Radio Personality: Members of the Opposing Party Should be Denied Health Care

Garrison KeillorYesterday Rush Limbaugh said that Democrats should be denied health care.  No, no, wrong radio personality!   If Rush had said anything that stupid, rest assured that you wouldn’t have had to wait to read about it on this blog to learn of it.  The networks would have been shouting the news and condemnatory editorials would have been thundering from newspapers coast to coast.  Instead it was just Garrison Keillor, National Public Radio’s Mark Twain wannabe, who decided that there are just too darn many Republicans and by gosh something should be done about it.  (As they would doubtless phrase a call for gopcide in Lake Wobegon.)  Writing in the Chicago Tribune,  Keillor has this charming sentiment:

When an entire major party has excused itself from meaningful debate and a thoughtful U.S. senator like Orrin Hatch no longer finds it important to make sense and an up-and-comer like Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty attacks the president for giving a speech telling schoolchildren to work hard in school and get good grades, one starts to wonder if the country wouldn’t be better off without them and if Republicans should be cut out of the health-care system entirely and simply provided with aspirin and hand sanitizer. Thirty-two percent of the population identifies with the GOP, and if we cut off health care to them, we could probably pay off the deficit in short order.

Denying health care on the basis of political ideology.  Nice guy.  Of course Keillor was merely joking.  He has a long history of hating Republicans,   but I am sure he merely jokes, and perhaps fantasizes, about the deaths of those who have the temerity of disagreeing with him politically and in reality he would never harm a fly.  At least a Democrat fly.

Oh, and Mr. Keillor thinks that the Catholic Church should stop fighting abortion too.  I was going to fisk Mr. Keillor’s article, but why do so when my friend, the ever resourceful Jay Anderson, at Pro Ecclesia in a superb post here has already done the heavy lifting?

“Thirty-six years of bitterness over Roe vs. Wade and what has it gotten us? If the decision were overturned tomorrow, not much would change. The question would revert to the states, and some would permit the termination of pregnancy, others wouldn’t. [ED.:Uhhhh, they obviously don’t teach logic at Journalism school, because the “others wouldn’t” part of that statement seems like a rather significant change to me.] Meanwhile, the effect of the battle has been quite other than what the Catholic Church could have wanted, the poisoning of the body politic. [ED.: And whose fault is that? It’s because of the Supreme Court that the political stakes have become so huge. Had they stayed out of it in 1973, the so-called “poisoning of the body politic” would likely not have been so significant. Besides, it appears that the logically challenged Lake Woebegone Boy’s point is that the Catholic Church could live with legalized abortion on demand just so long as we were all a little “nicer” to one another. And, of course, “being nice” entails pro-lifers rolling over and shutting the **** up. Oh, and supporting government-run health care.]”

The Lying Worthless Political Hack, a/k/a Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House, has not yet commented on Mr. Keillor’s column although I am sure she will since, as noted here, she has expressed concern about the language used in the health care debate, although her tolerance for harsh language seems to grow if the person using it is a Democrat

Nancy Pelosi sees no reason at all for Rep. Alan Grayson (D.FL.) to have to apologize for accusing Republicans on the floor of the House of wanting Americans to die.  I guess she can only take this civility thing so far.  For the edification of the crazed Mr. Grayson here is an outline of one of several health care reform proposals supported by Republicans in Congress.

38 Responses to Radio Personality: Members of the Opposing Party Should be Denied Health Care

  1. Jim says:

    Keillor is a typical “progressive” idiot. He has a platform and a reputation bought with out tax dollars and he acts as thought that gives him the right to do our thinking for us. God save us from such fools.

    By the way, where did he acquire the reputation for being a humorist? I have tried on several occasions to listen to his radio show and found only low grade witticism no better than what fellow workers produce freely in the course of the workday. And if I’m driving, I am constantly in danger of being put to sleep and driving off the road.

  2. Donald R. McClarey says:

    I confess Jim that my wife and I in the mid to late eighties listened to Prairie Home Companion. We stopped, partially due to the politics that began seeping in, but mostly because Keillor simply was recycling the same gags and skits in the show with minor variations. It got boring to us, a cardinal sin when your goal is entertainment.

  3. Donna V. says:

    I remember coming across the show quite by accident in the mid-80’s. Keillor was talking about being raised in the austere sect of the Plymouth Brethren and his secret boyhood wish to be Catholic (specifically an Italian Catholic – red wine, spaghetti, paintings of nekkid ladies, and “Let’s do the motorola!”) I laughed so hard I cried.

    I think the politics began seeping in because there is only so much material you can squeeze out of Ralph’s Pretty Good Grocery and a small handful of characters. How many Norwegian farmer jokes can you do?

  4. Donna V. says:

    Oh, and it’s one thing to bring politics into the show, but Keillor has gotten increasingly bitter and spiteful about it. For a guy who places such a high value on “being nice to each other” – well, apparently conservatives are barely human (we’re all rich and greedy too), so there’s no need to be nice to them.

  5. Donald R. McClarey says:

    I recall that one Donna! Keillor definitely had his moments.

  6. Keillor used to be pretty funny — mostly back before he started retiring with a big farewell episode every year and then coming back again. (Which was, what, 15-20 years ago?) Though even then there was a certain amount of off-key political ranting about Reagan.

    Well I remember the NPR lineup of Prairie Home Companion, following by the BBC imports My Word and then My Music. Ah, youth…

    But this editorial piece of his is just moronic. And then, of course, we have the Democratic congressman from Florida calling saying we need to pass the Obama bill now in order to stop the holocaust.

  7. Jay Anderson says:

    I peg the date that Keillor stopped being even remotely funny and started being a partisan hack at roughly November 1994. He completely went off the deep end and became unbearable to listen to right about 1998.

  8. M.Z. says:

    I think some folks here are being lead around on their nose by their ideology. Feigning may be a skill in court, but it is tiresome in writing. I also find it interesting that you don’t just have to disagree with Keillor’s column, but you also can’t find him funny, entertaining, or even like him.

  9. Paul Zummo says:

    I think some folks here are being lead around on their nose by their ideology.

    Unlike you, of course, who is the world’s last independent thinker. Never mind your recent penchant for defending any piece of left-wing agitprop, no matter how silly or offensive. Oh, if only the world had as many courageous, independent minds like Mz Discalced Yooper Forrest.

  10. Phillip says:

    That one should be left up to show how the intelligentsia thinks.

  11. Phillip says:

    “Old men shouldn’t be allowed to doze off at the switch and muck up the works for the young who will have to repair the damage. Get over yourselves. Your replacements have arrived, and you should think about them now and then.” Keillor

    Though given M.Z.’s last comment perhaps its the middle aged that should take over.

  12. Donald R. McClarey says:

    I deleted MZ’s use of the colloquial term for fornication and e’s quotation of the same. I trust that people can express their thoughts adequately without using some of the language prized by the felons I defend in criminal matters.

  13. e. says:

    Donald (?):

    Thanks for cleaning up M.Z.’s mess.


    You’re fortunate that the TAC moderators were kind enough to wipe that little expletive of yours off the record. You might want to exercise a little more retraint. To resort to such profanity can only worsen your case, not to mention, reveals certain aspects of your character, too.

    God bless.

  14. e. says:

    Donald: So it was you! Just wanted to bring to the attention of the TAC moderators that little expletive of M.Z..

    I appreciate greatly how promptly you attended to it. Needless to say, such profanity is undeserving a place here at TAC.

    I find it ironic that just a little while ago, Vox Nova, of which M.Z. & Michael Iafrate are part, looked down on such comments as these and even devoted an entry to address the matter with such supposedly noble intention that they would hitherto not allow that kind of foul commentary on their blogs.

    I guess that doesn’t apply to the Vox Novans themselves as far as their own participation goes on other blogs.

  15. Donald R. McClarey says:

    I knew your intentions were honorable e.

  16. M.Z. says:

    If you’re going to go to the trouble of taking down my comment, take them all down, and at least remove my name from Paul’s comment.

  17. Zach says:

    Nothin’ like some good ad hominems

  18. Paul Zummo says:

    I have no idea of what has transpired in the past 90 minutes, but if MZ would no longer have his full name associated with his comments, then it’s fine by me if you delete that portion of my comment.

  19. Donald R. McClarey says:

    MZ I have no problem with Paul’s comment or a rejoinder from you so long as no language better left to lock ups is used.

  20. e. says:

    Uhhhh… Paul, I believe that little expletive of M.Z., which subsequently followed your comments, was meant for you.

    I can’t be sure, but perhaps it was something you said that enraged him so?

  21. Paul Zummo says:


    I have no idea what MZ said in response to my comment. I went out for lunch and came back and saw only the aftermath of the controversy.

  22. M.Z. says:

    If I see either of you in real life, you’ll regret it.

  23. e. says:


    Was that a threat?

    Hopefully, Paul hasn’t divulged his personal information or the results could prove disastrous.

  24. Phillip says:

    Now my comments make less sense. But they’re still billiant!

  25. Dale Price says:

    Yes, e, the *natural* reading of “If I ever see either of you in real life, you’ll regret it” is a physical–albeit conditional and not immediate–threat.

    Having been repeatedly accused of issuing a threat myself (since graciously retracted by the accuser), I hold out hope for another explanation.

  26. Tito Edwards says:


    Please stop provoking M.Z. You can say the same thing without having to use certain adjectives and adverbs.

  27. e. says:

    Hold on, now —

    Before M.Z. sics his mafia hitmen on me, let me just say that it was Paul who provoked M.Z.’s ire; not me.

    I only entered into the scene because I deplored M.Z.’s subsequent comment to him which contained uncalled-for profanity.

  28. Tito Edwards says:


    I know what you’re saying, just being your friendly taco tracker and making sure this doesn’t escalate anymore.

  29. Paul Zummo says:

    Before M.Z. sics his mafia hitmen on me, let me just say that it was Paul who provoked M.Z.’s ire; not me.

    Oh come on e, that’s just not fair. I now have to spend the rest of my life looking over my shoulder, hoping against hope that some crazed albino assassin doesn’t whack me while I’m out for a stroll along the Potomac. For the love of humanity, one of his co-bloggers knows exactly where I am every Sunday morning. What chance do I have?

    Time to write that will.

  30. Mike Petrik says:

    Back to GK’s statement. I get the humor and don’t mind it at all. I just don’t get the math. He seems to forget that the 32% self-identified GOPers pretty much pay for their own health care insurance and are almost certainly aggregate net contributors to the care of the other 68%. No money to be saved there unless one expects the GOPers to pay for nothing, which as I think about is probably just shorthand for the public option.

  31. Donald R. McClarey says:

    Thank you Mike for bringing this back to the post. All further comments on this thread, please focus them upon the post.

  32. There’s nothing more spiteful and mean then a Liberal that’s been disagreed with!

  33. […] However, if Reid does achieve the near miraculous and passes some bill with Health Care mentioned at the top, reconciliation should be a breeze with any bill passed by the House due to his his warm relationship with The Lying Worthless Political Hack, aka Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House. […]

  34. […] House ObamaCare bill.  Now the Lying Worthless Political Hack, a/k/a, Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House, attempted to avoid a vote on the Stupak Amendment by concocting a false compromise which was shot […]

  35. Love Thy Neighbor says:

    Reading this blog entry has made me choose to abandon this blog altogether. There are so many things in this world to complain about – why don’t you choose one of the real ones?

  36. Donald R. McClarey says:

    Suit yourself LTN. This is a fairly eclectic blog when it comes to what we write about, and part of our blog brief is to write about American culture and politics.

  37. […] that the Lying Worthless Political Hack’s, aka Nancy Pelosi’s, favorability rating in a CBS poll is 11% and Harry Reid’s favorability […]

%d bloggers like this: