Editorial against Perriello crossed a line
Published: November 15, 2009
Updated: November 15, 2009
I don’t always agree with the point of view of this newspaper, but I usually respect the editor’s right to voice an educated opinion.
The editorial of Nov. 11, however, crossed the line of respectable journalism. It expressed opinions with no factual basis whatsoever and completely misrepresented Congressman Tom Perriello.
First of all, those who try to analyze Tom Perriello’s political motives miss the boat because he has none. The difference between this representative and many politicians is that Tom is a rare breed.
He doesn’t base his votes on how he will be affected politically. He listened to both sides of the health care debate, and both sides were represented in the townhall meetings although your article would have us believe otherwise. Then he voted his conscience, taking all he heard into account.
For Tom, politics has nothing to do with it. That alone is enough to recommend him in my book. To blatantly state, “Tom is no profile in courage,” after he voted his conscience, knowing that it could hurt him politically, is narrow-minded.
Instead of recognizing his courageous vote, the writer insults him by saying he’s “politically tone deaf” or “naive.” This shallow thinking is not that of a professional journalist. The writer saw positive evidence that Tom was indeed a profile in courage and distorted it as badly as a Fox News propagandist.
Advertisement
Reader Reactions
Darn it some can write with great length with their bias opinion and thus attack others for being what they them selves are.
Take the statement about abortion. Under certain conditions citzens have paid for abortions for years and years. Now that their is a health care bill, they want to abolish long standing approval by most people. Now they want to make abortion an issue. Due to the fact that they see an opening. An opening which should not be considered at all in a health care debate.
Go by the long standing practice. Then after the health care debate have an abortion debate. But no. For simple minded people who cannot see beyond their nose they latch onto anything for a reason to kill something.
Well as far as I am concern rot in the place you are going.
Haven said that, the person attacking me cannot understand that as I am attacked for certain issues. That person uses the same logic I had just expressed. That is what happens when people attack an opinion. They use that same type of opinion to counter the other persons opinion.
Maybe if you just gave opinions, instead of always attacking the other person, you might not embarrass yourself.
If Rasmussen is so honest, why won’t they give all the information about their poll. People may respect and think them good, but when they hide what they have done, that is a reason to question their ethics.
Truth be told, Gordie, a die-hard apologist such as yourself (and to be fair, there are planty of you types out there making excuses for bad behavior on every side of the aisle), does not care about, nor accept, unbiased or no, dissonant information. You only see confirmation, no matter how tortured or absurd, for your borrowed convictions.
I use the word ‘borrowed’ intentionally. Though, even when an apologiest expresses him or herself with passion, the rather obvious mirroring of the apolgee’s (candidate, party)tactics as well as propoganda, suggests to me a lack of personal; discernment. Y’all make a great lagging indicator of where things were, but add zip to any meaningful discussion. In fact, you are nothing more than those political edutainment commercials aired across the boob tube.
Before dismissing polls, howevere, I suggest you do so on valid criteria, rather than personal bias. Rasmussen enjoys one of the best reputations in their field. I don’t know that I’d focus on the number, but I sure as heck would not dismiss the trend.
Funny how people are starting to get it—bad process, bad outcome.
Unfortunately, we WILL have a very nasty Healthcare bill. It will be significantly different that either the Senate or House version. It will have a public option certain, and fund abortion (if not directly, then ibndirectly). It will not have one iota of meaningful tort reform measures—and I suggest anyone interested read what the AAFP has asked for, been denied, and still supports the legislation (because they do get a few crumbs from the tandem bill concerning physician reimbursement). It will be laden with government control—committees, commissions, agencies, none of which will be accountable to the taxpayer (aka consumer), all of which will vest power in favor of the medical bureaucrats over the clinician. The usual suspects will be rewarded and/or richly protected—the compliant and complicit actors in this dram, be it government subsidized hospitals and clinics, medical schools, physicians; conversely, those who operate outside that sphere, will be punished and/or penalized (aka under-reimbursed, taxed, cut-out and cut-off). Last, the bill—exactly like the ineffective so-called Stimulus Bill—will be laden with $millions of earmarks and pork—whatever it takes—to digest it.
The die has been cast. Talk about next elections all you want, the American public was caught up, as I was, in a false promise of change. What we got was two bits. A two-bit Congress made up of political scheisters unprecedented in history, and the most comprehensive attempt at undoing free enterprise as we knew it. A sad, sad chapter in history.
It may take one or two generations to recover from this mess—after all, it took one to get us here (thanks Gordie and pops), and a second to make it worse (the boomers, like myself)—but it is not total Armegeddon—sometimes you really have to break something down comletely before there is renewal. Such is the US, IMHO.
Peace.
A responsible person will save money for a down payment on a car. Maybe taking 4 years of saving, to buy that new car.
Then they go buy that car and have 72 months to pay it off.
Question is that person buying the car for 6 years or did it actually take 10 years?
The Rasmussan poll is at 38%. The questions were straight forward. There was a survey of 1,000 likey voters. There is also a problem, that whom they called are not listed.
Any good poll will list the political leaning of the people they surveyed. That tells how balanced the poll is. I cannot find out that information, so just how legit is that poll.
Then there are those who are called and lie about their political leaning, just to sway the vote in their favor.
I don’t give a darn what Larry Sabato says, I prefer the multiple polls with guide lines and asking 33% of each political leaning, rather then the Ras ma taz.
The bottom line is Obamacare has reached its lowest level of approval 38%. While there are no polls that I know of for the central Va. area, I’m sure the sentiment is similar, particularly with the sweeping clean of liberal politics in Va. in recent elections. Obamacare is a house of cards that will clearly increase the deficit, as it requires 10 years of revenues to support 7 years of actual healthcare – does that seem like sound fundamental policy, particularly after Obama has blown previous deficit records out of the water. Obama will forever be know as the king of deficits and he may soon be the modern king of unemployment if he can surpass Carter’s 11.3% unemployment level.
Obamacare is a horrible piece of policy, it will increase healthcare costs, increase taxes, cut medicare, will have to create rationing, and increase the deficit. Very few people want this Obamacare bill but somehow it is being Rahmed through by democratic politicians – many of whom won’t survive the 2010 elections. Those dems and Perriello are like lemmings off a cliff.
Gordie: How can you with a straight face say it reduces the deficit? Do the math!!! It takes 10 years of revenues to pay for 7 years of Obamacare. It is complete accounting shenanigans and a house of cards!! Also of course those groups are in favor of it they have all been paid off, like Mary Landrieu, taking a dirty $300 million payoff in exchange for her vote. It’s how (Obama/Rahm E.) Chicago politics are done. Perriello took an exchange of millions from Steny Hoyer and Pelosi for his vote on the absurd global warming bill, once again against the interests of his state and district that borders on coal country a vital source of energy for our country. I guess Perriello wants us to get more of our energy from the Middle East b/c that’s what his bill will do as only ~2% of our energy supply is from wind/solar.
The health care reform legislation meets three key litmus tests that Rep. Perriello set out from the beginning of the debate.
1. Reduces the federal deficit: The independent Congressional Budget Office has confirmed that the legislation reduces the federal deficit by $109 billion in the first decade (2010-2019) and is likely to reduce deficits in the decade following 2019 by up to one quarter of one percent of GDP. [PDF of CBO analysis].
2. Ensures equitable reimbursement for rural hospitals: The bill directs the Institute of Medicine (IOM) to study geographic inequities in Medicare reimbursement rates and directs the Secretary to revise payment rates based on the IOM’s findings.
3. No federal funding for abortion: Rep. Perriello voted in favor of the Stupak-Pitts amendment, which ensures that no federal funds will be used for abortion.
How the 5th District of Virginia Will Benefit from Health Care Reform Legislation:
Among the many provisions for families and small businesses in the 5th District, here are some of the most important:
Improves care for those already covered by employer-sponsored plan. Approximately 62% of the district’s population (409,000 residents) receives health care coverage from their employer. Under the legislation, individuals and families with employer-based coverage can keep the health insurance coverage they have now, and it will get better. As a result of the insurance reforms in the bill, there will be no co-pays or deductibles for preventive care; no more rate increases or coverage denials for pre-existing conditions, gender, or occupation; and guaranteed oral, vision, and hearing benefits for children.
Closing the Medicare Part D prescription drug “donut” hole. Each year, 12,500 seniors in the 5th District hit the Medicare Part D donut hole and are forced to pay their full drug costs. The legislation will provide these seniors with immediate relief, covering the first $500 of donut hole costs in 2010, cutting brand-name drug costs in the donut hole by 50%, and completely eliminating the donut hole by 2019.
Protecting and Improving Medicare. There are 130,000 Medicare beneficiaries in the district. The health care reform legislation improves Medicare by providing free preventive and wellness care, improving primary and coordinated care, improving nursing home quality, and strengthening the Medicare Trust Fund. Additionally, the bill requires the Secretary of HHS to negotiate drug prices on behalf of Medicare beneficiaries.
Coverage for individuals with pre-existing conditions. There are 10,700 individuals in the 5th district who have pre-existing medical conditions that could prevent them from buying insurance. Under the bill’s insurance reforms, they will now be able to purchase affordable coverage.
Health care and financial security. There were 1,200 health care–related bankruptcies in the 5th district in 2008, caused primarily by the health care costs not covered by insurance. The bill caps annual out-of-pocket costs at $5,000 for singles and $10,000 for families and eliminates lifetime limits on insurance coverage, ensuring that no citizen will have to face financial ruin because of high health care costs.
Some of the nearly 300 groups endorsing the Affordable Health Care for America Act:
* AARP
* American Cancer Society
* American Medical Association
* American Heart Association
* American Diabetes Association
* Consumer Reports
* National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare
* National Farmers Union
Scottie, It is a bit ridiculous to say the mathematical gymnastics that the dems have played in this reduce the deficit. Anyone who looks at this bill objectively would have to admit it is a house of cards. It requires payment for 10 years for service of 7 years, that is not actually paying as you go that is paying up front for 7 years of healthcare. So what happens in the following decade when it revenues and costs match up year to year the deficit will clearly increase.
Perriello certainly doesn’t take the desires of the majority of voters in his district seriously. Come on how could you legitimately vote for a bill this deficit ridden, tax hike laden, Medicare cut/rationing bill. Everyone’s healthcare costs are going to go up and it still leaves 10-15MM uninsured according to the dems. A huge waste if you ask me. Of the 45.6MM that are uninsured according to census data, 10MM are not US citizens, 6MM work but don’t buy insurance, 11MM are eligible for CHP/Medicaid, 9MM make over $75k and uninsured by choice, which leave roughly 10MM legitimately uninsured as things currently are. This is just a really, really bad bill if it ends up like the house or senate bills proposed.
The bottom line is that every dollar that the government wastes or gives to someone else, has to be originally earned by another employed citizen only to have it taken away and given to someone else.
By the way when has there been a line to cross in the editorial section with mainstream media. I means seriously there is no line to cross when the liberals have the pen in hand, Newsweek and the NY Times are almost entirely opinion/editorial periodicals with little emphasis on factual reporting. I mean just look some of the covers and front pages and tell me they don’t ignore material and important facts on the issues to put their political views in a favorable light.
Perriello will find out next November that he was sent to Washington to represent the views of his constituents, not to be a rubber stamp for whatever Pelosi and Obama want. SEIU ads won’t save him.
Hey Scottsville, I wrote exactly the opposite re being called a racist or stupid if you disagree with Perriello and the libs. The “R” word is an extremely common epithet directed towards Obama critics. Even one of the greatest Presidents of our time, Jimmy Carter (yes, I’m being sarcastic) said as much about those who criticize Obama.
It is amazing that someone knows completely how a person thinks. That they know that 10 months ago the individual would vote yes even if it was against their principals. Eevn after constently say hte bill has to have certain values, then when the bill has those certain values, all of a sudden the individual has been a liar for 10 months.
Just because the vote was not as the person writing the post does not agree, all of a sudden Tom has been lying for 10 months.
Du. The majority of the 5th District voted for a Democrat in the 5th District and since the person was a Democrat, it should be common knowledge that they have certain beliefs. If those beliefs are written in abill, does anyone expect Tom to vote any differant then his values.
Why is he a liar when he votes for what he believes in. At least he allows issues to be debated.
What does anyone call 39+1 Republicans who refuse to even vote for an issue to come to the floor for a debate of the full senate. I call them traitors to the principals of our constitution.
Dear Matt Rosenburg, if you read this,
PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE do something about the fact that no matter what, if someone comments on an article, they get ALL the subsequent responses in their e-mail inbox every day. Even though I click on “please stop sending these messages to my email” THEY KEEP COMING.
Additionally, when people obnoxiously state things like, “you must be stupid of racist” if you agree with Tom Perriello, there is no way to report abuse. I think this is a major reason many of the posters “cross the line” in this forum.
In any case, I would really appreciate any help making these caustic comments stop invading my inbox.
Advertisement