As a person who has diabetes, I am infuriated at the propaganda being churned out by the current occupant of the Oval Office and his underlings in furtherance of America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 (ObamaCare).

***

Either this president doesn’t comprehend the basics of medical care in America or he’s deliberately lying because he wants to put us in that hunk of junk I mentioned above.

That “***” part is a lot more interesting in the full test version of her post.

Her writing brought out a different personal perspective for me. Comparing Obama’s salesmanship to that of the typical used car dealer, she writes:

Many people won’t go near a used car lot for fear of being ripped off. The shady used car salesman still remains the measuring stick for all professions that are frowned upon. Society views used car salesmen as sleazy shysters who will do whatever it takes to get you into a hunk of junk.

"Have I got a health plan for you!"

I used to sell used cars. Well, new and used, from the same lot. (And now I’m a lawyer, which many would see as a natural progression, but my car-selling colleagues saw as a definite step down in terms of what it would do for my reputation for veracity.) Anyway, during my year-long stint selling cars just prior to law school, I learned a shocking truth: used (and new) car customers frequently lie through their teeth to the salesman in an effort to get what they want. Sometimes, it’s to avoid buying the car (“My wife has to see it first,” “I left my credit cards at home”), but they also do it to try to get the car (“My trade is in great shape,” “I can get it for $3,000 less at the other dealer”).

So, shouldn’t we likewise be suspicious of the consumers in this health care debate? I think there is substantial truth-stretching going on all over the place. Probably on both sides, but especially from those presenting the consumer-side arguments for Obamacare.

By making “conservative” arguments for liberal policies, these treacherous elitists [Conor Friedersdorf, et al. ] convey the message that conservatives are not really committed to opposing liberalism. So Democrats can ram through their agenda, and then the “conservative” intellectuals will join the Consensus Chorus telling us that this is a necessary “reform” which would be political suicide to attempt to repeal.

McCain, without saying it, has presented the operational definition of “bipartisanship.” This is why Democrats always say they are for “bipartisanhip.” It sounds good and makes them look good because people hearing the word don’t define it this way. And the only sacrifice bipartisanship demands from liberals, at most, is that their policies are implemented incrementally rather than in one fell swoop, with conservatives Republicans signing off on each incremental step as “proof” that everyone supports that step.

Democrats who tout bipartisanship never mean that they are willing to lend some support to conservative ideas or even give them an honest hearing. In other words, they don’t use the word the way the general public understands it. But the real crime is that Republicans who tout bipartisanship aren’t looking for that either. Instead of seeking liberal support for conservative ideas, they are willing to implement liberal policies one step at a time and call each such step a “victory.”

Bipartisanship is a four-letter word in my book and, if you ask me — and I’ll assume you have, if you’re reading this — it should be a four-letter word to every conservative.

See McCain’s post at his own blog, too.

The debate went well beyond whether Whelan was being pissy. And, while most appreciate that the dispute sparked debate on the legitimacy of anonymous blogging, Rick Moran takes aim at anonymous blog commenters. He opens the issue with this irony, but there’s much, much more at the link:

I note a couple of things from the comments and emails I’ve received on this matter. First, I found it more just a little ironic that many of those defending Whelan were anonymous commenters themselves. I think it also revealing – at least, based on an unscientific survey of comments on my site and elsewhere – that many bloggers, even on the right, sympathized with Publius and even supported his right to anonymity while many commenters did not.

The real issue of anonymity as far as I’m concerned has nothing to do with bloggers but rather with those who comment on their sites. Yes, there is a difference – a big one. I don’t think I can recall a single instance where a blog commenter lost their job, or was harassed or stalked, or suffered in any way for commenting on a blog post using their own name. If there are such cases, they must be very rare and not well publicized. What are the chances of an employer of a blog commenter who uses their real name, running across a comment made on a website – even if they’re looking for it – and firing that commenter for something he said.

Moran has a point on the difference in effect, perhaps. But I would limit the validity of his larger point to anonymous commenters who provide no contact information or link to their own sites. Many commenters are bloggers themselves, who comment in part to generate traffic back to their own blog (without being too blatant about it, usually.) If anonymity is OK on their blogs, it has to be OK for their comments. Moran e this in response to a commenter who defended anonymous commenting by anonymous bloggers, especially attorney bloggers like me. I wouldn’t call it backpedaling, just a clarification (no direct links, but see comment n0s. 4 and 12 and on the post):

Like you, I’m sure Publius comments on blog posts at other sites. But people like you and Publius get a pass in my book simply because you are bloggers and your work is much easier to find than a troll whose comments are difficult to discover using a search engine. This makes them invisible – and reckless, in my opinion.

This was one of my beefs back when I frequented Usenet.  (Does anybody still use Usenet?) But anonymity seemed largely built into that system as I reall, as the newsgroups would automatically use your ISP username.

Moran ultimately distinguishes between the drive-by commenter trying to stir a hornet’s nest and those offering more substantive points. Which seems to have been the distinction that many discussed in their blog posts about the merits of anonymous blogging

Where to draw the line on outing anonymous bloggers? See how more than 6600 readers voted at HotAir on the question “When is it OK to out anonymous bloggers?” (Scroll to the bottom of that post.)

UPDATE: Oops. Originally posted with wrong title. Fixed.

UPDATE #2: and . . . oops #2. HotAir link fixed. Along with half a dozen typos. Criminy.

Oddly, it seems that Arlen Specter’s party switch may actually make it easier for Republicans to block any radical that President Obama nominates to replace retiring Supreme Court Justice David Souter. By a quirk of senate procedure, as Professor Jacobson explains, Specter would have had more power as a member of the minority party to stick the knife in the Republicans’ back and move a lefty nominee out of committee to a floor vote. Now that he is a majority party member, his power to do so is diluted.

At first, that revelation was rather heartening. As you may know, I have no qualms about Republicans doing everything in their power to defeat a truly radical nominee (and you know that’s exactly what we’re going to get). But given the general lack of balls among Senate Republicans, I’m equally certain they won’t try very hard, so my excitement over Professor Jacobson’s post didn’t last long. As several of the commenters at his post note, someone else will cave.

H/T: The Anchoress, who also offers up this gem regarding the fact the first SCOTUS retirement in Obama’s presidency is Souter::

I am frankly surprised. I was under the impression that John Paul Stevens had been sucking formaldehyde every day in an effort to outlast President Bush.

“Sucking formaldehyde.”  What a picture!

I remember when I first started reading blogs back in 2003 or so, I checked in at Sullivan’s “The Daily Dish” every once in a while and had to ask myself every time, “Why the hell is everyone talking about this guy?”  The only thing I could figure was that he got traffic for the novelty of being  a prominent “gay conservative” voice.

This guy goes on and on about being a “true conservative” yet is the whiniest blogger I’ve seen anywhere.  He is very deserving of the nickname Ace gave him: “St. Andrew of the Sacred Heart-Ache.”

Please, I am urging, begging, all five of my regular readers to vote every day (that’s allowed, you know) for HotAir.  Click the image or here to vote, and do it every day through the close of voting on January 12.  Imagine how terible you’ll feel if you don’t vote for HotAir and Sullivan wins by 20 votes.

Fred Phelps (Image via Wikipedia)

According to this Kansas City Star story, the Kansas Supreme Court has struck down the ban on funeral picketing (enacted to stop Fred Phelps and his disgusting followers from disrupting the funerals of American servicemen).

Interestingly, though, the law is not invalidated on free speech grounds but for technical separation of powers reasons that only lawyers (or “damn lawyers,” if you prefer) would find interesting. The legislature might act again, but . . . the provision that got the ban invalidated this time was designed to prevent the state from paying attorney fees in the event Phelps & Co. sue successfully to have it overturned. Without that insurance against future attorney fees, some lawmakers may not support it.

Hat tip: How Appealing.