Its definitely not Republicans and if you had to pigeon hole them into a party, it would be Democrats.
Jason Richwine of AEI explains:
Sensible and principled supporters of the free market do not want to be linked to “wingnuts” and paranoid far-right types who always see totalitarianism around the corner. But the major purveyor of the Nazi imagery is actually not a conservative Republican by any stretch of the imagination, and he should never be lumped with advocates for smaller government.
To see who I’m talking about, look closely at the pictures attached to this CNN story about a combative town hall meeting with Barney Frank. A protester has brought a large sign depicting President Obama with a Hitler mustache. Below the picture reads: “www.LaRouchePAC.com.” I’m pleased to see that Brent Baker at the invaluable Media Research Center has called attention to this same fact, because it seems to be lost on the general news media.
Most long-time followers of politics know that Lyndon LaRouche is a world-class crank who defies political labels. He’s associated himself with many weird and disparate causes over the past half century, but he’s made seven super-long-shot presidential bids as a Democrat. As someone who has spent a lot of time on university campuses in the past decade, I’ve become somewhat familiar with the LaRouche people.
The full post can be found here.
Ok, let’s take this step by step:
The reason there are people with Hitler signs at a healthcare rally is obviously because those people think the health care plan endorses euthanasia.
That’s the reason.
Now, why do people think that?
Well, it’s because irresponsible/deceitful politicians keep bringing up images of “pulling the plug on Grandma” or “death panels”.
So, how many of those politicians are LaRouchites? How many are Democrats?
None that I know of. Every one of them that I can think of, has an “R” after his/her name! And some of not Alaskans.
But I could be wrong - Feel free to point me to any Democratic leaders that have claimed that Obama’s health reform will lead to euthanasia. I would be more than happy to stand corrected on this.
I’m sure there are some Republicans exaggerating the costs of the healthcare reform (just as there were some Democrats exaggerating the effects of Republican social security reform etc), but its clearly not Republicans actually holding the Hitler signs.
In fact, these same people were the ones ‘who ruined the AEI Q&A session with Justice Scalia. At the time they were obsessed with getting Vice President Cheney impeached’.
For a comprehensive list of instances where LaRouche supporters disrupted Congressional town hall health care meetings, check out:
http://contemporaryantisemitism.blogspot.com/2009/08/lyndon-larouche-holocaust-imagery-and.html
What I’d like to see is a comprehensive list of instances where Democrats have disrupted town hall health care meetings. Or maybe a comprehensive list of cases where Democrat leaders have suggested that health care reform leads to euthanasia.
Lack of the same seems to pretty significantly undercut HP’s entirely bogus claim that Democrats are responsible.
Look, none of us knows what percentage of Hitler signs belong to LaRouchites, and what percentage belongs to Republicans, but we do know that if there were no Republican politicians claiming that Obama wants to pull th”e plug on Grandma” or institute “death panels” there would be a lot less of those folks at the town halls. There’s just no getting around that fact.
John Stewart brought this up last week. He called them the crazies—not necessarily Republicans.
LaRouche can choose what ever party he thinks is better for his bid, that doesn’t make him representative of the Democrats. Timothy McVeigh was registered as a Republican. It takes a big leap to say that “Republicans” were blowing up buildings. I am an independent, but lean Democrat–does that say much about the party given that I think they suck on many policies? In any case, Democrats do oversimplify when they assume the Hitler people are Republicans. As for the other crazies? What party might they belong to? I admit that I haven’t done the research…
In any case, whenever you have big visible events, the crazies come out of the woodwork. I created a vibrant, successful activist club on campus in my undergrad days. How do I know it was successful? The Spartacus Youth Club started setting up tables (without asking) at our meetings and events.
Couldn’t find a contact link: I’m with rightriot.com and we’re wondering if you’d like to exchange links and get traffic from us. Join the site and promote your blog posts there and we’ll send you traffic in return.
Also would you mind giving us a post to let your readership know about rightriot.com? We’re rebuilding our userbase from a hacking attack and we need all the help we can get from other conservative net people. Thanks!
jordan basketball shoes VI
Nike Men Women Air Zoom Dunkesto
Is Glenn Beck a LaRouchite or a Republican? I ask because Beck showed a video montage on his show (also highlighted by Jon Stewart) that compared the health plan to Nazi eugenics programs.
So, is Glenn Beck a LaRouchite? I’m just asking.
Perhaps Glenn Beck is a secret Democrat. Right HP?
Got me on that one. Damn that Glenn Beck!
LaurenceB,
Opponents of health care reform may be exaggerating cost. Who knows what the real costs will be.
But the charge of “death panels” is not an exaggeration. It’s an inevitability. There’s no way we can continue to spend so much of our limited health resources on older people. It’s not a happy thought, but it’s a fact. And it will become even more of a problem as the baby boomers get older.
To the extent that “health care reform” localizes health care decisions in one organization (no matter what that organization is), there will have to be “death panels.”
Nobody is willing to address this honestly, or to propose a solution. Probably because there really isn’t a solution. The sad fact is that older people will not be able to get all the care that they could receive in a world with unlimited resources.
Good point Greg.
Btw, after reading your post, I saw this post by Jeffrey Miron who makes the same point, see here.
A very impressive sleight of hand, Greg.
As I’m sure you’re aware, the original references to “death panels” were objections to “end-of-life counseling. These were entirely bogus scare tactics, meant to conjure up images of Nazi-like eugenics programs. Any sane person recognizes this.
But now you’re saying “But wait a minute, since there are limited resources, there must be limitations to health care. Aha! and Voila! “Death Panels” are not only possible, but inevitable!”
Well, yes. But only because you’ve re-defined what “death panel” means. You are entirely correct that resources will always be limited - as they are today, and as they will be in the future with or without health care reform - but what does that have to do with “end-of-life counseling” (the former “death panel”)? Nothing at all.
Put differently, now that “end-of-life” counseling has (unfortunately) been dropped from the health plan reform proposal, do you expect that there will now never be “death panels” as you’ve now re-defined them? Of course you don’t. Because your new definition of “death panels” has nothing to do with the health care reform at all. It’s just a convenient way of legitimizing talk about “death panels”. That, and nothing more.