White House Collecting Info on Obamacare Opponents?

[Darrell Hougen]

Has the White House stepped over the line in its efforts to combat opponents of health care "reform?"

The following quote appears on a White House website:

There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life care. These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation. Since we can’t keep track of all of them here at the White House, we’re asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov

The entire page can be found here.

Some people are saying that this is an effort to get Americans to snitch on each other, specifically on people that oppose health care reform. A more generous interpretation is that it is just an attempt to identify all of their opponents arguments (called "rumors") so that they can develop responses to them. But, the way the request is stated is, itself, "fishy." Why don't they simply ask people to send them examples of arguments against "reform" that they aren't addressing adequately? What is the purpose of calling their opponents arguments "fishy?" Are they trying to track the arguments or the people making them?

Darrell

[Selene]

Darrell:

Way over the line. This is the marxist play book - the Young Pioneer League - Soviet Union - 10 - 15 year olds.

The Stanzi [which I am still mispelling].

Or, to run the gamut of the Socialist category with the Brown Shirts of the Nazi's. The Red Guard. Same play book.

I get the Obiwan e-mails early because of how I set my computer clock, here is today's:

At least this is something I agree with him on...this IS the moment.

I spoke to my congressslug's scheduler this afternoon. He is a 20 year incumbent and he won't be in town during the recess and he is not having any meetings. Very pleasant.

I was looking for information, not to argue or complain. I was not surprised.

Therefore, I will be following the e-mail and attending the local O'biwan meetings. B)

Adam --

This is the moment our movement was built for.

For one month, the fight for health insurance reform leaves the backrooms of Washington, D.C., and returns to communities across America. Throughout August, members of Congress are back home, where the hands they shake and the voices they hear will not belong to lobbyists, but to people like you.

Home is where we're strongest. We didn't win last year's election together at a committee hearing in D.C. We won it on the doorsteps and the phone lines, at the softball games and the town meetings, and in every part of this great country where people gather to talk about what matters most. And if you're willing to step up once again, that's exactly where we're going to win this historic campaign for the guaranteed, affordable health insurance that every American deserves.

There are those who profit from the status quo, or see this debate as a political game, and they will stop at nothing to block reform. They are filling the airwaves and the internet with outrageous falsehoods to scare people into opposing change. And some people, not surprisingly, are getting pretty nervous. So we've got to get out there, fight lies with truth, and set the record straight.

That's why Organizing for America is putting together thousands of events this month where you can reach out to neighbors, show your support, and make certain your members of Congress know that you're counting on them to act.

But these canvasses, town halls, and gatherings only make a difference if you turn up to knock on doors, share your views, and show your support. So here's what I need from you:

Can you commit to join at least one event in your community this month?

In politics, there's a rule that says when you ask people to get involved, always tell them it'll be easy. Well, let's be honest here: Passing comprehensive health insurance reform will not be easy. Every President since Harry Truman has talked about it, and the most powerful and experienced lobbyists in Washington stand in the way.

But every day we don't act, Americans watch their premiums rise three times faster than wages, small businesses and families are pushed towards bankruptcy, and 14,000 people lose their coverage entirely. The cost of inaction is simply too much for the people of this nation to bear.

So yes, fixing this crisis will not be easy. Our opponents will attack us every day for daring to try. It will require time, and hard work, and there will be days when we don't know if we have anything more to give. But there comes a moment when we all have to choose between doing what's easy, and doing what's right.

This is one of those times. And moments like this are what this movement was built for. So, are you ready?

Please commit now to taking at least one action in your community this month to build support for health insurance reform:

http://my.barackobama.com/CommitAugust

Let's seize this moment and win this historic victory for our economy, our health and our families.

Thank you,

Edited August 6, 2009 by Selene

[Christopher]

I have mixed feelings about this. On the one hand, there's nothing wrong with the message. You should see the crap my Grandma gets in her email from Rush Limbaugh and other laughable conservative characters. Rush puts Obama to shame with his garbage, slander, and ill comments.

On the flip side, the White House.gov is a government, non-partisan function-position. It is not the White House's position to support a party's plan (which, in this case, is exactly what Universal Health Care is) and to be aggressive against certain opponents (for Christ sake, there are no "opponents" because the White House is supposed to represent everyone!) I thought we made a good lesson taking down Nixon, I don't want to think the lesson wasn't learned.

[Selene]

I have mixed feelings about this. On the one hand, there's nothing wrong with the message. You should see the crap my Grandma gets in her email from Rush Limbaugh and other laughable conservative characters. Rush puts Obama to shame with his garbage, slander, and ill comments.

On the flip side, the White House.gov is a government, non-partisan function-position. It is not the White House's position to support a party's plan (which, in this case, is exactly what Universal Health Care is) and to be aggressive against certain opponents (for Christ sake, there are no "opponents" because the White House is supposed to represent everyone!) I thought we made a good lesson taking down Nixon, I don't want to think the lesson wasn't learned.

Chris:

"Rush puts Obama to shame with his garbage, slander, and ill comments." I mean this seriously. Have you ever listened to Rush Limbaugh?

"On the flip side, the White House.gov is a government, non-partisan function-position." I mean this seriously. Do you really believe this?

Adam

[Christopher]

1. Yes, I've listened to Rush and I've read his newsletter. The man obfustcates logic into a massively-deceptive manner. Obviously he has opinions that are easy to agree with, but he warps those opinions into actions and blame that do not have any logical relevance. I threw away a newsletter recently of his, but before doing so I dissected his logic (I agreed with his opinions, but his conclusions and blame-targets were fishy). Most of his words are true assertion after true assertion, but without logical link, and then some concluding assertion that does not follow from the previous assertions. However, the reader gets into saying "yes" and "yes" habitually to his assertions, so the yes to his conclusion (damn the liberals) is also easy. After all, the man has so many nice opinions that one almost automatically finds oneself trusting him.

Unfortunately, his writing is completely propaganda. He brought up one example along these lines that I recall: man had a burglar break into his house, and the burglar got away. The liberals blocked the man's ability to have a doghouse on his property, but everybody should have a right to building a doghouse. The burglar might have tripped over the doghouse and not gotten away. Damn the liberals, they'll make this country a haven for criminals with their regulations! ... and such silly nonsense is repeated over and over and over.

2. Of course I don't believe that the White House is non-partisan. Ideally, it should be. Unfortunately, it's not.

[Selene]

1. Yes, I've listened to Rush and I've read his newsletter. The man obfustcates logic into a massively-deceptive manner. Obviously he has opinions that are easy to agree with, but he warps those opinions into actions and blame that do not have any logical relevance. I threw away a newsletter recently of his, but before doing so I dissected his logic (I agreed with his opinions, but his conclusions and blame-targets were fishy). Most of his words are true assertion after true assertion, but without logical link, and then some concluding assertion that does not follow from the previous assertions. However, the reader gets into saying "yes" and "yes" habitually to his assertions, so the yes to his conclusion (damn the liberals) is also easy. After all, the man has so many nice opinions that one almost automatically finds oneself trusting him.

Unfortunately, his writing is completely propaganda. He brought up one example along these lines that I recall: man had a burglar break into his house, and the burglar got away. The liberals blocked the man's ability to have a doghouse on his property, but everybody should have a right to building a doghouse. The burglar might have tripped over the doghouse and not gotten away. Damn the liberals, they'll make this country a haven for criminals with their regulations! ... and such silly nonsense is repeated over and over and over.

2. Of course I don't believe that the White House is non-partisan. Ideally, it should be. Unfortunately, it's not.

Chris:

Thanks for being clear and direct. It is interesting that you chose the dog house building example as it must have stuck out. Actually, it skips a lot of intricate logical steps. It might have been Burke who stated or used as an example, an invitation to speak to a prestigious group was tendered to ask how much time he would need?

He responded, if you wish me to speak for three hours, ten minutes notice, if you wish me to speak for ten minutes, three weeks.

Rush has to speak for approximately 570 minutes a week. Many of these are ten to 15 minute segments wherein he entertains by wandering through a reductio ad absurdum example like the dog house.

I will bet "dollars to donuts" that this riff was connected to Amity Schales' book The Forgotten Man or the concept within that book of the law of unintended consequences. Therefore, you just need to enjoy one of the phenomenal philosophical forces of your and my generation.

As to the second answer, I was worried that you were doing psychedelic mushrooms on Woodstock's fortieth anniversary!

Adam

[Christopher]

Aren't I on drugs? After all, to me it looks like the White House supports special interest groups.... no wait, this is reality. crap!

I have The Forgotten Man sitting on my bookshelf. I purchased it after I heard Amity Shlaes speak on NPR. Still haven't read it. Does it have some nice historical data in it?

[Selene]

Aren't I on drugs? After all, to me it looks like the White House supports special interest groups.... no wait, this is reality. crap!

I have The Forgotten Man sitting on my bookshelf. I purchased it after I heard Amity Shlaes speak on NPR. Still haven't read it. Does it have some nice historical data in it?

Unfortunately, I have only read excerpts and heard her speak. I have two books to finish. Then I may read hers or the 5,000 Year Leap.

This excerpt from the book is relevant to today's health care debate because of the "rationing" observation.

"Hoover and Roosevelt were alike in several regards. Both preferred to control events and people. Both underestimated the strength of

the American economy. Both doubted its ability to right itself in a storm. Hoover mistrusted the stock market. Roosevelt mistrusted it more.

Roosevelt offered rhetorical optimism, but pessimism underlay his policies. Though Americans associated Roosevelt with bounty, his insistent

emphasis on sharing—rationing, almost—betrayed a conviction that the country had entered a permanent era of scarcity. Both presidents

overestimated the value of government planning. Hoover, the Quaker, favored the community over the individual. Roosevelt, the Episcopalian,

found laissez-faire economics immoral and disturbingly un-Christian."

I am not sure if that is the kind of "historical data" you mean or are you seeking charts type stuff.

Adam

[Robert Campbell]

I'm inclined to agree with Christopher on the nature of the tactics being employed by the White House. (I don't get mailings from Rush Limbaugh, so I can't comment on those.)

The White House tactics here are less reminiscent of the Stasi and the Brown Shirts than of Tricky Dicky and his "enemies list."

If we start hearing that opponents of the Obama administration have a higher than chance probability of being audited by the IRS, we'll know for sure.

Robert Campbell

PS. The Forgotten Man is definitely worth reading. Among other things, Shlaes shows how FDR used the IRS for political purposes in ways that Nixon never dared emulate.