So what if you get sick and die -- Rachel Maddow's got bigger fish to fry: sex scandals and teabagger jokes!
As Maddow continues to titter (I'm sure she could devote a week to riffing on that word!) about Beltway (hey-O!) sex trivia, a vital health-care debate is supposedly going on in this country. Who knew... besides Somerby?
Might we explain how our politics works? The public tends to favor progressive positions, to the extent that they understand the real shape of our debates. For that reason, the corporate interest will almost always be served by a thrilling distraction. In this case, the public would be angry and deeply unimpressed—if they understood the nature of our bloated health spending. If they understood what that disparity in spending means—that massive amounts of “health care” dollars are being drained into corporate pockets.
The public would be upset about that. Maddow refuses to tell them.
Why should Our Sainted Progressive Superstar Scholar have to sully herself with such wonky matters, since the rest of the media are doing such a great job, after all. Especially if we're not doing our part to frame the issues in an msnbc-compatible way.
If we want her to use her bully pulpit to save lives — and our economy — we need to recast "single payer" in an appropriate light for the new progressive-cable medium:
* Change the name to "swinging payer," "sinning payer," "singles-night player," "single splayer," "tinkle sprayer," or "Single? Play with yourself!"
* Note that a prostitute's john is a "single payer," and provide prefab jokes about Vitter and Spitzer being "married payers" (Try your best to get them lame enough for Maddow's use. Good luck with that!)
Rachel's done her part by claiming the mantle of Progressive Media Darling. Throw her a bone, willya?