Yesterday morning, the local RW blog Free Norwich took me to task for my rec list diary on Wednesday entitled The Top Ten Talking Points on Health Care (a rebuttal to insurance industry talking points), suggesting that my creation of such a diary before attending CT-02's Thursday night town hall implied that I was a better example of coordinated preparation than the RW groups accused of it:
DailyKos Bloggers...err not so bright
August 07, 2009 By: Rich Category: Uncategorized
Bloggers at the Kos describe exactly the tactics / preparation / talking points that the Norwich Bulletin accused the Tea Party Patriots of planning.
http://shadowsd.dailykos.com/
Funny enough, this jackass incorrectly credits the Norwich Bulletin with my edited video.
2010 Jackasses, see you there.
(quoted parts snipped for brevity, it's all at the link)
Subsequent comments to the post suggested that I was not from the district, and included such gems as "Anything coming from the kos kids is NOT too bright".
My reply below the fold...
Here’s the difference, peons.
The talking points points the insurance company pays $1.4 million a day to distribute through lobbyists, along with it’s contributions to organizations like Freedom Watch that distribute those talking points, come up with any ridiculous lies they can, using one-sided sourcing (all right wing sources).
The talking points I came up with I came up with - as a single individual, not asked by anyone, not told by anyone, not paid by anyone, as someone who has lived in this district for the vast majority of my life (since 1986; in the town of Mansfield since 1989) AND AS SOMEONE WHO HAS BEEN AN UNAFFILIATED VOTER FOR MOST OF MY LIFE - cited NON-PARTISAN sources - including the CBO you guys love to quote so much (except when the reality doesn’t suit you once the full report comes out, I guess - oops).
Get it through your heads, simpletons, and ask yourself one basic question. There’s nothing to be gained in what I do; what incentive is there for anyone to pay me a cent? On the other side, there are BILLIONS of dollars at stake for the insurance companies, because they have the power to drop or deny anyone they please when they need urgent care in order to maximize their profits. Of course they don’t want to give that up. So there, you have a source of money, you have a motive, and you have planning and mass collusion by the insurance companies for decades to block any reforms that has been documented by various non-partisan sources.
Me, I’m one fucking guy blogging in a room, with no financial incentive, trying to pass out information to counter a multimillion dollar bullshit campaign.
And you can’t tell which the coordinated threat is.
You guys are truly dimwitted.
For people who purport to appreciate the free market, particularly that allows a person to put their money where their mouth is, you sure aren’t able to follow the money at all when you try to sniff out who not to trust. There’s a huge financial interest on one side, zero on the other, and you guys are incapable of telling which is the big giant and which is the little guy.
And you guys claim to represent the rights of the individual. Sad.
I never voted for a major party candidate in any Presidential election before 2008, and I have been unaffiliated for almost all my life, switching only briefly to vote in primaries. I’m not wedded to any party brand, and yet you guys think you have me pegged as some Democratic organizer from out of district - it’s hilarious. I’m local, guys, I’m just a regular dude, and I’ll stop by and say hello if you need proof; my band played PJ O’Conners just a few months back, and I live only twenty minutes down the road from you - I’d be happy to come say hi. What’s sad is that you guys are so dumb you don’t realize why your party has lost my entire generation of voters, whether we particularly trust the Democratic Party or not - and aside from Obama, I never had much trust for Democrats in DC; it’s just that the Republican Party of recent years doesn’t even give me an option.
If you guys REALLY represented individual liberty, small government, fiscal responsibility, national security, and protecting the Constitution, then you guys would be doing a LOT better than you are right now - including among my generation (I’m 30). But you’re not. Aside from Ron Paul, every Republican in DC has suppressed individual freedoms, bloated the government, spent money with nothing to show for it years later, pursued conquests and occupations that weakened our national security, and shredded the Constitution every chance they had. You guys offer NOTHING as a party to any person with a modem and a working brain, and that’s pretty much the vast majority of people under thirty that I just described. Unless you guys can show a long track record of sticking to your ideals, you will be extinct as a party, as everyone from my generation will only have reasons to point and laugh at you. The Democrats will be the only choice, and in the long run, one party rule is NOT good for our democracy.
To their credit, it was posted, both as a comment and its own blog posting to display an opposing viewpoint, so kudos to Rich and Free Norwich for that.
There are really only three big tips for a successful response like this, if anyone is curious: 1) be honest, 2) make your arguments pragmatic and not emotional (putting aside the name calling, my appeal was entirely made on data points and not reliant on the listener's empathy), and 3) anticipate rebuttals/attempt to see your words being read in real time through the eyes of an opposing viewpoint as you type.
This was Rich's reply:
Geez Shadow,
I’m the administrator of this site, and unfortunately, you’re wrong on just about every point you make (assuming they’re directed at me).
I’m 36, a Navy Vet, indepenent voter, registered Republican, Ron Paul supporter, lover of freedom and liberty.
I too am just one guy in a room blogging (babysitting my kids tonight).
The Dems own Washington, so who has more muscle? As a Tea Party Patriot, I have no leadership, only friends who share common goals. No sponsorship, NO direction from the GOP, and certainly no checks from "big insurance".
Bottom line Shadow is that I trust competing "evil" corporations more than I trust the Federal Government to administer healthcare. I know socialized medicine well (VA). It is what it is, and I wouldn’t recommend it to those who have a choice. I perceive that you want higher income earners to underwrite everybody’s insurance. A noble enough goal sir, but how much are you putting into the pot? Socialists never have a problem spending other people’s money.
If you want to talk health care with me, let’s start with:
- Clean up/fix/root out corruption from Medicare and Medicaid. Make them a shining example of government administered healthcare and show me your progress. Only then can we talk of expansion.
- Offer tort reform prior to putting "the rich" (and the middleclass) on the hook for unlimited lawsuits.
Until next time...
And lastly, my response to him:
Rich, I give you credit for posting my response, kudos to you. If national conservative blogs operated the way you are, instead of censoring opposing viewpoints, conservatives would be in a much better position right now. They should follow your good example. Dailykos, for that matter, has only had the most luck as a blog in terms of traffic because independents and Republicans have been openly welcomed there and written recommended diaries - and I’ve had debates with people there throughout the year who despite being self-identified Democrats were in favor of any number of individual positions that would normally be labeled "conservative" positions, such as supporting the initial Iraq invasion, being against cash for clunkers, or being against gun control (in particular more common on dkos than you would think); the progressive viewpoint is a majority there, to be sure, but anyone can have a say, debates are vigorous over everything from the bailouts to foreign policy, and the fact is that free speech strenghtens any forum. That’s the gift of democracy.
Secondly, if you’re for Ron Paul, and you were speaking up about each and every one of the mistakes of the DC Republicans that I cited when they were being made - were you? - then I give you major credit for that, too, and you are as credible to be taken at face value for representing your point of view as I am. The GOP ought to run Paul in 2012 since they’re going to lose anyway, and pull a Goldwater; right now, the party is on track to seeing Palin emulating a failed Nixon comeback in 2012, but 1964 happened before 1968. History suggests you guys need to go back to your roots.
I take you at your word that you are not organized by any outside source, but you can understand why I might have thought otherwise at first, as the Tea Party protests have been associated with organized big money conservative groups - that doesn’t mean that everyone who participates is some shill, and I realize that (notice that even in my talking points post that you originally cited, my second point notes that people of good conscience are being pitted against each other, and includes pro-life in that description, instead of trying to vilify all conservative voters; trying to vilify everyone on any side of a given issue just isn’t constructive).
I think big government can be a VERY dangerous thing. However, corporations can be even worse when they get big enough. Corporations are not bound by Constitutions. They do not have to answer to the public. They do not have representatives that can be elected or thrown out. They are not required by any governing document to be accountable to the average citizen - ever. Government is often not accountable, either, but what is great about this country is that the Founders gave us the ability to at least try and make it accountable as much as we can - which is a heck more than no accountability at all from the corporations, unless we were to fail ALL the time. I would rather at least try, and pick the option where I always have the opportunity to try and improve things. Look at all the polls of who is happier with government health care (Medicare/Medicaid) vs. private insurance, and the former beats the latter by double digits - that’s the real problem with your argument.
Does this mean Medicare/Medicaid doesn’t need MAJOR reform? Of COURSE it does. Plenty of waste can be cut. However, if private insurance is making people even more miserable according to the polling, and is the only option for most of us, then that’s the primary concern. You may not remember this, but the question I asked Congressman Courtney at the town hall meeting was about how to address rural health providers not getting fair Medicare reimbursals so that the problem of inequality was not expanded by the public option, as many conservatives have been concerned with, and I suggest adding an amendment to the current bill to reform that aspect of Medicare and level the playing field; I agree Medicare reform is necessary, but since private insurance is in an even sorrier state, I’m going to put out the fire before I take out the trash - that doesn’t mean I approve of garbage piling up in my house, I just have my priorities straight. The links I provided in my earlier posts show non-paritsan analyses unanimously agreeing that the public option will save us money -, and even leave a surplus, according to the CBO - so I don’t know why you’re so worried about tax increases to pay for it (if there ever turn out to be any, it will be - as the American people voted for last year - only for people making 250K or more, a category that I doubt either of us fall into). As to your second point, I’m open minded when it comes to the issue of tort reform, having heard compelling arguments on both sides, and I am not ideologically hell bent on the issue either way - so I am quite open to your viewpoint on this.
This is what I would ask you, however, as a pragmatic question: we are the only civilized country that has 50 people dying a day because of not being able to get health care that our society has the means and technology to give. How can we compete with other countries if we believe that musicians, artists, and millions of self-employed low-level small businesspeople of all stripes should die because it’s their fault they couldn’t afford an exorbitantly priced private insurance policy; if our most creative minds don’t even deserve to live, how can we be the country of the most innovation, and not be passed by? With fifty people dying a day only in America and not among any of our Western competitors, what about the loss of productivity to our economy, the impact on the person’s family and the burdens placed on them, the subsequent loss of consumer dollars in the marketplace from the burdened family and the no longer existing consumer?
Lastly, I heard the question posed a few times from conservatives at Thursday’s town meeting of "where in the Constitution does it say we are entitled to health care?", and the answer is the very same Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution that you guys ironically think backs you up; how can the Congress say it is providing for the general welfare of the United States when fifty people die a day that didn’t have to? I know, I know, providing for general welfare cannot be interpreted every American is entitled to have the federal government to buy them a house, a bed, and fancy steak dinners every day; such broad interpretations would give Congress absurd powers, just as Madison correctly argued.
General welfare does NOT mean the federal government has to provide us with all our necessities - because such a system would NOT be capitalism - there you and I agree. HOWEVER, Congress’s ability and duty to provide for the general welfare under the Constitution, along with the Constitutional provision of equal protection under the law, DOES suggest that Congress has an obligation to see that people who work hard and save responsibly have an OPPORTUNITY to get those necessities; a system that has effectively been rigged over the years so that most people are one emergency away from getting dropped by their insurance and unable to get coverage due to pre-existing condition, and given no options but death when extensive treatment is necessary, cannot be seen as consistent with Congressional duties under the general welfare clause or equal protection clause of the Constitution.
That is where the debate left off, with Rich's reply being:
Thoughtful post above. I’ll have to respond when I’m better rested.
UPDATE: One person in the comments section of this diary was kind enough to thank me for the Top Ten List and said that they had bookmarked it - HOWEVER, that version from Wednesday is outdated and should not be bookmarked. The newer list (better information, better sources, more throughly sourced) is the one that should be bookmarked, it also contains a one page Microsoft Word version for easy print outs. Since a number of comments I've read suggest that the updated and improved version of the top ten fell through the cracks here compared to the attention the original diary received, I will post it again tomorrow morning.
UPDATE x2: sherlyle posted a great comment below that deserves to be bumped up:
I have a sister-in-law who's very nearly a cartoon, she's so Rush Limbaugh/Sarah Palin wingnutty.
She liked me just fine for 29 years, then discovered I meant to vote for Obama in '08. Now she can barely veil her disgust for me.
Because we're family, we're forced together from time to time. She made a remark about all the harm that's come to us from outsourcing jobs and manufacturing.
I replied, "Oh, absolutely, that's true", and she dropped the plate she was washing, she was so astonished. "But..you're a LIBERAL! You LOVE outsourcing"!, she said.
The trouble here is that she thinks I'M a cartoon, too. Rush Limbaugh/Hannity/Beck have told her what I think, and she's never bothered to check for herself to see if it's true.
In addition to the three tips I posted for how to rebut these sorts of arguments, I would most definitely add 4: Recognize that you are just as much a cartoon in their eyes as they might be in yours, and DON'T PLAY INTO THAT CARICATURE. That was as essential as anything else I did here.
In another comment, benint writes:
You can hold your own on intellect, but heart is what will put you over the top.
I'm really glad benint wrote this, because it highlights something I did not sufficiently clarify. In my tips I mention above for replying to something like this, I do say "make your arguments pragmatic and not emotional" - but this advice is ONLY for the purposes of debating die-hard opponents of reform, because going after them with arguments of empathy does zero to impress them. When it comes to standing in the public square, however, and trying to persuade people among whom many may be skeptical but open minded, then the opposite approach is warranted; you have to appeal to people on a personal basis that affects them before you can expect them start listening to more than one or two facts and figures without their eyes glazing over, and this is a place where Republicans have historically succeeded and Democrat historically failed - which is why my top ten list was above all geared towards presenting a compelling and emotionally effective picture with the figures as supporting pillars. As I said when I originally posted the list, it's not that figures were anything new; it was the sequence that the argument is in, and the compelling case made by that sequence, which truly make the list effective in any public/political arena at picking off undecideds, and leaving opponents in dumbfounded silence (but not convinced - the pragmatic appeal in this diary is the only chance of accomplishing that).