...that President Bill Clinton opposed similar legisltation in 2000, and that he opposed this new House resolution.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2007/10/post_11.asp

And, as for the Armenian dumbass who thought that President Bush was a "denier" of the Armenian genocide and didn't get it, you need to read your own press releases:

http://www.anca.org/press_releases/press_releases.php?prid=3

Now, I grant you that ANCA might think that President Bush's "recognition" of the Armenian genocide required him to support a House resolution, but that's another matter. As for Mr./Ms. Taylor, spewing more Bush-derangment-syndrome hate speech, I hope you are not representative of the good people of Armenian heritage because you are a real shithead.

After all, Nader believes in honest, in-your-face liberalism. Tax the rich. Sue the bastards. Reign in the greedy corporations. Regulate everything, to protect 'consumers.'

No calculated political compromises for Nader. No triangulation. No "New Democrats." No "It's the economy!" for our man Ralph Nader.

Isn't that refreshing? That's not "soulless," is it? I'm all in favor of honest liberals like Ralph Nader. It's the liars like Edwards, the triangulators like the Clintons, and the phonies like Kerry that depress me.

If Garrison can figure out a way to make sure that the Democrat nominee is Al Gore, I'd love to hear it!

Utterly shameless twisting of the facts. Pure, pandering baloney. A personal attack devoid of any real merit. Now THAT's a "smear."

Thanks, AFSCME. I knew we could count on you.

I listened to NPR this morning, including the news headline that Democrats were seeking to override "President Bush's veto of a children's health insurance program."

Another charming lie from NPR News; Bush didn't veto the program. He proposed to expand that program, but not by as much as Democrats (and apparently their erstwhile supporters at NPR News) wanted.

Because the more people understand what the President wants to do (expand SCHIP -- moderately and in a way that is truly intended to cover underprivileged kids) versus what the Democrats wanted to do (get a veto, to use in future campaigns) the better it is. President Bush should go on a national speaking campaign for a "moderate expansion of SCHIP."

But that is unlikely to happen. Because the Democrats don't really want a bill. They want a campaign issue. If the Democrats wanted a bill, they'd compromise, get the President's position into law, and worry about expanding the program later. It IS a governmental entitlement after all; OF COURSE the Democrats will expand the program as soon as they can.

But the reason that this will go nowhere now is because of Pete Stark's off-the-wall, Stark-raving-mad, hate speech directed at the President; that President Bush gets "amusement" from American soldiers' "getting their heads blown off." The American public will now recoil from this debate. No one but the far left will react with anything but horror. Stark has killed the debate.

Apology coming from the California Democrat in T minus 10, 9, 8, 7...

Tim Grieve, quoting Pet Stark a few hours ago, mentions "the Iraq war", but leaves out the part that is undoubtedly making news all over the country. The quote wherein Stark said that American soldiers in Iraq would be "getting their heads blown off" for President Bush's "amusement."

What a howler.

That's pretty much like reporting on what color robes Mrs. Bhutto was wearing as she returned to Pakistan today, without mentioning that two bombs went off, killing 30 people or more.

The fact that Grieve went on to note that Republicans requested that Stark's comments be taken down, without mentioning the truly offensive portion of Stark's speech, is not just lousy reporting. It is willful propaganda.

So, like I was saying, when do you think Stark will apologize? I am betting on Friday at about 3:30 pm, via a press release.

One of my favorite quotes from the 21st Century, and it is apparently wasted on Lakoff and Smith.

What a profoundly stupid article this is.

Yeah, I would love it if health care decisions were purely a matter of decisions between patients and their doctors. If anybody has a way to do that, speak up. You want to see health care costs kept in check? Let people pay their bills with their own money.

A single-payer government-run system is not the way to do it. And anybody with a barely-discernable EEG would know it. If the government runs health care, that means instead of the apocryphal "HMO bureaucrat" deciding what is a covered expense, we will have new "Government bureaucrats" telling us which lines we need to get into and what forms we have to fill out to get care.

If you want to have individuals and their doctors making decisions, and if you want to hold down costs, what you need to do is to make individuals responsible for their own costs. Dollar one comes from patients. (And private insurance is also the best way to spread the risk of catastrophic illnesses for which very large costs are undesirable to inflict on individuals.)

Look at the world of elective medical procedures. Lasik, plastic surgery, etc. The costs of those procedures keep coming down. Service keeps getting improved. The reason is that individuals are paying for those services. Providers are interested in innovating, improving, competing for patients and reducing costs. And yet providers are attracted to those areas because they can profit. THAT IS HOW THE WORLD WORKS. Not that any of Salon's loyal readership would understand.

By the way, it's "bogeyman." "Bogeyman" with just one 'o' is the term that Webster's defines as a terrifying or dreaded person or thing.

Not "boogeyman." Although, I am guessing that "boogeyman" might be a useful term for a gay man at a nightclub.