Convention bounce?

Many of us, myself included, were less than enthusiastic about the candidacy of John McCain. How do you feel now, after the Republican convention, the choice of Sarah Palin, and the current political landscape? Are you going to bounce?

About Gene Veith

Professor of Literature at Patrick Henry College, the Director of the Cranach Institute at Concordia Theological Seminary, a columnist for World Magazine and TableTalk, and the author of 18 books on different facets of Christianity & Culture.

  • Matt

    Palin was a great VP choice, but unfortunately, McCain’s still at the top of the ticket. The fact that he can make a great political choice doesn’t make me forget everything else about him. As a matter of fact, I’m a little disappointed that so many conservatives are flocking back to him. As one blogger put it, “it bears more than a small resemblance to an abused wife who embraces her erstwhile tormentor and declares all is forgiven simply because he bought her flowers for once.”

  • Matt

    Palin was a great VP choice, but unfortunately, McCain’s still at the top of the ticket. The fact that he can make a great political choice doesn’t make me forget everything else about him. As a matter of fact, I’m a little disappointed that so many conservatives are flocking back to him. As one blogger put it, “it bears more than a small resemblance to an abused wife who embraces her erstwhile tormentor and declares all is forgiven simply because he bought her flowers for once.”

  • Kirk

    I’ve always been a McCain fan, if not for his policies directly, some of which I do like, then for the fact the he bucks the system occasionally and isn’t completely constrained by party norms. I’d classify McCain as a bad Republican, but a good conservative, which is why I like him.

    I’m personally still not sure of the Palin choice. I see the logic in choosing her, but I think that she may end up being a hinderance once the hype dies off. Regardless, her addition to the ticket doesn’t effect my decision to vote for McCain one way or the other.

  • Kirk

    I’ve always been a McCain fan, if not for his policies directly, some of which I do like, then for the fact the he bucks the system occasionally and isn’t completely constrained by party norms. I’d classify McCain as a bad Republican, but a good conservative, which is why I like him.

    I’m personally still not sure of the Palin choice. I see the logic in choosing her, but I think that she may end up being a hinderance once the hype dies off. Regardless, her addition to the ticket doesn’t effect my decision to vote for McCain one way or the other.

  • http://maplemountain.blogspot.com/ s.d. smith

    Palin delivers. I bounce.

    I have been, like Dr. Veith, distant to McCain, far off from the “Maverick” and a stranger to those he always calls “my friends.” But I have been brought near by Palin and the clarity of her values and policies.

    It seams rather clear: Vote to prolong and entrench the abortion holocaust, or vote to undermine and attack the prevailing Olympian Court’s oligarchic decree that the smallest babies are free to be murdered at will.

    Add in the issues of liberty (school choice, federalism, confiscatory taxes) and it seems an absolute no-brainer.

    Perfect? No.

    But a willing and useful co-belligerency? Yes.

  • http://maplemountain.blogspot.com/ s.d. smith

    Palin delivers. I bounce.

    I have been, like Dr. Veith, distant to McCain, far off from the “Maverick” and a stranger to those he always calls “my friends.” But I have been brought near by Palin and the clarity of her values and policies.

    It seams rather clear: Vote to prolong and entrench the abortion holocaust, or vote to undermine and attack the prevailing Olympian Court’s oligarchic decree that the smallest babies are free to be murdered at will.

    Add in the issues of liberty (school choice, federalism, confiscatory taxes) and it seems an absolute no-brainer.

    Perfect? No.

    But a willing and useful co-belligerency? Yes.

  • Susan aka organshoes

    s.d.smith said it well. Ditto.

  • Susan aka organshoes

    s.d.smith said it well. Ditto.

  • fw

    It was good to see the older mc cain last night. the man that was senator before he became a candidate for president.

    he actually said that washington changed the republicans and that the republicans failed to change washington.

    you would never know from the convention that the republicans have controlled the government for the past quarter century. what we have today is as much a creature of republican politics as it could possibly be.

    It would be good for McCain now to get control of his campaign and make those who speak as his proxies use the same civil and conciliatory tone he used in his own speach. Instead he is doing the exact same thing rove/bush did to him the last time he ran against bush in the primaries. McCain speaks civily and lets his proxies talk trash.

  • fw

    It was good to see the older mc cain last night. the man that was senator before he became a candidate for president.

    he actually said that washington changed the republicans and that the republicans failed to change washington.

    you would never know from the convention that the republicans have controlled the government for the past quarter century. what we have today is as much a creature of republican politics as it could possibly be.

    It would be good for McCain now to get control of his campaign and make those who speak as his proxies use the same civil and conciliatory tone he used in his own speach. Instead he is doing the exact same thing rove/bush did to him the last time he ran against bush in the primaries. McCain speaks civily and lets his proxies talk trash.

  • Bryan Lindemood

    I also agree with s.d. but I think fw’s critique is deserving of consideration (though I’m not so sure the 25 year control of the Republicans is an accurate portrayal of reality). I’m pretty sure this less than savory two-faced tactic is in both parties strategic playbooks.

  • Bryan Lindemood

    I also agree with s.d. but I think fw’s critique is deserving of consideration (though I’m not so sure the 25 year control of the Republicans is an accurate portrayal of reality). I’m pretty sure this less than savory two-faced tactic is in both parties strategic playbooks.

  • Joe

    “he actually said that Washington changed the republicans and that the republicans failed to change Washington”

    And he is right to say it and to vow to change it. The “94 Republican Revolution” was supposed to change Washington and in some ways it did; but it fell way short of the goal and it fell short not because of a Democratic president but because those who went to Washington in 1994 stuck around and turned into the very thing they vowed to stamp out.

  • Joe

    “he actually said that Washington changed the republicans and that the republicans failed to change Washington”

    And he is right to say it and to vow to change it. The “94 Republican Revolution” was supposed to change Washington and in some ways it did; but it fell way short of the goal and it fell short not because of a Democratic president but because those who went to Washington in 1994 stuck around and turned into the very thing they vowed to stamp out.

  • http://www.bikebubba.blogspot.com Bike Bubba

    Palin’s a nice touch, but I’m still going to once again cast my vote not for the Republicans, but against the Democrats. I’ve rarely had anything but “lesser of two evils” come early November, sad to say.

  • http://www.bikebubba.blogspot.com Bike Bubba

    Palin’s a nice touch, but I’m still going to once again cast my vote not for the Republicans, but against the Democrats. I’ve rarely had anything but “lesser of two evils” come early November, sad to say.

  • http://www.homesteadblogger.com/gonorthyoungpack Jenn W

    I haven’t really been a McCain fan. But, I was planning on voting for him regardless. He’s strongly pro-life and Obama (and all the rest of his camp) aren’t. I loved that article that reminded us that this life issue plays out across the other “issues” in politics.
    Really it comes down to I don’t like Obama’s socialist ideals and I can’t vote for them. Wasn’t fond of Hillary’s similar ideals either. There is much about McCain that makes me uncomfortable but it’s a fallen world. There is no perfect candidate. It will always be a choice between imperfect and imperfect. So, to answer “will you bounce.” I was going to support anyway, so I’m not a bounce vote. But I’m more in favor of him now that he picked Palin and she’s obviously such a strong candidate (although she is, of course, an imperfect choice too) and I’m happy to have her as VP if they get elected and I rather hope she continues on after that. But then, I’m from Alaska and it’s nice to see a solid conservative woman come out of my home state and add a little bit of Alaska style to the beltway!

  • http://www.homesteadblogger.com/gonorthyoungpack Jenn W

    I haven’t really been a McCain fan. But, I was planning on voting for him regardless. He’s strongly pro-life and Obama (and all the rest of his camp) aren’t. I loved that article that reminded us that this life issue plays out across the other “issues” in politics.
    Really it comes down to I don’t like Obama’s socialist ideals and I can’t vote for them. Wasn’t fond of Hillary’s similar ideals either. There is much about McCain that makes me uncomfortable but it’s a fallen world. There is no perfect candidate. It will always be a choice between imperfect and imperfect. So, to answer “will you bounce.” I was going to support anyway, so I’m not a bounce vote. But I’m more in favor of him now that he picked Palin and she’s obviously such a strong candidate (although she is, of course, an imperfect choice too) and I’m happy to have her as VP if they get elected and I rather hope she continues on after that. But then, I’m from Alaska and it’s nice to see a solid conservative woman come out of my home state and add a little bit of Alaska style to the beltway!

  • fw

    #6 (though I’m not so sure the 25 year control of the Republicans is an accurate portrayal of reality).

    nixon/ford (8), (carter 4 years) reagan (8), hw bush (4), (clinton 8 years), gw bush (8).

    presidency 28 years republican. 12 years dem.

    congress, controlled by republicans since 1984 until recently. about 22 years or so.

    I really don´t know how we could have come alot closer to one party rule over the last quarter century.

    The Republican party needs to TAKE FULL OWNERSHIP of the state of our republic as it is now.

    So let me ask all of you, is our country better off or worse off after all these years of republican rule?

  • fw

    #6 (though I’m not so sure the 25 year control of the Republicans is an accurate portrayal of reality).

    nixon/ford (8), (carter 4 years) reagan (8), hw bush (4), (clinton 8 years), gw bush (8).

    presidency 28 years republican. 12 years dem.

    congress, controlled by republicans since 1984 until recently. about 22 years or so.

    I really don´t know how we could have come alot closer to one party rule over the last quarter century.

    The Republican party needs to TAKE FULL OWNERSHIP of the state of our republic as it is now.

    So let me ask all of you, is our country better off or worse off after all these years of republican rule?

  • Carl Vehse

    McCain’s speech last night did much to negate the positive points of Gov. Palin’s speech the night before.

    When Palin defeated a GOP incumbent governor and a democratic candidate even favored by her own party, she, as the new Alaska governor, did not join in a chorus of “Kum Ba Yah” with those whose corruption she had opposed. She fought them, fired many, some eventually being prosecuted and going to jail.

    If Congress and the bureaucracy in Washington is as ineffective and corrupt as is claimed (and I think it’s even worse), then there will need to be people opposed, fired, charged, and prosecuted, etc.

    I tend to think Palin could do that. I have little confidence, after last night, that McCain would. His example of senate leadership is the bipartisan McCain-Feingold Act Campaign Reform Act, which has done exactly the opposite.

    As with airline seat pockets, voting booths may need to contain paper bags for those entering to cast their ballot.

  • Carl Vehse

    McCain’s speech last night did much to negate the positive points of Gov. Palin’s speech the night before.

    When Palin defeated a GOP incumbent governor and a democratic candidate even favored by her own party, she, as the new Alaska governor, did not join in a chorus of “Kum Ba Yah” with those whose corruption she had opposed. She fought them, fired many, some eventually being prosecuted and going to jail.

    If Congress and the bureaucracy in Washington is as ineffective and corrupt as is claimed (and I think it’s even worse), then there will need to be people opposed, fired, charged, and prosecuted, etc.

    I tend to think Palin could do that. I have little confidence, after last night, that McCain would. His example of senate leadership is the bipartisan McCain-Feingold Act Campaign Reform Act, which has done exactly the opposite.

    As with airline seat pockets, voting booths may need to contain paper bags for those entering to cast their ballot.

  • http://www.bikebubba.blogspot.com Bike Bubba

    Frank, the House of Representatives was controlled by the Democrats from 1954 to 1994 or so, and the Senate about the same except for 1980-1982, if I remember correctly. While I’d agree that the GOP didn’t do enough to stem the increase of government we’ve seen in the past 40 years, there are mitigating circumstances–from Tip O’Neil to Nancy Pelosi.

  • http://www.bikebubba.blogspot.com Bike Bubba

    Frank, the House of Representatives was controlled by the Democrats from 1954 to 1994 or so, and the Senate about the same except for 1980-1982, if I remember correctly. While I’d agree that the GOP didn’t do enough to stem the increase of government we’ve seen in the past 40 years, there are mitigating circumstances–from Tip O’Neil to Nancy Pelosi.

  • Susan aka organshoes

    I’ve been bouncing, since a week ago today.
    I would’ve voted for McCain w/o enthusiasm.
    With the roll-out of Gov. Palin, my enthusiasm kicked up, including for McCain for having chosen her.
    McCain’s speech gave me some enthusiasm for him as an honest, decent, well-intended public servant.
    He looks gutsier by the day.
    Guts in politicians makes me feel pretty bouncy. Buoyant, in fact.

  • Susan aka organshoes

    I’ve been bouncing, since a week ago today.
    I would’ve voted for McCain w/o enthusiasm.
    With the roll-out of Gov. Palin, my enthusiasm kicked up, including for McCain for having chosen her.
    McCain’s speech gave me some enthusiasm for him as an honest, decent, well-intended public servant.
    He looks gutsier by the day.
    Guts in politicians makes me feel pretty bouncy. Buoyant, in fact.

  • fw

    #12 mitigating circumstances…

    Ok. the dems get most of the responsibility for what was done from 54 till 94. ok. but still..

    the republican have had as much control as any party ever had over the past quarter century. what did they do with that? so “mitigating circumstances…” hmmmm.

    let me ask you…. just how much control would they need to have to say “yep the buck stops with us republicans….” just what percentage of guilt/credit should the republicans accept for the current mess?

  • fw

    #12 mitigating circumstances…

    Ok. the dems get most of the responsibility for what was done from 54 till 94. ok. but still..

    the republican have had as much control as any party ever had over the past quarter century. what did they do with that? so “mitigating circumstances…” hmmmm.

    let me ask you…. just how much control would they need to have to say “yep the buck stops with us republicans….” just what percentage of guilt/credit should the republicans accept for the current mess?

  • Anon The First

    S. D. Smith said it well.

    I don’t see how McCain can do all that he said, without a majority in the House and the Senate. I certainly don’t agree with him on the global economy, but I’m not an expert in that area. I was moved by his recounting how he was broken and changed in the Hanoi Hilton, but I don’t know if he showed that until maybe the last 10 years? Anyone who payed more attention to a senator from Arizona before that?

    He used to really dislike evangelicals. For all I know, Sarah Palin and her family are the first ones he will get to know well, and that might change him. Sure, the AoG don’t have all of the theology of the Lutheran confessions, but they are Christians.

    I was encouraged that he indicated he’d appoint judges who would keep their constitutional oaths. Of course, the Democrats have prevented constitutionalist judges from being appointed for the better part of two presidential administrations, and it would take Divine intervention to change them.

    It is certianly unfortunate that he is still taken in with the global warning fraud.

    Palin said “Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do what is right. Also, for this country, that our leaders, our national leaders, are sending [U.S. soldiers] out on a task that is from God. That’s what we have to make sure that we’re praying for, that there is a plan and that that plan is God’s plan.”

    That isn’t a support for the war, or a belief that the war is God’s will. That is a plea that we submit our actions, and pray that our leaders submit their decisions to God, out of fear that it -isn’t- God’s will.

    As to Sarah Palin and foreign policy, I would just remind people to never get between a sow grizzly – or an Alaskan brown, and her cubs!

    I guess I’m bouncing, I’ll be voting for Palin rather than the CP or the LP this time. I wasn’t so sure, before.

    fw, while we tak about false witness – or maybe just mistaken memory, let us recall that the GOP has not been in control of the government for the past quarter century. During which time the Clinton’s held two presidential terms, the Democrats controlled the House for all but eight or ten of those years, controlled the Senate for part of that time, and controlled the judicial system throughout. Sure, the Democrats haven’t had their way in everything the past 25 years, but that hardly means that the GOP had controll of the government.

    fw, there you go again, quoting the Party of Death talking points. Yet elsewhere you claim to be a Christian. Yet “no murderer has eternal life in him” What is your rationale for that? The GOP didn’t kill those 50 millions of babies. The GOP didn’t force the starvation-murder of Terry Shiavo. It isn’t the GOP who tells cancer patients in Oregon that they ought to consider suicide. Truly, no Christian who is in tune with the past 30 years of history can in good conscience vote Democrat. That doesn’t mean they have to vote GOP. But to vote Democrat knowing what has been going on and what they stand for, is to turn your back on your baptism. Strong words, but on the basis of Scripture, I believe them to be true. I’m not so sure about this corporate responsibility meme of yours, though, fw. I don’t think that the Catholics who vote Democrat out of tradition are really understanding what is at stake, and what is going on. Lutherans and other evangelicals don’t have that history and that excuse.

  • Anon The First

    S. D. Smith said it well.

    I don’t see how McCain can do all that he said, without a majority in the House and the Senate. I certainly don’t agree with him on the global economy, but I’m not an expert in that area. I was moved by his recounting how he was broken and changed in the Hanoi Hilton, but I don’t know if he showed that until maybe the last 10 years? Anyone who payed more attention to a senator from Arizona before that?

    He used to really dislike evangelicals. For all I know, Sarah Palin and her family are the first ones he will get to know well, and that might change him. Sure, the AoG don’t have all of the theology of the Lutheran confessions, but they are Christians.

    I was encouraged that he indicated he’d appoint judges who would keep their constitutional oaths. Of course, the Democrats have prevented constitutionalist judges from being appointed for the better part of two presidential administrations, and it would take Divine intervention to change them.

    It is certianly unfortunate that he is still taken in with the global warning fraud.

    Palin said “Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do what is right. Also, for this country, that our leaders, our national leaders, are sending [U.S. soldiers] out on a task that is from God. That’s what we have to make sure that we’re praying for, that there is a plan and that that plan is God’s plan.”

    That isn’t a support for the war, or a belief that the war is God’s will. That is a plea that we submit our actions, and pray that our leaders submit their decisions to God, out of fear that it -isn’t- God’s will.

    As to Sarah Palin and foreign policy, I would just remind people to never get between a sow grizzly – or an Alaskan brown, and her cubs!

    I guess I’m bouncing, I’ll be voting for Palin rather than the CP or the LP this time. I wasn’t so sure, before.

    fw, while we tak about false witness – or maybe just mistaken memory, let us recall that the GOP has not been in control of the government for the past quarter century. During which time the Clinton’s held two presidential terms, the Democrats controlled the House for all but eight or ten of those years, controlled the Senate for part of that time, and controlled the judicial system throughout. Sure, the Democrats haven’t had their way in everything the past 25 years, but that hardly means that the GOP had controll of the government.

    fw, there you go again, quoting the Party of Death talking points. Yet elsewhere you claim to be a Christian. Yet “no murderer has eternal life in him” What is your rationale for that? The GOP didn’t kill those 50 millions of babies. The GOP didn’t force the starvation-murder of Terry Shiavo. It isn’t the GOP who tells cancer patients in Oregon that they ought to consider suicide. Truly, no Christian who is in tune with the past 30 years of history can in good conscience vote Democrat. That doesn’t mean they have to vote GOP. But to vote Democrat knowing what has been going on and what they stand for, is to turn your back on your baptism. Strong words, but on the basis of Scripture, I believe them to be true. I’m not so sure about this corporate responsibility meme of yours, though, fw. I don’t think that the Catholics who vote Democrat out of tradition are really understanding what is at stake, and what is going on. Lutherans and other evangelicals don’t have that history and that excuse.

  • Jenna

    Agree with Carl Vehse: as soon as McCain stepped to the podium last night and started speaking, I remembered why I’ve disliked him since the 2000 election.

    The reminder was all the sharper when I contrasted the content of speeches given on previous nights by the candidates I originally supported–Fred Thompson and Mitt Romney*. I would’ve voted for Mr. McCain, regardless of his VP pick, simply to keep Obama out of office; the latter’s refusal to support the Born Alive Act is so supremely monstrous to me on top of his pro-abortion politics.

    But to me, Mr. McCain is just the “placeholder” I’ll have to bear with until 2012, when I hope young conservative talent will come into its own: Mrs. Palin, Govs. Jindal, Sanford and Pawlenty, etc.

  • Jenna

    Agree with Carl Vehse: as soon as McCain stepped to the podium last night and started speaking, I remembered why I’ve disliked him since the 2000 election.

    The reminder was all the sharper when I contrasted the content of speeches given on previous nights by the candidates I originally supported–Fred Thompson and Mitt Romney*. I would’ve voted for Mr. McCain, regardless of his VP pick, simply to keep Obama out of office; the latter’s refusal to support the Born Alive Act is so supremely monstrous to me on top of his pro-abortion politics.

    But to me, Mr. McCain is just the “placeholder” I’ll have to bear with until 2012, when I hope young conservative talent will come into its own: Mrs. Palin, Govs. Jindal, Sanford and Pawlenty, etc.

  • kerner

    Anon the First:

    I question whether McCain really disliked Evangelicals. I think he really disliked Jerry Falwell, but that’s not the same thing.

    I think one thing McCain really dislikes to this day is modern, “talking points” type, marketing. And I believe McCain saw various heads of “Christian right” organizations as those kinds of marketers.

  • kerner

    Anon the First:

    I question whether McCain really disliked Evangelicals. I think he really disliked Jerry Falwell, but that’s not the same thing.

    I think one thing McCain really dislikes to this day is modern, “talking points” type, marketing. And I believe McCain saw various heads of “Christian right” organizations as those kinds of marketers.

  • http://www.gethsemanelutheranchurch.org Greg DeVore

    Well I definately bounced. I was leaning toward voting third party this year but the Palin choice brought me back into the Republican fold. I am not fond of the neo-con foreign policy which has hijacked mainstream conservatism but I will not vote for a pro-choice ticket. The slaughter of fifty million Americans by pro-choice America constrains my vote.

  • http://www.gethsemanelutheranchurch.org Greg DeVore

    Well I definately bounced. I was leaning toward voting third party this year but the Palin choice brought me back into the Republican fold. I am not fond of the neo-con foreign policy which has hijacked mainstream conservatism but I will not vote for a pro-choice ticket. The slaughter of fifty million Americans by pro-choice America constrains my vote.

  • Kimett N Geist

    Totally agree with s.d Smith. Not much more needs be said.

  • Kimett N Geist

    Totally agree with s.d Smith. Not much more needs be said.

  • Bryan Lindemood

    Just for the record, I would not be considering voting for McCain if he had not chosen a pro-life running mate. And as a born and bred westerner, I really like Palin!

  • Bryan Lindemood

    Just for the record, I would not be considering voting for McCain if he had not chosen a pro-life running mate. And as a born and bred westerner, I really like Palin!

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Anon (@15) “During which time the Clinton’s held two presidential terms, the Democrats controlled the House for all but eight or ten of those years, controlled the Senate for part of that time, and controlled the judicial system throughout.”

    Anon, I can’t believe you’re continuing in this vein. “Yet elsewhere you claim to be a Christian”?! Man, your ability to judge FW’s heart (or make inferences to that end) is greater than mine. And then you toss off a number of talking points of questionable veracity, notably that “It isn’t the GOP who tells cancer patients in Oregon that they ought to consider suicide.” Technically, this is true, because no one tells cancer patients in Oregon that.

    “But to vote Democrat … is to turn your back on your baptism.” I’m so glad God is my judge and not you.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Anon (@15) “During which time the Clinton’s held two presidential terms, the Democrats controlled the House for all but eight or ten of those years, controlled the Senate for part of that time, and controlled the judicial system throughout.”

    Anon, I can’t believe you’re continuing in this vein. “Yet elsewhere you claim to be a Christian”?! Man, your ability to judge FW’s heart (or make inferences to that end) is greater than mine. And then you toss off a number of talking points of questionable veracity, notably that “It isn’t the GOP who tells cancer patients in Oregon that they ought to consider suicide.” Technically, this is true, because no one tells cancer patients in Oregon that.

    “But to vote Democrat … is to turn your back on your baptism.” I’m so glad God is my judge and not you.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Oops, I meant to add a comment to my first quote (@21) of Anon: First off, there was only one Clinton that had a presidential term. Those terms only lasted eight years, so it makes no sense to say that Democrats controlled the House “for all but eight or ten” of the Clinton administration. Anyhow, the Republicans controlled both houses of Congress for 75% of that administration.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Oops, I meant to add a comment to my first quote (@21) of Anon: First off, there was only one Clinton that had a presidential term. Those terms only lasted eight years, so it makes no sense to say that Democrats controlled the House “for all but eight or ten” of the Clinton administration. Anyhow, the Republicans controlled both houses of Congress for 75% of that administration.

  • Anon The First

    Todd (not sure why I bother responding to you) I wasn’t judging fw’s heart, I was asking him questions about his words. Way to confuse and obscure!

    It is a FACT that cancer patients in Oregon have been sent letters by their government suggesting to them that option since that government’s health care program won’t support the anti-cancer drugs they need because it considers them to have lebensunswerten leben.

    I wasn’t judging you, I was issuing a Biblically-based alert to those who have ears to hear. Perhaps you heard it as judgment, that is one of the effects of the proclamation of the Law. But I can’t know that about your heart.

  • Anon The First

    Todd (not sure why I bother responding to you) I wasn’t judging fw’s heart, I was asking him questions about his words. Way to confuse and obscure!

    It is a FACT that cancer patients in Oregon have been sent letters by their government suggesting to them that option since that government’s health care program won’t support the anti-cancer drugs they need because it considers them to have lebensunswerten leben.

    I wasn’t judging you, I was issuing a Biblically-based alert to those who have ears to hear. Perhaps you heard it as judgment, that is one of the effects of the proclamation of the Law. But I can’t know that about your heart.

  • Joe

    So much for camp fire songs.

  • Joe

    So much for camp fire songs.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Anon (@23), we’ve discussed this. Cite a source for your claim about Oregon “tell[ing] cancer patients in Oregon that they ought to consider suicide.” (Actually, you hinted it was the Democratic Party telling patients that, but that’s likely because you’re unfamiliar with Oregon politics.)

    Also, do tell how you can know the hearts of everyone who votes for a Democrat without judging them.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Anon (@23), we’ve discussed this. Cite a source for your claim about Oregon “tell[ing] cancer patients in Oregon that they ought to consider suicide.” (Actually, you hinted it was the Democratic Party telling patients that, but that’s likely because you’re unfamiliar with Oregon politics.)

    Also, do tell how you can know the hearts of everyone who votes for a Democrat without judging them.

  • WebMonk

    tODD 22, just to clarify your comment about AtF’s comment. (Gee, that’s clear! Way to start a clarification!)

    When he mentioned the Democrats controlled the House for all but eight or ten years of “those years”, I think he was referring to the overall past quarter decade, not just to President Clinton’s time in office.

    AtF’s grammar was vague since technically “those” could have referred to either the Clinton years or the larger time period he was talking about. Let’s assume he knows 4+4=8, not “eight or ten”.

  • WebMonk

    tODD 22, just to clarify your comment about AtF’s comment. (Gee, that’s clear! Way to start a clarification!)

    When he mentioned the Democrats controlled the House for all but eight or ten years of “those years”, I think he was referring to the overall past quarter decade, not just to President Clinton’s time in office.

    AtF’s grammar was vague since technically “those” could have referred to either the Clinton years or the larger time period he was talking about. Let’s assume he knows 4+4=8, not “eight or ten”.

  • WebMonk

    Oh never mind. I’m pulling my nose back out. Forget I said anything.

    Three posts between when I started typing and when I finished!

    Joe – right on.

  • WebMonk

    Oh never mind. I’m pulling my nose back out. Forget I said anything.

    Three posts between when I started typing and when I finished!

    Joe – right on.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Ah, I see what you’re saying, WebMonk (@26). Anon’s comment (@15) was meant to read, in part: “let us recall that the GOP has not been in control of the government for the past quarter century — during that period, there were two terms of Clinton’s presidency, and the Democrats controlled the House and Senate for half the period and controlled the judicial system throughout.”

    I’m not sure by what metric one can say which party is in control of the judicial system, but otherwise, that makes more sense. I wasn’t trying to be intentionally obtuse, for the record.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Ah, I see what you’re saying, WebMonk (@26). Anon’s comment (@15) was meant to read, in part: “let us recall that the GOP has not been in control of the government for the past quarter century — during that period, there were two terms of Clinton’s presidency, and the Democrats controlled the House and Senate for half the period and controlled the judicial system throughout.”

    I’m not sure by what metric one can say which party is in control of the judicial system, but otherwise, that makes more sense. I wasn’t trying to be intentionally obtuse, for the record.

  • Nancy

    Anon@15

    Is killing unborn children the only kind of killing that (true) Christians are allowed to decry? I’ve always been confused about why it is OK to bomb civilians who’ve not yet had the chance to hear about Christ?

    (And I’m not anti-war in all cases–both my parents are veterans, one of WWII, and my brother was in Vietnam.)

    For some of us, policies of McCain and Palin are so lacking in the 2nd Table of the Law–you know that “loving your neighbor as yourself stuff” that community organizers and people like that often do–that many of us cannot in OUR Christian conscience vote for them.
    According to my catechism, my neighbor is “every one of my fellow men”–not only unborn children.

    Maybe you’ve already talked about Luther’s famous, “I’d rather be governed by a wise Turk than a foolish Christian” on this blog. If not, now might be the time to meditate on that.

    (Have you looked at Sarah’s academic record–what there is that is available of it? Something like 6 colleges in 5 years, and not professor they could find who remembered having her as a student? Is this world leadership material? Does she have wisdom?)

  • Nancy

    Anon@15

    Is killing unborn children the only kind of killing that (true) Christians are allowed to decry? I’ve always been confused about why it is OK to bomb civilians who’ve not yet had the chance to hear about Christ?

    (And I’m not anti-war in all cases–both my parents are veterans, one of WWII, and my brother was in Vietnam.)

    For some of us, policies of McCain and Palin are so lacking in the 2nd Table of the Law–you know that “loving your neighbor as yourself stuff” that community organizers and people like that often do–that many of us cannot in OUR Christian conscience vote for them.
    According to my catechism, my neighbor is “every one of my fellow men”–not only unborn children.

    Maybe you’ve already talked about Luther’s famous, “I’d rather be governed by a wise Turk than a foolish Christian” on this blog. If not, now might be the time to meditate on that.

    (Have you looked at Sarah’s academic record–what there is that is available of it? Something like 6 colleges in 5 years, and not professor they could find who remembered having her as a student? Is this world leadership material? Does she have wisdom?)

  • NavyMom

    Tonight my 14 year old daughter and I watched the A&E movie, “Faith of My Fathers”, based on John McCain’s biography by the same title. My daughter was riveted and completely silent throughout the movie. As the credits rolled and the music ended, she looked at me with tears in her eyes and said, “Mom, he gave everything for his country. I want to do the same thing.” Would to God that we could always be led by such men. Flawed, indeed, but men of real valor, real character and deep patriotism.

  • NavyMom

    Tonight my 14 year old daughter and I watched the A&E movie, “Faith of My Fathers”, based on John McCain’s biography by the same title. My daughter was riveted and completely silent throughout the movie. As the credits rolled and the music ended, she looked at me with tears in her eyes and said, “Mom, he gave everything for his country. I want to do the same thing.” Would to God that we could always be led by such men. Flawed, indeed, but men of real valor, real character and deep patriotism.

  • Anon The First

    Hi, Nancy, are you suggesting that one of the political parties – perhaps the Republicans in this context, are running on a platform of bombing innocent civilians? I wasn’t aware that was on the platform. I certainly can’t support that.

    On the other hand, the Democrat Party is all about the murder of more than one million babies every year, and has as the head of their ticket a man who went to lengths to oppose allowing babies who survived the attempt on their lives and were born alive, from being allowed to live.

    Nancy, my catechism and my Bible don’t say that it is the job of the federal government to love my neighbor – it is my job, except for the areas of administering justice and defending the borders – which is the job of the kingdom of the left. I heard both of them say in their speeches a good deal about helping the poor and the middle class in their ability to find work, get to work, pay their bills, and have medical coverage. Did you miss those parts? I heard them.

    I don’t see how a Christian conscience could be rightfully bound by an unBiblical and nonconfessional view of the role of the kingdom of the left. Maybe I’m missing something.

  • Anon The First

    Hi, Nancy, are you suggesting that one of the political parties – perhaps the Republicans in this context, are running on a platform of bombing innocent civilians? I wasn’t aware that was on the platform. I certainly can’t support that.

    On the other hand, the Democrat Party is all about the murder of more than one million babies every year, and has as the head of their ticket a man who went to lengths to oppose allowing babies who survived the attempt on their lives and were born alive, from being allowed to live.

    Nancy, my catechism and my Bible don’t say that it is the job of the federal government to love my neighbor – it is my job, except for the areas of administering justice and defending the borders – which is the job of the kingdom of the left. I heard both of them say in their speeches a good deal about helping the poor and the middle class in their ability to find work, get to work, pay their bills, and have medical coverage. Did you miss those parts? I heard them.

    I don’t see how a Christian conscience could be rightfully bound by an unBiblical and nonconfessional view of the role of the kingdom of the left. Maybe I’m missing something.

  • Anon The First

    Todd,
    It is not the way my brain works to remember the sources of everything I read, nor is a conversation a refereed journal.

    I found a number of reports on the incidents by running a simple search. Have you not told others to simply search and held them accountable for that? Or was that someone else?

    You never answered the matter about abortions and euthanasia, those alone would be sufficient to make it untenable and unconscionable to vote for a party and ticket that promoted those. Is there a reason for that? What is the purpose for trying to nit pick by mischaracterizing the genre of the discussion and avoiding the matters that are entirely sufficient in themselves?

  • Anon The First

    Todd,
    It is not the way my brain works to remember the sources of everything I read, nor is a conversation a refereed journal.

    I found a number of reports on the incidents by running a simple search. Have you not told others to simply search and held them accountable for that? Or was that someone else?

    You never answered the matter about abortions and euthanasia, those alone would be sufficient to make it untenable and unconscionable to vote for a party and ticket that promoted those. Is there a reason for that? What is the purpose for trying to nit pick by mischaracterizing the genre of the discussion and avoiding the matters that are entirely sufficient in themselves?

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Anon, apparently you don’t remember that we have already discussed this, so I will point you to Veith’s post on “Tyranny as art”, wherein — much like your statement (@15) that “it isn’t the GOP who tells cancer patients in Oregon that they ought to consider suicide” — you claimed, “our own State of Oregon can tell people that they have a duty to die for the good of society.”

    I replied (and maintain) that was “a ridiculous mischaracterization of the (admittedly wrong) law”, but you claimed “Oregon has sent such letters to its citizens who are in need of grave medical attention”. In response, I said that was a poor reading of an article (which I linked to), titled “A gift of treatment”, by Tim Christie, in the June 3, 2008 (Salem) Register-Guard.

    You replied, rather unhelpfully, “Todd, how do you know which article I read? This has in fact occurred a number of times on record.”

    You are making a claim, I am challenging the veracity of it, and twice now you have refused to back up your claim with anything like a fact. You say you’ve read it somewhere, but you won’t point to anything in particular. You say you found “reports on the incidents by running a simple search”, yet when I do the same thing and point to an actual article with actual facts we can discuss, you brush it away by asking “how do you know which article I read?”

    At this point, I must conclude that you are unable to defend your claim, and that it is, in fact, erroneous. If you choose to dispute this, then cite your sources. I’m not asking you to make a hyperlink, if you are unable. I’m asking for a source name, plus date or key phrase I can search for to find the particular article you’d like to cite in your defense.

    As to your complaint that I “never answered the matter about abortions and euthanasia”, this is going to sound like a broken record, but you need to tell me what you’re referring to. You’ve written several comments in that vein. What article on this blog did you leave those comments on? It doesn’t appear to be this one. I try to read all the ones I’ve joined in on, but I can’t be sure I have.

    Finally, it is not nit picking to hold you accountable for your claims, if they are erroneous or misleading.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Anon, apparently you don’t remember that we have already discussed this, so I will point you to Veith’s post on “Tyranny as art”, wherein — much like your statement (@15) that “it isn’t the GOP who tells cancer patients in Oregon that they ought to consider suicide” — you claimed, “our own State of Oregon can tell people that they have a duty to die for the good of society.”

    I replied (and maintain) that was “a ridiculous mischaracterization of the (admittedly wrong) law”, but you claimed “Oregon has sent such letters to its citizens who are in need of grave medical attention”. In response, I said that was a poor reading of an article (which I linked to), titled “A gift of treatment”, by Tim Christie, in the June 3, 2008 (Salem) Register-Guard.

    You replied, rather unhelpfully, “Todd, how do you know which article I read? This has in fact occurred a number of times on record.”

    You are making a claim, I am challenging the veracity of it, and twice now you have refused to back up your claim with anything like a fact. You say you’ve read it somewhere, but you won’t point to anything in particular. You say you found “reports on the incidents by running a simple search”, yet when I do the same thing and point to an actual article with actual facts we can discuss, you brush it away by asking “how do you know which article I read?”

    At this point, I must conclude that you are unable to defend your claim, and that it is, in fact, erroneous. If you choose to dispute this, then cite your sources. I’m not asking you to make a hyperlink, if you are unable. I’m asking for a source name, plus date or key phrase I can search for to find the particular article you’d like to cite in your defense.

    As to your complaint that I “never answered the matter about abortions and euthanasia”, this is going to sound like a broken record, but you need to tell me what you’re referring to. You’ve written several comments in that vein. What article on this blog did you leave those comments on? It doesn’t appear to be this one. I try to read all the ones I’ve joined in on, but I can’t be sure I have.

    Finally, it is not nit picking to hold you accountable for your claims, if they are erroneous or misleading.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Also, Anon (@32), if “it is not the way [your] brain works to remember the sources of everything [you] read,” then perhaps you should stick to making claims of those things you can more readily defend.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Also, Anon (@32), if “it is not the way [your] brain works to remember the sources of everything [you] read,” then perhaps you should stick to making claims of those things you can more readily defend.

  • http://gpiper.org/katiesbeer Theresa K.

    Are you guys looking for the local Fox News piece on a woman who did receive that letter? Of course, the Oregon Health Plan says the letter was misinterpreted, but the wording is quite plain.

    SPRINGFIELD, Ore. – Barbara Wagner has one wish – for more time.

    “I’m not ready, I’m not ready to die,” the Springfield woman said. “I’ve got things I’d still like to do.”

    Her doctor offered hope in the new chemotherapy drug Tarceva, but the Oregon Health Plan sent her a letter telling her the cancer treatment was not approved.

    Instead, the letter said, the plan would pay for comfort care, including “physician aid in dying,” better known as assisted suicide.

    “I told them, I said, ‘Who do you guys think you are?’ You know, to say that you’ll pay for my dying, but you won’t pay to help me possibly live longer?’ ” Wagner said.

    Source: http://www.katu.com/news/26119539.html

  • http://gpiper.org/katiesbeer Theresa K.

    Are you guys looking for the local Fox News piece on a woman who did receive that letter? Of course, the Oregon Health Plan says the letter was misinterpreted, but the wording is quite plain.

    SPRINGFIELD, Ore. – Barbara Wagner has one wish – for more time.

    “I’m not ready, I’m not ready to die,” the Springfield woman said. “I’ve got things I’d still like to do.”

    Her doctor offered hope in the new chemotherapy drug Tarceva, but the Oregon Health Plan sent her a letter telling her the cancer treatment was not approved.

    Instead, the letter said, the plan would pay for comfort care, including “physician aid in dying,” better known as assisted suicide.

    “I told them, I said, ‘Who do you guys think you are?’ You know, to say that you’ll pay for my dying, but you won’t pay to help me possibly live longer?’ ” Wagner said.

    Source: http://www.katu.com/news/26119539.html

  • Carl Vehse

    Here’s another article, “License to kill: Oregon case may signal the next wave in assisted suicide”, about the Oregon’s state-run health program that offers to pay for physician-assisted euthanasia. The article notes:

    “Oregon’s physician-assisted suicide law allows taxpayers to pay for someone to kill [Randy] Stroup, because it’s cheaper than trying to heal him.”

    Here’s an August 18, 2008 letter from the Oregon Department of Human (Death) Services that urges the references to state-provided euthanasia services be dropped from letters (though the services for assisted murder will still be offered).

    Josef Mengele would be proud of the Oregon letter writer, Oregon DHS, and Oregon’s vote to legalize and pay its physicians to help murder people.

  • Carl Vehse

    Here’s another article, “License to kill: Oregon case may signal the next wave in assisted suicide”, about the Oregon’s state-run health program that offers to pay for physician-assisted euthanasia. The article notes:

    “Oregon’s physician-assisted suicide law allows taxpayers to pay for someone to kill [Randy] Stroup, because it’s cheaper than trying to heal him.”

    Here’s an August 18, 2008 letter from the Oregon Department of Human (Death) Services that urges the references to state-provided euthanasia services be dropped from letters (though the services for assisted murder will still be offered).

    Josef Mengele would be proud of the Oregon letter writer, Oregon DHS, and Oregon’s vote to legalize and pay its physicians to help murder people.

  • Bryan Lindemood

    Boy, I didn’t know about all that stuff going on in Oregon. Thanks, tODD and Anon the 1st for bringing this to light. But just for the record I would prefer they kept these horrific references IN their letters than trying to hide the false form of medicine they are practicing there. Any Doctor or Nurse or Taxpayer who participates in these programs in Oregon (or anywhere else) should be ashamed of themselves. Sick, Sick, Sick!

  • Bryan Lindemood

    Boy, I didn’t know about all that stuff going on in Oregon. Thanks, tODD and Anon the 1st for bringing this to light. But just for the record I would prefer they kept these horrific references IN their letters than trying to hide the false form of medicine they are practicing there. Any Doctor or Nurse or Taxpayer who participates in these programs in Oregon (or anywhere else) should be ashamed of themselves. Sick, Sick, Sick!

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Theresa (@35), Carl (@36), thanks for the citations. I hope that Anon will find them acceptable so that we can discuss his claims that the “State of Oregon can tell people that they have a duty to die for the good of society” and “it isn’t the GOP who tells cancer patients in Oregon that they ought to consider suicide.”

    As to the partisan claims, it should be noted that the “Death With Dignity Act” (I know, sigh) was made law via ballot measure, not by the legislature. It was upheld by the voters when another ballot measure (referred by the legislature) to overturn the act was turned down. Democrats have supported the act, however. Let me be clear about my opinion on this act: it is wrong. Doctors should not hasten the death of their clients, and if they do, they should be held liable.

    The most extensive and informative article on this I have yet found is the one I referred to earlier, the (Eugene) Register-Guard‘s “A gift of treatment”, which refers to both Wagner’s and Stroup’s story. (Theresa @35, sorry, but KATU is an ABC affiliate, and Carl @36, the FreeRepublic article you linked to merely reprints a Cal Thomas World magazine column which, frankly, is light on facts. If you have to get your news from Fox, at least read the July 28, 2008 Dan Springer article titled “Oregon Offers Terminal Patients Doctor-Assisted Suicide Instead of Medical Care”, which is more fact-heavy than Thomas’s column.)

    In fact, let’s start with a quote from that FoxNews.com article:

    Oregon doesn’t cover life-prolonging treatment unless there is better than a 5 percent chance it will help the patients live for five more years — but it covers doctor-assisted suicide, defining it as a means of providing comfort, no different from hospice care or pain medication.

    And now a quote from the Register-Guard article:

    When the Oregon Health Plan was established in 1994, it was expressly intended to ration health care. A prioritization list was drawn up, with diagnoses and ailments deemed most important — pregnancy, childbirth, preventive care for children — placed at the top of the list. At the bottom are procedures such as cosmetic surgery, which would not be covered. “We can’t cover everything for everyone,” said Dr. Walter Shaffer, medical director of the state Division of Medical Assistance Programs, which administers the Oregon Health Plan. “Taxpayer dollars are limited for publicly funded programs. We try to come up with policies that provide the most good for the most people.” Most cancer treatments are high priority on the list, Shaffer said. “But there’s some desire on the part of the framers of this list to not cover treatments that are futile, or where the potential benefit to the patient is minimal in relation to the expense of providing the care.”

    Now let’s assess the cases. Many conservatives citing Wagner’s case focus on the denial of cancer treatment. They occasionally omit that the treatment that was denied was rather expensive ($4,000/month) and considered either experimental or at least not proven effective by the Oregon Health Plan (OHP) doctors. These conservatives almost always fail to mention that the OHP has paid “thousands of dollars over the years for Wagner’s cancer care, and it will continue to do so,” (according to a July 29, 2008 editorial in The Oregonian.) That’s right, the state had paid for her care as long as it was in keeping with the guidelines on cost-effectiveness. Of course, doctors have disagreed (and will always disagree) on whether those guidelines are right, but such are the limitations of healthcare funding for the poor.

    The problem arose when her doctor prescribed a treatment that did not fit the guidelines. That care — and only that care — was denied. However, her previous treatments were not (and, as far as I understand, are not) denied. The letter also mentioned (and this is the other part of the problem) that, in addition to paying for that care, the OHP would cover palliative care. Unfortunately, under the “Death with Dignity Act”, that includes doctor-assisted suicide.

    However, as I hope is clear by now, it is in no way accurate to say that the “State of Oregon can tell people that they have a duty to die for the good of society” or that it “tells cancer patients in Oregon that they ought to consider suicide.”

    And now for some ironic notes. Unless I am mistaken, those outraged by these stories seem to be arguing that the OHP, which provides healthcare for the poor and is paid for by Oregon taxpayers, should cover any and all medication. Ironically, Republicans routinely pillory programs just like this, and under Republican practice, people like Wagner and Stroup would receive no healthcare whatsoever, since they are poor. Not only would Wagner not get her expensive treatment, she would not have received any of the previous years of treatment from the state. Those expressing outrage on Wagner’s behalf might want to explain why her getting no healthcare whatsoever is the more caring alternative.

    It is also interesting to note that, in battling over the “Death with Dignity Act”, Republicans showed that they do not actually believe in states’ rights, and actually prefer an all-powerful federal government. This can be seen in the actions that led to Gonzales v. Oregon, in which the U.S. Attorney General claimed the right to overrule state laws. Conservatives usually find such claims — no matter how offensive the underlying motives — to be anathema to their cause.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Theresa (@35), Carl (@36), thanks for the citations. I hope that Anon will find them acceptable so that we can discuss his claims that the “State of Oregon can tell people that they have a duty to die for the good of society” and “it isn’t the GOP who tells cancer patients in Oregon that they ought to consider suicide.”

    As to the partisan claims, it should be noted that the “Death With Dignity Act” (I know, sigh) was made law via ballot measure, not by the legislature. It was upheld by the voters when another ballot measure (referred by the legislature) to overturn the act was turned down. Democrats have supported the act, however. Let me be clear about my opinion on this act: it is wrong. Doctors should not hasten the death of their clients, and if they do, they should be held liable.

    The most extensive and informative article on this I have yet found is the one I referred to earlier, the (Eugene) Register-Guard‘s “A gift of treatment”, which refers to both Wagner’s and Stroup’s story. (Theresa @35, sorry, but KATU is an ABC affiliate, and Carl @36, the FreeRepublic article you linked to merely reprints a Cal Thomas World magazine column which, frankly, is light on facts. If you have to get your news from Fox, at least read the July 28, 2008 Dan Springer article titled “Oregon Offers Terminal Patients Doctor-Assisted Suicide Instead of Medical Care”, which is more fact-heavy than Thomas’s column.)

    In fact, let’s start with a quote from that FoxNews.com article:

    Oregon doesn’t cover life-prolonging treatment unless there is better than a 5 percent chance it will help the patients live for five more years — but it covers doctor-assisted suicide, defining it as a means of providing comfort, no different from hospice care or pain medication.

    And now a quote from the Register-Guard article:

    When the Oregon Health Plan was established in 1994, it was expressly intended to ration health care. A prioritization list was drawn up, with diagnoses and ailments deemed most important — pregnancy, childbirth, preventive care for children — placed at the top of the list. At the bottom are procedures such as cosmetic surgery, which would not be covered. “We can’t cover everything for everyone,” said Dr. Walter Shaffer, medical director of the state Division of Medical Assistance Programs, which administers the Oregon Health Plan. “Taxpayer dollars are limited for publicly funded programs. We try to come up with policies that provide the most good for the most people.” Most cancer treatments are high priority on the list, Shaffer said. “But there’s some desire on the part of the framers of this list to not cover treatments that are futile, or where the potential benefit to the patient is minimal in relation to the expense of providing the care.”

    Now let’s assess the cases. Many conservatives citing Wagner’s case focus on the denial of cancer treatment. They occasionally omit that the treatment that was denied was rather expensive ($4,000/month) and considered either experimental or at least not proven effective by the Oregon Health Plan (OHP) doctors. These conservatives almost always fail to mention that the OHP has paid “thousands of dollars over the years for Wagner’s cancer care, and it will continue to do so,” (according to a July 29, 2008 editorial in The Oregonian.) That’s right, the state had paid for her care as long as it was in keeping with the guidelines on cost-effectiveness. Of course, doctors have disagreed (and will always disagree) on whether those guidelines are right, but such are the limitations of healthcare funding for the poor.

    The problem arose when her doctor prescribed a treatment that did not fit the guidelines. That care — and only that care — was denied. However, her previous treatments were not (and, as far as I understand, are not) denied. The letter also mentioned (and this is the other part of the problem) that, in addition to paying for that care, the OHP would cover palliative care. Unfortunately, under the “Death with Dignity Act”, that includes doctor-assisted suicide.

    However, as I hope is clear by now, it is in no way accurate to say that the “State of Oregon can tell people that they have a duty to die for the good of society” or that it “tells cancer patients in Oregon that they ought to consider suicide.”

    And now for some ironic notes. Unless I am mistaken, those outraged by these stories seem to be arguing that the OHP, which provides healthcare for the poor and is paid for by Oregon taxpayers, should cover any and all medication. Ironically, Republicans routinely pillory programs just like this, and under Republican practice, people like Wagner and Stroup would receive no healthcare whatsoever, since they are poor. Not only would Wagner not get her expensive treatment, she would not have received any of the previous years of treatment from the state. Those expressing outrage on Wagner’s behalf might want to explain why her getting no healthcare whatsoever is the more caring alternative.

    It is also interesting to note that, in battling over the “Death with Dignity Act”, Republicans showed that they do not actually believe in states’ rights, and actually prefer an all-powerful federal government. This can be seen in the actions that led to Gonzales v. Oregon, in which the U.S. Attorney General claimed the right to overrule state laws. Conservatives usually find such claims — no matter how offensive the underlying motives — to be anathema to their cause.

  • fw

    #38 todd

    “It is also interesting to note that, in battling over the “Death with Dignity Act”, Republicans showed that they do not actually believe in states’ rights, and actually prefer an all-powerful federal government. ”

    this is fact and it grieves me, in that I am in agreement with most of the stated goals of most conservatives (eg anti abortion, anti euthanasia, anti government intrusion into peoples private lives, lower taxes, smaller government, avoid foreign entanglements, anti torture, pro habeus corpus and constitutional rights give equally to both citizen and non-citizen regardless of venue….)

    it is sad to see conservatives promote an “end-justifies-the-means” mentality.

    you correctly point out that it was a referendum that ushered in legal euthanasia. yet conservatives decry “legislation from the judicial bench”, and strong limits on judicial descretion in favor of…….. referendums.(!!!)

    My problem is this:

    A republican form of government, where constitutional law (in american tradition constitutions have been strictly to limit government and NEVER to define or confer individual rights…) is the best safeguard for minorities , including christian ones.

    conservative christians seem to increasingly favor majority rule and as close to pure democracy as they can get to.

    conservatives seem to have rejected the principles of republican government in favor of governmental situation ethics (there is a war so we don´t need to read people their rights).

    In the usa the idea was to be ruled by laws and not by men. Consider that idea. Consider it deeply. please. The Rule of Law. What a christian concept!

    Living now in brasil, I can see the genius and transcendent wisdom of this idea and ideal!

    This seems absolutely INSANE to me. Help me out someone. am I seeing this all wrong?

  • fw

    #38 todd

    “It is also interesting to note that, in battling over the “Death with Dignity Act”, Republicans showed that they do not actually believe in states’ rights, and actually prefer an all-powerful federal government. ”

    this is fact and it grieves me, in that I am in agreement with most of the stated goals of most conservatives (eg anti abortion, anti euthanasia, anti government intrusion into peoples private lives, lower taxes, smaller government, avoid foreign entanglements, anti torture, pro habeus corpus and constitutional rights give equally to both citizen and non-citizen regardless of venue….)

    it is sad to see conservatives promote an “end-justifies-the-means” mentality.

    you correctly point out that it was a referendum that ushered in legal euthanasia. yet conservatives decry “legislation from the judicial bench”, and strong limits on judicial descretion in favor of…….. referendums.(!!!)

    My problem is this:

    A republican form of government, where constitutional law (in american tradition constitutions have been strictly to limit government and NEVER to define or confer individual rights…) is the best safeguard for minorities , including christian ones.

    conservative christians seem to increasingly favor majority rule and as close to pure democracy as they can get to.

    conservatives seem to have rejected the principles of republican government in favor of governmental situation ethics (there is a war so we don´t need to read people their rights).

    In the usa the idea was to be ruled by laws and not by men. Consider that idea. Consider it deeply. please. The Rule of Law. What a christian concept!

    Living now in brasil, I can see the genius and transcendent wisdom of this idea and ideal!

    This seems absolutely INSANE to me. Help me out someone. am I seeing this all wrong?

  • Don S

    tODD @ 38: Your post is thoughtful and thorough. But I must take offense at the line: “Ironically, Republicans routinely pillory programs just like this, and under Republican practice, people like Wagner and Stroup would receive no healthcare whatsoever, since they are poor.” Where did you get that idea? Do you have a cite for that statement? Who is advocating not covering health care for the poor? That’s just flat out nonsense.

  • Don S

    tODD @ 38: Your post is thoughtful and thorough. But I must take offense at the line: “Ironically, Republicans routinely pillory programs just like this, and under Republican practice, people like Wagner and Stroup would receive no healthcare whatsoever, since they are poor.” Where did you get that idea? Do you have a cite for that statement? Who is advocating not covering health care for the poor? That’s just flat out nonsense.

  • Carl Vehse

    Convention bounce?

    In a USAToday/Gallup poll, taken Friday through Sunday, McCain leads Obama by 54%-44% among those seen as most likely to vote. The survey of 1,022 adults, including 959 registered voters, has a margin of error of +/— 3 points for both samples.

    However, the poll did not survey voters residing in Democratic precinct cemeteries nor those who may vote using hanging chads.

  • Carl Vehse

    Convention bounce?

    In a USAToday/Gallup poll, taken Friday through Sunday, McCain leads Obama by 54%-44% among those seen as most likely to vote. The survey of 1,022 adults, including 959 registered voters, has a margin of error of +/— 3 points for both samples.

    However, the poll did not survey voters residing in Democratic precinct cemeteries nor those who may vote using hanging chads.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Don (@40), where did I get that idea? I have to admit, I was mainly thinking about Republican responses to government involvement in health care at all — with such demonizing (to Republicans) terms as “socialized medicine” or “HillaryCare” — not to mention their attitudes towards entitlement programs in general, proclamations that the free market is always to be preferred over the government, etc.

    I’d point you to prime examples of that, but unfortunately my internet is going incredibly slow right now, so my research is hindered.

    Before that happened, though, I was able to find some responses to the incident above (involving the OHP) on FreeRepublic.com. If you are not familiar with it, its members tend towards the Republican/conservative/libertarian side of things (and it is apparently Carl-Vehse-approved, to boot):

    “Americans are slow to realize that a government health care plan will mean rationed care and some faceless bureaucrats will be making decisions about whether you literally live or die.”

    “This is the template for what Nobama and Hitlery would shove down our throats.”

    “Boo Hoo she wants someone else to pay for it for her. Pay your own way stop being a leech!”

    “Return to the health care system I grew up under. There wasn’t any such thing as insurance or government provided care. It was good and also affordable.”

    “FDR and LBJ launched the destruction of this nation with their entitlement programs. … I have grandchildren who will be forever enslaved to what these two generations have set up.”

    “Liberals vote in these socialized medicine schemes precisely because they expect that the sick will get ‘free’ medicine for any condition that befalls them. But what they are actually doing is replacing those many little insurance companies-that-have-power-of-life-or-death-over-you with one big state insurance company that has the same power. What they don’t understand is that the medical monopoly itself is what’s evil, and needs to be smashed. Medications and hospital stays cost ridiculous amounts because the companies involved are not acting in a real private market, but have lobbied to get laws written in their favor. … But what happens when Obamacare replaces those state insurance monopolies with one big nationwide monopoly?”

    “A truly free-market health care industry would give better care to more people at less overall cost. Socialized medicine, especially with special-interest medical and insurance types setting up the regulations, will lead to more such situations, and worse.”

    “What false hope this whole government health care is.”

    “I have your answer, and it’s black and white. Keep the government the hell out of health care. Whenever “the public” picks up the tab, “the public” gets to impose their will on others. In the most critical issues of life and death, I do NOT trust a bureaucracy. Let the free market run healthcare.”

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Don (@40), where did I get that idea? I have to admit, I was mainly thinking about Republican responses to government involvement in health care at all — with such demonizing (to Republicans) terms as “socialized medicine” or “HillaryCare” — not to mention their attitudes towards entitlement programs in general, proclamations that the free market is always to be preferred over the government, etc.

    I’d point you to prime examples of that, but unfortunately my internet is going incredibly slow right now, so my research is hindered.

    Before that happened, though, I was able to find some responses to the incident above (involving the OHP) on FreeRepublic.com. If you are not familiar with it, its members tend towards the Republican/conservative/libertarian side of things (and it is apparently Carl-Vehse-approved, to boot):

    “Americans are slow to realize that a government health care plan will mean rationed care and some faceless bureaucrats will be making decisions about whether you literally live or die.”

    “This is the template for what Nobama and Hitlery would shove down our throats.”

    “Boo Hoo she wants someone else to pay for it for her. Pay your own way stop being a leech!”

    “Return to the health care system I grew up under. There wasn’t any such thing as insurance or government provided care. It was good and also affordable.”

    “FDR and LBJ launched the destruction of this nation with their entitlement programs. … I have grandchildren who will be forever enslaved to what these two generations have set up.”

    “Liberals vote in these socialized medicine schemes precisely because they expect that the sick will get ‘free’ medicine for any condition that befalls them. But what they are actually doing is replacing those many little insurance companies-that-have-power-of-life-or-death-over-you with one big state insurance company that has the same power. What they don’t understand is that the medical monopoly itself is what’s evil, and needs to be smashed. Medications and hospital stays cost ridiculous amounts because the companies involved are not acting in a real private market, but have lobbied to get laws written in their favor. … But what happens when Obamacare replaces those state insurance monopolies with one big nationwide monopoly?”

    “A truly free-market health care industry would give better care to more people at less overall cost. Socialized medicine, especially with special-interest medical and insurance types setting up the regulations, will lead to more such situations, and worse.”

    “What false hope this whole government health care is.”

    “I have your answer, and it’s black and white. Keep the government the hell out of health care. Whenever “the public” picks up the tab, “the public” gets to impose their will on others. In the most critical issues of life and death, I do NOT trust a bureaucracy. Let the free market run healthcare.”

  • Anon The First

    For what its worth, the distinction between what I wrote, and what tODD quotes me as having written, actually makes a difference in meaning in this discussion.

  • Anon The First

    For what its worth, the distinction between what I wrote, and what tODD quotes me as having written, actually makes a difference in meaning in this discussion.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Anon (@43), you’ll have to be the one to point it out the difference. I quoted you exactly. I did not selectively quote your words so as to make them say something they did not. If you disagree, then say how. Make an actual argument, please.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Anon (@43), you’ll have to be the one to point it out the difference. I quoted you exactly. I did not selectively quote your words so as to make them say something they did not. If you disagree, then say how. Make an actual argument, please.

  • Don S

    So, tODD, you hang all Republicans because of the comments of a few Freepers? And I take it you would like me to represent your views as being equivalent to those expressed on the Daily Kos comment threads?

    No serious Republican proposals include anything like eliminating health care for the truly needy, and you know that well. We don’t want universal care for reasons which are abundantly clear to those who live in Canada, the UK, and other countries having such care, and to those who ever have to visit a DMV. You in OR are also familiar with the problems resulting from health care being provided by a government agency, which acts coercively, rather than a private entity, which can be challenged legally for its wrong decisions.

    The comment was well beneath your usual standards of discourse, and that is why I remarked upon it.

  • Don S

    So, tODD, you hang all Republicans because of the comments of a few Freepers? And I take it you would like me to represent your views as being equivalent to those expressed on the Daily Kos comment threads?

    No serious Republican proposals include anything like eliminating health care for the truly needy, and you know that well. We don’t want universal care for reasons which are abundantly clear to those who live in Canada, the UK, and other countries having such care, and to those who ever have to visit a DMV. You in OR are also familiar with the problems resulting from health care being provided by a government agency, which acts coercively, rather than a private entity, which can be challenged legally for its wrong decisions.

    The comment was well beneath your usual standards of discourse, and that is why I remarked upon it.

  • Anon The First

    tOdd, you don’t live by your own standards in your posts. “Honest answers for honest questions.” Enough said.

  • Anon The First

    tOdd, you don’t live by your own standards in your posts. “Honest answers for honest questions.” Enough said.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Don, I said (@38), “Republicans routinely pillory programs just like [the OHP], and under Republican practice, people like Wagner and Stroup would receive no healthcare whatsoever, since they are poor.” Your response (@40) read, “Where did you get that idea? Do you have a cite for that statement? Who is advocating not covering health care for the poor? That’s just flat out nonsense.”

    I think I’ve shown (@42) that it’s not “flat-out nonsense”, and that there are many people advocating as such. I’ll also admit, though, that with such quotes I have not shown that “all Republicans” believe such things. But then, I never claimed that — I merely said “Republicans” pillory government-run health care, and they do — and far more than just the folks over at FreeRepublic, don’t you think?

    “I take it you would like me to represent your views as being equivalent to those expressed on the Daily Kos comment threads?” Well, it depends on what the claim is, doesn’t it? If I said, “No Democrat actually hates Christianity”, you’d probably be able to disprove that easily by venturing over there. By the way, I agree with you that Free Republic and Daily Kos are both often cesspools of negative partisanship.

    Anyhow, having looked into the matter some more, I think it was unfair to say that “under Republican practice, people like Wagner and Stroup would receive no healthcare whatsoever”. Republicans have and did support the OHP (although I can’t find a vote record), but then, the OHP is really just a repackaging of Medicaid dollars. And, again, Republicans have supported Medicaid, though I think it’s clear that it came about due to the Democrats, and opposition to Medicaid has really only come from Republicans.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Don, I said (@38), “Republicans routinely pillory programs just like [the OHP], and under Republican practice, people like Wagner and Stroup would receive no healthcare whatsoever, since they are poor.” Your response (@40) read, “Where did you get that idea? Do you have a cite for that statement? Who is advocating not covering health care for the poor? That’s just flat out nonsense.”

    I think I’ve shown (@42) that it’s not “flat-out nonsense”, and that there are many people advocating as such. I’ll also admit, though, that with such quotes I have not shown that “all Republicans” believe such things. But then, I never claimed that — I merely said “Republicans” pillory government-run health care, and they do — and far more than just the folks over at FreeRepublic, don’t you think?

    “I take it you would like me to represent your views as being equivalent to those expressed on the Daily Kos comment threads?” Well, it depends on what the claim is, doesn’t it? If I said, “No Democrat actually hates Christianity”, you’d probably be able to disprove that easily by venturing over there. By the way, I agree with you that Free Republic and Daily Kos are both often cesspools of negative partisanship.

    Anyhow, having looked into the matter some more, I think it was unfair to say that “under Republican practice, people like Wagner and Stroup would receive no healthcare whatsoever”. Republicans have and did support the OHP (although I can’t find a vote record), but then, the OHP is really just a repackaging of Medicaid dollars. And, again, Republicans have supported Medicaid, though I think it’s clear that it came about due to the Democrats, and opposition to Medicaid has really only come from Republicans.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Anon (@46), do you yet plan to make an argument of substance?

    “You don’t live by your own standards in your posts.” Care to refer to anything? Or did you feel an unspecific ad hominem attack would suffice?

    I’m still waiting for an explanation of your claim that “the distinction between what I wrote, and what tODD quotes me as having written, actually makes a difference in meaning in this discussion,” among other things.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Anon (@46), do you yet plan to make an argument of substance?

    “You don’t live by your own standards in your posts.” Care to refer to anything? Or did you feel an unspecific ad hominem attack would suffice?

    I’m still waiting for an explanation of your claim that “the distinction between what I wrote, and what tODD quotes me as having written, actually makes a difference in meaning in this discussion,” among other things.

  • Don S

    tODD, the statement “… under Republican practice, people like Wagner and Stroup would receive no healthcare whatsoever, since they are poor” is just wrong, for the reasons I state earlier. Additionally, that statement appears to suggest that Republicans will particularly seek to eliminate programs that help the poor (presumably you believe, on the other hand, that we evil Republicans will retain the programs that help the fat cat rich?) You essentially admit your statement was wrong in your post @ 47, without being gracious enough to acknowledge that you seriously misrepresented “Republican practice”.

    The whole issue of vitriol in politics is exemplified by your original post. It was disparaging and unfair, and seriously misstated the facts and the truth. Being opposed to expansion of healthcare programs is hardly equivalent to rooting out all government healthcare programs, or particulary focusing on rooting out government healthcare programs targeting the poor. And if some Republicans are “pillorying” programs like the OHP, that does not mean at all that they wish to eradicate all government healthcare programs, particularly those which are focused on the truly needy among us. Perhaps they are particularly focused on certain aspects of the OHP, which seem to need pillorying.

  • Don S

    tODD, the statement “… under Republican practice, people like Wagner and Stroup would receive no healthcare whatsoever, since they are poor” is just wrong, for the reasons I state earlier. Additionally, that statement appears to suggest that Republicans will particularly seek to eliminate programs that help the poor (presumably you believe, on the other hand, that we evil Republicans will retain the programs that help the fat cat rich?) You essentially admit your statement was wrong in your post @ 47, without being gracious enough to acknowledge that you seriously misrepresented “Republican practice”.

    The whole issue of vitriol in politics is exemplified by your original post. It was disparaging and unfair, and seriously misstated the facts and the truth. Being opposed to expansion of healthcare programs is hardly equivalent to rooting out all government healthcare programs, or particulary focusing on rooting out government healthcare programs targeting the poor. And if some Republicans are “pillorying” programs like the OHP, that does not mean at all that they wish to eradicate all government healthcare programs, particularly those which are focused on the truly needy among us. Perhaps they are particularly focused on certain aspects of the OHP, which seem to need pillorying.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Don (@49), I said (@47) that “I think it was unfair to say” what I’d said (@38). What are you complaining about?

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Don (@49), I said (@47) that “I think it was unfair to say” what I’d said (@38). What are you complaining about?

  • Don S

    tODD, your original statement was egregious. Your so-called apology was tepid, at best. That’s what I was complaining about.

  • Don S

    tODD, your original statement was egregious. Your so-called apology was tepid, at best. That’s what I was complaining about.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X