I observed something very interesting right after Obama’s health care speech last night. I logged into the blogsphere almost immediately after the speech ended and started doing some tag surfing. As expected there were a variety of quick reactions, both positive and negative. As is my practice, I tossed off a few quick comments – especially to right-wing blogs. At such times I don’t dare write anything more substantial because my comments so often fail to survive moderation….
Anyway, I saw a lot of the usual quick reaction…
“Zomboma Nazi Sucks!”
“The President hit a Grand Slam!”
“That guy from South Carolina should be shot!”
“Thank goodness that guy from South Carolina had the guts to shout the commie down!”
If you regularly cruise the blogsphere you see this kind of stuff all the time…. Quick, hyperpartisan knockoffs. It is part of the game.
Then I noticed something really really REALLY interesting. It had been sitting right in front of me the whole time and I didn’t immediately grasp the significance….
Some of the responses I was reading were not quick knockoff comments – no – these were long, organized postings – typically highly critical of the President’s speech.
Remember – I was logged in minutes after the speech was given.
There is absolutely no way that the writers would have had time to write such a long reaction piece in the short time following the speech. Clearly, the “reactions” were prepared before the speech was even given!
I even doubt that some of these writers listened to the speech at all! There were many instances in which the criticisms bore no relation to what Obama actually said. For example, one writer angrily claimed “Obama still refuses to address tort reform…..” ahhhh…except he did and you would have known that had you been watching.
As soon as I realized what was going on I started calling these writers out by leaving comments on their blogs. As usual, most of my comments didn’t survive moderation – but one writer (and I admire him for his honesty) did admit that his “reaction” piece was actually written days ago.
Such open minds we have……
I understand that this is traditional partisan politics, and this is how the game is played. Still, it saddens me when I see it. Last night, Obama called for open and honest conversation and a move beyond the bickering – and I expect we will indeed have some good conversations in the days to come. It is still sad that so many are obviously approaching the process without open minds.
Reform needs to happen – and everyone knows that. Obama stated last night that he hopes to be the last President to deal with this issue. Lets hope that he in fact is – because it is looking more and more like a “now or never” situation – and never really is not an option.
Tags: conservative, democrat, Health Care Reform, left-wing, liberal, Obama, political, republican, right-wing, wordpress-political-blogs
September 10, 2009 at 9:52 am |
To give some people the benefit of the doubt, extracts from the speech were available online several hours before it was given (the full speech was made available to the press but embargoed until it was delivered. That’s how the news services have detailed analyses published within minutes).
At least in the extracts that I saw, tort reform was not mentioned.
So, at least some of these people may have had reactions to those extracts written up and didn’t revise them.
Your last point is the scary one.
If this is the BEST that is possible, we’re never going to catch up to the civilized world in terms of health care delivery (as opposed to the quality of our health care at its best).
September 10, 2009 at 10:00 am |
I think I spit a little coffee out at that one
It’s pretty common practice among journalists as well to use prepared remarks in critiquing a speech — It’s one of the bad practices bloggers picked up from reporters, I think. Almost every person who gives a speech strays from prepared remarks during the presentation, often significantly (witness your point re. tort reform).
September 10, 2009 at 11:01 am |
A couple of points on my immediate reaction. My first reaction was to Keith Olberman, who while the President was still shaking hands with Pelosi, refferred to Obama’s speech as having “a touch of greatness”. This kiss ass, wanna be news man doesn’t understand nor practice the difference from reporting news and biased commentary. On HIS show, do what ever you want.
However Countdown did not start for another 10 mins. He was supposed to be reporting, not campaigning.
Secondly, you suggested last night that my criticisms of the speech meant that I stood for doing nothing. I want change, but not this change from this government,
The medical system needs to CHANGE. It costs too much, it spends too much, and it cares too little. It is called Health Care not Health Profit.
But I don’t think an immobilized, divided, untrustworthy, elitist group of Senators and Congressman can fix that problem in the current climate. It is time to take a step back, re-establish trust on legislation that heals not exacerbates the problem. The President last night proclaimed that this was the Hill he was gonna die for. My biggest concern, is he can’t pay for it, it will be so watered down if he shoves it through nothing will change. So one way he fails and looks bad, the other way he succeeds and nothing really changes.
Mistrust abounds. Spin stinks, and rhetoric reigns! The President on one hand called for bi partisan ship while pointing fingers at Republicans. He SPUN SPUN SPUN. Saying the spending over the last decade on things like tax cuts bankrupted our country and he wouldn’t make the same mistake.
Let’s be clear. Tax cuts are NOT a form of spending. It is not semantics, it is a misleading comment meant to engender class warfare. Not taking something from someone who has earned it is not Federal spending. It is akin to saying if I do not steal from you, I am losing money. Soo while the President is saying shame on you to the Republicans for spreading fear, he spreads jealous and hate based on Social Darwinism right out of the late 19th Century.
I will preach this until my dying breath. In ANY relationship, simplicity build trust and most importantly the OPPORTUNITY to succeed together. the Health care bill is TOO COMPLEX! The tax system in the US is TOO complex!
Simplify the tax code, show Americans that we still need money, and some of people will pay more than others. But make it simple, transparent and HONEST. (Why is tax preparation and multi-billion dollar industry???? I guarantee you that under a a simplified plan, government revenues will go up, voluntary compliance with tax laws will go UP, and trust will go UPPPP. Then use this new found success to tackle problems like Health care.
September 10, 2009 at 11:38 am |
Hey J – thanks for dropping by and commenting. Did you come here and leave a message once before? I swear I have seen “nodot” somewhere before – but I didn’t recognize it was you.
A couple of quick reactions:
You say: “My first reaction was to Keith Olberman, who while the President was still shaking hands with Pelosi, refferred to Obama’s speech as having “a touch of greatness”.
I agree Olberman can be an ass, even if I agree with what he is saying. I also agree that we are dangerously blurring the distinction between reporter and commentator these days. It is not his type of commentary I was attacking though – it was the blog posts – several pages in length – pretending to be reactions when they were obviously written ahead of time. As others have suggested they might have been based on parts of the speech released early – but I actually doubt it.
You say: Secondly, you suggested last night that my criticisms of the speech meant that I stood for doing nothing. I want change, but not this change from this government.
I understand that – but I honestly believe this is a now or never – and never isn’t a viable option. Do you sincerely think that republicans will pass reasonable reform? I am sorry – but the insurance industry has them in their pocket. The insurance industry wants no change because they make huge profits – abnormal profits in the true economic sense because the industry is an oligopoly.
You say: The medical system needs to CHANGE. It costs too much, it spends too much, and it cares too little. It is called Health Care not Health Profit.
Amen!
You say: But I don’t think an immobilized, divided, untrustworthy, elitist group of Senators and Congressman can fix that problem in the current climate. It is time to take a step back, re-establish trust on legislation that heals not exacerbates the problem.
And I say – If not now – when? I simply don’t trust republicans to do anything that will reduce profits for the insurance industry – and reducing those profits is indeed part of the solution – not the whole solution – but it has to be part of the solution.
You say: Let’s be clear. Tax cuts are NOT a form of spending.
Indeed they are not – however tax cuts are equivvalent to spending increases in their impact on whether the budget is balanced. A decrease in income or an increase in expenses come out the same way on the bottom line.
BTW – Social Darwinism is normally a concept associated with the conservative side – and embraced by pure capitalists. The 19th century robber-barons were in fact its first proponents. I don’t know that I have ever seen it applied to liberals before as it is the antithesis to socialism. Can you elaborate on this?
You say: Simplify the tax code, show Americans that we still need money, and some of people will pay more than others. But make it simple, transparent and HONEST
I couldn’t agree more – but honestly – that is a huge task. Health care reform can’t wait that long. Rising health care costs will cripple our economy long before we get a simplified tax code… and how many people will die in the interim?
– hippieprof
P.S. I really liked Kim’s facebook comment on malpractice reform – I wish I could get her here to post about that. It sounds like a very interesting solution.
September 10, 2009 at 12:06 pm |
@nodot:
You say: Simplify the tax code, show Americans that we still need money, and some of people will pay more than others. But make it simple, transparent and HONEST.
This is probably true for middle and lower class taxpayers.
I have doubts about corporations and upper class taxpayers.
First, the latter have access to specialized tax lawyers and accountants who can take advantage of any system that’s likely to be enacted.
Second, in a global economy, they will take more of their income offshore than they are already, resulting in a further drop in tax revenues.
Minor points:
Olberman is a commentator, not a reporter.
Our Senators and Congresspersons are the people that we the people have elected. If you don’t like them, get someone else elected (how many doors have you knoced on recently?).
September 10, 2009 at 12:46 pm |
@Paul Olberman is a commentator on his show COUNTDOWN. When he is covering a breaking news event (such as a Presidential speech) outside of that show he pretends to ‘report’ but merely editorializes. An ignorant public can’t tell the difference.
@HP – the old saying “a good deal today, is a good deal tomorrow” applies here. If you honestly frame an argument (or a sale) on its now or never, nobody wins. Panic and the need to do ‘something’ almost eliminate the best solution just for the sake of a ‘last window’ opportunity. If it doesn’t pass, what are the ramifications? Are you suggesting without this bill there is no hope for America?
I am not a hate or fear monger, nor am I apathetic nor an appeaser. Let’s do something together (speaking as a conservative not a Republican) that can be accomplished, and can lay the ground work for a new communication model between political diametric perspectives.
I so wish the skeletons in my closet weren’t so scary, I want change. I want to participate more, but that can’t happen.
On the Social Darwinism front, I think Obama is playing the opposite side of the same coin. I think he speaks of tax breaks for the rich (as if he is not one) in a tone that instills hostility and the resentment of not being in the elite group for most Americans. I think a lot of Dems insinuate that the rich act ‘entitled’ and they feel like robin hood knocking them down. I think he\they play on those people’s (middle and lower class) emotions to make it seem inherently wrong and unfair, when quite frankly the rich have a right to keep their money. (The death tax is so clearly double taxation)
Andrew Carnegie gave 90% of his wealth away during a time when Social Darwinism became a popular idea. I will always remember his sacrifice and his concept of the “gospel of wealth”. He viewed his wealth as a public trust, but it was HIS choice. He is still portrayed by many as a robber baron.
@ Paul. Let me be crystal clear here. Corporations pay ZERO (read it in big letters ZERO) taxes. Taxes are a form of expense and get directly passed on to the consumer of a company’s goods or services. Corporations ultimately DO NOT CARE about the tax rate. They care about profit. (and so does your 401k. If taxes increase, they will shrug and say oh well, we have to charge more.
@All Andrew Carnegie gave away vast fortunes, and established trusts for the public good. He did this out of a sense of responsibility that many will never know. But he gave it, it was not taken from him. We teach our kids that giving is it own reward, and that taking is wrong. We will say it is ‘more complex’ in government, but simplicity still applies here. If people feel taken from, ill giving increase?
too many thoughts not enough time. Please receive all of these ramblings in a spirit of reformation and helpful enthusiasm.
nodot
(i was abstracting J for the record)
September 10, 2009 at 1:32 pm |
J (nodot) – First – the entire reason I started to do this was to encourage open and honest exchange of opinions – so please don’t ever be worried about how I receive your opinions… well… unless you start screaming “Zombama Nazi!” or something….
Just some quick comments – I am spending so much time blogging these days I fear I am confirming the theory that professors really don’t have anything to do…
– re: corporations pay zero taxes because they just raise prices. True – but because demand is typically elastic any increase in price cuts into their profit margin, which they do not want to do.
– re: a good deal today is a good deal tomorrow. Perhaps – but how long will I have to wait for tomorrow? We last attempted serious health care reform in what? 1993? Clinton was shot down by special interests much as those same special interests are attempting to shoot Obama down now. We really can’t afford to wait another 16 years (give or take) – and still have a chance of reform failing.
– re: social Darwinism. Everyone plays on the fears of their base. Right-wingers invoke the fear of the illegal alien and the welfare queen and the angry black man (not you, I know – but others do. Today Drudge said that Wilson had the guts to “call a spade a spade”….. sheesh)
– hippieprof
September 10, 2009 at 1:16 pm |
I could be wrong, but I read a lot and talk about all of these issues a lot…..and I will say I see over-reactions and crazy zealots on both/all sides of such debates! It is no secret that you could read excerpts of the speech at least an hour before….and candidly, in my view, there was little news in the speech other than the glossy reference to a tort reform test and the emotional pitch referencing Kennedy…..so people could easily and quickly react.
September 10, 2009 at 1:41 pm |
Sockit….
I agree there are crazy zealots on both sides…..
I actually thought there was quite a bit new in the speech – and the tone of the speech – calling out those spreading disinformation (he came close to calling out Palin by name…) – was perhaps the most critical issue.
The “non-reaction” posts I was reading were clearly just rehashing their old talking points – they were really not responding to the speech at all – and as I said I suspect some did not even watch it. In fact, CNN’s quick but scientific poll following the speech suggested that only 18 percent of those watching the speech were Republican.
– hippieprof
September 10, 2009 at 1:20 pm |
In fact, there was a time when GM actually had a negative income tax — received rebates.
Andrew Carnegie (and Bill Gates) gave away huge amounts of money, but still kept huge amounts of money for themselves.
And the argument that increased taxes simply get passed on to the consumer as increased prices is only partially true. Studies (sorry, no reference handy) have shown that the effect is only partial.
And the robber barons (then and now) as a group kept most of their money. Relying on the good will of the rich has never been good public policy.
As to the so called ‘death tax’ (there is no such legislation — who do you think pays the tax?); many taxes could be interpreted as ‘multiple’ since our economic system is based on financial compounding (money goes through many hands — Econ 101). If this were applied strictly there would be NO taxes (which is what many of the people who use the phrase want).
September 10, 2009 at 1:58 pm |
HippeProf:
i guess I vote R most of the time, but hate calling myself one! (So I can see why it is hard for Rs to watch the speech!)….I had more trouble was Bush 43…..always worried about what was going to come out of that mouth!)….although I do not think he is or was an idiot.
I am, what I call, a true conservative! Limited government, low taxes, strong defense, free markets, private property, personal responsibility, equal opportunity (not equal results!) , capitalism, etc (probably left some things out) …….in my view, the things that have made this country great (not perfect!) for over 200 years.
September 10, 2009 at 2:17 pm |
The new Math: I am not enrolled in a University,but Math is still Math. Carnegie entrusted 90% of his accumulated wealth to public trusts. Keeping 10% is not keeping most according the the old three R’s (Reading, wRiting, and arRithmatic).
The point was and is, in a Republic government, and a capatlist economy it was HIS choice as a citizen. If he wanted to take his toys and go home he could.
The opposite voice (currently elected) gets to say ‘We’re going to take what we feel is right”. They become social class police, Robin Hood may be a popular culture icon, but he was a criminal.
Taking is not the moral equivalent to letting someone give. If they don’t give, we can take? We can tax until we feel those who don’t have have enough? That is not freedom. That is a kingdom, and we al become serfs at the leisure of the Lord (kennedy’s, ford, bush’s, clintons, spectors, bidens).
I want the opportunity to have unlimited success and frankly money makes money. If I choose to keep and amount (any amount ) legally garnered for future investments and profit, which also means I can help more people in the future. It is ultimately my choice, not the Lord and Dukes and ordained.
@HP. Yes both sides use fear to oppress opposition and inspire their base. But please don’t use fear in the SAME speech you condemn others for being liars for doing the same.
Obama is above that.
September 10, 2009 at 3:05 pm |
Nodot–
That’s fine, as long as you start from scratch (no public, in any sense, education, health, safety) and acquire all your money without abridging anyone else’s prerogatives.
Otherwise, it sounds too much like having things on your own terms; a bit of ‘I’ve got mine, Jack’.
“no man is an island, apart from the main” J. Donne.
September 10, 2009 at 4:16 pm |
My 2 cent, btw, is the blogging and encouraging debate is ‘doing something’. So keepit up.
nodot
September 10, 2009 at 11:25 pm |
nodot says: “My 2 cent, btw, is the blogging and encouraging debate is ‘doing something’. So keepit up.”
Thanks – and you keep coming by here and commenting too – it is always welcome and *so* much better than doing it on facebook….
– hippieprof
September 11, 2009 at 12:39 am |
I once read an anecdote about Bette Davis: someone was interviewing her, and she noticed that the questions seemed to be covering her entire life and career. She asked “are you interviewing me for my obituary?” and, after receiving an honest “yes,” continued answering questions. It’s long been known that news organizations have obituaries on file for most public figures, and, in these days when time is of the essence for news, I’m sure more and more that’s true of other kinds of articles, as well. Most likely reporters and commentators create general outlines, and fill in a lot of what they expect the president to say and what they think of it ahead of time, then, once the speech is actually given, do a quick revision, and it’s ready to go. In many cases, they probably have more than one article already written–”Obama hits a grand slam,” “Obama strikes out,” and “Obama hits some misses others” (I’m really not so good with the baseball analogies) and then choose the one that fits best. Of course, I doubt somebody who’d talk about “Zombama Nazi” would need more than one. Nonetheless, I have no doubt that if Obama goes completely against expectations in his next speech–deciding at the last minute to talk about foreign policy instead of health care, and completely revising his positions, coverage would be slower and far more concise than we’ve seen in years…
September 11, 2009 at 7:21 am |
Yoga…..
Thanks for the comment.
You may be right – several others have made similar points. I wasn’t really talking about professional journalists – they are indeed working on a deadline and need to submit stories quickly. I was more concerned about amateur opinion bloggers (people like me!) who, in the absence of a real deadline, could afford to sit back and reflect a bit before hitting the “post” button. It particularly bothered me that they were clearly framing their post as a reaction piece when it wasn’t an “reaction” at all.
– hippieprof
September 11, 2009 at 2:09 pm |
My reaction was mainly toward Joe Wilson. There should definitely be a level of civility maintain by congressmen.
Whoever wrote the post obviously wasn’t planning on supporting anything the president does.
September 12, 2009 at 2:09 pm |
OT:
Prof, thanks for the blogroll link. I’ve added you to mine.
However, I feel compelled to point out the typo on your end. We are Cadillac Tight..not Light.
Thanks again for the link.
September 12, 2009 at 6:51 pm |
(blush)
How embarrassing….
It wasn’t even a typo – it was a misreading….
I will change it right away – indeed Cadillac Tight make a lot more sense….
– hippieprof
September 12, 2009 at 11:44 pm |
lmao, don’t feel bad, I visited that blog tens of times and I’m just now finding out it was Tight. Honestly the the T in the header could be read as a L if you’re just glancing at it.
September 12, 2009 at 11:50 pm |
Yeah – I just went there and looked – it was an easy mistake to make…..