"Do You, as a Candidate for President, Really Believe..."

[paft.livejournal.com]

Susan Grigsby, who lost her brother, Steve, to cancer: What really horrified me about the debate was not the poorly phrased question, it wasn’t Dr. Paul’s answer, and it wasn’t even the scream after Wolf Blitzer asked, ‘Would you let him die,’ and somebody in the audience yelled ‘Yeah!’ That wasn’t as horrifying as was the silence from the stage, from these men and women who are running for office, not a word. Nothing.

This is the reality of the right wing libertarian attitude toward the sick. It is vile. It is inhumane. It is unworthy of Americans.

The question posed by Susan Grigsby needs to be asked of every Republican candidate. "Do you, as a candidate for President, really believe that if an American cannot get, or does not get insurance, that they should be treated the way Steve was?"


When they don’t answer it it needs to be asked again. And again. And again. They cannot be allowed to evade it. They cannot be allowed to look the other way.

Republicans are already trying. Here’s Mitch McConnell when confronted with that clip from the debate and asked if it troubled him:

(Brief chuckle) Look, we have a lot of people running for president, there are going to be a lot of debates, a lot of things said, a lot of audience reactions, I don’t have a particular reaction to what’s going on in the Republican campaign for president right now.

The silence that horrified Susan Grigsby continues.

Prominent Republicans are afraid of coming out in favor of saving the lives of the sick and uninsured.

Comments

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Why is it to become this inevitably? I mean it's asking the people who advocate something how that something will work in the real world. If they can't conceive of this or have no means to show it, then it's a political confidence game ala Marxism, and not something that deserves a serious role in politics. Is that what you're saying small government is since its own defenders cannot provide any adequate defenses of it?

[jerseycajun.livejournal.com]

Because it is not in the nature of the current state of journalism to ask probing questions of meaning and insight, and it is unlikely to use that tidbit as the opportunity to start.

It might happen here in this community, however. If it does, I'll gladly participate to the best of my ability to argue the case for limited government, as I see it.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

If we trust journalists to do it then we're trusting in something that never was. Journalism's always been about profit, not truth, to think it was ever otherwise is charming, idealistic, and completely contrary to objective reality. To trust in journalists really *is* an instance of trusting people who often have no idea what they refer to and are writing this to keep their companies in the black. To expect a profit-driven industry to be truthful is also to misunderstand the nature of profit.

So in short if the idea is unbiased journalism, then you might as well give it up because it'll never exist and the idea of non-profit information gathering is one that requires several leaps of technology and a complete redefinition of morality on a societal scale.

[jerseycajun.livejournal.com]

Then since we agree not to expect much from the media, from whence do you extract your prior optimism?

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

From discussions among individuals and working to provide candidates who reflect views of individuals, and being intelligent enough not to mistake the views of multinational media corporations for the views of individuals in any society. If we associate views of individuals with the views of corporations then there are a lot of problems there. If, however, we associate individuals and societies with views that aren't that and recognize the power of individuals and groups to change society......

But that requires a lot of nuance and enthusiasm for real work, not the kind of easy-peasy politics a lot of people want today. People, being exposed to how the system works prefer to simply avoid it like it's radioactive instead of trying to either work within it or change it in more than superficial fashions.