The ‘Drunk’ Smear

By
Monday, December 28, 2009 at 11:02 am

At the end of a slow holiday weekend, Matt Drudge linked to a video posted by YouTube member SocialistsSteal, labeled “Senator Max Baucus Drunk/Intoxicated on Senate Floor.” SocialistsSteal had, ironically, stolen the video from ThinkProgress, which had grabbed the lengthy clip — way back on Dec. 22, six days before Drudge — to highlight Baucus’ confrontation with Sen. Roger Wicker (R-Miss.). The ThinkProgress watermark remained on the stolen video. But no matter — as Patrick Gavin explains, it’s gotten “buzz on the internet,” so Politico is asking Baucus for comment whether or not he was drunk during the health care debate, because an anonymous YouTube account claims he was.

The thing is, this sort of “drunk” smear against a Democrat giving a slightly slurred speech is not new. Last year, immediately after Joe Biden became Barack Obama’s running mate, a YouTube member named JonnyRatheon posted a 2:27 clip of Biden on the campaign trail and titled it “Joe Biden drunk on campaign trail – NOT a joke video.”

Of course, Biden was not drunk. The vice president — who survived an aneurysm in 1988 and has an easily parodied, freewheeling speaking style — is a teetotaler. But do a YouTube search for “Biden” and “drunk” and you’ll find numerous videos posted by people who mistake some slurred speech for inebriation. One video of a random, drunk-acting white man who vaguely looks like Biden has more than 436,000 views. If Matt Drudge had linked to them, would they have generated “buzz on the internet” and become news?

Follow David Weigel on Twitter


Categories & Tags: | | | | | |

Comments

120 Comments

uberVU - social comments
Trackback posted December 28, 2009 @ 11:31 am

Social comments and analytics for this post…

This post was mentioned on Twitter by daveweigel: The ridiculous “drunk” smear against Baucus is nothing new. http://bit.ly/7opuhU...


gerryRud
Comment posted December 28, 2009 @ 12:05 pm

Q: When is a drunken person, not drunk?

A: When he's a Democratic Senator.


LaLee
Comment posted December 28, 2009 @ 12:13 pm

When is a republican senator caught in a sex scandal not a republican?

When the news about his scandal is on Fox.

Hey, two can play that game.


David
Comment posted December 28, 2009 @ 12:44 pm

If I were to come to work after drinking one beer I would be fired.
This senator needs to be fired – no questions asked.
He was drunk, fire him, get over it, put some other idiot in his place and let's move on with the circus.


gerryRud
Comment posted December 28, 2009 @ 12:47 pm

A: When he's a drunken Democrat. Baucus did that too.


David Weigel
Comment posted December 28, 2009 @ 12:48 pm

Or when he's not drunk and some guy on the internet just claims he was, days after the fact.


strangely_enough
Comment posted December 28, 2009 @ 12:48 pm

Politico is asking Baucus for comment whether or not he was drunk during the health care debate, because an anonymous YouTube account claims he was.

Here's where I would normally put the snarky comment about Politico, journalism, Drudge, prostitution, POMO… But, res ipsa loquitur


billtronson
Comment posted December 28, 2009 @ 1:02 pm

He is drunk, absolutely drunk. It is not a smear Senator Baucus is shit-faced; as a Montana resident I have listened to him for years and I say again he is drunk. Quite a year for the senator, first he gets caught trying to use his influence to get his mistress a job and now this. Senator Baucus thinks representing his constituents is bringing back funds for border crossing stations no one uses. He absolutely will not conduct an open forum; he typifies the problem of unaccountable politicians. Smear my ass.


LaLee
Comment posted December 28, 2009 @ 1:07 pm

David, did you read the article?

Baucus WAS NOT DRUNK.

Hence why the title “The 'Drunk' Smear.”

But hey you can believe he was drunk if it makes you feel any better.


LaLee
Comment posted December 28, 2009 @ 1:09 pm

Bill, it seems there's REAL reason to dislike Baucus so there's no need to made up a smear of how he was drunk.

I dislike Bush but i didn't believe nor support the belief that he was AWOL from TANG.


tropicgirl
Comment posted December 28, 2009 @ 1:20 pm

Nice try Wiegel, but no cigar…

PLEEEEEEEEEASe. The guy is obviously drunk. Stupid readers here believe whatever they want. That is why they get hoaxed on a continual basis by their government and can never “figure things out”. Deservedly so.


LaLee
Comment posted December 28, 2009 @ 1:24 pm

What “hoax” are you talking about?

Is it the moon landing? JFK? 9/11? /Sarcasm.


cejaxon
Comment posted December 28, 2009 @ 1:34 pm

Baucus, speaking seemingly extemporaneously, stays on topic more & commits fewer errors of logic & syntax “drunk” than Sarah Palin did while speaking from prepared remarks when she resigned. If this is drunkeness, maybe we should order all politicians more scotch?


Dr_Buzz
Comment posted December 28, 2009 @ 1:51 pm

Tropicgirl, the name is “Weigel”. Those who want to have rational debate should really take ***some*** pains to get the name of their adversary right….

Looking at this clip — twice — I do not know whether Sen. Baucus has a buzz on. Does he sound “slurred”? Really, to me, no more so than someone speaking extemporaneously, and clearly PO'd by the drum beat of non-partisanship claims from the “other side of the aisle.” Eloquent? No. Flumoxed? Perhaps. Angry? Definitely.

Let's suspend judgment just for a moment — even IF Senator Baucus were a couple sheets to the wind (***not*** stipulated… this is suspension of facts for the sake of argument), can it ***really*** be argued that this would be on par with the practices on Mark Foley, that were the real reason for having gotten him “run out of town”? And secondly, does it occur to anyone else that this guy, in whatever condition he might have been, still made significantly more sense than any Republican Senator (or Congressperson) in this debate? Hmmm???? REALLY? NO cross-over votes (excepting the ONE courageous Congressman from Louisiana)?

OK, now, back to reality (or in the case of the aptly-named Matt Drudge… um, not so much).


Dr_Buzz
Comment posted December 28, 2009 @ 1:54 pm

Word.


ajm8127
Comment posted December 28, 2009 @ 2:50 pm

Sounds to me like an impassioned man is in disbelief that his work during the past weeks is all for naught for an obviously necessary piece of legislation. My step father works for a military contractor founded by some ex special forces guys. They do not have a company health insurance plan because there are only three people working there who do not have plans through the government because of their status as ex-servicemen. He and my mother pay 900 dollars a month for run of the mill health insurance. That's unacceptable. And now the mandates to buy private plans..that's bullshit. If you are going to mandate something, you have to provide a version free of charge. Leave it to Lieberman to ruin it for my parents. I wonder how much Joe pays for health insurance.


RickMoran
Comment posted December 28, 2009 @ 3:17 pm

Interesting that you defend Baucus by changing the subject to Biden. Agreed, the Biden video was ridiculous. But you are going to have to do better than practicing misdirection if you want to pull Baucus;s chestnuts out of the fire. I've seen Baucus on the floor many times and there was no doubt he was off his game. Perhaps he had a cold and the medication was affecting his speech.Maybe he was just tired. He's not a young man and being awake for 2 days would cause the same symptoms of slurred speech and incoherence that are present in the video.

By trying to dismiss what is on the video by mischaracterizing it and then trying to defend Baucus by attacking his detractors by changing the subject only shows you to be a partisan hack.

It's not a “smear” if it's true.


pjh41
Comment posted December 28, 2009 @ 3:19 pm

I'm a non drinker and over the years I have watched a lot of people's behavior while drinking. I've seen Baucus speaking before and my expert opinion is that the Baucus on the Senate floor Dec 22, 2009 was very heavily into the bottle.


pjh41
Comment posted December 28, 2009 @ 3:29 pm

Free of charge? How do you expect the gov to do that? Nothing is free of charge from the gov unless you have absolutely no income. The people who expect the gov to provide everything for everyone for nothing live in some kind of fantasy world. Nothing the gov has ever taken over has ever been free or even less expensive than what the private sector can provide. They will just run the program in the red like every other gov program and keep hiking taxes.


tiernanlaw
Comment posted December 28, 2009 @ 4:12 pm

Baucus was definately on something, whether it be Alcohol or drugs, his speech was very impaired. If he woas pulled over in a car, there would be probable cause to arrest the man just the way he was speaking.

I would bet he was drunk.


tiernanlaw
Comment posted December 28, 2009 @ 4:18 pm

Hey Genius, there was NEVER any version of ANY bill which would have made the Insurance FREE.

How would a “free” plan work? Who would pay? Do you think the government has its own money?

Why not Free car insurance, why not free cars, why not free food? Why stop at health insurance?

And where is the money going to come from in your enlightened mind?


Turtle Noneck
Comment posted December 28, 2009 @ 4:30 pm

Weigel is full of it.

All this relentless apologizing for Democrats amounts to what Chomsky calls “manufacturing consent”.


tiernanlaw
Comment posted December 28, 2009 @ 4:35 pm

He was still a drunk fool on the floor of the senate, no matter what Palin did, sounds like, or says.

Its disgraceful that a US senator acts in such a way.

BTW: I would love to ask that drunk, what section of the Constitution gives the Federal government the power to force people to purchase ANYTHING, especially a insurance policy! Anyone of you liberal genius' have an answer to that?

— the sounds of crickets…….


wynterz
Comment posted December 28, 2009 @ 4:35 pm

More then his slurring speech, what he says does not make sense.

Republicans opposed the bill because they opposed many of the provisions in the bill. Some Democrats opposed the bill for the same reason but enough Democrats were appeased by buying them off and by changing certain provisions of the bill to get the bill passed.

it seems the Democrats were more willing to make changes to get the sixty votes needed in their own party, rather then crossing the aisle. That makes the Democrats more partisan, not Republicans.


strangely_enough
Comment posted December 28, 2009 @ 4:48 pm

Nah, that just makes you sound confused as to the definition of partisan.


Mad Max Beyond Jim Beam, Part IV « Around The Sphere
Pingback posted December 28, 2009 @ 5:07 pm

[...] David Weigel at Washington Independent: At the end of a slow holiday weekend, Matt Drudge linked to a video posted by YouTube member SocialistsSteal, labeled “Senator Max Baucus Drunk/Intoxicated on Senate Floor.” SocialistsSteal had, ironically, stolen the video from ThinkProgress, which had grabbed the lengthy clip — way back on Dec. 22, six days before Drudge — to highlight Baucus’ confrontation with Sen. Roger Wicker (R-Miss.). The ThinkProgress watermark remained on the stolen video. But no matter — as Patrick Gavin explains, it’s gotten “buzz on the internet,” so Politico is asking Baucus for comment whether or not he was drunk during the health care debate, because an anonymous YouTube account claims he was. [...]


tropicgirl
Comment posted December 28, 2009 @ 5:35 pm

I would worry much more about the lying going on in this commentary than a spelling of an insignificant person's name.

Hoaxes that come to mind…

Hoaxey-Change
Hoaxey and Pelosi's Impeachment off the Table
Hoaxey Change's Spying on Americans is OK
Hoaxey Change's Nobel Peace Prize War in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, Iraq, Yemen, and North Africa, to name a few
Hoaxey Change's Forced Health Insurance Mandates Parading as Health Reform
Hoaxey-Change's Bailouts of International Corporations and NO Bailouts for American Mortgage-Holders
Hoaxey-Change's Stinking Fish Blue Dog Friends
Hoaxey-Change's Image of Blue Dog Self. A little Tigerish.
Hoaxey-Change's Wall Street Shell Game Ponzi Scheme
Hoaxey-Change's Secret Weapon Against Single Payer – Lieberscrew
Hoaxey-Change's and Pelosi's Protection of Crooked Democrats
Hoaxey-Change's Fake CIA “Terists” (Al-CIA-Duh Claims Responsibility for Fudged Underwear Bombing)
Hoaxey-Change's Awe-Inspiring Position on “Climate Change” (formerly known as “Global Warming”)
Hoaxey-Change's Education Reformers, including a proponent of sick sex to children
Hoaxey-Change's idea of innocent until proven guilty. Gitmo. Renditions. Drone Bombs, Mother-starving Sanctions.

and finally, and most importantly,

THIS IS NO “an anonymous YouTube account” you morons, it is a surveillence video, a POLICE VIDEO, if you will, a VIDEO of an actual event. Its not an “account” ITS A VIDEO, YOU IDIOTS. Obviously unedited.

Wow, I guess you believe in the lone gunman theory? Wow. Get a life outside your head.


jennicut
Comment posted December 28, 2009 @ 7:30 pm

I am a registered Dem and detest the corporate loving, RW leaning Baucus but he was not drunk. Utter stupidity. These guys are just OLD people!


ajm8127
Comment posted December 28, 2009 @ 9:47 pm

I don't know. Ask Australia, France, Germany, the Netherlands, etc.


ajm8127
Comment posted December 28, 2009 @ 9:51 pm

I don't know. You could ask the Swiss or the Brits, the fine people of Brazil or the Fins.


zaggs
Comment posted December 28, 2009 @ 11:47 pm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WEL9paqra7w&feat…

If Biden is a teetotaler then why is he being served beer, especially at a media event? Isn't that a bit contradictory to the whole teetotaler mentality?
Though I'm curious what Biden's aneurysm has to do with Baucus's attempt at speech? Was it really Biden in disguise?


Instapundit » Blog Archive » SO, MAX BAUCUS WASN’T DRUNK, because Joe Biden had an aneurysm? And — though this is an aside, a…
Pingback posted December 28, 2009 @ 11:49 pm

[...] SO, MAX BAUCUS WASN’T DRUNK, because Joe Biden had an aneurysm? [...]


Instapundit » Blog Archive » SO, MAX BAUCUS WASN’T DRUNK, because Joe Biden had an aneurysm? And — though this is an aside, a…
Pingback posted December 28, 2009 @ 11:49 pm

[...] SO, MAX BAUCUS WASN’T DRUNK, because Joe Biden had an aneurysm? [...]


happyfeet4reals
Comment posted December 28, 2009 @ 11:50 pm

stupid drunk socialists


Gmama
Comment posted December 28, 2009 @ 11:51 pm

Unfortunately your parents will probably pay way more with the new improved government plan. My family of five pays about $7800 per year for a plan we are happy with. According to the CBO we will pay at least $19,000 per year for a plan approved by Harry Reid. Check out the CBO website if you don't believe me. I hope my kids like the new plan because we won't be able to send them to college.

If your hairdresser was acting like Senator Baucus, you'd take away her sissors, not make excuses for her. He's drunk.


Gmama
Comment posted December 28, 2009 @ 11:55 pm

Well not only did he have sex with the woman he used his office to get her a better job, however that's fine if you are a Democrat, in fact you can leave a girl to drown in a car, be a member of the KKK, or impregnate a staffer while using your cancer patient wife as a campaign prop; if you are a Republican you get run out of office.


Gmama
Comment posted December 28, 2009 @ 11:57 pm

And by “free” you mean paid for by higher taxes and mortailty rates?


SIV
Comment posted December 29, 2009 @ 12:02 am

Dave Weigel is drunk…on OBAMA's SEMEN!


loudog
Comment posted December 29, 2009 @ 12:12 am

I've seen the video and he is obviously drunk.

It's ironic that Bacchus was the Roman god of wine.

I'm surprised that I haven't seen that connection posted anywhere.


zefal
Comment posted December 29, 2009 @ 12:14 am

What does Joe Biden have to do with whether Baucus is drunk or not? I'd say it is safe to say that most people's first guess would be that the senator was inebriated. What is your guess? Bad taste left in his mouth after eating out his mistress?


Huey
Comment posted December 29, 2009 @ 12:28 am

You've got to be kidding.

He was snockered to the gills, man.


jdkchem
Comment posted December 29, 2009 @ 12:29 am

I was unaware that thinkprogress owned C-SPAN. In your rush to smear you obviously missed the rather large C-SPAN logo. How does one steal a video from someone who is not the legal owner?
It is quit obvious what context your news is in. Here I thought olbermonkey and msnbc had the stupid context cornered.


jdkchem
Comment posted December 29, 2009 @ 12:30 am

One of whom had far too much to drink.


jdkchem
Comment posted December 29, 2009 @ 12:39 am

So following your “logic” I would very much like to know where my “free” car insurance is. To be frank, your idiotic idea of employer mandated insurance coverage is what created this entire mess in the first place. Furthermore you've demonstrated remarkable ignorance when it comes to DOD contractors. DOD contractors do not get government health insurance regardless of their status as veterans.

There is no “free” insurance you can bring up the Swiss and Brits all you want but somebody pays for it, usually in the form of taxes.


F
Comment posted December 29, 2009 @ 12:41 am

OK. Biden had an an aneurysm a while ago.

What does that have to do with Baucus being drunk?

And this guy is writing the Healthcare bill?


The Art-P.O.G.
Comment posted December 29, 2009 @ 12:43 am

It's not a smear if he is drunk, though, Weigel.


Michael
Comment posted December 29, 2009 @ 12:45 am

Stupid attempt at deflection. The Youtube video does not lie…Baucus was totally wasted and making a fool of himself. I think the Dems are panicking as they plunged over the political cliff with this dangerous claptrap of a health care bill and
Max's drunken tirade was a illustration of this panic.


jdkchem
Comment posted December 29, 2009 @ 12:48 am

Whatever you say dr_booz. What exactly made more sense? Driving up the cost of insurance through a mandate? That makes sense? Calling anyone who opposes obamacare racist is debate? When exactly did democraps actually debate? If you're going to talk about reality you should try and spend some time there and not in unicorn land.


jdkchem
Comment posted December 29, 2009 @ 12:55 am

How exactly did the article prove Baucus was not drunk? Oh that's right Biden had an aneurysm therefore Baucus is sober.
Did you actually read the article?


jdkchem
Comment posted December 29, 2009 @ 12:59 am

Or some idiot who believes in anonymous youtube accounts and can't see the C-SPAN logo claims he is sober.
You're going to have to try something else. Claiming everything is a smear is pretty cowardly, though not unexpected.


jdkchem
Comment posted December 29, 2009 @ 1:01 am

Take your lame $h!t back to mommy's basement.


Gordon
Comment posted December 29, 2009 @ 1:11 am

Oh, please. This guy was drunk. Quit defending that. It makes you look like an idiot.


jdkchem
Comment posted December 29, 2009 @ 1:15 am

He's drunk and he is lying. Bipartisan is not, contrary to the belief of democraps, getting whatever you want. Bipartisan is not buying votes in your party so you can pat yourself on the back and say you accomplished something. Bipartisan is not totally disregarding input from the other side of the aisle. Calling it a smear is the act of a coward.


Georg Felis
Comment posted December 29, 2009 @ 1:17 am

Congress is drunk? Well, that explains a lot of the last year….


PA
Comment posted December 29, 2009 @ 1:28 am

Right. You go with that. The guy was plainly hammered.


PA
Comment posted December 29, 2009 @ 1:33 am

If he wasn't drunk…OK I'll go with that for a moment…then he obviously has some sort of mental problems because he was quite incoherent.

Frankly, I'd rather he were simply plastered than afflicted with mental issues.


Name
Comment posted December 29, 2009 @ 1:35 am

Drudge is drunk on fake stories. I heard Drudge is gay by the way.


JT
Comment posted December 29, 2009 @ 1:49 am

Checkout Baucas on Flickr. He had a honkin' red nose at the Wild Turkey Holiday event.


M@
Comment posted December 29, 2009 @ 2:45 am

Independent…LOL


sara
Comment posted December 29, 2009 @ 3:04 am

The only person a drunk makes sense to is another drunk


Orion
Comment posted December 29, 2009 @ 3:23 am

If that's how he acts sober I dread to think what he'd sound like drunk.


LaLee
Comment posted December 29, 2009 @ 3:55 am

Hey Jd, did Medicare or Medicaid drive up the cost of insurance?

And as for racist accusation, what else do you call someone who put picture of Obama's head on a picture of a witch doctor?

If you want people to debate you seriously then you should ground your debate in reality.

Smears and lies like “death panel” are not reality.


Anonymous
Comment posted December 29, 2009 @ 9:01 am

“if you are a Republican you get run out of office.”

Really?

Did Sanford “get run out of office”?

How about Vitter?

A least Baucus wasn’t on “Appalachian Trail” on the video /Sarcasm.


Mark Well
Comment posted December 29, 2009 @ 5:01 am

If you think Baucus wasn't drunk, you are clueless and witless.


Murgatroyd
Comment posted December 29, 2009 @ 5:55 am

David Weigel is right — Max Baucus wasn't drunk! He suffered a disabling brain aneurism!

So now we can all agree that Baucus is impaired and medically unfit to be a United States Senator.

I'm looking forward to Mr. Weigel spearheading the effort to have this incompetent, brain-damaged simpleton removed from office before he can do any more harm. Lead the charge, Davey!


peet
Comment posted December 29, 2009 @ 6:24 am

Seriously? He's drunk. It came from CSPAN. It's not a gotcha video, it's the guy shitfaced on the floor of the senate.


gerryRud
Comment posted December 29, 2009 @ 6:35 am

Is being gay problematic for you?


ajm8127
Comment posted December 29, 2009 @ 6:45 am

Of course its not free genius. I am for more taxation if it means every man woman and child is covered.

And don't call me ignorant when it's really you that do not understand. The people my stepfather work with get health care because they are ex military, not because they are DoD contractors. If they get insurance purely because they are contractors, they why does not civilian stepfather not get the same insurance? Read my post next time.


ajm8127
Comment posted December 29, 2009 @ 6:52 am

Higher taxes maybe…increased mortality rates, surely not.

Look at this data
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_compar…

It clearly shows countries like Australia, France, Germany, etc, have lower mortality rates.

People complaining that universal health care would increase taxes and thus make their lives worse highlight the selfishness that is the root of the problem with the Americans.


Jim
Comment posted December 29, 2009 @ 7:31 am

When asked to comment Baucus took the fifth….


Bandit
Comment posted December 29, 2009 @ 8:08 am

Wow – do you have to carry water for all Dems?


Karen
Comment posted December 29, 2009 @ 8:55 am

How do you know Baucus wasn't drunk? If it looks like a skunk, act likes a skunk, chances are, it is a skunk. A guy going through a mid-life crisis – having an affair with an aide, ditching his wife, moving in with his aide, taking her on a world-wide vacation at taxpayer expense, giving her a raise at taxpayer expense, putting her name in for federal judge spot, then getting her a no-show government job, lying on the floor of the senate – these things would drive anyone to drink.

It was happy hour. You libs should go with the drunk defense, a kind of salute to Teddy without watching the dead girl floating in the car while political operatives ponder his future. I am sure they were all imagining the country thought well of the misogynist, murdering Ted Kennedy, the big dig of Fat Cats.

As we have watched the democrats just give the Fat Cats in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac huge salaries and bonuses for wrecking the economy, DUI is the best excuse these losers could ever come up with, because the alternative it that they knew what they were doing.

That's scary.


Dr_Buzz
Comment posted December 29, 2009 @ 9:51 am

I believe that the Vice President drinks alcohol-free beer (see e.g., http://www.mahalo.com/answers/non-alcoholic-dri…). You know what they say happens when you assume….


Name
Comment posted December 29, 2009 @ 10:01 am

If Biden is a teetotaler, what was he doing with a beer in his hand at the Beer Summit?


Gunga
Comment posted December 29, 2009 @ 3:05 pm

Thanks for the spelling lesson Mr. Whygell. You’re a peach and a daisy. Hope you don’t mind me “stealing” space on your site to poke you in the eye about you’re laughably flawed logic (Biden had an aneurysm so Bauchus wasn’t drunk)…but at least I didn’t “steal” a video from the internet!

A curse on Bauchus and every other partisan swine who voted to support his party and his president AGAINST the will of the American people…and a pox on you for being such a useful idot.


TheLastBrainLeft
Comment posted December 29, 2009 @ 10:26 am

How do you know either are drunk? Every person you claim is “smearing” Baucus makes no definitive claim whatsoever. You feel that it's OK for you to do so.

Baucus looks drunk in this video. If there's another explanation, provide it, with proof.


Name
Comment posted December 29, 2009 @ 10:35 am

Perhaps we should adopt the British euphemism: “tired”. In this light, the Senator from Montana appears downright exhausted. And I add, in Senator Baucus' defense, you wouldn't want to pass this health plan while sober.


Gmama
Comment posted December 29, 2009 @ 10:38 am

Infant mortality is a red herring because of what is defined as a live birth in other countries vs. the United States. Low birth weight babies and babies unable to breathe independently are counted here, but not in some other countries. For cancers survival rates are higher, although incidence is often lower but access to health care has no bearing on incidence.

I think the governement will do as horrible a job with healthcare as they have done with the “stimulus” funds. We used to give a lot of money to charity, but now that we will have to pay a fortune for health insurance and we won't be able to afford to do that.

I have a suspicion you don't have a real job ajm8127, if you do I suggest you start voluntarily giving 71% of your income to the government like the French do now.


Anonymous
Comment posted December 29, 2009 @ 3:50 pm

Here are charts to help you understand improved survival rates for US, and improved screening frequency without universal insurance (which may account fo higher incidence).

http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba596


Gmama
Comment posted December 29, 2009 @ 10:59 am

Free food should be a RIGHT! Harry Reid will tell you which items will be in your bag of groceries you'll be forced to purchase. You don't like kale or liver? Tough, they are part of the “universal grocery bag”, as are all the groceries items with great lobbyists. Your bill for two bags of groceries will be $200. You think that's too expensive, and you could pay far less for the groceries you like and will use? You must be a selfish pig, because your $200 is helping to pay for the groceries of starving people who have a right to groceries.

You don't want to pay $5,000 a month for a two room apartment, well guess what, even though you live in Peoria and could get a similar place for $1,000 a month, an apartment is a right! So you get to live in this apartment to help other live in similar apartments. Congresspeople will, of course continue to live where ever they please.


David Weigel
Comment posted December 29, 2009 @ 11:02 am

He was drinking a Buckler non-alcoholic beer, as was reported at the time.


Michael
Comment posted December 29, 2009 @ 11:04 am

“He was drinking a Buckler non-alcoholic beer, as was reported at the time.”

and you believe that obvious lie? You are a Dem flack.


Dennis
Comment posted December 29, 2009 @ 11:05 am

So Baucus had an an aneurysm? So the next time I get pulled over by the constabulary for DWI I can use that as an excuse? Sheesh…what you guys do to excuse the actions of a Democrat. Why not just admit the guy was hammered.


ajm8127
Comment posted December 29, 2009 @ 4:36 pm

That’s a nice link to a laissez-faire above all website. I am so surprised they don’t think the government can run health care. Also I am not surprised they think our health care system is not ‘broken’. It’s not about cancer survival rates. It’s about insuring those who cannot afford to pay to insure themselves. It’s about preventative care, or preempting cancer. When you don’t have enough money to afford to see a doctor to get your MMR or your chicken pox vaccine, or if you have to file bankruptcy because of outstanding medical debt then it is definitely ‘broken’.

I do have a job, Sir, and I consider myself reasonably successful at my young age. I am all for increasing taxes on the top 10, even 5% because that is where most of the money in this country is made.

For profit health care is simply a conflict of interest. Greedy people end up putting profit above human life, and that is morally wrong.


Michael
Comment posted December 29, 2009 @ 11:38 am

I don't want to pay for my neighbor's health care…I want to pay for my own.


Anonymous
Comment posted December 29, 2009 @ 5:17 pm

Exsqueeze me?

In the memorable words of Robert DeNiro in “Taxi Driver”, “You talkin’ to me? You talkin’ to me? You talkin’ to me? Then who the h*** else are you talking… you talking to me? Well I’m the only one here. Who the f*** do you think you’re talking to? Oh yeah? OK.”

Keep your eyes up here. I’ll type slowly so that even you can understand. I am not Mr. Weigel. I didn’t steal anybody’s video (and if he attributes it, which he did, neither did he… or have you never done you own term papers in school?).

Lastly, reality check: you and those of your like mind lost the last election. Time to deal with it. You seem stuck between denial and anger. Just because you don’t agree with it does not mean that it is against the will “of the American people.” It is against ***your*** will, in a legitimate democracy — in which you now find yourself in the minority. Remember the entire quote: Taxation ***without representation*** is tyranny. You have representation — and if you don’t like your representation, vote and/or run for office yourself.


Anonymous
Comment posted December 29, 2009 @ 5:20 pm

The data are from the Lancet Oncology and National Cancer Institute and aren’t politicized. The numbers are really just the numbers, don’t read the commentary. However, it isn’t facts you are interested in.

Do you think the government is free from corruption or operates efficiently? If you do you are sadly a fool.

Read down in the article and you will see Americans are more likely to get screening than people in countries with government provided health care. This may account for higher incidence because some conditions are detected earlier and could possibly not develop into a more serious condition

With government run health care this will become a sticking point – mammograms every two years not yearly- after all statistically they aren’t useful between 40- 50. Tell that to both of my sisters who had breast cancer, detected by routine mammography before age 45.

Taxes will increase for everyone, there will likely have to be a VAT tax. France’s average rate on income is about 71%. Average rate, not highest rate.

Glad to hear you are doing well, why don’t you pick up the tab for your parent’s insurance if it is so heart breaking to you that they have to pay so much? They did raise you you know, or are you waiting for the government to force “rich” people to pay for their insurance?


Anonymous
Comment posted December 29, 2009 @ 5:30 pm

Am I to assume that you are implying that I am therefore a drunk? Well, I only had one little one before… OK two, but that’s all.

Actually, ma’am, I am not a drunk. I am, however, reminded of the episode of “Family Guy”, when Peter goes to Ireland to meet his father, and gets into a drinking match. It’s worth trying to find the video on-line, if you haven’t seen it…

Finally, not to belabor an already well-trodden thread, but in ***whatever*** state Senator Baucus was in (and no one here has convinced me yet), he still had the decency not to stoop to ad hominem attacks. Indeed, he gave a semi-gracious nod to Senator Grassley, who actually went from conferencing with the Group of Six (supposedly in good faith) to a rally, where he echoed the widely-exposed lie of “Death Panels”. May you and others who would go for the least common denominator — personal attacks — learn a lesson in decency.


Anonymous
Comment posted December 29, 2009 @ 5:47 pm

Oh, now was that not CLEVER! He made a joke with my moniker, that referred back to the article. What a snappy wit you have, sir. In the words of Milton Berle (to RuPaul), “Oh, we’re going to ad lib? I’ll check my brain and we’ll start even.”

Ah, life in the bubble of Faux News… You’re right. Absolutely no debate the entire 6+ months — except every friggin’ day in the last six months! Absolutely no one consulted — except that pesky Group of Six! No outreach — except that widely broadcast outreach from the President months and months ago.

I guess what makes sense to you is the status quo. With families going bankrupt. With people being refused care. With people dying and dying and dying as a trade-off to corporate profits. To runaway health care costs that have already run up my premiums by over 100% in the last decade. That is what makes sense to you? And now the Republicans — who have done nothing about runaway health care costs, Medicare, etc. — NOW they think they have a better plan? By doing things that the CBO has said would not impact the health care costs and the consequent deficits?

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Albert Einstein. Check it out.


Anonymous
Comment posted December 29, 2009 @ 5:51 pm

Wow. The mind is a terrible thing to waste. Um, you? Not so much.

I see from your name that must also be a chemist. Ain’t it a hoot to take some of them home-brewed pharmaceuticals, go trolling on the Internet, and then go back the next day to see what you wrote? Yee-hawww!


ajm8127
Comment posted December 29, 2009 @ 6:02 pm

“Glad to hear you are doing well, why don’t you pick up the tab for your parent’s insurance if it is so heart breaking to you that they have to pay so much?”

Wow man, you are a class A asshole.


Hivon
Comment posted December 29, 2009 @ 2:40 pm

Michael,

How can you complain when you can't even afford to buy your own?


Hivon
Comment posted December 29, 2009 @ 2:43 pm

Perhaps if you sit on toilet and push a little bit harder, your lame brain prevarication might appear to be a sobering wisdom the world so urgently seeks. Until then, contract those ab muscles — it's good for intellectual defecation.


Michael
Comment posted December 29, 2009 @ 2:44 pm

What the hell are you talking about moron…who says I can't afford my own? What a fool. I have Blue Cross…what to you have?


bethdonovan
Comment posted December 29, 2009 @ 3:37 pm

If Baucus is not drunk in that video, he is seriously impaired in some other way – drugs? Prescription drugs? Or his he simply drunk on power? His speech is more than “slightly slurred”.

Honestly, Biden's aneurysm has nothing to do with Max Baucus's apparent drunken performance.


Keith_Indy
Comment posted December 29, 2009 @ 3:52 pm

Talk about a bad argument.

1) R claims D was drunk on the floor of the senate
2) Y claimed B was drunk during campaigning
3) #2 is false

ergo, #1 is also false


chrisjay
Comment posted December 29, 2009 @ 5:22 pm

Let's face it, when we're talking about elected officials drunk Cheney set the Gold Standard:
Get shitfaced
shoot your drinking buddy in the face
hole up in your luxury compound, refusing to talk to the police until you're sober
call Airforce 2 helicopter & get the hell out of Dodge
oh, and don't forget to order your goons to collect any & all video for the furnace
bada-bing, bada-boom


chrisjay
Comment posted December 29, 2009 @ 5:44 pm

Ideological hypocrisy is problematic for me.
Google Ray Cohn


Forest
Comment posted December 29, 2009 @ 5:45 pm

Drunk is as drunk does my momma always used to say…


chrisjayblows
Comment posted December 29, 2009 @ 5:57 pm

But otherwise morally bankrupt politicians seem to be okay with your side, as long as they are not “hypocrites”. Nice. No moral standards means never having to be a hypocrite, that's why the scum on your side are good to go?


majii
Comment posted December 29, 2009 @ 6:44 pm

To settle the question, Mr. Weigel, please talk with Senator Baucus and write a follow-up story.


Firooz
Comment posted December 29, 2009 @ 8:00 pm

Taken from the immense lack of cognitive functionality you've abundantly displayed here, one could easily presume (the degree of presumption is borrowed shamelessly from an army of trolls and sock puppet accounts below who exhaustively reposting the same gratuitous falsehood) that you are an Internet bum with no health care insurance. Naming a well known insurance company was a dead give away by the way. In any case, in our capacity to sympathize with the suffering fellow citizens, we wish you a speedy recovery.


Michael
Comment posted December 29, 2009 @ 8:02 pm

I think you really need to get a life. All this idiocy because I don't want to pay for your health care. Also I like Blue Cross very much…is that a “dead giveaway” too. Fool.


chrisjay
Comment posted December 29, 2009 @ 11:30 pm

Wow, Blows, I'm impressed by the presumptuousness of the words you've put in my mouth and amused by the fantasy about your hopes regarding it.
Oh—and flattered, LOL


keymarcus
Comment posted December 29, 2009 @ 11:50 pm

FWIW I am a recovering alcoholic and none of these so-called non-alcoholic brews are 0% alcohol content. They are usually .5% and having a six-pack is the equivalent of of almost finishing an old-fashioned 3.2 beer.


Firooz
Comment posted December 30, 2009 @ 1:05 am

I can see nothing compels the nutcases out of their mental prison than a poorly constructed conspiracy theory or a gratuitous gossip rumor because their intellectual limitation only permits such hack job to provide a superficial yet momentarily boast to their sense of inferiority. So please, do continue lemmings–Matt Drudge has already placed the marching orders. Onward my soldiers… onward. The glory of such inanity is all yours for eternity and the Internet archive for the rest of us to point and laugh.


Dr_Buzz
Comment posted December 30, 2009 @ 9:45 am

FWIW, so were my parents. Congratulations to you on another day, and keep the faith.

Actually, the 0.5% number is the limit to get the nonalcoholic accreditation — they are usually about 0.4% or less… about the same as you will find in OJ and other natural fruit juices. Unless you are extremely prone to intoxication, you would have to drink a LOT of either (and rather quickly — six or more times faster than that beer drinking since you are “processing” the beverage, shall we say) to get to the point of getting a buzz.

Are you thinking the VP could actually drinking enough near beer to do be under the influence (probably downs one or two before calling it quits)?


Dr_Buzz
Comment posted December 30, 2009 @ 2:45 pm

FWIW, so were my parents. Congratulations to you on another day, and keep the faith.

Actually, the 0.5% number is the limit to get the nonalcoholic accreditation — they are usually about 0.4% or less… about the same as you will find in OJ and other natural fruit juices. Unless you are extremely prone to intoxication, you would have to drink a LOT of either (and rather quickly — six or more times faster than that beer drinking since you are “processing” the beverage, shall we say) to get to the point of getting a buzz.

Are you thinking the VP could actually drinking enough near beer to do be under the influence (probably downs one or two before calling it quits)?


Isn’t This Picture of Obama and Biden… Interesting?
Pingback posted January 4, 2010 @ 12:40 pm

[...] random out-of-context video of Max Baucus talking the way he usually talks is actually a video of Max Baucus drunk and my proof of this is that someone wrote it on YouTube” bandwagon. Then accused teetotaler [...]


mbt shoes
Comment posted May 10, 2010 @ 12:49 am

DO you like it?


mbt sandals
Comment posted June 2, 2010 @ 2:30 pm

Thank you for your sharing.I'm very interested in it


mbt sandals
Comment posted June 2, 2010 @ 4:00 pm

so cool!


jordan shoes
Comment posted June 9, 2010 @ 3:14 am

This is a pretty good article!


nike running shoes
Comment posted July 11, 2010 @ 2:25 am

mbt shoes|NFL jersey
|Cheap Shoes


gigurdjieff
Comment posted July 27, 2010 @ 1:56 pm

What is there not to like? Maybe except for the fact hat his job as a senator is to represent the people, not his own personal agenda or political moves and most Americans public don't want the bill. But of course they passed it anyway therefore they have set the ground work for destroying our great country. Jason Narconon


Zaibatsu Looney
Comment posted December 7, 2010 @ 4:38 pm

americans always care more of their politicians private life than their work results. blu cig Cmon, this isnt a second hand magazine.


Max Headroom
Comment posted February 17, 2011 @ 5:24 am

Interesting post. Makes you think….


Alykhanii
Comment posted February 17, 2011 @ 5:28 am

I don’t like Matt Drudge period!


2660358
Comment posted September 7, 2011 @ 12:56 pm

2660358 beers on the wall. sck was here


977478
Comment posted September 7, 2011 @ 12:56 pm

977478 beers on the wall. sck was here


RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.