Archive for August, 2015

Ben Shapiro at Breitbart:

Why did Obama choose to change the name now? Presumably because Obama has now solved all the world’s problems, and decided against his second choice, Mt. Trayvon.

Joking about a dead child. Apparently this is what passes for conservative wit and wisdom.

Asshole.

Advertisements

What is it with conservatives and their rampant propagation of chain emails, photos and Facebook posts that are outright lies? One would think that if their arguments and positions are sound, then they wouldn’t need to resort to such tactics. But sadly, the Internet age has brought them front and center.

I bring this up because a Facebook friend shared this Facebook post the other day:

Robert Rosie Rosenkranz' Facebook post, in which he falsely claims that a photograph of the wall along the United States / Mexico border in Arizona is actually a wall that Mexico built on its border with Guatemala.

Robert Rosie Rosenkranz’ Facebook post, in which he falsely claims that a photograph of the wall along the United States / Mexico border in Arizona is actually a wall that Mexico built on its border with Guatemala.

The Facebook user who posted the photo, Robert Rosie Rosenkranz, claims “This is the gigantic WALL that Mexico built on the Guatemalan border. Hummmm. Imagine that? I guess it is not racist for Mexico to build a wall to keep Guatemalans out.”

Some other Facebook users pointed out that the photograph does not depict the Mexico / Guatmala border, but is actually a photograph of the wall along the United States / Mexico border in Arizona. That didn’t stop Robert Rosie Rosenkranz and his duped conservative friends from posting more fake photos of the Mexico / Guatemala border.

Notice that the photo has been shared over 23,000 times. Even after it was pointed out by several commenters that the photograph was a fake, other users continued to comment as though it is legit. Welcome to the Internet age of conservative misinformation. Apparently, critical thinking is not a strong suit among conservatives.

So what to make of Robert Rosie Rosenkranz’ motives? If he was sincere, he would have acknowledge the error of his post once it was brought to his attention. Instead, he has continued to post more false photos of the supposed Mexico / Guatemala border.

My first personal encounter with this conservative tactic was in January 2008, when I received an email entitled, “FOR ALL TO KNOW….WHO IS BARACK OBAMA,….READ THIS ONE!!!!!!” Now, I barely knew who Barack Obama was at the time. I read the email. It didn’t pass the smell test, but it did advise, “We checked this out on ‘snopes.com’. It is factual. Check for yourself.” So I did. It wasn’t.

Then there was the one about Obama’s draconian income tax plan. The email (intentionally) failed to take into account how marginal tax rates work, instead calculating taxes owed based on the using the highest marginal tax rate on an individual’s entire income. I corrected these as I got them, but I soon grew tired of it and realized that it didn’t really matter because no amount of correction would cause them to stop.

Things like this–especially the “FOR ALL WE KNOW” email–simply help drive me to the Obama campaign. Incidentally, I exchange email with dozens of former Obama volunteers, and I have never received lies like this from them. Rather, this seems to be a conservative thing to do.

Which brings me back to the beginning of this post. If conservative positions are as sound as they claim they are, then why do they need to persistently and repeatedly lie? Why do they need to dupe other people in order to bring them to their point of view?

How often have we heard from conservatives about the deep Republican “bench”? In their telling, there are literally a dozen or more highly qualified candidates just waiting in the wings to take back the White House. And that doesn’t even include such singular talents as Michele Bachmann and Sarah Palin, who so far have chosen to sit this one out. Why, according to conservatives, any one of these candidates would be a brilliant choice as president.

Then came The Donald who, intentionally or not, exposed the entire field for what it really is. This point was put forth today by, of all people, Rich Lowry, in an article on Politico entitled, “The GOP Field That Failed.”

The rise of Donald Trump is, in part, a function of a vacuum.

He is thriving in a Republican field that is large, talented and, so far, underwhelming. There’s 17 candidates and nothing on. Except Donald Trump.

Now, this has much to do with the media, and with Trump’s unique qualities as a showman. He has the advantage of not caring, about anything apparently — the facts, his reputation, or, ultimately, winning the presidency. In consequence, he is a free man.

The Jorge Ramos incident was Trump in microcosm. He did what no other Republican politician could get away with (having a security guy manhandle a Latino reporter) and displayed a cavalier disregard for reality by denying he was having Ramos removed, even as he had him removed. But the episode was mesmerizing, and Trump — in his madcap way — was commanding in how he handled it.

If any other candidate had done that or something similar, it would have been a signature event of his campaign, but for Trump it was just another day on the trail, to be eclipsed by some other memorable event tomorrow.

Trump has at least half a dozen such indelible moments — his bizarre announcement, the John McCain diss, the Lindsey Graham cellphone, the Megyn Kelly fight (x2), the Mobile rally — when the rest of the field has almost none. No speech, no policy proposal, no argument, nothing from the other candidates has come close to capturing the imagination of voters, giving Trump the space to loom all the larger.

The weakness starts at the top, or what was supposed to be the top. In the normal course of things, the establishment front-runner provides coherence to the field. Hence, the expectation that the field would have Jeb Bush and a not-Bush, or maybe two. For the moment, this assumption has collapsed, as the current shape of the field is Trump and everyone else.

This is quite the comedown for Bush. His “shock and awe” has turned into getting sand kicked on him at the beach by a loudmouth and bully. It’s not just that Bush is trailing Trump badly in the polls; he has acceded to the terms of the debate being set by the mogul. It wasn’t long ago that Bush swore off talking about Trump, as basically beneath him. Now, he is sniping with him daily.

Before he got in the race, Bush spoke of only wanting to do it if he could run joyfully. Little did he know that he would be joyously grappling with an ill-informed blowhard who takes it as his daily obligation to insult Bush and trample on the pieties he holds dear.

In the argument with Trump over mass deportation, clearly Bush is right. But the split screen with Trump doesn’t necessarily do him any favors. Trump is such a forceful communicator that he comes off as some sort of throwback alpha male, whereas Bush is such an earnest wonk he looks and sounds like a sensitive dad from a contemporary sitcom. It’s like watching a WWE wrestler get a stern talking to from Ned Flanders.

Bush is not a natural performer to begin with (he struggles with set speeches), and he believes his contribution to the race is to be the nonthreatening Republican, which is often indistinguishable from the uninteresting Republican. So while Bush has methodically built the superstructure of an impressive campaign — with fundraising, organization and policy proposals — he has so far barely warmed up an ember among voters.

Scott Walker, in contrast, had a surge early in the campaign. It dissipated over time when his limited preparation on national issues didn’t match his outsized early press exposure. A so-so debate performance and the rise of Trump have continued his long fade to middle of the pack in the latest early state polling (tied for fourth in New Hampshire and tied for seventh in South Carolina).

Walker’s ability to appeal to both the establishment and activist wings of the party had looked like a strength, but now it seems a precarious balancing act, made all the more difficult by a panicky reaction to Trump.

No sooner had Walker pronounced himself “aggressively normal” in the debate than he seemed to opt for just “aggressive” in an attempt to play to the passions tapped by Trump. Who could have predicted that the Midwestern candidate who tells stories about buying shirts for $1 at Kohl’s would have to play populist catch-up with the New York billionaire who travels by eponymous helicopter?

Walker had already changed his mind about immigration, shifting from support for a “comprehensive” approach to strong opposition to amnesty. Trump has pushed him further, and Walker has gotten tangled up on the issue of birthright citizenship.

At the Iowa State Fair, he seemed at one point to say that he was opposed to it. Then, he told John Harwood of CNBC he wouldn’t take a position on it. Finally, on “This Week with George Stephanopoulos,” he danced around a question on the 14th Amendment before saying that anything that goes beyond simply enforcing our immigration laws is a red herring.

Earlier this week, Walker blasted President Barack Obama for hosting Chinese President Xi Jinping for a state visit, even though as governor he had been friendly to China and obligingly wore a Chinese-American flag pin in an appearance on Chinese state TV.
It’s one thing to play to the mood of voters; it’s another to give the appearance of not quite knowing who you are, which is much more deadly than an August dip in the polls.

As for Marco Rubio, for whom expectations have been so high, he has been the least reactive to Trump. His campaign is still betting on the long game. It believes his natural talent will tell over time, but he doesn’t have a natural geographic or ideological base, and his 21st-century economic agenda — although thoughtful — is not likely to stoke enthusiasm among primary voters.

Ted Cruz may be benefiting most from the Trump surge in his strategic positioning. He has a cogent theory of the case, which is that if he is nice to Trump — and the other outsider candidates — he eventually can inherent his supporters. This makes intuitive sense, although Cruz — exceedingly careful in crafting his words and in calculating his interest — is hardly a natural anti-politician.

It is still August, of course. The rules of gravity say Trump will come back down to earth. The media interest that is so intense now could burn out. His lack of seriousness should be a drag over time, and he will still have to weather more debates and presumably — should he stay strong — a barrage of negative ads.

Even if he fades, though, someone else will have to fill the screen. To this point, No one else has been big or vivid enough to do it.

Well over a year ago, I lost interest in attempting to have any dialog with the people who commiserate with each other over at B4V. It’s pointless because there is no point of entry. They; and by that I mean all 5 of them that are left, are so terrified of being challenged that they have cocooned themselves behind a wall of denial wherein they sulk and complain and reinforce each others opinions. I say opinions because what they proclaim as foregone conclusions in reality are devoid of fact. A common trait that they share is one of sullenness and this idea that they are somehow intellectual superior to the rest of humanity. Mark Noonan reminds me of Jabba the Hut. Pontificating in these long oratories as if he has any influence over anything, other than his own miserable life. You can find people like him in an insane asylum or a street corner, ranting away and scaring people off.

When they started in 2003, as a pantheon to GWB and Christian American domination of the middle east, they had over 100 respondents. Perhaps even more. But when faced with facts that challenged their school marmish admonitions they deleted and banned any threats to what they tried to proclaim. We now see what’s left and it’s pathetic. And how’d that war turn out for ya?

The stereotyping and the derisive, snide comments they make about progress, liberalism, science, you name it is truly astounding. The combination of projection and a lack of self-awareness is awe inspiring. Today I read that this is an “anti B4V” blog. Gee Retired, ya think? Gun humping, paranoid Retired lives in a bunker in his basement replete with posters of Tedd Cruz and other right wing lunatics. Hell, Cruz isn’t even qualified to run for President is he? Being born in Canada and all. I got a challenge for you Retired. Why don’t you take on a fellow retired spook. Like this guy   http://www.stonekettle.com/

In the meantime, if you have the balls, lets debate. You sad, mad old man.

I love The Donald, I really do.

So last night he was on the Sean Hannity show on Fox News. Now, everyone knows that Hannity is a hard-hitting journalist who asks insightful, probing questions of his conservative guests, so I knew this would be epic. Sean promised to “talk policy” with The Donald, which is good since Trump hasn’t gone into many details about his policies.

My favorite part was Hannity “pushing” the “stunningly honest” Trump on the details of his border wall. Behold policy talk by The Donald.

HANNITY: Wall Street Journal says, Where’s the platform? Where are the details? I want to give you an opportunity to go over some of the issues…

TRUMP: OK. Fine.

HANNITY: … some of the things that you’ve discussed. Let’s — let’s start with — you talked about Mexico. How quickly could you build the wall? How do you make them pay for the wall, as you said?

TRUMP: So easy. Will a politician be able to do it? Absolutely not. You know, it’s funny, I watch some of the shows, including your show, and I watch these guys say, Oh, you can’t get them to pay for it.

We give them tens of billions of dollars a year. They are ripping us left and right. Their leaders are so much smarter than our leaders, Sean. They are ripping us left and right. The wall is peanuts. You know, it’s interesting…

HANNITY: Is it a tariff?

TRUMP: … in China — listen to this. In China, the great China wall — I mean, you want to talk about a wall, that’s a serious wall, OK? That wall, you don’t climb over with a ladder. You don’t even go under it, OK?

That wall is 13,000 miles. If you add up everything in the kitchen sink with what we’re talking about on our border, it’s less than 2,000 miles. And a lot of it, you don’t have to do because you’re covered with terrain and you’re covered with areas that are already built.

HANNITY: Sure.

TRUMP: So let’s say you’re talking about 1,000 miles versus 13,000. And then they say you can’t do it. It’s peanuts. It’s peanuts. And I will get Mexico, whether it’s a tariff or whether they just give us the money.

Sean, they need us so badly. And I’ll be friends with Mexico. I’m going to have a great relationship with Mexico. We have a bad relationship with Mexico, and they’re an abuser. China’s an abuser. By the way, every country’s an abuser because we have very stupid people representing us. They’re incompetent.

HANNITY: So through a tariff? Whatever means necessary, you’re going to say, If you want to do business with the U.S….

TRUMP: We’re not paying for it. Of course.

HANNITY: You want to do business, you’re going to help us with this.

TRUMP: Do you know how easy that is? They’ll probably just give us the money.

But then I watch politicians get on — because it’s not their thing, Sean. I watch politicians come one, Can you imagine, Sean, he’s saying Mexico’s going to pay. They’ll never pay.

And I’m saying, that’s like 100 percent. That’s not like 98 percent. Sean, it’s 100 percent they’re going to pay. And if they don’t pay, we’ll charge them a little tariff. It’ll be paid.

So easy! It’s peanuts! It’s nothing! Let’s face it, the entertainment value alone that Republicans are providing us this year is worth a small donation to their campaign fund, don’t you think?

Look, two posts in one day! The latest from The Donald is hilarious. Donald Trump on Rand Paul:

Rand Paul is doing so poorly in the polls he has to revert to old footage of me discussing positions I no longer hold. As a world-class businessman, who built one of the great companies with some of the most iconic real estate assets in the world, it was my obligation to my family, my company, my employees and myself to maintain a strong relationship with all politicians whether Republican or Democrat. I did that and I did that well.

Unless you are a piece of unyielding granite, over the years positions evolve as they have in my case. Ronald Reagan, as an example, was a Democrat with a liberal bent who became a conservative Republican.

Recently, Rand Paul called me and asked me to play golf. I easily beat him on the golf course and will even more easily beat him now, in the world in the politics.

Senator Paul does not mention that after trouncing him in golf I made a significant donation to the eye center with which he is affiliated.

I feel sorry for the great people of Kentucky who are being used as a back up to Senator Paul’s hopeless attempt to become President of the United States— weak on the military, Israel, the Vets and many other issues. Senator Paul has no chance of wining the nomination and the people of Kentucky should not allow him the privilege of remaining their Senator. Rand should save his lobbyist’s and special interest money and just go quietly home.

Rand’s campaign is a total mess, and as a matter of fact, I didn’t know he had anybody left in his campaign to make commercials who are not currently under indictment!

That Trump is so presidential!

He’s sort of like a smarter Sarah Palin.

So Scott Walker, conservative governor of Wisconsin, fighter of the good fight, protector of the public’s money–who hates to see the state spend money on stuff like, oh, higher education–signed a bill today giving $250 million in taxpayer money to the Milwaukee Bucks basketball team so that they can build themselves a new place of business (i.e., an arena).

Now, the Milwaukee Bucks ownership group is not exactly destitute. Among the owners are hedge fund investors with net worths in the billions of dollars. You really mean to tell me that they can’t afford to fund the upgrade of their own place of business? Of course they can. But heck, if they can get the state to pay for it, then why wouldn’t they? And it’s actually pretty easy to do. There’s a playbook for it: You simply threaten to move your team to another state if you don’t get the public’s money.

Another member of the ownership group, Jon Hammes, is the co-chair of Walker’s presidential campaign fundraising effort, and during the arena funding negotiations a Walker super PAC received $150,000 from a corporation register to Hammes’ son. Not that this would sway a man of Walker’s character.

From Paul Waldman of the Washington Post:

[O]ne might have expected more from a politician who is basing his presidential campaign on his eagerness to “fight.” This combativeness is central to Walker’s appeal — but it turns out that he’s only interested in fighting people like union members. Extortionist plutocrats, not so much.

And Walker’s justification — that ponying up for the stadium will be worth it because of the economic impact — has been disproven by just about every analysis of stadium financing. When taxpayers put out hundreds of millions of dollars for shiny new stadiums, they don’t make back the money in increased tax revenue. If you want to argue that it’s worth paying for solely because people love sports even if it costs taxpayers a great deal, then go ahead and make that argument. But no politician does.

Even more fundamentally, one has to ask why “small government” conservatives — as Walker and every other Republican candidate considers himself — think that government should be in the business of building stadiums. Don’t they believe in the power and wisdom of the market? If the shrewd businessmen who own the Bucks would increase their profits by building themselves a new stadium, then they’ll do it. If it wouldn’t increase their profits, then they won’t, and the market will have spoken.

Yes, one has to ask why Walker thinks the government should be funding the place of business of his cronies. Well, maybe not, because I think we all know the answer to that question, don’t we.

Every day seems to bring a new installment of the carnival show-cum-television event know as the 2016 Republican Presidential Primary.

Today Rand Paul wrote an op-ed entitled, “Don’t Fall For a Fake Conservative.” In it he declares, among other things, that “Donald Trump is showing he isn’t suited to lead the country, and I think we all need to discuss why.” And, “We don’t need a bully, and we don’t need another President who thinks he is King. We certainly don’t need someone who has driven his companies into bankruptcy four times yet smugly tells us he uses our nation’s Chapter 11 laws to his own personal advantage. All well and good for him – but what of the creditors and vendors he defaulted on?”

It didn’t take long for Trump to respond:

And after having disavowed Fox News for a few days, Roger Ailes has come groveling at Trump’s feet, so Trump will be back on Fox this week. You see, Roger Ailes knows good TV when he sees it, and right now, Donald Trump is good TV. Isn’t that all that matters? Apparently it is to conservatives.

In one way, it is just delightful to watch the Republican presidential candidates take turns inventing new ways to call each other losers. (Of course, Trump’s favorite approach is the most straightforward one, which is to just say they are losers.)

But in another way, it reminds me of the victimhood mentality that infects conservatives these days. That point was made quite effectively by Erica Grieder, who has written a truly excellent piece on the conservative rhetoric of victimhood. A short excerpt:

I’m sympathetic to Republicans who are understandably bewildered by Trump’s seemingly intractable support. At the same time I had a cynical reaction to Erickson’s epiphany [that Trump’s RedState invitation should be rescinded]. His timing put the RedState Gathering, and his virtuous disinvitation, in the media spotlight. And Erickson’s own history of aggression and incivility are well-known. He only came to my attention in the first place because he is among a number of right-wing media figures who have used their platforms to launch non sequitur personal attacks on me over the years, in public and private forums. These incidents have shown me that there is clearly some kind of appetite, on the right, for righteous aggrievement, even where no plausible grievance can be discerned.

And they’ve given me a sense of the playbook. It’s no coincidence that he keeps casting himself as the victim. His supporters have already succumbed to the premise that Trump is a conservative outsider—a noble underdog, determined to fight the establishment and to speak truth to power. Having accepted that premise, they are predisposed to take any criticism or disagreement as further evidence for Trump’s claim that he is surrounded by powerful enemies who are determined to thwart him for their own selfish or corrupt or ideological reasons. His ultimate failure will be taken as proof that the game is rigged–against the candidate, but also against people like themselves, his supporters.

It’s a really good article and worth reading the entire thing.

So Donald Trump was Donald Trump at last night’s Republican debate–and after, too. Bombastic, defensive and aggressive at the same time, hurling insults, convinced he is perpetually being picked on, unapologetic, proud to have cynically use bankruptcy for personal gain regardless of the consequences to others, and on and on. Everyone else is stupid–except the Mexican government.

He treats running for office as a reality television show. In an interview this morning on Fox News, in which he complained about the shabby treatment he received at the hands of the debate moderators, he was proud of his response to Megyn Kelly’s “very, very hard question” about his comments belittling women. “I came up with the Rosie O’Donnell statement which really got a tremendous applause. I mean, that was the biggest applause of the evening, actually.” That’s his criteria for political success: Whatever garners the biggest applause of the evening.

Meanwhile, at the RedState watch party in Atlanta:

The crowd was captivated by his every move – there were wild hoots and shouts as he threatened to run as an independent if he didn’t like the nominee, mocked Rosie O’Donnell’s weight, and outright pandemonium broke out when he declared: “The big problem this country has is being politically correct.”

At one point in the second hour, a woman sitting near this reporter shrieked like it was the Beatles at Shea Stadium while Trump talked. It was hard to find a face in the crowd that wasn’t smiling as they waited to see what he would do next.

“I’m fascinated by Trump,” Joann Balfour, an activist from Oklahoma City, told msnbc afterwards.

“He brings out in bold colors what other people won’t talk about,” Ben Jackson, a Georgia businessman, gushed.

And our former blogging colleague, Cluster, gushed, “Can you imagine a Trump/Fiorina ticket? Speaking of Trump, if he can dial down his ego, add more details to his ideas, and act presidential – he just might run away with this.”

Trump is so the mouthpiece for today’s conservatives, who thrill to whatever happens to be the latest freak show to hit town.

After the debate, Trump went on a Twitter rant about that mean, mean Megyn Kelly. Judging by his response to her question about him habitually calling women names, I think his biggest issue with Kelly was that she’s a woman who dared to call him out.

A sampling:

Meanwhile, in the undercard, Bobby Jindal said this: “Planned Parenthood had better hope that Hillary Clinton wins this election because I guarantee you that under President Jindal, January 2017, the Department of Justice and the IRS and everybody else that we can send from the federal government will be going into Planned Parenthood.”

Attaboy! Sic the government on any private organizations you personally don’t like. Gee, I seem to remember conservatives railing against supposed unfair treatment of Tea Party groups by the IRS. But that was all a charade. Wait until they get in office. They’ll use the IRS to go on the attack!

The hypocrisy is as breathtaking as it is routine.

Just took a look at the comments on the Blogs For Victory “Never Again” post, in which Leo Pusateri insanely equates Planned Parenthood with the Nazi Germany genocide of European jews. Apparently poor Leo is completely unaware that real genocide actually has occurred in the intervening years since World War II ended. But I don’t want to talk about Leo as the comments thread is much more interesting than his original post. And I guess the moderator is on vacation because rusty’s comments haven’t been deleted, leaving a nonsensical half-a-thread in its wake. Nice to see some actual give and take. It’s all been pretty civil, except of course for tiredoflibbs. Good ol’ tired is nothing, if not consistent. Always the first–and in this case, the only poster–to resort to name calling. Attaboy, tired! Have a treat!

Regarding rusty’s point that the loss of Planned Parenthood clinics would, in many places, result in decreased family planning and contraceptive services, thereby leading to increased instances of pregnancies and abortions, one can look at the experience in Texas.

In 2011, Texas legislators excluded Planned Parenthood from taxpayer funding. The state has yet to make up for the loss.

The number of women served by clinics within the Texas Women’s Health Program dropped significantly between Fiscal Years 2011 and 2013, when the funding changes took effect. According to a Texas Health and Human Services Commission study, there was an average 25 percent drop statewide, with two of 11 HHSC regions reporting more than 50 percent drops.

As a result of this change, some Texas patients had trouble finding alternate sources of family planning and women’s health, in part because other providers in their area had not previously been providing specialized family planning services and had to first get expensive, time-consuming training in those areas.

“That high quality family planning is very difficult to integrate into primary care without specific programs to do that,” Dr. Janet Realini, the chair of the Texas Women’s Healthcare Coalition, a coalition of organizations working to assure access to preventive women’s care.

Realini did praise the state government, however, for “stepping up” and trying to compensate for the lost Medicaid funds.

Rep. Jim Keffer, a Republican state senator in Texas who worked on the defunding measures, also acknowledged that the state is still working to address lost provider capacity, including recently introducing a new website to help women access family planning programs.

“As Planned Parenthood has been going through their spiral here, we have been bolstering what Texas can offer through this other network,” Keffer said. “You can’t just close it off and wipe your hands of the situation because comprehensive women’s health care has to still be provided.”

A related issue is that some women might not go to a general practitioner — even one that introduced family planning into their practice — because they prefer going to a specialist.

“Some women prefer to go to dedicated family planning providers to get dedicated contraceptive services,” said Amanda Stevenson, a researcher at the University of Austin’s Texas Policy Evaluation Project working on the impact of excluding Planned Parenthood from the Women’s Health Program in Texas.

Stevenson noted a 2013 review from the Guttmacher Institute, a reproductive health policy group, which found that women say they prefer going to specialists for this care because of “the respectful, confidential, affordable and high-quality care they receive from them.”

I know it’s hard for the Bob Eisenhowers of the world to believe, but according to those who have actually studied the situation, some women prefer going to dedicated family planning providers instead of their primary care physicians–assuming they have a primary care physician. But then Bob Eisenhower has probably never had to worry about his health care ever. In fact, it would not surprise me to find out that Bob was a life-long civil service employee like so many conservatives who can’t conceive of life without guaranteed health care. (At least, this is my direct experience with conservatives; their entire lifestyle–including their healthcare–has been funded on the taxpayer dime. I know some might view this as anecdotal, but apparently that is all it takes to make a definitive judgement about the entire lot of ’em.)

The other fact that Bob Eisenhower ignores is that 20 states–all of them governed by conservatives like Bob–rejected the Affordable Care Act’s Medicaid expansion, leaving an estimated 6.5 million Americans still without health insurance, and mostly without access to healthcare except in dire emergencies. It’s simple to sit back in your easy chair and pontificate about how easy it is for anyone–anyone!–to access health care whenever they need it, but that’s just not the case. And either Bob Eisenhower knows this and is being a tad deceitful, or he is woefully ignorant.