An Announcement – Discussion II

On November 8, 2011 I posted "An Announcement – Discussion" that set forth the comments and my responses with respect to "An Announcement" which was posted on November 4, 2011.

Since then I have received some additional input, which I would like to share with you. Paul Negri of Clifton, NJ the former President of Dover Publications and the editor of more than two dozen books made this comment:

Satire is, I think, one of the most difficult genres to write and you've done a good job with it here. The trick is expressing what you want to say by preposterously advocating the opposite. I think you do that well, particularly with Cain and Romney and your treatment of Obama. Perry and the others get rather short shrift here. I do think Perry and Bachmann make even better targets for satire, as they are truly ridiculous figures (frankly, I think Cain is ridiculous too). 

My taste in satire runs to the absurd, to an even more overtly over-the-top humor and a more poisonous wit. So I've edited the first several paragraphs of your piece to show you what I mean. It doesn't mean that my edits are better, just illustrative of a more absurdist satirical style (see attached).

I'd love to see you skewer Perry and Bachmann in more detail and deflate that windbag Gingrich too. Of course, none of this will convert the conservative faithful, but may tickle the fence-sitters into thinking a bit more.

Had fun with this and only wish American politics was not, at heart, so sad.

 In addition he lent his editing skills to my efforts in "An Announcement" His revisions with his additions shown in blue and his deletions in red can be found here.


Albert Nikemkin of Vienna, Virginia sent my essay to a friend, Benjamin A. Feinberg and shared his exchange, as follows:

I take it that Scheller is kidding or not feeling well?

To which Nikemkin responded:

It's a satire, of course! He anticipated that it would be a risky initiative and, as your response proves, he was right!!

Nikemkin then added this observation directed to me:

I like your foray into satire, especially your willingness to take the risk that some readers might think you serious--which is always the risk of satire. Nevertheless, I hope you will forgive me for not making a campaign contribution, at least for now. Your approach was to push the envelope and exaggerate what we are actually hearing from the Republican candidates--a risky venture since what they really say is veering closer as every day passes to your intended exaggeration!

Next time I will continue with my discussion of, “What can and should we do about the deficit… Where can we and should we cut?” which I started in my post "The Deficit – One Big Hoax (Part VI)."

An Announcement.

After long and careful consideration and extensive discussion with my family and my dog, and with an abiding faith in the greatness of America, I hereby announce my candidacy for the Republican nomination for President of the United States.

I have made this decision, not out of any desire to advance any self–interest for me or my friends or supporters, but out of a deep conviction that I may be the only one who can save this country from the decline, which everyone agrees it is in, and to save it from the fascistic, socialistic Nazi who now occupies the White House.

At a time when our economy is in a funk, when our working people are unable to find jobs, and the world has lost respect for our leadership, I intend to turn that around and bring back the America that our founding fathers knew.

Now I don’t intend to waste my time talking about the present incumbent, who has given up America’s world leadership and after three years has left the Nation with unacceptably high unemployment, slow growth, and has allowed between 11.5 million to 12 million criminals to live among us. Let me be clear, the undocumented among us, have broken our laws and therefore are criminals and even their children, their anchor babies, have not been admitted legally and are therefore criminals.

What I do want talk about are my opponents for the Republican nomination and why I am better suited to be President of the United States than any of them.

On the domestic front the leading contender right now is Herman Cain. Now my good friend Herman has promised that if elected he will abolish the income tax as we know it and give us a 9-9-9 plan which he assures us will increase our growth of our GDP from the present anemic 2.5% to 5%. I say that isn’t good enough. Now my plan is 4.5-4.5-4.5, which will be a much lower burden on the American Taxpayer and will increase our growth rate to 10%. The trouble with Herman and the rest of the field is that they just are not ambitious enough.

I recognize that there will be many among the elite and pointed headed economists who will say that this is pie in the sky. But I tell you – don’t listen to them- they are the ones who have brought us to the fix we are in. We don’t need, and don’t want a lot of Ivy League graduates dictating to us. Most of us have never gone to any college and we have more common sense than the elite pointy headed fools, many of whom spend their time teaching, and have never learned how to make real money.

Now let me talk about my good friend Mitt Romney. He wouldn’t even say how much his tax plan would increase our economic growth. He put out a plan that he calls “Believe in America” that is 85 pages long. Now anything that long is obviously not something most Americans are likely to read and that’s the way he wants it. Because he doesn’t want Americans to know that he plans to only increase the growth in GDP By 4%. 4%! That just isn’t good enough. I say vote for me and get a 10% increase in GDP and full employment.

Now Romney wants to eliminate taxation on capital gains, dividends, and interest for any taxpayer with an adjusted gross income of under $200,000. That is nothing less than class warfare. Why should we tax capital gains, dividends, and interest on any one? I propose eliminating this tax all together, so that it can be used to invest and create jobs. My 4.5-4.5-4.5 tax will do that.

Now on defense, I believe that we must regain our leadership role in the world. We have to stop allowing other countries telling us what they want. We need to give them their marching orders and demand they get in line. That is leadership and we are not going to get that with Namby Pamby diplomatic negotiations.

Now my friend Herman doesn’t think he needs to know the names of the heads of state, or the names of a bunch of countries, and I agree with him. There are 193 countries in the UN. I bet even that pointy-headed Obama doesn’t know them all and forget about knowing their heads of state. Who cares?

But I do think it is important to know who has the atomic bomb. Herman said about China, “They’ve indicated that they’re trying to develop nuclear capability.” Herman, they did that in 1964, and our then Democrat President let them.

Now Romney said: The choice facing Americans is “very simple,” “If you do not want America to be the strongest nation on Earth, I am not your President. You have that President today.”

Now I agree with him about Obama. But Mitt and Brother Herman wouldn’t be much better. Where were they when they let our Congress agree to a deal with Obama that cuts defense spending by $600 billions, on top of cuts already agreed to, if the super committee doesn’t reach agreement, and I bet they wouldn’t? We need to increase defense spending if we are going to be the leaders of the world that I want us to be.

I am outraged that Obama is pulling our troops out of Iraq and getting ready to pull out of Afghanistan. If we are going to protect our vital interests in that part of the world we have to dominate it and we can’t do that with namby pamby military policies.

We have the atomic bomb. It is time we used the power that goes with it. We need to tell Iran stop your atomic program or we will stop it for you, by dropping the bomb on you. That will solve that problem. We need to have a similar approach to Pakistan. They have the bomb but they don’t have a delivery system that can reach the US. So we are safe from their atomic bomb. Tell them to cooperate in fighting terrorist groups, or we will drop the bomb on them. I bet we will get cooperation and the rest of the world will get the message. That is leadership.

We need a President who does not believe in half measures. Half measures will not get us there. I am the only one who has the will to do what is necessary to return America to greatness.

And I am the only non-politician in this race. I never ran for or occupied any political office and never ran for one till now. I spent my whole life in the private sector.

Romney was the governor of that Democrat-Socialist state of Massachusetts, where he gave us Romneycare, and where he was for babykilling. I wouldn’t trust that guy. And how can he say he is not a politician?

My brother Herman ran for the Senate from Georgia in 2004 and he was a lobbyist. He also lost his race for the Senate, which makes him a loser. We don’t need that.

Perry, who has made a fool of himself again and again in this run for the Presidency, is the Governor of Texas, where he set up a huge patronage machine. I think that makes him a politician.

And on and on. Bachman and Paul are in Congress now, and Gingrich even used to be Speaker until he got kicked out in a scandal.

So there you have it. Vote for Scheller for President. Contributions to my campaign are urgently solicited.

Comments are solicited and will be distributed unless the contributor requests that they not be or that the comment may be distributed without attribution.

Bulletin with Humor

My last post was "The Trojan Horse – Comments II (continued)," and I intend hereafter to discuss where we should cut expenditures, where additional revenue should be sought, and will also distinguish between what I believe is desirable but politically impossible and what might actually be achieved, if not now, at some future time. I will also try to address the economic theories that lie at heart of political philosophy and evaluate their merits and to what extent our political leaders have been adhering to such economic theory as their foundation.

At this point allow me to depart from my usual serious discussion and interject these humorous but revealing items, which I hope you will circulate to your friends, and ask them to circulate them to their friends.

Stephen Colbert came up with this funny, but revealing video on the Iowa straw poll and Michele Bachmann’s part in it.

The Colbert Report
Get More: Colbert Report Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,Video Archive

And courtesy of our subscriber and author, Steven Baird M.D., of Solona, California, this ditty to be sung to the tune of "Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer." If any of you can actually perform it, or know someone who can, it would be perfect for You Tube.

Republicans give us some strange explanations
For the recession now gripping all nations.
But do you recall the strangest one of them all?

Poor folks have too much money
And the rich don't have enough.
Though you think that sounds funny,
That's the reason times are tough.
Don't tax the rich; look elsewhere,
And I'm sure that you'll admit
It's giveaways like welfare
That produced the deficit.

If you feed a horse some hay
You'll soon realize
As he canters on his way,
He'll drop something for the flies.

So give the rich tax rebates
For we know that trickle-down
Puts something on poor folks' plates,
Even though it may be brown.

The Trojan Horse – Comments II (continued)

In my last post "The Trojan Horse – Comments II" I responded to only half of Leonard Levenson’s comment. My earlier response can be found by clicking on the title shown in brown above. Leonard Levenson’s full comment can be found here.

I will here continue with my response showing his arguments in quotations and my responses in the body.

Before negotiations got a full head of steam he made a public announcement that the 14th Amendment argument was not a winning argument. You say the public would not have supported such a move. The public is interested in results...not the niceties of the literal adherence to arcane provisions in the constitution. A strong argument by him to Boehner that he was prepared to use the 14th Amendment would have gotten him enormous public support and put the fear of god in the Republicans. Compared to the outrages to the constitution by Bush such as the institution of torture as official Government policy and Bush's bill signing declarations, Obama's threatened use of the 14th amendment have had the seriousness of spitting on the sidewalk in a Draconian Penal Code.

It would have been downright stupid for the President to announce in advance that he would rely on the 14th amendment, if the debt ceiling were not raised. That would have let Republicans completely off the hook. Negotiations would have come to a halt. Michelle Bachman would have announced her vindication, proving that she was right all along that failure to raise the debt ceiling would not resulted in default, and the President would have been on the defensive charged with abusing his office by ignoring the will of Congress in order to “continue his spending spree”. Thus a situation where the public was increasingly hostile to Republicans in general and the Tea Party in particular, would have been completely turned around.

Yes, the 14th amendment could have been used with the public's support, if the negotiations had broken down, default had occurred, the stock market had crashed, the economy was in shambles, and the President was acting in an emergency under the 14th amendment. But this was to be avoided at almost all costs, because by that time the economy would have been so damaged as to almost irreparable, something to be avoided at almost all costs.

Obama is a good man but naive in his belief that he could work with the Republicans. If he could make that realization today there might be hope for his Administration. But I fear that he has yet to learn how to play hardball, a skill that the Republicans excel at. Right now we need a nasty, hard-biting, backroom, dirty, skilled politician... not a Constitutional Law Professor. We need a Johnson, a Roosevelt, or a left wing Bush. Instead we have a Woodrow Wilson who couldn't sell ice in the Sahara.

Rah, Rah, --- but the fact is that Obama is a brilliant negotiator, who understands that there is a time for partisan rhetoric and a time to be low key. Yes, I too was disappointed with his inaugural address as Drew Weston complained in the New York Times. But Weston was nit picking almost three years after the fact when it had become fashionable to criticize the President. The President must be judged by results in a political climate unequaled in memory, and as I have pointed out the results would have been impressive even in a less hostile climate. That is what counts.

It should also be noted that in our system of government obstruction is much easier than positive accomplishments.

Lastly, perhaps you can explain why we still do not have relations with Cuba...a largely executive function;

I think Levinson knows why! For the same reason that the hero of the base, (I will be damned if I know why.) John F. Kennedy set this policy in motion. And every President since (I count eight) has continued this policy. Why does Levenson task this President for not doing what nine other Presidents have not done? That shows an unreasoned search for things to criticize.

why we still have troops in Iraq, Afghanistan, South Korea, Japan, and Europe plus Military advisory personnel in virtually every right wing country on Earth. When do we learn that supporting Corrupt Governments fighting populist insurgent uprisings can never be successful? How many Vietnams do we have to go through in one lifetime? Do we really need an active military strength of 1.6 million and 200,000 in Europe, 70,000 in S. Korea and Japan, 475 in Honduras and 988 on Diego Garcia? Who are we afraid of? Distribution of our troops is a presidential function as is the size of our army.

That is a lot of lumping. South Korea, Japan, and Europe are Corrupt Governments fighting populist insurgent uprisings? “The size of our army” is a Presidential function? Not since the last time I read the US Constitution! Section. 8. “ The Congress shall have the Power… Clause 12: To raise and support Armies…”

Even in Afghanistan the Taliban can hardly be called a “populist insurgent uprisings.” And as for the rest, our troops have been spread to many countries since the WW II. Just like that – this President is supposed to magically make everything all right with the world. That is a fairy tale world. That is a world of magic wands that should be waved. It just is not the real world. And why didn’t Levenson raise this Banner when all the other Presidents were in office, counting how many since the end of Vietnam? Lets get real!

Would I rather have a Republican in the White House than Obama? Perhaps, if Abe Lincoln were reincarnated! But that doesn't mean we should stop pushing Obama to see reality.

I think it’s the other way around. Obama is very much in touch with reality. It is his critics, as I have demonstrated at length, who are out of touch with reality.

Nor should he believe that the Left has no place to go. We will always vote for him but we may not work for him with the old passion and enthusiasm so important in a campaign nor contribute our money.

It is all the same. Anything less than the most vigorous support of our President would risk turning the country over, not just to Republicans as we used to know them, but to the most extreme, radical and irresponsible bunch that have ever, (or at least since the Great Depression) threatened the welfare of our people. That threat alone should bring more vigor than ever before, This bunch makes G.W. Bush look like a responsible statesman. I contend that we have a President we should be enthusiastic about and one who has under the most difficult circumstances, compiled a record that other Democratic Presidents would have envied, but the threat of Tea party dominance should be enough to sound the bugle.

Since publishing my first installment of The Trojan Horse – Comments II I heard from Levenson again. He wrote:

Thank you for sharing your views with me with regard to Obama. You cannot be serious when you say that my views "represent a closing of one's eyes to facts which contradict preconceived ideas....” I had no greater political desire than to have Obama succeed. I contributed more money and work to his campaign than any other presidential campaign I worked on....including the Nixon McCarthy debacle. My views evolved after 2 1/2 years and evolved very reluctantly.

I will not respond to all of your comments other than to say that my vote (1 time) for Reagan is not a very powerful argument against the validity of my criticism of Obama. Additionally, I do not deny that Obama has been responsible for many worthwhile accomplishments such as the Health Care bill. But even the Health Care Bill must be looked at realistically. For example, most of its important provisions do not take effect until 2014 which make it vulnerable to repeal before its virtues can be shown to the public.

Let me conclude by suggesting that all those that criticize Obama are not his enemies but are merely trying to push from the Left so that he realizes that there is a constituency there that requires his attention.

To which my response was:

First, I probably owe you an apology for referring to your vote for Reagan. That was a cheap shot.

When you say that I can't be serious when I say that your views, (and more importantly the views of the pundits and the many who share your views) "represent a closing of one's eyes to facts which contradict preconceived ideas...." I refer to preconceived ideas of what Obama could be expected to accomplish and how. What I refer to as expecting that he had a magic wand. This is not at all at variance with your having been very enthusiastic about Obama and having worked your tail off for him. It fits right in with it.

What I am saying is that having worked so hard you had totally unrealistic expectations of what he could do, and when those expectations were dashed you became angry. Again I am speaking less about you individually, but rather the many for whom you speak.

On the Health Care law there is no chance of it being repealed even if Obama were to lose since any attempt at repeal would be subject to a filibuster. I can't answer why many of its effects were delayed until 2014 without spending more time than I am prepared to do, but I am sure that its authors felt that it was vital that other aspects had to be in place before others could go into effect. There has to be a modicum of trust that the people who made these decisions knew what they were doing. The greatest danger to the bill is the US Supreme Court, but that is something that no one can avoid.

The base, and you are part of that base, basically wanted Obama to take on the Right and not compromise. Maybe that would have been satisfying, but nothing would have been accomplished, and I mean nothing. Not the stimulus, not health care and very few of the many accomplishments I list.

You say: "I do not deny that Obama has been responsible for many worthwhile accomplishments" but that is exactly what you did in your last presentation to which I was responding.

Tell me, if you can, why are his Left wing critics so anxious to besmirch him that they are even resorting to outright lies about the compromise on the budget, which I think was a very favorable one if one looks at the details.

And I received a very satisfactory reply:

No apology is necessary for your reminding me of my Reagan vote. In fact, I found it funny. Of all the ad hominem attacks you could have used against me, the worst was "he voted for Reagan.” Words like "corrupt,” "stupid,” "racist" or "bigot" would not have hurt as much as saying that I voted for a Republican.

You may have a point when you suggest that my anger at Obama is really disappointment at the lack of progress that I hoped for. Perhaps no Democrat could have made any substantial progress against the know nothing Republicans. I think I would have preferred a battle royale (even a losing one) than accepting a weakened Health care Bill, an inadequate deficit reduction bill and the many other compromises, which Obama probably was forced to make.

Before I close I need to take cognizance of one other attack. It came from Herb Reiner of Clifton, NJ, but more important it was repeated in the New Yorker in an article by John Cassidy where he wrote: “In retrospect, the White House erred last December in not demanding a raise in the debt ceiling as the price of extending the Bush tax cuts.“ Well, in retrospect, like hindsight is always 20/20. So why pile on another criticism. But let us examine it. What good would it have done? These things always go to the deadline. Asking sooner would either have produced an extension too short or no extension until default was imminent. But what makes it even more ridiculous is that the Administration in fact did ask for an increase, not in December, but in January (Close enough). See here for Tim Geithner's letter to Harry Reid.

Why don’t these pundits at least check their facts before spilling ink on paper and ranting about things they don’t begin to understand? It does not serve the cause they pretend to serve and it does not even serve them when people finally begin to understand how much nonsense they have subjected them to.

The Politics of the Big Lie

Leaders of the Republican Party are bragging that more Americans are against the Health Reform legislation than are for it and while this is true they cannot resist exaggerating even when polls are in their favor.

Thus Senator Jim DeMint appearing on Face the Nation on March 28 says “Over sixty percent of Americans still want Republicans to fight to repeal this.” Bob Schiefer to his credit immediately corrects this saying, “a new poll…does not suggest that a majority of Americans are against this…It says forty-six percent support this, fifty percent oppose it.”

But before the program is over so many out-and-out lies are told that with all good intentions Schiefer cannot keep correcting the falsehoods.

It isn’t 50% who are against this bill. It is 50% who are against a bill (now a law) characterized by endless and baseless lies. If I believed the lies, as many Americans apparently do, I would be against the law as well. But most people assume that their leaders would not tell out and out lies. They assume that there must be at least some truth to what they say. Unfortunately, that is not the case. What is being circulated are baseless lies, without a shred of truth to most of them. I have spend a great deal of time and effort documenting many of these lies and rather than try to repeat myself refer the reader to earlier writings on this subject - Health Insurance Reform, Health Insurance Reform - Lies and Damned Lies, Health Reform - Reality, Health Care Reform – Facts and Fiction, Republican Talking Points on Health Care, Continuing the Health Care debate and Lying pays off!!!!! Smears succeed!!!! Obstructionism is rewarded!!!!.

But I return to this subject because I keep running into ever greater whoppers. I thought I had heard the worst of them when Sarah Palin claimed “Death Panels” without any basis whatsoever, and hoped that there were some Republicans who were responsible enough to repudiate it. But to my great disappointment not one Republican denounced it or distanced him/herself from it, and most even tried to justify it. What kind of a Party is it that would be so irresponsible?

Last Sunday I listened to the Sunday interviews and if anything the lies have gotten bigger, the claims more hysterical. The claim by Sen. DeMint mentioned above was minor compared to what followed in the form of wild claims of Rep. Michele Bachmann.

I reproduce part of the transcript from that interview with my comments in bold letters:

“Congresswoman--and we used a little clip of what you said in the beginning of this--you said last week that health care reform was dangerous, and-- and you equated it with tyranny. Do you really mean that?"

REPRESENTATIVE MICHELE BACHMANN (R-Minnesota): "I do, because now we have the federal government, Bob, taking over ownership or control of fifty-one percent of the American economy. This is stunning. Prior to September of 2008, one hundred percent of the private economy was private."

            I will return to the claim that the government has taken over 51% of the economy. At this point let me address the claim that prior to “September 2008 one hundred percent of the private economy was private.” Has she forgotten that the government ran & runs the military, the US Postal Service, Social Security, Medicare, etc. etc. But then I realize that she is right. She is playing three cards Monte. It was 100% of the “private economy was private.” But 100% of the “private” economy will always be private by definition.

So we have to look at the reference to 51% of the American economy which the government has taken control of since 9/08. But allow me to expand on this.

           "Today, the federal government has taken either direct ownership or control of banks, the largest insurance company in the United States, AIG, Freddie and Fannie."

            The only part of this that is true is that the government has taken control of Freddie and Fannie, which are relatively small companies. They loaned money to the other entities mentioned to keep them from going under and took Preferred, non-voting stock as surety, but have neither ownership nor control. This is a barefaced lie!

           "The federal government now owns, Bob, over fifty percent of all home mortgages..."

Since Freddie and Fannie own many mortgages, the government owns those mortgages, but it is nowhere near 50%. This is a barefaced lie!

"Now, the direct student loan industry..."

            The government didn’t take it over. It was always the government that was making the loans since the banks wouldn’t. Under the old system the banks acted as a middleman and took a large cut. The middleman has been eliminated with a substantial saving to the US taxpayer. This is a barefaced lie!

           "...Chrysler, GM. And with the health care industry that’s an additional eighteen percent of the private economy…"

            The government didn’t take any of these over. Chrysler and GM were both given loans and are not owned by the government and the health insurance reform did not take over the health care industry. The health insurance companies remain private but are now subject to certain regulations just as we regulate and have always regulated numerous industries. The rest of the health care industry i.e. doctors and hospitals are not even regulated. This is a barefaced lie!

"Remember, when President Obama told Congress you have to pass my trillion-dollar bailout or we could get unemployment as high as eight percent..."

            Again not true! What most economists and the Obama Administration said was that we faced a potential repeat of 1929 when unemployment went above 37% and that with the measures taken they hoped to keep unemployment under 8%. They were a little too optimistic, because they only succeeded in keeping it from going substantially above 10%, though it has now dropped below 10%.

"President Obama’s own numbers, his own economic advisor, Christina Romer, said that Obamacare..."

(it isn’t Obamacare - Congress drafted the legislation much to the chagrin of many Democrats who felt the President should have drafted it for them.) 

 "...could cost the economy five and a half million jobs lost. "

Christina Romer did not say anything of the sort & health care reform could create millions of jobs over the next ten years, another barefaced lie without the slightest basis for it!

BOB SCHIEFFER: "… Sarah Palin famously said last week that it is not time for Republicans to retreat. It is time to reload. Now, she has since modified that and said she wasn’t talking about guns. She was talking about getting out there and using the vote. Do you think Sarah Palin has overstated it here?"

            The fact is that Palin not only talked about reloading she published a map with gun sights “one for each of the Democrats targeted this year by her political action committee SarahPAC. Three of the gun sights, those where incumbent Democrats have already announced their retirement, are colored red.” 

While I am sure Bachman wouldn’t agree, I urge the Attorney General to impanel a grand jury and seek an indictment against Palin for incitement to commit murder.            

   Bachman continued:

“And again, the New England Journal of Medicine released a survey the week that President Obama signed Obamacare stating that the-- ov--over thirty percent of American physicians--would leave the profession if the government took over health care. That’s very serious going forward."

            It would indeed be serious, if true, but it is a lie! And this one is worse than all the others if that were possible, for this one is the result of a plan to give the appearance of truth to this lie. The story originated with CNS News, which Source Watch describes as “a subsidiary of the conservative news monitoring group the Media Research Center (MRC). Originally calling itself the "Conservative News Service," CNS changed its name to Cybercast in 2000. CNS posted an article on their website under the headline: “Nearly One-Third of Doctors Could Leave Medicine if Health-Care Reform Bill Passes, According to Survey Reported in New England Journal of Medicine” and then gave details of a purported article in the New England Journal of Medicine. This was given further credence by Fox & Friends where co-host Brian Kilmeade said: "The New England Journal of Medicine has published a report and did a survey, and they said the impact of reform on primary care physicians, 46 percent, they say, feel reform will force them out or make them want to leave medicine." But the New England Journal in a statement said that it neither conducted nor published the "survey." On their website they posted the following:

“Recruiting Physicians Today is a free advertiser newsletter published by the Worldwide Advertising Sales and Marketing Department in the publishing division of the Massachusetts Medical Society. Each issue of the newsletter features research and content produced by physician recruiting firms and other independent groups involved in physician employment."

“On December 17, 2009 The Medicus Firm, a national physician search firm based in Dallas and Atlanta, published the results of a survey they conducted with 1,000 physicians regarding their attitudes toward health reform. To read their survey results at The Medicus Firm website, click here."

“The opinions expressed in the article linked to above represent those of The Medicus Firm only. That article does not represent the opinions of the New England Journal of Medicine or the Massachusetts Medical Society.”

(Emphasis added)

Any legislation has a downside to it. Any legislation can be opposed or criticized on legitimate and valid grounds. Why don’t Republicans make such arguments? One can only surmise that they are not interested in legitimate debate. They want to incite, and reasoned debate does not provoke the kind of emotional demonstrations, which they rely on to advance their agenda.

We all have an obligation to set the record straight. These lies are not to be tolerated. They are to be denounced. Where are the great newscasters of yore, like Ed Morrow, to take on the liars and the provocateurs?

But what is even worse is that the media encourages such outrageous and inflammatory behavior, for why is Bachman getting all this publicity? Why is she on "Face the Nation"? She has no leadership position in the Congress. She is just one of 435 members of Congress, representing one small district in Minnesota. She get all this exposure because she makes outrageous statements. The media rewards this. Thus the media becomes an accomplice and a promoter of the lies and the outrageous. It is the way to get the media to make them into celebrities.

Lying pays off!!!!! Smears succeed!!!! Obstructionism is rewarded!!!!

 Lying pays off!!!!! Smears succeed!!!! Obstructionism is rewarded!!!!

So many lies have been told and the truth never really catches up. We are warned about death panels, which is a boldfaced lie, and not one Republican stands up for the truth.

We are warned about rationing in Health Care, which is not contemplated in any versions of the pending bills, but not told about the rationing that exists now, that kills about 22,000 of our fellow Americans each year of treatable diseases because they lack insurance and can't afford a doctor which the reform bill would eliminate. That is more than four times as many people who die each year than were killed by terrorists in the US in the past ten years.

We are subjected to political discourse that consists of the “birthers” who without any basis whatsoever question Obama’s American birth even though his birth certificate is a matter of public record and shows his birth in one of the fifty states, (Hawaii) and even though while McCain was born outside the fifty states, no one questions his qualification under the Constitution.

Michele Bachmann, Republican congresswoman of Minnesota, said she was “very concerned” that Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama “may have anti-American views,” and suggested that the American media “take a great look at the views of the people in Congress and find out, are they pro-America or anti-America?” and more vicious smears were propounded without repudiation by their brethren.

The lying and the smearing have succeeded and Republicans who practice them are in the ascendancy. Their win, in the Democratic state of Massachusetts, follows upon wins in Virginia and the Democratic state of New Jersey.

The people are angry because there is over 10% unemployment and even more underemployment.

During the eight years of the last Republican Administration the unemployment rate went from 4.2 per cent to 7.2 per cent and climbing; consumer confidence dropped to an all-time low; a budget surplus of two hundred billion dollars became a deficit of that plus a trillion; more than a million families fell into poverty; the ranks of those without health insurance rose by six million; and the fruits of the nation’s economic growth went almost entirely to the rich, while family incomes in the middle and below declined.

But Obama couldn’t undo all the damage in less than a year and so the people, in their wisdom, decided they preferred the party that brought us to this pass.

They voted for the party of Pat Robertson who saw God’s just punishment in 9/11 and in Katrina and now in the devastation of Haiti. I wonder does he think the same about the holocaust? They voted for the party of Bill O'Reilly who responded to a Jewish caller who objected to "Christmas going into schools" with “if you are really offended, you gotta go to Israel then” not to speak of Rush Limbaugh or the many segregationists the Republican party embraced when they defected from the Democratic fold. They voted for the party of Geoff Davis who referred to the President of the US as “that boy.”

The so-called Tea Party crowd cried, “We want our country back.” What makes them think it’s their country and whom do they want it back from. Is it from people who may not be white and Christian?

They thought it more important that the Democratic candidate in Massachusetts didn’t know that Curt Schilling was a pitcher for the Red Sox, than that aspiring Republican candidate for the Presidency and now a commentator for Fox News, Sarah Palin, didn’t know that Africa was a continent or why North and South Korea were separate nations and she did not know what the Federal Reserve did.

But what is worst than the lies and the smears from Republicans is the unfounded carping from the left. Thus ten days ago, nine days before the Massachusetts election, moveon.org wrote in the Washington Post, “2009: Washington stood by while Wall Street firms that had taken hundreds of billions of our tax dollars swiftly returned to practices that led to the meltdown. Pro-bank Democrats killed real mortgage reform; they watered down the financial regulations bill in the House and are poised to gut it in the Senate. Pharma and Big Insurance scored high-profile victories on health care, and while what's left will still help most Americans, this hasn't sunk in yet for voters. Likewise, the stimulus did some good, but it was overshadowed by the Troubled Assets Relief Program and the bailout of the auto companies.”

Not one word about the fact that the Republican filibuster on all matters made it impossible to pass anything except by a unanimous vote of the Democratic caucus in the Senate, a situation that would, of course, empower single Senators from conservative states, and that this would in turn require undesirable compromises, or that the money loaned in the Troubled Assets Relief Program would soon be repaid, possibly with a profit to the tax-payer. Or that the “bailout of the auto companies” may have prevented direct and indirect job losses of 2.5 million to 3 million. Even if that figure were to be an exaggeration, the economy at a moment of dire danger of a 1929 depression could hardly afford the loss of half that number.

Even the denouncing of the few Democratic Senators who have insisted on certain undesirable commissions or omissions in the Health Reform bill, which has become a sport in Liberal circles ignores the enormous difference between the parties, for the best of the Republicans is worst than the worst of the Democrats. Thus according to the National Journal’s ranking of Senators voting records on liberal v. conservative issues the Republicans who ranked the best were Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins who had a liberal voting record of 47.8 and 47.2 respectively. The only Democrat with a poorer score was Ben Nelson with 46.7 score. Every other Democrat scored better than the “best” Republicans and these moderate Republicans were not at the table. That much reviled Independent, Senator Lieberman, had a score 57.5, but he was at the table, even if he insisted on concessions that moveon.org or I may not like.

And Paul Krugman writing in the New York Times two days before the Massachusetts election in a column that is syndicated, and therefore read far more widely than the Times readership, wrote, “The stimulus was too small; … Mr. Obama’s top economic and political advisers concluded that a bigger stimulus was neither economically necessary nor politically feasible.” This is simply not true!! Obama, in fact, proposed a stimulus that was substantially bigger than the one that passed, but at that point he did not have 60 votes to overcome the Republican filibuster. To get it passed he had to get the votes of Susan Collins, Olympia Snow and Arlene Specter. They demanded a substantial cut in the stimulus as a condition of their support including a cut in the vital aid to states. How short Mr. Krugman’s memory is.

And then there are the liberal special interest groups who urged a vote against the Health Reform bill if this or that provision wasn’t to their liking, ignoring that a flawed bill was better than none.

The slander and lies from Republicans is to be expected, but the attacks from natural allies were foolish.

Well I say to these natural allies – are you satisfied now. Now nothing will get done! In Shakespeare’s words, "Et tu, Brute?"