Thursday, September 03, 2009

The Party of Love Heckles a Handicapped Woman In A Wheelchair

New Jersey Star-Ledger columnist Brian Donohue goes to a town-hall meeting on health care and finds it "far worse than anything [he'd] imagined." Donohue, a self-described centrist, says it best: "Anything those people are against, I should be for."
Can there be any room for a centrist at a health care reform town hall meeting


Charlieopera said...

Terrifying, really, but he did mention that Obama supporters turned their backs on him when he mentioned "tort reform".

Look, this just makes it all the more important that Obama doesn't fall on his face with health reform ... and those lunatics shouting in Red Bank (very wealthy neighborhood by the way, so I suggest the reporter was looking for Republicans when he went there) aren't going to be the ones who kill the public option or any other real reform. Like usual, it'll be democrats.

It'll be interesting to see if this new President is any different than the imbecile was there the last 8 years. So far, except for better public relations, I haven't seen a thing from this guy.

Think Nader in 2012 ...

Rob said...

These people are pathetic. Seriously, I've about had it with Americans. Near as I can tell, the vast majority of them are the dumbest of any industrialized nation. (An exaggeration, maybe, but not much of one.)

John McFetridge said...

It's too bad your system of goverment doesn't really allow for third party voices, Charlie.

In Canada our old CCF Party (Co-Operative Commonwealth Federation - now a shadow of itself as the NDP) never got elected, but always had a few seats in Parliament and it was form them that we got things like health care, unemployment insurance and welfare. Of course, the programs were implemented by the centrist Liberal party and quite watered down, but still.

When those kinds of compromises aren't on the table, guys like Nader and his supporters have no voice at all.

The opposition to health care in Canada when it was first brought in (only in Saskatchewan at first) was huge. Doctors went on strike and refused to participate, the insurance industry spent millions of dollars opposing it in the media (a lot of American insurance comanies took out ads in Canada against it) and so on.

It may be hesitant Democrats that fail to get universal health care in the US, but it's not an easy thing to do.

Charlieopera said...

John: Money controls the political system here. The degree by which it is controlled is how we can measure genuine social progress; we're way behind Europe, Canada and most of the progressive world on everything from equal rights for gays to nationalized health (and all the falls between). The party that is "supposed" to represent the people uses it's most liberal reformer (Kucinich) like a clown (and literally laughs him off debate stages). The only other viable party isn't permitted on the same stages.

That suggests to me the difference between Republicans and Democrats is too thin to measure. Wingnuts are another story, but so marginal it makes little difference.

We sure can use a third party. We can use a 4th and 5th I suspect, but the money here isn't about to acknowledge them and so long as we can "twitter" and Ipod and text message, etc. (the new opium of the masses), nothing of substance will change.

It took almost 200 years for us to end slavery ... gays still don't have equal rights ... yet we keep playing this Democrat v. Republican game.

Very depressing to think about.

John McFetridge said...

Charlie it looks like the biggest difference between the USA and Europe and Canada is that there are only two parties in your system.

That keeps everything within a pretty tight "center," and makes change happen incredibly slowly.

There are still lots of ways in which the USA leads the world, though, and most of those things you don't have yet started as ideas in the USA - they just gained acceptance (or acceptance was pushed through) elsewhere first.