The headline of an Associated Press "fact check" article falsely suggested that President Obama's health care plan would cause people to pay higher health insurance premiums. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated that by 2016 the Senate's version of health care reform -- on which Obama's plan is largely modeled -- would not increase premiums for the vast majority of Americans, and for many, premium costs would decrease.

AP: "Premiums would rise under Obama plan." The headline of a March 17 AP "fact check" article stated, "Premiums would rise under Obama plan," falsely suggesting that people would pay higher health insurance premiums under health care reform. The article cited a CBO report on the Senate's health care bill to discuss how premiums would be affected by health care reform legislation.

CBO: Premiums in group market will not increase. CBO estimated that the large group and small group markets make up 83 percent of the insurance market and that those premiums would essentially remain unchanged and could decrease.

PolitiFact: "CBO reported that, for most people, premiums would stay about the same, or slightly decrease." A January 27 PolitiFact.com analysis labeled the claim that health care reform would cause premiums for most Americans to increase "pants on fire" false and stated, "The CBO reported that, for most people, premiums would stay about the same, or slightly decrease." From PolitiFact.com:

On Nov. 30, 2009, the Congressional Budget Office, or CBO, released a detailed analysis on how health insurance premiums might be affected by the Senate Democrats' health care bill. The CBO is an independent agency whose estimates for pending legislation are considered nonpartisan and rigorous.

The CBO reported that, for most people, premiums would stay about the same, or slightly decrease. This was especially true for people who get their insurance through work. (Health policy wonks call these the large group and small group markets.) People who have to go out and buy insurance on their own (the individual market) would see rates increase by 10 to 13 percent. But more than half of those people -- 57 percent, in fact -- would be eligible for subsidies to help them pay for the insurance. People who get subsidies would see their premiums drop by more than half, according to the CBO. So most people would see their premiums stay the same or potentially drop.

CBO: Most individual enrollees would receive subsidies, which would decrease the premiums they pay by "56 percent to 59 percent" on average. CBO estimated that by 2016 a majority of people insured on the individual market would receive subsidies, which would decrease their premiums compared to what they would pay without health care reform. CBO stated, "The majority of nongroup enrollees (about 57 percent) would receive subsidies via the new insurance exchanges, and those subsidies, on average, would cover nearly two-thirds of the total premium, CBO and JCT [Joint Committee on Taxation] estimate. Thus, the amount that subsidized enrollees would pay for nongroup coverage would be roughly 56 percent to 59 percent lower, on average, than the nongroup premiums charged under current law." Claims that the bill would increase premiums in the individual market are based on estimates that do not factor in subsidies.

Washington Post's Ezra Klein: "CBO found health-care reform would reduce premiums." The Washington Post's Ezra Klein reported on an exchange between Obama and Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN) during the February 25 health care summit:

Lamar Alexander and Barack Obama just had a contentious exchange on this point, so it's worth settling the issue: Yes, the CBO found health-care reform would reduce premiums. The issue gets confused because it also found that access to subsidies would encourage people to buy more comprehensive insurance, which would mean that the value of their insurance would be higher after reform than before it. But that's not the same as insurance becoming more expensive: The fact that I could buy a nicer car after getting a better job suggests that cars are becoming pricier. The bottom line is that if you're comparing two plans that are exactly the same, costs go down after reform.

This year's celebrations are a welcome chance for recession-hit Ireland to put itself in the tourism spotlight, as pubs and hotels pack with revellers

Several of the world's landmarks are turning green for St Patrick's Day today, the annual celebration of all hues of Irishness.

The Sydney Opera House, London Eye, Toronto's CN Tower and New York's Empire State building will be lit by green floodlights as part of a marketing push by Tourism Ireland.

Back in Ireland, Dublin's flagship parade started at 12pm in Parnell Square, led by soccer legend Packie Bonner. Around 650,000 people are expected to line the 3km (2-mile) route. This year it takes the theme The Extraordinary World - a nod to Ireland's increasing multiculturalism as well as the past two centuries' global spread of the Irish.

New York's St Patrick's Day parade is the world's largest, and attracts 150,000 official marchers along 5th Ave, 44th-45th St. The parades originally started in the US but have since become part of Paddy's Day celebrations everywhere.

This year Ireland is pushing itself especially hard as a tourist destination as the country faces its worst recession since the Great Depression, with double-digit unemployment and net emigration for the first time in 15 years.

St Patrick's Day is Ireland's first major tourist event of the year, packing hotels and pubs with visitors seeking an all-night party. Ireland's weeklong festival gets bigger each year, with more than 100 parades today in cities, towns and villages across the country.

Virtually the entire Irish government left the country this week to greet foreign leaders and corporate kingpins in 23 countries in hopes of rekindling the investment wave that fuelled Ireland's Celtic Tiger boom of 1994-2007.

Prime Minister Brian Cowen was meeting US President Barack Obama at the White House, continuing Ireland's tradition of annual access to perhaps the most powerful man on earth.

President Mary McAleese, Ireland's ceremonial head of state who stayed at home to preside over the Dublin parade and her own St Patrick's garden party, said the Irish had powerful allies in politics and business backed by 70 million people of Irish descent, half of them Americans.

"We are lucky to have such a large global family. It has proved itself to be a very precious and important resource in every generation," she said.

St Patrick's Day is held on 17 March each year, believed to be the anniversary of the saint's death. Originally a Briton he was enslaved in his youth in Ireland but despite escaping he later returned to Ireland to spread Christianity in the 5th century. According to legend, he banished snakes from the island and used a shamrock to teach the concept of the Holy Trinity.

· More information on St Patrick's Day parades in Ireland.

• Ireland
• Festivals
• Ireland

La noticia fue reciente. El presidente Barack Obama, dicen sus voceros, estudia la sensible reducción de los arsenales atómicos norteamericanos, luego de su exhortación en abril del pasado año para que el planeta disminuya el peligro del uso del arma nuclear.

The release of an Associated Press poll last week that showed President Obama enjoying a healthy job approval rating of 53 percent didn't generate much news beyond the wire service and produced even less commentary among the media's chattering class. Then again, neither did another piece of polling news from January, which showed Obama basking in the glow of a 56 percent job approval rating.

The cold shoulder was expected, though. Why? It's simple: the results didn't fit the script.

Adopting the polar opposite narrative from the Bush era when pundits and reporters seemed obsessed with trying to boost the president's standing, Beltway scribes today have made it plain that when it comes to Obama and polling, good news is no news.

Feeding off right-wing talking points, political journalists love to push the idea that Obama's polling numbers are in the tank and that he's fading fast. It's all part of the preferred, CW narrative that his entire presidency is slipping away. (It must now be "save[d]," according to Newsweek.)

Does the White House wish Obama's job approval rating was higher? I'm sure advisers do. Is there anything unusual in Obama's approval number, other than the fact that it nearly doubles the rating his predecessor left office with? No, not really.

Indeed, the news media's ongoing hand-wringing about Obama's polling numbers and how he's only around 50 percent (it's "tepid" and cause for "worry") is rather odd considering former President Bush served nearly his entire second term with an approval rating below 50 percent and left the presidency with an almost incomprehensibly low 22 percent approval rating.

Also note that for the majority of Bush's first year in office (i.e. up until September 11, 2001), his approval rating remained pretty much exactly where Obama's has been since late last summer: hovering around 50 percent. But do you recall a media obsession about Bush's super-soft poll numbers back during the spring and summer of 2001?

Neither do I.

More queries: Has there been any dramatic shift in President Obama's approval number since late last summer? No. (See below.) Has the press in recent months, busy echoing right-wing falsehoods, often pretended that there has been a sizable shift? Without question. (Rush Limbaugh, last month: "If Mr. Obama hasn't noticed, his approval numbers are in a free fall.")

Just take a look. From The New York Times, December 19, 2009:

After weeks of frustrating delays and falling poll numbers, Mr. Obama decided to take what he could get, declare victory and claim momentum on some of the administration's biggest priorities, even if the details did not always match the lofty vision that underlined them.

Washington Post, January 19:

On Wednesday one year will have passed since President Obama's inauguration. Much of the tidal wave of assessments has been negative: Falling poll numbers. Unfulfilled promises.

Miami Herald, January 29:

Amid declining poll numbers and political fortunes, President Barack Obama on Thursday tried to reconnect with the fickle state that helped put him in the White House and urged voters to keep the faith despite Florida's withering recession.

CNN's Wolf Blitzer, February 23:

The president's falling poll numbers, ongoing backlash from Republicans, even some grumblings from Democrats. Might someone inside the White House bear most of the blame?

Los Angeles Times, March 7:

For months, Obama had been on the defensive, facing electoral setbacks, declining poll numbers, dissident Democrats and stories that highlighted the deal-making often needed to grind out legislation.

Everybody agrees that Obama's poll numbers are falling, so it must be true, right?

Wrong.

If you look at Gallup's weekly ratings for Obama, in late August 2009, he had a 50 percent approval rating. And for the most recently completed weekly tabulation from Gallup, Obama's rating stands at 48 percent. That's right, over a nearly seven-month period, the president's approval rating, as measured by Gallup, dropped exactly 2 percentage points, which obviously falls within Gallup's margin of error. That means you could accurately say that Obama's job approval rating has remained unchanged over the last six-plus months.

And it's not just Gallup that has chronicled Obama's rock-steady polling numbers. Take a look at the cumulative ratings posted daily at Real Clear Politics, which averages eight different polls (including Rasmussen's outlier tabulations) to come up with Obama's composite job approval rating.

Here are some of the data points from RCP:

• August 20, 2009: 51 percent
• September 23, 2009: 52 percent
• October 4, 2009: 52 percent
• November 4, 2009: 51 percent
• December 7, 2009: 49 percent
• January 11, 2010: 48 percent
• February 18: 48 percent
• March 3: 49 percent

And for the most recent, month-long snapshot, between February 17 and March 14, RCP pegged Obama's approval rating at 49 percent. So, much like Gallup, RCP has found that, since last August, Obama's job approval rating has basically shifted downward just a few points, or again, within the typical survey margin of error.

Given those figures, I'll ask again: Why is the press so eager to push this storyline about Obama's "falling poll numbers"? Where is the proof to back it up? And since when does a 1-3 point movement in any direction qualify as news? It's absurd.

By the way, if for some reason Obama's approval rating does significantly sag this month, or next, that won't somehow vindicate the previously erroneous coverage. Because the press has been claiming for the last several months that Obama's poll numbers have already fallen noticeable (which they have not), not that they're going to.

The media fixation on a barely there approval decline is especially bizarre when you consider how blasé the same press corps was during the Bush administration when the president often suffered gargantuan job approval declines. For instance, between December 2003 and May 2004, Bush's job approval plunged 17 points, according to Gallup. But it's hard to find much proof that the Beltway press corps was obsessed with Bush's "falling poll numbers" at the time.

But back to Obama. From September 1, 2009, to March 1, 2010, there was literally no change in Obama's approval rating. So why is the press so anxious to push the "falling poll numbers" meme? And is that why, when the White House did receive rays of good polling news during those months, the press seemed so anxious to look away?

Was it because when it comes to covering this Democratic White House, good news is no news?

At times it sure seems that way.

Back in January when The Washington Post reported on its latest political survey, the newspaper forgot to mention that Obama's job approval had gone up that month. Not a single reference to that fact was made in the article, which did set aside plenty of space to pile on the doom-and-gloom rhetoric:

A year into his presidency, President Obama faces a polarized nation and souring public assessments of his efforts to change Washington, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.

Nearly half of all Americans say Obama is not delivering on his major campaign promises, and a narrow majority have just some or no confidence that he will make the right decisions for the country's future.

By the way, this was the Post's headline:

Poll shows growing disappointment, polarization over Obama's performance

According to the Post, there was "growing disappointment" over Obama. Yet the Post itself forgot to report that his approval rating had gone up that month.

The same was true over at CNN.com in December 2009. Writing up the results of its latest poll, CNN not only didn't think the news hook was that Obama's approval rating had gone up 6 points in just two weeks, but the CNN article didn't even reference that finding until two-thirds of the way into the piece.

And then there was the AP in November 2009. Same drill. Its polling at the time showed Obama enjoying a robust 54 percent approval rating. So where was that information buried? In the article's ninth paragraph, after the AP painted an almost comically bleak picture of the political landscape Obama faced at the time.

And again, it's not just that the press has often misstated the facts about Obama's polling numbers. It's that this is the same Beltway press corps that often treated Obama's Republican predecessor in the exact opposite way, often itching to suggest that Bush's horrendous polling numbers were on the mend and spending years denying Bush's glaring job approval ratings collapse.

For instance, in January 2006, Time magazine's Mike Allen announced that Bush had "found his voice" and that relieved White House aides "were smiling again" after a rocky 2005. Of course, within months, Bush's approval rating fell to new all-time lows.

In April of that year, Katie Couric, then with NBC News, was asking Tim Russert if the White House could "breath[e] a sigh of relief" because Bush's latest approval rating had only fallen to 36 percent. In the end, Bush's phantom rebound never materialized and he left office as the least popular president in modern American history.

And yet for most of his eight years in office, the press seemed to have a gut feeling that Americans just liked Bush. And today, their instinct tells them that Americans don't really approve of Obama.

Here's an idea: Maybe journalists should simply report what Americans tell pollsters and stop trying to concoct a storyline.

Alex Spillius / Telegraph:
Barack Obama threatens to withdraw support from wavering Democrats  —  Barack Obama has said he will not campaign for any Democratic congressmen who fails to support health care reform.  —  The president will refuse to make fund-raising visits during November elections to any district whose representative has not backed the bill.

CNN announced that RedState.com editor Erick Erickson will join the channel as a political commentator, stating that he is "a perfect fit" for the new show John King, USA. Erickson's long history of incendiary, sexist, and racially charged statements includes asking when voters would "march down" and "beat" lawmakers "to a bloody pulp" and referring to former Supreme Court Justice David Souter as a "goat fucking child molester."

CNN calls Erickson "a perfect fit" who is "in touch with the very people" they want to reach. A March 16 post on CNN.com's Political Ticker blog on Erickson's hiring:

Prominent conservative commentator and RedState.com editor Erick Erickson will join CNN as a political contributor, appearing primarily on CNN's new show John King, USA¸ the network announced Tuesday.

Erickson, a self described "obsessive news junkie" who grew up in Dubai and rural Louisiana, will also provide perspective and commentary on other programs across the network.

"Joining CNN is like coming home, and being in Atlanta makes the decision right for me and my family," Erickson said in a statement.

Under Erickson's leadership, RedState.com has become the preeminent right of center community online. Prior to leading RedState.com, Erickson practiced law for six years and managed a number of political campaigns, and he currently serves as a member of the Macon, Georgia, city council. He studied political science and history and earned a bachelor's degree at Mercer University in Macon. Erickson also earned his law degree from Mercer's Walter F. George School of Law.

"Erick's a perfect fit for John King, USA, because not only is he an agenda-setter whose words are closely watched in Washington, but as a person who still lives in small-town America, Erick is in touch with the very people John hopes to reach," said Sam Feist, CNN political director and vice president of Washington-based programming. "With Erick's exceptional knowledge of politics, as well as his role as a conservative opinion leader, he will add an important voice to CNN's ideologically diverse group of political contributors." [CNN's Political Ticker, 3/16/10]

Erickson defends Beck's statement that Obama is "racist" and lashes out at "Obama Brownshirts." At Red State, Erickson defended Glenn Beck's assertion that President Obama is a "racist." Erickson stated, "A while back, Glenn Beck called Barack Obama a 'racist.' Given all the terrorists, thugs, and racists Barack Obama has chosen as close personal friends (see e.g. Rev. Wright), it's not a stretch to say it." Erickson went on to call for a boycott of companies that have pulled out of Beck's show and are, according to Erickson, "kowtowing to Barack Obama's worshippers, brownshirts, goons, and thugs."

Erickson calls Michelle Obama a "marxist harpy wife." In a blog post headlined, "Is Obama Shagging Hookers Behind the Media's Back?" Erickson stated, "I assume not. I assume that Obama's marxist harpy wife would go Lorena Bobbit on him should he even think about it, but I ask the question to make one simple point: Barack Obama, like Elliott Spitzer, is a creation of the liberal media and, as a result, could be a serial killing transvestite and the media would turn a blind eye."

Erickson calls Souter a "goat fucking child molester." On his Twitter account, Erickson responded to Souter's retirement from the Supreme Court by stating, "The nation loses the only goat fucking child molester ever to serve on the Supreme Court."

Erickson: "At what point do the people ... march down to their state legislator's house, pull him outside, and beat him to a bloody pulp?" In a March 31, 2009, post on RedState.com discussing a Washington county's ban on certain kinds of dishwasher detergent, Erickson wrote: "At what point do the people tell the politicians to go to hell? At what point do they get off the couch, march down to their state legislator's house, pull him outside, and beat him to a bloody pulp for being an idiot?" Later in the post, Erickson added: "Were I in Washington State, I'd be cleaning my gun right about now waiting to protect my property from the coming riots or the government apparatchiks coming to enforce nonsensical legislation."

Erickson: Purpose of Bachmann rally is "to tell Nancy Pelosi and the Congress to send Obama to a death panel." In a post on RedState.com, Erickson wrote: "Today, thousands will pour into Washington to tell Nancy Pelosi and the Congress to send Obama to a death panel (that's section 1233 of the original legislation). If you need details on where to go in D.C. or if you can't go, but want to show up at your Congresscritter's local office, go here." Erickson later "[c]larifi[ed]" that "Americans are sending Obamacare," not Obama, "to a death panel"

Erickson on Obama's Nobel Peace Prize: "I did not realize the Nobel Peace Prize had an affirmative action quota." In a RedState post discussing Obama's Nobel Peace Prize, Erickson wrote, "I did not realize the Nobel Peace Prize had an affirmative action quota for it, but that is the only thing I can think of for this news. There is no way Barack Obama earned it in the nominations period."

Erickson declares the "profoundly sick and immoral" Jennings "a proponent of statutory rape" and "a zealous advocate of NAMBLA." In an anti-gay rant posted on RedState, Erickson wrote: "Kevin Jennings is a profoundly sick and immoral human being -- a proponent of statutory rape, an opponent of the Boy Scouts of America, and a zealous advocate of NAMBLA." He added that Jennings is "not just a gay man, but a man who believes in the full gay rights agenda, where men and boys can have sexual relationships free of prudish moral people frowning" and called Jennings "a man who encourages predatory relationships between young boys and grown men."

Erickson: Kennedy wanted to be a "martyr for the cause." During the January 19 edition of CNN's Campbell Brown, Erickson discussed Scott Brown's election as Massachusetts senator and stated that "the irony here, though, is that Obama's unicorn of hope and changes is dying under Ted Kennedy, that, if Ted Kennedy had decided to resign or retire when he found out just how bad his health was, instead of wanting to be a martyr for the cause, the Democrats wouldn't be in this position."

Erickson makes repeated attacks on feminists. On his Twitter account, Erickson has made numerous sexist statements. After an anti-abortion ad during this year's Super Bowl, Erickson wrote, "that's it?!?! That's what the feminazis were enraged over? Seriously?!? Wow. That's what being too ugly to get a date does to your brain"; and "Thus ends the credibility of all pro-abortion groups. Thanks Mrs. Tebow for that. Ugly feminists return to their kitchens." The next day, Erickson wrote, "Turned on twitter today and there was a barrage of angry feminists upset with me telling them to get in the kitchen and learn to cook"; "Good thing I didn't suggest the feminists ... you know ... shave. They'd be at my house trying a post-birth abortion on me"; and "Feminists have no sense of humor, but clearly God did in creating feminists."

Erickson: "Dorgan and Dodd are healthcare suicide bombers." In a Twitter post, Erickson stated: "[Sens. Byron] Dorgan and [Chris] Dodd are healthcare suicide bombers. Instead of 72 virgins, they'll get ambassadorships."

Erickson: "It is and has always been the left" that resorts to violence. In a March 7, 2009, Red State post, Erickson wrote: "It is not conservatives burning down homes in Washington State with the ELF. It is not conservatives throwing blood on women wearing fur. It is not conservatives burning down the Texas Governor's Mansion during riots. It is not conservatives rioting during G-8 summits. It is and has always been the left. Deal with it."

Right-wing media have recently targeted 11-year-old Marcelas Owens and his family for attacks after he appeared at a health care reform event to speak about his mother, who reportedly died after losing her health insurance. These attacks follow a history of media conservatives attacking or mocking the uninsured, and previous attacks by right-wing media on the family of a 12-year-old who spoke in support of SCHIP.

Marcelas' mother reportedly "died of pulmonary hypertension ... after losing her health insurance because she could no longer work." According to a New York Times report, Marcelas Owens appeared at a March 11 press conference with Senate Democrats and spoke about his mother's death. The Times reported that Marcelas' mother, "Tiffany Owens, died of pulmonary hypertension in 2007 at age 27 after losing her health insurance because she could no longer work. Ms. Owens had been an assistant manager at a Jack in the Box restaurant." CNN.com further reported that Marcelas said at the event, "I came out here for health care, I got involved because my mom was a health care activist, she testified and participated in rallies. She wanted people to have health care and not wait till management level to be offered health care."

Beck: "Where was grandma" when Marcelas' mother was sick? On the March 15 edition of his Fox News show, Glenn Beck attacked Marcelas' grandmother -- who appeared with Marcelas at the health care event -- for her work with the organization Washington Community Action Network. Beck said the group was "all about economic, racial, gender, and social justice for all" -- "pesky phrases" Beck then tied to "the Soviet Union" and the "democratic socialist republic in China." Beck said of Marcelas' appearance on Capitol Hill: "The trip was paid for by Health Care for America Now -- that's the George Soros-funded, Barack Obama-approved group fighting for health care. Since all of these groups are so concerned and so involved now, may I ask, where were you when Marcelas' mother was vomiting blood?" Beck continued: "Wasn't this the perfect opportunity to help provide a decent quality of life for all -- at least, for one? You had somebody in your own ranks that knew -- her mother knew. Dare I ask: Where was grandma?"

Limbaugh tells Marcelas: "Your mom would have still died, because Obamacare doesn't kick in until 2014." On the March 12 edition of his nationally syndicated radio show, Rush Limbaugh aired a clip of Marcelas' remarks at the health care event and said, "Now, this is unseemly, exploitative, an 11-year-old kid being forced to tell this story all over just to benefit the Democrat Party and Barack Obama." Limbaugh later said, referring to Marcelas, "Your mom would have still died, because Obamacare doesn't kick in until 2014."

Malkin: Marcelas is the "new, dubious poster boy for Demcare"; targets Marcelas' family. In a March 10 post, Michelle Malkin wrote that Marcelas is the "new, dubious poster boy for Demcare." In her syndicated column that day, titled, "Desperate Dems cling to human kiddie shield," Malkin wrote that Marcelas "admits he doesn't understand the complexities of health insurance reform and doesn't 'think it's anyone's fault' that his mom passed away. 'But they could have done more' for her, he says." In a March 12 post, Malkin criticized a New York Times article about Marcelas because it "fail[ed] to mention that Owens' grandmother and family have been longtime activists for the left-wing, single-payer advocates of the Washington Community Action Network or that the boy and his grandmother traveled to Washington with sponsorship from the Astroturf lobbyists of the Health Care for America Now outfit, which characterized Marcelas as an 'insurance abuse survivor.' " Malkin continued: "Never mind that there is not a shred of evidence that any health insurer ever 'abused' Marcelas. Never mind that the family has made no claim that Marcelas himself has survived without insurance."

NewsBusters: Marcelas has "entire family of liberal activists." In a March 10 post, NewsBusters' Scott Whitlock wrote that "Owens' entire family have been members of the liberal Washington Community Action Network." Further, Tim Graham wrote in a March 10 NewsBusters post -- titled, "Sell Us Marcelas: Fifth-Grade Protester Has Entire Family of Liberal Activists" -- that Marcelas "is a spokesman for a liberal lobby, the Washington Community Action Network."

Malkin, conservative bloggers attacked 12-year-old boy and his family after he gave Democratic radio address supporting SCHIP expansion. In September 2007, 12-year-old Graeme Frost -- who, along with his sister, was injured in a 2004 car accident -- gave a Democratic radio address criticizing President Bush's veto of a bill to expand the State Children's Health Insurance Program. Following Graeme's radio address, as Media Matters for America noted, conservative bloggers and Malkin in particular, aimed several attacks at his family, from questioning their financial status to referring to Graeme's parents as "mostly spoiled brats who became parents and never felt compelled to take responsibility for themselves."

Other media outlets echoed or cited bloggers' attacks. For example, on October 10, 2007, Limbaugh argued that the Frosts "can clearly afford [health insurance]. They just choose not to." During a report on the October 11, 2007, edition of CNN's American Morning, as Think Progress noted, co-host John Roberts said of the controversy: "Conservative bloggers like Michelle Malkin pounced, claiming the Frost family is a fraud, too wealthy for government assistance. One accusation: that Graeme attends a $20,000-a-year private school. The family insists scholarships cover most of that bill." Nonetheless, Roberts added: "Some of the accusations may be exaggerated or false, but did the Democrats make a tactical error in holding up Graeme as their poster child?" Noting the controversy in an October 12, 2007, column headlined, "Sliming Graeme Frost," New York Times columnist Paul Krugman wrote:

You might be tempted to say that bloggers make unfounded accusations all the time. But we're not talking about some obscure fringe. The charge was led by Michelle Malkin, who according to Technorati has the most-trafficked right-wing blog on the Internet, and in addition to blogging has a nationally syndicated column, writes for National Review and is a frequent guest on Fox News.

The attack on Graeme's family was also quickly picked up by Rush Limbaugh, who is so important a player in the right-wing universe that he has had multiple exclusive interviews with Vice President Dick Cheney.

Limbaugh's health care plan: "If you don't have any teeth, so what? What's applesauce for?" Responding to a story Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-NY) told about a woman who wore dentures that previously belonged to her dead sister because she lacked insurance and could not afford to buy her own, Limbaugh stated on February 25:

LIMBAUGH: You know I'm getting so many people -- this Louise Slaughter comment on the dentures? I'm getting so many people -- this is big, I mean, that gets a one-time mention for a laugh, but there are people out there that think this is huge because it's so stupid. I mean, for example, well, what's wrong with using a dead person's teeth? Aren't the Democrats big into recycling? Save the planet? And so what? So if you don't have any teeth, so what? What's applesauce for? Isn't that why they make applesauce?

Beck mocks Slaughter's story: "I've read the Constitution ... I didn't see that you had a right to teeth." On his February 26 radio show, Beck played an audio clip of Slaughter's account then said, "I am wearing George Washington's dentures right now. I'm wearing his teeth right now." He later added, "I just like wearing dead people's teeth. But in America -- I'm sorry, I didn't know that that was -- I've read the Constitution before. I didn't see that you had a right to teeth." Echoing Limbaugh's remarks the previous day, Beck stated, "The environmentalists should be all over Slaughter. 'How dare you say that?' My gosh, they're just recycling. They're just reusing."

Beck sidekick uses baby voice to mock letters Obama receives. On Beck's February 25 radio show, co-host Steve "Stu" Burguiere stated that Obama "gets 10 letters, Glenn, every night." Co-host Pat Gray asked, "From 2-year-old girls?" Then, one of the co-hosts started speaking in a baby's voice: "I have no health care, Mr. Pwesident, and I have no feet and no tonsils because doctors took 'em out."

Conservative blogger Pamela Geller linked to an audio clip of the segment, which she wrote was "[d]a best! the funniest thang evuh!"

Gateway Pundit attacks Slaughter's "sappy lib sob story of the day, hands down." On his Gateway Pundit blog, Jim Hoft linked to a video clip of Slaughter telling the story about the dentures under the headline, "Horror! Lib Dem Claims Her Constituent Wore Dead Sister's Teeth (Video)." After declaring the account the "sappy lib sob story of the day, hands down," Hoft wrote: "Will Obamacare buy me glasses and contacts? Will Obamacare buy me a gold tooth in the front of my mouth with a little heart on it?"

Ingraham: "Louise Slaughter won the Olympics of sob stories." On Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, radio host Laura Ingraham said she "liked the dueling sob stories, OK? One Democrat was trying to outdo the next on the sob story about how rotten our health care system is. Louise Slaughter won the Olympics of sob stories by saying one of her constituents had to wear her sister's dentures. OK? It got so bad with the health care system." She later added, "You had Harry Reid on the cleft palate with his -- I mean, the whole thing was ridiculous."

Fox Nation labels anecdote "Summit Insanity." From the Fox Nation, accessed February 25:

Limbaugh mocked story of transplant patient on Medicare who will have to pay own bills after three years. On February 26, referring to a story Rep. James Clyburn (D-SC) recounted at President Obama's health care summit, Limbaugh stated:

LIMBAUGH: This patient was about to receive a transplanted organ -- Clyburn didn't specify what it was -- and the horror -- he's gonna get a -- he's gonna get a totally paid-for transplant. The horror is that he was going to have to start paying his post-op bills in three years.

If this is the worst we can say about American medicine, are we really in that bad a shape after all?

I have a different observation on this. I mean, look at where we are with this. This guy is -- he about had an emotional breakdown 'cause he was told he's gotta start paying his own medical bills after three years. He gets a free transplant; he gets a free after-care for three years and then he's on his own, and he's mad and thinks he's getting screwed.

Limbaugh told caller who can't afford $6,000 to treat broken wrist: "Well, you shouldn't have broken your wrist." In August 2009, Limbaugh had the following exchange with a caller:

CALLER: If we pay for our health care ourselves, would it bring costs down?

LIMBAUGH: Yeah, it would, if -- with other -- yeah, if you get some other players out of the game, yeah -- of course.

CALLER: What do you mean by "other players"? I'm sorry.

LIMBAUGH: Government -- get the government out of it. Get the government -- their stupid regulations. Get the government out of Medicare. You -- look it, the only way that cost or price ratios make sense is based on the consumer's ability to pay. There has to be a direct relationship between the customer and the business at the surface.

CALLER: OK. I just broke my wrist and it's costing me $6,000. I can't afford that.

LIMBAUGH: Well, you shouldn't have broken your wrist.

CALLER: That's true.

LIMBAUGH: You know why it costs $6,000? Because you, technically, aren't paying for it. An insurance policy's paying for it, backed up by some government insurance policy, or what have you.

Doocy: Idea to "treat [people] like dogs" "makes a lot of sense." On the March 12 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends, co-host Steve Doocy reported on a Newsweek column by "very brilliant" veterinarian Karen Oberthaler entitled, "Treat People Like Dogs," which suggested that the health care system should resemble the veterinary one. Doocy said the idea "makes a lot of sense," because "we're on the hook" for our pet's medical costs. Doocy said: "[T]here's only 3 percent of Americans who have pet insurance and so we're on the hook for the charges. So, if Americans were on the hook for all the tests and stuff, it would be a lot different." Citing Oberthaler's column, Doocy added: "If you've got a golden retriever ... and you know that the dog has got cancer and it's -- you know, there really is no getting any better, would you order a bunch of tests that are going to be costly and right out of your pocket? Because chances are you don't have the insurance ... it also has to do with, you know, putting the dog through pain at the end of the road."

Limbaugh: "There's no federal dog health care plan out there, and it's working just fine." On the June 15, 2009, edition of his radio show, Limbaugh argued against public health care programs, claiming that "there's no federal dog health care plan out there, and it's working just fine," because the "private market is providing dog owners every option they want for their dogs to be cared for" and that "it's based on the owner's ability to pay, there's no insurance involved."

There is a growing possibility that the U.S. will pass no climate change legislation in this session of Congress: the uphill climb is at least as steep, and probably steeper, as it is for health care legislation. President Barack Obama cannot presume to hold his own party in line on climate change. Several Democratic senators have already asked him to stop pushing for a bill in 2010, given the proximity to the midterm elections.

The fracture lines are countless, but probably the most important one runs through public opinion. A recent poll showed only 36 percent of Americans believing that the evidence of human-induced climate change is firm, down from 47 percent in early 2008. The rise of unemployment has perhaps made people more reluctant to accept adverse news on living standards. There is also considerable public confusion about climate science and possible remedies.