Tuesday, September 22, 2009

Dodging the Real Issues

Why all of the dodging of the real issues? seems to me that focusing on alleged racist teabagers is irrelevant. Yes some are racist. So what? How is that relevant to the public option? Focusing on how fat or how few the tea baggers were is also just a dodge to avoid the real issues. Same thing with how wealthy Dick Armey is....who cares? and how is that relevant to the HC debate?

Take away all of this smoke and mirrors and what do you have that supports a public option? Tons of emotion. And emotion that seems to lack any focus.

If they would focus on a) Should the Fed's be doing this? i.e. what in the Constitution supports the Public Option? b) Will it work? and c) Can we afford it? ... if they would focus on these issues, then maybe they'd have a chance. But instead they chose to dodge the core issues.

I wonder why?


  1. In addition to emotion, the public option is also supported by those that want power. Power that can be leveraged into petty revenge, corrupt political advantage, or just plain money. I'm afraid that the current majority leaders in Washington can be more accurately characterized as sovereigns as opposed to statesmen. As sovereigns, I'm sure that they, and their supporters, feel that their potential rewards trump any constitutional concerns.

    I had thought that you may have given up on this blog, it's nice to have you back. On a darker note:

    "Sean, Actually I've sincerely praised nearly every one here (except maybe Nemo)"

    Since you have had some kind words for me before I was banished from Kay's, am I to infer that they were not sincere?

  2. Nope. Just can't recall them. Actually still can't. But just because I can't remember them doesn't mean that they never occurred.

    I believe you. If you say I've had kind words for you then they most certainly occurred and I have no doubt that I was sincere.

    As for giving it up. Just had a busy time since July........this too shall pas......

    Sorry about my bad memory. My bad.

  3. Perhaps the fault is mine in that I have a very broad definition of praise (your remarks on my comments were pejortive free!)

    But to get back on topic, I'd be interested in your thoughts on the support of the public option being a lust for power rather then raw emotion. It's probability a combo-platter of the two with a side of hurbis.

  4. on lust for power: that has too many negative connotations, I'd say it's more like - they really believe that it's the Federal Government's job to take care of everyone. I've actually heard a commie (lol) friend of mine say, "I don't give two sh!t$ what the Constitution says on the subject. I know what's right."

    I think their sense of what's right; i.e. my-moral-compass-is-straighter-than-yours is what motivates them.

    But I could be wrong. I often am.