Check Wikipedia

 

 Check Wikipedia, and you might find something interesting.  I have noticed that the record of several congressmen, in my state, is being actively distorted and misrepresented in their wikipedia article.

Case in point, my Local Congressman. He voted for healthcare reform, from a heavily republican district. At a town hall meeting, the GOP sent a bunch of people to stack  and disrupt the meeting.  He calls them out on it, and it gets reported in the newspaper. But the way it gets written into his Wikipedia article is that he was angry at everyone who showed up, and wouldn't let anyone provide any feedback on the issue. This is not the case. I wrote to the guy several times, and he sent I and my wife several replies. He took in all of his constituency, in his vote for Healthcare Reform. I remember him thinking about it carefully. He finally voted for it.

 

The fun part is, that if you read his Wikipedia article (at least, the draft that was there before I just finished correcting it) - it does not mention anything else about healthcare reform except a meeting in which most of the people from the meeting that attenended, weren't even from his own constituency.  It was a stacked meeting, that was made just to eff with him. Later on, apparently, they painted a swastika on his office. Y'all just don't get that kind of fun up in New England. But this is just the kind of dog and pony show that GOP activists love to play. They did this when they tried to put Nixon in power. This guy really sat down with people in his district, I remember his vote was cast very carefully.  The article seems to suggest he just bulldozed everyone in his district. Not so.

 I'm not completely happy with my congressman, but we should remember that the reason the House of Representatives is getting so much heat this election cycle is that the Big Pharma lobbyists, that are feeling the pull of their now-very-easy-to-hide corporate lobbyist power (thanks to the supreme court decision that opened the floodgates) - really hated the concept that there was a public option in healthcare reform.  The money is flowing into the GOP bigtime. 85% of all lobbyist money is now flowing into the GOP and they want desperately to control the house.

My rationale for asking you to check wikipedia is pretty simple. I rely on it. It is usually a decent source of information. If the activists who want to distort the record of congress - need to screw with it, my advice is screw it right back until it's factual. And honest.  Don't do it just for kicks, do it because it's the right thing to do.

After all, on the issue of Healtcare Reform - I am reminded of a sign that I saw in the Great Bush Election of 2000...

The one that said. "Number of children uninsured, by country"

England  0

Germany 0

France     0

Spain      0

Canada    0

America    11,000,000

Tension was running high then, on the subject of healthcare reform - and it is even today.  But if the vote were accurately counted in 2000, instead of distorted... what would our country look like today?

 

So. My advice is. Check Wikipedia. See if it's wrong. And if so, correct it. Most people are going to try to fact check their candidate. The number one thing you can do is make sure the facts are correct.

 

Do this, and you'll probably be ok. People haven't forgotten that they are in charge. But they don't count on factual distortion.

 

 

Tags: (all tags)

Comments

5 Comments

RE: Check Wikipedia

really hated the concept that there was a public option in healthcare reform

Umm! There was no public option. In fact, the only bad thing for corporate medicine is the requirement that 85% of premiums be paid out in benefits and that's only for individual policies not group policies. Insurance companies are just dropping individual policies. What has everyone angry is the mandate that Obama was supposed to oppose and taxing benefits to pay for it. Even teabaggers that I work with are OK with the idea of voluntary Medicare buy-in at no net cost to the government, but the Senate "Leadership" wouldn't even let it be voted on. I can only conclude that they did that because Medicare buy-in would hurt insurance companies.

by antiHyde 2010-10-28 07:00PM | 0 recs
There was a public option in the house version

We're talking about the house of representatives, and not the senate. The house version included a strong public option - the senate version, did not. And in the end, the healthcare reform bill that was passed didn't have it.

 

That's why so much effort is being focussed on the house.

by Trey Rentz 2010-10-29 01:09PM | 0 recs
Obamacare

is a scam ....billions to big pharma and millions forced to buy inadequate coverage at high cost.

 

by changeagain2012 2010-10-28 10:06PM | 0 recs
RE: Obamacare

Troll ^^^

 

by Trey Rentz 2010-10-29 01:10PM | 0 recs
The best social program is

a good job...

by Paul Goodman 2010-10-30 06:06PM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads