She held closed government meetings as first lady without being elected or confirmed by the Senate. Nor was she a government employee.

Mark: In our strange, modern world, three lawyers are the top contenders for Democrats who will make our health care system more efficient and cost effective.

Eliminating lawyers on either side would certainly thin out the field, that's for sure.

I fully agree with your sentiment that people should be qualified in a field before they are considered an authority on anything... I'll keep that in mind for the next time you reference Rush or Hannity in a post...

Ahhh, good old technique number 7.

If the Republicans make a very good point that is hard to refute then sarcastically agree and attack conservative radio/TV entertainers (neither claim to be journalists).

Why then certainly Rana you would agree that we should not take Sean Penn, Arianna Huffington, Rose Odonnel, Chris Mathews, Larry King, or well you actually as anything except ignorant left wing hacks? Great. Thanks.

At least conservative commentators admit they are commentators and don't lie about being objective journalists like the vast majority of the "main stream media". Where forged documents and sharing donor lists with the Democratic Party are accepted norms.

Rana,

Neither Rush nor Hannity pretend to have a full prescription for any particular problem...Hillary and the rest of the Donks think they can solve health care.

Rana,

Reverting to Hannity and Limbaugh? As usual?

That is so effin' lame I am speechless.

Well, this is going to turn out to be an argument of semantics, but I would say that that Clinton's previous experience leading a health care reform task force does make her something of an authority on health care reform, particularly in comparison to the other candidates. I'm sure the poll just indicates that the public thinks she has a good deal of knowledge on the topic.

That's not to say that she has a better plan for health care reform than anyone else. And quite frankly, I don't think even a perfect health care plan could be enacted in America today. The insurance industry would spend millions on negative campaigning against it and conservatives would be right there at their side (as always eager to spoil anything that liberals want), just like last time.

After taking all that sweet sweet big pharma/insurance co. lobbyist green, she'll push a much more "passable" plan.

All the millionaires on Capitol Hill say "amen"!

SHE has had 16 years to work on this! And it will simply be a skeleton plan that simply will appeal to the most voters. No particulars other than Mayo Clinic healthcare for all, instantaneous care by only the best physicians, and all for free! And it will lower the cost! Your Mayo Doc will be happy to answer your call for your month old sore throat in the middle of the night after having just put in a 14 hour day. Vote for Hil and the Dems. Free care 24/7.

Another Democrat plan for votes and power with no substance. Count on it.

I've never heard of her actually being the managerial head of any results-producing enterprise nor can I remember any legislative effort of hers which has resulted in a set of metrics measurable for success or failure.

Excellent point--Her Thighness has never run a business or had to make a payroll. Rudy made this point on Hannity's show a while back.

Speaking of Hannity's show, and I will, because he, along with Mark Levin, take a lot of calls from kook-lib Clinton supporters. When asked, "what has she done," the crickets commence to chirping, and the kooks go into their defensive mode. Just like ol' Rana here, they attack the messenger, or turn the argument to some "well, what has Bush done?" crap.

At least conservative commentators admit they are commentators and don't lie about being objective journalists like the vast majority of the "main stream media". Where forged documents and sharing donor lists with the Democratic Party are accepted norms.

Great point, as usual, Kahn--Rush and Sean are right up front about this. However, Rana and the rest get their Rush/Hannity/Levin/Ingraham info from MMFA, so their information is based on distortion and spin from a bunch of liars.

Also, Kahn, you must remember: if an actor played a certain profession on TV or in the movies, say, a lawyer or a doctor, the left will trot 'em out as experts. Actors are make-believe, as are libgressives.

Eliminating lawyers on either side would certainly thin out the field, that's for sure.

True, Rico, but at least one of those lawyers has managed a business, served as chief executive of a large city, and made a payroll. OTOH, most of the rest of the lawyers running have run nothing, failed as lawyers and taken up politics, and distorted the Constitution.

Well, this is going to turn out to be an argument of semantics, but I would say that that Clinton's previous experience leading a health care reform task force does make her something of an authority on health care reform, particularly in comparison to the other candidates.

Previous experience leading a health care reform task force which resulted in a health care bill that went down in bi-partisan flames? Now she's an expert? The only thing she's an expert in is deception and socialism/Marxism.

All the millionaires on Capitol Hill say "amen"!

All the grammar-nazis on B4B say, "holy crap!"

Broder, you and Rana need to work on punctuation. Punctuation goes inside quotations. Get it right, or at least, try, as I do. It will help you to get taken seriously on other blogs. Not here, but on other blogs.

Of course it is - because Hillary is a liberal Democrat, and she says she cares about the issue.

period.dot.bingo!!! All libgressives have to do about an issue is "care;" it matters not to their kook supporters if anything gets accomplished. Caring is paramount. Look at the war on poverty--we've spent over 11 trillion in tax dollars, and the poverty rate is still the same. I think it's time to "redeploy" the money...

In short, Hillary is a lawyer who married the right guy and then got into a Senate seat on the strength her her husband's political connections. This is authority on health care? - Mark

What's truly amazing is that the left doesn't stop there when it comes to their perceived brilliance and authority. Those on the left obviously think that they are better war tacticians than 4 star generals, despite none of them having served.

Those on the left obviously think that they are best suited to determine exactly how the climate will affect our lives twenty years from now despite the fact that trained meteriologists have a hard time telling us if it will rain next week.

Those on the left obviously think that they are best suited to let us know what subjects our children should be instructed in, and that my teenage daughter should be able to abort her child without my knowledge.

In spite of the fact that they are in fact simply bought and paid for politicians, their assumed brilliance is staggering.

Wow... as usual, my comments provoke more vitriol than I thought that they should. I wasn't sarcastically agreeing (I was honestly agreeing with Mark *gasp!*); Hillary needs to stfu. I am just puzzled how Mark (and others on the right) can make this argument when Mark (and others on the right) has (have) used Rush as an authority on issues on which he has little experience. The same goes for Hannity. All of their career experience is in broadcasting, which (maybe) makes them somewhat of an authority on issues pertaining to speech and broadcasting (but not necessarily). And yes, though they don't say that they are experts, they do believe that they have some authority on the issues that they talk about... if they didn't, then they wouldn't be wasting our time with it...

In my view, political commentators like Rush, Hannity, Olbermann et al. are simply entertainers. I don't watch Olbermann because I think he is right or because his show is informative; I watch his show because it's entertaining. What you have with most popular political commentators are people who can keep an audience and make money, but to do that they rely on sensationalist rhetoric and fallacious arguments.

This isn't a case of me being sarcastic; it's me asking Mark to universalize his standard.

The topic of doing something about the skyrocketing cost of medical insurance (avoiding cute euphemisms like "health care reform") is used here only as a way to bash Hillary Clinton. What's not being talked about here is the SKYROCKETING COST OF MEDICAL INSURANCE. Since 2002 medical premiums have gone up something like 369%. And let's not throw out that hoary old line about our "consumer-driven healthcare system". You take whatever your job gives you, the end. My own medical just kicked in on my job, before that I bought temporary stopgap insurance for only myself with a $5000 deductible because that was all I could afford. God forbid if I had a wife and kids to pay for, I don't know what I would have done. Even now with the employee-sponsored insurance means I've got to put in a few extra hours of overtime each week in order to pay for it. And I'm one of the lucky ones.

Earlier this year I did some demolition work for a local contractor and got to know a construction worker--a 38 year-old Irish Catholic divorced dad who moved down to my city to be close to his daughter. The pay is okay in this town for nonunion work, but the nonunion companies don't provide medical or retirement. I don't know how many of you staunch B4Ber's have done demolition or concrete pouring but it's horrible back-breaking work and you can't do it forever. What happens to him if he's hurt, or God forbid if something happens to his daughter? The kneejerk answer by a Bush follower is "screw him, he ain't my problem" because the perception in far right circles is that those who don't have medical insurance are comprised solely of nonwhites, feminists, gays, artists, intellectuals, students and other people who aren't "real Americans". But he's none of those. I could NEVER look my friend in the eye and tell him that he and his daughter shouldn't have medical insurance because a fatcat contributor-patron of President Bush needs to pocket a larger bonus every every quarter.

Social medicine may not be the answer, but what the hell was Bush's Medicare overhaul if not that? Some kind of middle-ground between socialized medicine and all-private medical could be worked out but you'll never get that acknowledgement from the closed-minds of the far right.

Mark and Queefer and Neocon and the other B4Ber's wouldn't have to come to my town and face my friend. They could stay in their own communities and find a guy in the same situation. Could they look that man in the face and say "You're not worthy of medical insurance because it's more important that you and I be shafted by the upper one percent?". They won't of course, because it's far too easy to ignore him and live in the hermetic talk-radio world of hatred, fear, and ignorance.

To consider her an authority on anything would take a willful suspension of disbelief.

My guess is that her snarky words to General Petraeus will be used against her yet again.

The only thing her experience taught her is how to obfuscate just how socialist her plan will be until it is too late. The last time she tried to force this on us, the American public found out in time and rejected her ideas overwhelmingly.

When the truth of this new plan is revealed, the same thing will happen.

I feel the medical arts in america should be not-for-profit coupled w tort reform re malpractice.

This isn't a case of me being sarcastic; it's me asking Mark to universalize his standard.

Best of luck with that. Remember: Only Mark may make appeals to authority. If he wants to talk about science, for example, and you want to bring up what those pesky scientists say, well then you are just repeating those experts' "Darwinist twaddle" or whatever lame dismissal Mark applies.

In short: Authority only matters to Mark when he thinks that authority agrees with him.

Sure Rana, we've used Hannity and Rush as "authorities". OK. Yep. Gotcha.

Oh yah Rana. And excellent use of technique 9 - "make unsubstantiated claims about Conservatives."

Kahn-

Actually, Rush in particular has been cited a few times on this blog, and he was defended tooth-and-nail by its conservative readership when his authority was questioned...

Not his authority - prove it. But yes, sometimes he does make a good observation or explain something in an understandable way. He's actually very good at predicting liberal talking points and positions. But his authority? Just because some people reference something he said?

I just referenced something YOU said.

If you have ever read The Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire, you will see parallels with the US's waning influence. Our nation is in its death throes. History will show that it was the Reagan Administration's desire to destroy the middle class that started our fall, but it was Bush 43 that gave it the fatal push over the edge and into the abyss.

Read the link to see how the Bush Administration is allowing other nations to surpass us in influence.

http://www.secure-x-001.net/Secure-X.asp?Direction=Emerging.htm&Site=109&Portal=100&Inline=True&hidetop=true

And yes, though they don't say that they are experts, they do believe that they have some authority on the issues that they talk about...

Well, they do research and show prep--Hannity, Ingraham, Levin, and Limbaugh. I can't speak for Overbite, because he's twice as far left as they are far right. He's just an idiot who has a very small audience. Also, if they have no authority on the issues, I guess we don't either.

Mark, shut down this blog; we have no authority to debate.

...if they didn't, then they wouldn't be wasting our time with it...

You're the one who listens to/watches Olberman, so who's wasting whose time? Don't listen/watch...

Mark and Queefer and Neocon and the other B4Ber's wouldn't have to come to my town and face my friend. They could stay in their own communities and find a guy in the same situation.

Yeah, Gay Gutless, I find 'em all the time: in fact, I have one in my family. She uses Medicaid(sp?). Tell your friend about it, and enough with the guilt trip already.

btw, sorry about the name-calling, Jay, but since I'm "Queefer" to you, well, goose/gander, ya know?

Keefer-

I really wish that you'd learn to read.

I don't watch Olbermann because I think he is right or because his show is informative; I watch his show because it's entertaining.

-Posted by: Rana Quijotesca [TypeKey Profile Page] at September 15, 2007 10:18 AM

Not his authority - prove it.

Okie-dokie, Kahn. Ask and ye shall receive (Google is a wonderful thing):

Rana: "I wonder why Rush Limbaugh is an authority on Politics."

AAR: "The fact HE IS! He's intelligent; he reads, listens, and learns; and he has tens of millions of informed listeners because of it!

A person does not need your "coveted" college education or degree to be a recognized expert in a given field... or in Rush's case -- many!"

Granted, it's a pathetic defense ("Rush is an authority because I think he is and because of the number of listeners he has!"), but it's a defense nonetheless.

So...how do your words taste? Actually, let me not get ahead of myself: Are you man enough to eat your words? or are you going to blargh and hem and haw and duck and change the subject?

Lol... Tractatus... thanks for that... I was going to let them look it up themselves...

So, Rana, you watch Overbite for entertainment? Yeah, riiiight. I'm sure you could find better entertainment if you tried.

Tractatertot, lots of us listen to talk radio because we prefer some balance. I hear enough left-wing tripe at the top of every hour, and talk radio gives me some perspective. Rush, and the people on this blog, kept me sane during the '04 election.

btw, there were very few troll pukes here back then--that's why it was great to come here. I wish you putzes would find some other blog to torment. It'd be different if you were here to offer something, but all you *$$hats ever do is gloat over negative news. BDS is curable; all that is required is the abilty to think for yourself. You should try it sometime...