Lovely. After telling her militant, heavily armed followers that Democrats of being murdering, eugenicist fiends, she calls for civility.

When wingnuts (though I hesitate to apply that term to her given that it implies a level of ideological coherence inconsistent with her rank opportunism) who've been indulging in inflammatory rhetoric do this, is is an admission that they expect violence, are complicit in its creation and want to try to disassociate themselves from it in advance.

Now she wants civil discourse? She's looking at the reports of her own discourse and learning that she's being depicted as a demagogue.

No, she doesn't want respectful and intelligent discourse, she, like republicans in general, only want the appearance of respectful discourse as a venue to propagate their despicable lies and disinformation. Best to relegate all of them who have proven themselves as trash talking manipulators of the ignorant, who have an interest in maintaining falsehoods. To me, I don't give a rat's ass what she says about Russia, her down's syndrome supporters, or slimy oil policies; she has nothing to add to political discussion, and never will.

"...tactics that can be accused of leading to intimidation or harassment."
Nah, that's palin-speak word usage.

"J'accuse, tactics! Begone with you, I say begone!"

Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, senior healthcare advisor to Obama, was the co-author of a paper in the January 2009 Lancet, “Principles for Allocation of Scarce Medical Interventions,” which advocates the rationing of medical care according to an age based priority system called “complete lives.” This proposal calls for a dramatic reduction in the allocation of scarce medical resources to older people. It is no surprise that elderly people who don’t want their health care benefits cut would take offense at Emanuel and the so-called “cost savings” he and Obama advocate – people understand this means reduction in health care services delivery.

Obama is calling for trillions of dollars of cost reduction for Medicare. This summer Obama’s Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Services (CMS) are advocating big cuts. Physicians who read X-rays, CT and MRI scans will get a 30% cut Jan. 1, on top of a 23% cut they got five years ago. Radiation oncologists will get a 20% cut; impact on practices is estimated at an 18%-31% cut in revenue. The required utilization of imaging and therapeutic radiation machines would rise from 40%-50% at present, to 95%. This will force the shutdown of many centers, especially in rural and minority areas, and lead to an accelerated rate of deaths from cancer.

Obama’s plan promises to institutionalize Medicare cuts going forward, taking Medicare reimbursement decisions out of the hands of our elected representatives, and turning it over to a panel called the Independent Medicare Advisory Commission (IMAC) IMAC has been rightly targeted by Congresswoman Woolsey and 50+ others, who expressed their concern about “the impact it would have on seniors, people with disabilities, doctors, and hospitals.” which would take away Medicare reimbursement decisions from our elected representatives, and place this in the hands of the anonymous bureaucrats. In the health care bill, the IMAC would be mandated to cut Medicare expenditures. Perhaps this picture of an appointed panel deciding what medical procedures will be paid for under what circumstances could be evoking fears of the so-called "death panel."

And this is all from the same White House gang who threw away $23 trillion in bailouts for the big banks and Wall Street. No wonder the working people in America are upset! You know you aren't talking about real reform when big Pharma commits to spend $100 million to help get the "reform" approved. Obama should follow Roosevelt’s lead and build more hospitals, expand Medicare, and junk his support for the big bank bailout.

She's telling the lynchmob that if the fabricated accusations of baby killing, nazism, and forced euthanasia and the threats of exercizing their second ammendment rights against Democrats are propagated in a civil manner, we can no longer criticize their behavior.

First appointment to Death Panel.

See:

http://notionscapital.wordpress.com/2009/08/09/paula-abdul-named-to-obama-death-panel/

Sarah,
Ever hear those famous words of Jesus to
" Do Unto Others As you Would Like Them To Do Unto You ?

You complain that people tell lies about you, but you are guilty of the same thing and worse.
You came close to inciting violence when you were campaigning.
What will really satisfy you? Serious harm or worse to come to Obama ?
I certaintly hope that never happens but you and some of the wacky people you pal around with are sure stirring up some words to set some wacko off!
You can't take your words back !
Read the book of James in the Bible!

Shame on you!!!

Eric, you're doing a disservice to your readers by not giving background to where Palin's reference comes from. It's from a 1996 paper (not 2009 as some contend) by Ezekiel Emanuel, Rahm's brother. It does in fact discuss the differences between basic and discretionary services, and in view of limited resources, what criteria might be used to decide who gets those resources. Jake Tapper discusses:

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/07/when-academic-words-become-political-ammunition-.html

Emanuel doesn't seem to be "advocating" - he is discussing the different ways such a thing happens and what might be more ethical ways of doing this.

The fact is that health insurance companies have these same kind of decision makers, but they're not elected or public officials, they might be simply bean counters looking to guarantee stockholder value, there is no transparency for the public, but someone denied say breast cancer treatment (I believe one of the bloggers over at Firedog had this issue) has no recourse. If it's a government body making this decision, you can raise a fit, call your Senator, sue or start a protest.

But by not giving sources of known information, readers assume Palin's just whacko, and then they give Republican fans an easy retort: "you're deluded, Emanuel says so right here". Bad way of doing business, bad way of arguing. Instead, progressives need to have the facts, and be able to say how many cases are disallowed by insurance companies a year, retroactively labeled as "pre-existing" or other foul practices. But instead, Democrats do what they usually do, go into battle unarmed and get mowed over by self-assured conservatives with a few key facts and a head full of delusion.

Now, since Palin is working off of factual information, you already misrepresent her in her description of a Death Panel. There are already many Death Panels in and out of government. Deep Capture describes how the FDA denied a promising prostate drug treatment due to unethical and likely illegal actions of stock manipulators. The government decides which drugs and treatments it has the resources to test. Insurance companies decide which treatments are too expensive, often masked with "acceptable lower cost alternatives exist". Defunding stem cell research was a direct attack on a number of promising lines of research - I think that decision was made by a Death Panel of 1, George W. Bush.

Sweet Jesus please make her go away.

Here is a great article about the myth of rationing.

http://progressnotcongress.org/?p=2445

"Let's not give the proponents of nationalized health care any reason to criticize us".

Sorry, Sarah. That ship sailed away a long time ago...

Stupid is as stupid says (on Twitter or Facebook).

I don't care where she got her information from, she is still a whacko and she knows she came off as a whacko. Why else would she make this second statement?

I don't think that she really wrote this. I realize that some people write better than they speak, but this must have been written by someone else.

Who remembers, during previous presidential campaigns, when the Republicans and their candidate (usually Bushes) would say nasty, divisive things, then when debunked firmly, would simply reply 'oops, sorry'? Well, that's a tactic because all anyone remembers is the negative things said about the Democratic candidate. It didn't matter that lies were told. The only important thing was that the damage was inflicted and the tactical advantage won. This issue with Palin is the latest example of just more of the same. She isn't bothered by any negative press from her statement. It's just more of their tactics. It has produced the desired effect, revved up the faithful, annoyed the Democrats, and kept her name in the limelight. It doesn't matter one bit if it generated negative press for her. That's the game, and saying 'lets be civil' is just part of it.