Before I start, I'm pretty intoxicated right now (if a moderater feels this sentence is out of line feel free to delete this sentence/post I won't take offence) and should I say something that may not use my best wording allow me to edit it later. Also, should I say something you may find offensive, I mean it in the most in sincere/debative sense. Second forgive my typos. Third forgive any non-sequitors as they make sense to me now, but maybe not in 8 hours.
All I know about David Brock is that he was on the Journolist of journalists conspiring to cover Obama's ass in the 2008 Presidential campaign, and that he's about as conservative as Scott McClellan (read: Will Sell Out for Praise on CNN/MSNBC/NYT/WaPo). I have never heard of David Brock. David Brock is probably the same kind of "conservative" as Trig Truther Andrew Sullivan. That is he is conservative only in that he's tasked to write things as if he were a conservative, even though he's at best center-right.
David Brock if you don't know (albeit will help your case) was a conservative columnist who after being "turned on" by fellow conservatives for not for demonizing Hillary Clinton enough (he decided to write a story about Hillary more truthful (emphasis on TRUTHFUL) than Troopergate (a conspiracy where Police alleged that Bill had sexual affair with women he hadn't) that didn't effect the public as much as troopergate) and also they turned on him for being gay leading to him being excommunicated from the conservative ranks founded the
Media Matters of America (LOL the other MMA.)
David Brock is likely one of those conservatives who take seriously the line "the Right hand's greatest problem is it doesn't know what the Far Right hand is doing." Judging by your synopsis of his book I can only conclude that his "tell-all" was a "cash-in" for fame and praise of the liberal columnist he wish he could have been, but he got there too late and needed to take the token conservative position.
When I think of "the right" I think of everyone from Ramesh Ponnuru to Rush Limbaugh to Glenn Beck to Laura Ingraham to Jonah Goldberg to Charles Krauthammer to George Will to Thomas Sowell to Michael Savage. A monolith of people whose only line is "oppose the President" it isn't, categorically. David Brock never even registered. No one in the rightsphere has ever heard of him, save perhaps they confused him with David Brooks or David Frum, other Obama water-carrying center-rightists or self-described moderates. Mort Kondracke is probably further to the right and he bills himself as a moderate.
I find it crass that you would say that David Brock is "one of THOSE conservatives who (cash-in)." I know for a fact no one on these forums knows better about McClellan and Brock than those two individuals. So as to say they "cashed in" is dismissive of their own life experiences in which they witnessed things we could (probably) never imagined.
Second, a lot of those names (Ingraham, Goldberg, Kraut, Limbarugh, and Will) are fairly common names in conservative households (not to mention I listen to all of them on Fox radio, I like not being the "choir" being "preached to.") Brock founded MMA in 2004, way after most of those names became big. So as to say you've never heard of him (and forgive me if I'm out of line) may just be because you are to young/weren't informed enough during that time.
If Obama could not deliver a health care bill Democratic voters wanted with the largest Democratic majorities that Democrats have had in a long time (at the time their caucus held a supermajority in the Senate. That changed because they lost a Senate Seat in Massachusetts), maybe the problem isn't "the right," but rather Obama took no leadership role and left it up to Harry and Nancy, who couldn't help trying to turn it into a Christmas Tree instead of an actual health care reform bill. At the time Obama needed zero Republican support. He has no excuse for his own ineptitude.
But that's the problem I'm trying to address. Universal Healthcare has proven successful in 29/29 industrialized nations, while corporate healthcare has proven the most unsuccessful in 100% of industrialized nations, but Americans are still afraid of change towards Universal Health care. It's not Obama, nor his policies, it the American people (and probably people worldwide in general, but since others adopted UHC, American people) being so easily swayed by catchy slogans. Second, Obama tried numerous times to take leadership of the Health care debate and when all he's greeted with is "rising insurance premiums," "Higher taxes," and my favorites "DEATH PANELS;" then how can he advance the debate?
Second, I don't need to say that american Political strategists are traveling the world to help other country's political party's because the economy, but they're because American politics work for politicians. In 2004, did Bush or Kerry mention the environment? At that time WATER (of all things) wasn't drinkable in 44% of states. Politics serves as a deterrent from big issues (the main issue at that time was GAY MARRIAGE, not unsave drinking/hunting regulations caused by corporate cronyism). Politics works on diverting attention from the issues to non-issues (like the man behind the curtain in the Wizard of Oz). Obama couldn't pass health care because "Death panels" and "higher taxes" registered more with voters than "corporation run health care" and "cancellation of premiums"
You are not seriously going to pretend "the right" ousted anti-semitic holdover Helen Thomas from the White House Press Corps, exaggerated race-based liberation theology hate preacher Jeremiah Wright's sermons, and made up that Van Jones was a self-avowed communist, despite his continuing appearances at progressive communistic events?
"The right" was not in a position to fire or distort any of these people. They were hung by their own words and if the White House was too cowardly, how is it a problem with "the right" that Obama shoots first and asks questions later (ala "I don't have all the facts, but the Cambridge Police acted stupidly)? Shirley Sherrod's firing is the fault of the Obama Administation and the Obama Administration alone.
Actually, I am seriously going to pretend the right ousted them. Van Jones words in several speeches was taken out of context. Helen Thomas said simply the Palestinians had their land stolen from them and should be given back what they lost (OMG how outrages). And Wright, although the brashest of them is still a very intellectual guy that if you ever have the privilege to hear him speak personally; take it. While Wirght did say "god damn america" it was in the context of America's past sins. America has been very negligent to blacks, asians, native americans; and Wright was saying "God Damn American" because America makes mistakes and has failed to live up to them. There are several others and I can't defend the dozens of speeches that were given that were taken out of context, but I can say that many of them have been about affirmative action (whites don't like hearing about that) and taken out of context (e.g. Jones "give them the wealth" was about giving Native Americans the wealth that THEIR land had that White Americans forced them to live on).
Why is it you are always willing to give these people the benefit of the doubt, yet reflexively believe the Democratic mantra the Republican Party is basically "The Party of No." Sometimes you have to say no when the opposing Party and its supporters want to treat you like infants instead of adults.
This is the mindset of the Democratic Party. Americans are too dumb to make their own health care decisions, so we must have universal health care. Americans are too dumb to protect the environment, so government must regulate every facet of the energy sector. Americans are too dumb to discern which news is accurate so we must constantly rail against "Faux News." Americans are too dumb to figure out a preacher who hangs around with Louis Farrakhan, routinely talks about white folks' greed, and has on occasion ended a sermon with "God Damn America!" is not radical, racist, or both. Americans are too dumb to run their own businesses, so we must raise taxes to keep most of them from desiring to do so.
Is there anything Democratic party supporters do not think Americans are too dumb to do? Or is their very voting for the Democratic Party proof of the American people's intellectual deficits?
But that's all the Republicans have given to the debate; either no or start over. And (this is slightly abusive on your part) while I agree the democrats are closer to a solution then Republicans on HC, what solutions do republicans have? Name 3!
Second, I've never said Americans are too dumb to make HC decisions (but I have said Americans are easily swayed by slogans). But I digress, UHC is the best simply because HC companies are seeking profit while marginalizing their customers by canceling their premiums (and please as the son of a cancer patient, don't tell me otherwise). Regardless of what the talking heads (Hannity, Beck, Orally) say, American healthcare fails not because of the people, but the corporations.
Finally, I've never said Americans are too dumb to regulate the environment, that is exaggerated. Americans though don't have the means to protect the environment, and that is where the government stepped in (and although socialist even Adam Smith said there are areas only the government can effectively handle) because there is no incentive for a private enterprise to solve an environmental issue.
FINALLY FINALLY: we can go on forever, and it is stupid to believe we can convince one another, especially on a pokemon forums. So if you would like an actual debate continue; but I would like more than anything to avoid hard feelings.
