Honesty from the... left??

[makattak]

I'm absolutely shocked. This woman is the first liberal I've seen who actually is able to THINK and reason. She even understands unintended consequences!

I disagree with her on the second page, but if not for her preferences for abortion, I'd have thought a conservative was writing this piece.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/paglia/2009/09/09/healthcare/index.html

Snippet:

By foolishly trying to reduce all objections to healthcare reform to the malevolence of obstructionist Republicans, Democrats have managed to destroy the national coalition that elected Obama and that is unlikely to be repaired. If Obama fails to win reelection, let the blame be first laid at the door of Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, who at a pivotal point threw gasoline on the flames by comparing angry American citizens to Nazis. It is theoretically possible that Obama could turn the situation around with a strong speech on healthcare to Congress this week, but after a summer of grisly hemorrhaging, too much damage has been done. At this point, Democrats' main hope for the 2012 presidential election is that Republicans nominate another hopelessly feeble candidate. Given the GOP's facility for shooting itself in the foot, that may well happen.

Why has the Democratic Party become so arrogantly detached from ordinary Americans? Though they claim to speak for the poor and dispossessed, Democrats have increasingly become the party of an upper-middle-class professional elite, top-heavy with journalists, academics and lawyers (one reason for the hypocritical absence of tort reform in the healthcare bills). Weirdly, given their worship of highly individualistic, secularized self-actualization, such professionals are as a whole amazingly credulous these days about big-government solutions to every social problem. They see no danger in expanding government authority and intrusive, wasteful bureaucracy. This is, I submit, a stunning turn away from the anti-authority and anti-establishment principles of authentic 1960s leftism.

She points out the problems of "Universal Health Care" and the fact that rationing and increased costs are a necessary result of these plans.

Her critique of the right is, I think, blinded by her party loyalty, but I cannot disagree with:

The still inexplicably revered George W. Bush ballooned our national deficits like a drunken sailor and clumsily exacerbated the illegal immigration debate.

She's quite right. I don't care for those actions of President Bush, but I still respect him despite those mistakes. "Revere" is far to strong a word. Many on the right still respect President Bush because he recognized our enemy BEFORE it became an existential threat.

It remains to be seen if we will continue to address that threat or if another wake up call is necessary.

[MechAg94]

Not wanting to make this a Bush thread, but I don't know any Republicans who don't realize Bush made some mistakes domestically.  The assumption by Democrats and others that respecting a man means you love everything he did is nuts.  If nothing else, I respect him for putting up with constant hate, criticism, and insults from the left for over 8 years. 

Back on the article:
Just in the first part, I am surprised she points out that Obama's missteps started on day 1.  I certainly agree with that.  IMO, Obama is trying to do too much, too fast, and spend way too much money.  In the process he is showing his inexperience and lack of perspective outside of Chicago. 

The other problem with Obama is that he is consistent in his inconsistency.  The earliest to me was when he was claiming his Stimulus plan had NO earmarks.  Even I realized that was BS as the whole plan was a collection of dream spending from all the Congressmen.  It was one big earmark.  Someone on the radio this morning commented that Obama said there were something like 30 million uninsured people in the US when just last week he said there were 47 million.  There is also all the stuff about how he has responded to the criticisms of his "plan" saying stuff wasn't in it when his critics were quoting section and page numbers from the bills.  Eventually, even the deaf and blind have to catch on that something isn't right.  Honestly, I don't know if you can lay all that on Obama or a bunch of incompetent speech writers.  Either way, it goes back to him.  The sad thing is that he had similar issues all through the election and no one called him on it then. 

[Monkeyleg]

Someone on the radio this morning commented that Obama said there were something like 30 million uninsured people in the US when just last week he said there were 47 million.

He had to pare it from 47 million to 30 million because 17 million of the 47 million without health insurance are illegal immigrants. If he included them, he would be tacitly admitting that the plan will cover illegals.

It's pretty hard to cover up a dead amendment to HR 3200 that would have explicitly ruled out coverage for illegals, though. By not explicitly prohibiting coverage for them, Obama's giving them coverage.

[Ben]

I'm sending the link to that article to several liberals I know that especially meet the "arrogantly detached upper middle class professional" definition.

They constantly complain about the rich and corporations, and how they ignore the poor, yet these people either ignore or speak with contempt regarding multiple demographics that live in a vast area between San Francisco and New York City.

[buzz_knox]

He had to pare it from 47 million to 30 million because 17 million of the 47 million without health insurance are illegal immigrants. If he included them, he would be tacitly admitting that the plan will cover illegals.

Basically, Obama lied when the occasion suited him.  Today, it'll be back to 47 million.

What Wilson said was right, just ill timed.

[MechAg94]

He had to pare it from 47 million to 30 million because 17 million of the 47 million without health insurance are illegal immigrants. If he included them, he would be tacitly admitting that the plan will cover illegals.

It's pretty hard to cover up a dead amendment to HR 3200 that would have explicitly ruled out coverage for illegals, though. By not explicitly prohibiting coverage for them, Obama's giving them coverage.

I realize he lied.  We all do.  That is the point.  The lies are so freaking obvious it just shows that either he and his administration are so arrogant they think it won't be noticed or they are complete imbeciles and can't figure out how to get ahead of their own lies and  make them at least seem consistent.  The more I see of this administration, the more I wonder if it isn't the 2nd. 

I guess I remember the Clinton administration.  You can say that Bill Clinton lied, but at least he was smart enough and slick enough that he always left himself an out to explain his way out of it.  He got caught on the Lewinski stuff, but he was very slick on the political side.  Much better at it than Obama seems to be. 

I heard someone on the radio talking about the guy who shouted out about Obama lying during the speech.  He apologized, but later he was defending himself a bit by pointing out those failed amendments.  If they were really interested in not covering illegals, they would have passed it.  That stuff isn't secret and it is well known.

[longeyes]

A nation that values "decorum" over truth and liberty is, whether it knows it or not, an enslaved nation.  Tyrants have been hiding behind pomp, circumstance, and decorum for millennia.

This is a culture that winks at all manner of serious moral transgression and dishonor but has a conniption fit over a Congressman doing what all good radicals claim they love: speaking truth to power.  You'd think Wilson was an attempted assassin from the reactions on the Left, but we know who has assassinated Truth--and it isn't Joe Wilson.

[FTA84]

I think that one should limit outbursts at such a session.

It wasn't organized as a health-care debate, it was organized as a presidential lecture to congress.

It is statist if you can't interrupt ONLY the president, however, it not interrupting each other is called civilized.

[longeyes]

When you begin to understand that this Administration is but one long "outburst," you will begin to understand how utterly misplaced your criticism is.  Yes, let us all sit in "respectful" silence while we are stripped of our liberties systematically.  What a joke.  The people who value politeness most are those who benefit most from manipulating the concept for their own arrogant ends.  What is going on today in America is brutal, and all the velvet gloves in the world can't hide the iron fists of political reality.

It is at moments like this that "conservatives" reveal their deepest weakness: a romantic fondness for authoritarianism.

[AZRedhawk44]

presidential lecture to congress.

And then... where is the reciprocity?  When does Congress get to lecture the President?

The concept of a presidential lecture or address to congress is not to allow a king to pontificate.  It's to make a speech to men/women he must convince to his side of an issue.  Crowds that are welcome to applaud, are also welcome to boo or cat-call if the story told is that dishonest or distasteful.

Dialogue is a 2-way street.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

I think that one should limit outbursts at such a session.

It wasn't organized as a health-care debate, it was organized as a presidential lecture to congress.

It is statist if you can't interrupt ONLY the president, however, it not interrupting each other is called civilized.

So the members of Congress are supposed to sit by and smile and applaud politely regardless of how offensive, dishonest, and disrespectful the President's remarks are?  The President is allowed to say whatever he wants to Congress, and Congressmen aren't allowed to say anything themselves?

Joe Wilson did the right thing.  The truth needs to be told.  If the Prez won't do it, then I'm glad someone else had the stones to do it himself.

And if Barry Obama wants to give speeches without being called a liar, then he needs to stop lying in his speeches.

[Monkeyleg]

What we regard as boorish behavior on the part of politicians today pales to what our forefathers did in the early days of this country. They didn't parse words.

We could use more people like Joe Wilson. If the president is going to call his critics liars, it's time for his critics to return the same level of fire, or heavier.

[MechAg94]

I tend to disagree with the outburst, but I don't disagree with the sentiment.  I just think you have to pick your battles and your battlefields carefully. 

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

I tend to disagree with the outburst, but I don't disagree with the sentiment.  I just think you have to pick your battles and your battlefields carefully. 

Ya can't argue with the politics of it, though.  The nation is now focusing on just whether or not illegals are going to get free health care at our expense.

[French G.]

But Wilson backed off. The correct repsonse when he was drug on all the news shows would be, I was right, he is lying, but I apologize for voicing this truth in an inappropriate forum. Then he should have taken out a full page ad in every major newspaper detailing exactly why the guy is lying. But he caved and made nice.

[Jamisjockey]

But Wilson backed off. The correct repsonse when he was drug on all the news shows would be, "I was right, he is lying, but I apologize for voicing this truth in an inappropriate forum, and he's lucky I didn't chuck a shoe at him!". Then he should have taken out a full page ad in every major newspaper detailing exactly why the guy is lying. But he caved and made nice.

Fixed.

[FTA84]

The response came after the President's speech.  The opposition had nice lined up points and counter points that were delivered

That's how debates go, one person representing a group of people with similar viewpoints, makes a case (be it 10 minutes, 1 hour, or 1 day) then a representative of the opposition gets to make his case, as did happen here.  You permit the opposing viewpoint time on the floor, no matter how silly.

The President doesn't get to lecture congress whenever he chooses, Congress must invite him to do so.  Now I know Joe Wilson personally didn't invite the President, but this is how Congress works -- the party in power gets to make all the invitations -- and he was a member of the inviting body.

I disagree with universal health care and many of the far left liberal policies.  However, they just as passionately disagree with the opposite policies.

This is how adults function. 

According to my critics about this, during court room proceedings one should be allowed to shout "LIAR!!" whenever they want.  Especially if two testimonies conflict because we know someone is a liar.

[French G.]

As much as I'd like to see a good ol' fashioned chair swinging Taiwanese Senate throwdown during a State of the Union, the reality is it just isn't how we act. I support the idea that we should have some decorum. Looks  like Wilson is still talking a good game on his website though, hopefully he keeps sticking it to Obama. Wrong time and place to say the right thing. Maybe he can get his home state legislature to pass one of those feel good do nothing resolutions that states like "We the undersigned do resolve that our president is a lying sack of..."