Posted on 09/09/2009 9:52:51 PM PDT by PhatHead
After all the rhetoric is put aside, one principle ran through President Obama’s speech tonight: that increased government involvement in health care can solve its problems.
Many Americans fundamentally disagree with this idea. We know from long experience that the creation of a massive new bureaucracy will not provide us with “more stability and security,” but just the opposite. It's hard to believe the President when he says that this time he and his team of bureaucrats have finally figured out how to do things right if only we’ll take them at their word.
Our objections to the Democrats’ health care proposals are not mere “bickering” or “games.” They are not an attempt to “score short term political points.” And it’s hard to listen to the President lecture us not to use “scare tactics” when in the next breath he says that “more will die” if his proposals do not pass.
In his speech the President directly responded to concerns I’ve raised about unelected bureaucrats being given power to make decisions affecting life or death health care matters. He called these concerns “bogus,” “irresponsible,” and “a lie” -- so much for civility. After all the name-calling, though, what he did not do is respond to the arguments we’ve made, arguments even some of his own supporters have agreed have merit.
In fact, after promising to “make sure that no government bureaucrat .... gets between you and the health care you need,” the President repeated his call for an Independent Medicare Advisory Council -- an unelected, largely unaccountable group of bureaucrats charged with containing Medicare costs. He did not disavow his own statement that such a group, working outside of “normal political channels,” should guide decisions regarding that “huge driver of cost ... the chronically ill and those toward the end of their lives....” He did not disavow the statements of his health care advisor, Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, and continuing to pay his salary with taxpayer dollars proves a commitment to his beliefs. The President can keep making unsupported assertions, but until he directly responds to the arguments I’ve made, I’m going to call him out too.
It was heartening to hear the President finally recognize that tort reform is an important part of any solution. But this concession shouldn’t lead us to take our eye off the ball: the Democrats’ proposals will not reduce costs, and they will not deliver better health care. It’s this kind of “healthy skepticism of government” that truly reflects a “concern and regard for the plight of others.” We can’t wait to hear the details on that; we look forward to working with you on tort reform.
Finally, President Obama delivered an offhand applause line tonight about the cost of the War on Terror. As we approach the anniversary of the September 11th attacks and honor those who died that day and those who have died since in the War on Terror, in order to secure our freedoms, we need to remember their sacrifices and not demonize them as having had too high a price tag.
Remember, Mr. President, elected officials work for the people. Forcing a conclusion in order to claim a “victory” is not healthy for our country. We hear you say government isn’t always the answer; now hear us -- that’s what we’ve been saying all along.
Charitably, I would have to suppose you believe this out of some kind of true conviction ... Otherwise I would have to write you off as a dumb-ass for making such a dumb-ass statement.
One does not have to go through another's experience line by line and item by item to be able to empathize and understand another's pain. And one can extrapolate from small instances to large. Read any abnormal psychology textbook and you will understand the man. For you to make such a blanket statement saying that I cannot pass judgment on another man, based upon life experience, is naive, You should be grown up by now and this should reflect in your posting. You should understand that what a man was, he is, unless he has had a big emotional event that changes him. His last big emotional event was as a POW and that is where he is now.
Wel said and timely. I hope hers is posted on RCP this morning, so far most of the articles appear to be done by the captured media.......
I’m sorry, but anyone who believes “shared experience” is a requisite for informed criticism is absolutely wrong. By that measure, we cannot criticize Obama unless we have deadbeat Kenyan father.
One more note - “Intellectually lazy” is a VERY good description of any argument that reflexively eliminates an entire topic from discussion, such as the argument you have presented.
Has she been invited?
Here is my take on McCain:
1)He is a good Senator.
2)I thank him every day for bringing Sarah on board
3)He is to be admired for his resiliency and bouncing back in 2008
4)He is a war hero.
Having said that McCain also:
1)rose to level of INCOMPETENCE (Peter Principle) by running for POTUS in 2008
—bipartisan is great for a Senator but not for a presidential candidate where attack is called for against one’s opponent
2)Out of bitterness, could not prevent himself from showing more animosity towards his own party than the Democrats and thus alienating conservatives
3)Possesses white guilt that prevents him from being objectively critical or express objective criticism of Obama
4)Allowed Sarah to be savaged after the campaign without properly addressing it IMHO and has been overall very weak in defending Sarah including last night in which he would not come out in favor of her contention that there are death panels.
Very well said. Bravo.
He’s a good senator?
Wow, just wow. As someone who writes a lot, if Sarah Palin is writing even the better half of her Facebook posts, then she has one of the most clear writing styles I’ve ever seen. It tells me her head is tied on tight.
BamaKennedy is not reforming the health care economy for the purpose of ‘fixing’ health care. He owes the UNIONS ‘big time’ and they for all practical purposes are broke. This is his pay for their play in getting out his vote.
A good and honest lawyer could make a case this is nothing more than a case of bribery, theft, and corruption. IMO.
It's a useful tactic in debate/rhetoric to tackle an opponent's arguments as if all of their assumptions were true, and then showing that the opponent's position is still faulty or wrong. In his manner, you don't have to convince the viewer that the assumptions are wrong, you only have to show that no matter whether they are right or wrong, your argument is still superior.
There was a time I would have figuratively slapped for that remark. Sadly, that time has passed. The man has morphed into something his former self would not recognize.
McCain is totally out of his depth.
You are describing a 'civil' debate/rhetoric. We have 'left' that arena and we are now 'fighting' for the very survival of this nation as we know it. BamaKennedy has declared war against US, our life, our liberty and pursuit of happiness. He after all found half quoting Cain as his moral authority and let US know about his partnership with his god to decide who lives and who dies.
No, I'm describing effective debate/rhetoric.
To goal is to change (or reinforce) minds on an issue. If you attack the person or their assumptions directly, it raises all sorts of (possibly, even likely, irrational) mental defense mechanisms, and the target audience ignores your points as their brains rush to the defense of the figure whom they perceive to be "under attack".
As such the approach of "even if everything you say is true, your analysis is wrong, and here's why..." can be an extremely effective way of getting people who would otherwise raise their hackles to actually listen long enough to be potentially persuaded.
The flip side of this, of course, is if you're in a situation where a rational analysis of the facts puts you in an untenable position, you want to make the argument about personalities and assumptions, to drive the "debate" on an emotional level, not a rational one.
Obama knows this, and uses it -- he has tried to make the whole "health care reform" situation be about him and not what is the best and correct thing to do. Attacks aren't against the plan, they're attacks on Obama the person, and are responded to accordingly.
The good news is that he has crafted a trap that has also snared himself; he is now too committed to this legislation to allow himself to back down, and it could wind up being the undoing of himself and the Democrat majorities. On the other hand, it also means that said majorities are more likely to force through an extremely bad piece of legislation simply because he and they are now committed to it, regardless of the political cost.
It is a fait accompli...... Facebook trumps Ny Times, Washington Post, ABC, CBS, NBC and the Associated Press.
Wow. She rocks.
Won't matter if they don't - the MSM is becoming increasingly irrelevant! Her words will be seen.
The majority of the people I know that voted for BamaKennedy will be the last in this nation to admit they were wrong about BamaKennedy. I am not talking about urban minorities. These people are 'church' going born and bred Democrats and they believe they were doing the Lord's work in voting for BamaKennedy.
Sarah is a woman, and don't you know God told that woman to stay in her place. Even the Krauthammers of this nation tell Sarah to leave the room while the high minded elite moderates have the health care discussion. And in the lord McCain and Graham's world to call a lie a lie is uncivil even when it is a truth.
Public education has numbed the majority of minds and spines in this nation and sad to say but it sure looks like they are going to have to reap what they in ignorance sowed. Because at this point I do not think 'effective' debate/rhetoric is going to stop this offensive against US.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.