Bill Moyers gives us a behind the scene expose of one of the Tea Party’s leaders, Dick Armey. Dick Armey retired from Congress a few years ago and went on to work with FreedomWorks which is one of the main movers and shakers behind the Tea Party Movement. Armey leads of life of wealth and privilege and says he gets paid lobbyist fees he describes as a ‘darn handsome piece of dough’ for his work.
Most of what Armey does is go around blasting every aspect of the proposed health care reform. He did the same thing to Hillary Clinton as you will see in the video. What Armey fails to tell the Tea Party protestors and the public is that he has a Cadillac health care planned subsidized by the government which means you and I pay for it.
Sit back and watch hypocrisy at its worst:
[Editor Note: Aside removed from post. it was an unsubstantiated rumor. I actually don’t like those and it was snide. Correction also made in title. Substitute party for bag. Unintentional mistake.]
I recently heard something that nearly left me speechless, even though I spent almost 30 years in Federal service. In a recent interview, the President of the United States, the same who has been pushing strongly for what is now known as Obamacare, admitted that the people may have been misled. He acknowledged his prior promise that, if health care reform was passed, those who were already happy with their health care plans would not lose them. However, he also confessed that, if some of the provisions in the current bills were to become law, these people could well lose their plans and wind up in a “public option” against their will. He finished by admitting — and I heard him say this — that somebody had “snuck” some things into those bills which negated his previous promise. He did not identify the “somebody.”
All of which leads me to ask: “Who in the Hell is in charge of this thing?!!!” And you want to risk having the government with a heavy hand in your personal health care? Back to the drawing board, guys and gals. And some would have you believe that the Tea Party people are “ignorant and gullible.” Hah!
And yet we discuss this in a thread that was started as a “Tea Bag” thread.
I do find it humorous that for some people only “right-wing” lobbyists are a problem. Those people seem to forget that the most successful lobbyists are always ones with connections to the majority party in Congress. Members in the majority are able to push legislation through and have much more flexibility in earmarks. If you look at a site like opensecrets you’ll see that some of the largest companies are very fickle with their support. The supported the Democrats until 1994, then the GOP until 2006 and now the Democrats again. But apparently lobbyists are only a problem if they interfere with your particular political view. When former GOP-rep Billy Tauzin, now the head of PhRMA (the drug manufacturers’ lobbying arm) cut an $80 billion deal with the White House to support HCR that wasn’t thread-worthy hypocrisy. But Dick Armey using his Congressional pension while continuing to oppose HCR (he opposed the 1994 HCR effort) is.
And to those who claim that fiscal conservatives were not complaining about deficits under the Bush administration, I’ve said it before and I’ll say it once again. You should try looking at the archives of a conservative website or magazine from 2001-2007 and see what they had to say. (Start with one of the big magazines like Weekly Standard or National Review.) You’d be hard pressed to find many conservatives (or in some cases even one!) that supported NCLB, the prescription drug benefit, the farm bills or many of the other large spending initiatives of the Bush administration. To be blunt, just because you never listened to fiscal conservatives complaints during the Bush administration doesn’t mean they weren’t complaining.
@Witness Too
My only point is that extremists all act the same way no matter which side of the spectrum they are on. To speak to only one end is by itself a partisan remark and APPEARS to deny that during the years of conservative presidencies people on the extreme left wing were just as rabid. (Note I used the word appears because I don’t choose to attach specific intent on Witness’ comment.)
Again, we all are part of the “soundbite” generation. We have so much information thrust at us that only the noisiest and direct gets through, even though the noisy and direct sounds harsh.
I just wish that people would stop attaching evil intent to the messengers. It certainly does not further the dialogue.
By the way, Wolfie, two items showed up in the Washington Post–one was about abstinence programs and the other was Sally Jenkins column in the sports section about the Tim Tebow ad at the upcoming Super Bowl. Both are good reads since there were recent threads about the subjects.
This is exactly the kinds of things that scare people about healthcare reform. No one knows what has been snuck into the bill, and no one can prove that those of us who like our current plans won’t be forced into the public option. Some companies may find it easier to pay the penalty of not offering health insurance, and let their employees just go with the public option. They may not be many, but chances of them being zero from what it seems – are not great. I like my health plan, it is excellent and for example there is no out of pocket cost for prescriptions at least unless I guess you get a lot in a year and exceed a certain amount. Also, unused money gets carried over to the next year. If I lose that plan, I will be very angry as it has saved a lot of money for prescriptions for me and my wife – not that we get a lot of prescriptions, but still having no copay is great!
EXACTLY! I agree with that. On this blog, some posters seems to think it is only limited to right wing extremists. THAT, I have a problem with – and they post it as fact and not opinion.
I remember the angry people at Bush’s first innauguration. There were many, and police had to control some protesters and there was some angry encounters. AND, Bush’s limo got hit with eggs.
The right wing does not have the monopoly on crazy behavior, not by a long shot. It was shameful some of the utter garbage going on when Bush got elected the first time. The Supreme Court ruled – Bush didn’t make the rules, so it’s OK to toss eggs at his car and be unruly. Some of what I saw on TV that innauguration was beyond ridiculous. Just as bad as what people say the Tea Party folks are doing.
It gets back to, everyone seems to forget that the left wing has had behavior not any different than the Tea Party behavior. Somehow, if you read some of what has been said on here in different threads, one would think this Tea Party thing is the only time there’s ever been “angry raging mobs” and the Right Wing is the only ones who do it. I think that’s what I and a few others on here get tired of reading. And of course the intentional by some posters use of the term teabaggers, with its connotations. Finally, I don’t support everything the tea party folks are doing. But, no one has proven to me there’s been violence at any of their meetings, and apparently their right to freedom of speech is being questioned.
When Freedom of Speech causes objectionable stuff, or incites violence, that’s one thing. I think it is hyperbole to make it sound like the tea party movement is scary or may cause violence, etc. etc. etc. It makes for good sound bites and headlines though!
And if you want some partisan stuff – thank goodness John Edwards didn’t become VP. The more that is coming out about him, the more it shows what a highly deceitful dishonest person he is. It may be he paid money to this other person to get him to claim he was father of the illegitimate child. Is this the kind of guy you want a heartbeat away from the Presidency. Philandering is one thing, trying to cover it up and contnuing to lie about it shows a lack of character and honesty, and I would not want someone who covered it up in the way he apparently did, ever being anywhere near becoming President. Just shameful behavior.
And yes, the Governor of North Carolina is just as bad and should be impeached, I’m not disagreeing with that. It’s a tossup in my book as to who is worse between those two – as the Governor of North Carolina may have used North Carolina state money to enable his affair, and that’s bad too.
But to think Edwards could have been VP, well, that’s not good, not good at all.
Wolverine, I happened to catch the same talking point on a conservative talk show.
Gainesville, I don’t doubt it if you say there were radical people on the left when Bush was in office. I’m sure there were massive anti-war rallies and such. But none of them were afforded their own cable news network. That’s the difference. There is a frightening allegiance between the corporate hegemony that Dick Armey typifies, and the right wing fringe that the Tea Parties typify. This story (which I had seen before by the way) paints that picture clear as day.
I thought you all might like to hear an articulation of the concerns coming from the half of America that is not as sympathetic to the fringe right social agenda, and not really interested in exploiting peoples fears and phobias in order to maximize the profits and the graft of the corporate hegemony. There are a lot of Americans like me. We just don’t know how to respond to people who organize around fear and hatred, especially with the corporate boost they are getting from the Dick Armey’s and Roger Ailes’ of the world. We don’t know what to do.
“But none of them were afforded their own cable news network. That’s the difference.”
I am really not sure how to respond to that statement other than to ask about MSNBC with Olberman, Maddow and Matthews? Is it really any different? Is it perhaps because you might tend to look at things from a liberal point of view?
By the way, I think you may think that the rantings of Beck and some others are not also a concern for the people who tend to be conservative? Although I am a fiscal conservative, I don’t listen to Beck and Hannity or Limbaugh. They like Olberman, Maddow and Matthews are in a genre that should be called “shock” commentary. I don’t have time to listen to people who are no more qualified than I to have an opinion other than they have a personality on TV.
What have anyone of them done in life to qualify for having any answers? I will listen to people who have spent their lives becoming expert in their chosen field like economics, medicine etc. and they are speaking in their field.
It almost sounds like you are saying that the US is divided in half and anyone to the right of middle is sympathetic to “fringe” but the other half is not sympathetic to with the “fringe” left. I would guess that in one of your definitions, there is no “fringe” left? Perhaps you don’t remember that some parts of the left told seniors that Bush was trying to do away with social security–I guess that had no exploitation using fear? It is part of politics to display things in their sharpest terms and we all tend to miss the sharpness when we have some sympathy for the side of the issue. In that case, the other side is always more extreme when in fact they are no more extreme.
You are certainly entitled to your opinion but I am sincerely hope that I misunderstood your post.
I see A PWCR beat me to it, but I have to say the same about MSNBC. Anyway, who cares if they have their own cable news network. If you don’t like Fox News, then don’t listen to it. And, I don’t buy the argument that people don’t realize it is a conservative news network, and has that slant.
You can make the same argument about the NY Times and the Wash. Post.
I just don’t get it. Don’t tune in if you don’t like Fox News and their commentators. It is freedom of speech after all. Or is it as long as it is left-slanted freedom of speech it is OK? That seems to be the theme. MSNBC is that way, and I don’t see any complaints at all about it on this blog.
@A PW County Resident
You know what, the more I read APWCR’s post, the more I think he said what I wanted to say, and captured it better than I would have done. That’s really where I’m coming from here too and my thoughts based on what I read here on this blog.
Sorry, Gainesville–I will wait longer next time 🙂 . I happened to get back on here before you I guess.
Witness Too — I heard that bit from the President on the radio in his own voice. Don’t remember the exact radio show — Lars Larsen out of Portland perhaps. It was the audio portion of a recent You-tube interview video. I wouldn’t describe it as a “talking point.” He said it. I heard it. It’s recorded history. Still wondering who the “somebody” is.
It looks to me like we may be right back to the old problem of “connecting the dots” — only this time on health care reform, not PETN bombs in underwear. Personally, I am not against finding a way to help those who have a serious problem obtaining health care insurance. I just don’t want it done in a way which punishes others who are satisfied with what they have and do not want to lose it.
I will agree with Rez about his ‘I don’t listen to’s.’ I do consider that political shock jock and I don’t like it. However, I do think it is worthwhile to listen to the strong opinions periodically just to know where the far sides are coming from.
I think most people …nearly all in fact, know what they are getting when they tune in Fox. What I don’t think that many people grasp is the fact vs opinion element of the station or the carefully woven tapestry of propaganda that is on most hours of the day. Not all propaganda beats one over the head with a stick.
@Moon-howler
Would you agree that MSNBC also qualifies in the same way as Fox News (as opposed to FOX network)? If you can, I would agree with you as well, but in that absence, I think it is a bit one-sided to single out FOX.
I have seen both networks in the past but don’t watch either any more due to their relative partisanship.
Yes! That’s it Lars Larsen.
As for comparing MSNBC and FOX, I think there is no comparison. MSNBC does inject their opinions too often, and the same can be said about FOX. But MSNBC does not engineer news and then report live from the rallies they engineer as if it IS news. There is a level of activism at FOX that is way beyond what MSNBC would do or could do. Frankly there isn’t enough uniformity on the left to say “here is an issue now everyone show up here on this day” and have anyone listen.
@Witness Too
Whatever you wish to believe. It really is okay with me.
Rez, I haven’t watched enough MSNCB to fairly say one way or the other. I don’t mind Fox having O’Reilly, Beck, Hannity, etc on. We know they are opinion. I would think they were more fair and balanced if they had an hour commentary nightly out of someone more liberal.
What grates on my nerves is the commenting and snide remarks in the middle of news. From 6-9 am there is non-stop bashing of everything Obama and everything Democrat. More than that, there is an attempt to ridicule everything mainstream or to stir up something. Example: war on Christianity has been declared. No there hasn’t. Not wanting someone shoving their religion down my throat is not a war on Christianty. That is just stupid.
Not a bad idea to have a little more balance at both MSNBC and Fox, including some sharp but still civil debates between opposing sides without rising to the level of loud negativity. A few temperamental retorts and some sly teasing, of course; but an overall agreement to disagree at the end of it all. Hmmm…a bit like this thread maybe?
I really like my news less interpretted. I honestly don’t care to hear the snideness if I am watching the news.
Now, if I want a laugh, that’s fine. But not on the news.
Wolverine, I forget MSNBC exists. I don’t know why. Aren’t Olberman and Maddow on about the same time Hannity and Greta are one? I used to like Greta. She did some fairly decent investigating reporting. She is throwing in a little too much opinion lately, since last summer, it seems. Gerald does a fair job but I just can’t forget his past.
No problem, I defer to you – you make the point more crisply than I can!
Same here, I just think it shows a lack of ability to see that both sides are equally guilty, and MSNBC is definitely partisan.
Sortez les sortants!
I find MSNBC to be nearly as slanted to the left as FOX is to the right. Maybe not quite so much, but still more than enough so, and they also maybe pretend to be “news” when they are more “opinion”. You should watch it a bit more and form your own opinion rather than take my word for it. MSNBC has distorted headline type stuff to promote a liberal agenda all the time, just like FOX has to promote a conservative agenda. i don’t see much difference, personally. I think a few of us just find it a little odd that MSNBC isn’t criticized in the way FOX is by many of the posters on here.
I ran that through a French/English translator online, but I still not sure 100% what that means, although I think I get the idea. PR tried to set up a bit of a puzzle for us to solve in deciphering it, which is good – I like a good puzzle/challenge.
PR, haha–throw the bums out. Love it.
woops, sorry GR. Just a reaction I had. 🙂
@Poor Richard Throw the bums out! 😉
oops, I saw PWC Res beat me to it.
Since we’re en francais, this little bit of Voltaire is for you, Moon.
Je n’ai pas d’accord avec ce que vous dites, mais je me battrai jusqu’à la mort votre droit de le dire.
Especially after seeing your editor note at the top of this thread. Good stuff!
Emma, that was Voltaire? Wow I didn’t know that–it has always been my favorite quote. I first saw the quote on the masthead of the newspaper in Daytona Beach, FL, when I was a telecommunications major in college. I thought they attributed it to John Milton but see how memory drops off after 40 years–it makes sense it was Voltaire.
(See this time I am making people go through their translators).