When Obama spoke against the disinformation about health care reform, he was particularly vociferous about the bogus claim that there are "panels of bureaucrats with the power to kill off senior citizens." He charged that it was both cynical and irresponsible and, finally, "a lie, plain and simple," that last said with the kind of punch that demands a standing ovation.
Which came at the 47 second mark of Politico's video. But at the 59 second mark, we see that there are some Republicans sitting down looking sour. At 1.06-7, the gig is up; we see that just about all the Republicans are sitting this one out.
Here's what I want to know:
Do all these Republicans think there are "death panels" in Obama's vision of health care reform??
Because we gave Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa a hard time when he sort of appeased a town hall questioner with his "concern" about that same issue. But how are these Republicans any different? By sitting down and refusing even to clap, are they not signalling that they do not approve of what Obama has just said?
This really gets to me. Do Republicans want an honest debate? It seems that they do not, or they would be supportive of the President's appeal for good-faith arguments rather than insidious propoganda.
Please help me in figuring out who these particular Republicans are. I'd like to call them and ask why they didn't stand up to Obama's call for civility.
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Sulaco
Heather Gilligan
Just Thinking...
Ann Gelder
Jan Sand
Caroline Hagood
Salon.com
Comments
After getting an unexpected and very successful rhetorical spanking, they were afraid to stand up and reveal the stains on their pants.
Score this Obama 100, GOP 0
Chuck Grassley got a hard time (deservedly so). I simply do not know why each one of these sitting ducks should not be presumed to have made the same argument as Sarah Palin or Chuck Grassley. They CANNOT hide anymore. They are on record as supporting the notion of death panels.
... wait a minute...
Rated for a valid question. John McCain (never thought I'd defend him) did at least stand up and demand an apology from that vermin who shouted "you lie". Good for you McCain. Let the bitterness go.
siforbes--I'm not denying that "partisan clapping" is common practice; I've been laughing about it for years how silly it looks that one whole half stands up while the other sits down. But there is no precedent for the kind of Congressional support for misinformation that's been going around these last two months. None. Period. If Nancy Pelosi remained seated for speeches by Bush, it wasn't because she was showing her support for lies and deceit. If Bush had called out some of the wilder 9/11 conspiracy theories during a speech and she'd sat, she'd have been called out all over talk radio.
They're the same assholes they've been for the last ten years, minimally, only in the opposition rather than in control. There was a piece in today's NYTIMES that said the Reps were likely to do this, and that it would more than likely work against them--especially if Obama hit it hard, which I think he did.
It is getting easier and easier to see through them. AS YOU SAY YOU CAN SEE IT ON THEIR FACE.
And now I am listening to broadcasters on the main networks lauding the speech and making Obama's case. I'm psyched. I'd almost given up thinking the public option was possible, now I don't know.
They had their chance, and they couldn't be bothered to come up with even the most fragmentary, impractical solution for all twelve years they held the Congressional Majority power. The problem didn't disappear--if anything it grew worse. They just ignored any need for a solution. They deserve to be trampled by an extraodinarily lon line of people all wearing hiking boots and soccer cleats.
But by their fruits we know them. The sourest, rudest people in America, currenly. They don't deserve bipartisanship--that only works if both parties are willing to negotiate in good faith. The GOP has shown a stunning quantity of their stubbornness and bad faith, lately.
But nevertheless... Bravo, Mr. President!!!
I have posted and commented on the number of Republicans in congress who are racists, hate mongers, liars, birthers, deathers, tenthers, obstructionists, immoral and amoral crooks and thieves.
When you look at the video and see the faces of those who refuse to acknowledge the veracity, validity, and legitimacy of what the President was saying, you are looking into the faces of the racist hate mongers who would sooner see the President dead than to work with him or any black man of consequence on anything meaningful, universally beneficial or constructive.....
These are the people who now know that they cannot bring him down, or box him in, or shut him up...These are the people who will resort to violence to protect their interests, and the interest they represent. The interest that have long been in control of the govrnment and been out of control as relates to their complete and utter disregard for the needs and concerns of ordinary cititzens.
These are the faces of those who are there to represent and protect the interests and concerns of the rich, the white, and the powerful status quo....
President Obama has manifest a level of courage the far exceeds anything that they could have possibly anticipated or imagined within the framework of the images and stereotypes that they have worked long and hard to develop and maintain. These are the people who will stop at nothing to keep the 1st black president from succeeding to the point of instilling sufficient trust and confidence in the voters to win a second term.
I have often said in my posts and comments here and elsewhere that the surest way for the President to secure a second term is to BE president in his first term. He began to step away from campaign mode and into presidential mode last night.
It is the moment I have been waiting to see and hear for the past 8 months. It is the moment that very nearly equals the night that we got the news that Senator Barack Obama had indeed won the election and would become the 44th President of the United States. It is the moment that the racists and hate mongers have dreaded since the day he was inaugurated.
This is what they fear most and why they didn't stand. It is because they realize now, more than ever, that the country not only elected and African-American to the office of President. The country has an African-American who has the courage, confidence, conscience and competence to stand up, speak out and BE President of the United States of America.
I couldn't be more happy or more proud.
No one ever claimed that any reform bill empowered anyone to kill off senior citizens, so the "lie" never was uttered. The use of the phrase "death panel" is clearly a rhetorical flourish to anyone with the slightest degree of linguistic sensitivity. The point is that civilized people want end of life matters to be private and without governmental involvement. To ratchet that up to Obama's hyperbolic statement and then brand it as a lie is a cheap political ploy that Obama learned at the feet of his Chicago mentors. Those who sat out the moment were simply indicating that they saw through the stratagem.
The point is that civilized people want end of life matters to be private and without governmental involvement.
Can I assume you were against the special legislation meant to involve the government in Terri Schaivo's death?
Obama didn't say there was mention of death panels in the bills. He said there was deliberate misinformation about it in the public discourse. And there was. Congresspeople--including Jean Schmidt of Cincinnati just recently--have not only been unable to stand up to it but have added to it. They are liars. Why can't they do what McCain said last night on Larry King? Just stop the nonsense.
Now the new way to dis the speaker is to twitter or look at your blackberry. I find it interesting that technologies created to connect people has become the means to disconnect and create distance between the very people who should be talking.
Bill--you Vermonters are something! I wonder if Bernie Sanders will go along with a bill without a public option. Obama's getting it from both sides, isn't he? I go back and forth on it, myself.
Thanks to everyone else for commenting--I appreciate it.
Gordon Osmond: The use of the phrase "death panel" is clearly a rhetorical flourish to anyone with the slightest degree of linguistic sensitivity.
Sarah Palin is looked to for "rhetorical flourishes" that can be appreciated by people with "linguistic sensitivity"? What a looking-glass world conservatives live in!
When someone is so blinded by their ideology or hate even off the wall statements are accepted as truth without question because they already want to believe it to be true. Palin and people like her do what they do to gain a following. There are always those on the far end of the spectrum (left and right) who are easily manipulated by someone who taps into their fears.
There's linguistic sensitivity and then there's intellectual sensibility. You should have left well enough alone.
This is simply more manufactured outrage.
I see them as continuing their obstructive and Karl Rovian ways. There will be no help from them. It will be more of the same. My hope is that enough of America can see them for what they really are after the speech. I can't recall ever seeing that many sour faces in one room.
Blackflon, the outrage I felt at that tiny moment when I first looked at Politico's vid really wasn't manufactured. I felt the genuine thing--an honest anger that asking for good faith debate wasn't something everyone could cheer. It's 24 hours later, though, and looking back it seems kind of naive on my part.
Michael, I hereby award you the Distinguished Medal of Tolerance in the Face of Stomach-Churning Partisan Propoganda. Thank you on behalf of the OS citizenry! :)
Rated for the question - but, I do have to say, they do it out of discipline in my opinion. And, they have that. If the Dems had that kind of discipline as a party, we would be much further ahead in this HC legislation. I don't applaud what they did -- in fact, if you watch some of the back shots from the speech, you'll notice many of them look around before they even stand up. It's all very common place for them, whereas it is somewhat surreal for us.
Obama did some of the best political maneuvering I have ever seen with this speech. 1.) Prime time allotment outside of a state of the union address 2.) Caught GOP off-guard with the PO bait-n-switch which was prompted by a preemptive publicity run w/ a PO "off" the table 3.) Had McCain, giving "thumbs up" on National TV 4.) Have GOP giving very weak rhetorical speech as they were not prepared for what came a them 5.) GOP had to do more damage control due to ill behavior than dealing with issues they wanted to rebuttal. All = lost momentum.
NOW WE NEED THE DEMS TO SHOW UP - I HOPE WE SPEND OUR TIME PUTTING PRESSURE ON THEM.
gordon says:
"The use of the phrase "death panel" is clearly a rhetorical flourish to anyone with the slightest degree of linguistic sensitivity."
rob provides an example in sarah palin's quote. and seriously, if republicans wanted to distance themselves from palin's words, this was THE perfect opportunity. they could have chosen to denounce that kind of rhetoric.
why do you think they shouldn't, gordon? it makes no sense. either they really do want people to believe that kind of crap, or they believe it themselves and that's why they won't denounce it.
which is it? it's not classy to "agree to disagree" in cases like this. i took this picture:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/43103096@N00/3831207796/
and i just saw that guy again a week ago with the same sign. why are republicans misleading that man, and why do so many of you here defend it?
It's funny, I just this minute saw on Hardball that their "big number" of the night was the number 4, the number of Republicans who stood up at Obama's plea for calling out the lies of death panels. So Hardball noticed too and is making hay out of it. They said that the four people were moderates, and represent the key to passage of a bill. I really don't get why the others don't want reasoned debate. It seems to me they should have confidence enough in the merits of their position that they don't need to "cheat" to win.
and that is why they fear a reasoned debate.
and it's why john moore said "do the classy thing and agree to disagree". it's why gordon o changed the subject and wanted to talk about communists instead of parsing what palin said. blackflon set his argument 4-8 years in the future. they don't want to have to defend their positions.
and now they're gone.
i'm glad you wrote this. it was a great demonstration. we can't even reach a consensus that "lying is bad".
Given this posture, these people simply cannot be counted on to engage in reasonable debate. Add a soupcon of race to the mix with Obama and the toxic brew comes to a boil all by itself.
I think we should stop expecting civility or even sanity from this disloyal opposition and engage in the sort of politics one does with an enemy. Because that is where we are in the age of Glen Beck. There are not rival or competing parties anymore; there are enemy camps. I wish Obama would stop regretting this fact and start reckoning with it.
It reminds me of this: My husband and I were sued once for breach of contract surrounding the ownership of Cleveland Indian tickets. It was an unbelievable story, something with details far too complicated to get into here, but we spent an inordinate amount of time in shock mode, bemoaning the incredible unfairness of each particular issue/event going on. I could see we were just annoying the attorney we had hired, who wanted to move forward into strategy mode, when we said things like, "But how can they possibly expect us to promise to issue them tickets into perpetuity when we ourselves don't have a perpetual contract with the Indians, who make it clear that the contract is annual? This is crazy! It's so unfair!" Apparently Oprah Winfrey went through something similar when she was sued by the beef industry; she focused on the unbelievable and unfair idea of the lawsuit when her attorneys wanted to get into strategy mode. She said it took Phil McGraw (Dr. Phil, whose rise stemmed directly from that) to shake her into pragmatic mode.
I like your analysis about the deep seated suspicion surrounding the legitimacy of any nonRepublican politician, and I'm brought back (as I so often am) to the paper I did last year called The Evolutionary Roots of Tribalism.