…what can be better attributed to watching the bottom line.
“The Rage Is Not About Healthcare”, Frank Rich of the NYTimes assures us, and in so doing shows why his first gig was as drama critic:
If Obama’s first legislative priority had been immigration or financial reform or climate change, we would have seen the same trajectory. The conjunction of a black president and a female speaker of the House — topped off by a wise Latina on the Supreme Court and a powerful gay Congressional committee chairman — would sow fears of disenfranchisement among a dwindling and threatened minority in the country no matter what policies were in play. It’s not happenstance that Frank, Lewis and Cleaver — none of them major Democratic players in the health care push — received a major share of last weekend’s abuse. When you hear demonstrators chant the slogan “Take our country back!,” these are the people they want to take the country back from.
Attention, Frank Rich. If the President, the Speaker and the Senate Majority Leader were all gun-toting Presbyterian Wal-mart-shoppers who could trace their anscestry back to the Mayflower, and they were proposing to nationalize much of the economy, sap the nation’s economic vitality, gut our healthcare system and put our great-grandchildren into debt, I’d be out there protesting, too.
And I’m pretty sure I speak for more Tea Partiers than you have, say, readers, when I say that.
The rest of Rich’s column is full of the kind of historical illiteracy and disingenuous dependence on Democrat talking points, it’s worth a separate fisking all on its own.
Maybe tomorrow.
I’ve been writing against nationalized healthcare and in favor of a competitive market with HSAs and high-deductible major-medical plans since I started my blog in 2005. I suppose we can blame that on the previous administration, too.
Last time there was a push for a nationalized healthcare scheme (93-94) the President was a straight white guy and the Speaker was also a straight white guy. Last time the government-media complex characterized the opposition to their grand scheme as mouth breathers in flyover country manipulated by corporate interests.
This time around the President is a man who happens to be a person of color, and the Speaker is a woman. The opposition hasn’t changed one bit except that this time the corporate interests joined with the government-media complex to enrich themselves ala Willie Sutton. Unable to target the corporate interests this time around, the government-media-corporate complex have decided to define the opposition as motivated by racism / sexism / homophobism because their argument is as intellectually bankrupt as last time.
How easy it must be to be a Liberal. Just as record snowfall proves the allegation of “climate change” as much as a lack of snow also proves the allegation, opposition to your ideas must be motivated something other than an intellectual argument. Based on their comparisons of The Won to the previous guy (Stupid W. McCheneypuppet, I thought they were going to let President Obama make his own case for nationalized health care. When he wasn’t intellectually capable of doing so – they decided to lower the bar for him and attack his opponents by making them disprove a negative.
The white Liberals soft bigotry of lowered expectations. Not just for urban school kids anymore!
One would figure that someone who has won the Rijksbank prize would, if not agreeing with all of them, at least have an appreciation for the economic aspects of opposition to Obama-care.
Apparently not. Is the Nobel for economics going the same way as the Nobels for “peace” and “literature”? Time will tell.
Is the Nobel for economics going the same way as the Nobels for “peace” and “literature”? Time will tell.
Krugman won it in 2008. ‘Nuff said.