Big Sky Cairn

It’s always possible that what informed people take as lies are really just the uninformed rantings of political sheep. Jay Stevens finds himself between a rock and a hard place: he is either a liar or he just has no clue what he is talking about. Supposing he was a liar, of course, would be crediting him with being able to see through the cloud of B.S. that Montana Democrats lay down and he doesn’t have a very strong track record with that.

What’s leading me to think that maybe Jay Stevens may not be lying and may be merely demonstrating his clueless constitution instead?

Well, when Big Daddy Singer (”Daddy, the mean Dextra bloggers are picking on me!“) came to rescue his “buddy Jay” over the weekend, Jay’s first comment indicated that he really had no clue that there was a difference between the first House bill that Rehberg didn’t support and the second one that he did (twice).

it’d be interesting to see exactly what the difference is between “extremist” legislation, and the legislation he voted for, twice. I suspect it’s over a few thousand dollars in who qualifies, and that’s it. That’s the game Both-Ways Rehberg plays. He takes every position available and claims to have supported whichever position that suits the audience he’s speaking to.

If only someone would do that research comparing the bills! Oh, wait. Silly me, I forgot. I did it.

So after Big Daddy Singer tested the waters, Jay poked his head out from behind him and came up with this gem of misdirection. Jay’s not falsely accusing Rehberg of not supporting SCHIP anymore, so at least implicitly he is acknowledging that he had been wrong; now he’s arguing the merit of Pelosi’s version of the bill and all poor Jay can see is spending issues. Now spending can be significant, but I don’t think that’s where the “extreme” came from. To quote myself as an authority on the subject:

Pelosi’s version of the bill was not SCHIP, which is not to say it didn’t include SCHIP among its expansionist provisions. In addition to extending the program and increasing its funding at a level that the President agreed to accept, it did much, much more.

Pelosi’s bill would have extended “SCHIP” to illegal immigrants.

Pelosi’s bill would have extended “SCHIP” to adults.

Pelosi’s bill would have extended “SCHIP” to the wealthy.

In other words, opposing Pelosi’s bill was not opposing SCHIP. Denny would have - and did - support a straight up re-authorization of SCHIP. He even supported significantly increased funding. His vote was was opposing Hillarycare under that dangerously false “for the kids” mantra.

It was the dramatic expansion of policy - so dramatic that it couldn’t have been accurately called Children’s Health Insurance anymore. SCHIP wasn’t just “for the children” anymore.

By the way - note that Montana’s own Senator Max Baucus worked the bill from the Senate Finance Committee and agreed in action, if not rhetoric, that Pelosi’s bill was too extreme. In the only Senate “vote” that mattered, Baucus opted against pushing Pelosi’s bill to the floor and like Rehberg supported a much more reasonable compromise which both eventually voted for.

So judging from what Jay writes on the subject, a plea of ignorance would certainly be possible. However, I’m still leaning toward the side of flat out dishonesty. Why?

Because all of the things I talk about above - all of the things that Jay seems to be completely unaware of - are outlined in simple 8th-Grade-Reading-Level prose in the Op-Ed that Congressman Rehberg wrote about SCHIP. The Op-Ed we know Jay read because it’s also the source of the “extremist policy” quote that he’s been misrepresenting for so long.

What do I want from Jay? I want him to acknowledge that Congressman Denny Rehberg supports SCHIP at least as much as Max Baucus and that there is absolutely no evidence to the contrary. Both Rehberg and Baucus opposed Pelosi’s bill, voted for the final SCHIP passage and voted to override the veto. Both are on the record in support of the bill. The only difference is that Rehberg didn’t run ads in Montana bragging about passing SCHIP (a bit prematurely).

[…] Cody beat me to the punch on Jay’s latest bout of misrepresentation. Here are a couple random thoughts that I would add; “Montana kids deserve to have their healthcare needs addressed. However, the House Democrat bill has made the welfare of our children a political issue based on a narrow, extremist political ideology” […]

Oh fer chrissakes - this is so phony is makes my skin crawl. Previously I pointed out that the right wing is a safe harbor for racists, and that you guys never openly state your true preferences in that area.

Children’s health insurance is the same - you’re against it, and you know it and I know it and Jay knows it and Matt knows it. The market can’t do the job, but you are loath to admit that, and it gets even worse for you when you see government step in and get the job done. It cuts to your core - it exposes your baseline philosophy as inadequate.

What to do? Well, for one thing, hold the line. Don’t let the government program expand and do even more than it is doing. You’ll look even worse. As for all of the children who will be without insurance, you’ll do what you always do - close your eyes, click your heels, and let the market do its magic, and when that fails, blame it on government.

You’re both bankrupt and exposed here. I’d hang it up if I were you.

Oh, and yeah, Denny is against health insurance for children if government provides it too, but he’s caught between a public that supports it and you guys.

Mark, your straw man would be better if it was supported by votes or statements or really anything other than you’re keen sense of how the conservative mind works.

I remind you of the facts. Republicans created SCHIP. Rehberg said he supports the program. He voted for it. Twice. Just like Baucus.

But you’re right, I don’t support universal single-payer health care like Hillary Clinton supported back during the Clinton Administration. I don’t support the gradual takeover of health insurance - and like Rehberg I oppose using SCHIP as a foot-in-the-door to get more people - adults, wealthy people, illegal immigrants - on the Government role. But the thing is, this is a different debate.

The issue above is Rehberg’s position on SCHIP. And it’s a losing argument to suggest that Rehberg opposes the program. Unless you have some evidence that I haven’t seen, in which case: pony up.

Oh, and for the record - since you say conservatives never openly state their true preferences on racism: I, Wiley Cody, think racism is bad. There, that was easy.

[…] be had in such an underhanded position, but Wiley is young and truly believes in Dennis, and, well, go read him and find out just how deluded he […]

But WIley - you never got around to addressing the southern strategy or the fact that the south went over to the GOP column after the civil rights act of 1964. As far as I know, even Nixon thought racism was bad. But he saw that he was votes ahead by embracing racists, and that has not changed. I’ll say what I said clearly again - racists are at home in your party.

Now, as long as you support SCHIP, explain to us why this government program works and the market offers no solutions. You might as well make a clean breast of it. And your support of Denny is touching. Does he ever acknowledge you, touch your forehead or breathe his breath on you? Have you ever been so fortunate?

Mark, I’m not privy to any “southern strategy” but I maintain that the reason the South may vote GOP has less to do with the GOP providing a safe-haven for racism and more to do with liberal elitists habitually calling them racist. You use “the south” and “racists” interchangeably. No wonder they don’t feel welcome in your party.

As for SCHIP, I’m not going to let you get away with shifting the focus of the discussion (although good try). My feelings about the program are irrelevant since the issue is how Rehberg feels and votes. Even if I hated the program, it wouldn’t change the fundamental fact that Rehberg supports the program and saying he doesn’t is dishonest.

No no no, jello-to-the-wall. Southern strategy was real. The south really did leave the Democratic Party behind because of the Voting Rights Act of 1964.

And since government-funded health care for children is very popular and fundamentally at odds with conservative philosophy, it’s not hard to predict that Republicans would vote to fund it and try to limit it all at once.

1964 was something like 44 years ago Mark. A substantial portion of the modern South wasn’t even born then.

And read this slowly because I’ve said it several times and you seem to keep missing it. SCHIP was created in 1997. In 1997 Republicans controlled both chambers of Congress.

It’s a Republican program!

Your easy prediction is at odds with reality, my friend.

How to deal with a man who knows everything … there’s a reason why open and avowed racists like Thurmond left the Democrats and joined your party, and he hung on until recently. There’s a reason why the confederate flag flies from the court house, why Rove’s strategy of rumoring that McCain had a black illegitimate child worked. Read slowly, my friend, s-l-o-w-l-y: Not all republicans are racists, but all racists are Republican. You subtly and effectively court them, and have for 44 years.

If Schip is a Republican flag, why not fly it high and expand it? You see that it works, thar government does health care better than the private sector. Why not set philosophy aside and embrace your baby?

[…] the comments here at Big Sky Cairn comes this from Mark T: Read slowly, my friend, s-l-o-w-l-y: Not all republicans are racists, but all racists […]

Notice how we segues to a new post, changing the topic, when you put him on the ropes with the “If Schip is a Republican flag, why not fly it high” line.

Well done, Mark.

In a post about SCHIP, Mark T starts talking about “southern strategy” and racism and you accuse me of “changing the topic”? I merely bifurcated the post and moved the off-topic commentary to its own thread. It seemed deserving.

As for Republican support of SCHIP, I’ve already explained that my personal feelings about the program are irrelevant to the topic of discussion which is how Rehberg feels about SCHIP - whether or not he supports it. That attempt at misdirection hasn’t worked in the past, and it won’t work now.

If you have evidence that Rehberg opposes SCHIP produce it. Otherwise stop saying he does. It’s that simple.

[…] Ignorance in the Left (in the West) by Big Sky Cairn Follow-up to last week’s article about Rehberg’s record on SCHIP.  Worth reading. Take Action! Send a letter to the Editor. […]

[…] cannot help himself as he goes on the path of distortion and speculation again. Glad he brought up CHIP and his Mother’s Day issue so I don’t have to. In fine BlueJay fashion, he goes on to […]