Just now I got an automated phone call on my land line inviting me to take part in a telephone “town hall meeting” with Jim DeMint. So I listened in.
And first, I want to say that I appreciate that Jim DeMint is mild-mannered. None of that shouting, in-your-face demagoguery for him.
But that said, I have to say that after awhile, hearing some fairly extreme ideas espoused mildly and politely starts to creep me out.
Basically, the way this thing worked was that ordinary, regular, plain, normal, average Americans in the 2nd District asked the senator question after question in a manner that was rather like T-ball. Nobody was trying to throw it past him, and he kept saying “good question” to little sermonettes from folks who are worried about that Barack Obama guy giving away “our freedoms,” on issue after issue. Whether we’re talking global warming or trade or monetary policy to crime to health care, that’s what it always boiled down to: Thank goodness we have you, senator, to stand up for our freedoms. No problem, folks, glad to do it, and be sure to sign up for my “Freedom Alert” reports…
When somebody calls in, truly worried about crime — her house has been broken into twice, she said — and says “Is it possible that they’ll be able to take away our constitutional right to bear arms?,” it seems to me that the right thing to do would be say, “Of course, not — no one is trying to do that to you.” But not Jim. In his own mild, butter-wouldn’t-melt-in-his-mouth way, he makes sure he gives the impression that the only reason ATF goons aren’t about to batter down your door and take your guns from your cold, dead fingers is because he’s there stopping ’em: “I’m doing all I can,” he promises, “to make sure we don’t lose our constitutional rights.”
So why am I not reassured?
Yes, I could have hit a button and tried to butt in with a “Hey, wait a minute” sort of question, but all those years of not upstaging regular folks — of not wanting to become the story — stopped me.
One guy, though, did — right at the end — ask Jim what in the world would be wrong with ordinary working Americans having the same kind of health coverage as Congress (this was the only question I heard on the subject that wasn’t about that Obama wanting to take away our Medicare and turn it over to the gummint). Jim assured him that HE wanted ordinary Americans to have good health care, which was why he provided insurance when he was an employer in the private sector, and that he thought members of Congress should be forced to sign up for whatever gummint plan it cooked up, etc., etc. — everything, of course, except to say that yes, members of Congress are in a government health care system, and it works just great for them.
Far more typical was Hazel, who wanted to know why she had worked to pay into Medicare for over 40 years, and now that Obama “wants to take it away from us.”
And of course, Jim didn’t say, “You like Medicare? So what’s wrong with having it for everybody?” That would apparently defeat his purposes.
Anyway, when it was over Jim went away feeling all that much better about his brave stances against health care reform and cap and trade and so forth.
Maybe I should have said something. You think I should have said something? I should have said something…
Related Posts
See what happens when you’re home during daytime?
You should have said something. Town hall conference call?
Hazel did NOT work to “pay into Medicare” any more than the recent letter writer to The State paid in anything like, even with interest, he’s likely to pull out of Social Security.
It’s not a 401(k) plan, folks. It’s a pyramid scheme. If you want to talk about something that really costs us, SS and Medicare could really save the gummint some $$ is we just shut them down. How’s ’bout them apples, you gummint-hating freedom-lovers. You will be free to figure it out on your own! Go nuts!
While we’re at it, let’s shut down the emergency rooms, unless you have proof of high-quality insurance–and ambulances, too. Toll roads! Mercenaries! Oh boy!
This seems a pretty good place to put this op-ed:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/09/opinion/09douthat.html
Alas, I can’t produce a link. Sorry.
It is an interesting piece.
I started to say that people like DeMint are pretty dangerous to democracy, but I guess it’s really the people he’s talking to. I hope it’s what Voinivich(?) said about the GOP sounding like DeMint and this is mostly confined to our little corner of the country where amazing certitude based on incredible ignorance is a way of life for so many.
It gets real discouraging.
You would have done well to say something, but you’d probably been cut off. However, interjecting a little reality into political rants from which ever side is of value. Sen. DeMint may be polite, but he’s either pandering to a group of people who could use a dose of reality, or he himself has slipped his mooring.
Mr. Waterloo didn’t attempt to set the record straight with his constituents whom he supposedly serves? SHOCKING!
Brad, in that forum I think you would have been dismissed as a partisan. Of course, you’ll be painted as such for this thread. At least this was not an effort to immediately intervene into his rally. My point is, you would have been in a no win situation.
“what in the world would be wrong with ordinary working Americans having the same kind of health coverage as Congress (this was the only question I heard on the subject that wasn’t about that Obama wanting to take away our Medicare and turn it over to the gummint). Jim assured him that HE wanted ordinary Americans to have good health care, which was why he provided insurance when he was an employer in the private sector, and that he thought members of Congress should be forced to sign up for whatever gummint plan it cooked up, etc., etc. — everything, of course, except to say that yes, members of Congress are in a government health care system, and it works just great for them.”
Do members of Congress participate in a government health care system or is their private health insurance funded by taxpayers? Is there a difference?
Brad,
I felt the same way as I sat in a regional Chamber meeting in Greenwood at which DeMint spoke some two months ago. I wanted to stand up and say directly to him that he’d have a lot more credibility on fiscal matters had he stood up to Bush’s tax cut for the richest people and for his voting for Medicare Part D that was not funded. He is simply a farce and to have spoken up would not have had any impact on him nor his positions.
Unfortunately the majority of people in SC have voted for this joker. Maybe demographic changes and some continued exposure to the truth about DeMint may give us some relief at re election time.
It would help SC’s national credibility if we could get rid of Sanford, DeMint, Orangeburg County GOP Chairmen and other GOP hypocrites. It is such poetic justice to see the paths that these jokers have taken from Argentina to Columbia’s own Elmwood Cemetery.
When I worry about threats to my freedom, it is Mr. DeMint and his friends who worry me. The Taliban is no threat here in South Carolina, but these folks are dangerous.
Aside from people who work for the government or get government welfare or get boatloads of tax dollars in return for donating to politicians campaign funds (like Lindsey Graham’s millions) — why is it that I don’t seem to run into people who think the government is doing a good job? Is it just because I spend my time around people who work for a living?
I’ve been contacted twice for his calls. Those questioners are so well rehearsed, I am sure they are set-ups. You could have pushed that button all day and not been allowed to ask a fair question.
Having met Sen. Demint on his home ground (The Capitol), he’s like that. Quiet, well-mannered, and flying totally on one wing. Of course, he’s savvy enough to understand that when you’re hot (think Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck) you’re not (to folks of independent mind). Being soft-spoken and reasonable makes it possible to say some pretty over-the-top things.
You should have said something. It never hurts to remind DeMint that reasonable people think he’s nuts.
“…interjecting a little reality into political rants from which ever side is of value.”
I side w/ Karen on this one.
Mr Waterloo was on conservative radio yesterday urging fellow Repub’s to vote against health care reform even if the public option is removed:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/10/demint-gop-should-vote-ag_n_352532.html
My question to him would have been “When are you going to walk your talk and give up your elite Govt paid/managed health insurance?”
We need fiscally responsible health care reform. Passing the current reform won’t give that to us. At the same time, keeping the status quo is unacceptable.
As Washington continues to look only to the present while ignoring the future, my hope for this country diminishes.
I don’t fault Jim DeMint or other Republicans for looking out for indiviual freedom. Though if they truly wanted to stand for individual freedom they would also speak for freedoms that they disagree with (e.g. gay rights).
I don’t fault the Democrats for desperately wanting to pass health care reform. Rising health care costs are a major problem. And it makes no sense for someone to be financially ruined by a risk for which it is impossible to save.
But until it is addressed, the long-term fiscal sustainability of this country should be the #1 issue right now. If health care reform is not a part of that solution then we are missing a big opportunity.
So it’s easy to make snarky comments about Jim DeMint missing the bigger picture, but I’m not convinced that you all aren’t either.
From former U.S. Comptroller General David Walker’s testimony before the Senate Budget Committee:
Let me be clear, we need to ultimately achieve comprehensive health care reform, including some level of universal coverage that is appropriate, affordable and sustainable over time. We should, however, focus first and foremost on gaining control over health care costs or else we risk putting millions more Americans into a health care system that is fundamentally flawed and financially unsustainable over time.
For any health care reform effort to be deemed to be fiscally responsible, it must meet at least four key tests. First, it should pay for itself over 10 years. Second, it should not add to federal deficits past 10 years. Third, it should result in a significant reduction (e.g., 20 percent or more) in the tens of trillions in federal unfunded health care promises that we already have. Finally, it should result in a reduction in the total health care costs as a percentage of the economy as compared to the status quo.
In achieving the above four tests, we must be realistic regarding the assumptions that are used to meet them. Specifically, relying on historically unsuccessful and unsustainable approaches to control provider payments or generate additional revenues may make the numbers work on paper but they are not likely to be sustained over time. Such approaches are also unlikely to pass a “straight face test” in the real world. My extensive travels and participation in town halls and other meetings with many thousands of Americans in 45 states over that past four years have helped me to see firsthand that Americans are tired of creative accounting approaches, unrealistic promises, government bailouts, and partisan bickering.
While we are awaiting the final results of a study that we are funding, it seems pretty clear that the House bill that was passed this weekend does not meet these four tests of fiscal responsibility. It also relies on unrealistic approaches to pay for its proposed expansion of coverage. Health care reform must help improve our nation’s financial condition and long-term outlook in order to be prudent and sustainable.
Back when I took Psych 101, we learned basically that people will get further and further out on a wing unless someone moves the ball back to the center conversationally. That would have been you.
Perhaps no one would have let you speak, but at least you might have tried….
@Doug–I believe our government is doing a good job–I am fundamentally secure, have access to good highways, airports, schools, museums, and so on–maybe not so good as in northern Europe, but better than in most of the rest of the world.
@David–you make good points, except that in my way of thinking, the best way to get control of runaway health care costs is to nationalize the system and make the expenditure process rational instead of survival of the richest. If the government sets the prices….
Government is like anything else, including big business, it has it’s good moments and it’s failures. Right now the DMV seems to work well. That hasn’t always been the case but the last half dozen visits there have been remarkably pleasant. The Post Office does a much better job than most people give it credit for. Don’t remember the last time something failed to get where it needs to go. Sadly the bills seem to come in quit efficiently. Also, I disagree with Doug about Social Security. It’s worked remarkably well for 75+ years. I just don’t get all the naysaying about that wonderful program. Same for medicare.
Among the big failures is Amtrak. There is something that just doesn’t work well at all. Why can’t they figure out how to make the trains run on time? As for the military, they spend far too much on junk we don’t need. It is the most inefficient of all government activities. For about 1/3 the cost we could easily have just as much national security. But that’s not entirely their fault. Congress should reign them in. The voters could do more to reduce this bloated mess.
bud, you have that sort of backward. When it comes to excess defense spending, it’s Congress that needs to be reined in.
Kathryn, as I think about it, I think there was an additional, sort of half-conscious, reason why I didn’t butt in on DeMint’s clambake with a contrary question — I don’t think I could have stayed as cool and unperturbed as he was. I can do that when I’m ready to do it — when I’m going into an interview, and I’ve got my mind set for it. But in this case, I was a little irritated to begin with by this call at dinner time, and each moment I listened to it, with these callers saying this wild things and DeMint lapping it up in a process of mutual reinforcement, I got more irritated. And there’s no question that had I broken in, it would have been as the party wrecker, and it would have been tense, and I would have felt it (whatever I said), and the other callers would have felt it, too. But DeMint would have stayed cool. And no one wants to be the uncool party in an exchange like that. If I sounded testy — “Now hold on just a minute here!” — and DeMint sounded like the voice of sweet reason, I wouldn’t accomplish much, would I? In fact, I might make him look better.
Add that to my aversion to the Observer Effect — I hate interfering with a news event by injecting myself into it — and you get a situation in which I didn’t want to be part of the story.
This is a little hard to explain, but it goes back to my M.O. as a reporter years ago. Whenever possible, I kept my notebook out of sight (usually I’d stick it into the waistband of my pants at the small of my back, under my jacket), and tried to blend into the crowd when one was handy. That way, I could experience the event, and write about it the way it really was, rather than CHANGING the way it was by making my presence known. And it did change things. As soon as the newsmakers knew there was a journalist present, they acted a little differently. I preferred to be a fly on the wall, and then write about what happened. There was always time later, after the public thing, when I could ask questions if I needed to.
I never misrepresented myself. And often, people knew I was at least an outsider (say, if I was covering a public hearing in a small town, folks knew I wasn’t one of their neighbors), if not guessing my actual purpose. But the longer I could put off the formal journalist-interviewing-a-subject moment, the more real everything seemed.
@ bud–
Amtrak– several points–if we spent anywhere near as much on subsidies for trains as we do on other forms of transit like highways and planes, we could upgrade tracks, eliminate grade crossings, separate freight lines from passenger lines and other things that cause delays. Right now,people don’t take the trains because they take too long, don’t run frequently enough, run late or are too expensive. Certainly wherever people are driving or flying, say, fewer than 300 miles, they could take a train, especially if there were quality public transit at their destination. My husband takes the train frequently when he travels along the NE corridor, even though it means he has to leave in the wee hours and return then as well–he can work on the train. It’s the greenest for of travel, as I think you know, except maybe for driving a Prius or a bicycle.
@ Brad–I hear you. I have that problem myself. You’re right that you get nowhere if you blow up.
On the other hand, you aren’t a reporter any more. You are still a citizen, so in general, perhaps you might consider getting in the game?