411 Politics Fact or Fiction: Week 133 – Sanford and Family Values, Healthcare, the Jackson Funeral, Obama VS the Russians, Dick Cheney and more on What’s-her-name from Alaska

Posted by Mark Radulich on 07.10.2009

Another week and another great debate, this time with people from opposite political persuasions.

You wanted a real debate with participants from opposite ends of the political spectrum, well you got it in spades this week. You've seen them lob bombs at one another in the comments section and now I've been able to put the two of them in the ring to fight it out again. This is the kind of warrior drama you can only find on…an internet politics column…ahem.

This war of words actually brought former Fact or Fiction editor Brandon Crow out of retirement (possibly for the last time) to do battle with John Galbraith, a former participant during the Crow Era Fact or Fiction and frequent commenter here in the Politics Zone.

Before I let these two have at one another I'm sending out the word again to all of you to come on in and take a stab at Fact or Fiction yourself. In fact, if you've got a beef with another commenter, settle your differences right here. I'm telling you it makes for a much more interesting read when I know ahead of time that the two participants agree on nothing. I'll even give you a heads up: One of the statements next week will be about Cap and Trade/Tax. And unless she punches a small child in the mouth, I'm done with Sarah Palin for the immediate future as that mine has been stripped clean.

One last thing, the opponents were not able to respond to each other due to time constraints so no switching this week.

Now hit the lights!

Ding Ding!

1) Despite Palin's resignation, she will be running for President in 2012.

Brandon Crow: FACT. Well, I know there's always an element of speculation required in these F or F answers, but damn Radulich, you're asking us to be downright clairvoyant here! Ok, so doing my best to put myself into the former beauty queen's shoes, I'm saying this is a fact. Why? Because Palin strikes me as a person indisputably afflicted with an addictive personality. Take a look at some of the classic symptoms: self-destructive, compulsive behaviors, difficulty with delayed gratification, a strong disposition towards sensation seeking, and lastly, a heightened inclination towards/a weak commitment to daily routines and duties.

Don't these charateristics scream Sarah Palin?

I think she'll run because she got addicted to the "spotlight," even when negative--she just blames everything on any form of negative attention, whether correct or not--and she can't give it up any more. Look how she runs to the media again and again just to blame it for being negative.

Palin got a sniff of "high office" when McCain caved to the Christian Fundamentalist wing of the Republican Party back in August of 2008. Even though her ticket lost, she thinks it bodes well for her. Palin wants the spotlight, and thinks running for president will give her the ultimate "high" for exposure and coverage So, yeah, "in a word," she will definitely run for president in 2012...you betcha!

John Galbraith: Fiction. I don't know why she would bother. Palin will not win and why would you put your family through all of the B.S. that she has had to deal with in the past. Palin's poll numbers have fallen in her home state, sort of stunning seeing that 9 months ago Palin was as popular as a thin Elvis. I just don't see her being able to overcome the negative connotations being put on her about her sudden resignation.

I have been a huge Palin fan, I am disappointed things worked out the way they did. I think the way she was treated by the hate media was one of the low points in American political coverage. Between MSNBCs nightly obsession with slamming her, to the Daily Kos putting on articles saying Trig wasn't her baby, it was shameful. Add David Letterman making an ass out of himself and liberal blogger Linda Kellen Blair photoshoping pictures of her 15 month old baby, it was truly sad to see the left wing get so out of hand. Barrack Obama said the family should be off limits during the campaign. Some in the media apparently didn't care. If she would run, the coverage from the hate media would just get worse………….if that's possible.

Write a book, give speeches, make a ton of dough, be a good mom, but do not run for president.

0 and 1 to start. These two go on like this through the whole column, it's fantastic. I think she'll run too obviously but I couldn't be certain whether or not she actually thinks she'll win. Running for President raises cache value. She becomes more of a hot media commodity by running and also becomes a party leader. Look, Sharpton and Jesse Jackson both ran knowing full well that didn't have a prayer and both raised their inherent value with their own party. I believe this is her intention though winning wouldn't suck either. And hey Crow, I'll do the psychoanalysis around here buddy, quit muscling in on my territory. : )

2) In light of the Mark Sanford scandal, the GOP should cease making "family values" a centerpiece of their platform as it's a loser for them and their own leaders can't stick by it.

Brandon Crow: FACT. A million times FACT!! They should have stopped this back in the Clinton impeachment days. Newt Gingrich led that impeachment and he was committing adultery left and right. Well, mostly right and even further right...another primary player in the impeachment was Henry Hyde, who had an adulterous affair when he was 41. Of course, when he copped to it, he was like 97 or something, and brushed it off as a "youthful indiscretion." This may all have been "good and proper" save for the fact that at 41, Hyde was only a few years younger than Clinton was when the Lewinsky scandal broke.

And do I need to even bring up the fact that at least Democrats "sin" with the opposite sex, and adults, unlike Mark Foley, Larry Craig and that "holy man of god," Reverend Ted Haggard, who sooooo kindly bought drugs from a his male prostitute/dealer so he can throw it in the trash and keep kids from getting their hands on it...

Republicans played this card well for quite a while. Until all their own dirty little secrets came out. At this point, all of their "preachifying" just makes them look like a bunch of sanctimonious assholes...a point the rest of the country is finally catching on to.

John Galbraith: Fiction. Maybe if the GOP would actually practice what they preached, they would not be in the situation they are in now. A lot of the GOPs platform resonates with normal American people. Small government, fiscal restraint, strong national defense and personal accountability is a great message.

The problem is that Bush spent like a drunken democrat, the republican led congress grew government to unprecedented levels and a bunch of them can't keep it in their pants. Look Sanford is an idiot for so many reasons. If you leave the continent to get some, then you're pathetic. I have an idea for GOP leaders; have sex with your wife. Every time this crap happens, it distracts Americans from real issues like cap and trade, North Korea, and the massive inflation that's about to happen in our economy.

0 for 2. Personal responsibility is a great message, quite possibly the best message one can give regarding personal behavior. However, it's extremely hard to codify and then enforce. This has been the problem with legislating morality. I think I'd rather the GOP focus on running on their strengths instead of being hamstrung by their weaknesses. The Dems don't make morality a centerpiece of the their national platform and nobody seems to care.

3) The Democratic administration of Barack Obama has drafted a presidential executive order that would allow the US government to hold suspected terrorist detainees indefinitely. According to the president's intentions, such suspects could be detained for long periods of time, virtually indefinitely. Apparently, as it turns out, Dick Cheney was right after all.

Brandon Crow: FICTION. This does not mean Cheney was right. It means that Obama is also wrong. In this regard, Obama has been a disappointment. The man needs to find a way to keep his campaign promise.

Having said that, I will offer one bit of equivocation. Obama is in a tough spot. Had he been president, I believe Gitmo would have never happened. However, he is now handed this very real situation created by Bush and Cheney, mostly Cheney. It's kind of hard to get other countries to take these guys after the US spent the last seven years scaring everyone into believing these guys are all uber terrorists.

It's kind of like being the guy who inherits the nuclear bomb from the guy who invented it. What do you do now? It's there, it's dangerous, and it's ugly. But it exists, no thanks to you.

John Galbraith: Fact. Civil libertarians are pissed because they bought into Obama's campaign speeches. It's a little different when you are briefed about these terrorists. They are not boy scouts. I find it comical that the very people that were constantly complaining about Bush's policies involving the holding of terrorists are now scrambling to make excuses for Obama following the same path. Rachael Maddow spoke out against his decision………..probably got cornered later by fat ass Olbermann about speaking unkindly about his man crush. Other than that and a few newspaper pieces, you have not seen much outrage.

Mark, apparently you did not get the memo from Janet Napolitano, you are not supposed to call them terrorists. You are to refer to the situation as "man caused disasters" There is no global war on terror, its "overseas contingency operations" That will solve the problem. See he will keep a successful policy, which he campaigned against; Obama will just change the vernacular to make everyone FEEL better.

0 for 3. No no no, I got the memo John, I just don't listen very well. Kind of like not wearing my seatbelt even though there's a campaign in FL to ticket people who choose to ignore the seatbelt rule…which I did and promptly got a ticket for…%$&@ing Fascists! Anywho, I'm sure I pegged someone's snarky-meter with this one but hey, I'm only human and thought issue was amusing.

4) Though some form healthcare legislation will pass, Obama will not get his dream of Universal, national healthcare reform because, there's not enough support from both the Senate Democrats or the AMA.

Brandon Crow: FACT. Though I'm not sure there isn't enough support from the AMA. The AMA was initially against any idea of a health care reform, least of which a "national system." However, after hearing from President Obama last month, the AMA has since said they are willing to consider a government sponsored system. Also, many physicians and other doctor's groups have been very vocal lately in saying that the AMA does not represent doctor's sentiments on public health options.

Obama's biggest problems are "blue dog" Democrats who are too busy trying to be Republicans than serving their people, doing their constituents will. The latest NYT poll indicates that 70% of Americans favor a national health care system. These Democrats need to shut up and get in line. And it's quite simple for them--get with the American people's plan or get voted out of office.

Obama needs to go make that absolutely clear to these "so-called" Democrats.

Health care is too vital and fundamental to be used as some sort of wedge or publicity issue. Get all Americans covered, and get them covered in an affordable, comprehensive manner. If a public, national option helps achieve that, do it. DO. IT. NOW. Plain and simple.

John Galbraith: Fact. Senate democrats know Obama-care will be a disaster. If it does not bankrupt this country I would be shocked. You simply cannot insure 48 million extra people without huge increases in taxes. Where is the money going to come from? Obama has floated the idea of taxing health care benefits. Funny, he did commercials lambasting McCain for suggesting the same thing during the campaign. Senate democrats looked at four different opinion polls and saw the opposition to taxing health care benefits ranged from 59% to 70%.

Dick Morris, former Clinton advisor, made some great points when it came to the public plan. First, you can't insure 48 million extra people with the same amount of doctors and nurses. What will result is rationing. That, among several other reasons, is why the AMA is against this plan. Secondly, don't get cancer. In Canada the death rate for cancer is 16% higher than the U.S. If you get colon cancer in Canada, the death rate is 42% compared to 31%.Why? Well the top two radiation drugs to combat colon cancer are too expensive, so they are not used.

1 for 4 and finally these two agree on something. You know there's no good answer for this. On the one hand you want to make sure people don't suffer needlessly. On the other hand, you may kill them with rationed kindness. I will tell you that if welfare is any model for doling out resources, what will end up happening is people will feel entitled to free services, never want to pick up any costs and no matter how much is spent, it will never be enough. In my line of work, Medicaid is both inefficient and abused. Now I'm not saying we shouldn't try to help who need healthcare, but the age old method of just giving not-so-free services away tends to cause more problems than it's worth.

5) The City of Los Angeles is wrong for having anything to do with (read: spending taxpayer money on) the Jackson funeral as it is a private affair and should have been kept that way.

Brandon Crow: FICTION. This one is a close one. Deep down inside, I'm bursting to scream FACT. The only reason I say fiction is because the question almost implies the city of LA had a choice in the matter. Los Angeles, like much of CA, is strapped for cash and on the verge of issuing IOUs. However, the Jackson family chose to hold MJ's memorial in LA, Staples Center specifically. Though his service is indeed a private matter, what was the city of LA supposed to do? Not provide security or porta-potties? Not control the traffic flow? Not secure the Staples Center? This is the classic rock and hard place scenario.

Should the Jackson family be upstanding citizens, stand up and flip the bill right now? Sure. But that's not likely. It would have been much easier had the Jackson just hired BlackwaterUSA and paid them like four times the salary of Los Angeles city cops...

John Galbraith: Fact. I am sort of on the fence on this one. There were a lot of media and fans in town for the funeral. These people stayed in hotels, ate out at restaurants, shopped at stores. I am sure there was some revenue that came to Los Angeles from a result of having this at the Staples Center.

I will say fact for this reason, L.A. is broke .According to the L.A. Times, budget shortfalls will reach 1 billion dollars by 2010. There are 400 immediate layoffs and the elimination of 2,800 more positions during the upcoming months. I would think holding on to employees would be more important than spending 4 million on a washed up pop star. It is pretty sad that L.A. is begging for money to cover this online. I realize that many attribute color barriers being brought down by Jackson. I have trouble getting by the pedophile charges. It creeps me out to hear him talking about "sharing a love" with children not his own.

1 for 5…we knew they couldn't agree for long. Let me ask this question, how is it that the more money you make in this country, the less you are expected to pay for services? There's a whole book on this sort of thing called Free Lunch that talks about government subsidies for private enterprises like sports stadiums and such. Look, if the Jackson family decided that MJ needed one last spectacle than they should have paid for it like everyone else would have had to. But no, he was a rich celebrity so we'll stick the taxpayers with the bill (minus donations begged for on the internet, BLECH!

6) Obama may believe we are not adversaries of the Russians, but the reality is that the Russians see it quite the opposite and will continue to manipulate Obama into a position of weakness.

Brandon Crow: FICTION. I don't believe President Obama truly believes we're not engaged in an adversarial relationship with Russia. Outwardly, he may be telling Putin and Medevev to move beyond the Cold War mentality, but I think Obama knows Putin comes out of that era, especially the KGB operations of that era.

Though some liberals may be disappointed, and conservatives loath to give Obama any credit at all, I think we all need to sit back and just let the man do his thing for a little bit. He's not yet been in office 200 days... And as much as conservatives wish it so, Obama is not weak, and he certainly isn't stupid. If we listen to what some of the most respected conservative pundits say, Obama is shrewd and pragmatic. Henry Kissinger just called Obama a great chess player.

Weak? No. Easily manipulate? Hardly. Can't survey the political landscape? Ha!

John Galbraith: Fact. Did you see the lack of interest Putin had in talking to Obama? Body language was pretty telling. Obama gave up 30% of our nuclear arsenal, for what? The Russians agreed to buy some hamburger in return. Nice trade. Did he get Russia to help with Iran? No. Obama inferred that missile defense would be removed if they helped with Iran and its nuclear program. Is that a good idea?

According to the Moscow Times, 36% of Russians are "indifferent" to Obama. 16% of Russians don't even know who he is. I think he expected to be treated like a rock star, that didn't happen. His speech at the New Economic School in Moscow had several empty seats. He didn't even receive golf claps while giving one of his rambling speeches were he tried to change history about America winning the cold war. His meeting with Medvedev was bounced off the air by a rebroadcast of a soccer match. That's right; Russia would rather watch a soccer replay than tune into Obama.

One bright spot was securing air space over Russia for our military cargo planes to fly over to Afghanistan.
I am glad Crow came out of his self imposed exile. That lasted what 6 weeks? Michael Jordan thought that retirement was short. I hope if your return is Jordan like, I get the Washington Wizard one.

1 for 6! NOW that's what I call a debate! I'm a bit of Russophile and everything I've read about Putin's Russia says that the man is embarrassed about having lost the Cold War and is on a path to remake the Soviet Union. He most likely sees Obama as useful idiot in that endeavor and I'm sure given Obama's view of the US as a bully, he's more than happy to oblige the man.

Thanks to both Brandon and John for participating. I'm sure the battle will continue in the comments section so let's have it.

If you would like to join in and play along too email me [e-mail] or leave your email address in a comment and I'll contact you.