Everything Republicans said about Obamacare is a lie. Middleclass taxes will not be raised to pay for 'government run healthcare'. No one will be arrested and no one's property will suffer from a tax lien. You can keep your current insurance.

Mitt Romney's health care law in Massachusetts, his crowning accomplishment in government, has an identical mandate and an identical tax penalty.

Actually, the tax penalty in the Affordable Care Act is $695 max. Romney's tax penalty was over $1,200.

Yeah, but will Democrats make this clear to the public or will they just sit and allow Republicans to redefine the message anyway Republicans want and then Democrats go on their usual defense. My guess is they'll do the latter because well, ..., they're Democrats. Only Obama will be trying to defend, explain, and educate and the unherdable Democrats will be out blue-dogging and running away from Democratic policies the public likes.

It sounds like Justice Roberts did the GOP a huge favor. I wonder how many Republicans are going to call him to say "thank you."

Santorum was only right if the MSM editors suddenly decide to let their reporters act like journalists (and if the reporters themselves run with the rope when its given).

We keep running into these instances of open, obvious, easily demonstrated episodes of hypocrisy and outright lying by Republicans that we declare "tests" for the MSM, and the MSM keeps failing them, and then we lower the difficult level and they fail them again.

Yesterday, Romney said

Let's make clear that we understand what the court did and did not do. What the court did today was say that ObamaCare does not violate the Constitution. What they did not do was say that ObamaCare is good law or that it's good policy. ObamaCare was bad policy yesterday. It's bad policy today. ObamaCare was bad law yesterday. It's bad law today.

As far as I can tell, not one mainstream American news outlet confronted him with the question of whether it was "bad policy" when he pushed a law implementing identical policies through the Massachusetts state legislature. Not one. The AP (or possibly the WaPo) went so far as to completely excise the quote.

When I looked at the British papers, which you usually have to do to get real news, they picked up on it right away. But, as usual, the American press gives him a pass.

Something no one is talking about!

The real reason Republicans hate Obamacare. Rebublicans are supported by BIG business and what does BIG business want? They want to maintain control of their employees. Control? Sure, think about it! What prevents MOST employees from leaving their current jobs to find other employment or start new businesses? HEALTH INSURANCE! So, if an employer is underpaying and overworking its employees and not handing out annual salary increases and health insurance is now available from an open market with big pool benefits; valuable and well-seasoned employees tell their bosses to shove it and walk. Because right now the biggest thing hanging over their heads and preventing them from leaving is health insurance.

Obamacare sort of becomes a benefit that is very UNION-LIKE and ultimately allows those under-the-thumb of their employers to say; SEE YA!!

Employers don't want to see their employees empowered; therefore, if employers are against it then the Republicans are against it! Kinda makes sence, Huh?

As a matter of policy, this is deeply silly.

So you're telling us it's a winner, right?

In a democracy, it doesn't matter how silly an idea is if people believe it. (Examples available on request for those who don't already have a closet full.)

Steve, please at least nod to the idea of this being a state issue, and argue why it is not (or link to such an argument). Good points like "Romney was for it before he was against it" get immediately lost when the rebuttal is that the difference is one of state vs federal power.

We need to consistently make the argument that yes, many people believe this (out of convenience or genuine conviction is another issue), but that healthcare is validly seen as a federal issue - and then outline *why* this is so. Here's my quick pass at some reasons:

- If all governmental power arises from externalities, then

- the externalities in question are costs associated with lack of healthcare, including:

1 - high cost of emergency care vs lower cost of maintenance care;

2 - cost of lost productivity

3 - Distractions from economic and social activities caused by health and resulting economic calamities

Are these three limited in scope to the affected person/family's immediate area?

For #1: If health care organizations are receiving federal aid, Measure #1 is federal in scope

For #2: Low productivity has its largest impact on the immediate area, but by affecting the potential mobility of the workforce it is also nationwide in scope (OK, this needs to be fleshed out!)

For #3: As long as social networks stretch over states and as long as indigent people are supported by federal dollars, Measure #3 is also properly seen as a federal issue

OK - so this isn't great expository writing and word-for-word wouldn't work in a blog - but please, remember that the biggest area of rhetorical weakness *because it's a major point of distinction between Rs and Ds* is this federal vs state issue. As long as your posts are intended to just make the choir happier, you don't need to address it - but if your posts are meant to provide rhetorical ammunition for discussions with friends, family, and coworkers who do not support ACA, this distinction needs to be addressed.

These guys are incredible spinners, like, spinners who on a DAILY basis employ "Big Lie" propaganda gall. Nothing is beyond the pale for them, because the basis of "Big Lie" propaganda is to swing for the fences at every at bat.

Their gall seems to come from a bottomless well. There is no ante that can't be upped, no bet that won't be called and raised. It's how they got to the scorched earth POV in the first place.

Does it become the Boy Who Cried Wolf, ever? (to mix my metaphors, yet again)

Hard to say. Marshal McLuhan would point out (from beyond the grave) that their primary demagogic medium, television, erases memory. Caters only to the NOW. That's the tribal, global village, a culture of secondary orality (thank you Father Ong)-- an electronically-mediated orality that is more tribal, associational, and vastly different from the print traditions of chronology, records, historical comparisons and accuracy, even from just 10 minutes ago.

I think this has actually been established in GOP policy and PR guidelines manuals, as the core tactic of an overt use of the "Big Lie." (as defined by Goebbels--he doesn't count for Godwin's Law, does he?)

There's no accountability or embarrassment for silly, in other words. It's just another form of the "Rubber-Glue" thing, a tactic at this point that is so overused as to become blindingly formulaic, rather than anything remotely innovative or remarkable. The GOP goes to it now like blindly pressing a button.

Hmmmm. There's an idea! If the GOP has taken a "Rubber-Glue" tactic and begun blindly using it, could it be manipulated (hacked, essentially) into absorbing into its accusatory messaging things the Dems deliberately want to PLANT there?

In other words, could a message be inserted into the GOP talking points, LIKE A TROJAN HORSE VIRUS, by simple virtue of the fact that, in a machine-like fashion, the GOP is automatically adopting every accusation made against them as a "Rubber-Glue" mirror accusation against the Dems?

All Dems Super-PACs would have to do is make a strong, bold accusation against the GOP (something that gets their attention, it can't be like a buzzing fly) that is an accusation the Dems would LIKE the GOP to make against them! Something that would be a divine compliment, in other words, through the use of a finessed kind of reverse psychology!

This sort of thing can be done with ANYTHING adopted in such a machine-like fashion. That's the basis of hacking, at its core. Manipulating the machine against itself. How to insert something foreign into a closed system.

It is why ethical and moral people can be so manipulated by Machiavellians. Because, in an almost machine-like fashion, they tend to make decisions based on the a desire to do the greatest GOOD. So that automation gets used against them by people who don't have those compunctions.

Some Dem PR person would just need to figure out what sort of thing is an anathema to Republicans, an insult they THINK is an indictment of anyone accused of it. So then, accuse the GOP of that, boldly, loudly. They'll do the "Rubber-Glue" thing automatically and turn it against the Democrats, and to the Dems, it would be seen as a feather in their caps, a divine compliment.

It's a high stakes game to play, tho, because Dems would risk accusing the GOP of doing something THEY liked, down deep, in order to get the GOP to turn around and ACCUSE them of it as a defensive tactic. Feels crazy to do that. Especially for people who are honest and at heart want to do good. Feels counter-intuitive.

GOP folks apparently like risk, like high stakes games, tho, because they feel quite certain the rubes, as they see the general masses they are most seeking to manipulate, have NO MEMORY, so if they screw up, they can just pretend it never happened.

Dems have more respect for populism, and don't seek to manipulate people so crassly. But Dems are also supposedly benefiting from a lack of memory (among certain elements of the television audience, at least). So if the risk falls flat, Dems could dump it into the memory hole too.

This may have happened by accident already. I made this point last night on Twitter. "OBAMACARE" was used by the GOP as a damning epithet. Yet in victory, it can be made into a TRIUMPHANT BRAND. Think of it. The GOP has already spent how much money branding Obamacare onto the Health Care Reform program. But what does that become but so much name recognition, permanently affixed to it, that can be used as a compliment?!

I got this idea from the Slytherins in Harry Potter (the books). They made up this song about Ron Weasley, called "Weasley is Our King," about how he was such a bad Quidditch goalie, missing goals, making Slytherins so happy, because he "cannot save anything."

So Ron makes a turn, WINS, and as his team carries him off in victory, they all sing the "Weasley is Our King" song, with a triumphal chorus. The epithet has become the victory song.

Oh, don't mind me. I'm just spinning.

Just remember, in democracy, your vote counts. In feudalism, it's your Count that votes.

A friend of mine pointed out yesterday that we should start calling "Obamacare" "National Romneycare." That would really stick it to the Republican scumballs.

Trouble is, everything we say on these boards about them, they are on their boards saying about us. And they believe themselves with the same furvor we believe ourselves.

Does it have to be that generations of people will be contaminiated by this extreme national polarization? Obama has reached out to the right until I just wanted to puke over the word bipartisan. Obviously, no one reached back. Is this the way it will stand? The right can't even accept the Supreme Court ruling with any grace or handshake.