What Do Anti-Health Care Reform Right-Wingers And Aging Internet Daters Have In Common?

Desperation...

Right-wingers anxious to kill health care reform remind me of middle-aged guys who flirt with women online, thinking they've still got "it" when they clearly don't; they are desperate and will say anything.

From Media Matters:

During the July 20 edition of his Fox News program, Sean Hannity falsely claimed that "if we look at the provisions of the bill, it's pretty astounding. For example, if you're not -- if you don't have private insurance the year that this bill is passed, you can't get that later on from your employer." In fact, section 311 of the tri-committee House health care reform bill allows employers to meet coverage requirements by offering employees "coverage under a qualified health benefits plan (or under a current employment-based health plan (within the meaning of section 102(b))) in accordance with section 312."

From section 311 of the America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009:

SEC. 311. HEALTH COVERAGE PARTICIPATION REQUIREMENTS.

An employer meets the requirements of this section if such employer does all of the following:

(1) OFFER OF COVERAGE. -- The employer offers each employee individual and family coverage under a qualified health benefits plan (or under a current employment-based health plan (within the meaning of section 102(b))) in accordance with section 312.

(2) CONTRIBUTION TOWARDS COVERAGE. -- If an employee accepts such offer of coverage, the employer makes timely contributions towards such coverage in accordance with section 312.

(3) CONTRIBUTION IN LIEU OF COVERAGE. -- Beginning with Y2, if an employee declines such offer but otherwise obtains coverage in an Exchange-participating health benefits plan (other than by reason of being covered by family coverage as a spouse or dependent of the primary insured), the employer shall make a timely contribution to the Health Insurance Exchange with respect to each such employee in accordance with section 313.

Section 312 states that an employer "offers the coverage described in section 311(1) either through an Exchange-participating health benefits plan or other than through such a plan." It also provides that the employer must contribute a certain portion of the costs of the plan.

William Kristol wrote a piece on his Weekly Standard blog yesterday, urging fellow reform foes to "go for the kill." Kristol, of course, hates the idea of health care reform, and took the same position against the Clinton plan in 1994.

"This is the week to highlight every problem, every terrible provision, in the Democratic bills," Kristol wrote yesterday. "Throw the kitchen sink at the legislation now on the table, drive a stake through its heart (I apologize for the mixed metaphors), and kill it."

Right-wingers from Hannity and Kristol to Michelle Malkin, Matt Drudge, the ubiquitous Rush Limbaugh and other conservative media--not to mention virtually the entire FOX News line-up--are, indeed, desperate. And just like that would-be Internet Lothario, they are saying anything, oblivious to the fact that--unlike 15 years ago--they just don't have it anymore.

Coo-Coo, Coo-Coo, Coo-Coo, Coo-Coo...

From Crooks and Liars:

Did someone in the Obama administration force Chrysler, as part of its reorganization, to order the closure of auto dealerships mostly among Republicans, while leaving Democratic-owned dealerships intact?

Naaaah. What, are you kidding me? But, you know, it sounded really good to Michelle Malkin. Mostly because she loves to fancy herself an "investigative journalist" and these kinds of "scoops" entrance her on a regular basis. Of course, the fact that none of them ever pan out seems not to deter her in the slightest.

Malkin, along with her intrepid pals at Newsbusters and a variety of other right-wing blogs, were all over it yesterday. Malkin appeared on Fox and Friends in the morning (above) to tout her latest liberal-perfidy theory.

Too bad it took only a flick of Nate Silver's wrist to blow it all to smithereens. Seems that when you go looking at political donations by occupation, people who list "auto dealers" or some variation thereof are Republican by about an 8-1 margin:

Overall, 88 percent of the contributions from car dealers went to Republican candidates and just 12 percent to Democratic candidates. By comparison, the list of dealers on Doug Ross's list (which I haven't vetted, but I assume is fine) gave 92 percent of their money to Republicans -- not really a significant difference.

There's no conspiracy here, folks -- just some bad math.

It shouldn't be any surprise, by the way, that car dealers tend to vote -- and donate -- Republican. They are usually male, they are usually older (you don't own an auto dealership in your 20s), and they have obvious reasons to be pro-business, pro-tax cut, anti-green energy and anti-labor. Car dealerships need quite a bit of space and will tend to be located in suburban or rural areas. I can't think of too many other occupations that are more natural fits for the Republican Party.

You can just toss this one on the ashheap of such discarded Malkin "investigative scoops" as the General Ripperesque notion that the Flight 93 memorial is actually a tribute to the terrorists or that a suicide bomber in Oklahoma was the forerunner of an Islamic conspiracy there. She likewise groundlessly attacked the Pulitzer winner in photography as a secret Jihadi sympathizer; attacked USA Today with conspiratorial accusations for a badly retouched photo; and perhaps most notoriously, tried to ferret out a nefarious conspiracy by the Associated Press in Baghdad that turned out to be completely false. Though perhaps nothing quite matches her attack on a 12-year-old that again turned out to be a case of overwrought right-wing fantasizing. But then, that incident pretty much was a case of self-immolation.

Steve Doocey and Michelle Malkin together in the same segment. Can't you feel the IQ points melting away?