On Tuesday night, Rep. Alan Grayson (D-FL) brought three poster boards with what he claimed was the Republican plan for health care.  It had three points—though someone should have reviewed them before he presented them, as #2 was just a lead in to #3 and should have been #2.

In any case, the plan he presented was as follows:

1. Don’t Get Sick
2. Die Quickly

Part of what I find strange about the media’s response is that they are comparing this with Rep. Joe Wilson’s “You Lie” first, and then adding in Gov. Sarah Palin’s “Death Panels” rather than seeing what’s actually going on here.

Obsessed with Death

Both parties are obsessed with death and claiming that the other party wants you to die. 

Gov. Palin started it by saying that the Democrats wanted to set up “death panels” that would decide your fate based on your health and probably funds (down the road).

Rep. Grayson has only added to it by saying that the Republican’s plan is that you don’t get sick or die quickly.  He bases his comments off of “a Harvard University study released this month that said 44,000 Americans die each year because they have no health insurance”.

Both of them are employing fear tactics—both involving death and casting the opposing party as wanting death.

Seriously…

Gov. Palin is a bit over the top, but I can see where you could logically come to that position—if you accept a lot of things:

• Health Care includes public health option.
• Public Health Option dominates the insurance industry to the point it becomes the only option—either 100% or to the point that the others are statistically inconsequential.
• Public Health Option bleeds money like Medicare/Medicaid.
• Money needs to be cut back, so either services need to go or to be rationed.
• People start to have “hard talks” about quality of life and whether keeping people on different, expensive procedures is “worth it.”

Rep. Grayson is way out there.  For one, if Republicans did not have any proposals—a far fetched idea to be sure—the question comes down to “what happens now?”  And that’s not so bleak as Rep. Grayson paints the picture:

• There is much higher percentage of insured people in America than uninsured.
• Any person, with or without insurance, can go into a hospital ER and receive treatment, by federal law.

No one dies because “they didn’t have health insurance.”  People may choose not to go to the doctor because they do not have insurance and they’re concerned about cost, but that is their choice.  They may or may not be able to afford medication, but even in this case there are programs out there—programs that could be extended or that could be improved upon without going to the lengths that this government seems to want to go.

Fighting for Fighting’s Sake

Rep. Grayson believes:

[W]hoever it is that’s causing the Republicans to fight tooth-and-nail against anything, absolutely anything, to have every vote come down to being 257 to 175 in the House, over and over and over again.

Here’s he’s either ignorant, a fool, or extremely calculated. 

Ignorant, because anyone that follows politics knows that there are two schools of thought that disagree on foundational issues—issues for which there are no compromise.

Fool, because he actually believes that there are people that will willingly drop their beliefs and agree with you just because you’re in power.

Extremely Calculated, he got himself his 15 minutes of fame outside of his state, he got on national television, endearing himself to the far left and it really doesn’t matter whether he’s right.  He’s sharing the same spotlight Gov. Palin got a few weeks ago with death panels.

How will the American people take to being told that they don’t know what they’re talking about, that if they don’t support the Democrat plan that they’re Neanderthals, and that they should just suck it up because they lost?

Joe The Plumber: Obama Tax Plan ‘Infuriates Me’

Dutch abortion ship sparks controversy in Spain

Still to Come, the Third-Party Debate

Obama Hasn’t Closed the Sale

Rivals Split, With Joe in the Middle

Your Debate Rundown

Youngsters treated to lesbian ‘wedding’

3rd Presidential Debate

Feel free to comment here on any of these, or join in the discussion at these different sites.

On Tuesday night, Tom Brokaw asked a question that I immediately wished I was there to answer instead of either of the candidates.  No, it wasn’t the question of what I didn’t know—for that I think I would have gone into full Donald Rumsfeld mode and waxed eloquent about what we know, what we don’t know, what we know we don’t know and what we don’t know we don’t know.

No, the question that I wished I could have answered was the one from the woman that asked what the candidates, as President, would ask us to sacrifice.

Sen. Obama started talking conservation—or something about new energy.  Sen. McCain talked about programs that would be cut because of his spending freeze.

What I would have said?  I would have said something like this:

I think, [insert woman’s name here], that this is a trying time.  But like any trying time there are things that we can learn through them—things that can make us stronger.

For the past few years, the American people have made the decision to live their lives on tomorrow’s dollar.  We have mortgaged more than we can afford.  We have rolled one car loan into the next.  We have maxed out credit cards and have picked up new ones to move the balance.  When that didn’t work, we picked up home improvement loans to consolidate the loans.

We are in this problem because we don’t know how to only spend today’s money—how to say “no.”  And government is the biggest offender.  We take your money and waste it on projects to get other’s elected.  We pay things in triplicate, and we waste money on regular items at high prices.

I ask the American people to go into their wallets, take out those credit cards and cut them up.  I call everyone to live based on today’s money, to pay off their debt, and to build an emergency fund.

To this end, the federal government is also going to go on a diet.  Effective immediately, I will push for a review of every program.  If we cannot justify it, I will press Congress to remove it.  If they don’t want to, I won’t sign anything.  They’ll have to override my veto.

Let’s get rid of our deficit.  Let’s only spend what we make.  Let’s get those people that work for credit card companies new jobs, and teach our kids how to live within our means.

You, [insert woman’s name], know what the value of money is.  It’s time that we learn your lesson and be inspired by your life, instead of trying to keep up with the Joneses.

By that time, Tom would probably cut me off as I would have been looking into the camera, not at the lights.

What do you think?

Holly writes about her family with charm, wit and honesty from her blog Seeking Faithfulness

Hello, I’m Holly. MIn has graciously asked me to join him on his blog for the remainder of the election season.  I’ve been a political junkie since I was a child.  My first memory of election coverage is from the night I settled in to watch Reagan’s second election.  I didn’t even make it through my first bowl of popcorn before the landslide was called in his favor.  I’m a wife and mom of eight children now, and I am enjoying teaching my kids many valuable lessons throughout this current election process.

Over the last several years, I have happily cast aside the main stream media.  With the emergence of conservative internet media sources, I haven’t had to count on Katie or Tom or Brian to tell me how to think.  Online, I read a variety of sites, both conservative and liberal.  I am able to read what I want, watch what videos interest me, and form my own opinions.

A week ago, my internet was down.  The repair-man could not be dispatched for a week!  It was a bleak time for me and my Minnesota-born husband.  His beloved Twins were down to the wire and he was reduced to frequenting the library in order to read scores.  (They eventually lost…something…but don’t ask me what.  I don’t do sports.)

And me?  If I wanted any news at all, I had to watch the talking (and talking and talking and talking) heads on regular television.  (Because we are frugal folks, we don’t even spring for cable.  That’s not bad…we own our home and our vehicles!  Right now, that’s such a good thing!)

Since it had been several years, it was a bit of a jolt to reconnect with my PBS pals and the other television personalities who want to tell me how to think.  I knew that mainstream media bias was blatant, but experiencing it this last week shocked me all over again.  It was sort of like that hot sauce you keep coming back to over and over again once your tongue is no longer numb.

I was reminded that there is no longer any pretense at media objectivity.  There hasn’t been for some time.  I can only wonder at the indoctrination that must take place at our schools of journalism.  Does a student have to sign some sort of “pledge of allegiance” to anti-conservative causes?  Is there some sort of vetting process to get into journalism?  Across the channels there are scathing, condescending tones for John McCain and smiles galore for Obama.  Third-party candidates never had a chance, from the start they faced complete media black-out.

Last night’s second Presidential debate was framed for the viewer before it ever happened; and like all previous debates, was called immediately for Obama by the incessant talking heads.  The message for the viewer is clear:  “Don’t bother thinking.  Don’t waste your time forming opinions.  We’ll tell you who won, and why.”  There might as well be a little box for brain-storage beside the television remote.

Obviously, my internet has been repaired.  I’m back on-line.  In retrospect, I don’t regret the down-time at all.  I was driven from my computer, only to reject receiving my news from the television set.  I was called to the unbiased Holy Scriptures time and time again; was reminded that it is the Lord God Almighty who holds all of our times in His hands.  Throughout the last week of this campaign and the financial crisis, I was called not to any screen but to my knees (and sometimes face down) to pray for my nation and this world.

Let me urge you, throughout this remaining month, to let God frame the great debate for your mind.  Take it all to Him.  Lay it out there for his view, ask Him for His wisdom, His thoughts.

Ask for His will to be accomplished for this time in history.  He maintains the perfect balance of love and judgement, of justice and mercy.  He, unlike the mainstream media, knows the outcome of all things.  HE can be trusted, and YOU will have peace within your spirit.

Tonight is yet another Election Infomercial Debate, this time on the topic of the economy.  It’s a Town-Hall style debate, which means that there’ll be bleachers and questions from the audience, but not as much interaction.

As I hinted at earlier, these debates are little more than chances to see the two candidates together and watch for gaffes (and fact checking).  Seeing as that’s the case, and dreaming of a better system, I’d propose that I’d love to see a debate that had one of the five features.

Take the Gloves Off

In this style of debate, the moderator would announce the topic, but then would let the candidates battle it out in the realm of ideas.  Each would have some time restrictions, but they would be only enforced if things got out of hand.  The candidates would face each other, and talk to each other about the issues, the attacks, and we’d actually see what they truly had to say when confronted.

Town-Hall Interactive

Fill the place with people pro each side and some undivided and let them react.  Part of the problem with these town halls (because of lack of time, etc.) is that there’s no energy for the candidates to feed off of.  Most of what we’re hearing (or not hearing depending on the state) from the stump comes from reaction to the crowd.  Get the crowd involved and were more likely to hear gaffes and what the candidates really think—and what they think appeals to voters.

Complete Debate

Bring up the third party challengers and have them discuss the topics that they think appeal to the public.  I understand that the media values “likelihood” over all else, but we should have a debate that includes the other parties.  It’s likely that they have an overlooked idea that the mainstream candidates can learn from.

Policy Debate

Let’s see the two actually create a policy to address a fictitious (or current) problem.  Have them present the single issue extemporaneously and work through it to completion.  Afterwards, present the policy to the President.

Bizarro World

Have the candidate, for each issue, point out the strengths in the opponent’s plan.  Have them defend it.  If they dodge the question, or don’t provide positive feedback, deduct time from a closing statement.

What do you think?  Is there things that you’d like to see in a debate, or do you like the current formats?

From the start of the debate, it seemed like Gov. Palin had an advantage.  While Sen. Biden looked right at the moderator for his answers (for the first half hour, it seemed), Gov. Palin looked directly into the camera—so much that it looked like she was talking right to us.

And it didn’t hurt that she used common expressions and emphasized that she wasn’t from Washington.

A lot of what you got out of the debate (I think) starts from what you expected her to be.  If you expected her to not know much about the issues, you found that she spoke in generalities and dodged answering questions she didn’t want.  If you thought of her as a hick, she had the accent and the common enough feel that she could give a “shout out” to the kids back in her brother’s public school class, awarding extra points for the debate.

The funny thing was, some of those that expected a wipe out had to admit that she was better than they figured (or their guy worse):

Committed Obama supporter Tim Quigley, a microbiologist from Haddon Heights, N.J., found Palin’s down-home tone offensive.

“I found her folksy talk insulting and inappropriate for someone running for the vice presidency,” said Quigley. “While Biden didn’t sweep the floor with Palin as I had anticipated, I feel like that was more a function of him toning it down to avoid being perceived as a Washington bully. He refuted her non-answers of the questions with facts, and carried himself in a much more executive manner.”

When someone complains about something being offensive, what they may be saying is, “oh wow, I think that would work.”  And that’s why I compare her to Reagan.  No, she didn’t have the overarching statements, and calling us to a higher calling, but she knew how to talk to the camera, she talked in a more accessible way—sounding like one of “us” instead of one of “them”, and she inspires in a way.

When we tell our kids that anyone can grow up to be President, do we really believe that—or is that like telling our kids about Santa Claus?  If we truly believe that anyone can be President, why can’t a hockey mom from Alaska that talks like one of the people that she’s trying to represent?

It’s not a question of whether or not the person can be civil.  It’s not even a question of whether they can be fair.  The question is, what baggage do they enter with?

Two years ago this spring our church decided to close its Christian School.  It was a  difficult and complex decision, which ended up being decided primarily by money.  When this tough subject came up, and we had a relatively new pastor, I was asked to be moderator.  But I had an opinion.

Was I unbiased?

I first stated the ground rules, and then started the debate—in a very formal way.  But it was difficult.  It was hard not to let people address others instead of myself as the chair.  It was difficult to not want to say anything, or to show no reaction because I had a bias.  And it was hard not to want to get people that shared my point of view to say what I wanted to say.

Eventually, I stepped aside as chair so that I could speak.

Every person has Worldview

Your worldview helps you to interpret data as you see it around you.  It impacts how you think about things, and whether you consider something rational.  It is both a source of unity and division—unity within and division without.

It is fast becoming the dividing line of this country, with few people truly wanting to see the other point of view.

Interviews

It was evidenced by the interviews that Katie Couric did of the two Vice Presidential nominees.  On the face of it, she asked questions of each candidate and looked for positions for each person.  The problem was that when it came to Sen. Joe Biden, Couric did not press or follow up with logical questions.  When it was Gov. Sarah Palin, she presses for a “gotcha.”

And yet if you were not paying close attention, you wouldn’t know the difference.  And these are they that let us see these candidates—for we will probably never get to talk to them in person.

Cruel neutrality—that’s what we need in our press.  That’s what we need from our moderators.

I believe God’s will was done with our school, and I pray for His will in the coming election.

Going in to the debate this Thursday, could we expect her to be unbiased?

Now, what if I told you that all of the above is true.  The moderator for Thursday night’s debate is writing a book to be published around the inauguration, but it’s not on Gov. Sarah Palin, but it does cover Sen. Barak Obama.

Does anyone else see “conflict of interest?”  I mean, I’m sure that she can be unbiased to some extent, and Sen. Obama will not be present, but one would hope that moderators of grand debates like this would at least appear to be a little less biased.

But, then again, what can we expect from the mainstream media?

Tonight’s the first debate—and yet a reader of the Wall Street Journal online found this:

Although the fate of tonight’s presidential debate in Mississippi remains very much up in the air, John McCain has apparently already won it—if you believe an Internet ad an astute reader spotted next to this piece in the online edition of the Wall Street Journal this morning. – Hat Tip: Say Anything

Now that’s confidence!

Are you going to watch tonight?

"We know he didn’t do it because he’s afraid because Sen. McCain wanted more debates," Clinton said, adding that he was "encouraged" by the joint statement from McCain and Sen. Barack Obama.

"You can put it off a few days the problem is it’s hard to reschedule those things," Clinton said, "I presume he did that in good faith since I know he wanted — I remember he asked for more debates to go all around the country and so I don’t think we ought to overly parse that.”

And I think that he’s probably right here.  It’s hard to believe that the guy that wanted 12 town hall meetings between June and the conventions would now chicken out two days before the debate, regardless of the polls.

The whole political idea behind the strategy is to appear to be a leader willing to put the country first.  You can’t both be a leader and a coward.  From what we’ve seen thus far, the only candidate who has always had a “wait and see” approach and doesn’t want to reveal plans is Sen. Obama.

McCain always appears to want to be in the thick of it, to want to be the person that people go to.  Personally, I’m hoping the bail-out fails and that it helps us get weaned off of credit, but at least this guy wants to be involved in the discussion.

Here the left’s arguments just don’t make sense.  Make up your mind.  I mean, a few days ago you were lowering expectations for your guy, and today you’re saying that Sen. McCain’s running scared.  Which is it?