Sounds like the Repubs want to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine...

I don't know what they're all excited about. Chuck and Di will provide plenty of opposition to any point Obama makes, just to be "fair and balanced."

"In the end, though, it seems like a rather strange thing for Republican activists to get worked up about."

Strange?

Where have you been the last 20 or so odd years?

Charles Gibson should push his glasses down on his nose and ask Obama:

"Do you believe in the Bush doctrine?"

The RNC and conservative blogs in general are outraged by the discussion.

The RNC and conservative blogs in general are dicks.

Is it just me? When the GOP uses Democrat instead of Democratic it makes them appear to be grammatically challenged and at the very least very petty. Whenever I see that used I automatically think "what a dickhead"...and give the message no credence whatsoever. It enhances the idea is against any kind of intellectual competence of any sort...

ABC is second only to FoxNews for its slavish dedication to Republicans and their talking points (which network, again, ran that 9/11 tv movie?), so the GOPs outrage is even more ridiculous than usual.

And that's saying something.

Facts are facts: the Republican party does not want the unvarnished truth getting out to the American people without being able to lie about it and distort it until these same people are again thoroughly confused. When the American people are misinformed or confused, the Republicans do well.

Like any programs we broadcast, ABC News will have complete editorial control.

Editorial control? What does that mean - that they'll make it look live and spontaneous, even though it may not exactly resemble what the audience saw? Frankly, I don't know why Obama is giving control of the discussion to the guy who was most interested in flag pins and William Ayers during the primary debates.

Yep. More of the same. Play the refs, nudge them into asking hostile and petty questions. Same old, same old.

They seem pretty angered that they won't be able to control the discourse from the start, like every other topic on cable news.

McKay suggested the program may "become a glorified infomercial to promote the Democrat [sic] agenda"

That alone should immediately invalidate anything that follows it. And this from a "serious" source?

Spare me the manufactured outrage.

At what point will the entirety of America get tired of the constant whining, saying NO, and continued outrage over nothing? They have to at some point, no?

my first reaction was the same as "ohno"'s

the repubs are worried that rational and compassionate discussion might ensue.

and no opportunity for the repubs to inject any fear and hate and anger...

shee-it, i believe it was jimmy who said "life is unfair."

Let's start calling them the Republick party.

Go Repigs Go! Get outraged! Stamp those feet! Call foul! Point fingers! make demands! Name call! Get red-faced and use hyperbole!

(Is it me, or is anyone else getting so tired of faux outrage that everything that comes from the Grumpy Old People party creates a reflexive "There you go again" response?)

Let's start calling them the Republick party.

I love it. I'm totally in. How do we make this official?

What danp said above.

Republicans are instructing ABC to put at least a few GOP talking points on a pedestal. ABC's already demonstrated in the Primary debate that they're more than willing to jump through GOP hoops.

With Diane Sawyer and Charles Gibson asking the questions, the RNC has nothing to worry about.

"Let's start calling them the Republick party."

I prefer the Publican party myself.

Or Republiprick.

The RNC and conservative blogs in general are outraged by the discussion.

Probably just a little editing error, but I'd think that should read:

Since the GOP lost the last election, the RNC and conservative blogs are outraged in general.

And this 'Democrat' thing. This may look rather silly as such, but it's not really that small symbolically. Because if a party can not assert its own name (and its own program), what can it assert? I think it is this symbolism why the Rs insist on it.

And that's why I'd say it's time the Democratic Party request the Republicans to drop this practice, and if that doesn't happen, start to respond in kind by systematically using something like 'Republicanist' instead of Republican.

If that creates a fuzz, as it almost certainly will, they should offer to get rid of the last three letters in exchange for the GOP guys finding the two missing ones for Democratic.

Let's start calling them the Republick party.

Republickkk.

Obama doesn't go on tv: "He's afraid to answer questions because he's trying to sneak in single payer!"

Obama goes on tv: "He gets a free infomercial!"

No matter what side Obama takes, they'll always pick the opposite and run w/ it. No matter what..period...amen.

artsmith beat me to it but, yes, it sounds like they want ABC to be required to provide them time for rebuttal. You know, like the Fairness Doctrine used to require.

But, then, they want to be the only ones allowed to rebut, so "fairness" wouldn't be the right word to apply.

Drudge insisted earlier that ABC is "turn[ing] its programming over to President Obama and White House officials to push government run health care," adding that "the media and government [will] become one."

Because, you know, Drudge never helped push Republican propaganda back when that party controlled government.

Republican National Committee Chief of Staff Ken McKay wrote to ABC News last night, calling the health care discussion with Obama "astonishing," because viewers will be hearing from the president, and not members of the congressional minority party.

If only there were some kind of doctrine that would require broadcasters to be more fair.

As it is, suck it, RNC.

I like the "Republan" party (drop the -ic, just as they have done to us.)
(This has the added connotation of sorta sounding like they're a party of lushes, headed back to the bar/pub for another round).

Elections have consequences.

I agree with those who object to the use of Democrat Party. It is like starting a discussion of racism with the use of the "N" word. All that follows is irrelevant. They have placed themselves in a position of non-listening and anything said after that is to be ignored, at the least. Republick or Publican Party seem legitimate rejoinders to this abuse of civil discussion.

I am committed to Oneness through Justice and Transformation
peace,
st john

It is playing the refs. To be sure. But there really is no need. The refs are already against the best possible option to fix our health care woes:

Single Payer.

Single Payer proponents are either completely ignored, bashed, avoided, or silenced. They don't get a place at the table. Obama and the Dems don't even give them a place at the table, much less the GOP. Their advocates aren't appearing on TV or Radio. I'm betting for every question Obama gets from his left, he'll get twenty from his right. And the refs with be center-right on this one.

No mention from PA of Obama's refusal to open up the WH visitor logs?

If the republic party is so upset about this, they should put their money where their mouth is... and throw a tea party. That would sure teach us a lesson. Go on and teabag each other again republic party.

While it is tempting (and fun) to want the Dem leaders to call the goopers something other than their name (I vote for RepubliKKKan, myself), it is fine when WE do it, but if an elected official did it, I would immediately lose respect for them.

They should exert some energy in showing how petty and stupid the goopers are for playing dumb games, repeatedly. Hell, Tweety did it once. Why can't the fucking Dem's collectively find a set of balls? They are embarrassing sometimes.

And like Faux Nooze won't be running anti- Obama - Anti Health Care Insurance propaganda 7 - 24 convicing the rubes that they are better off without a helth care plan. Why boys and girls moms and dads ...you don't need no stinkin' Gubbment health insurance ..why it will put emergency rooms out of business and you would have to wait years to get a boil on your ass looked at as opposed to what you do now which is nothing cause you can't afford the doctor visit.

I suspect the RNC and its allies are just trying to work the refs, hoping that by throwing a fit now, they can push Gibson and Sawyer to push more absurd questions during the program.

Suspect? Hoping?

They are, and it will, again. Only this time, somehow, Dems managed to elect someone who isn't afraid of an unfair fight.

" ... it is fine when WE do it, but if an elected official did it, I would immediately lose respect for them."

A reflection of the fact that the Rs are better bar brawlers than the Ds?

I'd say what is good for the RNC, should be good for the DNC, etc, like-for-like exchange.

And I'd opt for Patrick's 'Republic Party'. RepubliKKKan, or the like, only works visually and, towards the MSM, it gives the Rs an opportunity to deflect it as offensive.

The one thing that the Republicans and those against real health care reform in this country fear the most is the bully pulpit.

Obama's impressive ability to not only answer questions succinctly and without undue complexity but to also do so with a presence exhibiting relaxed control and contemplative thought is what will do the naysayers in. They know that they don't have anyone--or any platform--with which to counter Obama's persuasive abilities in this regard. They have no game. No one else can do this, certainly not the Legislative branch.

Paraphrasing a well-known quote from a 1970s sci-fi movie:

Help us, Ob-ama, you're our only hope.

Why should the RNC get worked up...after all it is a corporate media. Btw...where was all this feigned outrage when Bush was interviewed. Why should we hear from the minority party...that's all we've been hearing from...they have dominated the airwaves each and every day.

They would get better answers interviewing me than Obama on Health care ins...after all Obama still calls Medicare a deficit as if that wouldn't change if Medicare were allowed to cover more than the elderly and disabled...or that the only reason single payer not for profit HC ins. is off the table is because of legislators not because of the medical community or the people or the cost. I get the same wait time if I have Medicare as if I had Blue Cross. One payer for all is the most efficient cost and coverage we could have and the only reason to oppose it is because of willful ignorance or because you've been bought and bribed.

If only Gibson and Sawyer would approach the conversation from that angle the discussion would be insightful...but they won't...it will all be answering republican minority talking points.

Oh the horror of ending private ins. profiteering and giving the people what they want. Save us Baucus.

Conservatives don't realize that they have already won this round. Obama and the Dems aren't going to fight for real reform. That would be Single Payer. Nibbling around the edges on this one won't do any good. Forcing every to buy health insurance just makes insurance companies bigger, richer, more powerful.

It's a stupid idea.

The smartest thing to do is to remove an unnecessary, bloated, profit-taking middleman. The insurance companies. They had nothing to your health care. They don't help you heal. They don't cure diseases. They do nothing but add an unnecessary layer of profit taking, increase costs by more than 30% (Medicare's overhead is 3%), and you STILL pay 20% out of pocket for all kinds of coverage.

Single Payer means no out of pocket expenses, no copays, and no denial of coverage due to preexisting illness.

Single Payer means a cheaper, truly rational, intelligent way of FINANCING health care. It's our best shot at lowering costs and covering everyone, as well as all but eliminating bankruptcies due medical costs.

But it's off the table. Dems and Republicans both have taken it off the table. Conservatives have already won this one.

How 'bout the Repelicans?

btw...I fear that this interview will be a means for Obama to explain why we can't have real HC ins reform. He's pretty much flipped on everything else so far.

@bjobotts.

Good points.

And the talk about Medicare is filled with inaccuracies.

It has a 3% overhead. Most private insurers come in at over 30%. And Medicare is covering the people most likely to need care, even constant care. If Medicare were spread across the entire population to include those who rarely need medical coverage, it's aggregate costs would plummet.

They're not comparing apples to apples. They're comparing a public insurance plan that currently covers the elderly, versus private insurance plans that get to cover the young and healthy.

The amount of disinformation in this discussion is really off the charts. I bet ABC does nothing to change that.

Wait a minute, this guy--whatshisname--Obama, is the President of the United States, right? Can we please just hear what he has to say? Pretty please?

It's nothing new.

I well remember an extended puff piece on Nightly Business Report where Susie Gharib teased the piece by repeating the Bush Admin talking points "The President says blah blah (points 1, 2, 3). We have an exclusive interview ..".
Then for the pieces intro they repeated the talking points.
Then you had the interview (where Bush repeated the talking points).
Then Gharib did the outro ... by repeating the talking points.

It's one thing to ask pre-approved questions, but this was ridiculous.

But as usual, in the mainstream media things are only an outrage when a DEM Dems does it (IOIYAR).

Gary says: "Wait a minute, this guy--whatshisname--Obama, is the President of the United States, right? Can we please just hear what he has to say? Pretty please?"

Of course you can, Gary. And then you can hear it again and again and again and again. You can hear it at the break of dawn and at the midnight hour. You can have that honey poured in your ear honey until the sublime sweetness of those dulcet tones drown out everything else. It's the plan, Gary, and you and millions of others are going to be good and soothed by it.

So vanderleun, who do you want to hear from. Newt, Mitch, Eric? Just WHO the hell do you want to hear from?
Gary is right, he is the frigging President of this country. I think he has a say. We've been deluged with the Rethug's thoughts. Why would they NOT want the fu-king damn President to have a word or two. Idiots!!!

I think they're afraid the public will hear Pres. Obama clearly when he says the 'public option' is NOT designed to destroy the health insurance industry and to take over the health care industry.

They can't handle the truth.

I wonder if Obama will begin to speak to all the different ideas which have been suggested wrt health industry reform.

IT to let doctors submit ONE form instead of 50

Eliminating education of med students on how to avoid malpractice suits

Co-ops and group plans via the Exchange

A VAT on health costs to pay for gov't subsidies

How to get more doctors into salaried positions

How to get more health care outfits to be non-profit

Encouraging ERs to triage less seriously ill patients into family-care facilities

How to push the higher-cost areas of the country toward lower-cost prices

Several ways to do a 'public option', so that gov't doesn't necessarily run it

etc.

"Let's start calling them the Republick party."

I prefer the Publican party myself.

Posted by: chaboard on June 16, 2009 at 1:18 PM

And I'm with chaboard -- and others I've seen using this locution lately on various blogs.

But the important part is why "the Publican party" is by far the best possible rejoinder to the Rethugs' "Democrat party."

Consider the following definition (Webster's Revised Unabridged) -- and then consider the context (and almost certainly the only context), as seen below, in which most Rethug and Independent voters have almost always encountered the term heretofore:

Publican

Pub"li*can\, n. [L. publicanus: cf. F. publicain. See Public.]
1. (Rom. Antiq.) A farmer of the taxes and public revenues; hence, a collector of toll or tribute. The inferior officers of this class were often oppressive in their exactions, and were regarded with great detestation.

A few samples of the context well known to everyone who reads their Bible:

"And when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto his disciples, Why eateth your Master with publicans and sinners?" Matt 9:11

"And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican." Matt 18:17

"The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican." Luke 18:11

"In New Testament times these taxes were paid to the Romans, and hence were regarded by the Jews as a very heavy burden, and hence also the collectors of taxes [ie, the publicans], who were frequently Jews, were hated, and were usually spoken of in very opprobrious terms." (Easton's Bible Dictionary)

It's brilliant -- just as Bill Clinton's introduction of John Kerry to the Dem Convention in 04 ("John Kerry said, 'Send me!'") and half the noises out of W's mouth (eg, Roe v Wade is this generation's "Dred Scott") were, it's a dog-whistle to the Christians that even the Christianists will recognize.
It's also perfectly Rovian in assigning an epithet associated with the loathed tax-collectors to the Rethug Party -- classic projection, which we know hits the RWAs' buttons.

It would be great if the term were to come into wider use; please pass it on.

Cuchulain has it right -- reforming health care by forcing everyone to have insurance and regulating rates won't solve anything.

Health care is so expensive because 1) doctors, hospitals, etc have to CYA by ordering every possible test so they don't get sued, 2) poorer people wait until they are very sick and then go to emergency rooms, which is an expensive way to receive care, 3) true costs of researching/producing drugs, medical equipment, physician care, etc. are not paid by those who use them, but shifted by insurance company or government decree.

So if we really want to solve the problem, we need to attack tort reform so insurance companies don't settle & pay every spurious suit, thus raising a doctor's cost of doing business. We need to reconsider the taxing & regulation of pharmaceutical companies to make it cheaper for them to research medicines so they don't need to charge as much when they're released. We need to encourage the business of primary care clinics that can offer health care to poor families less expensively than at an emergency room.

And we need to stop letting the insurance companies run the system. That was Hillary's downfall back in her First Lady days -- don't let it be Obama's.

wKXC2k

Badly need your help. The scornful nostril and the high head gather not the odors that lie on the track of truth. Help me! Can not find sites on the: Adt home security installation costs. I found only this - Adt security complaints. Find new west virginia adt security services jobs, careers, and employment opportunities at flipdog. Northstar security alarms provides homes and business with adt security for peace of mind. :-) Thanks in advance. Tyanne from Andorra.

I want to say - thank you for this!

It is the coolest site, keep so!

Excellent site. It was pleasant to me.

I bookmarked this link. Thank you for good job!

I want to say - thank you for this!

Perfect work!

Excellent site. It was pleasant to me.

Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!

Great site. Good info.

Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!

I bookmarked this link. Thank you for good job!

It is the coolest site, keep so!

It is the coolest site, keep so!

Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!

I bookmarked this link. Thank you for good job!

Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!

Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!

Excellent site. It was pleasant to me.

Excellent site. It was pleasant to me.

Great. Now i can say thank you!

Great. Now i can say thank you!

Incredible site!

I want to say - thank you for this!

Perfect work!

It is the coolest site, keep so!

Great site. Good info.

Great site. Good info.

Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!

Beautiful site!

If you have to do it, you might as well do it right.

Excellent site. It was pleasant to me.

Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!

Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!

It is the coolest site, keep so!

Great site. Good info.

It is the coolest site, keep so!

Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!

Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!

Excellent site. It was pleasant to me.

Great. Now i can say thank you!

It is the coolest site, keep so!

Beautiful site!

Perfect work!

Beautiful site!

Very nice site!

[Off-topic spam content deleted.]

Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!

Great work, webmaster, nice design!