GOP: Brown a hypocrite on drug plan - UPDATE
Submitted by staff on Tue, 05/09/2006 - 8:28am.
The PeeDee runs with a hit piece right out of the NRSC and does its best to confuse the reader. I can't make head nor tail out of it - I'm sure most readers can't.
Washington -- Democrats complain about the Republican-crafted Medicare prescription drug plan for seniors, but look for the GOP to try to turn the tables this fall.Republicans will say that two of the plan's aspects that anger Democrats such as Rep. Sherrod Brown -- its private-sector management and its prohibition on the government negotiating lower drug prices -- are identical to provisions in a Democratic bill that died in 2000. Brown, a Lorain Democrat running for the U.S. Senate, and more than 100 other Democrats co-sponsored that bill.
"There's a word for that, and it's hypocrisy," said Dan Ronayne, a spokesman for the National Republican Senatorial Committee. He said Republicans will talk about it in their campaign against Brown.
Spokeswomen for Brown and Democratic congressional leaders say the hypocrisy claim is preposterous.
From there it's all just the typical useless he said/she said bullshit. The article doesn't even mention the bill number for people to look up. It doesn't compare the 2 bills and discuss the real differences. Did Stephen Koff even compare the 2 bills before deciding if the piece had merit ?
Sloppy Journalism. you get a press release from an election campaign. You call for some quotes. Then you call Brown for a reaction. The NRSC point Koff to Grassley and for some inexplicable reason even throw in a tidbit from Rep Marion of Arkansas the relevance of which is beyond me.
This is what gets called "issue reporting" by our press. It's lazy and useless.
UPDATE
And just like clockwork the email from Mike DeWine of this article appears. It's like a well orchestrated play isn't it ? Next a little coverage on right wing blogs, some talk radio and voila ! The whole Medicare Part D fiasco is Brown's fault.
unless...
Submitted by bryan on Tue, 05/09/2006 - 9:40am.
...it's attacking our own. amazing how they could go after hackett like there's no tomorrow. dewine, though, not so much.
Republicans, masters of winning elections...
Submitted by Ohio2nd on Tue, 05/09/2006 - 9:47am.
Democrats, masters of winning primaries.
You should talk Bryan
Submitted by Cyndy (not verified) on Tue, 05/09/2006 - 10:25am.
... you're attacking your own.
It's amazing how you could go after progressive Election Reformers like there's no tomorrow. Hackwell and Patriort Pastors, though, not so much.
It's amazing how you could go after all sorts of Progressives and Democrats with multiple blog personalities. But, associate with a candidate who can actually win an election, not so much.
For all we tolerated regarding your U.S. House District 2 overblown jabber about your Reorganize company's value to the THOR campaign, Jim Parker still basically tied Thor for second with Xerox copied campaign signs and free grassroots shoe leather going head-to-head with your costly Reorganize field plan.
Finally, it is amazing how you could be so little to not apologize while watching Strickland apologize to Rhine McLin, who he didn't even directly attack, but he takes responsibility for what his supporters did at the Chris Redfern coronation.
Will you take responsibility for all the effects/affects of attacking your own as well as the effects/affects that your multiple blog personalities had on others?
I doubt it because you are so deep into yourself that you believe you have a right to litter half-baked opinions and hurtful so-called "humor" all over this blog, but then you don't find it within yourself to correct yourself when you make mistakes and/or apologize when you hurt others.
From Democracy Guy blog:
http://democracyguy.typepad.com/democracy_guy_grassroots_/2005/11/multiple_blog_p.html
"Bryan Clark, a political hack in Columbus, likes to comment at my blog. So much so, he needs multiple personalities to fulfill the demand, a close review of IP addresses has revealed. He's Bryan in Ohio, he's columbusite, he's ohiopol, sometimes he's even himself. "
For Fucks Sake
Submitted by staff on Tue, 05/09/2006 - 10:34am.
Broken fucking record.
I'm done with ya - your banned.
suggestion
Submitted by bryan on Tue, 05/09/2006 - 10:45am.
if a user is banned their content should go w/ them.
i disagree
Submitted by RMC2000 on Tue, 05/09/2006 - 10:57am.
it's nice to see why someone got the boot...serves as a lesson to all of us.
I'm confused...
Submitted by LisaRenee on Tue, 05/09/2006 - 10:54am.
Was Cyndy the same person as Abbey Irissando or were they just posting similar stuff?
seemed to be the same person
Submitted by staff on Tue, 05/09/2006 - 10:59am.
to me. or a childish twin.
I dont get it. She posts good stuff then goes all fucking psycho.
Thanks
Submitted by LisaRenee on Tue, 05/09/2006 - 11:07am.
So I'm not crazy...well I still might be but that's beside the point.
:-)
if the gop
Submitted by RMC2000 on Tue, 05/09/2006 - 9:52am.
doesn't get better press wrt part d, they are not going to want to talk about brown's ideas on healthcare. nothing to see here...move along.
does that puppy
Submitted by RMC2000 on Tue, 05/09/2006 - 10:58am.
have a sad look because someone shot an arrow through its face?
of course not!
Submitted by bryan on Tue, 05/09/2006 - 11:49am.
i love animals. this sad little puppy is reaching out in love, only to be rejected. poor little puppy.
Back on Topic...
Submitted by LisaRenee on Tue, 05/09/2006 - 11:06am.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h106-664
I think that is the bill they are referring to which can also be found at
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d106:h664:
It took me maybe five minutes, so it would have been very easy for the Plain Dealer to look it up and provide it as information.
So what's the bottom line here?
Submitted by AmberCat on Tue, 05/09/2006 - 12:17pm.
Other than Brown's arrogant ineffectuality? And I had ANOTHER argument last night with someone who thinks it's my duty to vote for someone with such a sterling voting record.
you're not required to vote for him.
Submitted by RMC2000 on Tue, 05/09/2006 - 12:23pm.
just be prepared to deal with what happens if he loses.
question
Submitted by staff on Tue, 05/09/2006 - 12:42pm.
does Brown have any duty to earn her vote or does he just have to do that with independents ?
i fail to understand why his voting
Submitted by RMC2000 on Tue, 05/09/2006 - 1:08pm.
record doesn't earn the vote. there are two candidates in this race. we know how both of them will vote if elected to the senate. i don't understand why one isn't obviously better than the other. i didn't love al gore, but i voted for him, and i raised money for him, and i marched all around my state for him. you know why? because he would have been a hell of a lot better than bush. if i would have sat on my ass and not done a thing for gore, just because gore beat up on bradley, what could i say about our current situation? i would have been part of the problem. remember wondering how/why all those red state (you ohio!) voters could have ever, ever thought bush was better than kerry? what would you have thought about gephardt supporters who just stayed home? what would you have thought about bradley supporters who just stayed home in FL in 2000? that's the same way i feel about democrats who choose to sit this one out.
first of all,
Submitted by AmberCat on Tue, 05/09/2006 - 1:35pm.
Brown is going to lose whether we vote for him or not. Second of all, we have too many complacent Democrats with no spine, no fight and no ability to speak to issues in a clear, understandable way that gets people behind them. Sherrod Brown, so far, seems to be another of these. Brown, not me, is the villain here. He's running a pathetic campaign and refusing to look at what might get people energized and enthusiastic about him; and it's not like he's offering passion on anything else that we might disagree with. He's just isolated, insulated and tepid.
I don't work for candidates I'm not enthusiastic about and I don't VOTE for candidates who seem to think I just owe them my vote. And no, it's NOT "just like voting for DeWine" if I choose to vote for neither. It's a free choice I make. Brown has to earn my vote; we'll see if he does.
Sounds like you made up your mind a while ago, Amber.
Submitted by Mr. Common Sense on Tue, 05/09/2006 - 1:55pm.
If I were Brown, I wouldn't even waste my time on you.
Instead, I'd campaign for the support of genuine open-minded Democrats.
And does a candidate's ability to win affect whether or not you vote for him or her? Did you vote for Chandra?
The problem is
Submitted by AmberCat on Tue, 05/09/2006 - 7:16pm.
that if Brown doesn't "waste" his time on me, probably 2/3rds of the voters in Ohio are LESS likely to agree with him on issues than I am and so he needn't "waste" his time on them either and well, that clearly means he's not getting elected.
It occurred to me that the people who will cause Brown to lose aren't people like me who will vote for neither candidate if not persuaded, but people like yourself who arrogantly blow off any voter who doesn't swallow the Kool-Aid in one giant gulp and who have obviously convinced Brown that this is a good tactic for him as well. You folks (and Brown as well) seem to forget that Brown is auditioning the REPRESENT us -we are not auditioning to be worthy of him. HE is the candidate who is supposed to speak to US and OUR ideas; we are not here to fall in line behind him.
I did vote for Chandra — and I campaigned hard for him, too. I will now work for Marc Dann as well. So what? I don't get your point. Chandra won my support; Dann has won my support as well. Brown hasn't.
It isnt just about voting
Submitted by staff on Tue, 05/09/2006 - 2:06pm.
Voting is only 1 aspect of the job.
Apparently . . .
Submitted by Mr. Common Sense on Tue, 05/09/2006 - 2:20pm.
. . . kissing your ass is the other.
heh
Submitted by staff on Tue, 05/09/2006 - 2:40pm.
be nice, but not essential to winning my support. He could instead demonstrate some toughness and actually light a fire under DeWine's failing ass. That would be a decent start.
He could also vote against COPE
agreed, but i think it's
Submitted by RMC2000 on Tue, 05/09/2006 - 2:21pm.
the most important aspect. there is a chance the senate switches this year. for that to happen, brown needs to win. if the senate switches, brown's vote will be a thing of beauty.
Votes are nice...
Submitted by Ohio2nd on Tue, 05/09/2006 - 2:39pm.
they're a lot nicer when you win an election.
True that Brown should give a flying F about winning my vote. But golly gee wilikers, it would sure be nifty if he acted like he cared about anyone else's.
So far I'm seeing a campaign that is acting like it lost the moment Paul Hackett dropped out of the race. WHY? What other motive can I deduce for such a limp, half assed effort than that they want Mike DeWine to win?
Surely there's some einsteins out there that help candidates get up to snuff on things, picking out winning positions on this and that. Could Brown perhaps invest in some since he obviously doesn't know how to campaign his way out of whatever coma induced haze he's been in from years of casting votes that serve no purpose for anyone but the citizens of Taiwan? By all looks of things the big brains that actually win elections for Democrats are keeping a safe nuclear blast radius distance from this clusterfuck of a campaign.
Brown better fucking get off his ass and act like he's in this shit to win. This royal pile of flaming crap left on our doorsteps is thanks to no one but Brown's bulbous and atrophied ego. At this point I'm ready to start a third party campaign for Jim Parker since he'd actually give a fuck about listening to the voters and could even attract some Republicans.
Right on, Ohio 2
Submitted by AmberCat on Tue, 05/09/2006 - 7:22pm.
He's got John Ryan as his (inexperienced) campaign manager. He can court labor. Whoopee. That's Brown's most reliable constituency. And he's got Connie Schultz as his "consultant" who may be a very nice lady and a good writer, but she obviously isn't a person who can look at Brown will a cold, hard, objective eye and discern what he is doing wrong and right. Considering this, I wonder how welcome any talented consultant would feel — or whether they would be listened to. They might easily be backstabbed by the insiders who keep telling Brown that everything he is doing is fine and that people "ought" to vote for him because of his great voting record and he shouldn't have to do anything to win their votes.
Maybe my vote doesn't count. And staff's vote doesn't c ount. And every other person here whose lack of enthusiasm for Brown you sense. And all the independents who will agree with half as many of his votes as we do. And all the Republicans who are fed-up with their party. None of our votes count. And that's how DeWine goes back to Washington.
Drug Industry, Sen. Frist
Submitted by JeanLR on Tue, 05/09/2006 - 2:11pm.
Drug Industry, Sen. Frist and the White House Conspired to Obtain Broad Liability Shield for Lawsuits Related to Pandemic Illnesses
Public Citizen Report Reveals Behind-the-Scenes Lobbying; Language Inserted Into Bill Without Lawmakers’ Knowledge
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Drug industry lobbyists conspired with the White House and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) last year to craft a sweeping liability provision that shields the industry from lawsuits over products used to treat pandemic illnesses, even in cases of gross negligence or gross recklessness, according to a report issued today by Public Citizen.
The report, Willful Misconduct: How Bill Frist and the Drug Lobby Covertly Bagged a Liability Shield, relies on internal documents and e-mails of the Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO) to illustrate the degree to which Frist’s office deferred to drug industry demands and describes Frist’s sleight of hand in securing passage of the provision. It underscores the enormous power of the drug industry and its lobbyists to steer a highly controversial provision into law.
.....continues http://www.citizen.org/pressroom/release.cfm?ID=2197
(btw, "The bill in question was the Homeland Security Act, and observers can be excused for wondering just what a pharmaceutical shield law has to do with Homeland Security.")
aggressive
they are - we ain't