You are hereForums / Issues / Other Issues / Glenn Beck's Gathering: August 28
Glenn Beck's Gathering: August 28
I will reserve judgment on Beck's gathering until it is over. But I absolutely REJECT left wing criticism of Beck for somehow besmirching the memory of Martin Luther King's "I Have A Dream" speech by selecting August 28th and the Lincoln Memorial for his 'rally.' This phoney issue is the left wing's version of the "Move the Mosque for sensitivity" fraud.
August 28th is not a national holiday. How did it suddenly spring forth as "sacred ground" on the calendar 47 years after King spoke? Although the speech and the 1963 march are justifiably honored to this day, August 28th has not assumed cultural status as a stand-alone date of historical importance. Maybe it should have, maybe someday it will, but as of now it hasn't.
This year August 28 also happens to be the last Saturday of the summer before Labor Day weekend a national holiday weekend, and Beck WAS smart (and, yes, sensitive) enough to avoid that.
The Lincoln Memorial and its grounds comprise a public facility. It belongs to everyone. No one objected when Obama held an election celebration for himself there. No one objected when the Memorial appeared as a backdrop/setting for one of the weirder scenes in FORREST GUMP. (From "I have a Dream" to "JENNY!" "JENNY!" Hallowed what?)
Beck claims he did not intend a slight against King or a self-aggrandizing comparison. I may or may not have suspicions about that, but I have to accept his assertion. I have no more real proof that he is lying about that than I have that Obama is lying about being a christian. Even if he is lying, too bad. Beck has, apparently, met the legal requirements and obtained the proper permits for his event. Maybe his event will be a huge success, a huge bore, a celebration of unity, a hate and propaganda fest, or something else altogether. We will find out soon enough. But until we do, let freedom ring at the Lincoln Memorial... for you, and me, and for Glenn Beck, too.
OK, I agree, but can I still think that Beck is a toolish d-bag?
Glenn Beck's plans for rally on a hallowed date...
Freedom of speech!
"But just because they have the right to do something doesn't mean that it is the right thing for them to do." - Rep. John Boehner regarding the NY Islamic center
You are quoting Boehner unfairly and totally out of context. He was commenting on his golf partner's decision to use a nine iron for a ball stuck on the edge of a hard packed sand trap, some 45 yards from the pin on his approach to a slow level green (it had rained the night before). Boehner was countering that the Cleveland Niblick Chipper Wedge with its 56 degree loft and stylish Cleveland action "Lite Steel Shaft" would be the better choice. Yet Boehner was acknowledging his partner's constitutional right to go with the nine iron in the foolish expectation that the slow green and a soft swing with the heavier shaft would counteract the excess of power of the 9 iron ("too much club" as John likes to say out on the links). I mean, sweet cheeses, don't you people do any research before you post here?
"I don't think it's a huge protest from the left because this is the first I've heard of it."
Interesting... I first heard of the Beck rally earlier this summer specifically as an undercutting of Martin Luther King (below one link from June). I agree, there should be no debate, but it seems to me that the left was trying to do, on a smaller and arguably less efficient scale, what the Park 51 protest did -- invent a wedge issue to go after an enemy.
http://www.opposingviews.com/i/glenn-beck-conservatives-claim-martin-luther-king-as-their-own
I should be clear. I did know about the Beck event, but I did not hear of big protests from the left, just some pockets of grumbling. Is there an actual organized effort to stop this right now or just expressions of opposition to it? To me, the Al Sharpton/civil rights leaders counter-event seems like an appropriate step to take and a very Democratic way to protest. If I could go to Washington, I'd happily march with Al Sharpton and his group. I see that Al Sharpton's event is getting far less coverage than Beck's (was hard for me to find info on) as the media just loves a good tea party story, but I certainly hope it is covered well and they have more in attendance than Beck. I did see many stories from conservative media with headlines like "The left wants to stop Beck rally but supports mosque" but we could turn that "hypocrisy" headline right back at them "Conservatives support Beck rally but want to stop Park 51 project." The 1st Amenedment grants everybody equal rights so the left and the right need to "get over it" and move on, even when something makes them angry and uncomfortable. Period. Exclamation point!
On another note, this Maine Tea Party blogger may have scared potential attendees too much. Afterall, once they realize DC is full of Arabs, they might freak out!
There is not a protest from the "left" but there will be a march on the other side of the mall. This is being organized by Al Sharpton and black radio. It will be a march to the site of MLK memorial(soon to be). They are not saying Beck cannot have his rally. Their beef is that Beck is besmirching what MLK actually believed and gave his life. Dr. King was equality for all, not just black folks, he was for social justice, etc,,,,,does this sound like Glenn Beck. I know Beck said he did not know the significance of the date and this is a tribute to soldiers, but I personally think he knew and know exactly what he is doing. I think it is just bait. It reminds when the KKK(I'm not comparing Beck to KKK, just an example) decide to march in a particular town to try to get people to react. Here's an article from MLK III re rally.
http://www.sphere.com/search?q=sphereit:http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/24/AR2010082405003.html
I am not giving Beck a pass on his creepyness or legendary dishonesty, but the comparison of Beck's rally to the planned 1970s Nazi (I think that is your intended reference) march through Skokie, Illinois as an intentional, hostile form of provocation is way off.
"It reminds when the KKK(I'm not comparing Beck to KKK, just an example)." In the finest tradition of Glenn Beck and Fox News, you have just compared Beck to the KKK (or Nazi provocateurs), while claiming not to do so.
The Nazi party picked Skokie Illinois for their march specifically because it had a large Jewish population and, especially, a significantly large number of Holocaust survivors. The Lincoln Memorial is a national park and a national gathering place for Americans. NO ONE LIVES AT THE LINCOLN MEMORIAL. Skokie, Illinois is a suburb and the march was planned for the main streets right into the heart of this largely Jewish community.
I can't buy the comparison or the "reminder."
Maybe wrong comparison,,,,I'm not equating the two. The rally just made me think this is bait to get a reaction just as Neo Nazis march to get a people angry and cause some kind of skirmish. I do remember the Skokie march, I lived in metro Chicago during that time. I remember the people did not come out and confront but stayed in their houses and put ribbons on their window/door for peace(something like this).
Interesting piece on the history leading up to the Beck rally, and his call for civil rights.
Not all Tea Partiers are supporting this rally. One leader states that Beck passed on using their organizing skills by relying on Dick Armey's FreedomWorks which sponsors his radio show. He stated that "all he is doing is trying to use us to promote himself." http://thinkprogress.org/2010/08/24/beck-tea-party/
There is also an excellent opinion piece by Martin Luther King III from the Washington Post, where he states that Beck has the right to hold the rally, commends honoring the soldiers, and restates his father's beliefs so that a reader can compare for themselves if Beck matches up with MLK's ideals. Sometimes subtlety works better than other forms. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/24/AR2010082405003.html
There is also an excellent opinion piece by Martin Luther King III from the Washington Post, where he states that Beck has the right to hold the rally, commends honoring the soldiers, and restates his father's beliefs so that a reader can compare for themselves if Beck matches up with MLK's ideals.
That's CLASS!!!!
Yes, I like this. The Beck/King comparison has already been in the news for months, with an understandable resurgence this week, so Mr. King is not gratuitously bringing it up. One can argue if he has a subtextual ironic purpose here but the open, accepting, totally non confrontational language provides an important message in and of itself.
And extra: Looking for a job at Fox?
Free posters if you're participating in anti-Beck March rallies
Beck is kind of like that trouble maker in class. He is annoying, full of drama, self-centered, deceptive, and loves to bring other kids over to the "dark side." His mischief and antics win him popularity or at least curiosity by other classmates and lots of scolding by the teacher/trips to the principal. And guess what? He is actually quite brilliant because he gets exactly what he wants: attention (and in his case that equates to $$$$ and ratings.) Sure it may be negative attention but the teacher sure spends alot more time focusing on him rather than the well-behaved kids who just want to do the right thing. And look at how he played the media on this. "Oh, I didn't realize it was the MLK anniversary. Ooops-my bad." while knowing the whole time how the left would go nuts and mainstream media would grasp onto a good controversy. Automatic free advertising-how easy! Even CNN had this as a head story, right up there with the 5 year anniversary of Katrina, for heavens sake. I wanted to throw up. Between the Fox News 24/7 ad blitz for this event and the dumb media giving him just the attention he wanted (only helped by the left, as Tom points out) he got the big crowds he was dreaming of and we got duped once again. I was glad the military group that benefitted from this insisted the speeches not be political, so Palin and Beck had to hold back their normal hate-filled rhetoric and focus on God and the country "taking back it's values" (all code words of course.) In reality, much of what Beck does is not very Christian at all. But why should he care about hyprocrisy? He even calls himself a mere entertainer, probably laughing all the way to the bank at all of the saps that follow him like puppy dogs. I actually wonder how much of the proceeds will really go to the military group-does he have to release that? Did Palin speak for free? It's all such a show. I was much more interested in the Rev. Sharpton counter-rally. They had amazing people involved, many of whom spoke or marched alongside MLK so many years ago, many of whom participated in sit-ins or were victims of violence all in the name of civil rights. They gave MLK-like instructions to the marchers today: if the Beck supporters taunt you, yell, or agitate you, just smile and keep marching! A true tribute to MLK, but you won't hear much about it on the news. I had to really dig. I guess the MLK marchers were those "good kids" in class who don't get the respect, attention, or praise they deserve.
Congrats, Mr. Beck on another great academy award performance and earning your way towards the official Tea Party leader title. I hope your conscience struggles a little when you are alone and away from the crowds, perhaps in Church (if you even attend) with what you are doing to divide our great nation, pour gasoline on the hate, and rationalize bigotry and racism, but I have a feeling you sleep just fine at night, just like that trouble-maker in class.
There is no way to measure this, but I think the ginned up protest about Beck's use of the MLK's hallowed date gave Beck's 'rally' an urgency, a media-friendly narrative line, and a level of significance it did not have before. It was left wing commentators that brought the King issue into this in a big, open, headline hunting (2 columns in today's NYTimes Op Ed) and confrontational way. I thought Beck VERY cleverly worked it in: "we will take the civil rights movement and the legacy of King back to original freedom loving Americans (and by implication, away from the special interest political left.") That actually gave a specific purpose to all of this that the otherwise amorphous "restore honor" seemed to lack.
I thought Sharpton's argument about defending the legacy of Martin Luther King (from what? White people gathering, by all accounts peacably, in a public park on a day for which they received a permit to hold an event?) fell quite flat. Old rhetoric, old arguments, and marginally charismatic leader, while Beck shot out a whole new narrative (traditional patriots, [read white conservatives] are the true heirs to Martin Luther King's legacy).
It will be interesting to see if, now after 47 years, there will be a move to have some kind of national acknowledgment or recognition for King every August 28th, now that the left has mounted the bluff that it has been an invisible hallowed date all along.
Well played, Mr. Beck...
Intelligence is not always used in positive ways. There have been many serial killers who were considered highly intelligent. We all have the ability to use our "God-given" talents for good or harm and Beck has made his choice.
Tom-I'm curious. If you were advising the Democrats on how to handle a cancer like Beck, what would you tell them? Ignore him? Downplay his influence? Try to trip him up? Turn his own game against him? Allow his jealous competition (like Limbaugh, or Hannity) to bring him down? Just pray his influence is kept to old, white guys? Or just focus on their own powerful message/agenda and hope the media will give them some attention?
Part of me is bracing for the GOP to win big in November but I still have that sliver of hope that rational thinking and common sense will help to limit the Democratic losses so we don't travel backwards yet again. I guess I'm a dreamer...
"I still have that sliver of hope that rational thinking and common sense will help to limit the Democratic losses"
Democrats have controlled Congress since 2007 and the presidency since 2009. A voter will have to ask themselves are they better off now or were they better off before 2007. They will also look and see if the party in power has a clear idea to improve their lives.
If they use rational thinking and common sense, the facts will show that the economic indicators are not better off now than they were in 2006.
They will also see the party in power more concerned about calling average Americans racists (tea partiers) and bigots (those opposed to the NYC mosque). They will see a party in power that is suing one of the American states that is simply trying to enforce existing law (Arizona).
Kelly, what reason can you give those voters to vote Democratic in 2010 when they are unemployed and are called racists and bigots?
Charles Krauthammer said in the Washington Post a couple of days ago:
"The Democrats are going to get beaten badly in November. Not just because the economy is ailing. And not just because Obama over-read his mandate in governing too far left. But because a comeuppance is due the arrogant elites whose undisguised contempt for the great unwashed prevents them from conceding a modicum of serious thought to those who dare oppose them."
Reasons to vote for democrats:
a) Economy is better; job losses are stopped, 401Ks saved from Bush/Wall St. piracy.
b) Health care reform, the need for which did not disappear after the vote.
c) Draw down in Iraq (vs John McCain and Bush -- we could be in Iraq for years).
Reasons not to vote for democrats:
Their inarticulateness in conveying to the public a, b, and c.
You have to admit it is hard to articulate A when unemployment is so high and consumer confidence in the economy is so low. There is no way you can convince the public that Democrats are doing a good job on the economy.
Everything I read about B shows that the healthcare bill that passed does not help contain costs, will add to the deficit and will create numerous new government bureaucracies.
How do you convince the public that B is a good thing when they hear news like:
03/26/2010
"AT&T said Friday that it is preparing for President Obama’s health care overhaul to cost the telecommunications giant an additional $1 billion in expenses in the first quarter, possibly forcing the company to cut benefits it offers to current and retired workers."
Or when they hear Nancy Pelosi say: "we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it."
How do you convince the public of C when most understand that it was our troops that won the war not a political party.
On December 29, 2006, Biden said the following about doing the "surge" in Iraq:
"We’ve tried the military surge option before and it failed. ... If we try it again, it will fail again."
September, 2007, Biden said the following about Petraeus and his surge strategy for Iraq:
"I really respect him, but I think he's dead flat wrong."
Later on Biden expanded on his assessment of Petraeus and his surge stragegy:
God help the Democrats if I advise them, but...
>>Democrats constantly allow right wing press to set the agenda. When 401 Ks were going in the tank, all you heard about was 401Ks and people terrified for their retirement. (I am over 60 and I was one of them. Now that people my age (less than 10 years to retirement) have recovered most or all of their losses in their 401Ks -- all since the stimulus under Obama -- no one has a word to say about it. (My retirement fund went down 17% in Bush's last 18 months and gained 22% under Obama, and I am a moderately conservative investor.) Are the Democrats waiting for Bill O'Reilly or the WSJ to report on how the 401K retirees have been pulled back from the brink?
>> Democrats should not have ignored Beck, but demonizing his rally with that ginned up "Hallowed Day" Martin Luther King scam was gratuitously devisive and phoney. Once Beck announced that this was a non-political event honoring the troops, Democratic leaders should have congratulated him and asked Beck if they could speak, promising to be non partisan That way, Beck either has to accept some democrats (at least one token) as speakers or answer as to why his political celebrities are only conservatives at his non partisan event.
Beck did a remarkable thing yesterday. He got a tea party mob of, what, 80,000 people, to behave itself. The guy knows 'visuals.' That might prove to be a big step toward mainstreaming the tea party.I am sorry liberals and moderate democrats didn't try to co-opt him rather than fight him.
>> Democrats like to criticize conservatives for fear mongering. They need to do more of it themselves. High unemployment also means cut backs and eliminations of medical benefits. Health care reform doesn't go into effect for years; there are still people losing their benefits and in serous trouble (one relative and one neighbor family of mine sure are). We stopped hearing about that the minute the reform bill passed.
>> Krauthammer is right about Obama's arrogance; it is as bad as Bush's and Cheney's. They got their butts handed to them in '06 and 08 beause they promised the Iraq War would be quick and would pay for itself. Bullfunk. Obama's "summer of recovery" promise... along with that plan in which "unemployment would not go above 8.5%" is the kind of stuff people get fired for. Bullfunk revisited. I am going to vote for Obama and probably donate to his campaign, and campaign for him again. But if he gets his a^^ kicked in '10 and '12 I can certainly understand why.
From Newsweek. New poll gives some hope to Democrats. Maybe they won't be in for the predicted bloodbath in November. (Sorry, linking system not working for me so here is the link.)
http://www.newsweek.com/2010/08/27/newsweek-poll-democrats-may-not-be-headed-for-midterm-bloodbath.html
Tom is a good example of why the Democrats might just contain the "slaughter." He is perhaps a bigger critic of the President and the Democrats than Brandon. But there is no way in hell he is not voting-and voting Democrat across the board-in November. I have several "liberal" friends who are flat out disgusted with the President: no public option, increasing troops in Afghanistan, Gitmo still open, too slow on reversing DADT, constantly trying to appease the right, etc.* but not only have they vowed to vote in November, they were knocking on doors this past week-end and have signed on to the OFA campaign with enthusiasm, endorsing Democrats, hanging signs, and making phone calls, too.
* BTW-this proves that Krauthammer is giving BS talking points or smoking some serious drugs if he thinks Obama has governed too far left! Seriously, the health care plan that got no GOP votes was exactly the plan put forth by Republicans during Hillary's attempt.
The point is that Democrats may not poll as "enthused" as the Republicans/tea partiers but that does not mean they will refuse to vote or will vote GOP. They know if they sit on their butts on election day, the Republicans will regain power and take us backwards. They know inaction=fear mongering would have worked. Yes, some will plug their noses, knowing many of their liberal causes have yet to be addressed, but they will vote (at least that's the message I'm hearing, highlighted by our own Tom.) Why do you think Dem's are leading on fundraising? (which may not mean much thanks to the Citizens United ruling BTW) Even the critical Democratic activists are donating money and time in a truly grassroots way, while the Republicans inspire the angry, uneducated people who think Obama is Muslim with continuous lies and Fox News propaganda and keep getting $$$ from corporations-including Fox-to help them trick the American people.
Tom won't be fooled and hopefully most other intelligent voters will follow suit. Tom is spot on when he says the Democrats have to face this monster head on and boldly list accomplishments, talk about a future agenda, call out the GOP for not backing certain bills (especially on jobs and small business) and work on message as though their very life depends on it. No room for error, folks. It certainly helps that people like Krauthammer are over-confident. If they keep bragging about a 40 seat gain, that will make a loss of 2 dozen seats in the House look like a major victory. Who knows? Maybe the Democrats have a chance to prevent a bloodbath.
I never said Obama's economy is terrific. I said it is, all around, better than Bush/Paulson ("We are on the brink of disaster; within 48 hours our economy will crumble)" in 2008.
Here is the annual unemployment rate for the first 3 years of Ronald -- the greatest president that will ever live especially on the economy-- Reagan.
http://www.bls.gov/cps/prev_yrs.htm
He won like 58 of the states and 146 percent of the electoral vote in 1984. Now then, why is 9.5 catastrophic for Obama when 9.7 was not catastrophic for Reagan? Because Sean Hannity et. al. said so, and the democrats message machine responded brilliantly with GOLLY, THEY'RE RIGHT. WE SUCK.
No, because by the time of Reagan's 1984 sweep the economy and unemployment situation was making a solid recovery.
Unemployment rate in November of 1984 was 7.2 %.
If Obama's economy is starting to recover (and I mean at the consumer level) in 2012 than he will likely win reelection.
Reagan was nowhere near being politically vulnerable in 1983 as Obama is viewed now. Lots of reasons for that.
> Racism (he's a Muslim)
> Self-inflicted "Summer of Recovery"
> Racism (He is a citizen of Kenya)
> Self-inflicted "unemployment won't rise above 8.5% promise"
> Racism (I should not have called him a racist; he practices liberation theology which is not pure Christianity-- Beck's post "he's a racist" tack)
> Self-inflicted silence on the recovery of 401Ks and the stock market
> Inflicted by his friends... trying to cast Beck's rally as a high jacking of Martin Luther King. Nothing like giving Al Sharpton an opportunity
to go front and center for democrats two months before midterms; that will sure make white, moderate,suburban voters come flocking back to Obama and the Dems this November.
Politically speaking, Reagan was smarter and whiter. Tough combination.
Christopher Hitchens calls the rally, "large, vague, moist, and undirected—the Waterworld of white self-pity."
James Freeman in the Wall Street Journal today said about the crowd at Beck's rally:
One would not be able to find a more polite crowd at a political convention, certainly not at a professional sporting event, probably not even at an opera. In fact, judging by the behavior of the attendees following the event, you'd have a tough time finding churches in which people display more patience as others make their way to the exits.
Dave Roever, a Vietnam veteran, offered a closing prayer in which he thanked the Lord for the president and for the Congress. Despite the unpopularity of the latter two, no booing or catcalls could be heard.
After the event, walking from the Lincoln Memorial's reflecting pool through Constitution Gardens, this reporter scanned 360 degrees and could not see a scrap of trash anywhere.
-----------
I find Beck to be a clown and I'm not a fan, but too many liberal pundits act like this was the reincarnation of the Nuremberg Rally.
Thousands of Americans attended a political event, had a good time, didn't resort to violence, didn't leave a mess and went home. We should be proud of these citizens no matter what our political opinions are.
I heard an interview with a minister on NPR who had attended the rally, and I was impressed that a large group of people holding diverse religious beliefs could assemble and be polite. I, personally, find no fault in his gathering. Apparently, the message was simply getting back to core values.
Hitchens isn't denying that in his column, nor is he calling it the second Nuremberg. He's simply pointing out that a lot of the sentiments within the crowd were that some of America's white citizens seem to be afraid of multi-culturalism. The NPR story also touched on the terms now used for Obama's "brand" of Christianity and that it might be a bit steeped in racist fear.
Ok, Brandon. We agree on more than Elvis. As I have posted here (I am repetitive, admittedly; did I mention that I repeat myself?),the left's effort to demonize this event was misguided, inaccurate, lame, and had, from my perspective, the heretofore inconceivable effect of making Beck look reasonable and moderate in his judgments by comparison to his critics. NOT a good day for the Probamas.
Lincoln and the Glenn Beck Rally
Good stuff!
I agree that this crowd behaved themselves (it was smart to disallow signs) and i don't have a problem with it other than a media overplay of it. I think most of these people are misguided and trapped by the propaganda. Most have this "uneasy" feeling about Pres. Obama that they can't quite figure out (some don't even realize it's probably associated with racism.) So that's Fox's cue to make them really scared, throw out Nazi, Muslim, and "Born in Kenya" and repeat it so many times it sticks. These Tea Partiers shout about getting the government out of their business, but Fineman (Newsweek) interviewed several of them and most get Social Security or Medicare and seem content with many government services. It's pure brainwashing, I'm telling you!
I'll give my two cents I guess. When Alveda King, niece of MLK, says that not only is this rally fine, but that she will attend and be part of it, then I it is certainly fine. Quite frankly, I watched it all on TV, which I doubt most of you did, and there wasn't anything political I saw about it. There were folks there that had voted for Obama, one in fact that handed out some of the "Great Citizenship" Awards.
In terms of Tea Partiers, I am infuriated that many are on some of our government programs, and therefore we must cut back on federal programs, not state programs, but rather federal programs for now. We've created a path that is completely unsustainable. Sure, is it nice to get free health care when you're old, of course. Can we afford it? No, of course not!
The same goes with defense. Sure is it nice to have troops parked all around in the world in places like Korea and Germany as well as the Middle East? In some ways, yes, in other ways, no (I personally think no, but others say yes). Can we afford it? No, of course not!
It would be like a family running its budget and saying, "Well we make $70,000 a year between the two of us (husband and wife), and we'll pay our rent and taxes only to be left with at best $10,000, probably less. The economy isn't good, but man, wouldn't it be good for us to go to the spa every saturday! Its good for our health! You know what, even though our budget is getting tighter and tighter, I think the best way that we can get ourselves to a better situation is to just keep going to the spa and racking up debt. We're going to feel better even though we'll be in $250,000 of debt next year! In fact, we'll eventually get debt free by doing this!"
Now do you folks FINALLY see where I'm coming from? I think that if we can afford it, just like in the Clinton years, we should have lots of programs. As long as we have a balanced budget, go ahead, let's have lots of programs; however, when we're $13 trillion in the gutter, it just isn't sustainable.
Allowing our neediest citizens to finally get access to health care is hardly "spa" treatment. However, tax cuts for the rich or allowing big banks more loopholes is along the "spa" analogy and those must be cut out of the picture. So, yes, there are places to save but hitting the poor again and again making it tougher for them to "escape" the cycle they are in makes no sense since helping more people out of poverty would add to our tax base. I also agree we can save alot of money by ending our wars and military presense, although it can't be an all or nothing when it comes to national security. I guess that's my biggest issue with strict libertarianism. All or nothing. No grey areas. Just black or white.
I recall a survey awhile back and Republicans/Tea Partiers overwhelmingly preferred "tax cuts" to "reducing the deficit." After all their town halls screaming over Obamacare, that's their bottom line? That makes no sense to me. There are some people who actually think it makes sense to cut taxes for the millionaires but have a fit when we spend much less money (in fact, reducing the deficit) providing health care for those in need. Pardon the pun, but that's just sick.