a quarter billion dollars in debt despite (because) have the highest sales taxes in the US. The Daley administration is corrupt and incompetent. Many of us would love to have the games, but not if it means higher taxes, more corruption and a continued spiral down into debt. Throw in our social problems such as high murder rates, the worst school system in the US and gang violence and it is easy to see why pragmatists did not want the games. While this is a beautiful city and has great potential, much is rotting beneath the veneer.
Does Rio have similar problems, yes. They have an entire country behind them to pay for the games. Much of the burden would have fallen on our city, county and state all of which have solvency issues.
I think the sentiment was best shown by the small crowd awaiting the verdict in Daley plaza. Compare that scene to the celebration in Rio. As for laughing when we were out in the first round, well let’s just say that was about watching a bunch of politicians who have created and abetted our current state of affairs getting a dose of reality. It of course didn’t take long for Jesse Jackson to blame Bush, so it doesn’t see like lesson took, but he always was an idiot.
@Fleem: Gah. I read about two random sentences and had to give up. “Whether they realize it or not, the passionate people on the right and left have more in common…”, and that’s when I closed the site.
Joe Wilson = Alan Grayson?
*Pulls hair out of head.
I think Chicago lost mainly because of the PATRIOT ACT, and the legions of blithering morons to whom it has given the power to fuck with people’s lives…
Woody at 50 raises a really interesting point. And in bizarro world it would have been interesting if a (suicidal) Obama had offered to change/rectify our visa and tourism practices to make the country once more accessible and safe for foreigners. Imagine the right wing rage if Obama had explicitly played to win–re-opening, professionalizing, strengthening, and modernizing our border control *and also* getting us the Olympics? Then the Right wing would have thrown a howling fit over Obama’s master plan to use the Olympics to allow Al Quaeda to destroy our great american city (chicago)!
PPS. I got stuck in moderation and ended up posting a (better, clearer) version of my long post up above at SteveM’s site No More Mr. Nice Blog. If anyone wants to hop over there to discuss “the Kings two bodies”, Obama as a changeling, and what happens when everyone in the country gets labeled a race/class/or religious traitor I would love to have that discussion over there in comments.
Good morning. I trust you’re feeling well rested.
Chris Hedges will discuss his book Empire of Illusion: The End of Literacy and the Triumph of Spectacle on BookTV this weekend. I know you don’t have cable, but the interview should be available on the BookTV website in a day or 2.
V. well said indeed Aimai!
My 2 cents worth. Surely the only sensible reaction is: Good for Rio, too bad for Chicago (and Tokyo); better luck next time. I don’t think Americans are under any kind of obligation to root for Americans in international competitions (why not root for plucky little Upper Volta if you like?). One could have fond feeling for Rio, or think that it’s time that the games were held in S. America. Whatever. But the caterwauling right wing nuts aren’t moved by considerations like these. They just want Obama to fail (or rather to make something that isn’t really a failure look like one). The lesson that I hope people draw from this naked display of spleen about a matter which is in the scheme of things pretty unimportant is that the same thing is behind the reflexive opposition to everything Obama is trying to do (including the mild, too mild, attempt at health care reform).
@Brick Oven Bill:
Uh-oh. Looks like whoever’s writing BoB succumbed to an occupational hazard that eventually claims all BJ spoofs – accidentally posting from the wrong handle. Happens to the best of them.
@JK: Nope. Then again, I never feel well-rested, so there’s that. That’s probably why I just can’t take the stupid shit any more. Not so much that the right is stupid, but that they are being treated as if they are competent, functioning adults by the traditional media. It’s very disheartening. I don’t know how you consume so much of the shit without losing your mind.
Thanks for the suggestion. That book looks fascinating. I put it on my Half.com wishlist.
asiangrllMN: “The committee probably looked at the footage of all the crazies at the protests recently and decided to give the Olympics to a more civilized country.”
That is so true. Even BOB referred to it. Then the loss can be rightfully layed at the doorsteps of the crazies fringes among us. Unfortunately, they will never admit it was them and not the president who lost the bid.
@HRA: U-S-A! U-S-A! And, Wolverines!
The only proper response to your legitimate hypothesis. And, shut up, that’s why!
It still is amazing to me how quickly the right unraveled once they lost power. A real tough bunch, that one.
On the up side the Weekly Standard is such a money loser that Murdoch is trying to sell it and if he can’t may just shut it down.
@aimai: spot on, aimai. Well-written and well-reasoned.
That is a great, great, comment aimai.
And Our Anvil Strategy is worrrrrrrrking.
The GOP has turned this into a negative-sum game.
Do you really think that now we won’t be subjected to a good seven years of nonsense from that crowd? If it’s not going to be the Chicago 2016 games, then it’s going to be something else. Mustard, arugula, Michelle’s shoes, OMG the Obamas went to NY for a date on the taxpayer’s dime, on and on and on. Same shit, different day.
As noted above, you can set your watch by these people. Of course I would prefer if they would just crawl back under their rocks, but frankly if we have to have them around, I will put up with their poutrage over stupid, trivial bullshit for the next 50 years if it means they don’t have the White House nor Congress.
Jules Crittenden is having an orgasm over Obama’s defeat:
The chortling from the wingnuts really is juvenile. But you know what, fuck the Olympics, I haven’t watched since the ones in 1984, when the American gymnasts swamped the competition, accompanied by this really annoying “USA! USA!” chanting, but only because the superior Eastern European gymnasts were boycotting.
If they got rid of the national teams and jerseys, I might start watching again. It’s an essential part of an athlete’s story, the town or village he/she comes from. But putting the medal count next to the flag of the government to which that athlete is subject, takes some of the glory away from the athlete, and transfers it to a body that doesn’t deserve it in the least.
if losing the Olympics to Rio makes Crittenden cream his jeans, just imagine how delighted he would be if terrorists managed to attack the US on our own soil again.
Ok, I will say it.
There WILL be some wingnuts that cheer when (if)
there is a terrorist attack on the United States if it is
during the Obama administration.
They ARE the on the side of the terrorists if it is against
Chad N Freude
@r€nato: @catclub: Yes! Yes! Yes! This is what they’re hoping will happen. Terrorist attack = Irrefutable proof that Obama fails. And the more disastrous the attack, the better.
Yeah, the patriotic Country Firsters waved their true flag on this one. If their Idiocratic brains can perceive a gram of benefit to party over country, fuck the USA. As Cheney once said, they got other priorities.
Is Crittenden supposed to be one of the more respectable conservative bloggers, or not? I can’t recall.
Duh. Some? And if it were in a blue state…starbursts. California? They’d pass out from loss of fluid after jerking off so much.
Certainly not in my book. I think he’s regarded as being roughly along the same lines as Robert Stacy McCain, Erik Erikson, and the Dijon mustard fetishist Legal Insurrection.
Here in Colorado, mixed feelings. While we didn’t exactly cheer for Chicago’s loss, my fellow teachers in Inservice yesterday called out “Denver 2018 baby!”
Of course we rejected the winter Olympics back in I think ’76, so I don’t know how long a memory the IOC has.
Another terrorist attack on US soil would make Rich Lowry more horny than naked photos of Sarah Palin.
Screw the Olympics. Screw Chicago, too. Pick a low-crime city with lots of room. Anyway, Barry O gave it a shot and the IOC picked Rio, big deal. Mike Phelps is a pot head. The more anyone (right or left or top or bottom) gives a rat’s ass about this, the more it pseudo looks bad. A real yawner this is.
Thanks, JK – he’s not on my personal wingnut radar except as a sort of fuzzy Roswellian blob occasionally mentioned by others, so I couldn’t think of what sort of associations his name carries (unlike, say, *Giles* or Lott…)
@JK: Lowry has a thing for stretch marks and gray pubic hair?
I think in this case that mystery is a better companion.
Chad N Freude
Where are the photographs posted? [Drools]
@Chad N Freude: Don’t make me go photoshop on your ass…
The right-wing reaction to this has convinced me of the sheer genius of the suggestion I read (possibly here) that President Obama declare the “Don’t Jump Off Tall Buildings” initiative and watch Beck and Malkin scream about their right to throw themselves off the roofs of skyscrapers.
I bet you didn’t know that a recent poll in Chicago had those in favor of a Chicago Olympics at only 47%.
This isn’t about the right wing, unless you want to suggest that 53% of the people in Chicago are Right Wingers?
It is possible that wanting an Olympics and NOT wanting an Olympics are mutually exclusive of Right or Left wing.
Read the article. Soak it all in. Maybe Brachiator the Fact Boy can come up with more on this subject.
@demkat620: Did it ever cross your thought musings that what is the best for the country and for Chicago is NOT to host the Olympics? I do not understand why these concepts are so alien to many of you.
“the city of Chicago hasn’t completed a significant construction project on time or on budget in recent memory. On that account, the predicted $3.3 billion cost of the Games can’t be taken seriously. It doesn’t help that the city’s finances are a mess. Chicago’s budget deficit has soared from $200 million six months ago to an estimated $500 million next year, and the city has been laying people off and forcing municipal employees to take unpaid furloughs. The Second City’s recent parking meter boondoggle, in which it sold its meter stock to a private firm for $974 million less than its estimated value, shows it is incapable of executing a project on the scale of the Olympics”
Oh, go blow elsewhere. The Rethugs weren’t cheering because they were concerned that the Olympics would be bad for Chicago and they were happy that the city had been spared. They were cheering because Obama lost.
I was glad Chicago didn’t get the nod, too, but I felt no need to gloat over Obama’s “loss”. Didn’t even occur to me. Maybe because I’m not a complete dick.
@Svensker: Where in that article does it say that they cheered because it was Obama who lost as opposed to cheering because he lost in a battle that they did not support and he happened to be the champion? There is a difference. This is the same exact way I will cheer when Obama loses the Government Healthcare debate.
I will not be wallowing in schadenfreude because Obama loses. I will be happy because the policies he is championing are not implemented. Therefore I will be happy that Obama lost his bid the same way the folks at the Weekly Standard are happy that he lost his bid for the Olympics.
Read what the man posted. Anything more than what was actually written is your own imagination.
Chad N Freude
Yes, indeed. The good folks at The Weakly Standard were cheering because they have the best interests of the city of Chicago at heart. Exactly what policy failure were they happy to see?
Chad N Freude
@Chad N Freude: That wasn’t quite complete. I meant to add
Will you be shouting “Health Care Reform loses! Regulation of the Financial Industry loses! Diplomatic Negotiation with Unfriendly Nations loses!” Well, as long as you’re happy.
@Chad N Freude: No. I want healthcare reform. I simply do not want Obama’s version of it. Yet another idea that you folks cannot wrap your heads around.
You can look at the Olympic situation as a microcosm of the National Healthcare debate. I would not want an Olympics in Chicago because it would be sure to lose huge truckloads of money and cost the tax payers millions, if not billions. Not just Chicago tax payers either. The entire nation would have had to foot the bill for the Olympic bailout that would have occured.
A NHS for the US would be very similar, except on a much larger scale. We would be instituting a government entity that did not have to turn a profit and therefore had no real-world accountability. It would grow larger and larger with more and more corruption, fraud and failure as time went on. It would reduce the advancement of medicine and discourage truly talented individuals from becoming part of it. Every year it would come up against budget over-runs and they would simply ask for more and more money. All the while, the government would grow larger and larger with more people dependent on it for a job, thereby shoring up the Democratic base. We all know the only way Democrats get votes is by giving away other peoples money.
The NHS in the UK employs over 1.5 million people. Less than half are actually clinicians of any kind. That is a tremendous amount considering the relatively small size of the UK, a country smaller than the combined area of California and Nevada with a population equal to California and Texas combined and WITHOUT the illegal immigration problems that we have. To put this in perspective, only the Indian Railway and the Chinese Army employ more people on this earth. That is astounding. It only gets worse year over year. Soon the NHS will eclipse the Indian Rail system.
I mention the illegal immigrant problem only to point out that Obama IS a liar. The supreme court ruled MANY moons ago that any service provided to the public at large cannot be refused to anyone, even illegal aliens. Obama, a lawyer himself, has to be aware of this. If he is not aware of it, then he is not a liar, per se, simply an idiot. I do not believe the man to be an idiot, so he must be a liar.
Rep Wilson was correct. He just chose the wrong time to make that clear.
In closing: Yes, I would love healthcare reform. Just not Obama’s version of it. I will only mention in passing that the very idea of a government run healthcare system is unconstituional and that it would require an ammendment, which Obama has not even bothered to explain. If it is not specifically granted to the Federal Government in the Constitution, then it remains the purview of the States. The Constitution says nothing about Healthcare anywhere in it. Go ahead. Read it.
@Chad N Freude: Oh, and no they were not cheering because they had the best interests of Chicagoans at heart, necessarily. If you actually did read the post, you would see for yourself why they were cheering. He states it quite plainly.
Then you are an idiot, doubly so.
Subsidizing illegal immigrants will be done the same as always. You did know that they are being subsidized now? And they won’t be on the new plan.
@gwangung: No. Actually, you are the idiot. I understand they are being subsidized now. Fool. I also know that they will be subsidized with a Government Healthcare system for the reasons I have already stated. The Supreme Court ruled long ago that any public service cannot be refused to anyone, even illegal aliens.
Reading comprehension for the win. Now go get your shine box.
Moron. You yourself clearly can’t read for comprehension.
Given that they cannot be refused for any emergency medical service NOW. Thats still going to be the same in the future. They are being subsidized NOW. Point out in the legislation (which you have NOT done) where that funding source changes. Particularly when that legislation clearly states that the plan will not fund illegal immigrant care (note that this plan covers emergency and non-emergency care). You are arguing that this plan is changing the funding source when it clearly does not.
By the way…this argument
is innumerate. Given the fact that the English systems has better coverage with fewer costs (and their rate of increase is lower than in the US), I think this is an empty argument (particularly when focussing on a system which is admittedly the least efficient and most cash starved of systems around the world). Pointing at an “inefficient” and “costly” system does very little good when the system in America is MORE inefficient and MORE costly (and there are similar systems that are inarguably more efficient and cheaper).
Then it’s a good thing that not one of the bills in the House or Senate bears even a passing resemblance to the NHS, isn’t it?
@gwangung: I made no such arguement. I was pointing out the fact the Obama LIED when he said that his plan will not cover Illegal aliens, Idiot.
Show me where our system is MORE costly and LESS efficient on a 1 for 1 ratio. Meaning, do the people in the UK get the same benefits, advancements and care that we do in the US on the same timely basis? Hell no they do not. I have first hand knowledge of this.
It is also true that because the UK and other countries in Europe have a NHS, it makes our system that much more expensive. Drug companies use us to subsidize the low cost drugs they provide to Europe, as one example.
Still a fool. Where is that shine box?
@Mnemosyne: Any Government run healthcare plan would resemble the NHS. Are you so obtuse? Are you denying that for months now the Democrat leaders have been in-fighting with the so-called “Blue Dog” Democrats and Republicans over a government run option? How is this not “even a passing resemblance” to the NHS?
Honestly. Do you even read what you type?
If you’re talking about the Texas education case, you’re just wrong. The first thing the Supremes did in that case was look for federal legislation that was on point regarding the children of illegal immigrants and access to public schools. They didn’t find any. They went next to the Texas statute because there was no federal legislation on illegal immigrants and education funding at all.
In addition. Applicants to Medicaid currently have to provide proof of citizenship in order to enroll in the program.
In addition. Beginning in 2007, President Bush instituted a rule change through his Department of Health and Human Services that was then written into law in all fifty states. It requires the parents of children who are not married (divorced or never married) to 1. purchase health insurance for their children, or 2. reimburse the state for Medicaid programs, or 3. pay ” cash medical support” along with child support.
Not a single state brought a Constitutional challenge. We’re already mandating the purchase of health insurance, and for that, you can thank President Bush.
I know I must cause a few waves everytime I come in here and interrupt your circle-jerks in the echo chamber, but please… If you are going to debate me, try to not make it so easy for me.
(g)wangung resorts to inventing a straw man and Mnemosyne denies any resemblance to an NHS in a government run option? Please.
This all starts with John painting a picture that is not there just so he can stir you folks up and get a few hits on the ole blog. I come in with very reasoned speach, and am assailed with “Moron” and “Idiot” where my only provocation is having an opinion that is not already reverberating off the walls of this blog. TRY HARDER!
Really? France’s government-run healthcare resembles the NHS? Germany’s government-run healthcare resembles the NHS? Japan’s government-run healthcare resembles the NHS? Brazil’s government-run healthcare resembles the NHS?
The problem here is not my obtuseness. It’s the fact that you seem to think that the NHS is the only government-run healthcare system on the planet, so therefore every government-run healthcare system is exactly like the NHS.
You don’t know the difference between single payer and single provider, and yet here you are to tell us you kicked a home run in your golf game yesterday.
No, you’re assailed with “moron” and “idiot” because you’re completely ignorant of even the most basic facts about government-run healthcare — you know, the kind of healthcare system that every industrialized nation except the United States has — and yet you insist that you have something important to say even though you don’t know a single fact about the subject you’re pontificating about.
@kay: A troll by any other name is still a troll. Good try but trolls are not interested in the truth. What ever happened to Maliki?
He/she left after a while.
No. You’re just wrong. The Texas case actually reiterates the power of the federal government to legislate on matters of immigration.
Wilson was wrong, wrong, wrong if he’s relying on the Texas education case to claim Congress can’t write legislation barring illegal immigrants from receiving any federally funded insurance plan.
“The States enjoy no power with respect to the classification of aliens. See Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U.S. 52 (1941). This power is “committed to the political branches of the Federal Government.” Mathews, 426 U.S. at 81. Although it is “a routine and normally legitimate part” of the business of the Federal Government to classify on the basis of alien status, id. at 85, and to “take into account the character of the relationship between the alien and this country,” id. at 80, only rarely are such matters relevant to legislation by a State. See Id. at 84-85; Nyquist v. Mauclet, 432 U.S. 1, 7, n. 8 (1977)”
It’s in the Constitution, actually.
Flugelhorn is not a real troll… Gotta be a spoof. Trolls are better than the garbage that he is spewing.
I have no idea, but I’m getting sucked in again, aren’t I?
I’m getting a kick out of the fact that President Bush’s actions in 2007 may scuttle any wingnut dreams of a Constitutional challenge to health care reform.
If the state can mandate unmarried parents purchase health insurance, and they are, right now, I don’t why they can’t mandate participation by anyone else.
Oh, ha h ah hahhhahhhahha. Oh, my sides. Hahhh ahhhahhahh.
Did someone fart?
@kay: What happens is they disappear once they know their argument is bogus.. only to return another day.
There’s a lot of discussion on why the Founders used “person” rather than “citizen” but I like this theory: because some of them were foreign-born. Hah! Self-interest always trumps.
If you and Rep. Wilson had your way, and we changed the Constitution to “citizen”, we’d have a big, fat, jurisdictional problem. Illegal immigrants might not be subject to any of our laws.
Any person is a sword as well as a shield.
Read the thing and think it through before you start screwing with it, willy-nilly. They knew what they were about when they were writing it.
Is anyone else starting to feel like Father Ted here?
@aimai: You win the thread!!
@kay: I am refering to Plyler v. Doe, but I am also including the fact that they cannot be denied care today, which is outside of the Plyler v. Doe ruling.
To address your other points, Medicaid is a state program and does not apply here. Medicare has similar requirments, but this is limited to those of a certain age or disability and therefore is not available to the public at large.
Mandated health insurance for children is NOT the same as mandated health insurance for Adults age 18 and over. Bush wanted to be sure that people were taking care of their children and they did not get lost in the system, regardless of the legal status of the parent.
It just so happens that I think health insurance or an SR22 type convention SHOULD be mandated in the same way car insurance is mandated if you own a car. This would spread the cost across a much wider base and reduce the amount everyone should pay AND everyone would actually be contributing to society rather than living off the efforts of others. I also believe that pre-existing conditions should not be a hinderance to attaining this insurance.
However, I do NOT believe the government should in anyway be one of these insurance carriers.
@kay: See… You and gwangung and Mnemosyne are arguing against an assertion that I did not make.
I never said we should deny illegal aliens emergency care. I simply stated Obama WAS a liar for claiming that they would not be covered under his plan. Why do you folks always do this? Its called Straw Man.
In many cases I think iIlegal aliens SHOULD be covered. If for any reason, to help prevent outbreaks of disease and the like. However, they should all be deported right after they get treated and stabilized. They should not recieve the benefit of ongoing care. Send them back to their mother country for some good ole home cooked care.
See… The other items I spoke of you cannot seem to find a way to refute, so you read something more into my words than was actually stated so that you can at least rebutt something. Nevermind that I never made the counterpoint to your rebuttal in the first instance.
No, it’s not. It’s administered by each state, but it is a federal program.
Again, do you know any facts about healthcare? Even one?
Medicaid is administered by the states, but it’s a federal program. That’s why the federal government added the proof of citizenship requirement. It survived. It exists. That alone makes Wilson the liar, not Obama. Legislation on that is primarily the purview of the federal government. That’s part of what the case you cite reiterates. The Supremes said “is there any federal legislation that applies here?” The answer was “no”.
The federal government, tomorrow, can write any immigration legislation they care to, subject to Constitutional review, and then we’re right back at “person”.
Rep Wilson is just wrong. You already know this. We just had a huge battle on immigration reform, and it was, of course, at the federal level.
Bush mandated that the parents of children purchase health insurance because he had a mechanism in place to mandate it. It’s achieved through state court and state agency enforcement of child support.
National health insurance reform will work the same way. A person will submit to jurisdiction and any applicable law when they apply for the coverage. I think that’s probably the way it shakes out, actually, primarily voluntary, and through the states. The medical support orders have gone off without a hitch. It’s a nice model, President Bush gave us.
I don’t think the enforcement mechanism is going to be a big issue at all, other than as yet another political issue people like Wilson can demagogue on. In any event, there’s a lot of ways to draft it so it survives any hypothetical constitutional challenge.
@Mnemosyne: Can you show me where I am “ignorant of the most basic facts” of a government run healthcare system? Do you often pull counterarguments directly out of your ass, or is today an exception?
Would you feel differently if you knew that I deal with Medicare everyday as a provider and clinician? Would that give me enough credibility for you to choke on? You would never admit it, of course, because it is easier for you to simply state that I am “ignorant of the most basic facts” of a government healthcare system without any citing any reason for your spurious assessment.
The truth of the matter is, I likely know more about it than the majority of the people in this circle-jerk. That certainly includes the owner, John Cole.
What are your credentials, if I may ask?
Thanks. That’s a common misconception. Administered by the states.
I’m going. so good luck.
You mean other than the fact that you don’t know that Medicaid is a federal program and think that the NHS is the model for universal healthcare in every country?
It makes me want to find out who you are and warn every one of your patients to run, not walk, to find another doctor. If you didn’t even know that your Medicaid payments were coming from the federal government, you have no business treating people with life-threatening illnesses.
I can read and comprehend basic facts. You seem to lack that credential.
@Mnemosyne: Yes, of course you are correct. It is a combined Federal AND State funded program, but the benefits vary from state to state based on a particular states legislation and are not mandated by the Federal government nor is participation by the State mandatory. It is voluntary. It is different in that it is designed mostly for low income citizens. Medicaid is a very different animal from Medicare, which is a Federally funded entitlement, which still must abide by certain state rules as regards provider qualifications and the like. Medicare is NOT voluntary and applies to any citizen 65 years or older.
Both programs have specific requirements for participation and are not generally available to the populace at large.
I would just add this. I’ve read a lot of the arguments for mandates and they boil down to this: we want people to enroll. Republicans, Democrats, we all know people need to enroll.
I figure it shakes out a lot like the medical support orders. People enroll, grudgingly at first, in whatever aspect of the proposed system they are eligible for, employer-provided, public option, or Medicaid, then they realize they like having health insurance. As long as they can afford it, they want it. My state sets “affordable” at 5% of gross, with 150% of the poverty level eligible for a federal/state program. People like it. We’re not having to enforce jack, in my county. They’re complying. I figure the vast majority enroll voluntarily, because that’s what’s happening with medical support orders. They just want to be able to afford it.
I’m glad you read the link I provided and that you were able to copy and paste from it. That’s not the same thing as “Medicaid is a state program,” which was your actual claim.
Now that you know Medicaid is a federal program, which other federal healthcare programs are you confused about? You do know that Tri-Care and the VA are both run by the federal government, right?
@Mnemosyne: I meant to answer this but I got dragged into another direction.
France’s NHS is different from that of the UK, however, we were not talking about a Government Option that had any resemblance to the French NHS.
To get to the French NHS, we would have to:
1) Massive tort reform – For obvious reasons
2) Allow our doctors a free education – thus reducing the financial burden on the doctor and reducing costs for services rendered by the physician
3) Mandate Health insurance – Spread the costs among a much wider base, thus lowering the per capita cost of healthcare
4) Significantly reduce the need for the large Administrative back-office personnel by streamlining our reimbursement processes. Implementing 1 and 3 would reduce the number of administrators as well.
I would be all for that. 100%. Unfortunately, that is not what we have/had on the table. What we had on the table was closer to the Canadian and UK version.
@Mnemosyne: I did no such thing. I knew these things already.
In my previous response I simply meant to infer that Medicaid was very much a different animal from Medicare and I thought that Medicare was more applicable as it is not a voluntary program and is soley funded by the Federal Goverment. I made a mistake in my phrasing and I gave a mea culpa. You don’t even allow me that, do you?
I could just as easily call you out on your assertion that it is a federally funded program. It certainly is, but States pay up to half, they run it AND decide who gets to be in it AND what benefits they recieve. The Federal government has more of an oversight role. As voluntary program, it is in essence a State program with a Federal subsidy. It was a good gotcha though and you managed to wedge a lever in a tiny crack.
Is that all you got?
No, what we have on the table is closer to the German version. Look it up. What’s on the table is not even close to the UK version unless there’s some secret hidden clause that says that all doctors who provide services under the public option will be employees of the federal government and not independent contractors.
Demonstrate that you’re arguing in good faith and not just spouting right-wing talking points and you might get cut a break.
Here’s an idea: spell out for me the ways in which the healthcare reform bills on the table are similar to the NHS other than “government money is behind it.”
poor flugelhorn. i almost feel sorry for him as he valiantly tries to bear the mind-forged manacles that contemporary movement conservatism demands its adherents shackle themselves with.
anyway, he’s probably a troll or an astroturfer ( amazing how many blog comments a million dollar donation to freedom works will get you!) but i did want to say one thing:
“inefficient” and “expensive” are words that have real-world verifiable meanings, they aren’t just emotional signaling devices for “things that are disagreeable.” US healthcare is “expensive” because it costs more money than any other system both in absolute terms and as a percentage of GDP. US healthcare is “inefficient” because, despite the massive level of overall spending, something like 40 million people lack any insurance at all and end up using emergency rooms as primary care facilities, while many millions of others have insurance so patchy and selective that it is practically worthless .
you can make many criticisms of the NHS, but calling it
“expensive” (overall british healthcare spending is less than half of the US level) or “inefficient” (on average, britain achieves slightly better health outcomes than the US) in comparison to the US system is flatly inaccurate. in fact, it is so wildly inaccurate, so blatently and shockingly wrong, that it strongly suggests ignorance of a profoundly malignant and powerful variety.
See, I’ll even answer your recent points:
That will take care of itself. When people no longer have to sue McDonald’s to get the bills for their reconstructive surgery paid, judgements will go down significantly because right now the judgement has to account for future medical care for the injured party. If everyone has health coverage and doesn’t have to worry about being dropped by their insurance after an injury because they reached their lifetime limit on the policy, that problem goes away.
I agree. One of the reasons for our shortage of primary care doctors is the massive loans that medical students have to pay back. If you finish school $100,000 or $200,000 in debt, you’d be an idiot not to go for a lucrative specialty instead of primary care.
At a minimum, the federal government should forgive the student loans of people who agree to go into primary care for a minimum of 5 years. If someone wants to go to medical school so they can become a plastic surgeon, they can pay for that on their own dime.
That’s in the current plan. The only holdup is figuring out who gets a subsidy.
It’s supposed to be in the current plan, but since the Republicans started fearmongering about how the federal government is going to be snooping in your medical records, I think it was taken out. Congratulations — your side made healthcare reform even less efficient. I hope you’re proud.
Implementing 3 and 4 would do that. The administrative costs of lawsuits aren’t counted into medical care. Administrative costs are the costs of keeping a legion of employees scanning each member’s medical record to see what they can get away with refusing or if the member’s husband has a condition that she didn’t put on the form so they can call her a liar and drop her entirely.
You know what would really help with medical malpractice? Taking away the licenses of doctors who injure patients. But trying to get a bad doctor to lose his license is like trying to get a cop prosecuted for drug dealing — all of the other doctors close ranks and nothing gets done.
Okay, I have to leave the argument now because Oktoberfest (and my husband) is calling. Good evening, all.