The Health Care Hypocrisy of a Tea Party Candidate

What word would you use to describe a candidate for the U.S. Senate, who just happens to be a Tea Party favorite, that publically advocates repealing health care reform, opposes the regulation of health care insurers while at the same time benefits from health care provided by a federal government agency? If the word hypocrite comes to mind, you just hit the jackpot. Not necessarily intended to be a tongue in cheek quip, but our winner of the hypocrite of the day award goes to Nevada’s Sharron Angle, who just happens to hail from the land of slot machines and crap tables.

Yeah, you read me correctly, this morning’s “Politico’s Morning Score” blew the cover off of Ms. Angle’s dirty little secret and possibly a hole in her campaign to be the next U.S. Senator from Nevada. Needless to say, this isn’t exactly the kind of publicity that the Tea Party Movement is looking for either. Its one thing for the Tea Party Movement to be lampooned by the political highbrows on MSNBC and the Daily Show who can be dismissed as elitist by the party faithful. It’s quite yet another for one of its premier candidates to so seriously stumble just weeks before an election that is supposed to be the movement's coming out party in the big leagues of electoral politics. Politico’s Morning Score reports: “Angle's campaign acknowledged to Nevada journalist Jon Ralston Monday that both the candidate and her husband receive health care from the federal government. Spokeswoman Ciara Matthews said in a statement: "Mr. Ted Angle receives his pension through the (federal) Civil Service Retirement System. While it is not supplemented by the federal government, current civil servants pay into the program to pay the schedule of those already retired - much like how the Social Security Program works today.” But there’s more to it than just the machinations of the Angle family, another prominent mouthpiece of the Tea Party Movement, Michelle Bachmann, a regular critic of government health care is also a beneficiary of the very programs she rails against. According to MediaMatters.com:” Angle isn't the only right-wing Republican to bash government involvement in health care while benefiting from it. Back in May, the Minnesota Independent reported that Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN), a frequent critic of "socialized medicine," was profiting from a government-run health program in Minnesota through her husband's Christian mental health clinic.” A Christian clinic?, What became of the values of honesty and truthfulness, or are they to be convienently ignored when politics is what's on the menu?

So there you have it, some of the leading lights of the movement that is supposed to “take back our country” and bring us back to “the values and wisdom of our Founding Fathers”, have found it in their best interest to talk you out of the need for health care reform and insurance company oversight while they and their families are more than happy to benefit from programs they publically oppose. These Tea Party elites, who regularly blast the established Washington elites, have seen fit to insulate themselves and their families from life’s vicissitudes while admonishing the rest of us to” work hard, be frugal and trust in the markets and what made America great in the past." The hypocrisy in all of this is obvious and undeniable. What is not immediately obvious is to what extent these revelations just weeks before the mid-term elections will give the independent voter cause for concern as it regards supporting candidates like Sharron Angle or re-electing a Michelle Bachmann. I doubt it will do much to dissuade the rank and file Tea Party foot soldier, but it may. That said, what the rank and file intend to do really is of secondary import, it’s the independent voter who holds the key to both this election and the next.



Steven J. Gulitti

9/28/10





Sources:



Politico’s Morning Score: http://www.politico.com/morningscore/



Anti-Government Crusader Sharron Angle Receives Government Health Care; http://politicalcorrection.org/blog/201009280002



Sharron angle and Her husband Receive Government Health Care: http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?link=225844_Sharron_Angle_And_Her_Husband

Doubts About Christine O'Donnell Continue to Grow

Today's O'Donnell Farce du Jour

From Palin to O’Donnell or From Farce to Absurdity

Tax Cuts and Their Efficacy: A Postscript

It is noteworthy that General David Petraeus appeared yet again on the evening news last night, repeating his very real concerns and continued dismay over the planned burning of a Koran by Preacher Terry Jones. General Petraeus was emphatic in his denouncing the act, firmly believing that it will lead directly to increased American casualties: "General David Petraeus told NBC television that images of the Koran burning would be used by Islamic extremists to fuel anti-Americanism and harm the US mission in Afghanistan and other areas in the world. "We're concerned that the images from the burning of a Koran would be used in the same way that extremists used images from Abu Ghraib that they would in a sense be indelible", Petraeus told NBC. "They would be used by those who wish us ill, to incite violence and to inflame public opinion against us and against our mission here in Afghanistan, as well as our missions undoubtedly around the world, he added." Likewise similar concerns have now been voiced by General Ray Odierno, who recently stepped down as the ranking officer in charge of our military mission in Iraq. As of last night the F.B.I. has announced that a reaction to the burning of a Koran is imminent and the State Department has put American embassies and consulates on a full alert worldwide in expectation of their being targets of attack.

It is also noteworthy that in light of their current concerns, neither Petraeus or Odierno so much as uttered a passing reference to the controversy surrounding the planned construction of an Islamic Cultural Center in lower Manhattan. In light of this it's interesting to note the following. General Petraeus has a Ph.D. in International Relations from the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton University and General Odierno received a Masters in nuclear effects engineering and national security and strategy from the Naval War College. Thus a reasonable and well informed observer of political affairs would conclude, that in the midst of all the concern about the expected fallout from burning a Koran, both of these well educated and politically astute Generals would at least mention the planned construction project in lower Manhattan if it was even remotely related to issues of national security and safety. Yet, they didn't. Why because both of them know what many of the rest of us know as well, that it's not relevant or germane to what we can expect to be the follow on to the reckless folly that is scheduled to transpire this coming Saturday in Florida.

There are those among us who will continue to conflate the issues of burning a Koran and constructing an Islamic Cultural Center in their ill conceived and conceptually flawed argument as to how these issues relate one to the other or how both relate to the debate over national security and public safety. In trying to tie the two together they continue to reveal just how little they understand of the importance of the issue at hand, which is the burning a Koran on American soil by an American preacher for all the world to see. What we have here is a crass attempt to politicize one issue so as to distract the public from the other. In their silence on the issue of the Islamic Cultural Center, Generals Petraeus and Odierno, have effectively rendered this issue as something of little or no practical value in the current debate. It's time for those who are trying to use the "Mosque Controversy" as a foil or counterargument to the public concern with Preacher Jones' recklessness to realize the folly of their position and get on the right side of the issue once and for all.

Steven J. Gulitti

9/9/10

Sources:

Koran burning could amount to another Abu Ghraib: Petraeushttp://sify.com/news/koran-burning-could-amount-to-another-abu-ghraib-petraeus-news-international-kjjhkicfcda.html

Petraeus: Burning Qurans will undermine U.S. efforts in Afghanistanhttp://www.stripes.com/news/petraeus-burning-qurans-will-undermine-u-s-efforts-in-afghanistan-1.117486

Aiding and Abetting Our Enemies by Burning the Koran

The controversy surrounding the proposed and ill conceived burning of a Koran by a preacher named Terry Jones has devolved, to some degree, into an intellectual parlor game as to the rights of this preacher to do, untrammeled, what he pleases and the rights related to building an Islamic Cultural Center in the vicinity of Ground Zero. Lost in all of this intellectual exercise is the welfare of those Americans now serving in the armed forces overseas. Some would suggest that if Muslims have the right to build a religious and cultural institute in lower Manhattan, then Preacher Jones is justified in carrying out his burning of the Koran, as if the two were somehow conceptually equivalent as it relates to the potential fallout. Lost in all of this is the reality that while people have rights of freedom of speech and expression, those rights are in fact neither absolute nor boundless. Such rights are conditioned by an operative test as to what extent these actions fall within a society's accepted norms and fundamental mores. Both individual and group actions are viewed within the bounds of what rational people would consider reasonable in a civilized society. That's why we operate with common sense conditions on human action with the overall welfare of the population in mind, the prohibition of yelling fire in a crowded theater being an often cited example. The point is a very simple one, while as citizens we constitutionally have the freedom of speech and expression, those freedoms don't extend to or accommodate license and reckless behavior. Thus viewed against the social, political and legal realities of American society, one could only classify the intended behavior of Preacher Jones as that which has now gone beyond the pale of protected behavior and into the realm of unmitigated recklessness. Behavior that can only increase the threat level for Americans both at home and abroad.

By itself, the preacher's actions could be dismissed as the ranting and raving of just another maladjusted soul who seems prone to bizarre and anti-social behavior. But when that behavior puts the lives of Americans serving in the Middle East and Southwest Asia in jeopardy, then these actions are clearly at variance with the well being of both the nation's military and it's citizens. General David Petraeus has already raised the alarm that Preacher Jones' actions will increase the risk of attacks on Americans in Iraq and Afghanistan and protests of the planned burning have already materialized in the region. The General has drawn parallels with Abu Gharib and how the mistreatment of Muslim prisoners aided Al Qaida's recruitment efforts thereby directly adding to the number insurgents we had to face in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Like Abu Gharib, the burning of a Koran by a Christian preacher will provide images that directly help Islamic radicals in their recruitment efforts, the General said. Jones' intended act will undo much of the progress made in winning the hearts and minds of Afghanis and Iraqis as well as creating further disincentives for moderates in the region to align themselves with the American effort. The net affect of Preacher Jones' act of freedom of expression, if carried out, will most likely be Americans losing their lives so that this glorified storefront preacher can garner his fifteen minutes of fame. That's what's really at issue here and all of the rest of this intellectual gymnastics is both now misplaced, misconstrued and totally misses the point that when freedom of speech or expression crosses over to the reckless, then it need be proscribed for the good of the overall public. While people can certainly continue to discuss the pros and cons of Preacher Jones' actions, those who chose to do so are blind to the larger issue entwined within all of this and that is the safety of their fellow Americans. The time for the intellectual games has passed and the time for an advocacy of the rational and reasonable as it relates to this issue is now upon us .

Steven J. Gulitti
9/7/10




Sources:

Quran Burning Warning: General Petraeus Words Fall On Deaf Ears?
http://www.postchronicle.com/news/breakingnews/article_212321953.shtml

Top US Commander: Burning Quran Endangers Troops
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100907/ap_on_re_as/as_afghanistan

Burn a Koran Day Sparks Protests in Afghanistan
http://www.breitbart.tv/burn-a-koran-day-sparks-protests-in-afghanistan/

Koran Burning: Terry Jones Burn A Quran Day Not Cancelled
http://www.newsopi.com/us/koran-burning-terry-jones-burn-a-quran-day-not-cancelled/4130/

Where Have all the Libertarian’s Gone?

The late Mary Travers once sang a song called “Where Have All the Flowers Gone? It was a lamentation about the human cost of war and it was a popular protest song during the Vietnam era. Well it seems to me that someone could write a song, or at least ask the same question, about Libertarians. Specifically, where have all the Libertarians gone?

In the din and roar surrounding politics in America today much is made of the importance of Libertarian thinking. Some have pointed out its importance to the Tea Party Movement: “More recently, the Libertarian theme of the "tea party" began with Republican Congressman Ron Paul supporters as a fund raising event during the 2008 presidential primaries to emphasize Paul's fiscal conservatism, which laid the groundwork for the modern-day Tea Party movement.” That said it’s interesting to consider the following two questions: First, if Libertarian ideas are so compelling, how come Libertarians garner such a small portion of actual votes during major electoral campaigns? Secondly, if Libertarians command such low voting totals, how is it that there is such a disproportionate number of Libertarian organizations and who is putting up the money to support them?

During the 2008 election cycle, America’s Libertarian’s had a clear choice among those vying for the Republican nomination for president. Ron Paul was an outspoken Libertarian and had been so for many years. Paul’s Libertarian bona fides were well established, widely known and beyond question. But Paul wasn’t even remotely competitive within the G.O.P.’s contest for candidate in the 2008 presidential election cycle. Yet even though Paul was eliminated from the race, Libertarians still had a choice in the person of Bob Barr, the former Republican Congressman of Georgia, and the Libertarian Party’s presidential pick for 2008. The irony of it all is that even though they still had a horse in the race, in an election that offered four different choices for president, the Libertarian candidate finished dead last with a paltry 523,686 votes or 0.4% of the total votes cast in 2008. With the aforementioned facts in hand, we can only conclude that Libertarians either do not vote, fail to vote for their own candidates or that there aren’t very many of them in existence after all.

Well, if it’s hard to discern the actual existence of Libertarians in any precise number, then how is it we have over sixty five Libertarian organizations afloat in the body politic according to Wikipedia? The Stason Organization lists 11 “Major Libertarian Organizations” and 33 “Think Tanks”. But this begs the question: Why so many organizations for just over a half of a million voters, or less than one half of one percent of the voting public? It seems a bit fishy to me that we have all of these “Libertarian” organizations in a country that seems to have so few Libertarians. If we have so few Libertarians, then where does the cash that fuels all of these “Libertarian” organizations come from? After all it would be pretty hard to fund this large number of organizations out of the pockets of just 0.4% of the voting public. Could it be that these “Libertarian” organizations are propped up by those with a specific agenda and deep pockets or do these 523,686 voters just all happen to be billionaires? So can someone tell me where have all the Libertarians gone, long time passing?



Steven J. Gulitti

9/6/10