<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Grasstroturf, hopeandchange, and Inglewood, CA</title>
	<atom:link href="http://newsrackblog.com/2009/08/14/grasstroturf-hopeandchange-and-inglewood-ca/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://newsrackblog.com/2009/08/14/grasstroturf-hopeandchange-and-inglewood-ca/</link>
	<description>a citizen's journal by Thomas Nephew</description>
	<pubDate>Fri, 18 May 2012 00:20:04 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: RobertNAtl</title>
		<link>http://newsrackblog.com/2009/08/14/grasstroturf-hopeandchange-and-inglewood-ca/#comment-5816</link>
		<dc:creator>RobertNAtl</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 19 Aug 2009 23:22:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://newsrackblog.com/?p=2679#comment-5816</guid>
		<description>The NYT editorial board schemes out a different retreat route for Obama:

"At a minimum, there should be very strict regulation of all insurers, on and off the exchange, to promote competition and fair prices and substantial subsidies to help low-income people buy insurance. If competition among private plans fails to hold down insurance costs, there should be a provision to introduce a public plan."

To which I say:  "If"??????????

And I am wondering, given the metaphysical certainty that mere "strict regulation of all insurers" (ROTFLMAO at that one, anyway) will "fail to hold down insurance costs," why would a Senator who opposes the public option support a process that will inevitably lead to a public option?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The NYT editorial board schemes out a different retreat route for Obama:</p>
<p>&#8220;At a minimum, there should be very strict regulation of all insurers, on and off the exchange, to promote competition and fair prices and substantial subsidies to help low-income people buy insurance. If competition among private plans fails to hold down insurance costs, there should be a provision to introduce a public plan.&#8221;</p>
<p>To which I say:  &#8220;If&#8221;??????????</p>
<p>And I am wondering, given the metaphysical certainty that mere &#8220;strict regulation of all insurers&#8221; (ROTFLMAO at that one, anyway) will &#8220;fail to hold down insurance costs,&#8221; why would a Senator who opposes the public option support a process that will inevitably lead to a public option?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Thomas Nephew</title>
		<link>http://newsrackblog.com/2009/08/14/grasstroturf-hopeandchange-and-inglewood-ca/#comment-5808</link>
		<dc:creator>Thomas Nephew</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 19 Aug 2009 06:11:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://newsrackblog.com/?p=2679#comment-5808</guid>
		<description>Thanks for commenting, Mick.  You're obviously right about how Freedomworks et al work with Fox/Beck/Limbaugh et al.  I'm just saying that "except for the lies" -- a pretty big exception of course! -- the results at town halls are what the OFA/CAP/Moveon/etc. aspire to as well: (1) message broadcast or webcast; (2) supporters contacted; (3) supporters mobilized/prepped for demonstrations and meetings.  While the left lacks the FOX platform (I don't see Maddow or Olbermann as Limbaugh/Beck-style propagandists), it pulled off something like that (even superior to FOX et al) in the 2008 campaigns.  It just isn't doing it now.  

That kind of online messaging (but using true messages about true reforms worth fighting for) and mobilizing around them is what *we* ought to be doing as well, instead of just moaning about how *they're* doing it.  I know eRobin is doing just that in the Philly area; I wish more like that was visible at the national level.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks for commenting, Mick.  You&#8217;re obviously right about how Freedomworks et al work with Fox/Beck/Limbaugh et al.  I&#8217;m just saying that &#8220;except for the lies&#8221; &#8212; a pretty big exception of course! &#8212; the results at town halls are what the OFA/CAP/Moveon/etc. aspire to as well: (1) message broadcast or webcast; (2) supporters contacted; (3) supporters mobilized/prepped for demonstrations and meetings.  While the left lacks the FOX platform (I don&#8217;t see Maddow or Olbermann as Limbaugh/Beck-style propagandists), it pulled off something like that (even superior to FOX et al) in the 2008 campaigns.  It just isn&#8217;t doing it now.  </p>
<p>That kind of online messaging (but using true messages about true reforms worth fighting for) and mobilizing around them is what *we* ought to be doing as well, instead of just moaning about how *they&#8217;re* doing it.  I know eRobin is doing just that in the Philly area; I wish more like that was visible at the national level.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: mickarran</title>
		<link>http://newsrackblog.com/2009/08/14/grasstroturf-hopeandchange-and-inglewood-ca/#comment-5800</link>
		<dc:creator>mickarran</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 18 Aug 2009 17:33:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://newsrackblog.com/?p=2679#comment-5800</guid>
		<description>While I take your point about the Obama team's failure to exploit their advantages (at least in part because they don't think they &lt;i&gt;are&lt;/i&gt; advantages) and the rest of the Third Way mistakes (the first being that they think the Third Way is something other than a scam), Sanchez' take on astroturf seems to separate it out, as if it is semi-detached from the rest of the RWNM and simply guiding people with genuine feelings in the way to use their anger to affect change. It's neither.

The right-wing conspiracy is vast and fairly well-coordinated, each piece relying on the other pieces to set up the atmosphere in which it can work. Armey's astroturf plot wouldn't have worked had it not been for the RWNM's stars - Beck, Limbaugh, Hannity, O'Reilly, WorldNutDaily, Fox &lt;i&gt;et al&lt;/i&gt; - constantly whipping up anger with a combination of lies and distortions that fill talk radio and FoxNews hour after hour day after day. Astroturfing doesn't stand alone. It is part of a much wider mechanism to control citizen activism and aim it in the direction they wish it to go. No, they can't always control it - losing control is one of the risks - but it is a risk they're willing to take. Note that the outing of Armey's role and even his firing isn't going to stop &lt;a href="http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/08/sensitive_oil_industry_memo_lays_out_plan_for_astr.php" rel="nofollow"&gt;the oil industry from setting up astroturf groups to rile people up a la FreedomWorks against global warming and any effort to slow it down&lt;/a&gt;. That's because they know that even with the bad press, astroturfing works - it will get them what they want just as the healthcare astroturfing got a public option sidelined.

The participants &lt;i&gt;are&lt;/i&gt; fringe for the most part, at least in terms of beliefs and "information". They have been riled up over transparent lies and are people who can't tell the difference between death planning and forced euthanasia. You'd better hope they're fringe because if they represent some kind of center, we're fucked.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>While I take your point about the Obama team&#8217;s failure to exploit their advantages (at least in part because they don&#8217;t think they <i>are</i> advantages) and the rest of the Third Way mistakes (the first being that they think the Third Way is something other than a scam), Sanchez&#8217; take on astroturf seems to separate it out, as if it is semi-detached from the rest of the RWNM and simply guiding people with genuine feelings in the way to use their anger to affect change. It&#8217;s neither.</p>
<p>The right-wing conspiracy is vast and fairly well-coordinated, each piece relying on the other pieces to set up the atmosphere in which it can work. Armey&#8217;s astroturf plot wouldn&#8217;t have worked had it not been for the RWNM&#8217;s stars - Beck, Limbaugh, Hannity, O&#8217;Reilly, WorldNutDaily, Fox <i>et al</i> - constantly whipping up anger with a combination of lies and distortions that fill talk radio and FoxNews hour after hour day after day. Astroturfing doesn&#8217;t stand alone. It is part of a much wider mechanism to control citizen activism and aim it in the direction they wish it to go. No, they can&#8217;t always control it - losing control is one of the risks - but it is a risk they&#8217;re willing to take. Note that the outing of Armey&#8217;s role and even his firing isn&#8217;t going to stop <a href="http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/08/sensitive_oil_industry_memo_lays_out_plan_for_astr.php" rel="nofollow">the oil industry from setting up astroturf groups to rile people up a la FreedomWorks against global warming and any effort to slow it down</a>. That&#8217;s because they know that even with the bad press, astroturfing works - it will get them what they want just as the healthcare astroturfing got a public option sidelined.</p>
<p>The participants <i>are</i> fringe for the most part, at least in terms of beliefs and &#8220;information&#8221;. They have been riled up over transparent lies and are people who can&#8217;t tell the difference between death planning and forced euthanasia. You&#8217;d better hope they&#8217;re fringe because if they represent some kind of center, we&#8217;re fucked.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Thomas Nephew</title>
		<link>http://newsrackblog.com/2009/08/14/grasstroturf-hopeandchange-and-inglewood-ca/#comment-5791</link>
		<dc:creator>Thomas Nephew</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 17 Aug 2009 03:59:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://newsrackblog.com/?p=2679#comment-5791</guid>
		<description>Yeah, I've heard about backing off the public option, too:&lt;!--more--&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2009/08/16/us/politics/AP-US-Health-Care-Overhaul.html" rel="nofollow"&gt;Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said&lt;/a&gt; that government alternative to private health insurance is "not the essential element" of the administration's health care overhaul. The White House would be open to co-ops, she said, a sign that Democrats want a compromise so they can declare a victory.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;Even if you see it coming, it still hurts when it hits you.  You're probably right about the end game.  Just got this from OFA:&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;em&gt;Are you frustrated about the lies circulating about health care reform?  Do you watch TV, read the blogs, read the paper and want to scream?  If so, the best response is to DO SOMETHING to support Obama's health care reform and this week in Montgomery County THAT SOMETHING IS PHONEBANKING!!!  We need you to pitch in. ... &lt;a href="http://my.barackobama.com/page/event/detail/healthcarephonebank/gpfcg3" rel="nofollow"&gt;Please help make these calls&lt;/a&gt; to activate Obama supporters in key states. Please RSVP now. &lt;/em&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;I answered:&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;em&gt;Activate them to do what?  What does *Obama* actually support?  Don't tell me *you* know -- I don't think *Obama* knows until Rahm hands him the Blue Dog whip count each day.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;

&lt;strong&gt;UPDATE, 8/17: Marc Ambinder reports that Sebelius "&lt;a href="http://politics.theatlantic.com/2009/08/administration_official_sebelius_misspoke.php" rel="nofollow"&gt;misspoke&lt;/a&gt;."&lt;/strong&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Yeah, I&#8217;ve heard about backing off the public option, too:<!--more--><br />
<blockquote><em><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2009/08/16/us/politics/AP-US-Health-Care-Overhaul.html" rel="nofollow">Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said</a> that government alternative to private health insurance is &#8220;not the essential element&#8221; of the administration&#8217;s health care overhaul. The White House would be open to co-ops, she said, a sign that Democrats want a compromise so they can declare a victory.</em></p></blockquote>
<p>Even if you see it coming, it still hurts when it hits you.  You&#8217;re probably right about the end game.  Just got this from OFA:<br />
<blockquote><em>Are you frustrated about the lies circulating about health care reform?  Do you watch TV, read the blogs, read the paper and want to scream?  If so, the best response is to DO SOMETHING to support Obama&#8217;s health care reform and this week in Montgomery County THAT SOMETHING IS PHONEBANKING!!!  We need you to pitch in. &#8230; <a href="http://my.barackobama.com/page/event/detail/healthcarephonebank/gpfcg3" rel="nofollow">Please help make these calls</a> to activate Obama supporters in key states. Please RSVP now. </em></p></blockquote>
<p>I answered:<br />
<blockquote><em>Activate them to do what?  What does *Obama* actually support?  Don&#8217;t tell me *you* know &#8212; I don&#8217;t think *Obama* knows until Rahm hands him the Blue Dog whip count each day.</em></p></blockquote>
<p><strong>UPDATE, 8/17: Marc Ambinder reports that Sebelius &#8220;<a href="http://politics.theatlantic.com/2009/08/administration_official_sebelius_misspoke.php" rel="nofollow">misspoke</a>.&#8221;</strong></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: RobertNAtl</title>
		<link>http://newsrackblog.com/2009/08/14/grasstroturf-hopeandchange-and-inglewood-ca/#comment-5790</link>
		<dc:creator>RobertNAtl</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 17 Aug 2009 00:59:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://newsrackblog.com/?p=2679#comment-5790</guid>
		<description>Well, I am reading elsewhere that the Administration is now backing off on the public option -- they say maybe co-ops are OK after all.  All that is needed for the rout to be complete is progressive House Dems backing off of their pledge to vote against any plan that does not have the public option, which they will do, I predict, after some arm-twisting by Rahm.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Well, I am reading elsewhere that the Administration is now backing off on the public option &#8212; they say maybe co-ops are OK after all.  All that is needed for the rout to be complete is progressive House Dems backing off of their pledge to vote against any plan that does not have the public option, which they will do, I predict, after some arm-twisting by Rahm.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

