Ignoring them (or at least trying) is how we got into this mess in the first place. The problem with conspiracy theories is that give them a shine of legitimacy (as given by people like Rush, Dobbs, Hannity, people with national audience and influence) and they spread like wildfire. Mockery and dismissal won't work at that point, as it gives it free reign to spread.

Once it gets to that point, the only way to do it is to hammer down and debunk it every time it pops up, not for the sake of the believers (who at that point will never be convinced of the falsity of the issue), but more for the sake of people who could otherwise be drawn in under the assumption that there's a legit issue, to let them know just HOW big of a crock it is and why.

Sounds like exactly the kind of false protests they pulled during the Florida recounts. Inflating perceived numbers, shouting down people and negating any kind of civil debate or protest, and trying to characterize the whole display as full-on opposition without any explanations.

Old Dog, Old Tricks, just a bigger stage.

Don't you get it! She's in on the conspiracy! So's Hawaii law that doesn't allow the release of the original document on file!

Oh...as far as transparency goes too (since others brought it up in demand of all his college records too), I didn't realize that the idea was supposed to extend to every single personal tidbit in Obama's life.

I want to be sympathetic to you. I really do. I have the feeling we're on the same side here, in all honesty.

But do us all a favor, and ratchet it down a notch or seventeen. At the moment, you're coming off as belligerent, insulting, offensive, and reactive. In other words, you've become this letter thread's personal Rush Limbaugh. And that helps no one but the people you're railing against at the moment.

It does our side no good to trade 'eff yous' and drags down the argument.

The problem isn't necessarily the size. Just by polling and sheer number we can tell it's a small core.

The problem is that small core manages to tug on the ears of the national party, who panders to them and manages to feed the crazy while spinning it into a more palatable, less-extreme sounding 'manfiesto' that the media accepts as genuine debate. Not to mention that for whatever reason, the media is more prone to covering the wackos and sympathizing with them than similar left-wing protestors (or even not so similar, less-crazy and more-substantial protestors).

It's all about perception, and the machine is trying to cast these idiots as 'Real America'. And that's a dangerous thing for everyone except the proto-facists.

One big difference between then and now? We don't have a vote in this matter. We were able to vote for our president...but we can't vote on our health reform. We're forced to trust that our representatives in Congress will vote the best way.

And the sad fact that I seem to observe is that they're more receptive to what the WaPo, Newsweek, Time, WSJ say than their actual constituents, and even then, they're just as susceptible to the perception that their constituents or a large segment of the population wants them to vote one way, even if the majority is on the complete other side.

I'll give props to Reps. like Rep. Doggett for recognizing the manufactured nature of it all....I don't trust Congress as a whole though, especially when folks like Baucus and the Blue Dogs seem to obsess over appeasing constituents that will never actually end up voting for them, and turning their backs against the ones that voted them into office.

...than telling the truth.

Lovely to see the Limbaugh Action Committee dittoing their way to their version of 'accountability' for Republicans. Damn the truth, Party over Country, and anything that paints the opposition as correct must be purged.

Bad politics for pointing out the guy who stepped forward to explain the Living Will provisions he introduced himself?

If the Isakson had to bend over backwards to distance himself from Obama and his own amendment, simply because Obama rightfully pointed out his own words on the absurdity of the 'death panel' crap, the bad politics in my view are either with the idiots who cried foul at him for such, or Isakson for 180-ing simply because Obama said it.

The scariest thought I have here is that there might actually be a district that would wholeheartedly elect her. Maybe somewhere in N. Carolina (which seems to be a hotbed of birthers).

I'm convinced that this gang of six isn't 'negotiating' for a good bill. It's all about the euphoria of knowing that despite a 'supermajority', 6 senators can effectively hamstring, derail, and castrate any good bill to come out under the vaunted veil of 'bipartisanship'.

When the Republicans are so nakedly moving the goalposts and show no actual inclination for bipartisanship or compromise, there's no excuse for even Blue Dogs to continue to try and negotiate in good faith...which is why I'm quite sure the 3 Blue Dogs in question aren't doing it in good faith at all.

Didn't the GOP already do this, invoking it for every time they wanted to bludgeon someone into supporting their Excellent Adventure into Iraq? Or impugn the patriotism of their enemies for not being sufficiently gung-ho about bombing some brown people (to use George Carlin's blunt terminology)?

I'm sorry, but if the CIA needs torture to be effective, then screw that, they deserve the demoralization they get, until the bastards are replaced by actual human beings.