David Reutimann's page

Go Me!

or maybe NASCAR weekly.

One ah these days, ah'll be on the cover.

Daytona.

I wanna go to Vegas!

Someone started an alias war

It was an alias fight, not an alias war.

Phoney hillbilly post

Terminators are going after NASCAR first!

Ah'm off to Charlotte North Carolina. Ya'll come and watch me race on teevee on Saturday, okay?

This thread shows *gasp* the number of posts, not the number of pages. Panic!!!

But, but, that's not what the Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy says.

Live life like your going to die, because you are.

David Reutimann wrote:

Actually, I was more interested in what the individual posters would take away from it. You're right, Chuck Grassley is negotiating in bad faith. However, it could be argured that that is part and parcel of being a politician. (Yes, I have been told many times that I'm a cynic.) I guess I'm just curious (and cynical again) if the template through which protestors will be portrayed will change now that the ideology of the protestors is changing.

I suppose you could say it's part of being a politician, but I surely don't like it. Another example would be with all the talk of the "death" of the public option, I've already seen a few right-leaning publications talking about how the next possible option, a co-op, is still not acceptable. What would be acceptable? I suspect nothing, but by making it seem like one more compromise would get their approval any chance at reform can be slowly eroded away and torn apart. Sigh and sigh again.

As for the protesters, I went and re-read the link, but couldn't find anything about protesters. What protesters are you talking about?

*** Liberal backlash: So what’s worse for the Obama White House -- that Republicans are aiming all their fire to defeat health-care reform, or that liberals are now up in arms over the idea that the president isn’t 100% behind a public/government insurance option? Sen. Russell Feingold said that "without a public option, I don't see how we will bring real change to a system that has made good health care a privilege for those who can afford it.” Rep. Anthony Weiner, who made the expedient decision not to run against Mike Bloomberg for NYC mayor, is threatening that 100 House Democrats won’t support any health-care bill that doesn’t contain a public option. And liberal pundits are upset, too. Jon Stewart, in fact, used a sledgehammer last night, mocking the White House for its inability to stay on message, like the Bush White House was able to do in the run-up to the Iraq war. Here’s a fun little exercise: Find one, ONE, Republican (or even a conservative Democrat) who is publicly praising the White House's backtrack in any of the clips this morning.

While they are not marching with signs (yet), this is similar to how the right wing protests began. And they certainlt qualify as protestors in a traditional sense, as they are voicing their opinion in a manner that protests a proposed action.

My problems with the current spate of anti-reform protesters were twofold. One, they weren't actually protesting anything that existed. Death panels, forced euthanasia, socialized medicine, etc. None of that was proposed or has ever existed as possible reform, but they were still outraged about it.

Second, protesting outside is fine, and using signs or slogans that are tasteless or offensive isn't even a problem. But the threats of physical violence and the shouting down of dissenting opinions, the refusal to let anyone try to explain that what they were protesting didn't even exist, was wholly uncalled for.

That is true, but unfortunately such behavior has existed on both sides. For example, one side is talking about forced euthanasia, death panels, etc, while the other side is talking about astroturf, rent-a-mobs, opposition being only motivated by racism, Nazis, the Ku Klux Klan, and so on. It seems that both sides have been reading rule #12 in Rules for Radicals.

David Reutimann wrote:

Submitted for consideration, without comment.

Since you didn't leave a comment, I don't know what you wanted us to give us with your link. What you gave me, however, was this:

The link wrote:

Senate Finance Committee ranking member Chuck Grassley admitting that he probably wouldn’t vote for any type of bill -- even if he got everything he wanted in it.

That goes back to arguing in bad faith, something I briefly talked about earlier. The left wants health care reform. The right doesn't. Their position isn't that there are some reforms they want to see that are different from the left's; they simply want no reform to be passed at all.

Which in itself wouldn't be so bad except instead of saying so they pretend that there are concessions that will convince them to accept some amount of reform. But somehow that support just never seems to materialize, even after they get everything they want.

Sigh.

Actually, I was more interested in what the individual posters would take away from it. You're right, Chuck Grassley is negotiating in bad faith. However, it could be argured that that is part and parcel of being a politician. (Yes, I have been told many times that I'm a cynic.) I guess I'm just curious (and cynical again) if the template through which protestors will be portrayed will change now that the ideology of the protestors is changing.

Submitted for consideration, without comment.

very