On Contraception, Democrats Roll Towards Gutter In Massachusetts

The pressure is intense in Massachusetts, and the stakes could not be higher for all Democrats. But Martha Coakley and the Democratic Party have begun to push the boundaries of fair play. Here is what we have gotten in the last week from Democrats who are trying to tarnish Scott Brown’s reputation among women voters:

A direct mail piece from the state Democratic Party that announces: “1,736 Women Were Raped In Massachusetts in 2008; Scott Brown Wants Hospitals To Turn Them All Away.”

An ad by Coakley that flashes the words, “Deny rape victims care,” with a voiceover that announces, “Brown even favors letting hospitals deny emergency contraception to rape victims.”

Policy differences regarding emergency contraception for rape victims are, without question, fair game in a political contest. But on issues of such sensitivity, politicians have a responsibility to hew to the facts, and not inflame with false suggestions. Here is the amendment Scott Brown supported in April of 2005:

Nothing in this section shall impose any requirements upon any employee, physician or nurse of any facility to the extent that administering the contraception conflicts with a sincerely held religious belief. In determining whether an employee, physician or nurse of any facility has a sincerely held religious belief administering the contraception, the conflict shall be known and disclosed to said facility and on record at said facility.

If it is deemed that said employee, physician or nurse of any facility has a sincerely held religious conflict administering the contraception, then said treating facility shall have in place a validated referral procedure policy for referring patients for administration of the emergency contraception that will administer the emergency contraception, which may include a contract with another facility. The referrals shall be made at no additional cost to the patient.

The amendment failed, and Brown went on to vote for the underlying bill anyway.

Two key points to make here. First, nothing in the amendment says that hospitals should “Turn Them All Away.” In fact, the amendment requires that all hospitals either provide the emergency contraception treatment or arrange to provide it, on site or by referral at no cost to the patient. Second, the sort of care that Brown supports potentially delaying in deference to the religious views of health providers is limited to emergency contraception, which is not what the screen shot in the Coakley ad implies. As Politifact put it:

The most misleading part of the ad, though, is not what the narrator says, but what appears on screen. As the contraception amendment is mentioned, viewers see the words, “Deny rape victims care.” Emergency contraception is certainly a type of care. But the language on screen implies that Brown would support denial of even, say, treatment of injuries sustained in a rape. That’s far from the truth.

Related Topics: martha coakley, scott brown, Uncategorized
  • Latest on Swampland

    The Phony War: Obama and Romney Are Debating Character, Not Policy

    More than five months from Election Day, the back-and-forth about Mitt Romney’s record at Bain already feels played out. Unfortunately, there’s good reason to expect the campaign continues in this vein indefinitely. Neither Barack Obama nor Mitt Romney are terribly interested in dwelling on policy platforms. Romney’s plan to slash spending and keep taxes low on the wealthy isn’t especially popular, at least not at any level of detail beyond a blithe promise to shrink the deficit. Meanwhile, Obama’s signature first-term achievements, like health care, the stimulus and Wall Street reform, are all unpopular or tricky to sell. (The Dodd-Frank bill is the most popular of these, but hyping it means offending wealthy donors.) So what we’re getting instead is a superficial duel about character–and, worse, one that’s based on the largely false premise that the better man can better “manage” the economy back to health.

    Obama Administration Blocks Global Health Fund To Fight Disease In Developing NationsHuffPost Politics

    Audacity of Dope: Tales of a Toking Teenage Obama

    We knew Barack Obama smoked weed in high school because he wrote about it in his books. What we didn’t know until Buzzfeed posted these choice nuggets (I’m so sorry) from David Maraniss’s new book on the President’s younger years, is the giggle-worthy details of his “Choom Gang” lifestyle, which are right out of a buddy stoner flick. Obama and his friends drove around the lush Hawaii countryside, hot-boxing their VW bus and re-upping with a long-haired pizza-tossing dealer named Ray, who Obama thanked in his yearbook “for all the good times.”

  • apollyon07

    Another good article on this:
    .
    http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Massachusetts-Coakley-ad-patently-false-Brown-threatens-legal-action-81908347.html
    .
    Someone sounds desperate to me! Massachusetts voters- do the right thing and don’t let trash like this occupy your beloved late Senator Kennedy’s seat. It’s just a special election, you all can elect a Democrat next time around.

  • Jim, Foolish Literalist

    Very fair and balanced of you. Is Jake Tapper gonna set you up at one of his “sister networks”?

    “A new flier being distributed in the final days of the Massachusetts Senate race portrays Attorney General Martha Coakley as a threat to unborn children and thrusts the issue of abortion even deeper into the electoral fire.

    Paid for by Mass Citizens for Life Political Action Committee, the piece urges voters to “Save The Babies!” and “Vote Scott Brown” on January 19. Coakley, the anti-abortion group alleges, “supports using your tax money to pay for abortions,” “supports minor girls getting abortions without their parents knowing,” and “supports Partial Birth Abortion”

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/17/abortion-wars-overtake-ma_n_426381.html

  • formerlyjames

    Anything, bill, amendment, or whatever, that provides for religious exemption from anything in our secular government, including especially tax exemption, is ok by me. Brown may have been only voting his conscious, but the amendment in its very conception is obnoxious to me.
    .
    Coakley handled it badly. Is Karl Rove on her campaign? It stinks of him for sure. Deceitful. Just tell it like it is. No need to blow it out of proportion beyond complete truth.

  • pafro

    You’re kidding right? I bet you haven’t heard Coakley called “baby killer” right?

  • the committee

    Since when is fact checking in your job description, Scherer? This is a new development.
    .
    You can’t even do it right. Surely in there somewhere you should note that if Brown didn’t aim to turn “all” rape victims away, he did indeed aim to turn rape victims who want emergency contraception away? I mean, how many rape victims want to have their rapist’s child? Could the answer possibly be any more than “none?”

  • formerlyjames

    My first sentence was poorly constructed. Opposed to religious exemptions.

  • formerlyjames

    I will put a smiley face when I am kidding. I am not kidding. I am opposed to any religious expemption for anything. In defense of that position, I do not endorse exaggeration to gain votes. Bottom line is that I find Coakley and her campaign as wanting as I find the most virulent Fox Knews Repubs.

  • pafro

    Sorry to depress your ego, but I was talking about Michael Scherer.

  • chupkar

    Considering the complete and utterly falsities and attacks perpetuated from the right this year…I’m really not too fussed about this.

  • grape_crush

    Martha Coakley and the Democratic Party have begun to push the boundaries of fair play.

    Well, it would seem that way if you were born yesterday. The number of journalists who have collectively pulled a Rip Van Winkle and slept through the past decade amazes me.

    First…the amendment requires that all hospitals either provide the emergency contraception treatment or arrange to provide it, on site or by referral…

    Doesn’t ‘by referral’ mean ‘somewhere else’?

    Second, the sort of care that Brown supports potentially delaying in deference to the religious views of health providers is limited to emergency contraception…

    Because what should be on the forefront of a recent rape victim’s mind is the religious views of the people working at the hospital she’s taken to, right?

    It’s a ridiculous amendment that at least has the potential to deny rape victims a form of care. The ad is strong, but not ‘pushing the boundaries’ by any means.

  • apollyon07

    I think you’re the one who needs to do some fact-checking. It never said anywhere that rape victims who wanted EC would be turned away. It allowed for someone who had a religious objection to step aside, at which point someone else would immediately stepped in. Same result, except the individual is not forced to violate their beliefs.
    .
    Also, the amendment failed and Brown ended up voting for it anyway. MS is awaiting your apology.

  • apollyon07

    That’s a vicious cycle of philosophy that you’re subscribing to.

  • apollyon07

    The establishment doesn’t just protect people from religion. It’s also supposed to protect people from the government violating their religious beliefs. The door swings both ways on secularism.

  • apollyon07

    establishment clause*

  • apollyon07

    The ad is a flat-out lie. The amendment would have merely changed who was administering the care, so that a person’s religious beliefs would not be violated, as per the 1st Amendment. The amendment did not pass and Brown ended up voting for the bill anyway. If I were Brown I would sue for defamation and libel after this, win or lose.

  • redraven937

    But on issues of such sensitivity, politicians have a responsibility to hue to the facts, and not inflame with false suggestions.

    lol
    .
    That’s funny coming from you, Michael.

  • spob

    MS, I think the word is “hew”, not “hue”.
    .
    Did you ask the Obama people what they thought of this? He went up there to support her. Asking them about it is fair game.
    .
    The other issue, missed by you MS, is that the Senate bill that Coakley supports also has a conscience provision. Moreover, Ted Kennedy was a well-known supporter of conscience provisions, even going so far as to say so in a letter to Pope Benedict XVI.

  • stuartzechman

    Apart from the hue/hew correction, all in the service of partisan agenda…and all completely reasonable and correct points.

  • spob

    And I bet you think that Amirault is guilty . . . . it never ceases to amaze how libs think. There is a right to abortion in this country, but there is no right to force people to do them. Yet, the clear impulse of your comment, grape, is to force people to do them or not work in ERs. How very tolerant.

  • spob

    I guess it is in such service, sz, but the coverage should include these points.
    .
    Coakley really is a despicable human being. But we already knew that–she thought nothing of adding to the torment of victims of injustice (the Amiraults) and now lies through her teeth to win an election. This woman is utter scum, and Barack Obama, with his support of her, cannot be taken seriously on matters of criminal justice or any new politics yapping.

  • kuyper47

    On what planet have you spent the last nine years? Your hyprocritical outpouring of moral outrage would be more convincing if you had expressed it over the myriad lies spewed by the Republithugs, from “death panels” to Obama;s alleged illegitimacy. There are no longer any bounds of political decency. Personally, I congratulate Coakley for going on the offensive. If the statements in the ad are true, Brown deserves to be exposed. If they’re lies, then it’s sauce for the goose. Turnabout is fair play. That’s our current political environment. Get over it. You may deplore it, but don’t try setting up different standards for Republicans and Democrats. Far as I can see, it’s about time we started fighting fire with fire. Don’t like it? Suck on it.

  • apollyon07

    On the government and secularism- many people in this country seem to think that freedom of religion (1st amendment) only protects people from the government forcing religion on them. However, the establishment clause is in fact a two-sided coin:
    .
    “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”
    .
    Note the second part of that. In other words, the government cannot force someone to violate their religious beliefs. A person being forced to provide a treatment that they believe amounts to an abortion is in fact being prohibited of the free exercise of their religion.

  • jpl9

    “which may include a contract with another facility”
    Your raped and you shouldn’t have to go to another hospital to receive health care.

  • spob

    Perhaps, you;re right, but the government has no right to force people to do abortions, and the solution is not to kick such people out of ERs, like your buddy Coakley thinks.

  • spob

    And what Coakley did to the Amiraults–you cool with that too?

  • stuartzechman

    the government cannot force someone to violate their religious beliefs
    .
    Is that it?
    .
    Is the government forcing anyone to do anything?
    .
    By staying out of employer/employee relationships, isn’t the government not forcing employers to accommodate employees whose religious beliefs prohibit certain aspects of their work?
    .
    Isn’t it more like passing a law that forbids restaurants from discriminating against the hire of Seventh Day Adventists, and then passing another law forcing employers to either hire more food preparers or limit the menu when the Seventh Day Adventists refuse to prepare shellfish?

  • redraven937

    [...] but the government has no right to force people to do abortions, and the solution is not to kick such people out of ERs, like your buddy Coakley thinks.

    How is the government forcing people to do abortions? Is the government running the hospital administration and HR departments? Did these ER doctors/nurses sign contracts with the government or with their employers? Are ER personnel at-will employees or tenured (or whatever is the opposite of at-will)?
    .
    Suppose I join a religion in which data-entry is considered a sin… what then? Is whatever business I am employed at obligated to keep me around and find something else for me to do? Where is the line drawn? Why is abortion an “easy line” whereas objectively similar ridiculousness is not?
    .
    Personally, I don’t want people who believe that, say, vaccines are a nefarious government plot to give my children Autism handing out vaccines. I don’t want dentists who think Fluoride is a truth serum put into the water supply to keep the masses docile working on my teeth. And I do not want doctors or nurses sending my raped mother/sister/wife/daughter/friend to another hospital because they think the wrath of a Giant Spaghetti Monster is more important than stopping a rapist from impregnating them.

  • formerlyjames

    My apology. My knee jerked prematurely.

  • chupkar

    Yeah, but I’ll get over it.

  • Exiled_At_Home (formerly Neo)

    You know, I’m really digging the lucid thought patterns and completely reasonable, non-duplicitous rationales being displayed here tonight. Wonderful to see such sanity in our discourse.

  • ohiolib

    If this is the best campaign that Coakley could run, she doesn’t deserve to hold the seat. Aside from playing Palin when it comes to facts, the last thing congress needs os another wingnut-of any stripe.

  • Exiled_At_Home (formerly Neo)

    Thank you, Ohio! I find it an appallingly irrational position to take that Coakley’s latest ads are simply par for the course due to the GOP’s shenanigans as of late. What sort of message does that send? What type of democracy do we want and under what form of representation? It’s nice to see someone of Democratic affiliation shed their partisan skins and reject a flawed and dishonest character on grounds of merit. Joe Kennedy for Senate!

  • Exiled_At_Home (formerly Neo)

    Pafro-
    ~
    Coakley being referred to as a “baby killer” is hyperbolic to the extreme, however, as unfortunate as it is, it is an unavoidable output of free public discourse, whereas the rape ad is directly attributable to her. There is a fundamental difference between what fired up voters say, and what a candidate says, or more directly, mails to the houses of voters.
    ~
    Even if, say, Brown had used the term ‘baby killer’ when referring to Coakley, does that make her slander any more righteous or acceptable?
    ~
    Perhaps, both are scum (which they are) and you should not defend either. Perhaps you should simply acknowledge that a Democratic candidate, just as a Republican, can be a blight on democracy. Perhaps, if you must choose sides, you can throw your lot in with Joe Kennedy, the independent candidate.

  • apollyon07

    stuart- excellent point. As an economic libertarian your point about the government staying out of employer/employee relationships appeals to me. I would contend though that since the government is so wrapped up in our health care system (and probably is about to be even more), that the lines are blurred on this. Also the government in the past has acted to protect employees from their employers numerous times, so there is heavy precedent for this. One thing that comes to mind is employees being protected against retaliation for making a complaint. Great point though.

  • jcapan

    I’d have to say I’m with N-R.
    .
    From the B-Globe about Kennedy: [He] “finds common ground with liberal Democrats on key social issues. He supports gay marriage and access to abortion, believing that government should have little say over people’s personal lives.
    .
    He also supports bringing U.S. troops back from Afghanistan and Iraq, insisting the country’s military should focus on the defense of the nation’s borders. He believes the country should even pull troops out of countries that are allies, like Japan and Germany.”
    .
    Obviously, his libertarian positions on taxation & gov’t spending run counter to my views, but if I had a vote, he’d get it. The senate of all places requires some diff. voices.

  • abdullah69

    With this line of attack Coakley is saying this guy is a bigger a$$hole than I am. Thanks to the collapse in moral standards the Senate has enough a$$holes already. The good people of Massachusetts deserve better than either candidate.

  • Paul-no not that one

    So much chum to the sharks.

  • artraveler

    If a doctor or pharacist feels that their religion overrides the care and wishes of the patient or their family then get the hell out of patient care and into research where you can contribute and not force your religious opinion on someone else. You can also work at Wallyworld as a checker if that doesn’t offend your sensibilities.

  • http://twitter.com/michaelscherer Michael Scherer

    fixed hew.

  • Dee in Columbia MD

    I haven’t had time to read every entry yet, so someone might have already made this point, but just in case it has not been said, please note Mikey, that it is a bit rich to get indignant about facts now. The Democrats would have to stray a h3ll of a lot further away from mere hyperbole to ever match the level of misinformation, disinformation, propaganda and outright shameless lies that the GOP and its operatives have spew about liberal policies on a daily basis. Death panels ringing any bells. And forgive me if I just laugh if you respond with two wrongs not making a right. Frankly, I’m tired of the right always whining about the Democrats not playing fair when there is no team on the planet that plays as dirty as the GOP so spear me your outrage over Brown being accused of supporting a policy that indulges a bunch of religious zealots who want nothing more than to inflict their beliefs on everyone. After enduring a violation as horrific as rape should a woman’s only choice be repeatedly reliving her trauma in order to find someone who is not opposed to contraception or walk away.

  • deconstructiva

    I don’t think the R’s can claim any high ground after the “curling iron” crowd remark.

  • spob

    wow, so when a prsoecutor isn’t exactly tough on bail for a cop who sexually assaults a toddler with a curling iron, the GOP isnt supposed to mention it?

  • spob

    You fixed “hew”, but no response to the other points. I guess you have no choice but to report about Coakley’s egregious campaign tactics, but you wouldn’t want to add anything that would make her look stupid.
    .
    And funny, no mention of Amirault either. That is having an effect on the race.

  • Dee in Columbia MD

    I get it Democrats are the god guys and they have an obligation to be true to themselves. Republicans on the other hand have a history of being mean and deceitful so when they tell lies its not nearly as problematic.

  • 3xfire3

    Grape
    Lies are always pushing the boundaries whether by liberals or conservatives.

  • deconstructiva

    …thanks for replying spob, you’re one of few here who has lately. It’s not just what is said but also how it’s said. Pointing out problems with that case is one thing, shouting out to “shove a curling iron up her butt” is another.

  • 3xfire3

    So much for freedom in our country. Which form of dictatorship do you recommend?

  • newfreedomblog

    Mr apollyon07:
    .
    As Scott Brown has said, and I am sure reply to you, “with all due respect, this is not the late Senator Kennedy’s seat, it is the People’s seat”.
    .
    This is the major point and a defining moment for this election. This is also considered to be the turning point of this election as well. In the debate, Brown reponded to a question posed by David Gergen.
    .

    “GERGEN: If this bill fails, it could well be another 15 years before we see another health care reform in Washington. Are you willing under those circumstances to say ‘I’m going to be the person. I’m I’m going to sit in Teddy Kennedy’s seat, and I’m going to be the person who’s going to block it for another fifteen years.
    .
    BROWN: Well, with all due respect it’s not the Kennedy seat, and it’s not the Democrats’ seat — it’s the people’s seat. And they have a chance to send someone down there who’s going to be an independent voter and an independent thinker and to look out for the best interests of the people of Massachusetts.”

    .
    Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Scott-Browns-Reaganesque-turn-in-Senate-debate-shades-of-Gerald-Ford-for-Democrat-Coakley-81238917.html#ixzz0cyNJyH5q
    .
    Once a person is elected into an office, that person whether they be Democrat or Republican have the assumption it is now “their seat”. It’s not.
    .
    Until we demand term limits on these people, we shall continue to see major pork projects being bestowed on the lucky person who has senority, lobbyist out of control and buying off our representatives, and situations like HCR where bribes for votes the way legisation is passed. You really need to ask yourself is this how you want your government run? For far too many years, bribes, back room deals, and “agreements with the devil” are the norm in Washington.
    .
    It is time that “We the People” stand up and make our voices heard, we demand better representation for us, not representation for the political parties.

  • spob

    you cannot hold a campaign responsible for overheated comments of a few supporters . . . .
    .
    coakley’s actions in the curling iron case are appalling

  • 3xfire3

    Dee,
    Both sides have their idiots. From my perspective it appears most of the time conservatives are simply stating their views not purposely lying. On the other hand many liberals seem to think it’s OK to lie if it furthers their political views.
    Conservatives don’t tend to express hate of liberals because they sincerely have different views than conservatives but liberals tend to think conservatives are evil when they disagree with the liberal’s position.
    98% of Americans are trying to do the right thing. Why can we not stop the assumption of evil?

  • http://natashagural.wordpress.com natashagural

    What? The amendment as you printed it would absolutely let a nurse refuse to treat some one on religious grounds — sending some one to another facility is tantamount to refusal. Brown should have to answer for this and you shouldn’t be apologizing for him and calling it a fact check.

  • grape_crush

    Responses to various:

    The amendment would have merely changed who was administering the care, so that a person’s religious beliefs would not be violated..
    .
    Which means that if a rape victim was brought to a Catholic hospital (Massachusettes has more than a few), she would have to be transferred to another facility.
    .
    …so that a person’s religious beliefs would not be violated…
    .
    Which is the larger concern: Treating a rape victim or not offending someone’s religious sensibilities?
    .
    …the clear impulse of your comment, grape, is to force people to do them or not work in ERs.
    .
    I have two children with severe peanut allergies. They probably should not be going to work on a peanut farm. Similarly, if a person’s religious convictions prevent them from delivering a type of medical care, then perhaps they should consider a different line of work.
    .
    If it’s a Catholic hospital’s practice to not deliver that type of medical care, then perhaps they should consider rejecting Federal- and State-level funding.
    .
    How very tolerant.
    .
    It’s simply amazing to see all of you right-whingers contract the vapors over political correctness. Hypocrites, the lot of you.

  • deconstructiva

    spob, I’d normally agree with you but the problem is Brown may have smiled / acknowledged the remark without disavowing it. He didn’t immediately strike it down.
    http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/dc/2010/01/stick-a-curling-iron-in-it.html
    Remember the ugly remarks / threats against Obama made during ’08 McCain and Palin rallies? I give McCain credit for immediately tamping down the Crazy McCain Rally Lady’s Obama’s-a-Arab remark (as SNL delicately described this, also cavorts with terriers). Did Sarah even try?
    http://www.hulu.com/watch/39639/saturday-night-live-update-thursday-mccain-lady

  • http://forgottenlord.livejournal.com forgottenlord

    *sighs* Once again, I find myself feeling a Democrat doesn’t deserve an even remote right to win even though the tactical implications on a broader scope are far more damaging to the country.

  • artraveler

    3X, every job has some requirements that are part of the job and if you feel you can’t or won’t do them, then you don’t meet the definition for the job. Ask any teacher about how far they get in getting out of that clause in every contract “any and all other activities as maybe required”.
    What if I want to be a bank teller but refuse to handle money as 100% of the bills are contaminated with cocaine. How long do you think I would be at work at the bank?
    You can’t be a fireman if you can’t climb a ladder or lift a weight or run a certain distance.
    Your “freedom” ends when it interferes with my “freedom”.

  • spob

    Deconstructiva, Dems in Mass. have done crappy things too. It’s a heated election, and there are millions of people. You cannot have a candidate police every follower. By the way, by your standard, you should despise Obama–he sat mute while Wright said crappy things. Did he have an obligation to speak up when Wright was saying what he said? Yeah, he wasn’t a candidate, but what relevance does that have?
    .
    By the way, are you cool with what was done by Coakley to the Amiraults?

  • spob

    Well, grape, Ted Kennedy and Marcia Coakley disagree with you. Marcia supports the Senate bill which has a conscience clause.

  • Dee in Columbia MD

    “From my perspective it appears most of the time conservatives are simply stating their views not purposely lying. On the other hand many liberals seem to think it’s OK to lie if it furthers their political views.”
    .
    “Conservatives don’t tend to express hate of liberals because they sincerely have different views than conservatives but liberals tend to think conservatives are evil when they disagree with the liberal’s position.”
    .
    Why can we not stop the assumption of evil? 3xfire: Perhaps you should take another look at your statements then ask yourself that question.
    .
    Perhaps conservatives are not lying intentionally, but there is a wing that does not believe in facts, that discards objective truths and appears to have no use for logic. I’m sorry, but I think embracing stupidity as a virtue is problematic. If you admit nothing else you ought to at least acknowledge that most conservatives are reluctant to question their leaders and hold them to the same standards they seek to hold liberals. Liberals on the other hand believe in questioning their leadership. So if you ask what’s wrong and don’t limit that question to us you might get you a little more respect.

  • spob

    Well, art, Ted Kennedy and Marcia Coakley disagree with you . . . .

  • spob

    Here’s an objective truth Dee–Obama said that if you like your health insurance, you can keep it. Well, objectively speaking, that ain’t true. Spare us your “We’re pure and you guys are such liars nonsense.” Barack Obama gives Bill Clinton a run for his money when it comes to dishonesty.

  • deconstructiva

    A good try, but you forgot that Obama criticized Wright and later left that church. As for policing every follower, it’s literally impossible but you’d sure as hell better try hard thanks to youtube. McCain tried. Did Brown try?

  • deconstructiva

    Again, did Scott Brown try? (the curling iron comment is hard to hear, Brown’s reaction is easy to see)

  • spob

    You’re grasping for straws here. It’s very hard to hear. And you don’t even know that he understood what was said.
    .
    A little OT, but remember the “Dean scream”? Things that are live can be a lot different from the audiotape. Brown may not have heard exactly what the guy was saying. I think you have to give people the benefit of the doubt.

  • deconstructiva

    …can you prove the remark wasn’t said? No? Then you’ve already lost, bye.

  • mattyj273

    The Democrats should have played dirty like this at the beginning of the health care debate. Now, they are stuck after trying to defend themselves against outrageous lies. You need to play dirty to win in politics, especially against the Republicans who are masters at manipulation.

    VOTE FOR ANOTHER LOST DECADE! VOTE REPUBLICAN!!

  • hope4heart

    Truth is always the first casualty of war, and this is political war with a lot at stake. Republicans, however, have no moral ground left for complaining about the same tactics turned on them that they regularly use in every election. Payback is hell.

  • 3xfire3

    Dee,

    “If you admit nothing else you ought to at least acknowledge that most conservatives are reluctant to question their leaders and hold them to the same standards they seek to hold liberals. Liberals on the other hand believe in questioning their leadership.”

    No Dee I donot agree with you statement. I don’t see any more real questioning of Obama by liberals than there was of Bush by conservatives. The difference I see is that liberals express hate towards Bush while conservatives don’t express hate towards Obama they just totally disagree with his policies.
    The difference is in the hate as apposed to disagreement over policies.

  • 3xfire3

    Dee, Hate is always wrong.

  • allthingsinaname

    “Conservatives don’t tend to express hate of liberals because they sincerely have different views than conservatives but liberals tend to think conservatives are evil when they disagree with the liberal’s position.”
    .
    .

    You are kidding right?

  • newfreedomblog

    Unfortunately appollyon07, stuart as a “neo-Liberal” would in fact want the government to be involved in protecting employees of any business.
    .
    One of stuart’s admitted tenets of “neo-Liberalism” is that government should get involed, and protect workers from the big bad evil businesses. Those bad “Fat Cats” on Wall Street and Big Banks, just like Barach Obama has now demonized them. He fights continually against what he calls “centrist”, like Joe Klein, and admitted liberal. Stuart’s “centrist” are all for both big government and big business, but leave out the little guy to fend for him or herself, or so stuart claims. When in fact it is that folks like Joe Klein are simply liberals, who from time to time agree with some big business and big government issues or changes, then rail against them when it is in his own personal interest to do so. Many of the times it is when it is for the benefit of the “community” to do so. Oh my, the same as stuart zechman also believes.
    .
    I believe where you may believe as an “economic Liberterian”, you would most likely believe in a smaller Federal government, but pass legislation which protects and defends our individual freedoms which are guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. One of which is the First Amendment, which has a paragraph defending our right to Freedom of Religion. However, a “neo-Liberal” such as stuart, would in fact limit your freedom if he felt that religion impacted the over riding “community rights”. The “community” rights override, individual rights in a “neo-liberal” or a “centrist” Democrat
    .
    For example, Jehova’s Witness believe that due to their religion they should not receive blood, nor should they as employees of any hospital be forced to give blood to a patient. Most hospitals respect these employees and their religious beliefs, but some do not. There have been several cases recently which employees (Nurses) of hospital emergency rooms have refused to draw blood when a policeman brought in a suspected drunk driver. One Nurse was recently hand-cuffed, and arrested for not following the policeman’s request to draw blood and complete a blood alchohol test on the suspected drunk driver. A “neo-Liberal” would in fact support the policeman, and require the Jehova’s Witness Nurse to draw the blood.
    .
    As you can see from stuart’s reply to you, his replies are not statement, but rather questions back to you. A major difference, and a tactic I have seen Mr Zechman use as his comments for the most part in defending or objecting to various issues. You may want to clarify with Mr Zechman, before you declare your agreement with him in the future. He actually may not be in support of what you think he is in support of.

  • 53_3

    I feel this is actually relevant here as I was discussing the problem of Coakley’s conduct in the case discussed in Joe Klein’s ‘Mass Murder’ blog. It is equally relevant here, I think, in regards to the lying on both sides in the Massachusetts campaign. I apologize for the cross posting, but think it’s worth it in this case.
    .
    [re-posted from 10.8, the 'Mass Murder' blog, in a response to appollyon07]
    .
    With the more than adequate demonstration of party unity in the GOP despite the infighting between moderates and the far right, and the fact that the moderates now hew to their bidding, I feel I am compelled to come to the conclusion the far right holds the cards.
    .
    With the modern GOP’s founder, and it’s kingmaker, along with many of lesser spokesmen acting in such heinous fashion lately (and this isn’t the first time!), I question the wisdom of letting the GOP, in it’s current form, assume power.
    .
    I am an independent thinker despite appearances. I don’t have a regular religion, but I believe in God, and I don’t hew to ideologies as they are no better. Ideologies are too inflexible to accommodate the events in this complex world, because nearly every one has flaws that fail the human condition. If I saw the Dems presenting the same threat to humanity, I wouldn’t stay here on this side of the aisle.
    .
    For example, libertarianism, though honest in it’s form, would result in horrific results in an economic collapse. Even in good times, Dickensian practices would loom large. Bhopal is in-bounds. Not my cup of tay, with such great opportunity for hypocrisy*.
    .
    The GOPs “ideology” is something I’m not even sure exists. Which ideology? The far right? If so, that direction points at Germany 1933. The moderate position? More reasonable and flexible. I could live with that, but that’s not what I see being bandied around.
    .
    A major flaw in their ideology, directed at income redistribution, would hammer rural areas with a vengeance if they were scrapped. This would invite yet a different sort of hypocricy* in that they could scrap everyone elses’ income redistribution except the single largest – rural subsidies.
    .
    *hypocrisy in the from of violating the ideology’s own form, but ignored for expediency’s sake. Purists would let them happen anyway, regardless of the social costs. The far right has a lot of purists and they right now can make it stick. This creates an unenviable situation in which a hypocrite, as described here, is much preferable to an ideological purist!

  • newfreedomblog

    I truly love it when a radical liberal such as Dee makes this type of blanket statement…
    .

    “The Democrats would have to stray a h3ll of a lot further away from mere hyperbole to ever match the level of misinformation, disinformation, propaganda and outright shameless lies that the GOP and its operatives have spew about liberal policies on a daily basis.”

    .
    Dee is in essence saying, “All Democrats are pure in heart and would never resort to negative campaign ads”. (Which we all know is not true at all, and the lie here is backed up by the fact that Scott Brown the Republican has not run one negative campaign ad in this special election. Versus Martha Coakley has resorted to distorted, and very negative attack ads in the past 2 weeks about Scott Brown).
    .
    But, possibly “shameless lies that GOP and its operatives have spew about liberal policies” are really justifiable disagreements with the liberal policies and politics that Dee happens to agree with. You see “hyperbole” is a two edged sword. By simply stating that “dealth panels” are her proof, when in fact Scott Brown has never said anything about “death panels” at all.
    .
    Now Dee I ask, who is shamelessly lying now?

  • 53_3

    “Dee, Hate is always wrong.”
    .
    Have you conveyed this sentiment yet to the founder of the modern GOP, it’s kingmaker and leader of the conservative movement, or the lesser spokesmen yet, all of whom are still actively purveying such?
    .
    Just asking…

  • pafro

    I am one of the majority of Catholics who consider themselves pro-choice. I think anyone who is opposed to offering legal medical treatment should not take employment where they are in the position where they may face a situation where they would have to offer such treatment.
    I’m also from Wyoming, so when people like Brown claim that all a raped woman would have to do is hop on the 95 and jet over to another clinic to get Plan B, I see it as incredibly elitist. If and when the American Taliban starts trying to shove this same sword into the face of us rural staters those rape gurney rides are going to be 3 and 4 hours long.

  • pafro

    Death Panel.

  • spob

    Looks like you got the burden flipped here . . . .
    .
    In any event, the two situations are hardly similar.

  • newfreedomblog

    I see that 53_3 is yet again railing against rural America and the Republicans. Misstatement and factual data are not linked by 53_3, and it seems he rarely backs up any of his comments with factual data. But, he continues to demonize both rural areas of the country as being “the single largest – rural subsidies”.
    .
    Unfortunately, again no links to back up his claim.
    .
    The facts are that Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid are the largest entitlement programs which are funded by the government vis-a-vi the tax payers.
    .
    http://www.heritage.org/Research/SocialSecurity/wm2458.cfm
    .
    Legislation is now being proposed in a bipartisian proposed bill called “Securing America’s Future Economy (SAFE) Act”, calling for a congressional commission to examine tax and entitlement issues.
    .
    The SAFE Act proposes these recommendations:
    .

    Recommendation #1: Create Budgets for Entitlements and Show Long-Term Obligations in Congress’ Annual Budget.
    .
    Recommendation #2: Make Retirement Programs Fair but Affordable.
    .
    Recommendation #3: Strengthen Personal Responsibility.

    .
    Simply stating something is true does not always make that statement true. Perhaps 53_3 would like to back up his claim, that the Republican featured claim that Obama wants to “redistribute the wealth” as a major agenda driver is not true. Perhaps 53_3 would like to cite where Mr Obama has not made these statements that he will “redistribute the wealth” as a plank in his Administration’s future for new legislation and “change”?
    .
    Merely equating a segment of the population, who are advocating for some type of “1933 Germany” like agenda is a scurrilous lie. And, I must point out the comparison as such. Nothing but bloviation, and a lie.
    .
    53_3, President Obama has clearly stated his agenda is redistribution of wealth in this country. The recent evidence of his “tax” on banks is further evidence of his proposal to “spread the wealth”. Evidence that the TARP funds were not returned directly to the Treasury to pay down the deficit is also proof positive of Obama’s need to do more redistribution. Rather than pay down the deficit and debt, Mr Obama has choosen to retain those funds to be used for other spending programs. The recent bribes for votes, deals with Labor Unions for exemptions are yet further proof of the direction this Administration is taking just with health care reform alone. Actions that the majority of Americans believe to be not only unfair, but blatant corruption. Germany 1933 anyone?
    .
    So the “attacks” as you see them, are merely opposition to the direction that this President is heading. An opposition to the actions and policy decisions of this Administration.
    .
    Somehow in my mind this is Democracy in action. It is not only our right to speak out, but our obligation as citizens to speak out when we believe the direction of our elected officials are moving in the wrong direction.

  • 3xfire3

    artraveler,
    So if a person truly believes, if they help with an abortion, they are participating in the brutal murder of another human being, they should be forced to do so because you think they should. I would hope you would be a little more reasonable. This is a free country. Our ancestors went through tremendous hardships in coming to this country so that they would have free choice in their lives and that of their children.

  • 3xfire3

    Newfreedom, Good Post.
    I find Liberals such as 53 to seldom use any real facts in their postings. They take comments form media such as MSNBC or Media Maters and try to pass them off as facts. Their favorite is the half truth [which makes it a lie] by taking comments or short video clips out of context and claiming they are truth.
    Truth is so inconvenient for most liberals.

  • newfreedomblog

    Thank you 3xfire3. While I will agree that there is much hyperbole from both sides of the political spectrum, no one can say that either side is exclusively right or wrong. In doing so only proves their own judgmental naivety.
    .
    But, I strongly believe if you side with the basic tenets of our Constitution, you can’t go wrong. It is when bias and self aggrandizement comes into play that you find that the real motive is for some sort of personal gain.
    .
    A belief that “We the People” shall prevail against all others. That protection of our individual freedoms and rights trumps all else. Something our current political leadership fails to understand, both on the right and the left for the most part. And, it has been this way for far too long.
    .
    The failure is usually wittled down to some type of personal gain on their part. Some bribe or political favor is at the heart of it all. Not what is in the best interest of the people at large.
    .
    Hopefully and I believe you are seeing it starting, there will be an awakening of the people, the voters. An awakening to the wrongs being done, and the aggregious acts by individuals in power who are all out for themselves or their croonies. This is what I believe the fight going forward will be. The fight to return America back to the people.
    .
    Maybe you will join in on that fight?
    .
    http://www.newfreedomblog.com

  • ohiolib

    while conservatives don’t express hate towards Obama they just totally disagree with his policies
    -
    Really? You think shouting “Kill him” doesn’t count as hate? Or that there is a web site called “I hate Obama”. I think you’re painfully ignorant about the loony wing of your party.

  • shepherdwong

    “So if a person truly believes, if they help with an abortion, they are participating in the brutal murder of another human being, they should be forced to do so because you think they should.”
    .
    No they should be being treated in the psychiatric wing of the hospital, not treating patients themselves. A clump of cells isn’t a “human being” so it cannot be “murdered”.

  • 3xfire3

    Shephard.

    “So if a person truly believes, if they help with an abortion, they are participating in the brutal murder of another human being, they should be forced to do so because you think they should.”
    .
    “No they should be being treated in the psychiatric wing of the hospital, not treating patients themselves. A clump of cells isn’t a “human being” so it cannot be “murdered”

    Shephard …Oh I mean GOD. Thanks for clearing this up for all of us. Now we know that those aborted bodys that look like babys are just a clump of cells.
    You have no heart and have no right to make that decision for the rest of us.
    Hitler would be proud of you.

  • 3xfire3

    newfreedom, I already have.

  • Exiled_At_Home (formerly Neo)

    Offering contraceptives now is considered medical treatment?

  • allthingsinaname

    The Democrates have spent a year playing footsie with Lieberman and Snowe, and now they worry about Heath Care in the MA race? Does anyone realy expect Coakley to mak4e any differance?
    .
    They had their shot and couldn’t get it done, they new what the Republicans were up to and still did nothing. What would be gained by voting her in? Not much, more Gay and abortion rights, not excatly the top agenda of the American people.

  • spob

    Re: Obamacare–if Brown wins, it’s DIW.

  • 53_3

    I don’t have a problem with the redistribution of wealth, freedom, you do, but my point was that support is wider in the rural communities for that sentiment.
    .
    There are a ton of links out there for the various subsidies, and I work to provide products under the Rural Technology Initiative. Transportation, power, power gird,, health, massive agricultural, and other subsidies total far outstrip the distribution that goes to poor Americans – approximately $80 million.
    .
    Now, if you feel that your tax base is big enough, then by all means go for it.
    .
    And your comments that I’m “railing” is just rhetoric. It isn’t “railing” to discuss the problems that are likely to ensue if you did “take back America” – as you put it.
    .
    On the other, I’ve heard those arguments before and I’m just not sold. You believe in something I’ve never believed in and we are just going to have to agree to disagree.
    .
    The fact is, I am fortunate that I have a couple relatives that monitor what those leaders say. If you were to look up the history of Germany, you would find the leaders of the Nazi Party, which won by popular vote demonize populations, as the founder of the modern GOP, it’s chief kingmaker and leader of the conservative movement, and lesser spokesmen are doing as . I . write …. this!
    .
    Are you going to try to tell me they aren’t? The refusal to accept responsibility also extends here, and vastly cheapens any claims you both have to innocence.
    .
    I saw 3xfirex3′s response the other day, and it was basically a reference to a “truth” that he holds, but I don’t see any evidence of. Neither of you have any moral weight to claim innocence and to be lecturing others on hate until you take responsibility to stop trying to drive a wedge between the actions of those leaders and the natural human tendencies to look at your movement in a very, very dark setting. Your fault, not mine!
    .
    You may not like the reference to 1933 Germany, but then, perhaps you should demonstrate just how their conduct is different.
    .
    The “fringe” as you call it, appears
    far too often to support your contention, as prominent and founding leaders are participating in it too!
    .
    By the way, in trying to “take back America”, are you prepared to renounce all violence and speak out against those who advocate “bringing their guns”?

  • fhmadvocat

    newfreedomblog,

    Your criticisms of 53.3 are on point, but then you go and commit the same mistakes. . . . . . . .

    You talk about “redistribution of wealth” but is your objective data to back up this statement?

    As far as the “tax” on banks as redistribution, keep in mind the Obama administration adopted this proposal because it is very popular with the vast majority of Americans. While Obama’s poll numbers have been going down, he needed something to change the tide.

    As far as the “redistribution”, who is it who is getting all of this wealth? If anything, the Obama administration has been moving back the redistribution which has been going from the middle class to the wealthy for a number of years.

    What economic conservatives like to argue is that the rich are hit harder with income taxes. What they completely ignore is that almost all other taxation is regressive and that the middle class take a harder hit than the rich when all taxes are included. Even Warren Buffett has stated that he pays a lower percentage of his total income in taxes than his employees.

    The rich have been getting richer for the past 30 years. When you compare CEO’s salaries to the average worker, the CEO’s salaries have multiplied with the average worker’s pay has been stagnant. Now you can argue, “where are your links”. Well, I haven’t gotten the link thing figured out, but if you can demonstrate one link that argues otherwise, please post it.

    As far as your individual freedoms, I am all for that. However, I note that very few conservatives have complained about the Patriot Act, which was the biggest assault on our individual liberties in the history of this country. With the exception of Robert Barr, former congressman from Georgia, I can’t think of one.

    As far as going by the Constitution. I think it is the most important document in the land. However, it was written when our country was a small agrarian republic. Our founding fathers, in their genius, deliberately kept it vague, because they knew times would change, and the Constitution would have to be flexible enough to endure those changes. The ironic thing is that I doubt a majority of Americans would support most of the Bill of Rights, since much of it has to do with people accused of a crime (i.e. criminals).

  • 3xfire3

    53,

    “I saw 3xfirex3′s response the other day, and it was basically a reference to a “truth” that he holds”

    It was not a truth that I hold. It was a statement of the words we are reqiured to use when we swear in as a witness before a court of law. If you donot believe in that definition of truth what do you believe in?

  • 53_3

    3xfirex3:
    .
    Your response led me to believe that the “TRUTH” as you had put it was the far right conservative POV. If I misinterpreted that usage, I apologize, but it’s beside the point.
    .
    I’m not uncomfortable with the idea that all three of you disagree with me, it’s the way things are, however, I’ve been around for a while now and my tenacity on the subject of the leaders of the GOP / conservative movement is grounded in the idea that if you were truly honest, as a movement, you would not allow your leaders and spokesmen to conduct themselves as they do. You’ve already heard my reasons why, and I won’t belabor it again.
    .
    My point is though that you, together with freedom and flamedadvocat have taken umbrage at my comparison of those leaders and the Tea Party as the equivalent of the Brownshirts of 1933 Germany.
    .
    I invite you, however to read about that paricular portion of history and then try to point out any fundamental differences between the conduct of these leaders and those who lead the 1933 Brownshirts.
    .
    I’m comfortable with my position on this, and considering that they are conducting themselves, even now as I write this in this fashion, then it is not untoward to point out the exact nature of their conduct – and – it’s historical context and attendant dangers to our country.

  • 3xfire3

    The problem is who you think our leaders are and who we believe they are is totally different.
    There are good liberal and conservative leaders and also bad ones.
    We could play games and take turns naming who we think are the bad leaders on the others side but that would accomplish little.
    For you to try and make the point that some conservative media types are our leaders shows you total lack of understanding of most conservatives.
    The old story about liberal wanting to give the hungry man a fish to eat while the conservative wants to teach him to fish so he can eat for the rest of his life, illustrates the key difference between liberals and conservatives.
    Sorry for the simplistic story but you seem unable to understand anything else.

  • 3xfire3

    Ohiolib,
    There are always a few loons who express hate but with conservatives they are a very small exception not the rule. This website is a good example. There are few really hateful comments made by conservatives but a lot by liberals.
    Most of the comments made by conservatives are either trying to debate the issues or answering negative comments made by liberals.

  • ohiolib

    There are few really hateful comments made by conservatives but a lot by liberals
    -
    Really. Can you find a few hateful comments? I haven’t read all the posts, but I’ve haven’t seen much that I would call “hateful”. Stupid, yes, but being an idiot isn’t being hateful.

  • stewartiii

    NewsBusters: TIME’s Scherer Hits Coakley for Misleading ‘Gutter’ Politics On Emergency Contraception Ads
    http://newsbusters.org/blogs/ken-shepherd/2010/01/18/times-scherer-hits-coakley-misleading-gutter-politics-emergency-contra

  • http://theworldpolitics.info/2010/01/19/times-scherer-hits-coakley-for-misleading-gutter-politics-on-emergency-contraception-ads.html Time’s Scherer Hits Coakley for Misleading ‘Gutter’ Politics On Emergency Contraception Ads | TheWorldPolitics

    [...] that sort of insane, false hyperbole that has even Democrat-friendly media outlets like Time magazine reeling, even if the broadcast networks are asleep at the [...]

  • fractal86

    “Hitler would be proud of you.”
    - Godwin’s Law strikes again.

    Seriously though, can’t someone find a job that doesn’t offend their sensibilities? And whatever happened to the idea of ‘good, honest work’? If you don’t like it, find something else or stop complaining.

  • fractal86

    Nonetheless, grape makes a good point, no?

blog comments powered by Disqus