No, truthers, this time right in Obama's administration. Obama's "green jobs" czar Van Jones got caught with his 9/11 truther pants down (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/09/controversial-obama-administration-official-denies-being-part-of-911-truther-movement-apologizes-for.html), signing a petition suggesting it was an inside job.

Jones now says the petition "does not reflect my views now or ever," even though he won't explain how his name appeared on the petition with names like Ed Asner and Janeane Garofalo who apparently have no objections to their names being the 2004 petition.

It's also come out that Jones called Republicans "a**holes" (http://www.politico.com/blogs/glennthrush/0909/Van_Jones_Ahole_remark_inappropriate.html?showall) just prior to joining the administration, and blamed "white polluters" (http://theblogprof.blogspot.com/2009/09/video-obamas-green-jobs-czar-van-jones.html) for poisoning minority communities.

Is there some reason Obama can't properly vet anyone or do these appointments really reflect his views and character? Does anyone in this technologically savvy administration even know how to Google?

No, truthers, this time right in Obama's administration. Obama's "green jobs" czar Van Jones got caught with his 9/11 truther pants down (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/09/controversial-obama-administration-official-denies-being-part-of-911-truther-movement-apologizes-for.html), signing a petition suggesting it was an inside job.

Jones now says the petition "does not reflect my views now or ever," even though he won't explain how his name appeared on the petition with names like Ed Asner and Janeane Garofalo who apparently have no objections to their names being the 2004 petition.

It's also come out that Jones called Republicans "a**holes" (http://www.politico.com/blogs/glennthrush/0909/Van_Jones_Ahole_remark_inappropriate.html?showall) just prior to joining the administration, and blamed "white polluters" (http://theblogprof.blogspot.com/2009/09/video-obamas-green-jobs-czar-van-jones.html) for poisoning minority communities.

Is there some reason Obama can't properly vet anyone or do these appointments really reflect his views and character? Does anyone in this technologically savvy administration even know how to Google?

Some more information about this guy:

Breitbart.tv Obama Czar's SHOCK ADMISSION: 'Green Jobs' Goal is 'Complete Revolution' Away From 'Gray Capitalism' (http://www.breitbart.tv/obama-czars-shock-admission-green-jobs-goal-is-complete-revolution-away-from-gray-capitalism/)

So... the guy is a Truther who believes that our own government caused 9/11, a racist (reverse racism is still racism), an anti-capitalist (as per the link above), and an all-around jerk who calls half of all Americans "a-holes".

He fits right in at the Obama White House.



Do these appointments really reflect his views and character?


Head... nail... hammer.

Elliot

Van Jones doesn't subscribe to those truther beliefs anymore if he ever did .
And he now doesn't really believe that Republicans are a$$holes .

And the President doesn't subscribe to the preaching of Rev Wright who's church he was a member of ,sat in ,and took is wife and daughter to for 20 years.

Perfect together

You guys really love pointing out pointless information. Who cares. The green job czar oh no. The country is ruined.

But on a better note Adrian Peterson (number 1 pick of our draft by me) is poised to have a monster year!! That is news.

You guys really love pointing out pointless information. Who cares. The green job czar oh no. The country is ruined.

But on a better note Adrian Peterson (number 1 pick of our draft by me) is poised to have a monster year!!!!! That is news.

It is important to know who Obama is putting into key economic positions, isn't it?

Or do you think that a member of the government, in charge of part of our economy, who wants to destroy our economy, isn't important?

It would be kind of like Brad Childress hiring a defensive coach who didn't know anything about defensive football and wanted the game of football to be outlawed. Don't you think that would be important for the Minnesota fans to know?

Elliot

You guys really love pointing out pointless information. Who cares. The green job czar oh no. The country is ruined.

Oh come on Spit, turnabout is fair play. Or is it payback is a b*tch? After all those years of hearing every conceivable evil in a Bush official, you didn't think we'd let something like this slip by did you?


But on a better note Adrian Peterson (number 1 pick of our draft by me) is poised to have a monster year!! That is news.

As are Aaron Rodgers and Michael Turner... I think I'm ready for AP.

He isn't the secretary of defense he makes green jobs. That was his job before the Admin picked him. So obviously he know how to do that. Where do you get that he wants to destroy the economy. Because of what he said over 20 years ago. Give me a break. But keep reaching one day you might actually grab something.

I was going to pick Turner number 1 but I just couldn't pass up AP. Rogers should be good this year. I got a hunch about a Raiders running back and it ain't D-McFadden

I didn't have a chance to make my 1st choice . I would've picked Larry Fitzgerald. But I got Steve Jackson and Peyton Manning .I have to wait 4 weeks for Marshawn Lynch's suspension to end to have my backfield tandem .But I'm in decent shape. Got to work on my bench.

But I will say this the truthers make me sick. They are idiots.

I was going to pick Turner number 1 but I just couldn't pass up AP. Rogers should be good this year. I got a hunch about a Raiders running back and it ain't D-McFadden

I don't have ANY Raiders hunches. I had one after watching them play the Boys a couple weeks ago but he got hurt. I think McFadden's former teammate is going to prove his worth this year though, as will Steve Slaton.

Van Jones however, I predict will be out by this time next week. Shame we don't have a congress that would do something about all these czars (that will have control of billions of dollars) being appointed without any confirmation process at all.

I didn't have a chance to make my 1st choice . I would've picked Larry Fitzgerald. But I got Steve Jackson and Peyton Manning .I have to wait 4 weeks for Marshawn Lynch's suspension to end to have my backfield tandem .But I'm in decent shape. Gotta work on my bench.

You did fine, tom. I think Jackson will have a good year... if he can stay healthy. Just think, you could have done as I did in another league and accidentally drafted Carson Palmer as your second pick when Brady was available. Don't ask how...

As for Van Jones ; spit in a way is right. If we get too distracted by the side shows we may loose sight of the ringmaster .

My biggers problem with him is the expanding preference of the President to by-pass oversight by assigning the tag czar to people who will have administrative functions . If that is the way the executive dept is to run ,then Congress should eliminate the depts of the executive branch run by the cabinet and eliminate funding from the budget.

My biggers problem with him is the expanding preference of the President to by-pass oversight by assigning the tag czar to people who will have administrative functions . If that is the way the executive dept is to run ,then Congress should eliminate the depts of the executive branch run by the cabinet and eliminate funding from the budget.

Exactly.

Yes I agree. It seems to me that the appointment of "czars" to various positions is a violation of Congressional approval powers for executive appointees laid out in the Constitution.

Elliot

Hello El:

Yeah, I knew George H.W. Bush was wrong for making Bill Bennett the first drug czar.

excon

Hello El:

Yeah, I knew George H.W. Bush was wrong for making Bill Bennett the first drug czar.

excon

Yes he was.

Mostly because Bennett was a fool.

But he wasn't the first "Drug Czar". The term "drug Czar" was actually coined by... of all people... Joe Biden in 1982, with the appointment of Carlton Turner to the position of Director of the Drug Abuse Policy Office.

Under Reagan, the "drug czars" were Carlton Turner and Ian McDonals, both of whom were heads of the Drug Abuse Policy Office.

Bill Bennett was put in place by Bush I, as the first director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy. Then came Bob Martinez, in the same position.

Here's the kicker, though, excon... from 1993 on, the Director of National Drug Control Policy was made into a Cabinet Level position... which meant that from 1993 on (beginning with Lee Brown), the Director of National Drug Control Policy had to be approved by Congress. When the term "drug czar" was used, we were referring to a congressionally approved member of the executive branch of government.

Obama's 40+ new "Czar" positions are NOT cabinet level positions and do NOT go through congressional approval.

Elliot

Apparently not only is Van Jones a truther despite his denials to the contrary ;
He is so into the movement that he was on an organizing committee of the Truthers for a rally in San Fran 2002 demanding a Congressional inquiry into the alleged 9-11 conspiracy.
San Francisco March To Demand Congressional Inquiry Of 911 (http://www.rense.com/general18/march.htm)

apparently not only is Van Jones a truther despite his denials to the contrary ;
He is so into the movement that he was on an organizing committee of the Truthers for a rally in San Fran 2002 demanding a Congressional inquiry into the alleged 9-11 conspiracy.
San Francisco March To Demand Congressional Inquiry Of 911 (http://www.rense.com/general18/march.htm)

He's also a supporter of Mumia Abu-Jamal (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/1999/10/09/MN91787.DTL#ixzz0QBHsNuS6), convicted for the 1981 murder of a Philadelphia police officer.


``We knew there was another event going on, but the timing of the court decision is what dictated when the protest was held,'' said Van Jones, a San Francisco civil rights lawyer who helped coordinate the protest march.

Jeffrey Lord, a Reagan White House Aide has some questions (http://spectator.org/archives/2009/09/04/the-real-van-jones-scandal-why) about how this guy ever got into the White House, starting with this premise, "No one enters the physical White House as a guest unless the Secret Service has vetted them."

He got in because the President overrode any concern Secret Services may have had... just like all the flakes the President has brought into his inner cirecle of advisors.

Getting back to the big picture . This guy Van Jones has his fingers on very big purse strings($80 billion in stimulus money for starters ).
Transcript: Voices of Power with Van Jones - washingtonpost.com (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/10/AR2009081002107.html)
He has made no bones about his plot to incementally turn the "green " trojan horse fad into his utopian visions for the "redistribution of all the wealth," ... and "the engine for transforming the whole society."



One of the things that has happened I think to often to progressives is that we don't understand the relationship between minimum goals and maximum goals. Right after Rosa Parks, refused to give up her seat, if the civil rights leaders had jumped out and said, OK, now we want reparations for slavery, we want redistribution of all wealth, and we want to legalize mixed marriages, had that had been there, if they would have come out with a maximum program the very next day, they would have been laughed at. Instead they came out with a very minimum program, you know, we just want to integrate these buses. The students a few years later came out with a very minimum program. We just want to sit at the lunch counter, but, inside that minimum demand was a very radical kernel that eventually meant that from 1954-1968, you know, complete revolution was on the table for this country and I think this green movement has to pursue those same steps and stages. Right now we're saying we want to move from suicidal gray capitalism to some kind of eco-capitalism where, you know, at least we're not, you know, fast-tracking destruction of the whole planet. Will that be enough? No, it won't be enough. We want to go beyond ex-systems of exploitation and oppression altogether. But that's a process and I think what's great about the movement that beginning to emerge is that the crisis is so severe in terms of joblessness, violence and now ecological threats that people are willing to be both very pragmatic and very visionary. And so the green economy will start as a small subset and we're going to push it and push it and push it, until it becomes the engine for transforming the whole society.


YouTube - Van Jones On "Uprising Radio" April 2008 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3wh6AWCJdxg)



I got a hunch about a Raiders running back and it ain't D-McFadden
I can't think of a Raider I'd want on my team . The Raiders play that 3 headed back routine that drives me nuts . My guess is that you are talking about Michael Bush . He did some good running when called on last year.

I agree still that the billions these unscrutinized czars have their hands on is still the bigger issue, but this guy is a racist, socialist, radical of an idiot that should never have gotten this far. The latest (http://www.breitbart.tv/van-jones-only-suburbal-white-kids-shoot-up-schools/):


: "You've never seen a Columbine done by a black child. Never. They always say, 'We can't believe it happened here. We can't believe it's these suburban white kids.' It's only them. Now, a black kid might shoot another black kid. He's not going to shoot up the whole school."

Buddy of William Ayers, apologist for Rashid Khalidi, mentored by Jeremiah Wright, employer of Van Jones... are Obots still oblivious to Obama's radical leanings, the guy who was supposed to heal this nation and usher in a post-racial era?

And by the way, no one in the administration knows what "green job" is (http://www.newsweek.com/id/209073) anyway.

Buddy of William Ayers, apologist for Rashid Khalidi, mentored by Jeremiah Wright, employer of Van Jones...are Obots still oblivious to Obama's radical leanings, the guy who was supposed to heal this nation and usher in a post-racial era? Hello Steve:

Dude! I WISH he was as radical as you THINK he is... In fact, I thought he joined your ranks. He's caving on health care... He's acting like Bush in terms of the detainees.. He wants to EXPAND Elliot's war in Afghanistan...

What's not to like?

excon

Hello Steve:

Dude! I WISH he was as radical as you THINK he is... In fact, I thought he joined your ranks. He's caving on health care... He's acting like Bush in terms of the detainees.. He wants to EXPAND Elliot's war in Afghanistan...

What's not to like?

Well at least he finally sucks for you, too.

Ex
Steve's point was that despite the spin;Jones did not just slip through the vetting process. Key advisor to the President Valerie Jarrett has said, "So, Van Jones, we were so delighted to be able to recruit him into the White House; we were watching him. . .for as long as he's been active out in Oakland."
They knew what he was saying but were tone deaf to the possible fall out because in truth all he did was parrot what they believe. Looking at Jones is like seeing the real Obama through X-ray specs.

Anyway ,Jones has resigned... which means he was thrown under the bus.

The move makes sense. The President did not need the controversy that had made it into even the cheerleading dinosaur media. He wants to devote this week to indoctinating the kiddies and to his joint session of Congress where he will declare the sending in the Praetorian Guard into the health care debate .

Dude! I WISH he was as radical as you THINK he is... In fact, I thought he joined your ranks. He's caving on health care... He's acting like Bush in terms of the detainees.. He wants to EXPAND Elliot's war in Afghanistan...

What's not to like?


Olberman and Eugene Robinson floated the idea of a progressive primary challenge to the President in 2012 on his show.What a maroon ! Middle America is rebelling against Obama's extreme radical leftism but Olbermann predicts a more liberal Democratic challenger . I think we may see the Clintonoid phoenix arise instead.

He wants to devote this week to indoctinating the kiddies.Hello again, tom:

Just like Ronnie Raygun did in 1988, but of course, Reagan was white.

excon

Of course his race has nothing to do with it.

Is that what you are saying ? But Republicans do it too?? The Dems were very critical of GHW Bush when he did it.
Flashback 1991: Gephardt Called Bush's Speech to Students 'Paid Political Advertising' | NewsBusters.org (http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2009/09/03/flashback-1991-gephardt-called-bushs-speech-students-paid-political-a)


The truth is that neither Reagan or GHW Bush ever sent out Dept. of Education guidelines for teaching plans to accompany the speech in the way Obama did . http://www.ed.gov/teachers/how/lessons/7-12.pdf... some of which has been scrubbed by the Whitehouse after the criticism including this part :
Write letters to themselves about what they can do to help the president. These would be collected and redistributed at an appropriate later date by the teacher to make students accountable to their goals.

Hello again, tom:

It IS true, that some of his staffers have this "bloom" about him that gets him in trouble... But, ultimately, he's going to talk about staying in school.

Raygun, on the other hand, tried to indoctrinate children into his tax philosophy. It was despicable...

Actually it wasn't. I don't believe in that indoctrination crap. I think it's just FINE that Reagan said what he said, even if I disagree with it.

I just said it, because if Obama gave ANY hints that he was going to talk about health care, you righty's would come unglued..

That's cool. I'm used to your hypocrisy.

excon

But, ultimately, he's going to talk about staying in school


If the President wasn't talking policy and /or government function then why did he address the kiddies?. To stay in school ;work hard ,and do their homework ? (which was the essence of his 20 minute address )

With all due respect ;he has more important things to do . But maybe giving this address gave him the allusion that he accomplished something.

If the President wasn't talking policy and /or government function then why did he address the kiddies ? Hello tom:

He's THEIR president too.

Why was OK for Ronnie Raygun to indoctrinate the kids HE talked to?? He tried to INDOCTRINATE them into his tax policy. Obama didn't do that... That PROVES he's a BETTER man than Ronnie Raygun!

I mentioned your hypocrisy the other day. I'm going to do it again...

excon

Hello tom:

He's THEIR president too.

Why was ok for Ronnie Raygun to indoctrinate the kids HE talked to???? He tried to INDOCTRINATE them into his tax policy. Obama didn't do that... That PROVES he's a BETTER man than Ronnie Raygun!

I mentioned your hypocrisy the other day. I'm gonna do it again...

excon

Ahhh... but when Reagan and Bush 41 did it, the libs were all over it like stink on poop. They didn't stop criticizing it for weeks afterwards. In fact, Gephardt actually opened investigations against Bush 41 claiming that his speech to the kiddies was a waste of taxpayer money, that is was a use of taxpayer money for personal political gain, and demanding a look at the expenses for the event and who got paid. (Turns out the entire event cost about $26,000, and Gephardt's investigation cost about twice that much.)

So for the Dems to support such a speech after slamming both Reagan and Bush 41, and after starting investigations over it, seems rather hypocritical. I don't see anyone demanding investigations into the Obama admin over this speech... and certainly none of the Dems who were so vehemently against Bush 41 and Reagan.

If you think that Bush and Reagan were wrong for making their speeches to kids in school, you SHOULD be against Obama doing the same thing.

But apparently only Bush and Reagan are wrong, and Obama is a saint for making a speech to kids. I don't see you calling for any investigations into Obama's use of taxpayer money for personal political gain.

Your hypocrisy is showing, excon.

Elliot

Hello again, tom:

It IS true, that some of his staffers have this "bloom" about him that gets him in trouble... But, ultimately, he's gonna talk about staying in school.

Raygun, on the other hand, tried to indoctrinate children into his tax philosophy. It was despicable...

Actually it wasn't. I don't believe in that indoctrination crap. I think it's just FINE that Reagan said what he said, even if I disagree with it.

I just said it, because if Obama gave ANY hints that he was gonna talk about health care, you righty's would come unglued..

That's cool. I'm used to your hypocrisy.

excon
Your hypocracy is showing, excon.Hello again, El.

Nope. The only thing showing is your lack of reading skills.

excon

We keep swerving from the point here, the furor was not over Obama speaking to students, it was over the lesson plan asking kids to make pledges to Dear Leader. Obama validated those concerns by scrapping the lesson plan, just like he validated the concerns over Van Jones by throwing him under the bus.

This seems to be a habit of this president, instead of sticking to his guns he's swaying with the political winds.

This seems to be a habit of this president, instead of sticking to his guns he's swaying with the political winds.Hello again, Steve:

Or, he's acknowledging his mistakes... Something the dufus NEVER could manage to do... So, I understand your puzzlement..

excon

Hello again, Steve:

Or, he's acknowledging his mistakes... Something the dufus NEVER could manage to do... So, I understand your puzzlement..

When did he acknowledge either of these "mistakes?" Acknowledging them requires some form of communication, Obama is dodging.

When did he acknowledge either of these "mistakes?" Acknowledging them requires some form of communication, Obama is dodging.Hello again, Steve:

He doesn't owe either one of us a mia culpa. It don't work that way. He hired the wrong guy. The wrong guy is gone. I'm sure he communicated with the guy, though.

excon

Hello again, Steve:

He doesn't owe either one of us a mia culpa. It don't work that way. He hired the wrong guy. The wrong guy is gone. I'm sure he communicated with the guy, though.

excon

What does he owe us?

Does he owe us a vetting process for those he picks to be high-level staffers in his administration? Because he seems to be the LEAST capable president of such a vetting process.

Does he owe us the following of the Constitution? Because by appointing 40+ "czars" with cabinet-level powers without letting go through the regular Congressional confirmation process, he's violating the Constitution.

Does he owe us a statement of what his policies are? Because he hasn't even gone that far... nobody knows what his policies are, which leaves him free to drift with the winds of popularity rather than taking a principaled stance on an issue and either winning or losing on the issue.

What exactly does the President owe us, excon?

Or does he owe us nothing at all?

Elliot

Hello again, El.

Nope. The only thing showing is your lack of reading skills.

excon

I read it just right. You just have no response for what I wrote.

The Dems are great at criticizing, crucifying and launching investigations of Republicans, but when their Dem buddies do exactly the same thing, they not only remain silent, they SUPPORT them.

Ain't nothing you can say to deny it, 'cause it's true and has been proven over and over again.

Elliot

I read it just right. You just have no response for what I wrote.Hello again, El:

I don't know what happens to your short term memory, and I'M the one whose smoking something...

It's all written for you to peruse, but here's the short version... I posted that I thought it was just fine for Ronald Reagan to have addressed the kids.. You then accused me of hypocrisy because I WASN'T OK with Reagan's speech, but I'm fine with Obama's. I said, huh?

I again, question your reading skills, your short term memory, your ability to present a cogent argument, and your grasp of the issues.

excon

My apologies, excon.

Now that I look back to post # 31, I see that I did use the term "you" there. I usually try not to do that. I messed up this time.

My accusations was INTENDED for Democrats and liberals in general, not you in specific. I apologize for pointing the accusation towards you in specific.

Still, my point remains.

If Dems had an issue with Reagan and Bush making such speeches... and they clearly did... then they should be equally as much against Obama doing it. But they aren't.

Do you agree that that constitutes hypocrisy on the part of Dems?

Elliot

Hello again, Steve:

He doesn't owe either one of us a mia culpa. It don't work that way. He hired the wrong guy. The wrong guy is gone. I'm sure he communicated with the guy, though.

excon

So the most ethical, most transparent administration ever owes us nothing?

So the most ethical, most transparent administration ever owes us nothing?Hello again, Steve:

Pay attention. He doesn't owe you AN APOLOGY every time he does something.

excon

Ex, I don't believe I actually asked for one, you're the one who said he was acknowledging mistakes and I asked when did he do so? He's not acknowledging HIS mistakes and doing so doesn't necessarily require an apology. He has no problem apologizing to the world for everything someone else supposedly did, but I don't see where he's acknowledged any of these mistakes OR stuck to his principles. He seems awfully wishy-washy to me.

but I don't see where he's acknowledged any of these mistakes OR stuck to his principles. He seems awfully wishy-washy to me.

My favorite lib thinks it's not the President ,but groupthink, collective blindness and a failure of critical thinking from the people he surrounds himself with that explains the President's missteps .(this would also post well in Elliot's OP about 5th generation politics )



I am outraged at the slowness with which the standing army of Democratic consultants and commentators publicly expressed discontent with the administration's strategic missteps this year. … letting Congress pass that obscenely bloated stimulus package … a cap-and-trade bill whose costs have made it virtually impossible for an alarmed public to accept the gargantuan expenses of national healthcare reform …
Why did it take so long for Democrats to realize that this year's tea party and town hall uprisings were a genuine barometer of widespread public discontent and not simply a staged scenario by kooks and conspirators? First of all, too many political analysts still think that network and cable TV chat shows are the central forums of national debate. …

Too late for Obama to turn it around? | Salon (http://www.salon.com/opinion/paglia/2009/09/09/healthcare/index.html)



Why has the Democratic Party become so arrogantly detached from ordinary Americans? Though they claim to speak for the poor and dispossessed, Democrats have increasingly become the party of an upper-middle-class professional elite, top-heavy with journalists, academics and lawyers (one reason for the hypocritical absence of tort reform in the healthcare bills). Weirdly, given their worship of highly individualistic, secularized self-actualization, such professionals are as a whole amazingly credulous these days about big-government solutions to every social problem. They see no danger in expanding government authority and intrusive, wasteful bureaucracy. This is, I submit, a stunning turn away from the anti-authority and anti-establishment principles of authentic 1960s leftism.

Why has the Democratic Party become so arrogantly detached from ordinary Americans?

Has the Democratic Party even noticed they've become detached from ordinary Americans?

Has the Democratic Party even noticed they've become detached from ordinary Americans?
You mean the ordinary americans they are trying to provide healthcare for?

You mean the ordinary americans they are trying to provide healthcare for?

No, those ordinary evil (Harry Reid), un-American (Nancy Pelosi, Steny Hoyer), swastika carrying, astroturfing (Nancy Pelosi) "political terrorists" (Baron Hill) that don't even deserve the courtesy of not being interrupted by taking calls on your cell phone (Sheila Jackson Lee).

Dude, you're detached!

Dude, you're detached!

Dude, another one right over your head, eh?

You mean the ordinary americans they are trying to provide healthcare for?

No, not the 3% of Americans that they want to provide healthcare for.

They are detached from the 67% of Americans who don't want Obamacare.

Elliot

No, not the 3% of Americans that they want to provide healthcare for.

They are detatched from the 67% of Americans who don't want Obamacare.

ElliotActually 84% of the american population does want universal healthcare.

Actually 84% of the american population does want universal healthcare.

Where'd you get that number from.

Every single poll is in agreement that 67% of Americans are against Obamacare.

84% of Americans are in favor of some sort of reform of the healthcare system. MOST of them are in favor of things like tort reform, lower health care premiums, tax incentives, portability, etc. They are in favor of increased accessability for those who cannot afford health care. Who wouldn't be in favor of these things?

But very few are in favor of any form of government-run health care, much less a single-payor system that everyone is forced into.

Elliot