Ceci Connolly -- Ridiculous Reporter

by: AdamGreen

Sun Jun 28, 2009 at 01:19

(On Twitter? Please Retweet: "Ceci Connolly, ridiculous reporter. http://bit.ly/m1qLS Email connollyc@washpost.com Or tweet her @postdailydose" - promoted by AdamGreen)

It's always fun talking to a reporter who has no idea what they are talking about.

I recently had that opportunity when talking with the Washington Post's Ceci Connolly, who published a story on health care politics this morning.

The Post assigned someone to write this story who neither understands the health care issue or modern politics. And it was evident.

When asking me about the Progressive Change Campaign Committee's TV ads (which begin airing Monday in DC) holding Senate Dems accountable for taking millions from insurance interests and being on the verge of opposing a public option supported by 76% of Americans, Connolly would ask me ridiculous questions like, "Why are you attacking your friends? Wouldn't you agree that these Democrats are better for you on most health care issues than Republicans?"

I had to patiently explain to her that the public option is the defining issue of the health care debate -- if Senators like Baucus and Nelson aren't with us on that, they are not our friends. 

Connolly listened, and then chose to dismiss silly activists who are fighting for what 76% of Americans want:

Activists say they are simply pressing for quick delivery of "true health reform," but the intraparty rift runs the risk of alienating centrist Democrats who will be needed to pass a bill. 

As if passing the bill is the goal, regardless of what's in it. Notice how she wrote "Activists say" for the side of an argument representing what 76% of Americans want and simply stated the other side as truth.

Also notice that Connolly did not quote a single person in the entire story who thought progressive pressure on weak Senate Dems was hurting anything, except an anonymous source. And Connolly did not mention that Change Congress's 11-day pressure campaign on Ben Nelson successfully moved his position, a fact she was made aware of.

Connolly then asked me why progressives were picking a political fight on the public option, as opposed to another issue. I guess the fact that it's the #1 domestic issue of the day -- one that affects millions of American families -- wasn't explanation enough.

I figured she was looking for a quote summarizing the political stakes, so I though for a moment and said, "The public option has become a proxy for the question of whether Democrats will stand on principle and represent their constituents."

I was quite proud of that answer. It summarizes what a lot of people are feeling -- the public option is the "line in the sand" issue for Democrats, something Chris has written about here on OpenLeft several times. 

Connolly's take on that quote:

Green, in an interview, was hard-pressed to articulate a substantive argument for the public plan but said that it "has become a proxy for the question of Democrats who stand on principle and represent their constituents."

WHAT? Connolly asked me a question on the politics, and when I gave her an answer on that, she said I didn't answer on the substance? Did I mention Ceci Connolly is a r-i-d-i-c-u-l-o-u-s reporter?

AdamGreen :: Ceci Connolly -- Ridiculous Reporter

Connolly also chose, for the second time in a week, to misrepresent public opinion:

"Democratic senators are taking millions of dollars from insurance and health-care interests and getting lobbied by those donors and coming out against a position that 76 percent of Americans agree on," said Adam Green...

While recent polls show high initial support for a government option, the number declines if told the insurance industry could fold as a result.

Connolly's own colleagues at the Post agree that her analysis of a recent Washington Post poll is completely ridiculous. From Dan Froomkin (who, crazily, the Post just fired while keeping Connolly): 

62 percent support having the government create a new health insurance plan to compete with private health insurance plans. And, yes, that last number goes down if they are warned that "many private health insurers" would then go out of business -- but that's an argumentative assertion made by opponents of the proposal, without any basis in fact. As Ezra Klein blogs for The Washington Post:

If you asked poll respondents, "What if having the public plan lowered your insurance premiums by 20 to 30 percent," my hunch is you'd see a sharp shift toward support of the policy.

But Connolly never misses an opportunity to repeat insurance industry talking points. Do I think she's in their pocket? No. Do I think she has no idea what she's writing about. Yes. Absolutely.

I could go on, but a diarist at Daily Kos wrote "Ceci Connolly and WaPost Bring the Weak Sauce on Grassroots Lobbying" -- which sums up anything else I'd have to say. Definitely check it out. 

I've already emailed Connolly this morning. If you want to share your thoughts, she's at connollyc@washpost.com.

Or Retweet: Ceci Connolly, ridiculous reporter. http://bit.ly/m1qLS Email connollyc@washpost.com Or tweet her @postdailydose


BONUS - Who is the "anonymous source" Connolly quotes who claims to be on our side?

Here was a fun quote Connolly included from some person who has obviously been in DC for way too long:

One Democratic strategist who is working full-time on health reform was apoplectic over what he called wasted time, energy and resources by the organizations.

The strategist, who asked for anonymity because he was criticizing colleagues, said: "These are friends of ours. I would much rather see a quiet call placed by [Obama chief of staff] Rahm Emanuel saying this isn't helpful. Instead, we try to decimate them?"

If this person is actually a "friend" of mine, I have a message to them: your proposal of taking the public option, which has 76% popular support (82% if you look at the insurance companies' own poll) and moving it from an outside game to an inside game is just as r-i-d-i-c-u--o-u-s as Ceci Connolly's reporting.

When you have popular support on your side, that last thing you want is a behind-the-scenes bargain -- that just gives the bad guys leverage. You want the full might of people-power weighing in and demanding results. If you don't understand that, please step down from any position you may have representing the grassroots in this debate.

And did you just propose having RAHM cut the deal? Are you kidding me? As I told the New York Times' Kate Phillips this week

Advisers like Rahm Emanuel operate out of fear — like it’s 1994 — instead of operating like people who just won a huge mandate in 2008. They obviously haven’t mastered the bully pulpit yet, which is a shame since Obama is a master communicator. If Obama insisted on the public option and held rallies in Montana, Nebraska, and Louisiana, it would happen.

Again, if this "friend" is in a position of leadership fighting for the public option -- and is telling the public to shut up while deferring to Rahm to cut a deal -- please step down. Let people who know what they are doing lead this fight. (And yes, it's a fight.)


Tags: (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email

I noticed that hatchet job by WAPO and blogged (4.00 / 3)
about it at Dailykos, and on twitter as well. It was clear that Ms. Conolly had her own agenda when it came to health care reform.


Also tweeted about your smackdown here at OpenLeft (4.00 / 1)

[ Parent ]
I hope this gets cross posted in lots of places.I read the article, (4.00 / 2)
or skimmed it, after realizing it was another Washington Post  hit piece. The problem is always, they despite such inept, though effective, drivel has the weight of respect that ignores putting a cub reporter on a serious issue always garners. It is deliberate of course to hand important topics to easily distracted new(s)bies.

Someone who knew what they were talking about couldn't make such easy errors to hide the truth, their own self respect would make them lie convincingly instead.

The internet allows discussion and facts eventually spread, but the immediate effect of mass communication is powerful. Repeated efforts to point out this level of manipulation and bias is necessary.


The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky

She's Not A Ridiculous Reporter (4.00 / 8)
She's a "sensible reporter" within a ridiculous system.

She's produced exactly the sort of product that's expected of her.

Washington Post.  What more needs to be said?

If she actually understood such things, she would never have been hired in the first place.

In which case, you'd be calling someone else a "ridiculous reporter."

What she does do is perfectly express the politics-as-high-school mentality that dominates Versailles.

Yet another reason that Buffy, The Vampire Slayer remains as relevant as ever.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

A line drawn in shifting sand (4.00 / 1)
I assume -- since there was no attempt to clarify this matter -- that Green did not define for Our Cece what the "public option" actually is, which is hardly remarkable, since so far as I can tell, public option is nothing more than a set of vague talking points and principles, not embodied in crafted legislation (unlike HR 676, which oddly, or not, is a line in the sand that could actually be defended on the basis of proven success in other countries, unlike whatever it is that Green's "proxy" might turn into when operationalized).

Some line in the sand! A line drawn in shifting sand, that can be blown away by the slightest political wind.... For example, "public option" when embodied in legislation will be crafted to eliminate any possibility of evolving into single payer, or so says Sibelius.

I am in earnest -- I will not equivocate -- I will not excuse -- I will not retreat a single inch -- AND I WILL BE HEARD.  

Nice appeal to authority there (0.00 / 0)
Sebelius is expressing an opinion on something she really doesn't have control over.

Personally (and yes it is just my opinion, and I don't have control over the legislation either) I don't see how you could craft any kind of public option that would not be open to evolution into single payer.

For example say we have a public option that allowed unlimited enrollment and CBO subsequently did a study showing that we could gain nation wide cost savings by expanding Medicare to cover those people who take early retirement under Social Security. Or decided that we should move people whose chronic illnesses allowed them to continue in the workforce at a lower level than they were before to draw partial benefits under DI which would then offer them access to Medicare. Or say decide that it would be more cost efficient to move some children getting family care under a premium based family plan under the public option over to SCHIPs? Once you have universal access there would seem to be little way to establish leak-through barriers that would prevent incremental movement of more and more people over to single payer over time.

I am not sure where Sebelius is coming from, though I'll be sure to click through. But if the argument is that we should give up the public option because it will prevent single-payer sometime in the future, well just say that I need to be shown how that works in practice. Because the overall premise doesn't make sense.

[ Parent ]
Quoting the Secretary of HHS ... (4.00 / 1)
on adminsitration policy is an "appeal to authority"?


I'd call it evidence of intent, myself -- especially since the administration hasn't retracted it. Forgive me, therefore, for not reading the rest of your coment....

I am in earnest -- I will not equivocate -- I will not excuse -- I will not retreat a single inch -- AND I WILL BE HEARD.  

[ Parent ]
The Administration is not writing the bill (0.00 / 0)
By all means don't read the rest of the comment. Why learn something about the way the health care debate is actually unfolding between the Tri-Committee bill and the HELP and Finance versions in the Senate?

Get self-important much?

[ Parent ]
Ok, I will! (4.00 / 1)

For example say we have a public option... Or decided that ... Or say decide...  Once you have universal access there would seem to be little way to establish leak-through barriers that would prevent incremental movement of more and more people over to single payer over time.

First, thanks for proving my point that public option is no "line in the sand" because there's no there there. The "mush" is so great that it overwhelms "the goodness. I see definition after definition -- unlike single payer, which is embodied in legislation -- and because there are so many definitions, there's no way to hold anybody accountable for anything.

Second, thanks for this: "[T]here would seem to be little way..." Forgive me not being re-assured by "seems." Frankly, I, I assume like you, am not an expert in how legislation can be crafted. So, on this matter, I'll take a former state legislator, governor, and administration spokesperson as the subject matter expert on how legislation can be crafted. If that be argument from authority, in addition to evidence of intent, then so be it.

I am in earnest -- I will not equivocate -- I will not excuse -- I will not retreat a single inch -- AND I WILL BE HEARD.  

[ Parent ]
That doesn't prove your point at all (0.00 / 0)
I could have said "no way" and been a dogmatic asshole. By saying "seems" I was issuing you an invitatation to spell out some examples about how you could in practice establish a firewayll between a public option and single payer. I gave some examples of how leak through would work, you provide nothing and then brag about how that validates your opinion.

"unlike single payer, which is embodied in legislation"

A version of single payer may be embodied in legislation but there are all kinds of varieties of single payer programs out there, Canada's single payer is not at all like Britain's single payer, which in turn is not like Germany's single payer. If you think 'single payer' is a hardened concept while 'public option' is hazy I suggest the mush here is somewhere between your ears.

"Frankly, I, I assume like you, am not an expert in how legislation can be crafted"

Why would you assume anything about me? For example one of my best friends in college is currently the floor director for the House Majority Leader. I suspect there is very little Rob doesn't know about the legislative process given his more than twenty years of progressively greater responsibility in moving legislation. For all you know we have lunch together every week. As it happens I haven't seen, spoke or written to him since I flew up to Seattle to visit him in around 1982, at this point he might not even recognize my name. But you had no way of knowing either way.

Assumptions, like opinions are dangerous. Like assholes everyone has one, and holds others. But far better to judge me on what I write or have written elsewhere than on your conclusions about my authority.

[ Parent ]
Well I linked through (4.00 / 1)
And it was hard to understand what Sebelius was trying to say, and still less why we shouldn't make a public option a non-negotiable demand.

When I was a kid my Dad had off and on access to family coverage through his jobs but never to my knowledge had to use it. As a retired military guy (and prior to the 'reforms' which gutted dependent coverage) we had access to the public option of using military clinics and hospitals for medical and some sort of military insurance coverage for dental and vision. We grabbed the military option because all you really had to do was show your military dependent ID.

I was born in an Army hospital in 1957 and still have the original bill. Somehow my Mom managed to run up a $2 bill for something or other, maybe candy. Otherwise that particular public option covered three days in the hospital. I am not the only former military kid that managed to be born and make it to adult hood under that public option. And I don't remember having to wait in month long wait lines to get that care.

[ Parent ]
She actually didn't ask about the substance... (4.00 / 4)
...she asked about the political strategy.

...but I'd describe it as "a head-to-head competitor with private insurance, starting immediately." That eliminates the trigger and co-op.

Feel free to get more wonky than that, but I think that does the trick.

Note: she didn't say I couldn't define the public option...you're actually raising a third issue.

She said I couldn't defend the need for a public option. Which is ridiculous.  

[ Parent ]
My point is not that YOU cannot describe it (4.00 / 1)
but that there is no definition that all advocates agree on (unlike, say, HR 676, which is already crafted, and single payer, which has been implemented in other countries).

Where, then, is the line in the sand, and what then are the advocates advocating for?

I am in earnest -- I will not equivocate -- I will not excuse -- I will not retreat a single inch -- AND I WILL BE HEARD.  

[ Parent ]
It' Fuzzy, But Not Non-Existent (4.00 / 1)
Which, of course, is all part of its mushy goodness.

Or was that a Twinky?

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
Stop stealing my lines! (0.00 / 0)
I've seen enough "mushy goodness" -- and empty calories, too, I might add -- from this administration to be satisfied with it.

Incidentally, my point does remain: We've somehow managed to create a situation where there's a lot of advocacy for a policy that (a) has no clear definition and (b) doesn't "make him do it" exactly because it is mushy. Yay!

And I'm not real happy with the joke, either -- given that a lot of lives, a lot of money, and whether we get the right to health care instead of some sort of for-profit reinforcing Rube Goldberg device all hang in the balance.

I am in earnest -- I will not equivocate -- I will not excuse -- I will not retreat a single inch -- AND I WILL BE HEARD.  

[ Parent ]
Bluster? or Obfuscation? (0.00 / 0)
The outlines of the public option are pretty clear. It means some variation of Medicare for All. Of course the details are unclear. But you might as well say that F-22 legislation is inherently fuzzy because we don't know exactly how many planes will be produced and where every sub-contract will be awarded.

Medicare Part A is open to everyone that has a certain minimum numbers of quarters of participation. Medicare Part B and D are in prat premium based. The exact shape of Part D and the tradeoffs needed to achieve it (like the 45% rule) were not known until the legislation took final form and got signed by Bush. That doesn't mean the concept of government assisted drug coverage was inherently fuzzy. Or that Medicare Parts A and B were when originally legislated.

[ Parent ]
Yet ANOTHER definition! (4.00 / 1)
I haven't seen Medicare for All anywhere! Presumably Green, Hamsher, and the various commenters on the FDL list would have used that very, clear, and simple slogan if matters were really that clear, right? Instead of the rather anondyne "public option?"

Just so we're clear on provenance, can you give me a link to the authoritative, sorry, "pretty clear," definition, then?

NOTE As far as the F-22 legislation, I think there are better analogies. The administration wants a bill,  some bill, any bill. A scenario is entirely possible where everything ends up in conference, at which point all the sausage making gets done behind closed doors, and the bill is then passed NOW NOW NOW with nobody really knowing what's in it -- as indeed you yourself have just proved we don't. The history of passing bills NOW NOW NOW is very bad, including as it does the USA Patriot Act, AUMF, and TARP. And all this could be avoided if only public option's advocates could settle on what they mean when they advocate it, and "make him do" that!

I am in earnest -- I will not equivocate -- I will not excuse -- I will not retreat a single inch -- AND I WILL BE HEARD.  

[ Parent ]
Not unique to public option (4.00 / 1)
That dynamic can happen with ANY large, complex bill.

Even a single payer bill COULD easily be ruined in conference. And the final version would likely be too long to understand before voting.  

[ Parent ]
Krugman has been saying "Medicare for all" (0.00 / 0)
for at least two years.  And it's not just Krugman.  That's a pretty standard understanding of the public option.

[ Parent ]
Her Background & WHY Is She a FASCIST Tool? (0.00 / 0)
2nd question first.

1. she is a tool because:

a. she's mastered doublethink in order to stay employed, and, BTW, being a reporting at WAPO, delivering the rich scum lies, is better than slinging expressos.
b. she has NO idea what doublethink is, and, in order to stay employed...
c. she's dumb enough to actually believe the fascists want us all for more than doormats, serfs, asswipes, cannon fodder, valets, boot lickers and ass kissers.

2. background.
a. is she from the right prep schools and a member of the ivy / almost ivy college grad crowd culled and cultivated to be in the insider elitist horde, in charge of the drooling fools?
IF 2.a., then 1.a. is most likely.

b. she beat the insider elitist horde and ...
IF 2.b., then 1.a - c. are about equally likely.


It is too full o' the milk of human kindness To catch the nearest way

I have no real idea what the point here is. (4.00 / 1)
The criticisms made by Adam were on point, fact filled and had a real impact on the outcome. Other than insulting and making sweeping generalizations about age groups, I don't see why this is a comment on Adam's excellent article.

There are good reasons to be angry about our predicament, but anger produces no reasoning.


The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky

[ Parent ]
PLEASE - cuz I won't play your boring ass (4.00 / 1)
game of 'who wrote the BIGGER tome' --

ha ha ha. I guess I missed how effective the Tomes of Truth were during the cartermondalegorekerrydukakis campaigns!


WHY? cuz I'm pointing out po$$ible cla$$ based differences that have a huge impact on our politic$?

WHO is this woman, and WHY is she this way?

Answer those questions, and you may be able to figure out a way to put her in her place ... yawn ... of course you can attack people who want to try stuff other than another Tome of Truth!


It is too full o' the milk of human kindness To catch the nearest way

[ Parent ]
Actually .. (0.00 / 0)
given her bio ..


She is a big disappointment in some ways .. but "she came of age" during the Gingrich years .. so in the end .. this is what I'd expect of her

[ Parent ]
Boston College! A bastion of aspiring NON (0.00 / 0)
boat rockers who managed to get the job that the harvard grads wanted! good for her!

I didn't know she was part of the anti-gore village hit squad ...

so, does she do doublethink cuz she's mastered it ala O'Brien, or

is she just an excellent Katie;) cheerleader! ;)!! ;) for the forces of evil?


It is too full o' the milk of human kindness To catch the nearest way

[ Parent ]
Boston College (0.00 / 0)
didn't Kos graduate from Boston?

[ Parent ]
boston university. b.u is closer to the city (4.00 / 2)
and, 30 years ago when I was freshman at Boston College, B.U. was more nyc kind of screw offs.

B.C.'s idea of diversity back then was Italian Catholics and Irish Catholics, some from N.J. and some from CT and many from MA. I'm pretty sure the median SAT scores for B.C. have gone up quite a bit - in '78 I felt like most of my classmates were most concerned with getting a home in the burbs.

I don't know what has happened to B.U. -- I think all the big Boston schools are harder to get into than they were ...

it is a GREAT city to be 19 or 23 or 27 in.

I'm completely NOT surprised that a BC grad is a fascist lackey / villager wannebee.


It is too full o' the milk of human kindness To catch the nearest way

[ Parent ]
Well .. B.U. is right near Fenway .. (0.00 / 0)
and Russert's kid went there .. Howard Stern went there .. both BU and BC cost a ton to attend

[ Parent ]
emanuel does not operate out of fear, he can be plenty bold when he wants to do something (4.00 / 2)
He simply represents big moneyed interests such as insurance companies and he is used to finagling around with them from his experience in clinton's campaign finance committee and dealings with the dlc and as head of the dccc.  Funny how bold he was in the clinton administration in pushing nafta through for big business and how timid he was on universal healthcare for us.  He can most definitely be a bully when he wants to.

I'm tired of this sort of democrat apologist bullshit that the dems are cowardice or can't read polls that tell them what the populace wants, etc.  It operates on the very questionable premise that the dems are truly trying to represent the public's best interests, but juuuuuuuust caaaaaan't quite do it becoz the big bad republicans, who the country deplores, keep making them do things that they do not want to do by bullying them or outsmarting them.  And this bullshit still carries the day with many liberal bloggers despite the fact that the dems now have the oval office, and majorities in both the senate and the house.  Please, give it up and come to the realization that the dems do not represent you, but only themselves and their own personal interests and hence big businesses.  This is why "fearful" people like emanuel pop out of the federal government and into jobs in big business and wall street  and ring up $16M in two and a half years of "work".  

I'm not particularly referring to this individual writer in the above paragraph.  I have not read many of his articles, nearly not enough to understand his overall take on these matters concerning the democratic party.  But his take on emanuel as operating out of fear is bullshit IMO.  He operates out of greed.


Good point here (0.00 / 0)
This issue is something I've been thinking a lot about lately and I think it's important to avoid using what has been become a casual shorthand explanation for why Dem officials do not represent the people's will. For progressive citizen-based political forces to help get a more genuine representation in the government, we have to take a much closer look at who we're dealing with and what motivates them.

I recently blogged about this issue here:


[ Parent ]
Let's Switch Our Priorities (4.00 / 2)
from gnashing our teeth when mainstream media reporters act as tools of fake Democrats in obfuscating the popular will to a more effective strategy of building a third party, per my earlier comment.

Not only do we waste our time trying to get fake Dems in Congress and the White House to enact the legislation favored by a majority of Americans, but we also siphon off our energy fulminating about how the press foils our agenda by feigning ignorance.

We are beating our heads against a stone wall by pursuing the current progressive strategy of trying to take over the corrupted Democratic Party and its elected representatives through petitions, etc. and occasionally running an insurgent against an incumbent fake Dem.

We are outgunned and outmaneuvered and can only succeed if we build a third party that represents the people rather business and financial interests.

To understand the dummy-crats and republi-zombies ... (0.00 / 0)
.. you have to understand that they have an emotional investment in their party that is somewhat similar to ... if not identical to ... sportsfandom.  They love the thrill of victory when "their" team wins and they refuse to consider the possibility that they got no team at all ... no one represents them.

A lot of people on this board, and some of the writers as well, suffer from the emotional attachment and abusive relationship that they have with "their" party.  They keep getting screwed, but yet they keep coming back to the polls mindlessly banging the D ... or R in the case of the republi-zombies ... on their ballot.  


[ Parent ]
Questions Everyone Should Ask Reporters... (0.00 / 0)
"Connolly then asked me why progressives were picking a political fight on the public option, as opposed to another issue."

My take? The reporter does not, in a visceral way, understand the health care debate. It is less about specific solutions (although some, like single payer or a public option are best given the experience of European and Asian countries) than it is about trying to solve a very real problem for tens of millions of Americans. People who either have health insurance and get screwed when it is time for their insurance company to pay, or they have health insurance but have to drop the insurance when the rates go up 10-20% or more every year, or they have no health insurance and have a medical disaster. This includes family, relatives, and friends who step in to help someone in a medical emergency. While half of bankruptcies are due to medical emergencies, for example, paying for cancer treatment, health insurance CEOs are paid obscene incomes (even for CEOs) and those CEOs refuse to stop using recission to avoid paying out for policy holders who pay on time.

That, in a nutshell, is the problem with health care in this country. Forcing everyone into this broken system is not a solution. Unless you have great health care, have millions to pay for any medical emergencies, or think you have great health care, you just don't get it.

I'd encourage you, Adam, and anyone else interviewed on this issue by the media, to ask a couple questions of the reporter(s):

1. Do you have health care? If so, what do you pay a month? What is your deductible?

2. Does your editor have health care?

3. In the past year, have you or anyone you know had a medical emergency that caused them to declare bankruptcy and/or find their coverage cancelled and/or lose all their savings?

I would love to have the answers published widely. My guess is that journalists and their editors don't get the health care debate in part because they're well taken care of, or think they are because they've not had to test their health care. If the answer is yes, especially to #3, it would be great to know what they don't understand about the health care debate in general and the public option in particular. For example, if Norwegians get great health care for about $4,000/person, why should Americans pay more per person for worse care?

Why is the ad going to run this week? (0.00 / 0)
It's aimed at insiders but they've all gone home for the Fourth of July holiday parades.

Not Surprising - Post Health Reporters Have Never Been Good (0.00 / 0)
I have worked on health policy on and off for 15 yrs and the Wash Post health care reporters have sucked the entire time.  

The NY Times, on the other hand, has Robert Pear one of the most knowledgeable health policy reporters around.  You don't have to agree with what he writes (and I don't sometimes) but he knows the topic, the players and the politics.

Rediculous? (0.00 / 0)
Sounds like a typical Obamabot, positing a false binary choice between the big bad evil GOP and THE ONLY POSSIBLE ALTERNATIVE TO THEM, i.e. whatever Obama & Dems demand that we ACCEPT WITHOUT COMPLAINT OR WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE! I'm not defending CC here or calling her an Obamabot (although she clearly is A "bot"). Just saying that this sort of mentality has become quite pervasive in that vast region that's neither hard right nor true left.

Ironic (or perhaps fitting, or both) that the ideological and political middle subscribes so religiously and predictably to the fallacy of the excluded middle.

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton


Open Left Campaigns



Advanced Search

Powered by: SoapBlox