Sounds an awful lot like eMeg's constant-saturation ads running out here, where she promises to (paraphrasing) "rein in spending (and fire a bunch of state workers) and put people back to work."

Really? Does that statement come with a diagram? Showing exactly how those two disparate and contradictory concepts are to be reconciled?

Maybe not quite as egregious, by degree, as Lowden's stupidity, but shouldn't subverting your own logic and making such nakedly nonsensical statements be an instant disqualification? Sorry, rhetorical question, forgot where I was there for a second.

Maybe this will fool some voters, but it shouldn't.

Maybe people shouldn't like anchovies, but some do.

Alternatively, maybe a politician should actively point out that Medicare IS a fully government-run health-care system, that it works pretty well, and ask voters to consider whether they want to elect someone who obviously doesn't know the Earth is round. And maybe s/he should ask voters to consider in addition whether they would prefer instead to pay for their, or their mother's or father's, health care out of pocket, and point out how much that would cost. And maybe s/heshould make that point again and again, as stridently and forcefully as the Republicans make theirs.

Ha! Now that's silly.

And the opponent should toss it back in her face -- "do you want someone who does not even know that Medicare really is government-run health care, making decisions about your health care?"

There's already a bureaucrat between me and my doctor. He works for the insurance company.

Oxymorons - Gigantic Shrimp / Private Medicare / Welfare State / Republican Leaders / Smartly Stupid / Sue Lowden!

Somehow I am getting the idea we are quickly losing the collective wisdom necessary to move civil, small d democracy forward for our children's children! -Kevo

it's too bad you can't sue somebody for lying all the time. maybe the publicity of a legal action would get the media's attention. then again, maybe not.....

The Republicans know that you can go a long way in politics by just lying with a straight face. Until that stops working (and that doesn't seem likely to happen anytime soon), they'll keep doing it.

in re just bill:
If I lie on my 1040, I am liable for penalties, interest and possible criminal prosecution. If I lie to a judge or police officer or on a government form, I am held accountable. If I lie or by mistake misrepresent a pre-existing condition, I can have my medical benefits cut off, resulting in my death.

A congressperson lies in a campaign ad, on the floor of Congress, to the media and threatens their constituents with false consequences from proposed legislation and actual programs,and there is no consequence. I wonder if this is a valid defense in a court of law? The SCOTUS?

keep the government's hands off my medicare!
/snark
the mind reels....

The Republicans know that you can go a long way in politics by just lying with a straight face. Until that stops working (and that doesn't seem likely to happen anytime soon), they'll keep doing it.

Yes, it worked WONDERS for them in 2006 and 2008, didn't it. I'm sure that Democrats could make big gains in 2010 and 2012 and we'd STILL hear endlessly how successful Republicans are.

And hey, maybe things will change this year and their lies will start working again, but could we at least wait until after the election before we decide that Republican lies are effective? I mean, hell, the last really GOOD year Republicans had was 2002, and that had more to do with 9/11 freakout than anything else. Before that, we have to go to 1994 to find a sweeping victory for them. That's hardly a track record to be proud of.

I, for one, think that as long as Republicans continue to embarrass themselves with obvious lies, the longer it will be until they can finally develop decent policies and strategies. That's when I'll start worrying. But as long as they keep using the 1994 playbook, I'm fine with that.

If I lived in Nevada, I would ask:

What kind of health care Ms. Lowden has currently? Or will have if she is elected?

I would check with her to see what percentage of Nevada citizens are currently without any health care at all, and the number of small businesses that can't/don't offer it to Nevada employees.

And if health care isn't passed, shall Ms. Lowden be asked what she will do for her uninsured constituents if she's voted into office?

Lastly, I would ask: if she gains a government seat, will she then be part of the government who is trying to run health-care, or will that only be the (D) half of government?

Lastly, I would do a poll of the uninsured in Nevada, to see who's willing to pay for their messages?

There's no ignoring that a huge chunk of American voters are, well, stupid. These are the same voters who repeal taxes, but then bitch endlessly about potholes, waiting lines at government offices, and closed rest area restrooms.

And of course, a lot of these people think that all tax cuts are good, tax cuts stimulate the economy, and that the biggest problem facing the country is a budget deficit.

Go figure...

If you met my 80 yo parents you would understand that this REALLY WORKS - and quite well.

They are terrified (no exaggeraton) that the evil Obama will get government into Medicare and ruin it.

They have been quite happy with government run Medicare for 15 years, and that never enters their mind to counter the bull from Fox News.

Actually there is a logic to Lowden's comment that is as old as conservatism itself, which is to say 250 years or so.

A couple hundred years ago English conservatives divided the people at large into the "deserving" poor and the "undeserving" poor and attempted to direct any poor relief to the former or at least make any relief directed to the latter as degrading as possible, think Oliver Twist. This was not racist in origin, Britain at that point not being much differentiated by race, although ethnicity did play a role.

That attitude just carried over to modern movement conservatism and mixed into a toxic racist stew. In any event there are government services that the "deserving" get that are perceived as being "earned" and so in that sense not "governmental", a word that is associated with services delivered to the "undeserving", i.e. the people who ate 'government cheese'.

In the conservative mindset 'government' = 'handout' while 'VA health care' = 'earned benefit', that the person supplying the service is a government employee or that with Medicare the ultimate funding comes from Medicare just doesn't signify anything to people who view the world through a lens that puts the "deserving" over here and the "undeserving" over there. That is "Other" is not always coded by race.

Most people don't approach these issues using the neat categories you might have learned in H.S. Civics, instead words like 'government' are loaded in subtle ways that defy logical understanding.

Steve writes:"t Medicare is a single-payer, socialized-medicine plan. It works and Americans love it"

Oh, thanks a heap, Steve! Americas DID love it; until you spilled the beans. . .

And don't discount the fact that people think they actually paid for their Medicare and are continuing to pay for a significant portion of it through their monthly premium. Actuarially this isn't actually true in anything but a symbolic way, but then most people are not actuaries.

If you sincerely don't know that your Medicare premiums only pay for about 12% of the average cost you can fall into the mental trap of thinking that Medicare wasn't 'really' government health care, after all they are deducting money out of your Social Security check every month to 'pay' for it.

You say the VA and Medicare "work well", and that Americans love them?

The question is, Work well for whom?

It apparently doesn't work very well for the lobbying community: You don't hear much love coming from them.

It doesn't work well for insurance companies: They're not getting even a little piece of that action.

It sure doesn't work for Republicans: Just how many campaign contributions does Medicare generate? How about the VA?

Medicare and the VHA only work for patients and health care professionals, and they're only concerned with health care, not the bigger picture.

Putting it all in perspective, it's pretty clear what's missing from the HRC proposals: Direct payments to Republican members of Congress. Given how cheaply they sell their votes, we should be able to outbid the insurance companies for less than $1M per Senator, or a mere $41 million/year.

Now that's change the Republicans can believe in!

Medicare is a single-payer government-run medical insurance program.

Medicare is NOT socialized medicine; medicare is socialized medical insurance.

As I've said here before: P. T. Barnum was the great American philosopher. "There's a sucker born every minute." Look at John McCain's senate campaign.

Will this media assault be counter-attacked with more-than-equal strength. She needs to be called a liar or an idiot in those terms -- with, of course, showing why she is.