Tag Archives: Election

Found: A Candidate Who Says “Affordable health care is a right.”

I’m happy to say that, thanks to Elizabeth Wilner of Cook Political, I’ve finally found a candidate willing to say that access to healthcare is a right! His name is Doug Gansler. You can watch him say “Affordable care is a right” in the campaign ad below:

Doug Gansler: the first honorary Framologist! Photo Credit: mdfriendofhillary via Compfight cc
Doug Gansler: the first honorary Framologist!
Photo Credit: mdfriendofhillary via Compfight cc

The attorney general (D) of Maryland, Mr. Gansler is running for governor. The primary election will take place on June 24. Marylanders should check out the Baltimore Sun’s election guide.

Wilner’s article reports on a conference of pollsters. She says that because about equal numbers of Americans like “keep and fix” as “repeal and replace,” Republican candidates are likely to change from talk of repealing the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act to talk of fixing it.

She notes that talk of fixing would give Republican candidates “a simpler line than Democrats, who continue to grapple with how to support the ACA—or at least, counter Republican attacks—in their ads….” She says that Kantar Media’s Campaign Media Analysis Group (CMAG) names three lines that Democratic candidates have taken:

  • Negative = positive: “[My Republican opponent] would deny coverage for preexisting conditions and/or let insurers charge women more for healthcare or mammograms.”
  • Partial pro: “[Democratic incumbent] held insurers accountable and/or ensured coverage of preexisting conditions and affordable access for women.”
  • Yay PPACA!: “helping the President pass healthcare reform”

Wilner found only four candidates nationwide that have cheered the Patient Protection Act in their advertising.

She correctly notes that Democratic candidates don’t have much time “to repair the negative impression people have about the law before Election Day.”

Here’s an example I’ve noticed in my state. Before the primary election, Republican candidates for all levels of office declared their opposition to “Obamacare” in TV ads.

And the Democratic candidates? I saw no ads from them on television at all. They seem to have let their opponents rule the airwaves and frame the healthcare reform debate their way for months. Will they learn from Doug Gansler?

No matter the primary outcome, for his fine framing of the healthcare reform issue and standing up to the bullies, Doug Gansler is now the first honorary Framologist. Congratulations!

How “Obamacare” Frames the Debate

Here’s an ugly example of why supporters of the Patient Protection Act should avoid the term Obamacare:

As you can see, the term directs attention away from the law’s moral purposes and toward Barack Obama the man. Continuing to call the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act Obamacare encourages this sort of thinking and behavior.

“The Nebraska Democratic Party believes that affordable, accessible, quality health care is a basic human right.”

The Nebraska Democratic Party is asking the candidate to pull this ad. While the party’s statement deplores the violence against an image of the president, it does not mention the party’s platform position on the moral issue of access to health insurance: that “affordable, accessible, quality health care is a basic human right” (p. 39).

I wish it would. Why isn’t this truth being shouted from the housetops? Do you know?

This Post Is Un-American

Billionaires Charles and David Koch have spent millions to influence elections and government policy.
Billionaires Charles and David Koch have spent millions to influence elections and government policy.

Democrats are working to frame some of this year’s elections as about Charles and David Koch. As Peters and Hulse report in the New York Times, these billionaire brothers are spending a lot of money to influence elections across the nation.

Mr. Hulse’s interview with On the Media discusses using words like un-American to describe the Kochs and collectivists to label progressives.

The word un-American should be used sparingly, if at all–especially when describing a person. Unless used very carefully, it’s name-calling and probably attributing evil motives to someone who doesn’t mean harm.

I do think that some behavior might be considered un-American, but because people have different views of our country’s interests and values, that’s also tricky. It’s best to avoid the word.

Do you think it’s appropriate to label people as un-American? Is there such a thing as un-American behavior? Why or why not?