That’s the Ticket

It’s difficult to pinpoint when the Right figured out that lying was the path to victory, but in the years since Watergate, it’s become not just an expedient stalling tactic for difficult situations, but a way of life.  Lying was still considered somewhat distasteful back then, as was the case when, inundated with a wave of contradictory evidence, Nixon press secretary Ron Ziegler blandly and flatly declared, without explanation, that all his previous statements on the subject of the day were “inoperative.”   “Not wrong, not misinformed,” as one chronicler of the era put it, “but simply inoperative, like batteries gone dead.”  I’m not sure when the Energizer Bunny took over for the GOP Department of Falsehoods, but that wascally wabbit is still running circles around the Elmer Fudd of truth to this day, and no lie once uttered is ever declared “inoperative” anymore, but recharged again and again with more and better lies.  An entire industry of lying has cropped up, with armies of pundits, think tankers, “historians,” adding new and improved details, until all the lies fit together into a glorious narrative that all agree is far superior to those musty old, and often embarrassing, facts.

Candidate Reagan took the lying ball and ran with it, for the Presidency, no less, and after convincing a majority of the electorate that it would be possible to spend more, tax less and balance the budget in so doing, spiked the ball in the end zone by declaring, “facts are stupid things.”  His special ability to make lying seem cute and endearing, like the increasingly embroidered tales of a favorite uncle, convinced the GOP that telling the truth was a chump’s game, and they vowed never to do it again.  His rather messy legacy also spawned a new category of lying, the backdated lie, and a whole generation of Republicans thus were able to blame the disasters and corruption that tainted his tenure on the Democratic congress, the liberal media, and whatnot.  The “successes,” for which we are still paying, were magically transformed into historic triumphs; thus the collapse of the Soviet Union became his singlehanded and prescient victory, and even the economic boom that occurred a decade after he left office having presided over two grinding recessions was attributed to his economic genius.  Seems plausible enough…  After all, they named an airport after him, didn’t they?

Having watched how Clinton’s lawyerly, evasively worded approach to lying failed so miserably, the Bush Administration decided to lie early and often, even when the truth would sound better; rather than using lies as defense they used them as offense, and due to the media’s shameful timidity, this strategy nearly always worked.  It’s difficult to imagine that Karl Rove never read this passage from Jonathan Schell’s book about the Nixon era, “The Time of Illusion,” since he adopted it as his blueprint for the Bush Administration:

The public had grown accustomed to deception and evasion in high places, but not yet to repeated, consistent, barefaced lying at all levels.  The very boldness of the lies raised the cost of contradicting them, for to do so would be to call high officials outright liars.

An entire cottage industry of faux outrage grew up, instantly denouncing anyone with the temerity to imply that the absurdly false statements rolling out of the administration on a daily basis were in fact false, and suddenly the act of calling a liar a liar was a much more grave offense than the lying itself.  The childhood verse about sticks and stones had been quite effectively turned on its head;  Bush had to be zealously protected from being called mean names, as though he were the skinny kid on the playground whose lunch money always got stolen, rather than the Leader of the Free World and War President.  The fact that he was a liar, indeed one of history’s greatest, managed to get lost amid the constant fainting and crocodile tears about “Bush Derangement Syndrome,” especially on Fox.

As the disastrous consequences of Bush’s failed policies began to fall like rain, and worse, correctives for them began to be floated as Rove’s Permanent Republican Majority circled the drain, the Republican lie factory cranked up to three shifts to meet burgeoning demand for lies to cover every misstep, past, present, and future.  And since the infrastructure for disseminating lies had grown like kudzu while the infrastructure for debunking them had withered on the vine, no lie was too audaciously false to be given a serious airing and be embraced by millions.  As my mother used to say, “the first liar doesn’t stand a chance.”  Jonah Goldberg wrote a whole “book” dedicated to the demented notion that Hitler was a liberal, others topped him by saying that the New Deal made the Depression worse (and one liar even got carried away and said the New Deal caused the Depression), Republicans were cast as the party of Civil Rights, and on and on.  As with Reagan, every Republican mistake for the last hundred years was attributed to liberal and media treachery, and John Gibson, intrepidly fair and balanced “journalist” that he is, uncovered the secret that Bush was not actually the worst President in history, but merely a helpless victim of, you guessed it, “Swifboating.”

I’d like to say you can’t make this stuff up, but clearly you can, and they do.  The latest innovation is to create “evidence” to back up the most treasured yet flimsy lies, which, compared to an obese layabout typing that Hitler was a hippie because he favored wholesome foods, at least deserves an A for effort.   Heavily edited videotaped “stings,” played endlessly, thus “prove” that ACORN favors child prostitution, despite no evidence and multiple exonerations in court, and no amount of objective analysis of the overhyped “climategate” emails will ever convince a righty that Global Warming is anything but an elaborate trick by greedy and diabolical scientists to destroy capitalism and create one-world government, all to get a little grant money.

Whether this hoped-for government will be fascist or communist, or that new category, both, is largely immaterial.  It’s their story and they’re sticking to it.


  1. timothy3 says:

    Heh, CH,

    no amount of objective analysis of the overhyped “climategate” emails will ever convince a righty that Global Warming is anything but an elaborate trick by greedy and diabolical scientists to destroy capitalism and create one-world government, all to get a little grant money.

    When this “climategate” thing broke, my first thought was “Wait–these scientists are getting what out of this? Tenure? Beard combs? Are they shilling for Prius?”

    And this

    others topped him (Goldberg) by saying that the New Deal made the Depression worse (and one liar even got carried away and said the New Deal caused the Depression)

    called to mind this Mary Matalin gem via ThinkProgress

    I was there, we inherited a recession from President Clinton and we inherited the most tragic attack on our own soil in our nation’s history.

    Yeah, I guess she was “there” even if it wasn’t quite the “there there” she had in mind, what with the calendar and all.

  2. nailhead tom says:

    Almost thirty instances of the noun, gerund, adjective, verb, and adverb forms of lie but no actual examples of such. “. . . no amount of objective analysis of the overhyped “climategate” emails will ever convince a righty that Global Warming is anything but an elaborate trick by greedy and diabolical scientists to destroy capitalism and create one-world government, all to get a little grant money.” If one looks at all the available evidence and comes to the conclusion that “global warming” is a fraud, and expresses that conclusion, one is lying? It’s typical of Leninist thinking to call those that disagree with the collectivist dogma liars. Already O’bama is blaming his buddies in the banking racket for failing to keep the bubble inflated. Will they correspond to the “wreckers” of the initial “Five Year Plans”? Or is he lying? For decades, the medical community believed that stomach ulcers were caused by stress, now they think they’re the result of bacteria. Were they lying then? Or are they lying now? We hear continuously of how atrocious American health care is and how great it is everywhere else. Are these lies or matters of opinion? The O’bama utopians said that if we didn’t create billions of dollars out of thin air and give them to their corporate allies, the unemployment level would reach 8%. It’s well over ten percent now and climbing. Were they lying or simply wrong?

    • cocktailhag says:

      Listen, Tom. Pretty much every time righties are jumping up and down about something, it’s been a lie, and has been that way for thirty years. Name me a prediction, policy, or principle that wasn’t a fib wrapped in a distortion and served atop a pile of BS, and I’ll give you a chocolate bunny in time for the War on Easter. With a side of peeps, and microwave instructions.
      But since you obviously believe all these things, and defend each one so vehemently, you betray the fact that pulling on just one thread would quickly unravel your whole Glenn Beck Christmas Sweater. Obviously scientific evidence isn’t going to do the trick, but how about the sheer absurdity of the whole Climategate idea? All these tweedy hippie climatologists, all over the world, cook up a scheme together, going so far as to make huge, glacier-size stuff start disappearing, but then even get bugs, plants, and animals to go along and migrate, maybe giving them little mink coats to brave the cold. Then they all start tossing cinder blocks from their bookcases and old bongs into the ocean so the water will look like it’s rising, all the while hoping no real Americans like you and Sarah Palin will catch on.
      But just like on Scooby Doo, you meddling Konservative Kids, with your three sentence fragments among thousands of emails, have foiled their dastardly plot just in time for the commercial break. Please.
      Believe whatever lies you choose, but I would suggest as a friend that you don’t go out of your way defending the most retarded ones, except perhaps in a nursing home Alzheimer’s ward.
      It makes you look like a ninny.
      Obama is making some very dumb and Republican-like moves regarding the bankers, and the wars as well, as I have said time and again, that’s why he has to resort to Republican-like lying to sell them. As Republicans learned long ago, that sort of thing can’t be sold honestly.

      • nailhead tom says:

        “he has to resort to Republican-like lying to sell them.” So if a Democrat tells a lie, he’s acting like a Republican? Boy, oh boy, you’re getting farther and farther out on that “doesn’t make any sense” tangent.

        • cocktailhag says:

          Owing to the fact that you had to leave out the most important part of my sentence to “make” your point, I’ll just assume you drink more than I do.

  3. mikeinportc says:

    No evidence of lies? :) ))))))))))))))))))))))))))

    All governments lie. Why do you trust government so much, tom?

    btw ,just saw St. Lie-berman repeat the one about the hordes of ex-Gitmo residents going back to terrorism. Of course, among the august company of Shelby, Hoekstra, Chris Wallace, Menendez, Specter, and one other GOPer [didn't recognize him] , nobody said othewise. ):(

    • cocktailhag says:

      Can you believe that crap? These chickenhawks clearly have no idea that we can’t fight any more wars. None. We’re beat, and we’re giving an extra $44,000 each year to the “privatized” army to hide this inconvenient fact. Not one more American is signing up for these dimwitted wars, no matter how bad the economy gets. They can’t let go of that Mission Accomplished poster they have hung up on their walls, like Farrah Fawcett’s was for normal boys.
      Bring back the draft, starting with the freeloading children of Bush’s “Have-mores.” Problem solved.

  4. retzilian says:

    Tom’s examples, as usual, are specious and beside the point. It’s not lying when you have a theory with existing information and then get new information and change your theory. That’s called LEARNING.

    It’s a lie when you misrepresent- intentionally, eschewing facts, intelligence and history – something as important as invading a country, where thousands of people die.

    Nobody is dying because scientists had differing opinions on global warming. Nobody will die if we lower our carbon foot print. Nobody will die if we stop making gas-guzzling cars. Nobody will die if we put GTMO detainees in a maximum security prison, except maybe the detainees if they are mistreated.

    Lies that cause DEATH are inexcusable, Tom.

    • nailhead tom says:

      Interesting concept. So it’s OK if I tell my wife I went fishing when I was actually out with my girlfriend as long as nobody gets killed. I’ll keep that in mind.

  5. retzilian says:

    And furthermore, it would be saving lives to have universal health care. I can’t imagine why anyone would want to LIE about how our current health care system is good and that the new one will cause granny to be euthanized or subjected to a fantasy “death panel.”

    These people are pathological and those who support them are evil. Period.

    • nailhead tom says:

      Even the demented architects of the “universal health care plan” admit that no where near 100% of the population would be covered so the term “universal” has to be an act of mendacity, maybe on your part. And how do you know that it would “save lives”? Don’t we all die, eventually, no matter what our health care regimen might be? The impression initially given by the health care utopians was that US health care was simply too expensive and that the lower orders couldn’t afford to pay for medical service or insurance and were thus being neglected and reducing our collective life spans and health levels. Ergo, “rich” people could afford effective health care but “poor” people were doomed to obesity-induced diabetes, limb amputation and accidents in cheap wheelchairs. The cost of health care, through government intervention, would be lowered so “poor” people could afford better diet counselling and maybe more stable wheel chairs. But that hasn’t been the focus of the House or Senate encyclopaedic bills. Rather, thousands of pages of bureaucratic legalese that no elected official has read are devoted to constructing a government- corporate alliance that will eventually control every aspect of American life, beginning with your birth and ending with your death and internment. Those who find reason to object to this are “evil” according to your naive and witless assessment. Oh, well.

      • retzilian says:

        So, only poor people are fat? What’s with you and the idea that obesity only affects the poor? I can probably Google about 20 rich elites who are obsese by actuarial standards, Tom.

        Right now, today, there are plenty of slim people who don’t have health insurance. Many because they were laid off, their jobs moved overseas or eliminated, and most can’t find new jobs with group health care.

        Even a very healthy 55-yr old man will be discriminated against by health insurance providers. I know this for a fact – I do this for a living.

        And what about all those kids whose parents are too wealthy for SCHIP (and you don’t have to make much money to disqualify for state health insurance for your kids)?

        Would you rather see millions of kids die young? Who’s gonna pay into Social Security to support you in your retirement, then?

        You have it all ass-backwards. You are not thinking ahead, dude. Unhealthy people, regardless of income, is a very expensive problem down the road.

        I’m neither naive nor witless. You are simply wearing blinders and don’t appreciate the long-term investment advantages to having kids grow up with good health care and college educations. You’d rather let them starve, die or be undereducated and not be able to contribute to the economy in 20 years. You are hopeless.

        • nailhead tom says:

          “Would you rather see millions of kids die young? Who’s gonna pay into Social Security to support you in your retirement, then?”

          Are you saying that if the government/medical complex doesn’t take over health care “millions of kids will die young”? Oh, yeah, that’s exactly what you said. How? From what? They must be dying in that manner at this very moment. Is it from measles, mumps, whooping cough, beri-beri, dengue fever, Hansen’s disease or what? The reality of it is, the truth, if you will, is the leading cause of pre-adult mortality is automobile accidents. And the Ponzi scheme known as Social Security will be more solvent if the government takes more money for health care? If you say so.

          • cocktailhag says:

            But I thought righties loved automobile accidents… the way y’all support driving against all other transportation, and cheer on unsafe cars, shows that. And Ponzi schemes? All you guys do is romove impediments to them.
            Last time I checked, Social Security’s only real trouble was you deficit-lovers raiding it for funds.
            Goose egg, as usual.

          • nailhead tom says:

            You’re rebuttals are becoming pretty inane. Are you really Pee Wee Herman?

  6. bystander says:

    A nailedhead tom antidote. Salon‘s “John Anderson” on global warming deniers, and other stuff.

    A personal favorite:

    the right-wing climate model

    Sarah Palin in hotpants.

  7. nailhead tom says:

    gregworrel on cafe hayek:
    “We have all heard politicians say that the rising cost of health care is unsustainable. Unlike the politicians I always thought that that was a good thing. If it is unsustainable then that means that prices cannot continue to go up in the future at the rate they have in the past.

    If price increases are unsustainable then people like Dr Muirgeo and others in the health industry will have to adjust their prices to what people can actually afford. Widespread coverage with health insurance has already allowed providers of health care to push their rates to astronomic heights. (Didn’t someone on this blog mention $80,000 for a 3 day hospital stay for appendicitis?)

    Now even with the cost-spreading provided by health insurance, the costs are becoming out of reach leading to stripped down policies and more and more people unable to even afford insurance. Attempts by insurance companies to control costs are being demonized when they are merely responding to consumer demand for lower cost health care when they have little power to control the prices charged by providers.

    So now the government is going to fix the health care cost problem. Not by expanding the supply of doctors and nurses. Not by reducing regulations that increase the costs of drugs. Not by allowing drugs to be imported at lower cost.

    They are going to fix the cost of health care by increasing the supply of money going in. Those who think health insurance is too expensive and choose to opt out will not have that freedom. It doesn’t matter if they are young and healthy–we must have their money too. Those who want a policy that excludes those with pre-existing conditions will not have that option. Those such as myself who have a high deductible HSA plan, sorry, that just makes too much sense.

    Problem fixed. Rising health care costs ARE sustainable. At least until the next election.”

    • rmp says:

      Here’s someone who thought just like you do about our health care system until reality hit home. I find it hard to understand, even though I do try to, why other people’s suffering can be denied all the way to one’s doorstep. Your party should be called the RE-re-re-denialcans.

      Health care reform: Elgin man with heart troubles has change of heart: Job loss, medical issues lead to a new perspective,0,2418252.story

      • rmp says:

        Maybe you can explain the logic of this propaganda-doused Re-denialcan. It is well beyond me.

        Not Knowing What Else To Do, Health Reform Foe Takes Down Christmas Tree (AUDIO)

        • dirigo says:

          Well, sorry, Bunny, “nation under God” is an official line that we all know, but whether we are such a nation, or not, is still a debatable proposition.

          Those pesky Deist founders, like Jefferson, and even John Adams, were wrestling with that. Ol’ Tom Paine certainly was, when he tried to talk “common sense.”

          The establishment clause in the Constitution was inserted for people just like you, Bunny, so why not chill and turn your holiday lights back on before January, when you’ll have to take ‘em down anyway.

          God is a many splendored thing of coures, and I’d wager he’d probably encourage more discussion about this, especially considering all the loud absolutists around these days.

          I’ll call and ask.

          I have a private line, a pipeline you might say.

  8. The Heel says:

    My favorite smile point in your story, Tart, was the Hitler being a Hippie part :)
    I knew it all along. Those Hippies can’t be trusted! I guess he hated the Jews for their freedom (to eat kosher meat) or something.

    I’ll spare you an iteration of my recommended liberal “takeover” of the Goeppels/Rove model and I must say, ultimately it doesn’t matter to me as a citizen which party those lying bastard belong to, but I still cling to the naive notion that liberals every now and then want to push agenda items that are in the best interest of the little guys.

    Glad to see the Nailhead back. He really has tenacity, albeit no pints.

  9. nailhead tom says:

    Thomas Hazlett, in Commentary:

    In an October 2008 report, the Center for Disease Control placed the U.S. 29th in infant mortality, tied with Slovakia and Poland, and trailing Hungary and Cuba. That stunning outcome was quickly seized: the U.S. health-care system needs to be more like the government-run systems in those lands.

    Proponents of that view often shift into one-on-one comparisons of Canada and America. Canada, with mandatory public health insurance, experiences 5.3 deaths per 1,000 births; the U.S., with private insurance for most, sees 6.9 deaths, a rate 30 percent higher. This outcome is then attributed to cross-country differences in the health-care systems. “Canadian Health Care, Even With Queues, Bests U.S.,” writes Pat Wechsler for, citing infant mortality as 34 percent higher in the United States.

    But infant-mortality differences can and should be explained by the American proportion of teenage mothers, which runs here at three times the Canadian rate. These pregnancies are less healthy, producing more premature, low-birth-weight babies. Within each birth-mother age category, the U.S. has generally equal or better infant survival, as a 2007 National Bureau of Economic Research paper by economists June and David O’Neill details. The problem of infant mortality remains. It should surely be reduced in the U.S., and serious measures should be undertaken to accomplish this. But the factors that cause it—adolescent pregnancies, drug abuse, smoking, drinking, and obesity—are probably not going to be fixed by changes in health insurance, public or private.

    Focusing on the healthcare system requires nuance that, for those happily touting summary statistics, is not worth the stress. Michael Moore’s documentary Sicko revels in rankings that place Cuba ahead of America in the infant-mortality race. Indeed, in 2008 Cuba claimed an infant-mortality rate of 5.8 deaths per 1,000 births against the U.S. rate of 6.9. Setting aside questions as to which deaths count in the infant-mortality statistic—U.S. medicine makes extraordinary attempts to save low-birth-weight babies that would otherwise be deemed miscarriages—and the far higher mortality of birthing mothers in Cuba, just one adjustment is provocative: the rate for Cubans living in the U.S. is 4.2. Holding culture constant, the U.S. outranks Cuba.

    That may not be much of a boast, but political opportunists and newspaper headlines trumpet just the reverse story. Alas, our PowerPoint Generation gravitates to bullet points and two-dimensional bar charts, even as we stumble our way through this multidimensional universe. CliffsNotes science drives crises where none exist and misses those that truly loom.

    • cocktailhag says:

      Every civilized country has universal health care, and better outcomes for less money. This isn’t really under debate, but go ahead.

      • nailhead tom says:

        It is under debate, by many. But the real argument is if the proposed solution advanced by the dems (who can pass anything they want, by the way) will solve the perceived problems.

        • cocktailhag says:

          Funny you should storm into a discussion of lying with so many lies. The weaknesses of the HCR bill are entirely the result of pandering to righties, OF BOTH PARTIES. Don’t blame me for Joe Lieberman et al; he’s your soulmate, not mine.
          The idea that liberal dems have any leverage in our cash and carry government is just too retarded to argue against, so please set that tripe aside. Your maniacal partisanship blinds you to reality, but others aren’t similarly addled.

    • dirigo says:

      Tom, the quote you cite contains nothing more than your “beggar thy neighbor” attitude toward anything remotely resembling a community-based, clinic-oriented health care system, where the drug and alcohol-addled mothers (probably all minorities) would get preventive health instruction and care, in the hope and with the goal of reducing low birth weight babies and the infant mortality rate.

      The reference to the apparent, willing hopelessness of those pregnant women assumes that even with – dare I say it – mandatory public health screening and clinic-based preventive care, they would refuse treatment and continue the bad habits you loathe.

      You don’t really know what the outcomes might be if women were confronted with the stakes of their pregnancies and given real options for the care of their babies, maybe even shamed into taking better care of themselves; and, while a certain percentage would still go down, it’s not possible to say how many could be saved.

      No, we can’t save every sparrow; but then, we’re not talking about sparrows, are we?

      It’s impossible to know UNTIL WE TRY.

      It seems clear that you would not stand for any taxation or restructuring of the national health care system which might, just might, result in better health care, and real education of poor people toward that goal – people across the tracks from you.

      You are, here, simply a pettifogger.

      You’re not arguing for anything except yourself. There is no solution discernible in what you post. There are only rationalizations and analysis, which is part of the do-nothing position on national health, to be carried into the mid-term elections and beyond.

      The die is cast, and you are a canary in the coal mine.

      • nailhead tom says:

        Even if, as has already been attempted time after time, teen mothers, products of a welfare industry that has created an army of well-paid college-educated social workers administering a maze of programs that includes free food distribution that’s actually welfare for supermarkets and food manufacturers, can be dissuaded from poisoning their fetus with alcohol and fast food, does that persuasion require the restructuring of the entire US medical complex? By the way, if I’m caught feeding my 6yr old daughter strychnine, I’ll be incarcerated. But her mother can feed her alcohol before she’s born, give her fetal alcohol syndrome and reduce her to a lifelong moron with no legal consequences. Now that’s a real health problem and a government-insurance alliance isn’t the answer to it.

        • cocktailhag says:

          The recent uptick in teen preganancies can be almost entirely attributed to abstinence-only education, occurring in the Bible Belt, where your types reside, and the social patholgoies that result, same thing, with the addition of the dissolution of the social safety net you constantly champion that leads to more abortions. When you parrot your phony statistics, could you screen them more carefully?

          • nailhead tom says:

            At least you’re consistent in never addressing the proposition put forth and changing the subject in a vain effort to gain some kind of rhetorical advantage. Pathetic.

        • dirigo says:

          Tom, gargoyle that you are, do you have a six-year old “lifelong moron,” who we didn’t know about and who you’re suddenly admitting to?

          Do you have any strychnine in your medicine cabinet for the use you describe?

          Do you actually have a wife?

          Does she know where the liquor cabinet is? Could she find it in a pinch?

          If so, could she recognize the right bottle of 100 proof to use if she could identify your six year old (the aforementioned lifelong moron) quickly enough to administer the poison?

          Would said wife understand the “legal consequences” you speculate about before getting your six year old drunk, or contaminated with strychnine?

          Would you counsel your wife ahead of time?

          Are we to assume this might be a joint effort on the part of you and your wife?

          Have you ever met any “well paid college educated social workers administering a maze of programs that includes free food distribution that is actually welfare for supermarkets and food manufacturers”?

          How many attempts have been made by said “well-paid social workers” to “dissuade” poor women to poison “their fetus with alcohol and fast food” anyway?

          Might you be indignant at some of these pointed questions?

          Hmmmmmmmm … ?

  10. Ouranos says:

    “… the Republican lie factory cranked up to three shifts to meet burgeoning demand for lies to cover every misstep, past, present, and future.”
    - Cocktailhag

    “He who controls the present, controls the past. He who controls the past, controls the future.”
    - George Orwell

    The juxtaposition sends a chill down my spine.

  11. Casual Observer says:

    Let me just say this, about that.

    “The Elmer Fudd of Truth” is a construction we should pause for, and marvel at.

    Just look at it.

    • cocktailhag says:

      Ouranos and CO…. I would point you both to T3′s superb comment and link at the top of the page; that aspiring cocktailhag Mary Matalin blamed both the 2001 recession and Sept. 11 on Clinton, and no one on CNN begged to differ, even as I was writing this post. Lying wins the race again. (and, peripherally, seems to have fooled at least one commenter here….)

  12. retzilian says:

    Tom doesn’t know any pregnant teens, drunk or otherwise. He’s never had an unplanned pregnancy happen to any of his lovers/wives or his daughter(s), should he even have any daughters….

    Tom doesn’t know any social workers, certainly not well-paid ones (an oxymoron), and he’s probably never visited a family clinic, Planned Parenthood, Free Clinic or stood in line to apply for aid of any kind.

    I doubt Tom even knows any minorities, period. Because, after all, his arguments are thinly veiled bigotry and nothing more.

    Tom, as the mother of three daughters and having been a young girl not terribly long ago, and having 4 sisters and countless girl friends over the years who experienced a myriad of reproductive issues that had NOTHING to do with alcohol, Twinkies, or poverty, I’m confident that I’m the expert here on babies and, frankly, you can go to Hell.

  13. retzilian says:

    Might I add that the party of NO is also trying to put more stringent controls over women’s reproductive health, on top of denying them quality care if they aren’t well-off or well-insured. They don’t want them to have abortions, but they don’t want them to have the babies, either.

    What the heck do you want, then? You want them all sterilized? I think so. And who decides? Based on IQ? Skin Color? Socioeconomics? Immigrant status?

    Oh, yeah. YOU do. You get to decide who gets to reproduce, just as you have decided who gets a college education and good health care, right?