Fear seems to be the strategy that Republicans like to employ in politics. If I had to sum it up bluntly, it would go like this:

'There are people out there that aren't like you and me. Maybe we won't say it aloud but "these people" are black, brown, illegal, Muslim, socialists, communists, liberals, intellectual elitists, atheists, abortionists, uppity woman, gay, lesbian, transgendered. All "these people" want is to come to your community, to your house and take everything you own. They want your daugthers and your sons. They want your house and your car. They want to kill your grandmother and your unborn children. If you do not vote for Republicans then your life as you know it will be over! It is not fair that the America that your ancestors (and your ancestors alone) created with their blood will be taken away from you.'

Fear seems to be the strategy that Republicans like to employ in politics.

OK, but what strategy do the Democrats employ? They are mostly owned by the same interests, as you can see from what gets done and what does not. So is their strategy any better? Or is it even more dishonest?

Lung cancer? Just another socialist plot.

And yet -- in an extreme paradox -- those are the people who are venerated by the Right: they simultaneously spew rage at what's happening in Washington while revering and defending the interests of the oligarchs who are most responsible.

It's "oligarhs", not "oligarchs".;) Come on now!

The only jobs that Obama seems capable of creating are government jobs. Everyone knows there are parasitic people who thrive on government funds, government ignorance, unaccountability in government, bureaucracy. Look at government-funded ACORN... our tax dollars pay unprofessional, uneducated, unethical people, to do illegal transactions. Its an insult to all Americans.

How can this pattern of misdirected anger be changed? It is not a new phenomenon. It reproduces itself over and over again. Bolder proposals might help, but we need a better, more independent-of-corporate-ideology-and-influence type of member of Congress for better legislation to have a decent chance of passing.

I'm a lonely internet kind of guy and I jump around entertaining myself and hopefully, occasionally, others. I found this right wing site and I signed up. I post all of the regular conservative dogma, the subtle and not so subtle bigotry along with the general belligerence and stupidity--all to the 10th power.

Now they have contacted me and want me to write for them. I'm still trying to decide. Before it's over I could be a right wing big-shot.

We will have our version of the Reichstag fire. Then the real trouble begins.

The FDA recently approved a seizure medication that has been available in Canada and Mexico for over 15 years. The reason for the delay in the U.S. is the fact that in a small, but significant, percentage of case, the drug causes blindness or loss of peripheral visual fields. As I understand things, the drug is used most commonly to treat small children who have failed to respond to other seizure medications.

By comparison, a course of the drug in Canada is about $100. In the U.S. the same course is over $1,500. It is illegal for physicians in the U.S. to "advise" their patients as to the availability of the medication in Canada or to advise them to get the medication in Canada.

I assume that pharma companies would argue that legitimate reasons for the price difference exist. These arguments are as follows: (1) the manufacturer needs to charge more to cover lawsuits in the U.S.; and (2) if the manufacturer does not make gads of money on the drug, there will not be an incentive to research and develop new drugs.

It is true that drug manufacturers are far more exposed to litigation threat in the U.S. than in other countries. But in my view, that does not explain the 15 fold difference. Moreover, the drug company clearly made money developing and selling this particular drug in markets other than the U.S. for the last decade. Consequently, the argument that no market exists unless a company makes vast amounts of money on new drugs in the U.S. seems overblown.

The plain fact is that big pharma is hugely profitable and wants to remain that way. It does not appear that the current health debate involves any strategy to address drug costs. The only reason is that big pharma is, well, BIG. It has so much money, and money is so powerful at this point in our history, that nothing can happen that might negatively impact big pharma.

Glenn is absolutely right that the people out in town halls protesting are the ones paying big pharma and health insurance companies. Their money and tax dollars are going, not to the poor and downtrodden, but to insurance companies and big pharma. The fact remains, however, that in this country, it way easier to blame immigrants and minorities.

What is wrong with the right that they simply cannot identify the real source of their problems?

But the day may come when their critique finally merges with that of the left: when the crazy conspiracies about gold standards and trilateral commissions drop away and they get pissed, like progressives, at actual institutional practices. Slim chance, but here's a little vision of what a real class consciousness, not split by the right's delusions might look like:

Debtor's Revolt: Woman Refuses To Pay Off Bank Of America Credit Card

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/14/debtors-revolt-woman-refu_n_285394.html

As I commented regarding your "Lanny Davis disease and America's health care debate" piece:

[Seeing regular people blasting government officials] pleases me, as well, but there's strong evidence that [the townhall protesters'] genuine outrage is being both stoked and guided by powerful, hidden interests who want to maintain the status quo, and are using lies to achieve that end. I would be among the first to welcome a consistent, principled defense of a more limited government (and RP has my respect for his efforts on that front), but that's not what this debate is. When we finally have that debate, I'll side with the limited government argument; until then, I'd rather have my earnings confiscated for the "public option" that at least helps those who are powerless and in need, than see my tax dollars go down some of the various rat holes concocted by the "laissez-faire for me, 'saving the financial system' for thee" crowd.

http://letters.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/08/18/davis/permalink/f2495e79174d39cbbd65eb67fe8d03cc.html