The Allen Brauer Tweets: Rendering A Sincere And Credible Apology Impossible

 Hellspawn and Public Louse, Amanda Carpenter. Nice disguise!

Hellspawn and Public Louse, Amanda Carpenter. Nice disguise!

The Communications Chair for the Sacramento Democratic Party, Allan Brauer, sent a series of cruel and uncivil tweets assailing Sen. Ted Cruz aide Amanda Carpenter for her own Twitter missive cheering on GOP opposition to gun control, the President’s Syrian policy—whatever it is—and the Affordable Care Act. After some online drama, he apparently regretted his rash and hurtful words,  and sent Carpenter this apparently heartfelt apology:

“Hi- am truly sorry for my tweet. I was very upset and lashed out. Your kids are not fair game either. My apologies.”

She graciously accepted. How could anyone quarrel with this resolution of the incident?

Here is how: Brauer, who has a record of social media viciousness, made it very clear in the course of the  controversy launched by his commentary that he didn’t regret what he had said at all. Here was his first tweet:

Brauer tweet

After being swarmed by various Twitter users who protested his language and sentiments, Brauer followed up with these well-chosen and unrestrained statements to them and his Twitter followers:

  • “Busy blocking the tapeworms that have slithered out of hellspawn @amandacarpenter’s asshole. How’s your day so far?”
  • “I’m being attacked on Twitter for wishing one of Ted Cruz’s pubic lice to experience the pain her boss is inflicting on Americans.”
  • “Yes, your party takes bread from the mouths of starving children and medicine from the sick, and I’m the problem. Got it.”

Then, suddenly, a “heartfelt” apology! Uh-uh. Brauer had plenty of time to regret his viciousness for the right reasons, and instead doubled down on them. (Amusingly, he is one of the experts who writes a website whose motto is, “It Matters How You Say It!”) What changed? Obviously, his party found it embarrassing to have a communications head that communicated like a hateful thug.

Before the apology, the California Democratic Party issued this rebuke:

Dem Response

Let me first note here that this response is less than  satisfactory on its own, and tells us a lot about why an unethical jerk like Brauer was tolerated, and probably embraced, in the state party for as long as he was. The problem with this kind of rhetoric is that it’s unfair, disrespectful and wrong, not that it isn’t effective, which is essentially all Flores is saying. Nonetheless, be it for being an embarrassment or a poor tactician, it is clear that Brauer was taken to the woodshed by his own party, and realized that an apology was the only thing that could save him. This makes his apology above a #7 on the Ethics Alarms Apology Scale, a

“A forced or compelled apology, in which the individual (or organization) apologizing may not sincerely believe that an apology is appropriate, but chooses to show the victim or victims of the act inspiring it that the individual responsible is humbling himself and being forced to admit wrongdoing by the society, the culture, legal authority, or an organization or group that the individual’s actions reflect upon or represent.”

In other words, Brauer concluded that apologizing to Carpenter would be better for him than not apologizing. There is nothing admirable or contrite about such an apology, and as a sincere apology, it is worthless. His immediate reaction to the criticism of his original death wish on Carpenter’s children demonstrated not one sliver of genuine regret or an atom of comprehension of what was wrong with such a hateful and public communication. After his subsequent vile comments, the window of opportunity to issue an apology that can be taken at face value has slammed shut, and Brauer is the slammer.

And, I’m happy to announce that the faux apology didn’t work for Allen Brauer: he was “asked to resign” by the party, and did.

______________________

Facts and Graphic: New York Daily News

Source: Twitchy 1,2,3

 

 

40 thoughts on “The Allen Brauer Tweets: Rendering A Sincere And Credible Apology Impossible

    • Yes, it’s almost as if food for the poor, and health care for the sick, are among our sincere and passionately held policy priorities.

      But if you admitted that, you might have to admit that people can disagree with you politically and still be sincere and well-informed.

      • Oh please. the cuts to foodstamps are both minimal and needed, not to mention the vast expansion of the rolls would not be needed if an incompetent dipshit weren’t actively trying to ruin the economy…

        And healthcare for the poor? You mean the poor who’s coverage is being canceled? Who won’t even be able to find a doctor because they won’t take more? Or the over 30 million who still won’t have coverage (isn’t that the same number who didn’t have coverage before ACA was passed)? The poor who are so because their hours (or entire job) was cut because of the burdensome regulations?

        Stop helping, you’re only fucking shit up further.

        • Okay, I’ll bite.

          Oh please. the cuts to foodstamps are both minimal and needed…

          They are minimal, in terms of their impact on the budget – they’ll save 0.086 percent of projected Federal spending. However, because they are so minimal, they are not “needed” in any budgetary sense – they make virtually no difference.

          Cutting the enormous subsidies to wealthy farmers that the GOP so carefully protected in the same legislative maneuver would do much more for the budget deficit than cutting $4 billion a year (on average) from food stamps – but oddly, the GOP doesn’t seem up for doing that.

          In terms of their impact on individual households, that $4 billion a year cut makes a big difference – it’s a loss of $30 to $160 worth of food a month, coming from millions of the poorest households in America,

          The blame game is uninteresting – anyone who isn’t hopelessly biased can see that the current economic woes have been caused by policies people from both parties endorsed. But even if you think that Obama is 100% responsible for the recession, so what? That won’t magically make food stands less needed.

          As for health care coverage, I can’t possibly afford health insurance on my freelance income, and with my pre-existing conditions. Come January, I will be able to easily afford it. So the claim that Obamacare is making things worse for folks like me, doesn’t seem very credible from where I stand.

          • As for health care coverage, I can’t possibly afford health insurance on my freelance income, and with my pre-existing conditions. Come January, I will be able to easily afford it. So the claim that Obamacare is making things worse for folks like me, doesn’t seem very credible from where I stand.

            How do you figure that? History does not seem to be on your side.

            http://www.boston.com/news/health/articles/2009/08/22/bay_state_health_insurance_premiums_highest_in_country/

            Massachusetts has the most expensive family health insurance premiums in the country, according to a new analysis that highlights the state’s challenge in trying to rein in medical costs after passage of a landmark 2006 law that mandated coverage for nearly everyone.

            • Not to mention the fact that one widely beneficial feature and making health care insurance more available to a relative few is a ridiculous justification for turning the entire system inside out, burdening business, jeopardizing jobs and courting chaos theory with an impossibly complex law that is stocked with unintended consequences, all passed without respect for process, transparency or the will of the people.

              Yes, on balance, Obamacare will probably help me, too. That doesn’t make it a good law or wise policy.

              • Jack, what alternative policy was on offer? I’d prefer a French-style plan, or a single-player plan, but neither of those are acceptable to conservatives either.

                Obamacare has a chance to be much better than the status quo was, if the GOP doesn’t succeed in sabotaging it. And it’s much better than the status quo prior to Obamacare.

                With Obamacare, according to the CBO’s latest estimate, 25 million Americans who didn’t have insurance will be insured. You may consider 25 million people “a relative few,” but I don’t.

                And nothing the GOP has offered would bring coverage to a comparable number of people. It’s not like conservatives were offering a better plan – conservatives offered no plan at all. Between “complex and flawed” and “who cares if they have health care or not?” I think “complex and flawed” is the better plan.

                All omnibus bills are large and complex, and yet the “it’s too large and complex so it must be bad regardless of how much it helps people” objection only comes up when someone has a partisan reason to oppose a bill. It seems that this objection is purely opportunistic, and as such, it deserves no deference.

                The truth is, that anyone in the world who wanted to, if they are literate in English and have internet, could have known and understood all the major provisions of Obamacare before it was passed. No law has ever been reported on in more detail before its passage. If any Senator didn’t understand the major provisions of Obamacare in detail before passage, than that Senator was simply lazy.

                • ack, what alternative policy was on offer?

                  I’m just going to quote what the CEO of Whole Foods suggested, which mirrored many of the suggestions put forward by Republicans at the time Obamacare was being drafted without Republican input…

                  • Remove the legal obstacles that slow the creation of high-deductible health insurance plans and health savings accounts (HSAs). The combination of high-deductible health insurance and HSAs is one solution that could solve many of our health-care problems. For example, Whole Foods Market pays 100% of the premiums for all our team members who work 30 hours or more per week (about 89% of all team members) for our high-deductible health-insurance plan. We also provide up to $1,800 per year in additional health-care dollars through deposits into employees’ Personal Wellness Accounts to spend as they choose on their own health and wellness.

                  Money not spent in one year rolls over to the next and grows over time. Our team members therefore spend their own health-care dollars until the annual deductible is covered (about $2,500) and the insurance plan kicks in. This creates incentives to spend the first $2,500 more carefully. Our plan’s costs are much lower than typical health insurance, while providing a very high degree of worker satisfaction.

                  • Equalize the tax laws so that employer-provided health insurance and individually owned health insurance have the same tax benefits. Now employer health insurance benefits are fully tax deductible, but individual health insurance is not. This is unfair.

                  • Repeal all state laws which prevent insurance companies from competing across state lines. We should all have the legal right to purchase health insurance from any insurance company in any state and we should be able use that insurance wherever we live. Health insurance should be portable.

                  • Repeal government mandates regarding what insurance companies must cover. These mandates have increased the cost of health insurance by billions of dollars. What is insured and what is not insured should be determined by individual customer preferences and not through special-interest lobbying.

                  • Enact tort reform to end the ruinous lawsuits that force doctors to pay insurance costs of hundreds of thousands of dollars per year. These costs are passed back to us through much higher prices for health care.

                  • Make costs transparent so that consumers understand what health-care treatments cost. How many people know the total cost of their last doctor’s visit and how that total breaks down? What other goods or services do we buy without knowing how much they will cost us?

                  • Enact Medicare reform. We need to face up to the actuarial fact that Medicare is heading towards bankruptcy and enact reforms that create greater patient empowerment, choice and responsibility.

                  • Finally, revise tax forms to make it easier for individuals to make a voluntary, tax-deductible donation to help the millions of people who have no insurance and aren’t covered by Medicare, Medicaid or the State Children’s Health Insurance Program.

                  The fact that you fucktards still claim that there were no alternatives offered just proves how little you care about the actual problem – you simply desire more control.

                    • It’s not a viable solution to leftists if it involves fewer laws or regulations.

                      Actually, some of the proposals suggested by the Whole Foods CEO would obviously involve increasing rules and regulations, such as greater transparency (a good idea) and tort reform.

                  • In that same post I wrote “And nothing the GOP has offered would bring coverage to a comparable number of people.”

                    It’s obviously true that the GOP has proposed health care measures that would have the effect of greatly enriching health insurance companies and cutting taxes for people with money – as well as occasional good ideas, like greater price transparency.

                    But as far as I know – and I know quite a lot about this – no Obama-era GOP proposals, other than the Wyden-Bennett plan (which was unpopular among Republicans) would do what Obamacare does, which is to expand the rolls of the insured by about 25 million or more.

                    And none of them would help someone like me, who the private insurance market refuses to cover. (In fact, one of the proposals you cite – repealing all mandates on health insurance companies – would do just the opposite, expanding the pool of “uninsurable” people like me.)

                    So tell me: Specifically, which element of the Whole Foods CEO’s plan do you believe would have brought health insurance to 25 million currently uninsured people? (25 million is the number of people the CBO says Obamacare will cover – although in the long run, that number will go up). Which element of the Whole Food CEO’s proposal would have made it possible for people the private health care market refuses to cover, like me, to get coverage?

                    Preferably, could you include a reference to a reasonably objective source, such as the CEO, for any claims you make about how many people would be covered, or what the plans would do? Keep in mind that any seriously proposed legislation is submitted to the CBO for scoring, so this should not be hard.

                    The fact that you fucktards

                    You’d be more credible if you didn’t resort to this sort of comment.

                    • “And nothing the GOP has offered would bring coverage to a comparable number of people.”

                      Since the number of uninsured prior to the ACA was around 30 million, and the number of uninsured after it goes into effect will be about 30 million, I’m not exactly sure what the fuck you think you accomplished besides increasing the regulatory compliance burden on business, reduced available coverage, and all around fucked the system.

                      You’d be more credible if you didn’t resort to this sort of comment.

                      And you’d be more credible if you weren’t an ignorant cunt.

                      So we both have burdens to bear, I suppose.

                    • And in fact if only one of the suggestions were implemented – namely the issue of tax credits for insurance premiums – that alone would VASTLY increase coverage, and make it so shits like you could go get your own healthcare plans.

                      You see, the reason it costs more for you to get a plan on your own than it would through an employer is because the employer pays a large percentage of your premium. They do that because they can write off the cost of coverage on their taxes. Allowing individuals to claim the same credit would have had a vast effect.

                      But it wouldn’t have given you control over everyone’s lives.

                      because once the government is footing the bill, everything the government thinks I should be doing (eating better, exercising, not smoking, etc) becomes something they can exert control over because my behavior now costs the government money.

                      The ACA is nothing more than an effort to extend governmental control.

                      And you know what? Fine.

                      Fund the whole fucking thing – every penny. Force full implementation of everything that was in that brilliant bill no one had a chance to read before the floor vote.

                      Because when it fails – and it will fail – I will sit back and point at you and laugh because this is exactly what you wanted. There will be long, Canadian-like waits for things like hip replacements and heart bypass surgery. There will be – by neccessity – rationing of care, because you can not increase demand, leave supply the same, and rationally expect anything else to happen.

                      The ACA will ruin medical care in this country, and I swear to Christ I will beat you with the fucking law the second you claim it isn’t your fucking fault.

                      It will be the least I can do.

                    • Since the number of uninsured prior to the ACA was around 30 million…

                      You’re mistaken; according to the US Census Bureau, about 49.9 million people were uninsured when the ACA was passed.

                      I note that you weren’t able to identify a single Republican program that would have done what Obamacare does – increase the ranks of the insured by about 25 million, and make it possible for people who are turned down by free market health insurance to be insured.

                      It shows how bad GOP policies are that the very best you can do to defend them is to call me an ignorant cunt. (By the way, I adore cunt, so that’s not much of an insult.) If the policies you support were good, you’d be able to defend them without juvenile insults.

                    • I note that you weren’t able to identify a single Republican program that would have done what Obamacare does – increase the ranks of the insured by about 25 million

                      I had two paragraphs on it, you dishonest fuck.

                      But like Tex said – it doesn’t give more control to the State, and so it isn’t a solution in your mind.

                    • I wrote:

                      But as far as I know – and I know quite a lot about this – no Obama-era GOP proposals, other than the Wyden-Bennett plan (which was unpopular among Republicans) would do what Obamacare does, which is to expand the rolls of the insured by about 25 million or more.

                      And none of them would help someone like me, who the private insurance market refuses to cover.

                      I stand by the first paragraph – nothing offered by the GOP would even come close to expanding coverage as much as Obamacare does.

                      However, I was mistaken in my second claim. The Republican Study Committee, a week ago, put out a plan that would include money for “operational expenses” for state-run high-risk insurance pools, and which sets premiums for those pools at no more than 200% of the average premium in each state. As far as I can make out, the legislation does nothing for people who live in states that don’t have high-risk insurance pools.

                      So the Republicans have offered something that is unaffordable, inadequate, and would not be available in every state. It is nowhere near as good as Obamacare, if the goal is to make health insurance available and affordable for people with preexisting conditions. But they have proposed something other than “nothing” for people with preexisting conditions, and I was mistaken to say otherwise.

                  • Never mind that once ACA goes into effect, the infrastructure now exists to tie all manner of mental health care diagnosis to federal control of the medical industry. The extension of that control essentially creates a scenario where anyone who holds or practices ideas or beliefs in disagreement with state ‘approved’ ideas or beliefs can be simply written off as mentally unstable.

                    The utter encroachment into mental health care, in the extreme, would allow de facto imprisonment without trial of anyone the government deems irrational.

                    Yeah, I’d never dream of that happening in America, but the infrastructure for it to happen will exist in a few short days, and I don’t trust one damn thing coming from the social engineering left anymore.

                • Obamacare has a chance to be much better than the status quo was, if the GOP doesn’t succeed in sabotaging it. And it’s much better than the status quo prior to Obamacare.

                  How do you explain the results in Massachusetts?

                  • How do you explain the results in Massachusetts?

                    I’m not going to spend time researching Romneycare, so this is from memory. But as I understand it:

                    1) Romneycare and Obamacare are broadly similar, but a lot of the details are different. Importantly, Romneycare put much less emphasis on cost control mechanisms.

                    2) Massachusetts was one of the most expensive states for insurance prior to Romneycare, and it remained so afterward. Medical inflation was high in Mass prior to Romneycare, and remained so afterwards. So blaming Massachusetts prices and inflation on Romneycare seems a bit unfair.

                    Romneycare wasn’t about controlling costs; it was about increasing coverage. And it did that very effectively. So the premium costs were about the same as they would have been without Romneycare, but many more people were covered.

                    3) The people in Massachusetts who bought insurance through the health care exchanges (rather than through their workplace) did in fact experience lower premium inflation than everyone else, iirc.

                  • 1) Romneycare and Obamacare are broadly similar, but a lot of the details are different. Importantly, Romneycare put much less emphasis on cost control mechanisms.

                    Hate to tell you, but the massive increases in premiums shows that there aren’t actual controls in the ACA, either. What controls are in place will only harm insurance providers by taking them even closer to insolvency. But this, I suspect, is a feature, not a bug.

                    2) Massachusetts was one of the most expensive states for insurance prior to Romneycare, and it remained so afterward. Medical inflation was high in Mass prior to Romneycare, and remained so afterwards. So blaming Massachusetts prices and inflation on Romneycare seems a bit unfair.

                    But then again, claims that universal coverage somehow will make things cheaper is just plain stupid, since that is clearly not the case.

                    Romneycare wasn’t about controlling costs; it was about increasing coverage. And it did that very effectively. So the premium costs were about the same as they would have been without Romneycare, but many more people were covered.

                    Guess what, princess… The ACA is the exact same. Only now you’ll have fewer place to go get care. Great plan.

                    3) The people in Massachusetts who bought insurance through the health care exchanges (rather than through their workplace) did in fact experience lower premium inflation than everyone else, iirc.

                    You recall incorrectly, since many people wouldn’t have bothered to get coverage and are now required to get it, so every single penny they pay is a penny they didn’t have to pay before.

            • How do you figure that?

              I look at the current cost of getting health insurance on the free market – and the answer is, I cannot. No health insurance company will insure me, period.

              This is the plan most Republicans favor – I can’t afford health care on the free market, so to hell with me. (The recent “alternative” plan released by the GOP was notable for doing literally nothing to make coverage available for people who can’t get insurance under the status quo.)

              Then I look at the current cost of insurance through Oregon’s pre-existing conditions insurance plan. It’s over $800 a month.

              Then I go to the “cover Oregon” website, the official website of the Oregon Health Exchanges, which gives me an estimate of my premiums after Obamacare kicks in in January. Which will be $45 a month.

                • Why would they not insure you?

                  I’m not going to tell you in detail, because this isn’t a place where I can share personal information and trust folks to treat me in a civil manner.

                  Let’s just say that they wouldn’t insure me because of a commonplace pre-existing condition.

                  • Let’s just say that they wouldn’t insure me because of a commonplace pre-existing condition.

                    Because, as we all know, only</i< ghealth insurance refuses to cover pre-existing conditions. Other types of insurance, such as auto insurance, covers pre-existing conditions, such as drunk driving convictions.

                    • (I’m going to reply only to people who are reasonably polite from now on.)

                      Michael, it’s true that health insurance is not unique in that way. I don’t think I said, or implied, that it is unique.

                      But not being able to get health insurance is a critical problem in a way that not being able to get car insurance is not. If Suzy Smith can’t legally drive because she’s a drunk driver, she might be forced to move to New York City or Portland or Chicago or one of the many other places in the US with good public transit systems. Or, if she has a job she can do from home, then she’ll be a homebody. Maybe she’ll be unhappy with her new circumstances, but she won’t die of it.

                      On the other hand, if Judy Jones has no access to affordable health insurance because she has cancer, then she’s in far more dire trouble. And in a way that seems much more unfair than punishing drunk drivers.

                      Of course, in real life there may be a lot of complicating details. But that’s the distinction, in a simplified nutshell.

                • This page illustrates the problem.

                  His article is essentially a 26,000-word answer, the longest story that the magazine has ever run by a single author. It’s worth reading in full, but if you’re looking for a quick summary, the article seemed to me to boil down to one sentence: The American health-care system does not use rate-setting.

                  Much of Brill’s piece focuses on the absurdly high prices that hospitals and doctors charge for the most mundane items. A single Tylenol tablet can cost $1.50 when “you can buy 100 of them on Amazon for $1.49 even without a hospital’s purchasing power.” One patient gets charged $6 for a marker used to mark his body before surgery. Another is billed $77 for each of four boxes of gauze used.

                  One hospital, according to Brill’s math, bills $1,200 per hour for one nurse’s services.

                  “Over the past few decades, we’ve enriched the labs, drug companies, medical device makers, hospital administrators and purveyors of CT scans, MRIs, canes and wheelchairs,” Brill concludes. “Meanwhile … we’ve squeezed everyone outside the system who gets stuck with the bills.”

                  In other countries, that cannot happen: Their federal governments set rates for what both private and public plans can charge for various procedures. Those countries have tended to see much lower growth in health-care costs.

                  What sets our really expensive health-care system apart from most others isn’t necessarily the fact it’s not single-payer or universal. It’s that the federal government does not regulate the prices that health-care providers can charge

                  • No, the problem is that Brill is intentionally dishonest – Hospitals charge those prices – prices clearly above the level needed to covered cost plus modest profit – because not only do Medicare and Medicaid pay at a rate below the cost of services, but they also refuse payment more frequently than private insurance companies do

                    Can you guess why private insurance refuses payment less often?

                    I bet you can’t.

  1. The most inspiring thing about this story is Amanda Carpenter’s gracious acceptance of what amounts to an “up-yours” apology. People might eventually notice that.

    • Nah. “Progressives” probably agree with him and Republicans don’t usually say much when they’re attacked. From Democrat’s mouths come only the vilest of insults hurled at Republican or Conservative women. Now it’s their children who are targeted, too. And then come the phoney apologies that make one gag just as much as what they are apologizing for. I have to admit, this guy’s tweets are almost as low as Louis CK’s “jokes” about Sarah Palin and her youngest. Maybe he, too, can become a “comedian,” then he could spew whatever he wants to and never have to say he’s sorry.

  2. With the exception of wishing harm on one’s children these are merely laughable. I challenge any of you to maintain a straight face if a professional colleague referred to you during a disagreement as “hellspawn” or a “pubic louse” with leeches crawling out of your butt. I’m sorry, am I being insulted by Bill or Ted?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.