Health Care: It's Not About Money (Part 3) - UPDATED

posted by Armadillo Joe

So, this one is for commenter Ed Darrell who seems to have appeared out of nowhere, fully formed, and armed to the teeth with smarts and all kinds of intellectual ammo to smash the wingnuts into oblivion, even the super-keen smart ones. In the comments to my last post, he came swooping in with all kinds of info and expressed an interest in reading the entirety of the exchange with the guy on Facebook. So, I am hereby obliging.

BTW, Ed, I note from your profile page that you live in Dallas. I grew up in the Dallas area and the particular wingnut in question is a high-powered corporate attorney who I went to high-school with and who still lives in Dallas. So, Ed, you can imagine the particular brand of insular corporatized arrogance that represents.

And while we're at it, Ed, who are you and where did you come from? Please feel free to comment all you like. And that goes for the rest of you, as well.

For all you other Blog-O-Maniacs, unless you are interested in a long, tedious and blood-pressure averse blog post, what follows is a tough and not terribly rewarding slog. I only edited the names out to protect the not-so-innocent and the order of a few specific posts for clarity. No words have been added or subtracted.

Enjoy?

UPDATE:
Rereading the thread this morning, I realized that who is whom may not be all that clear. The first commenter is another attorney friend of mine who also lives in Dallas and knows the doofus from later in the thread. She is nice enough, and book-smart, but also has that sort of smug sanctimony one finds in someone who has never really wondered where money for food or rent will come from. Her comments are in green. Mine are in blue. Corporate doofus is in red. All others are in purple.

Happy reading.

---

You posted a link to a news story
June 26 at 9:20am.

Armadillo Joe would like to point out that if you think actual elected members of Congress will be the ones working on making this country's new health care policy, you haven't been paying attention.

---

NPR: Turning The Camera Around: Health Care Stakeholders
Source: www.npr.org

When 22 senators started working over the first health-care reform bill on June 17, the news cameras were pointed at them -- except for NPR's photographer, who turned his lens on the lobbyists. Whatever bill emerges from Congress will affect one-sixth of the economy, and stakeholders have mobilized ...read more…

---

Comments

---

Lawyer friend #1 at 9:42am June 26
Ok, not all lobbyists are bad. Lots of healthcare company lobbyists, but also JDRF and American Heart Association and so on.

Armadillo Joe at 10:22am June 26
yes, that's true. Advocacy for a position is a necessary part of the American system of representative government.

And further, I'm sure even the biggest villains in that room also still love their spouses and children. The problem isn't with any one individual lobbyist's personal morality or professional ethics. The problem is the system itself, wherein the money to buy the access to affect policy is made by engaging in the very practices the policy-makers should be seeking to end.

Put less abstractly, the health-care industry is bloated and ineffective and a great many people make their personal fortunes in the ensuing chaos, which makes them the moral equivalent of war-profiteers. Those profits are then spent in defense of furtherance of the very system in need of reform.

Which is why we never get health-care reform.

Lawyer friend #1 at 10:36am June 26
Ok, so who has a better system?

•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

READ THE REST OF THIS EXCHANGE AT "ARMADILLO JOE'S LONG-WINDED OVERFLOW" BLOG-ETTE

Health Care: It's Not About Money (Part 2)

posted by Armadillo Joe

Just like last week, I'm still arguing with that guy on Facebook. Here's the latest exchange:

corporate lawyer/former high-school debater:

When you were talking about the economics, you dropped the inflammatory rhetoric and the ad homs. When you got back to the moral arguments, you started shouting and accusing again. Why is that?

Whether the US government should adopt a single-payer system for health care is not a moral issue, it is a public policy issue. It's an economic question: how much should the gov't tax people, and how much should it pay for their health care?

If you have a single-payer system, then the government will still have to make decisions about what to pay for and how to apportion the money it spends on health care. People who can't afford to pay for additional coverage still suffer and die in systems with government as a single-payer. You seem to imagine that if the gov't is paying, then everyone will get all of the care that they need, but when pushed on that you say you don't imagine everyone will get cradle-to-grave care for everything that affects them. You can't have it both ways.

The unavoidable fact is that resources are scarce, which means decisions must be made about how to apportion them. I get that you want to have the government raise taxes (or borrow money today, then raise taxes on future generations) and use more money on paying for health care. That's fine. I disagree with you that this is the best public policy, or that it will even have the great results you imagine.

The point about DDT is simply this: I think it is bad public policy to ban DDT when it could be used to effectively eliminate malaria-carrying mosquitos and thereby save hundreds of thousands of lives annually. You disagree with me. I don't think that this disagreement makes you an amoral, parsimonious tree-hugger.

The language of morality shouldn't apply because it obscures and inflames the debate. It should be possible to disagree about how governments should spend and regulate without attacking the character of those who disagree.


Armadillo Joe:

Shouting? Ad hominem? Please. This is a spirited exchange of ideas. If I was shouting - I'D BE USING ALL CAPS.

That said, however, please refrain from trying to bait me by disingenuously including a flashpoint like DDT, because we both know that a debate over its use has raged across the political spectrum for decades. Inserting a reference to it is not value-neutral, it is a red-herring that deliberately chums the water.

Also please, stop attaching claims I've never made to my viewpoint via hedging phrases like "you seem to imagine..." then attacking that characterization instead of the specific claim I advance: the definition of a straw man argument. As much as you may wish that I had claimed everyone would get ALL the care they EVER need in life from cradle-to-grave if only the stoopit gov't would just pay for it, because that would be easier for you to rebut, I never did. I'm not a hippie-dippie moonbat imagining a world with no possessions, pining away for a money-free utopia.

Yes, people suffer and die and single-payer will not end that. I'm not trying to have anything both ways. I never claimed that universal coverage was a panacea but a government safety-net can moderate that suffering for the purpose of social stability and distribute the burden of the costs to promote the general welfare. And furthermore, I ask you, how is government bureaucrat making decisions about apportionment any different or worse than the current collusion of income-based rationing with insurance company bureaucrats operating under a steep financial disincentive to provide effective care? Any amount of nationalized health-care -- however mediocre for those who need to use it -- is still 100% better than no care at all and has proven elsewhere in the world to be better than the uneven, unfair, inefficient, often dangerous and grossly expensive system we enjoy now.

France spends half of what we do per capita on health-care and they not only get universal coverage for that money, but also cheaper drugs, lower infant mortality rates and greater life-expectancy. Those who want more coverage (and can pay for it) do so and almost everyone in France so chooses, which has resulted in a robust and very profitable private health-care sector parallel to and largely integrated with the public one. However, those who can't pay anything at all at least have a third option besides death or economic ruin when faced with mounting medical bills. The social instability engendered should that kind of human suffering metastasize should be easy to imagine.

And, finally, you dismiss the use of moral language as obscuring and inflammatory, but I posit that as long as the debate remains a dry, measured exchange of policy prescriptions -- as though we're debating a change in library hours at a town council meeting rather than mitigating preventable suffering -- we ignore to our peril the deeper structural inequities in American life as embodied in our broken health-care system. Moral language clarifies the stakes, whereas your framing of the issues -- trying to make it about nothing more than policy and economics -- obscures the deepening supremacy of this issue in so many American lives.

Policy and economics are but tools, means to an end. Morality is the impetus.

Thus, what you characterize as impugning the character of the opposition is in fact a reaction to complacency -- whether from apathy or smugness or fear or parsimony -- in the face of overwhelming evidence for action.

Health Care: It's Not About Money

posted by Armadillo Joe

For the last couple days and to the detriment of chores and personal hygiene, yours truly has been neck-deep in a scuffle at Facebook over health care. In some ways, it is just like the one I got into back in April over torture, wherein a fairly innocuous initial comment quickly escalated into a sort of Battle Royale in the comments section because Rethugli-goon trolls are the same everywhere on the inter-webs.

The difference this time is that my opponent, while still deeply, horrifically wrong, is smart. Wicked smart. Freaky smart. This guy was the president of the debate club when we were in high-school together back during the Pleistocene Era and his cockiness back then about his quick-wittedness gave him the aire of a weird sort of jock-nerd hybrid (who looks kinda like Ed Helms). Since high school, he went to a high-end, brand-name university and then law school and works now as a high-power corporate attorney in Dallas. The fairly innocuous post I referenced above was about this NPR photo and it was like red meat to hungry wolves.

We have exchanged almost a hundred comment posts totalling probably thousands of words by now. This is also the last post up by either of us as of 4:30 pm EST today and he has yet to respond.

Other than that, I think what follows is fairly self-explanatory.

Thank you for the fraud numbers on Medicare/Medicaid. I had not seen those and I grant that they are a matter of concern, but then fraud is always a risk no matter the source of financing - private, public or some manner of hybrid. You cite the better fraud numbers for private insurance -- which I acknowledge -- as though they are their own self-evident proof of the superiority or your position. I say they are not. I don't really see how the fraud numbers in-and-of themselves themselves constitute an argument against universal health-care. If we have fraud, so what? Investigate it and punish it where necessary.

Furthermore, you continue to insist that this is ALL AND ONLY about money, money, money -- which I contend is still very, very wrong on multiple counts -- and you have not offered a single counterpoint that wasn't an argument from a financial, fiduciary or economic perspective.

If you want to make it about money, though, then OK, let's make it about money for just a little bit longer. I will say that your fraud numbers pale in comparison to these numbers (from this link: http://www.nchc.org/facts/coverage.shtml) - you can check the link for the numbered footnotes.

• The United States spends nearly $100 billion per year to provide uninsured residents with health services, often for preventable diseases or diseases that physicians could treat more efficiently with earlier diagnosis.14


• Hospitals provide about $34 billion worth of uncompensated care a year.14


• Another $37 billion is paid by private and public payers for health services for the uninsured and $26 billion is paid out-of-pocket by those who lack coverage.14


• The uninsured are 30 to 50 percent more likely to be hospitalized for an avoidable condition, with the average cost of an avoidable hospital stayed estimated to be about $3,300.14


• The increasing reliance of the uninsured on the emergency department has serious economic implications, since the cost of treating patients is higher in the emergency department than in other outpatient clinics and medical practices.11


• A study found that 29 percent of people who had health insurance were “underinsured” with coverage so meager they often postponed medical care because of costs.15 Nearly 50 percent overall, and 43 percent of people with health coverage, said they were “somewhat” to “completely” unprepared to cope with a costly medical emergency over the coming year.15

We're already spending way too much money on health-care in this country (note the numbers I cited above about the growth of the health-care sector from 10% to 16% over the last 25 years). When I advocate for universal health care, I know that nothing is cost-free -- that's not what I mean when I say money should be removed from the equation, I'm referring to the depredations of a for-profit health-care system -- I instead contend that the much-vaunted free market hasn't delivered the efficiencies its advocates have been promising us for decades, that for-profit health-care is a self-defeating contradiction and that the federal government is the only organization large and powerful enough to bring this whole mess under control and thus prevent the current financial and bureaucratic chaos from swamping our whole economy, with ruined fortunes for some and illness & death for a great many others.

I'm heartened that you agree with me that we have a problem to solve, but once again you propose the same gussied-up retread of a solution that has failed us again and again: free-markets and competition. We've tried it your way. We've been trying it your way for close on 100 years now and all it ever brought us is a mess we try mightily to clean up once a generation or so. It isn't like we don't have other models for how to structure a working universal health-care system. Other countries have ironed out the problems with the various approaches over the decades, so we should just pick one and get this stupid thing fixed. I vote for the French model and Business Week agrees: http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/07_28/b4042070.htm

Although the Conservative Party of Britain think theirs is pretty keen, too: http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2009/06/conservatives-for-socialized-medicine.php

And, with the above, I'm kinda done with engaging you on the money side of this issue. If you want to keep throwing money-based arguments out there, its your prerogative but each time you do it, you reinforce my contention that this is a profoundly moral issue and the opposition are a bunch of amoral, parsimonious bean-counters who care more about protecting a status quo that works for them than recognizing the existence of a social compact which would require them to contribute to the general welfare. This is about how our values as a nation are reflected in our public policy. If money were the only issue that ever mattered, we'd still have a slave-based labor force in the south and children working 90-hour weeks in factories in the north. Sometimes issues are about more than money and when they are, we find a way to pay for what is important to us.

But before you come back at me with more sophistry about DDT or the economically disadvantaged "choosing" not to buy health coverage or what have you -- in an attempt to change the subject by force-feeding some ridiculous or distasteful false dilemma on me by skewing my positions into your own straw-man argument -- I would like you tell me precisely why you don't think this is a moral issue when millions of Americans live in fear of illness and death and economic ruin amid the general prosperity. Enough with the ad absurdum arguments. I ask you to explain why you don't think the language of morality applies on this issue.

For your side, it always and only seems to be about the money and, it seems to me, the mysterious fairy dust of free-market forces are the only mechanisms for delivery of goods and services available to policy-makers. If that is true everywhere and all the time throughout history, then why bother having a government at all?

For my side, it is about social responsibility and, as I see it, the government is the embodiment of that shared commitment to the general welfare. It is the most efficient and equitable organ for the application of our shared values. In the end, if one side contends that they don't share those values, that we can't even agree that the state of our health care system is a moral problem, then merely agreeing to disagree and moving on maintains the grossly unfair status quo. In the last 150 years, we've moved forward on slavery, suffrage, labor rights and civil rights and at every junction we did so with a wealthy opposition that cried to the heavens about the end of the world. Each time civilization survived and people continued to be rich. On this issue, too -- as it always has -- history will move forward without your consent.

Troll Hunting

It's a dirty job, but someone's got to do it. For those unfamiliar with the phrase "troll" when it comes to the blogotubes, here is an Urban Dictionary definition:

troll - One who purposely and deliberately (that purpose usually being self-amusement) starts an argument in a manner which attacks others on a forum without in any way listening to the arguments proposed by his or her peers. He will spark up such an argument via the use of ad hominem attacks (i.e. 'you're nothing but a fanboy' is a popular phrase) with no substance or relevence to back them up as well as straw man arguments, which he uses to simply avoid addressing the essence of the issue.

That's the thing with wingnuts that regurgitate Rush Limbaugh, right wing talking points. They really can't think for themselves and refuse to let facts get in the way of their belief system, like corporate tax cuts stimulate the economy or that President Obama cannot be the Commander-in-Chief because he isn't an American citizen.

Over at Bob Cesca's Goddamn Awesome Blog! GO! , trolling was relatively quiet, but with the growing success and popularity of his blog, the publishing of his book and his weekly contributions at The Huffington Post, Bob's blog has seen a rise of trolls as they rear their ugly heads from beneath their bridges (and by "bridges" I mean stomping on their Cheeto's stained keyboards in their parents' basement).

Now, normally the tactic taken is to ignore the troll. If you feed them, they only spew more of their neocon vomit. But what I've found at Bob's place unfortunately, is that their modus operandi is to return to a comment thread after the hullabaloo has died down, sometimes in the middle of the night or the next day, to try make an asinine point in the feeble minded thought that if they are not responded to, then they must have won the debate. They also sign in with multiple names to make you think there is more than one idiot guarding the bridge. So what if no one is paying attention anymore? Well, feeding trolls or not, I will not abide by that.

Here are a series of typical troll comments that I found this morning. At this point in a tax cut/recovery bill debate, the troll, "Booogie-Mann" is quoting other commenters and trying to rebut their position. These were posted between 3:45 and 4am:

"Tax cuts are far less stimulative than spending, hence there should be more spending and fewer tax cuts in the recovery bill."

... whenever the tax rate is above the optimal rate for revenue, there should be tax cuts. I pay almost 40% of my income in taxes, is that fair, isn't this too much, isn't this theft??

Bob reads one CBO report from a Democrat controlled congress and thinks this bolsters his spending works better than tax cuts argument. How silly. I agree that some spending on projects like windmills or energy would be helpful, but overall this huge Lobster Bill with butter and lemons just gives money away. States will use it to fill their budget gaps.

AdyLeigh: bless your feeble little brain, but years of overspending and huge deficits by the states have put them in a situation where spending increases will need to stop. You imply that we need to pay more taxes, otherwise all these elderly, poor, education will suffer or whatever. Do you understand where this money comes from?? Somebody else's pocket, who will suffer from having it confiscated. Who are you to judge where my money should be spent?? Why should I fund someone's College Edu-k-shuh ... take out a loan for Chrissake...

If anything, you should be mad at State Government Officials who never passed a reasonable budget, nor saved a penny for a rainy day (today). During the economic boom of the past 6+years State Governments have just raked in $$ and spent it on crap. Look at how spending has increased in your state since 2000, go look it up and ask yourself if wages in the state or population increases justify this amount. I doubt it.

Posted by: Booogie-Mann at February 9, 2009 3:49 AM

*************

Social Security ... anyone who wants more taxes and government to pay for things, just ask any senior how they like Social Security. How's that program working for ya huh?? What happened to the "Lock Box" of money Al Gore talked about. Yea, right.

South Carolina: I wonder if any of these folks working for SC Government, making over 100k, would be willing to take a small pay cut to fund the poor:

http://salaries.thestateonline.com/index.php?salary=100000

Posted by: Booogie-Mann at February 9, 2009 3:57 AM

*************

AdyLeigh: 7% cut across the board?? How smart, I wonder how many Unemployed people would have taked a mere 7% cut in pay to keep their jobs!!

-7% means putting SC back to 2006 levels, wahhhhh, big deal, be patriotic and get over it, we don't have the money.

Posted by: Booogie-Mann at February 9, 2009 4:00 AM

Pretty smart guy, huh? Now at this point, I'd had it with this moron. For three straight days, he whined and moaned about the recovery bill, but had no ideas other than the usual Republican tax cuts talking point that has been proven a failure for the last 30 years. So here is my (harsh) response:

Booger-Man/CS/StupidChris/CnnNews/whoever the fuck you are, you've got to be the stupidest asshole on the planet. Let's take your stupidity point by point.

CBO - You sons of bitches whined for days about how a CBO report touted by Republicans showed that the recovery bill would not inject enough stimulus into the economy fast enough. Every douchebag Republican was hiding behind that CBO report - WHICH DIDN'T EXIST - and now that a full report is out from the same group, you cry that it's a partisan report. FUCK YOU.

Enough with the "lobster bill with butter and lemons." You've been saying that for days. It wasn't funny the first time, and it's not funny now. FUCK YOU.

"States will use it to fill their gaps."

That's the point, you fucking moron. States get relief from the federal government and can continue unemployment benefits for the millions that have lost their jobs (who have been paying into the system, by the way), relieve the burden of having to lay off law enforcement, firefighters, school budget cuts or closing schools all together, etc. Shovel ready projects get funded and put people back to work. FUCK YOU.

"I pay almost 40% of my income in taxes, is that fair, isn't this too much, isn't this theft?"

Answer: No, dipshit. It's the price we pay for living in this country.

I pay almost 40% too, so quit your bitching. You know what the real theft is? Corporations that don't pay 40%. Schlubs like you and me pay 40% while billionaires like Warren Buffet pay 17%. How is that fair? How can you be so ridiculously contradictory when someone mentions that there have been 7% cuts across the board in SC, yet you cry like a fucking baby about your tax rate?! Big deal. Be patriotic and get over it, fuck-o.

By the way, seniors LOVE Social Security. They get their check every month. No delays. No hassles. It was a forced savings account started by a Democrat 70 fucking years ago and it still works. They only reason you bitches are crying foul is because you keep using it to pay off other shit. Al Gore and his "lock box" idea was awesome. Too bad it wasn't implemented by your Chimp after he stole the 2000 election. Ask your grandparents about Social Security. I'm sure they're glad that Bush didn't break that system too and rolled it over into private accounts. Where would that money be now if that had happened? Swallowed up like the rest of the DOW and whatever was leftover would be your "finance fee" to the fund operator.

And you can shove that SC $100K chart up your ass. Are you saying that educators, professors, deans, doctors and nurses don't deserve to make money? If you're going to ask them to take a 7% cut, great. Then the person that makes $100K can pay his/her almost 40% in taxes and the person/corporation who makes billions can pay their 40% as well.

And you're right, Fuck it. Why should we fund ANY "Edu-k-shuh."? You never went to school, right? You didn't go to grammar school, or high school or college. We don't need any fancy book learnin' Americans to run our country. Let's just import them from other countries that fund their education. They'll do it for less money too and Americans can just do ALL the manual labor of America. Hell, that takes care of the immigration problem too. See you on the lettuce fields, asshole.

And I love this one: "...Government Officials who never passed a reasonable budget, nor saved a penny for a rainy day (today). "

What do you mean, Boogie Nights? Saving money?! Why should they keep our hard earned cash? They should just give us TAX BREAKS, they shouldn't keep the money for a rainy day. According to you, that's thievery! Gee, I don't know why we find ourselves in this mess after Bush's initial $1.3 TRILLION tax break, not to mention more tax cuts during "war" time, something NO OTHER PRESIDENT HAS EVER DONE.

So keep thinking that the same policies that have ruined us financially over the last 30 years are the answer to everything.

Oh yeah, one more thing. FUCK YOU.

Posted by: Broadway Carl at February 9, 2009 8:55 AM

Surprisingly, I have yet to receive a response. So in conclusion, don't be afraid to feed a troll. They may be a nuisance, but they'll help sharpen your debate skills for actual debate with intelligent people and keep all those facts fresh in your head.

Rocky Mountain Troll, Part Two

The debate continues.

Rocky Mountain News Troll

I recently came across an opinion piece in the Rocky Mountain News by Mike Littwin titled, "Obama trip likely to rob McCain of, well, limelight." A good read, you should check it out not only for the article, but for the troll fight I got into with a commenter named "GetReal."

Actually, when I come to think of it, is it possible that I'm the troll since the majority of the comments (only a few comments to this point) are skewed to the right? Well, here's our exchange so far.

July 19, 2008,10:50 a.m.
GetReal writes:

Not surprising that Littwin barely touches on the fact that all three network news anchors are accompanying Obama for his entire trip, even sharing his personal plane. How cozy.
We will be bombarded with nightly satellite fed "reports" on how "Stately, Diplomatic and Presidential" Obama is viewed, complete with selected video of fainting foreign fans.
In contrast, the Repub nominee John McCain has made three trips overseas since March, with little coverage if any. In his most recent, he went to the middle east and Europe for a week and the networks didn't send any anchors at all, and had a total of four small stories in their nightly newscasts, one of which was dedicated entirely to a verbal slip by McCain.
If anyone ever represented the Mass Media, it would be Williams, Couric and Gibson.
They are behaving like cheer-leading political groupies, and the whole trip will be nothing but a travelling press release for the Obama campaign.
This glaring double standard highlights the imbalance of coverage by the supposedly neutral Mass Media-
But apparently it isn't important to Littwin, for obvious partisan reasons.

Well, this struck me as a bit silly, complaining about the anchors going on the trip and reading his "through the looking glass" comment on how the media is behaving like groupies and the "glaring double standard." Oh yeah, that's right, McCain had to battle with his relationship with his pastor for six weeks when the media wouldn't leave it alone as well as having to deal with attacks on his wife, didn't he?

I couldn't leave well enough alone and I had to bite. I thought I'd take a whack at the hornets nest.

July 19, 2008, 2:07 p.m.
BroadwayCarl writes:

Get Real said: "...In his most recent, he went to the middle east and Europe for a week and the networks didn't send any anchors at all..."

Anchors were originally scheduled to go, but when they saw "Czechoslovakia" on the itinerary, they decided to forego the trip, realizing (as McCain should have multiple times) that Czechoslovakia doesn't exist anymore!
*********************************

I thought that would be the end of it. But GetReal wants to "get real." I'll also include a comment from "T1anda" as he/she also gets into the act.

July 19, 2008, 4:46 p.m.
T1anda writes:

Will Obama be cued with the answers from a teleprompter when interviewed by the three kiss-arse anchors? He can't seem to say anything without it being scripted first!!
It's amazing how the liberal biased media made sure this "out of no where guy" got the nomination. Obama supporters are starry-eyed zombies!!! Neither candidate is a good choice for President. However I will be voting for John McCain!!!I will take experience over clueless, socialist, any day!!
*********************************

July 19, 2008,5:16 p.m.
GetReal writes:

BWCarl-
I call B.S. with your explanation of why the Network Anchors didn't go with McCain, or are you just being cute?
Why do the anchors even have to go? Obama outlined his policy on Iraq right before he left the U.S., without waiting to even talk to any commanders on the ground for updated, first hand information.
I saw today's big overseas accomplishment was he played basketball. Get ready for this important live report and video by Katie and Co. on tonight's CBS, NBC, and ABC newscasts. You want to see how Katie, Brian and Charlie will behave on Air Obama?
Just like these hypnotized, star struck, swooning, giggling, and fawning "journalists" did earlier this year, when they witnessed OBAMA WEARING JEANS!-http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/politics/2008/05/08/obama.jeans.cnn
And yes, CNN interrupted it's regular programming with that as a "BREAKING NEWS" video. I kid you not. Look at the scroll at the bottom.
So much for impartiality.
*******************************

Then he writes this, in response to "T1anda":

July 19, 2008, 5:43 p.m.
GetReal writes:

T1anda-
It doesn't matter what Obama says or does, he is immune from criticism in the eyes of the liberally slanted Mass Media, and anybody who tries to question his many questionable associates or activities is instantly branded a racist.
The press, when not outright ignoring his many controversies and gaffes, will actually make excuses for them providing what they see as needed cover. What ever happened to journalistic standards?
How about just sticking to the Who, What, When, Where,
and Why?
To get an idea of the sheer number of Obama's non-teleprompter screw-ups, most of which have yet to be reported on by the MSM http://gaffenation.wordpress.com/category/gaffes/

Dan Quayle was villanized for misspelling potato,
Why does Obama get a pass?
Three words-
MISPLACED WHITE GUILT
************************

Well now we see where this is coming from. "Misplaced white guilt" spells it all out, doesn't it? Also amazing that you can replace the name "McCain" with "Obama" in that last comment and it would be all the more truthful, but that doesn't seem to matter to GetReal. GetReal doesn't get it. And he sites an anti-Obama website that's concentrating on his "gaffes" but a brief trip to that site shows that it looks like they don't know the definition of "gaffe."

So I respond:

July 19, 2008, 7:35 p.m.
BroadwayCarl writes:

GetReal-
Once again it is proven that sarcasm is lost on Republicans. Yes, I was making a joke at the expense of McCain and the fact that he can't seem to remember that Czechoslovakia ceased to exist as a country since 1993.
And you're not really serious in comparing Obama's teleprompter gaffes to McCain's, are you? Really?

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/06/us/politics/06mccain.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&adxnnlx=1216516357-CKSDypKRvnmtqVAAnIB4gg

T1anda-
As far as non-teleprompter gaffes, you really need to start watching something other than Fox News. Did you miss McCain fumbling for an answer asked by a reporter about health insurance companies covering Viagra but not birth control? Or are you just conveniently forgetting that?
Besides the fact that either McCain can't really remember how he voted on certain positions when asked, or doesn't want to answer where he stands on the issues now for fear of contradicting his vote!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D6IlGXhCUHo
******************************

July 19, 2008, 7:45 p.m.
BroadwayCarl writes:

GetReal-
I just checked out the link you provided regarding McCain's town hall meetings. Perhaps Obama would be more apt to participate if the audience was a true mix of citizens and not just invitees of the McCain campaign.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06...
***************************

July 19, 2008,8:57 p.m.
GetReal writes:

Carl-
I saw that lame article by the loony NY Times and couldnt help but laugh at the irony. Obama has at least two dozen documented gaffes in the last 9 months and all occurred without the help of his beloved teleprompter.The NYT's and the rest of the old media ignored virtually every one. Do YOU really want to compare gaffes?
For every one you have on McCain I can show you 10 recent ones on Obama. The guy is a walking gaffe machine when forced to think on his feet.

Concerning the Town Hall Meetings-
Are you that naive that you honestly believe Obama doesn't do the same? Or were you one of the many chosen "faintees" conveniently dropping like flies at The Messiah's numerous appearances?
Wait until the debates start to see your boy fold like the cheap suit he is. That is if he ever has the nuts to actually show up. **************************

July 20, 2008, 8:37 a.m.
BroadwayCarl writes:

GetReal -
You keep saying you can show me the "many" Obama gaffes and I'm sure there are some. But you have yet to show any examples. And by gaffe, I don't mean a misreading of a teleprompter, like "Lex-eeg-ton Project" or vetoing "beers." I'm talking about major mistakes like confusing Sunni and Shia when trying to make the false claim that Iran is helping Al-Qaeda.

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/03/18/780688.aspx

Or using "Czechloslovakia" multiple times on different days. You'd think someone in his campaign would correct him after the first time so he doesn't make the same mistake, but there he is, the very next day saying "Czechoslovakia."

So please give me some examples of Obama gaffes. If you really think you can name 10 Obama gaffes to every 1 of McCain's, I'll be expecting at least 300 or 400 examples. And please back up your argument with links to reinforce your stance, like I've done above.

I'll come back to this page over the next couple of days to look for your response.
****************************

We'll see where it goes from there. I didn't know poking the bear was so much fun! If you'd like to participate in the fun, head on over to Rocky Mountain News and have a rip-roarin' good time, but at the minimum read the Littwin piece. It's pretty good.

UPDATE (7/21/08, 10:15am): The debate continues.

July 20, 2008, 8:02 p.m.
GetReal writes:

BWCarl-
Here are just a few, do a quick YouTube or Google search yourself for many others. They are not hard to find, except if all you watch is the MSM.
Funny how none of these made the evening news like McCain's Sunni/Shia gaffe.
Bristol Va. brain melt-http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eI5Eo9...

Dead people in audience-http://www.youtube.com/watchv=2ogexqs4XVQ&feature=related

Al Qaeda not in Iraq-http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a_gJpP...

57 states of America-http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OrsBKG...

10,000 dead Kansans-http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tjO8Qc...

Hugo Bush1 flub-http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dxrhWT...

Compilations of lies and gaffes-http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IErnij...http://youtube.com/watch?v=xZ8ykt1Ry5M

Look for more to come with any unscripted speaking appearances, that is if his advisers let him.
Obama said he would debate anytime, anywhere.
McCain requested 10 debates and Obama now says maybe one. He now has extremely limited press access and his wife has finally been muzzled, ala Theresa Heinz Kerry.
Why do you think that would be?

Regarding McCain's "Czechoslovakia" slip, and the slew of stories it generated implying he is senile or losing it-Sam Nunn, a veteran retired senator, former chairman of the Senate Armed Forces Committee and an oft-mentioned Democratic vice presidential running mate or sec of State/Defense within the Obama admin,Has made the same gaffe three times just recently-http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washi...
Where are all the stories critical of Nunn?

Personally I think it is an honest mistake, done out of habit and no big deal.
I will also admit SOME of Obama's gaffes are that also, no big deal, but the number of larger "misstatements" seem to happen anytime he opens his mouth to talk candidly.
*******************************

July 21, 2008, 8:12 a.m.
BroadwayCarl writes:

Get Real -

Thanks for the list. I will admit there are some doozies on that list, although they can be easily explained, for example:

"57 states gaffe" (obviously he meant to say 47 states)

10,000 dead Kansans (he meant to say "at least 10" and corrected himself in the same appearance which was absent on the video:
"As the Illinois senator concluded his remarks a few minutes later, he appeared to realize his gaffe.
“There are going to be times when I get tired,” he said. “There are going to be times when I get weary. There are going to be times when I make mistakes.” http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18564159/)
Of course the larger point he was trying to make was that 60 percent of the Kansas National Guard's equipment is in Iraq, making the recovery process slower.

Your "Dead people in audience" link didn't work but I found it myself. Verbal flub? Yes, but obviously he was speaking to the LIVING veterans in his audience on Memorial Day.

Al-Qaeda not in Iraq - well, the video shows that this is a trip of the tongue was he was saying that there is "no Al-Qaeda LEADERSHIP in Iraq." If you want to argue that point, it's a separate debate, but if Bin Laden or his number two, Ayman al Zawahiri were in Iraq, don't you think we would have found them by now?

The compilations you linked I won't comment on as they can be easily edited to make gaffes seem worse than they are. The same goes for the other side. I try to avoid those and stick to any news items or unedited video. And I won't comment on Sam Nunn since we're comparing Obama and McCain. If we were to start debating on possible VP candidates and their flubs, we'd never finish.

The Va. Brian melt down? Yeah, I guess that's going to happen on occasion with both Obama and McCain in the midst of non-stop campaigning and very little rest. But as far as gaffes go, I'm not talking about a slip of the tongue or a teleprompter misread.

Let's go to my own McCain list (off the top of my head) to explain what I mean, starting with the Sunni-Shia gaffe on March 18, 2008.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fWf7w--TwyU&feature=related

This isn't just a flub. If McCain doesn't know or can't remember the fundamental difference between Sunni and Shia, and may make decisions based on that lack of knowledge or misremembering, I find that a major problem.

If he had done it once? No big deal. But he had said it on February 28, March 17, March 18, and then he did it again on April 8.
http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/15146.html

Here's McCain avoiding a question regarding his vote on health insurance companies covering Viagra but not covering birth control.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D6IlGXhCUHo

If you can't remember how you voted, that's one matter, but when you don't answer the simple question of "what is your stance now?" for fear of contradicting your vote or hoping not to anger the Religious Right base, that's another matter entirely.

How about McCain as a comedian?

Bomb-bomb-bomb Iran - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-zoPgv_nYg

Killing Iranians with cigarettes - http://www.youtube.com/watchv=I9HuY_0VZBI

McCain's inmate joke and lawyer joke - http://www.youtube.com/watchv=o2iqFhHM88o&feature=related

McCain's Chelsea Clinton joke: (This was back in 1998, but remember he ran for POTUS in 2000.)
http://www.salon.com/news/1998/06/25newsb.html

McCain's Daily Show appearance and his IED joke : http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=85762&title=sen.john-mccain-pt.-1


Now, it may be okay for you or I to joke about these things (although I don't think it's something to joke about) but we're not running for President. When you are a nominee for President of the United States, then your words and their meanings and your JOKES are taken in a different context. It's not funny for a possible next President to joke about cigarette exports to Iran as a way of killing its civilians or to joke about giving Jon Stewart an IED as a gift. It's embarrassing. It's not funny. It's. Not. Presidential.

Let's also not forget the events of the past week (which I've posted above, July 20, 1:31pm), as the White House has sent Secretary of State Rice to meet with leadership in Iran, the agreement with the White House and Iraq for a "general time horizon" which is doublespeak for a withdrawal timetable, and McCain's flip-flop on sending troops to Afghanistan; all positions that Obama has held long before they happened. For someone who's wet behind the ears and doesn't have any forgeign policy experience, he was pretty spot on.

I'm going to assume that we're going to agree to disagree. That's fine. But please don't assume that every Obama supporter is a "faintee conveniently dropping like flies at The Messiah's numerous appearances." This is just my opinion but the difference I've seen between Dems and Reps is that Dems don't automatically follow in lockstep for who the party tells us to follow. Why do you think it took so long to get the primary race over with?

I have been disappointed in some choices Obama has made, the FISA vote in particular. We don't believe Obama is the next coming or that he's perfect and infallable. But if my choice is between Obama and McCain, I'll vote Obama every time. We've seen what's happened over the last 7½ years and in my opinion, a President McCain would be more of the same. And even Republicans have to acknowledge that more of the same isn't what we need.