Would conservatives try to exploit the story of a looser, who ended up sitting himself on fire, for partisan political advantage. Do pigs grunt? Peter Hoekstra (R-MI) Quickly Politicizes Attempted Terrorist Attack, Suggests Obama’s Clueless On National Security. Poor Peter is a fully accredited graduate of conservative clown school. Considering Pete’s flair for over heated comparisons its safe to assume his clown nose is on too tight – 2009 Twitter Incident and Resulting Internet Meme
On June 17, Hoekstra posted a twitter comment likening the brutal oppression of the Iranian people to the plight of House Republicans:
Iranian twitter activity similar to what we did in House last year when Republicans were shut down in the House.
As a result, Hoekstra faced public ridicule as twitter users worldwide began to criticize him for his comparison. This ridicule includes a blog, Pete Hoekstra is a Meme, which mocks Hoekstra’s statement by comparing mundane activities to past tragedies, as well as coverage on The Daily Show
When Pete gets a paper cuts he runs around his office yelling its just like what the Nazis did to the Jews. Then there was Pete and former senator Rick Santorum’s (R-PA) claim they found WMD in Iraq. Which turned out to be left over ordinance from the eighties. A public health hazard for our troops and the Iraqis, but once again a kool-aid addled WMD lie.
What with an economy in shambles, mainly courtesy of our former MBA president and conservatives like Peter Hoekstra, some conservatives are flocking to libertarianism in a game of ya can’t blame me cause even less regulation and less enforcement of regulation would have prevented the worse meltdown in 80 years. The libertarian Reason Editor suggests his own magazine is lying
For the first half of the year, Obama’s right-wing opponents heaped praise on the CBO’s authoritative stature because, back then, the CBO was reporting that the Democrats’ health care proposals would increase the deficit. These same individuals then completely and shamelessly shifted gears once the CBO began reporting that the revised iterations of the proposal would actually decrease the deficit. And the “principled non-partisan libertarians” at Welch’s Reason led the way in this rank intellectual dishonesty.
Libertarians really should stick to writing about our draconian drug laws. It’s the only area of social policy they seem to have a clue about.
Responding to the initial Pants-on-Fire designation, Palin tried to have it both ways, claiming her phrase was metaphoric and accurate. In a Nov. 17 interview with National Review, she said she didn’t regret the remark:
“To me, while reading that section of the bill, it became so evident that there would be a panel of bureaucrats who would decide on levels of health care, decide on those who are worthy or not worthy of receiving some government-controlled coverage,” she said. “Since health care would have to be rationed if it were promised to everyone, it would therefore lead to harm for many individuals not able to receive the government care. That leads, of course, to death.”
“The term I used to describe the panel making these decisions should not be taken literally,” said Palin. The phrase is “a lot like when President Reagan used to refer to the Soviet Union as the ‘evil empire.’ He got his point across. He got people thinking and researching what he was talking about. It was quite effective. Same thing with the ‘death panels.’ I would characterize them like that again, in a heartbeat.”
Not literal, but accurate — as in, well, you know what I mean.
Now Palin is again taking issue with being called a liar. In a new Facebook posting, she scoffs at “Nancy Pelosi and friends who have tried to call ‘death panels’ the ‘lie of the year.’ ” She doesn’t mention it was the neutral PolitiFact.com that branded her statement the whopper of 2009. And she claims she has proof she was correct in the first place. The pending Senate health care bill, she says, calls for an Independent Medicare Advisory Board to find ways to cut costs. This, she writes, “is also known as rationing.” If that’s the case, then every insurance company and health care firm in America is a death panel, for that’s what they do each day: seek ways to trim costs to bolster profits.
But there’s more. Palin cites a letter Congressional Budget Office Director Douglas Elmendorf sent to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid last week, referring to the bill’s call for reducing Medicare spending by 2 percent. “It is unclear,” Elmendorf noted, “whether such a reduction in the growth rate could be achieved, and if so, whether it would be accomplished through greater efficiencies in the delivery of health care or would reduce access to care or diminish the quality of care.”
Aha, Palin proclaims: This reduced ” ‘access to care’ and ‘diminish[ed] quality of care’ – is precisely what I meant when I used that metaphor.” (She’s back to calling it a metaphor.)
Not really. As Greg Sargent has pointed out, Palin is changing her definitions. When she first referred to “death panels,” she was portraying them as medical tribunes that would decide the fate of specific individuals. (“You’re IQ is too low, so no dialysis for you!”) Now, she’s essentially claiming that any cost-cutting that might influence access to care constitutes establishing a “death panel.” Not only is she being shifty; Palin is poisoning one policy debate that the nation needs to have about health care. Does this ardent foe of socialism really believe that the U.S. government ought to pay for any medical procedure that a Medicare recipient might want? What if a treatment costs several million dollars and at best can extend the life of a dying patient by a week? If you question such a practice, then, in Palin’s book, you’re for rationing and can be a charter member of a “death panel.”
The issue of Sarah Palin’s grasp of what constitutes the truth might be an issue for psychiatrists or philosophers of ethics to ponder. I tend to think she honestly believes her own obvious and contradictory lies. That does qualify her to be a conservative, but is also reason to keep her away from sharp objects and any position of responsibility.