Tuesday, August 18, 2009

Weakness, disagreement, or enlightenment?

It seems like we're to the part of the news cycle where sides are cannibalizing themselves.
But honestly, it's turning out for the best.

I watched Rachel Maddow last night and she noted that those in the majority are backing off what they've said they want...simply because of all the other rhetoric that's being touted. Democrats (I'm trying to use that word in an objective, not characterizing way) who have the super-majority aren't taking it and running with it...they're backing off because of the huge/extreme/violent/empassioned (use whichever adjective you find fair) at town hall meetings.

WHY??

Let me remind you, I'm not in favor of HR3200 with Section 102 in it. But why are you backing off if you really think your plan is best for the country????

Like the title says, is it weakness? bending to a bully.
Is it true disagreement by blue dogs, with the net effect of the Dems losing the super-majority?
Is it enlightenment? i.e. we need to convert hearts and win minds.

I'm all for discussion and rational debate, but if you've been voted in to do a job - DO THE JOB.

Here's some coverage of the on-going reaction:


The seven Blue Dog Democrats holding up health care reform legislation in the House Energy and Commerce Committee have received tens of thousands more dollars from insurance weasels than other Democrats on the committee, a new report finds. An analysis by the Public Campaign Action Fund finds a fairly strong correlation between private industry donations and opposition to health care reform. Lawmakers in both the House and Senate who voted against proposed legislation this congressional cycle, the report found, received roughly 65 percent more money from health and insurance interests than those who supported the bills. The back-stabbing Blue Dogs are Reps. Mike Ross (Ark.), Baron Hill (Ind.), Charlie Melancon (La.), Jim Matheson (Utah), John Barrow (Ga.), Bart Gordon (Tenn.) and Zach Space (Ohio).
Source - The Huff

And so here we are.

I'm glad to see that accountability for promises is being scrutinized. If you believed in it before - tell your party why you dont believe in it now.

And on the other side...

Neil Boortz, the conservative talk-show host broadcast on my local station today that people bringing guns to healthcare townhalls was thuggery. Thug = his word verbatim. He said it was reminiscent of the Iraqis outside of Saddam's villas.

Nice to see cooler heads are speaking up about the place of guns at events like this. Can't we defend their ideas with brain power and not firepower? Yes, it's legal to wear guns in the open in Arizona and other states. But what's legal can also be dangerous.

I'm far from anti-gun. I have several and even have urged my wife to get handgun trained. It should be admitted though that upping the number of guns at a presidential event ups the risk...and those who are doing it simply to get a rise out of the other side. Be honest with yourself. Is proving that you have a right worth increasing the risk to the office of the president?

Of course not. My hat's off to you, Neal.

No comments:

Post a Comment