Archives

now browsing by author

 

There’s a whole ‘nother swath of Trump voters: Bernie-loving Hillary-haters

I’ve realized, since the 2016 election, that one and only one thing is unforgivable among Dems (and no, it’s not fucking around with emails or cheating or lying or colluding or anything like that): Being a Trump voter. Being a Trump voter will earn you condemnation, threats of anthrax in the mail, in fact, by an Iowa school teacher (no, not kidding), the loss of 600 Facebook friends who thought you, a big-mouth progressive, were one of them (“them” being party-line-toers). But for a lot of us, there’s a little more to this story.

Once upon a time, the primary was over, and Bernie, beloved to a lot of us, had been fucked over by the DNC and Clinton and their crew. Pouring sweat and looking miserable, Bernie campaigned for Clinton. We then learned more about the DNC’s collusion against Bernie. Wikileaks clued us in on exactly how far the Dem establishment was willing to go to see Clinton anointed. We learned how the Dems/DNC belittled and mocked Bernie – and his supporters. It’s like it were yesterday. 

Revenge is a dish best served cold, they say. Or, best served during an election cycle. Severely disgusted with the Dem establishment, hating Clinton – forever hating Clinton – I, a lifelong Dem, Demexited. Registered independent. Voted for Donald Trump. A revenge vote? Bet your sweet ass. A lot of progressives, like myself, claimed they voted for Stein or wrote in Bernie. Maybe they did. But what the hell good is a revenge vote if it’s a secret? I never denied my Trump vote; still don’t. It was necessary, for me. One I regret? Not yet. My Trump vote was my Democratic Party swan song; I said goodbye, and yeah, got even. Never looked back. The 600 lost Facebook “friends” was a small price to pay for personal integrity.

I have this running argument on Facebook with a guy, let’s call him Charlie (well, it is, in fact, his name). No matter what I post, he reminds me I voted for Trump. I patiently remind him that I was there when it happened. He tries to get me to admit I made a mistake by voting for Trump over Clinton. I will never in this lifetime do that. He tries to make me responsible for every bad decision or ill-thought-out Tweet of Trump’s because I’m a “Trump supporter.” He seems determined to convince me that all was going swimmingly in this country until November 2016, and I ruined it (sure, with my single vote in Kentucky, where Trump won by, what, 40%?). You know, here’s the thing a lot of Dems choose to ignore: They may think President Trump is the devil, but the worst devil of all was always Hillary Clinton. I never wore a MAGA hat, but I’d have bought out a MAGA store and draped myself in MAGA paraphernalia before I’d have worn something that said “Stronger Together.” 

And since the 2016 election, I realized what the Dems’ biggest problem is: To them, it’s all or nothing. You’re with them 100% or against them. You’re a “pure” Dem or you’re impure. No 40/60 split, no “yeah, I agree sometimes.” 100%. If you’re not with them 100%, you’re – well, something else. In the case of a bunch of my social media friends, I’m now a “Trump supporter,” although in their heart of hearts they know I’m one of the strongest progressives ever. (Come on, what conservative supported Bernie “Socialist” Sanders?) What Dems and their loyal party-line-toers have blindly refused to acknowledge is that people like me can make a voting choice for calculated reasons, but maintain the progressive values they always had – in fact, I made the voting choice I made because of my progressive values. Clinton was never a progressive. She was bad news. She was the one person – the one candidate – who could have driven someone as progressive as I am, and have always been, to vote for Donald Trump and not regret it. The regret I have now is that, at one time, I was one of those progressive knee-jerk reactors who demanded purity from others. Won’t make that mistake again. Reasons, folks – -people have reasons for what they do. 

Dems need to get off this progressive purity thing, because the harsh truth is that none of them – none of them who rammed Clinton down our throats and thought their sordid treatment of Bernie was okay – have a scintilla of progressive purity. Paying lip service to the policies that sound good to voters isn’t progressive purity. The Dem establishment, and their loyal soldiers in the field, are busy squandering any chance they have to claw their way back to some semblance of a party. They continually rehash 2016, play the blame game – and people like me, unashamed Demexiters and unashamed Trump voters, are low hanging fruit for their ire, bitterness and anger. What my social media pal Charlie (who for whatever reason frequents my wall, still) wants is for me to say I made a mistake, wish I hadn’t voted for Trump. He’s enraged that I admit it, own it, and am defiant in my righteousness. 

The Dem Party will never get me back, but if they ever want to get my vote back – I am, after all, now a registered independent – they need to do better. Much better. And I see no sign of that happening. Call me crazy, but it doesn’t seem to me like insulting and alienating a whole segment of people who voted for Trump out of hatred for Hillary and the Democratic establishment and disgust at their treatment of Bernie is a good step in that direction. 

 

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail

Shut up, CNN – Bernie Sanders does have a path to the nomination going forward (Video)

 
April statesGotta give it to whoever this MSNBC guy is (rarely watch it) – he was trying valiantly to get Bernie Sanders’ campaign manager, Jeff Weaver, to say that Bernie would lose his path to the nomination long before the convention.  But it’s official – Bernie Sanders is taking it all the way to the convention.  Pledged delegates, popular vote – sure, they matter, but what should matter more to the DNC at the convention is which candidate can beat the Republican nominee.  Bernie Sanders in polls everywhere comes out ahead of any Republican; Bernie Sanders is tied or ahead of Clinton in national polls; and Bernie Sanders has the ability to bring in millions of young, engaged voters, along with seasoned, political watchers like me, that at this moment will never support Hillary Clinton.

Watch Weaver explain Bernie’s path:

Sanders campaign undaunted by NY loss, will fight to the end

Jeff Weaver, Sanders campaign manager, shows Steve Kornacki exactly where the campaign sees a path to winning the Democratic nomination, and how they hope to convert Democratic super-delegates to their side ahead of the party’s national convention.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail

Clinton camp: Calls for the release of Clinton’s Wall Street speech transcripts “very offensive”

You know, one time I didn’t want my parents to see my not-exactly-applying-myself report card.  So I said the dog ate it.  No, actually, my friend had it.  Hmm, now that I think about it, I think I accidentally burned it.  There was no way I was going to let my school principal father lay eyes on that thing.  Wasn’t happening.  I think I might have been grounded til I was 25, not sure, but in the end I never produced it.  Lying seemed better (I was a little kid, and in retrospect, I should have just bit the bullet and fessed up – but who knew).  When I hear Hillary Clinton’s multiple excuses for not releasing those Wall Street speech transcripts I think of that time in my childhood.  I know why I didn’t want my folks to see that report card:  It had F’s on it.  And for the same reason, Hillary Clinton’s Wall Street speeches are filled with what the American public will consider political “F-‘s.”  I’ll lay odds that my dismal report card in 5th grade, with all its F’s, would look better than the contents of Clinton’s Wall Street speeches would look to the voting public.

So that’s why she won’t release them, and that’s why we hear repeated versions of “the dog ate my homework.”  I mean, come on, we all knew that she wouldn’t release them when Bernie released his tax returns.  He did that today and she jetted off to a fundraiser.  (Maybe George Clooney is holding them in his safe and she went to retrieve them so as to keep her word; anything is possible.)  No, the clear, unequivocal message from Clinton last night and for the past months is (and I paraphrase), “I’ll release them when monkeys fly out of my ass.”

Clinton’s campaign is sweating bullets trying to do damage control around this issue.  Her spokeswoman, Karen Finney, told Erica Hill on MSNBC that calls for Clinton to release her transcripts is “very offensive,” because after all, kids are sick or can’t afford college or some shit, and given all the shit on shit out there, the release of the transcripts is “not something you care about.”

Well again, Sen. Sanders is, you know, trying to use this to make an allegation to which he has absolutely no response when asked where is the proof . . . So, you know, I think a lot of voters also find that very offensive . . . This is what the Sanders campaign wants, right? The insinuation that there is something nefarious . . . .

Really, this is their damage control, saying that Bernie has no proof that her policy decisions have been and will be influenced by the big money flowing her way and that voters don’t care?  Grant you, Bernie could have gone harder on her during the debate – probably should have.  But if they want proof that Clinton is more than a little influenced by those cozy relationships- well, we have that.  More importantly, though, Finney is dead wrong: Voters want to know, too, what Clinton whispered in Wall Street’s ear. Bernie Sanders is not the only one who wants Clinton to disclose what she told Wall Street – an institution that nearly destroyed this country and is continuing its shenanigans today – behind closed doors.  Kirsten Gillibrand, Clinton’s replacement as a New York Senator, suggested that tax returns are a better way to judge each candidate; well, Bernie released his today, so judge away.  Another Clinton mouthpiece, Kristina Schake (in the picture below), told MSNBC’s José Díaz-Balart today that “Sen. Sanders has been attacking Hillary on this for quite some time, but there is a basic standard for transparency in campaigns, and that’s that you release your taxes. He’s been attacking her on transcripts, but he himself has not released his taxes.  As she said last night, she just wants to be held to the same standard as everyone else, and she’d like him to be, too.”  (Next thing the Clinton camp will be saying is we want the transcripts released because she’s a woman.)  MSNBC’s Diaz-Balart, of course, let Schake off the hook easily when she issued her lame response, but I imagine that, since Bernie Sanders released his 2014 returns today – and they are, as Politico noted, as boring as he predicted – they’ll drop that line quick fast and in a hurry.

But no matter what the Clinton camp peddles in its highly unsuccessful quest to end this thing, the issue is very simple.  For Clinton to be held to the same standard as Bernie Sanders – her only opponent right now – she’d release the transcripts.  Clinton slammed him for not releasing his taxes, and used that at last night’s debate as the reason for her refusal to release her transcripts; now he’s released his taxes.  She said she’d release hers when all the other candidates did; well, the Republican candidates aren’t running on tough-on-Wall-Street platforms, and besides, she’s not running against them.  Her only opponent, Bernie Sanders, has no Wall Street speeches and is utterly transparent and clear about his message to Wall Street, as well as his willingness to release his speeches:

I’m going to release all the transcripts [of speeches] I gave to Wall Street . . . Not for $225,000 . . . Not for $2,000, not for two cents — because there were no speeches.

She has two choices:  Release the transcripts or just admit that she’ll coddle Wall Street if elected President.  There’s no in-between.

Release

 

Her stark refusal to be transparent to the American public is as obvious as it is unwise.  She’s sustaining a lot of political damage with her refusal to release her screeds; her trustworthy ratings – which weren’t so hot to begin with – are in the tank.  It’s clear, from both simple common sense and what attendees have said about those speeches, that what’s in the transcripts is even worse than the blows she’s taking – such as Twitter-trending #ReleaseTheTranscripts, and even politicos like David Axelrod and Martin O’Malley zinging her – for refusing to release them.  As Rosette Newcomb from USUncut noted, the release of the Wall Street transcripts could, in fact, end Clinton’s campaign:

Should the content of these speeches become public, and should the accounts of attendees who described the speeches prove to be accurate, Democratic primary voters would suddenly know three things about Clinton they didn’t know before:

— Clinton will have proven herself to be susceptible to the influence of money from the financial sector, proving Bernie Sanders right.

— Clinton was lying about the content of her speeches, counting on the transcripts never being viewed by the public.

— Clinton’s promises to reform Wall Street will be proven to be empty campaign promises meant to be made while seeking votes and broken once a general election victory is secured.

We’ll never see those transcripts unless they’re leaked by Anonymous or some whistleblower.  She’s got too much to protect and even more to hide.  Millions of us already don’t trust her, but it seems apparent that her ardent supporters don’t care about her dishonesty and lack of trustworthiness.  Me, I say let her keep twisting in the wind.  In this election cycle, it’s no secret that integrity, good character, authenticity and honesty – Bernie Sanders’ trademarks – still matters.

 

Related articles across the web

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail

Online polls show Bernie won debate in landslide, which means the media will hand the win to Clinton

Clinton has a bird

You know, authenticity actually DOES matter

Well, the Brooklyn debate went as planned:  Sanders started berning about halfway through, and Clinton was off her game for the duration after Dana Bash asked about her Wall Street speech transcripts.  At the end of the night, Bernie had Clinton back on her heels:  She didn’t fare well against him on Wall Street and who would better regulate it, she tanked on fracking, maintained steadily pursed lips during the discussion of Libya and Syria and her hawkish interventionism bent, was clearly defensive when he challenged her on her new claim to be all in on $15 an hour minimum wage, and couldn’t for the life of her answer a straight question about her even newer claim to kinda maybe sorta be in favor of lifting the cap on Social Security and expanding it for 58 years.  She clearly didn’t see his polished foreign policy responses coming, and obviously underestimated his willingness to go for the jugular when she lied.  It’s not a good look for Clinton when she’s backed into a corner, pissed, and defensive.  Her sharp, “It’s not a laughing matter” to Bernie made me (and probably a lot of others) automatically cry out, “Yes mom.”

84% of those polled by Time said Bernie Sanders won.  84% of those polled by Heavy.com said Bernie Sanders won.  The poll conducted by Telegraph.co.uk had Bernie with 3.3K and Clinton with 443 votes.  NJ.com online poll has Bernie at 91% and Clinton at 17%.  Which mean CNN – the Clinton News Network – and the pundit class will definitively say she nailed it (based on the HuffPo headlines, it’s started already).

Clinton started out pretty strong, actually – I mean, yeah, I throw up in my mouth a little writing this, but it’s true.  For a minute I was a little nervous.  Then (thank you Dana Bash!) came the Wall Street speech transcript question (why won’t you release them if there’s nothing in them that’s, you know, bad?), and Clinton sang the same old tune of “when everybody else does,” got defensive, couldn’t get out of the corner, and from then on she pretty much got pummeled.  Bernie Sanders is who he is:  He stays on message, he has core issues that he’s passionate and knowledgeable about, he’s the guy on a mission.  She’s the party pooper who says the kids can only have a tiny slice of cake and no pop because of all the sugar, the one who has the most amazing gift of dancing the sidestep, but who, tonight, was called out pretty much every time on her outright lies and misrepresentations by the CNN crew and by Bernie.  He didn’t cave on his position on Sandy Hook parents’ lawsuit, which is an unpopular position; he didn’t cave on his position on Israel and Palestine; he didn’t unilaterally agree to endorse President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee if elected.  Bernie doesn’t know how to sweet-talk political style.  It is what it is, and millions of us find it utterly refreshing.

Of course, when things got a little hot Clinton threw Bill under the bus on the ’94 crime bill (yeah, maybe I was for it for a minute, but after all, he was the President of the United States!), then threw President Obama under the bus on Libya (yeah, maybe I had a little hand in the regime change thingy, but he was the President of the United States and made the final decision).  I had an idle thought that maybe Bernie should let her walk off stage first, because who knows what she was hiding under that white coat thing she was wearing, and that place between Bernie’s shoulder blades, at the end of the night, must have looked pretty tempting.  No, this woman would throw her husband, the President, her daughter, grandchild, mother and anyone else under the bus and worry about the tire marks later to win this thing.  And you think she’s going to support YOU?

Clinton is about “I,” and Bernie can’t stop saying “we.”  When the political winds shift, so do her policy positions.  Has she been back to Flint since she lost Michigan?  If she really supported Verizon workers she’d give Verizon back it’s big Super PAC money.  Come on, if you’re only promising half a loaf during a primary season, you ain’t doing shit once you’re elected.

This is so so seriously a no-brainer.  If Clinton wants party unity, I have a great idea:  SHE can drop out.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail

Bernie wins the Time 100 Reader Poll, beating Clinton 3-1, and the media sleeps

Time’s headline blared, “Bernie Sanders Wins Time 100 Reader Poll:  He gets more than three times as many votes as Hillary Clinton.”  As Time reported,

Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders has won the TIME 100 reader poll, topping not only his rival Hillary Clinton but also a host of world leaders and cultural figures for who TIME readers think should appear on our annual list of the most influential people in the world . . . Sanders finished with 3.3% of the total “yes” votes when the poll closed at midnight on Thursday . . . Clinton, Sanders’ opponent for the Democratic nomination, finished with 1% of the yes votes.

Bernie beat both President Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama, Lady Gaga and Taylor Swift, to name a few.  On a lark, I Googled this tonight:  “Bernie Sanders wins Time 100 Reader Poll.”  The Revelist, RT and the Indian Express were highly interested in this victory, and reported on it.  HuffPo, CNN, MSNBC, or any of the other mainstream media sites – not so much.

They wonder why we are revolting.  They wonder why we’re disgusted and fed up with the Democratic establishment and the mainstream media.  They wonder why Bernie Sanders is drawing crowds of 27,000-plus to his rallies while Clinton struggles to draw 1,000.  They wonder why.

The Democrat establishment and mainstream media boosted a copy of the Republican Playbook (and, for that matter, Clinton’s 2008 playbook against then-candidate Obama) and they’re running it step by step:  Disregard the opponent, discredit the opponent, pretend the good doesn’t exist and make shit up to make him look bad, and never, ever let them see you praising him.  The way the Republicans have treated President Obama for the past eight years is exactly the way the Clinton Camp and the DNC and the mainstream media is treating Bernie Sanders today.  The Clinton Camp has gone so far as to run ads against Trump, as though she’s already the nominee and he’s her opponent.  Focusing on the policy issues is fine and dandy (after all, that’s what journalists are supposed to do), but for the media to actively undermine Bernie Sanders time and again is enough to make us all become anarchists.  The pundits comment on his huge rallies with the gloom-and-doom scenario that it’s “game over” for him and this is just his swan song; Clinton holds an event for 20 people and it gets top billing.  Her best day has been a crowd of around 1,000, and the current sour-grapes theme coming out of mainstream media seems to be that Clinton could have huge rallies if she wanted to, but she just prefers them smaller.

We’re still in a primary and the successes of Bernie Sanders should matter to CNN as much as it does to CommonDreams.org, Smokinghotpoliticaljunkies.com, UsUncut.com, and to us here at the Meltdown.  A new Reuters/Ipsos poll shows Sanders taking a slight lead over Clinton nationally; his rally in New York was insanely crazy huge; his millions of supporters gather to hear him speak, full of energy, optimism and faith; Bernie’s favorable ratings are net positive, while Clinton’s are net negative.  And yet the media not only ignores him, it goes one further, propping up the Clinton camp by jumping on every non-story her campaign gins up and running with it.

The revolution may not be televised, but thanks to millions of bloggers, ralliers and passionate activists, it’s gonna happen anyway.

wapk

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail

Clinton responds to wrongfully convicted man at Town Hall, waffles on her pro-death penalty stance

During the Ohio town hall tonight on CNN, a black man in the audience stood up and emotionally related his story of having spent 39 years in prison, a part of those years on death row, for a crime he was later exonerated for.  He said that he came perilously close to being executed, and asked Clinton how she can continue her pro-death penalty stance, given the numerous wrongful convictions.  She responded that she’s saying what she’s always said, that basically states have proven that they are incapable of carrying out death sentences, and that she endorses it at the federal level, for heinous crimes such as that committed by Timothy McVeigh.

But that’s not her stance – she simply didn’t have the courage to tell this man that she actually does believe in the death penalty, at both the state and federal levels.  As the LA Times reported, during a previous debate she was asked directly if she maintains her position on supporting the death penalty.  She responded,

Yes, I do. And — you know, what I hope the Supreme Court will do is make it absolutely clear that any state that continues capital punishment either must meet the highest standards of evidentiary proof of effective assistance of counsel or they cannot continue it because that, to me, is the real dividing line.

I have much more confidence in the federal system, and I do reserve it for particularly heinous crimes in the federal system, like terrorism. I have strong feelings about that. I thought it was appropriate after a very thorough trial that Timothy McVeigh received the death penalty for blowing up the Federal Building in Oklahoma City, killing 168 people, including 19 children in a day-care center.

In her response to the gentleman tonight, she again claimed she believed in it at the federal level, for McVeigh-type crimes, but failed to mention that she also supports it at the state level, provided certain standards are met – and frankly, who doesn’t believe that certain standards must be met before either a state or the feds puts someone to death?

Bernie Sanders has staked out the opposite position, arguing that “the death penalty is too prone to error to be trusted” and, while there is much violence and killing, he doesn’t believe “that government itself should be part of the killing,” and has been nearly unequivocal in his opposition to the death penalty.

The problem with Hillary Clinton’s stance on the death penalty

Thursday night’s Democratic presidential debate included one brief exchange that showed some overlap but also a sharp philosophical difference between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders on a persistently fractious issue: the death penalty. The exchange came in response to a question by co-moderator Rachel Maddow, who asked Clinton whether she still stood by an earlier statement in which she “reluctantly” endorsed capital punishment.

 

Clinton, since the 90’s, has never really shifted off her pro-death penalty position.

Politico:  The Clintons’ full approval of the death penalty was underscored on Jan. 24, 1992, less than a month before the New Hampshire primary that made Clinton the ‘comeback kid.’ Clinton had flown back to Little Rock to oversee the execution of Ricky Ray Rector, a man who had lobotomized himself in an attempted suicide. On that night, as Rector’s executioners struggled to insert the needle for lethal injection, Newsday reported that a clemency request came as Bill and Hillary were preparing for an interview about his alleged affair with Gennifer Flowers. The execution went through, and Hillary has never spoken publicly about Bill’s decision . . . During Clinton’s presidency, neither Bill nor Hillary wavered. In 1994 Hillary lobbied Congress for passage of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, which created new death penalty-eligible federal crimes. Her husband signed it.  Hillary then expressed ‘unenthusiastic support’ for capital punishment during her 2000 New York Senate race. The issue did not surface during her 2008 presidential run.

HuffingtonPost:  In October 2015, while on the campaign trail, Clinton said that she does not favor abolishing the death penalty, but stated its use should be “very limited and rare.”  There as no mention of the death penalty being reserved for federal cases only.

MSNBC:  In October 2015, Clinton said, “I do not favor abolishing it, however, because I do think there are certain egregious cases that still deserve the consideration of the death penalty. But I’d like to see those be very limited and rare, as opposed to what we’ve seen in most states.”  She added that states should be “smarter and more careful” in applying capital punishment, and she called for taking a “hard look” at the issue.  Five months ago, Clinton believed in the death penalty at both the state and federal levels.

Bustle.com:  During the New Hampshire debate, Clinton responded to a direct question regarding the death penalty, saying, “What I hope the Supreme Court will do is make it absolutely clear that any state that continues capital punishment either must meet the highest standards of evidentiary proof of effective assistance of counsel or they cannot continue it.”

The Clinton hustle is getting old.  For Pete’s sake, take a position, stick with it, and be courageous enough to stand behind it even when it might lose you a vote.

 

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail

Carl Bernstein charges Clinton with “Nixonian” moves

I’m no Hillary fan, but I really don’t liken her refusal to release the transcripts of her Wall Street speeches to Nixon’s crimes and cover-ups:

There is a huge story going on. I spent part of this weekend talking to people in the White House. They are horrified at how Hillary Clinton is blowing up her own campaign . . .  Well, they are horrified that the whole business of the transcripts, the accepting the money, that she could blow the Democrats’ chance for the White House. They want her to win. Obama wants her to win. But Sanders has shown how vulnerable she is. These ethical lapses have tied the White House up in knots. They don’t know what to do. They’re beside themselves. And now you’ve got a situation with these transcripts a little bit like Richard Nixon and his tapes he stonewalled on and wouldn’t release.

Watch:

Bernstein Finds White House ‘Terrified’ Clinton ‘Blowing Up Own Campaign,’ Invokes Nixon

Appearing as a guest on Saturday’s CNN Newsroom with Poppy Harlow, CNN political commentator Carl Bernstein declared that, after spending time talking to the White House about Hillary Clinton’s paid speeches to Goldman-Sachs, that they are “horrified” that Clinton is “blowing up her own campaign,” and invoked President Richard Nixon’s tapes as possibly comparable to the transcripts of her speeches.

I will agree, though, that she’s largely been a victim of her own awkward, tone-deaf responses to legitimate questions about her ties with Wall Street in the face of her new populist tone.

She’s an elitist, surrounded by people who lobbied against Obamacare and against Dodd-Frank – but Nixon?  A bit of a reach, there.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail

Fact-Checking Ted Cruz in Saturday’s ABC Debate

CruzDuring the ABC Debate Saturday night, Ted Cruz threw red meat to his base by – again – promising to repeal Obamacare root and branch (nothing new to see here).  All of the Republican presidential candidates are swearing on their mothers that they’ll repeal Obamacare – but Cruz, he’s a special kind of guy, a guy who never shakes hands with the truth and glibly lies in the fact of all facts to the contrary:

Socialized medicine is a disaster. It does not work. If you look at the countries that have imposed socialized medicine, that have put the government in charge of providing medicine, what inevitably happens is rationing. You have a scarcity of doctors. … And that means the elderly are told: We’re going to ration a hip replacement; we’re going to ration a knee replacement. We’re going to ration end-of-life care.

Let’s start with the obvious here:  The U.S. does not have socialized medicine (unfortunately).  We wanted single payer.  We should have single payer.  But what we have is a health care system that encompasses the perfect definition of capitalism, in which private health insurance companies jockey for consumers’ business on state or federal insurance exchanges.  The only “socialized” part is that the feds regulate what’s contained in each policy (which benefits us), and requires U.S. citizens to obtain health insurance, or face a penalty.  And the fact (scary word, there, for Mr. Cruz) is that healthcare in countries with socialized medicine is far from a disaster.  In fact, by most scales that matter, they do better, overall, than here in the U.S. , both in terms of the health care provided and in costs.

The second – and perhaps more important – inaccuracy in Cruz’ quote is that this “rationing” he’s talking about happens everywhere, but it’s the function of insurance companies, not the feds, who contribute to it.  Insurance companies make medical decisions every day, and choose not to approve treatment every day, despite the fact that doctors may deem it necessary.  Calling Obamacare a failure because insurance companies continue to do what they’ve always done (and, for the record, that’s a failure of the Affordable Care Act, not to address that very thing) is really an amazing contortion even for a practiced liar.  Republicans talk like, before Obamacare came into being, health insurance companies were benevolent uncles who gleefully paid for every service, never raised premiums, and came and tucked their customers in at night with cookies and hot cocoa.

The base of supporters who like Cruz’ lack of compassion and cruelty in the face of human suffering won’t care about the lies.  The rest of us, however – those voting in the general election – prefer it if our politicians at least try to adhere close to the truth.  Routinely changing facts to suit a political stance isn’t really a tried-and-true method of winning the presidency.

 

Literally Every Sentence In This Ted Cruz Quote Is Misleading Or False

Health care got some attention in Saturday night’s GOP presidential debate. And when it was Texas Sen. Ted Cruz’s turn to speak, he started by cataloging the alleged evils of “socialized medicine.” Here’s the full quote: Socialized medicine is a disaster. It does not work.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail

Marco “Robot” Rubio never forgets his lines

As the Huffington Post reported, during Saturday night’s debate, Chris Christie taunted Marco Rubio about his “canned” lines – and Rubio didn’t disappoint. Watch:

Watch Marco Rubio Give The Same Canned Answer 3 Times In A Row

One of the most heated moments during Saturday’s GOP debate occurred when New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie called out Sen. Marco Rubio (Fla.) for giving a “memorized, 25-second response” — an argument Rubio went on to inadvertently support. While responding to Christie’s attacks, Rubio gave the same answer three times, repeating, “Obama knows what he’s doing.”

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail