> "You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the wealthy
> out of freedom. What one person receives without working for, another
> person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to
> anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody
> else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work
> because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the
> other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody
> else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend, is about
> the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it."


Governing has become a way to get privileges for some at the expense
of others. 
http://www.capitaldistrict-lp.org/what.shtml
A "right" as envisioned by the Founders meant that the government was
not permitted to interfere with your pursuit of them, i.e., your
pursuit of happiness was to be unhindered by government. 
The "right"
of free speech means that government cannot interfere with 
your free
speech. The "right" of gun ownership means that the 
government cannot
infringe your gun ownership. What does "right" to 
health care mean?
It means that the government cannot stand in the way 
of your pursuit
of health care, or impede your obtaining health care. 
The "right" to
an attorney means that the government cannot prevent 
you obtaining an
attorney to represent you.
Of course, "right" has incorrectly come to mean that someone must
supply you with something. If your "right" to housing means that some
slave must supply you with housing, and your "right" to health care
means that some slave must supply you with health care, and your
"right" to an attorney means that some slave must supply you with an
attorney, does your "right" to free speech mean that some slave must
supply you with a loudspeaker, or TV air time? Does your "right" to
own guns mean that some slave must supply you with guns?
http://www.capitaldistrict-lp.org/Rights.shtml
Dollars in the common treasury are like fish in the common sea -
anyone who can will harvest to extinction. That is why socialism is
fundamentally corrupting and can not work. The Fed is making a lot of
paper fish. This is an illusion of wealth. The real fish are gone.

(Message edited by beachman on August 12, 2009)

The Health Care Bill: What HR 3200, ‘‘America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009,” Says

John David Lewis
Professor at Duke University

August 6, 2009



What does the bill, HR 3200, short-titled ‘‘America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009,” actually say about major health care issues? I here pose a few questions in no particular order, citing relevant passages and offering a brief evaluation after each set of passages.



This bill is 1017 pages long. It is knee-deep in legalese and references to other federal regulations and laws. I have only touched pieces of the bill here. For instance, I have not considered the establishment of (1) “Health Choices Commissio0ner” (Section 141); (2) a “Health Insurance Exchange,” (Section 201), basically a government run insurance scheme to coordinate all insurance activity; (3) a Public Health Insurance Option (Section 221); and similar provisions.



This is the evaluation of someone who is neither a physician nor a legal professional. I am citizen, concerned about this bill’s effects on my freedom as an American. I would rather have used my time in other ways—but this is too important to ignore.



We may answer one question up front: How will the government will pay for all this? Higher taxes, more borrowing, printing money, cutting payments, or rationing services—there are no other options. We will all pay for this, enrolled in the government “option” or not.



(All bold type within the text of the bill is added for emphasis.)





1. 1. WILL THE PLAN RATION MEDICAL CARE?



This is what the bill says, pages 284-288, SEC. 1151. REDUCING POTENTIALLY PREVENTABLE HOSPITAL READMISSIONS:



‘(ii) EXCLUSION OF CERTAIN READMISSIONS.—For purposes of clause (i), with respect to a hospital, excess readmissions shall not include readmissions for an applicable condition for which there are fewer than a minimum number (as determined by the Secretary) of discharges for such applicable condition for the applicable period and such hospital.



and, under “Definitions”:



‘‘(A) APPLICABLE CONDITION.—The term ‘applicable condition’ means, subject to subparagraph (B), a condition or procedure selected by the Secretary . . .



and:



‘‘(E) READMISSION.—The term ‘readmission’ means, in the case of an individual who is discharged from an applicable hospital, the admission of the individual to the same or another applicable hospital within a time period specified by the Secretary from the date of such discharge.



and:



‘‘(6) LIMITATIONS ON REVIEW.—There shall be no administrative or judicial review under section 1869, section 1878, or otherwise of— . . .

‘‘(C) the measures of readmissions . . .



EVALUATION OF THE PASSAGES:

1. This section amends the Social Security Act

2. The government has the power to determine what constitutes an “applicable [medical] condition.”

3. The government has the power to determine who is allowed readmission into a hospital.

4. This determination will be made by statistics: when enough people have been discharged for the same condition, an individual may be readmitted.

5. This is government rationing, pure, simple, and straight up.

6. There can be no judicial review of decisions made here. The Secretary is above the courts.

7. The plan also allows the government to prohibit hospitals from expanding without federal permission: page 317-318.





2. Will the plan punish Americans who try to opt out?



What the bill says, pages 167-168, section 401, TAX ON INDIVIDUALS WITHOUT ACCEPTABLE HEALTH CARE COVERAGE:



‘‘(a) TAX IMPOSED.—In the case of any individual who does not meet the requirements of subsection (d) at any time during the taxable year, there is hereby imposed a tax equal to 2.5 percent of the excess of—

(1) the taxpayer’s modified adjusted gross income for the taxable year, over

(2) the amount of gross income specified in section 6012(a)(1) with respect to the taxpayer. . . .”



EVALUATION OF THE PASSAGE:



1. This section amends the Internal Revenue Code.

2. Anyone caught without acceptable coverage and not in the government plan will pay a special tax.

3. The IRS will be a major enforcement mechanism for the plan.





3. what constitutes “acceptable” coverage?



Here is what the bill says, pages 26-30, SEC. 122, ESSENTIAL BENEFITS PACKAGE DEFINED:



(a) IN GENERAL.—In this division, the term ‘‘essential benefits package’’ means health benefits coverage, consistent with standards adopted under section 124 to ensure the provision of quality health care and financial security . . .



(b) MINIMUM SERVICES TO BE COVERED.—The items and services described in this subsection are the following:

(1) Hospitalization.

(2) Outpatient hospital and outpatient clinic services . . .

(3) Professional services of physicians and other health professionals.

(4) Such services, equipment, and supplies incident to the services of a physician’s or a health professional’s delivery of care . . .

(5) Prescription drugs.

(6) Rehabilitative and habilitative services.

(7) Mental health and substance use disorder services.

(8) Preventive services . . .

(9) Maternity care.

(10) Well baby and well child care . . .



(c) REQUIREMENTS RELATING TO COST-SHARING AND MINIMUM ACTUARIAL VALUE . . .



(3) MINIMUM ACTUARIAL VALUE.—

(A) IN GENERAL.—The cost-sharing under the essential benefits package shall be designed to provide a level of coverage that is designed to provide benefits that are actuarially equivalent to approximately 70 percent of the full actuarial value of the benefits provided under the reference benefits package described in subparagraph (B).



EVALUATION OF THE PASSAGES:



1. The bill defines “acceptable coverage” and leaves no room for choice in this regard.

2. By setting a minimum 70% actuarial value of benefits, the bill makes health plans in which individuals pay for routine services, but carry insurance only for catastrophic events, (such as Health Savings Accounts) illegal.





4. Will the PLAN destroy private health insurance?



Here is what it requires, for businesses with payrolls greater than $400,000 per year. (The bill uses “contribution” to refer to mandatory payments to the government plan.) Pages 149-150, SEC. 313, EMPLOYER CONTRIBUTIONS IN LIEU OF COVERAGE



(a) IN GENERAL.—A contribution is made in accordance with this section with respect to an employee if such contribution is equal to an amount equal to 8 percent of the average wages paid by the employer during the period of enrollment (determined by taking into account all employees of the employer and in such manner as the Commissioner provides, including rules providing for the appropriate aggregation of related employers). Any such contribution—



(1) shall be paid to the Health Choices Commissioner for deposit into the Health Insurance Exchange Trust Fund, and

(2) shall not be applied against the premium of the employee under the Exchange-participating health benefits plan in which the employee is enrolled.



(The bill then includes a sliding scale of payments for business with less than $400,000 in annual payroll.)



The Bill also reserves, for the government, the power to determine an acceptable benefits plan: page 24, SEC. 115. ENSURING ADEQUACY OF PROVIDER NETWORKS.



5 (a) IN GENERAL.—A qualified health benefits plan that uses a provider network for items and services shall meet such standards respecting provider networks as the Commissioner may establish to assure the adequacy of such networks in ensuring enrollee access to such items and services and transparency in the cost-sharing differentials between in-network coverage and out-of-network coverage.



EVALUATION OF THE PASSAGES:



1. The bill does not prohibit a person from buying private insurance.

2. Small businesses—with say 8-10 employees—will either have to provide insurance to federal standards, or pay an 8% payroll tax. Business costs for health care are higher than this, especially considering administrative costs. Any competitive business that tries to stay with a private plan will face a payroll disadvantage against competitors who go with the government “option.”

3. The pressure for business owners to terminate the private plans will be enormous.

4. With employers ending plans, millions of Americans will lose their private coverage, and fewer companies will offer it.

5. The Commissioner (meaning, always, the bureaucrats) will determine whether a particular network of physicians, hospitals and insurance is acceptable.

6. With private insurance starved, many people enrolled in the government “option” will have no place else to go.





5. Does the plan TAX successful Americans more THAN OTHERS?



Here is what the bill says, pages 197-198, SEC. 441. SURCHARGE ON HIGH INCOME INDIVIDUALS



‘‘SEC. 59C. SURCHARGE ON HIGH INCOME INDIVIDUALS.

‘‘(a) GENERAL RULE.—In the case of a taxpayer other than a corporation, there is hereby imposed (in addition to any other tax imposed by this subtitle) a tax equal to—

‘‘(1) 1 percent of so much of the modified adjusted gross income of the taxpayer as exceeds $350,000 but does not exceed $500,000,

‘‘(2) 1.5 percent of so much of the modified adjusted gross income of the taxpayer as exceeds $500,000 but does not exceed $1,000,000, and

‘‘(3) 5.4 percent of so much of the modified adjusted gross income of the taxpayer as exceeds $1,000,000.



EVALUATION OF THE PASSAGE:



1. This bill amends the Internal Revenue Code.

2. Tax surcharges are levied on those with the highest incomes.

3. The plan manipulates the tax code to redistribute their wealth.

4. Successful business owners will bear the highest cost of this plan.



6. 6. Does THE PLAN ALLOW THE GOVERNMENT TO set FEES FOR SERVICES?



What it says, page 124, Sec. 223, PAYMENT RATES FOR ITEMS AND SERVICES:



(d) CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this subtitle shall be construed as limiting the Secretary’s authority to correct for payments that are excessive or deficient, taking into account the provisions of section 221(a) and the amounts paid for similar health care providers and services under other Exchange-participating health benefits plans.



(e) CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this subtitle shall be construed as affecting the authority of the Secretary to establish payment rates, including payments to provide for the more efficient delivery of services, such as the initiatives provided for under section 224.



EVALUATION OF THE PASSAGES:



1. The government’s authority to set payments is basically unlimited.
2. The official will decide what constitutes “excessive,” “deficient,” and “efficient” payments and services.





7. Will THE PLAN increase the power of government officials to SCRUTINIZE our private affairs?



What it says, pages 195-196, SEC. 431. DISCLOSURES TO CARRY OUT HEALTH INSURANCE EXCHANGE SUBSIDIES.



‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary, upon written request from the Health Choices Commissioner or the head of a State-based health insurance exchange approved for operation under section 208 of the America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009, shall disclose to officers and employees of the Health Choices Administration or such State-based health insurance exchange, as the case may be, return information of any taxpayer whose income is relevant in determining any affordability credit described in subtitle C of title II of the America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009. Such return information shall be limited to—

‘‘(i) taxpayer identity information with respect to such taxpayer,

‘‘(ii) the filing status of such taxpayer,

‘‘(iii) the modified adjusted gross income of such taxpayer (as defined in section 59B(e)(5)),

‘‘(iv) the number of dependents of the taxpayer,

‘‘(v) such other information as is prescribed by the Secretary by regulation as might indicate whether the taxpayer is eligible for such affordability credits (and the amount thereof), and

‘‘(vi) the taxable year with respect to which the preceding information relates or, if applicable, the fact that such information is not available.



And, page 145, section 312, EMPLOYER RESPONSIBILITY TO CONTRIBUTE TOWARDS EMPLOYEE AND DEPENDENT COVERAGE:



(3) PROVISION OF INFORMATION.—The employer provides the Health Choices Commissioner, the Secretary of Labor, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, and the Secretary of the Treasury, as applicable, with such information as the Commissioner may require to ascertain compliance with the requirements of this section.



EVALUATION OF THE PASSAGE:



1. This section amends the Internal Revenue Code

2. The bill opens up income tax return information to federal officials.

3. Any stated “limits” to such information are circumvented by item (v), which allows federal officials to decide what information is needed.

4. Employers are required to report whatever information the government says it needs to enforce the plan.





8. 8. Does the plan automatically enroll Americans in the GOVERNMENT plan?



What it says, page 102, Section 205, Outreach and enrollment of Exchange-eligible individuals and employers in Exchange-participating health benefits plan:



(3) AUTOMATIC ENROLLMENT OF MEDICAID ELIGIBLE INDIVIDUALS INTO MEDICAID.—The Commissioner shall provide for a process under which an individual who is described in section 202(d)(3) and has not elected to enroll in an Exchange-participating health benefits plan is automatically enrolled under Medicaid.



And, page 145, section 312:



(4) AUTOENROLLMENT OF EMPLOYEES.—The employer provides for autoenrollment of the employee in accordance with subsection (c).



EVALUATION OF THE PASSAGES:



1. Do nothing and you are in.

2. Employers are responsible for automatically enrolling people who still work.





9. 9. Does THE PLAN exempt federal OFFICIALS from COURT REVIEW?



What it says, page 124, Section 223, PAYMENT RATES FOR ITEMS AND SERVICES:



(f) LIMITATIONS ON REVIEW.—There shall be no administrative or judicial review of a payment rate or methodology established under this section or under section 224.



And, page 256, SEC. 1123. PAYMENTS FOR EFFICIENT AREAS.



‘‘(C) LIMITATION ON REVIEW.—There shall be no administrative or judicial review under section 1869, 1878, or otherwise, respecting—

‘‘(i) the identification of a county or other area under subparagraph (A); or

‘‘(ii) the assignment of a postal ZIP Code to a county or other area under subparagraph (B).



EVALUATION OF THE PASSAGES:



1. Sec. 1123 amends the Social Security Act, to allow the Secretary to identify areas of the country that underutilize the government’s plan “based on per capita spending.”

2. Parts of the plan are set above the review of the courts.

I'm going to go on record and say some of you should run an ice cube over your balls while watching Bill O' Reilly.

This is what a liberal justice system allows in this country.

Tries to assassinate the President of the United State....escapes prison to be closer to Charles Manson......and can still be released from prison.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090814/ap_on_re_us/us_manson_follower_ford

And by a liberal justice system I assume you mean one where about 60% of the federal judges on the bench have been appointed by a Republican President.

PALIN WINS!

James Taranto on Palin and the "death panel" debate:

The first we heard about Sarah Palin's "death panels" comment was in a conversation last Friday with an acquaintance who was appalled by it. Our interlocutor is not a Democratic partisan but a high-minded centrist who deplores extremist rhetoric whatever the source. We don't even know if he has a position on ObamaCare. From his description, it sounded to us as though Palin really had gone too far.

A week later, it is clear that she has won the debate.

President Obama himself took the comments of the former governor of the 47th-largest state seriously enough to answer them directly in his so-called town-hall meeting Tuesday in Portsmouth, N.H. As we noted Wednesday, he was callous rather than reassuring, speaking glibly--to audience laughter--about "pulling the plug on grandma."

The Los Angeles Times reports that Palin has won a legislative victory as well:

A Senate panel has decided to scrap the part of its healthcare bill that in recent days has given rise to fears of government "death panels," with one lawmaker suggesting the proposal was just too confusing.

The Senate Finance Committee is taking the idea of advance care planning consultations with doctors off the table as it works to craft its version of healthcare legislation, a Democratic committee aide said Thursday.

Sen. Charles E. Grassley of Iowa, ranking Republican on the committee, said the panel dropped the idea because it could be "misinterpreted or implemented incorrectly." . . .

One can hardly deny that Palin's reference to "death panels" was inflammatory. But another way of putting that is that it was vivid and attention-getting. Level-headed liberal commentators who favor more government in health care, including Slate's Mickey Kaus and the Washington Post's Charles Lane, have argued that the end-of-life provision in the bill is problematic--acknowledging in effect (and, in Kaus's case, in so many words) that Palin had a point.

If you believe the media, Sarah Palin is a mediocre intellect, if even that, while President Obama is brilliant. So how did she manage to best him in this debate? Part of the explanation is that disdain for Palin reflects intellectual snobbery more than actual intellect. Still, Obama's critics, in contrast with Palin's, do not deny the president's intellectual aptitude. Intelligence, however, does not make one immune from hubris.

So you believe because Palin may have instigated a change in the health bill whereby seniors will not get government reimbursement for a counseling session on end-of-life options that this is some sort of big victory for her (notwithstanding that she previously supported this sort of counseling)?

I'm afraid if this is a victory, I'm not sure what Palin won. But in any event, to declare this a major Palin victory shows about the same intellectual acuity as a log, or worse still as a Palin.

Interesting thoughts from Richard Cohen on Palin's "victory."

Palin's Red Menace
By Richard Cohen
Tuesday, August 18, 2009

Try this on for size: Palinism. What is it? It is an updated version of McCarthyism, which takes its name from the late Sen. Joseph McCarthy, the Wisconsin liar, demagogue and drunk, and means, according to Wikipedia, "reckless, unsubstantiated accusations, as well as demagogic attacks on the character or patriotism of political adversaries." As far as we know, Sarah Palin is not a drunk.

But she certainly shares McCarthy's other attributes -- and this one as well: the ability to drive the debate. In McCarthy's day, it was anti-communism coupled with national security, and it hardly mattered that he frequently did not have his facts straight. He got huge amounts of attention anyway.

With Palin, the subject is health care, which in many ways is the Red Menace of our day and lends itself to a kind of political pornography. For sheer disregard of the facts, her statement about President Obama's "death panel" has to rank with McCarthy's announcement that "I have here in my hand a list of 205" (or 57 or 72 or whatever) names of communists in the State Department. They were both false -- McCarthy's by commission, Palin's probably by omission. She rarely knows her facts.

The most depressing aspects of McCarthy's career were not just the excesses of the man himself but the refusal of others -- mainly his fellow Republicans -- to either rein him in or defend his victims. Now we are seeing something similar with Palin. Say what you will about any of the health-care proposals, not one of them suggests a "death panel" empowered to withhold medical services from the aged or those with disabilities. To suggest that one exists is reprehensible. To state it outright is either boldly demagogic or just plain loopy.

Yet, you can beat the bushes to a fine powder and find only two Republicans of note -- Sens. Johnny Isakson and Lisa Murkowski -- who had the courage or the decency to tell Palin that she doesn't know what she's talking about. Certainly, this was not the case with Newt Gingrich, the former House speaker, who in fact virtually seconded Palin's charge. This is not just because Gingrich himself can be casual with the facts but also because his urge to be politically expedient often overwhelms his convictions.

Something similar could be said about Sen. Charles Grassley, a key Senate Republican on health care. He mouthed a limp echo of Palin's lie and then boldly looked the other way. Sadly, the list of the meek includes Palin's Geppetto, Sen. John McCain, who fashioned her out of political desperation and has yet to whittle her down to size. In an update of the folk tale, I'd like to think that whenever he praises Palin, his own nose grows.

As with McCarthyism, Palinism is a product of its times. McCarthy exploited the public's fear of communism and communists. Not only were they abroad, but they were here in America -- spies, fellow travelers, pinkos, apologists, intellectuals and short, bespectacled minorities. It was their very ubiquity and invisibility that made them so dangerous.

Health-care reform provides Palin the same opportunity. The klutziness of Obama's effort -- people think they know what they can lose but have no idea of what they can gain -- again raises the specter of invisible forces that will take but not give, dictate but not listen, tax but not provide. But as is almost always the case with right-wing populists, the shooter has aimed at her own foot. Palin's "death panel" remarks either killed or helped kill the proposal to offer end-of-life counseling. The victims will be the poor, the uninformed and the ideologically blind who will find themselves unable to make a graceful exit. The affluent have their living wills and such. The poor have only their grief.

McCarthy's career was mercifully short. He made his famous speech in 1950 and was censured by the Senate four years later. By 1957, he was dead. His rise was a product of a now-antiquated newspaper culture, but his fall was abetted by the advent of TV. Americans looked and were appalled. He was finished.

Palin, as wholesome as McCarthy was not, is ready-made for television. Still, she has gone from a 57 percent favorable rating soon after McCain picked her as his running mate to a current 39 percent -- a negative landslide of justifiable proportions. Before she fades into fringedom, she will do one bad and one good thing -- hurt the very people she supposedly champions and expose the appalling opportunism of the Republican leaders.

I have in my hand a list of their names.

Maybe it's just me, but is anyone else pretty happy that Robert Novak died yesterday? I actually smiled when I first heard it.

While watching some FOX News during my morning workout, I began pondering just how nutty the right has gotten in recent months. Not just aggressive, but nutty and aggressive.

Today I read this interesting column by Rick Perlstein. He nails some key issues. He notes that while there has always been an "ever-present underbrush of American paranoia," in the past the media had the good sense not to give these extremists the time of day. They are, after all, extremists.
________

In America, Crazy Is a Preexisting Condition
Birthers, Town Hall Hecklers and the Return of Right-Wing Rage
By Rick Perlstein
Sunday, August 16, 2009

In Pennsylvania last week, a citizen, burly, crew-cut and trembling with rage, went nose to nose with his baffled senator: "One day God's going to stand before you, and he's going to judge you and the rest of your damned cronies up on the Hill. And then you will get your just deserts." He was accusing Arlen Specter of being too kind to President Obama's proposals to make it easier for people to get health insurance.

In Michigan, meanwhile, the indelible image was of the father who wheeled his handicapped adult son up to Rep. John Dingell and bellowed that "under the Obama health-care plan, which you support, this man would be given no care whatsoever." He pressed his case further on Fox News.

In New Hampshire, outside a building where Obama spoke, cameras trained on the pistol strapped to the leg of libertarian William Kostric. He then explained on CNN why the "tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time by the blood of tyrants and patriots."

It was interesting to hear a BBC reporter on the radio trying to make sense of it all. He quoted a spokesman for the conservative Americans for Tax Reform: "Either this is a genuine grass-roots response, or there's some secret evil conspirator living in a mountain somewhere orchestrating all this that I've never met." The spokesman was arguing, of course, that it was spontaneous, yet he also proudly owned up to how his group has helped the orchestration, through sample letters to the editor and "a little bit of an ability to put one-pagers together."

The BBC also quoted liberal Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin's explanation: "They want to get a little clip on YouTube of an effort to disrupt a town meeting and to send the congressman running for his car. This is an organized effort . . . you can trace it back to the health insurance industry."

So the birthers, the anti-tax tea-partiers, the town hall hecklers -- these are "either" the genuine grass roots or evil conspirators staging scenes for YouTube? The quiver on the lips of the man pushing the wheelchair, the crazed risk of carrying a pistol around a president -- too heartfelt to be an act. The lockstep strangeness of the mad lies on the protesters' signs -- too uniform to be spontaneous. They are both. If you don't understand that any moment of genuine political change always produces both, you can't understand America, where the crazy tree blooms in every moment of liberal ascendancy, and where elites exploit the crazy for their own narrow interests.

In the early 1950s, Republicans referred to the presidencies of Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman as "20 years of treason" and accused the men who led the fight against fascism of deliberately surrendering the free world to communism. Mainline Protestants published a new translation of the Bible in the 1950s that properly rendered the Greek as connoting a more ambiguous theological status for the Virgin Mary; right-wingers attributed that to, yes, the hand of Soviet agents. And Vice President Richard Nixon claimed that the new Republicans arriving in the White House "found in the files a blueprint for socializing America."

When John F. Kennedy entered the White House, his proposals to anchor America's nuclear defense in intercontinental ballistic missiles -- instead of long-range bombers -- and form closer ties with Eastern Bloc outliers such as Yugoslavia were taken as evidence that the young president was secretly disarming the United States. Thousands of delegates from 90 cities packed a National Indignation Convention in Dallas, a 1961 version of today's tea parties; a keynote speaker turned to the master of ceremonies after his introduction and remarked as the audience roared: "Tom Anderson here has turned moderate! All he wants to do is impeach [Supreme Court Chief Justice Earl] Warren. I'm for hanging him!"

Before the "black helicopters" of the 1990s, there were right-wingers claiming access to secret documents from the 1920s proving that the entire concept of a "civil rights movement" had been hatched in the Soviet Union; when the landmark 1964 Civil Rights Act was introduced, one frequently read in the South that it would "enslave" whites. And back before there were Bolsheviks to blame, paranoids didn't lack for subversives -- anti-Catholic conspiracy theorists even had their own powerful political party in the 1840s and '50s.

The instigation is always the familiar litany: expansion of the commonweal to empower new communities, accommodation to internationalism, the heightened influence of cosmopolitans and the persecution complex of conservatives who can't stand losing an argument. My personal favorite? The federal government expanded mental health services in the Kennedy era, and one bill provided for a new facility in Alaska. One of the most widely listened-to right-wing radio programs in the country, hosted by a former FBI agent, had millions of Americans believing it was being built to intern political dissidents, just like in the Soviet Union.

So, crazier then, or crazier now? Actually, the similarities across decades are uncanny. When Adlai Stevenson spoke at a 1963 United Nations Day observance in Dallas, the Indignation forces thronged the hall, sweating and furious, shrieking down the speaker for the television cameras. Then, when Stevenson was walked to his limousine, a grimacing and wild-eyed lady thwacked him with a picket sign. Stevenson was baffled. "What's the matter, madam?" he asked. "What can I do for you?" The woman responded with self-righteous fury: "Well, if you don't know I can't help you."

The various elements -- the liberal earnestly confused when rational dialogue won't hold sway; the anti-liberal rage at a world self-evidently out of joint; and, most of all, their mutual incomprehension -- sound as fresh as yesterday's news. (Internment camps for conservatives? That's the latest theory of tea party favorite Michael Savage.)

The orchestration of incivility happens, too, and it is evil. Liberal power of all sorts induces an organic and crazy-making panic in a considerable number of Americans, while people with no particular susceptibility to existential terror -- powerful elites -- find reason to stoke and exploit that fear. And even the most ideologically fair-minded national media will always be agents of cosmopolitanism: something provincials fear as an outside elite intent on forcing different values down their throats.

That provides an opening for vultures such as Richard Nixon, who, the Watergate investigation discovered, had his aides make sure that seed blossomed for his own purposes. "To the Editor . . . Who in the hell elected these people to stand up and read off their insults to the President of the United States?" read one proposed "grass-roots" letter manufactured by the White House. "When will you people realize that he was elected President and he is entitled to the respect of that office no matter what you people think of him?" went another.

Liberals are right to be vigilant about manufactured outrage, and particularly about how the mainstream media can too easily become that outrage's entry into the political debate. For the tactic represented by those fake Nixon letters was a long-term success. Conservatives have become adept at playing the media for suckers, getting inside the heads of editors and reporters, haunting them with the thought that maybe they are out-of-touch cosmopolitans and that their duty as tribunes of the people's voices means they should treat Obama's creation of "death panels" as just another justiciable political claim. If 1963 were 2009, the woman who assaulted Adlai Stevenson would be getting time on cable news to explain herself. That, not the paranoia itself, makes our present moment uniquely disturbing.

It used to be different. You never heard the late Walter Cronkite taking time on the evening news to "debunk" claims that a proposed mental health clinic in Alaska is actually a dumping ground for right-wing critics of the president's program, or giving the people who made those claims time to explain themselves on the air. The media didn't adjudicate the ever-present underbrush of American paranoia as a set of "conservative claims" to weigh, horse-race-style, against liberal claims. Back then, a more confident media unequivocally labeled the civic outrage represented by such discourse as "extremist" -- out of bounds.

The tree of crazy is an ever-present aspect of America's flora. Only now, it's being watered by misguided he-said-she-said reporting and taking over the forest. Latest word is that the enlightened and mild provision in the draft legislation to help elderly people who want living wills -- the one hysterics turned into the "death panel" canard -- is losing favor, according to the Wall Street Journal, because of "complaints over the provision."

Good thing our leaders weren't so cowardly in 1964, or we would never have passed a civil rights bill -- because of complaints over the provisions in it that would enslave whites.

Funny, while I was watching MSNBC, I was really struck by just how nutty the left has gotten in recent months.

Cat:

Although I didn't like R. Novak's politics or personality, he wasn't in the same demagogue league as Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh. I can't say I was happy about R. Novak's death, even though I rarely agreed with him and didn't particularly like him.

Now as to those other two--Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh--I will do everything in my power to stay alive long enough to see them die.

I'm sort of on the fence about Glenn Beck. I'm inclined not to dwell on his death as he strikes me as a pathetic little twit unworthy of attention. However, if his bush-league attempts to demagogue issues graduate to the big leagues and show some effectiveness, I will put him too on death watch.

What about Bill O'Reilly?

Like R. Novak I don't particularly like Bill O'Reilly. However, for some inexplicable reason, he doesn't quite piss me off as much as Hannity or Limbaugh, and therefore does not make the list of those who should get priority treatment from our death panel.

On the other hand, the radio/net kook Michael Savage should be summarily executed now. Put the Blackwater mercenaries to good use and have them take that evil SOB out.

I cannot comment on Michael Savage since I don't listen to the radio. But I'll take your word for it and will forward your wish to the Health Care Death Panel.

However, since the Death Panel will be run by far-lefties and Democommies, Blackwater won't get any of the action. We are, however, negotiating with what is left of the Manson gang although Charlie kind of blew his chances personally with his exceedingly politically incorrect forehead tattoo.

Ann Coulter is number one on my dead pool. Actually, before the execution, I'm thinking of having it - I'm pretty certain Ann is a trannie of some sort - put into gen pop with the guys for a week at Attica. A nice long week of being ass pounded would enlighten it a bit, before the execution.

Whoops, I missed naming Ann Coulter and have added her to the priority list. Before the execution, she'll get gangbanged and double-pentrated by Limbaugh and Hannity, after which it will be revealed to both of them she is a post-op ladyboy. During the gangbang, Coulter will learn that Limbaugh and Hannity have miniscule dicks. She will laugh at them and call them quasi-lady boys, also asking "Is that a small pencil in my ass, or are you just happy to see me?" After this Saddam Hussein's gallows will be wheeled out and a bunch of Shia Muslims will be present to taunt the three of them as they walk to meet their fate. While all this is going on Glenn Beck will be masturbating in a corner while crybabying with his diapers on.

Well, I can have my dreams, can't I?

(Message edited by LAguy on August 20, 2009)

I guess you libs will be celebrating when the spoiled, alcoholic, murderer Ted Kennedy expires. Can you believe he wants to change back the law on the appointment of his Senate seat when he finally rots in HELL!

http://wbztv.com/local/ted.kennedy.senate.2.1136412.html

By the way....do you really think the government can run Health Care when that can't even run the "Cash for Clunkers" ripoff! Just a very tiny and simple, small program compared to trillions of dollars and a complex Health Care system.

Cash Trouble Prompts Some Dealers To Opt Out Of Cash For Clunkers
August 19, 2009 (1:38 pm) Tyler Savery

The Cash For Clunkers program has been a hot topic in the media as well as with satellite radio investors. The program was implemented to spur sales in the auto channel, while at the same time making the American roads a little bit greener. Some New York dealers aren’t seeing enough of the real green (money) though, and have opted out of the program.

It has been reported that hundreds of New York dealers have already withdrawn from the program which thus far has sold 435,102 vehicles with rebate claims totalling $1.8 billion. According to the Greater New York Automobile Dealers Association about half its 425 members have left the Cash For Clunkers program because they cannot afford to offer more rebates, and payment on rebates already given are as yet not honored by the government.

As SiriusBuzz readers are aware, the Cash For Clunkers program offers up to $4,500 in rebates for consumers who trade in vehicles getting 18 mpg or less for a more fuel-efficient car or truck. The issue here is that dealers are paying the rebates out of pocket and having to wait to be reimbursed by the government. As with anything that involves the government, the process is tedious and slow moving. Current estimates for the New York group are that only 2% of the requested rebates have been paid out so far by the government. Essentially, the dealerships are fronting the money, have to destroy the “clunker”, and then have to wait what seems an eternity to get their reimbursement.

According to Mark Schienberg, the group’s president, “…it’s in the hands of this enormous bureaucracy and regulatory agency. If they don’t get out of their own way, this program is going to be a huge failure.”

The program has spurred car sales and shows potential to work, but the money needs to flow quickly, and this simply is not happening. Dealerships love to move cars off of the lot, but they also need cash to order new inventory. Simply stated, the dealers are finding themselves in a cash crunch which they can not afford to expand upon.

Whether other dealerships in other areas are facing the same hurdles is unknown.

(Message edited by beachman on August 20, 2009)

Here what Obama has to say about the efficiency of Private Companies versus companies that are subsidized by the Federal government.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pj73rqEpr1A


So under Obama Care if you lose your job or change jobs you cannot chose a new private plan...you are required to pay into the government plan. You have no choice!!!!!! How do you liberals spin that one.

(Message edited by beachman on August 20, 2009)

Beachman:

It's too bad your private health insurance company, your love for which apparently substitutes for sex, doesn't pay for treating severe retardation.

Oh, and your mama wears combat boots. And K-Mart stretch pants too.

Laguy....

Looks like your butt buddy Obama borrowed your mamma's jeans for the All Star game. Did you teach him how to throw like a pussy!


http://hotairpundit.blogspot.com/2009/07/cnn-makes-fun-of-obamas-mom-jeans-at.html

His initials are Beachman

Everyone who participates on this thread has AIDS...

I guess Beachman is a Sarah Palin fan.

The original concept of CH was excitement(sex), adventure(sex), and beautiful women(sex). A troll is a troll.
I'd rather stick a leaky Duracell battery in my urethra than read your political point of views[crap]
Beachman, here's a test for you to use your skills and powers of observation:


(Message edited by copperfieldkid on August 22, 2009)

CFK, the bigger question is, WHERE DO YOU FIND THIS STUFF?

I would probably stick my dick in any one of them if I had a few drinks.

The last one belongs to CFK...

How would you know??? ;-)

I am sancho,

---beat me to it!

Mr. Dik, why don't you have a seat....

There is a lot of the Democratic platform and their vision of what the US should be in this.....

THE OMINOUS PARALLELS, by Leonard Peikoff...

A Veritas News Service Book Review - "A magnificent work... it should be required reading for all Americans. This book reveals socialisms nasty little secret." William Cooper

Excerpt from Chapter One.

The Nazis were not a tribe of prehistoric savages. Their crimes were the official, legal acts and policies of modern Germany -- an educated, industrialized, CIVILIZED Western European nation, a nation renowned throughout the world for the luster of its intellectual and cultural achievements. By reason of its long line of famous artists and thinkers, Germany has been called "the land of poets and philosophers."

But its education offered the country no protection against the Sergeant Molls in its ranks. The German university students were among the earliest groups to back Hitler. The intellectuals were among his regime's most ardent supporters. Professors with distinguished academic credentials, eager to pronounce their benediction on the Fuhrer's cause, put their scholarship to work full time; they turned out a library of admiring volumes, adorned with obscure allusions and learned references.

The Nazis did not gain power against the country's wishes. In this respect there was no gulf between the intellectuals and the people. The Nazi party was elected to office by the freely cast ballots of millions of German voters, including men on every social, economic, and educational level. In the national election of July 1932, the Nazis obtained 37% of the vote and a plurality of seats in the Reichstag. On January 30, 1933, in full accordance with the country's legal and constitutional principles, Hitler was appointed Chancellor. Five weeks later, in the last (and semi-free) election of the pre-totalitarian period, the Nazis obtained 17 million votes, 44% of the total.

The voters were aware of the Nazi ideology. Nazi literature, including statements of the Nazi plans for the future, papered the country during the last years of the Weimar Republic. "Mein Kampf" alone sold more than 200,000 copies between 1925 and 1932. The essence of the political system which Hitler intended to establish in Germany was clear.

In 1933, when Hitler did establish the system he had promised, he did not find it necessary to forbid foreign travel. Until World War II, those Germans who wished to flee the country could do so. The overwhelming majority did not. They were satisfied to remain.

The system which Hitler established -- the social reality which so many Germans were so eager to embrace or so willing to endure -- the politics which began in a theory and ended in Auschwitz -- was: the "total state". The term, from which the adjective "totalitarian" derives, was coined by Hitler's mentor, Mussolini.

The state must have absolute power over every man and over every sphere of human activity, the Nazis declared. "The authority of the Fuhrer is not limited by checks and controls, by special autonomous bodies or individual rights, but it is free and independent, all-inclusive and unlimited," said Ernst Huber, an official party spokesman, in 1933.

"The concept of personal liberties of the individual as opposed to the authority of the state had to disappear; it is not to be reconciled with the principle of the nationalistic Reich," said Huber to a country which listened, and nodded. "There are no personal liberties of the individual which fall outside of the realm of the state and which must be respected by the state... The constitution of the nationalistic Reich is therefore not based upon a system of inborn and inalienable rights of the individual."

If the term "statism" designates concentration of power in the state at the expense of individual liberty, then Nazism in politics was a form of statism. In principle, it did not represent a new approach to government; it was a continuation of the political absolutism -- the absolute monarchies, the oligarchies, the theocracies, the random tyrannies -- which has characterized most of human history.

In degree, however, the total state does differ from its predecessors: it represents statism pressed to its limits, in theory and in practice, devouring the last remnants of the individual. Although previous dictators (and many today; e.g., in Latin America) often preached the unlimited power of the state, they were on the whole unable to enforce such power. As a rule, citizens of such countries had a kind of partial "freedom", not a freedom-on-principle, but at least a freedom-by-default.

Even the latter was effectively absent in Nazi Germany. The efficiency of the government in dominating its subjects, the all-encompassing character of its coercion, the complete mass regimentation on a scale involving millions of men -- and, one might add, the enormity of the slaughter, the planned, systematic mass slaughter, in peacetime, initiated by a government against its own citizens -- these are the insignia of twentieth-century totalitarianism (Nazi AND communist), which are without parallel in recorded history. In the totalitarian regimes, as the Germans found out after only a few months of Hitler's rule, every detail of life is prescribed, or proscribed. There is no longer any distinction between private matters and public matters. "There are to be no more private Germans," said Friedrich Sieburg, a Nazi writer; "each is to attain significance only by his service to the state, and to find complete self-fulfillment in his service." "The only person who is still a private individual in Germany," boasted Robert Ley, a member of the Nazi hierarchy, after several years of Nazi rule, "is somebody who is asleep."

In place of the despised "private individuals," the Germans heard daily or hourly about a different kind of entity, a supreme entity, whose will, it was said, is what determines the course and actions of the state: the nation, the whole, the GROUP. Over and over, the Germans heard the idea that underlies the advocacy of omnipotent government, the idea that totalitarians of every kind stress as the justification of their total states: COLLECTIVISM.

Collectivism is the theory that the group (the collective) has primacy over the individual. Collectivism holds that, in human affairs, the collective -- society, the community, the nation, the proletariat, the race, etc. -- is THE UNIT OF REALITY AND THE STANDARD OF VALUE. On this view, the individual has reality only as part of the group, and value only insofar as he serves it; on his own he has no political rights; he is to be sacrificed for the group whenever it -- or its representative, the state -- deems this desirable.

Fascism, said one of its leading spokesmen, Alfredo Rocco, stresses:

...the necessity, for which the older doctrines make little allowance, of sacrifice, even up to the total immolation of individuals, on behalf of society... For Liberalism (i.e., individualism), the individual is the end and society the means; nor is it conceivable that the individual, considered in the dignity of an ultimate finality, be lowered to mere instrumentality. For Fascism, society is the end, individuals the means, and its whole life consists in using individuals as instruments for its social ends.

"The higher interests involved in the life of the whole," said Hitler in a 1933 speech, "must here set the limits and lay down the duties of the interests of the individual." Men, echoed the Nazis, have to "realize that the State is more important than the individual, that individuals must be willing and ready to sacrifice themselves for Nation and Fuhrer." The people, said the Nazis, "form a true organism," a "living unity", whose cells are individual persons. In reality, therefore -- appearances to the contrary notwithstanding -- there is no such thing as an "isolated individual" or an autonomous man.

Just as the individual is to be regarded merely as a fragment of the group, the Nazis said, so his possessions are to be regarded as a fragment of the group's wealth.

"Private property" as conceived under the liberalistic economy order was a reversal of the true concept of property [wrote Huber]. This "private property" represented the right of the individual to manage and to speculate with inherited or acquired property as he pleased, without regard for the general interests... German socialism had to overcome this "private", that is, unrestrained and irresponsible view of property. All property is common property. The owner is bound by the people and the Reich to the responsible management of his goods. His legal position is only justified when he satisfies this responsibility to the community.

Contrary to the Marxists, the Nazis did not advocate public ownership of the means of production. They did demand that the government oversee and run the nation's economy. The issue of legal ownership, they explained, is secondary; what counts is the issue of CONTROL. Private citizens, therefore, may continue to hold titles to property -- so long as the state reserves to itself the unqualified right to regulate the use of their property.

If "ownership" means the right to determine the use and disposal of material goods, then Nazism endowed the state with every real prerogative of ownership. What the individual retained was merely a formal deed, a content-less deed, which conferred no rights on its holder. Under communism, there is collective ownership of property DEJURE. Under Nazism, there is the same collective ownership DE FACTO.

During the Hitler years -- in order to finance the party's programs, including the war expenditures -- every social group in Germany was mercilessly exploited and drained. White-collar salaries and the earnings of small businessmen were deliberately held down by government controls, freezes, taxes. Big business was bled by taxes and "special contributions" of every kind, and strangled by the bureaucracy. At the same time the income of the farmers was held down, and there was a desperate flight to the cities -- where the middle class, especially the small tradesmen, were soon in desperate straits, and where the workers were forced to labor at low wages for increasingly longer hours (up to 60 or more per week).

But the Nazis defended their policies, and the country did not rebel; it accepted the Nazi argument. Selfish individuals may be unhappy, the Nazis said, but what we have established in Germany is the ideal system, SOCIALISM. In its Nazi usage this term is not restricted to a theory of economics; it is to be understood in a fundamental sense. "Socialism" for the Nazis denotes the principle of collectivism as such and its corollary, statism -- in every field of human action, including but not limited to economics.

"To be a socialist", says Goebbels, "is to submit the I to the thou; socialism is sacrificing the individual to the whole."

By this definition, the Nazis practiced what they preached. They practiced it at home and then abroad. No one can claim that they did not sacrifice enough individuals.

Your posts are sooooo fucking tired and boring. Please crawl back under that rock with the other slugs.

IAS and CFK,

Jag and LL both said it was CFK's cu. Who am I to argue with the experts?

----------

Just an aside, but has Beachman totally lost it? It's only the extreme nutcases in the Fruitcake Branch of the Right Wing that spews this nonsense and trot out idiotic false parallels between German Socialism (Nazi wing) and anything else.

Distrust any writer who seems to have fallen in love with words ending in "ism" and "ist." A sure sign of demagoguery.

Get a grip, BM, or there's a padded cell awaiting you. And watch out for the Boogeyman. He's out to get YOU!

IAS and CFK,

Jag and LL both said it was CFK's cu. Who am I to argue with the experts?

----------

Just an aside, but has Beachman totally lost it? It's only the extreme nutcases in the Fruitcake Branch of the Right Wing that spews this nonsense and trot out idiotic false parallels between German Socialism (Nazi wing) and anything else.

Distrust any writer who seems to have fallen in love with words ending in "ism" and "ist." A sure sign of demagoguery.

Get a grip, BM, or there's a padded cell awaiting you. And watch out for the Boogeyman. He's out to get YOU!

Beachman, getting no pussy, selling no real estate. What a fucking loser.

ACLU does something useful.

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2352055,00.asp

I think the ACLU petition explicitly excludes "all detractors who are concerned only with their own narrow interpretation of Constitutional rights."

(Message edited by Branquinho on August 26, 2009)

What the ACLU is now doing is a continuation of what they and the EFF (Electronic Freedom Foundation) have been doing over the course of the last couple of years. I'm not sure it is going to work at the judicial level, but it does put political pressure on a more sympathetic administration to reverse some of the excesses of the Bush administration concerning searches of laptops and other digital electronic devices at the border. Hopefully, this political pressure will succeed in getting the Obama administration to reverse some of the egregious policies of IAS's (and Beachman's) good friend, George W. Bush.

Ted Kennedy....may he rest in HELL. Leaving a woman to die while he covered his ass.....talk about the life of the privileged!


Here is some more bullshit you liberals can defended and spin...........


http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB10001424052970203946904574301043095303118-lMyQjAxMDA5MDIwNjEyNDYyWj.html

(Message edited by Bwana_dik on August 27, 2009)

Hey Beachman!

(Message edited by copperfieldkid on August 27, 2009)

I don't get involved in the politicsal discussions because all people like Beachman do is critize and never over or work towards any solutions. But you really showed yourself as a true asshole when you wished someone would rest in hell. As a right winger you must have missed bible study on those days. By the way if you ever do make it to Rio the dirtbag pouring the piss over your head will have gotten a nice tip from me.

Hey Beachman,

I'd like to give this a shot.

Politics in the United States is a two party system. Historically, successful politicians were the ones that had honest and sincere conversations with the other side.

It seems that this has changed for the worst during Bush 2's administration. Liberals/Democrats became the people that ought to be ridiculed, denigrated and ignored.

When you come in here spouting that Ted Kennedy is rotting in hell and liberals are so stupid, etc, you are painting yourself as one of these idealogues.

The problem is that most believe that Republicans such as you are hurting the party. There is no doubt that you represent a voice in American, but if the Republican party follows your voice, it will force the party to become a minority party.

Furthermore, you must realize that America is a broad and diverse nation. Much more diverse now than 20 years ago. It is more important now more than ever to respect other's opinion. It is clear that you respect no one's opinion other than your own.

It is easy to come to the conclusion Beachman and his comrade right-wing demagogue followers represent a new phenomenon in the U.S. that has further sunk our political discourse and democratic spirit.

However, there have, unfortunately, always been Beachmans, unthinking followers of demagoguery. I'm presently at the end of reading "Nixonland: The Rise of a President and the Fracturing of America," by Rick Perlstein, and until doing so had forgotten how really really bad things were in the U.S. during the Nixon era (including before he became President). I'm not so much now talking about Nixon himself--who was a rather hateful character--but rather those from the right-wing who followed him, and were every bit as evil, if not more so, than the present extreme right-wingers. Perhaps the only thing that was missing back then was a major news outlet--Fox News--to glorify their congenital hatred.

Unfortunately, there are always going to be Beachmans, although it would be nice if they would migrate elsewhere since our board really is not an appropriate place to voice extreme right-wing hatred. Let's just hope in their quest to follow hateful demagogues they somehow restrain themselves to following fleas like Palin and her ilk, rather than demagogues more akin to Hitler.

(Message edited by laguy on August 27, 2009)

Perlstein's book is very interesting, and he does a nice job of showing that there's a longer history to the fringe element of the Republican Party (Beachman's group) than many people realize. It's not a comforting fact, but it's nice to have the current malaise placed in an historical context.

It is quite ironic, though, to see the fringe wing, with clear fascistic tendencies, slinging the "Nazi" label at others.

It must be very depressing to be so angry and filled with hate towards others all the time. I mean, who the fuck wishes ill of someone who has just died? Only angry, pathetic losers. Losers who are frightened to death by the diversity to which Bluestraveller refers. Losers who are frightened by the complexity of rapid social change and a global economy that is changing the way they live and work.

But I could be wrong. It's possible that Beachman is just a small-minded, mean-spirited, hateful little boy who's mainly angry because he was born without a dick.

When I look at the conservative fringe movement, I don't actually look at it from a Democratic or Republican historical concept. Up until the 1910s, the Republicans were the more liberal party and most Democrats, especially in the South, were conservative. The Democratic party started getting more liberal in the 1930s and by the early 1990s, most of what was left of the Southern Conservative wing - certainly not DLC but more the Richard Shelby type - were gone. All those guys - Jesse Helms, Strom Thurmond, Phil Gramm, Richard Shelby - they all started out as Dems since that was the only way to get elected in the South.

So, look at the conservative loons as a whole. Southern lynch mobs from 1865-1965, all the Jim Crow/segregation stuff. They were Dems, but certainly not progressive in any way.

If it were 200 years ago, I would be a Federalist. If 100 years ago, definitely a Republican. I cringe when I hear Republicans call Lincoln and Teddy Kennedy as their predecessors - those Republicans prior to the 1950s wouldn't recognize the mouth breathers and dipshits that are the party today.

If you look at it as solely a liberal/progressive vs. conservative standpoint, with no party names, the liberal/progressives pretty much ran the table from Lincoln to Nixon. With the exception of the Harding/Coolidge/Hoover trifecta - and those guys aren't on anyone's 50th percentile on top Presidents. Teddy R, Taft, even that dipshit Grant and the Republicans between him and McKinley/Roosevelt, they were at least a bit forward thinking, though 100% in bed with the Gilded Age robber barons.

Woodrow Wilson was one of ours and I wouldn't really call him liberal at all, but not a hard conservative. Of course, from FDR till now, all Dems have been pretty liberal. Reagan was really the first hard conservative since Hoover. Nixon was a douche and used racism to get into office, but once in, he wasn't that conservative.

"Nixon was a douche and used racism to get into office, but once in, he wasn't that conservative."

In recent times, meaning not during the 60's or 70's (when I just hated the fucker), that was my line. However, reading Perlstein's book, which I highly recommend, changed my mind. What emerges is that although Nixon did indeed do some things that turned out to be liberal, like starting the EPA, he did most of these things for the wrong reasons, often to consolidate power in the executive branch and slow down or preempt the Democrats, who often were proposing more liberal programs.

I therefore, after reading Perlstein's book, am no longer convinced "he wasn't that conservative." Given a Republican Congress, the guy likely would have been as far right as W, if not more so (although the issues then that defined left and right were a bit, but probably not substantially, different).

But even if I'm wrong about this, Nixon still governed like a hateful prick with no regard for civil liberties or the right of political dissent.