August 8, 2009
POLITICS: Shaddup And Take Yer Medicine
Peggy Noonan, who has so rarely been worth reading the past few years, nonetheless nails the dynamics of the health care debate. FreeRepublic.com veteran Bob Hahn, who is always worth reading but far less frequently around to read, offers his own experience organizing conservative demonstrations and zeroes in on the specific double standard by which the Left and the media treat anger at Republicans as a sign of genuine, authentic popular discontent (think of the deification of the unhinged Cindy Sheehan once upon an August) while anger at Democrats about domestic politics is treated as a sign of dangerous extremism. Jim Geraghty asks what kind of dissent from Obama's policies would be regarded as legitimate. David Boaz (via Instapundit) looks at knee-jerk Democratic accusations that opposition to nationalizing health care equal racism.
It seems to me that the Democrats are still, even at this late date, engaged more in assertion than argument:
If I came up with a health care plan that provided all Americans with universal coverage, protected the 45 million people without health insurance, did so without rationing treatment, prevented insurance companies from denying coverage, didn't cut Medicaid and Medicare benefits for seniors, AND provided significant cost savings over the current system I'd be proud of it.
I would be out there everyday talking exclusively about my health plan, ignoring all other distractions. I'd sit down with every major network primetime news cast. I'd have my staff write columns and do interviews with every major print publication.
In an effort to explain my plan to as many Americans as possible, I'd go on daytime talk shows like Oprah and The View, I'd go on late night comedy shows like the Daily show and Redeye, and I'd sit down with political commentators like ...Anderson [Cooper] and Bill [O'Reilly].
I'd have national hotlines, web casts, hosted chats and discussions. I'd push every Senator and Congressman to host open town halls, allowing the American people to voice their concerns, ask questions and get answers. I'd fill those town halls not with members of unions, political action committees, or cronies that support everything I do, but with ordinary people. Regular folks that might be confused or even worried about my plan. I'd have representatives stay, hours on end to ensure each question is addressed and answered.
But this isn't what's happening...
One of my RedState colleagues puts the matter starkly: if Democrats are so certain, in the face of noisy opposition and fretful poll numbers, that the public is overwhelmingly behind them and that all opposition is illegitimate, extremist, manufactured, and worthy of being reported to the authorities, why not just draw clear lines, vote and wait for the GOP to be punished at the polls? Which side in this debate is acting as if it is confident of public support?
Glad to hear I'm not the only one who's been disenchanted with Noonan lately. I'll have to read that one.
Let's suppose any one of these bills was primarily, or even better, entirely composed of things which I favor. Moreover, forget it being about health exclusively. On general principle I would be opposed because it is approximately 1000 pages. Anything this long that is made by politicians is going to have surprises, unintended consequences and whatnot.
In case anyone decides to then ask the obvious question, well how about 500 pages, or more to the point, define a bill length that I would support. My limit is the length of my mortgage contract.
Seriously, I have two copies of the Constitution. On is 24 pages (9"x6") and the other is 37 pages (6.5"x4"). The arguments over it's ratification are epic. Now we have this malignant growth masquerading as thoughtful public policy, and I say slow down, it's so long I'm worried that it may contain things I do not want. Noonan is damn right I'm feeling nervous.
Give it a try Joel. I was surprised too. She may have been shaken out of that elitist tree she climbed last year. About time.
I have been trying to use how the media is covering protests againt the bill as a learning tool for liberals. I ask them do they find it odd that protestors of policies of a dem president are personally attacked and their motives questioned, things that have and will never occur if the shoe was on the other foot. As can be predicted, the open minded/tolerant ones have no answer.
Death threats, hanging people in effigy, racist signs, shouting over other people talking, and a party whose majority constituency are "birthers", and you're telling me this is all some media created double standard? Come on Crank at least have the intellectual honesty to acknowledge the nutjobs in your own party.
A man who says "a party whose majority constituency are 'birthers'" has the gall to call someone else out for "intellectual honesty"? Man, you people cannot be parodied.
But hey, if it's easier for your to maintain your worldview by believing everyone who disagrees with you is crazy, have at it. May it bring you happiness.
Oh please Linus put down the blankie and go read the poll results from places like Survey USA on the subject. A majority of GOPers are birthers period. Bunch of idiots.
"...protestors of policies of a dem president are personally attacked and their motives questioned, things that have and will never occur if the shoe was on the other foot.
Us "trree-huggers" "Saddam lovers", and "terrorist apologists" who protested the Iraq War would argue that point.