×
- Health care jamboree weekend roundup: Nancy Pelosi deserves the credit for resurrecting health-care reform after Scott Brown was elected; the public option is gone but not forgotten; there were other protests in D.C. this weekend besides the Tea Partiers; and National Review Online is your source for people who believe Western civilization is dying, don't understand liberals in the slightest, believe Tea Party protesters are the voice of America, and see health-care reform as the "end of the Pax Americana, and global Armageddon."
- Yesterday, when I read David Frum's "Waterloo" piece on the consequences of Republican obstruction of health-care reform, I was inclined to agree with it. Reading it again today, I don't disagree that Republican are damaging themselves in the long term by enforcing blanket opposition to everything proposed by Democrats, regardless of the substance, but I do think that Frum is making a fallacious assumption: Republicans ought to be -- and hence could be -- making arguments based on policy substance. But since conservatives want a smaller federal government and lower taxes, what serious proposals would they make? Few are willing to openly say they want to eliminate non-discretionary spending (shrinking government and debt) so they're left with cutting taxes as their big idea. But we already knew that, didn't we?
- Reviewing Mitt Romney's latest attempt to conform to the insatiable conservative base, I have to ask: why is this man running as a Republican at all? Clearly Mitt Romney the presidential aspirant would prefer to be not unlike his father the presidential aspirant. But back in George Romney's day, there was a "Rockefeller Republican" GOP establishment the Goldwater-Reagan insurrection sought to overtake. Today that insurrection is dominant, which means Mitt Romney the moderate Republican continues to insult our intelligence by adopting the language of your garden-variety unhinged right-wing crank. Either Romney did not recognize moderate Republicanism was dead circa 2006-2007, or he was and is counting on the base being dim enough to not comprehend his fundamental absurdity. Please leave your votes in the comments thread.
- I think the key to understanding the nature of the opposition to health-care reform over the weekend is summarized in this Ezra Klein post that looks more closely at the claim that reform represents an affront to American "freedom." I know there are conservatives who are capable of distinguishing between freedom and liberty, but I suspect that in its popular usage, "freedom" carries as much meaning as Mel Gibson's cri de coeur in Braveheart. Freedom from what? Well, government, obviously. But I'm just at a loss to understand what "freedom" we are allegedly losing after passing reform. The freedom to live in bankruptcy and/or physical pain? The freedom to be denied insurance for a pre-existing condition? The freedom to be shackled to a job because you don't want to lose your employer-provided insurance? The protest seems to be the fact that there's now one less way to separate people by class in America.
- Weekend Remainders: Chris Matthews is why the word "blowhard" was invented; Jane Meyer delivers the shocking news that Marc Thiessen, Washington Post columnist, is an opportunistic liar and moral monster; John McCain vows that the GOP, reversing last year's sincere efforts at bipartisanship, will now refuse to cooperate with Democrats; Harry Reid has no patience for John McCain's temper tantrums; Patrick Fitzgerald is an equal opportunity prosecutor; Jon Chait has the last laugh; John Boehner does not believe you to be a thinking human being; and why on Earth would anyone trust Sean Hannity?
--Mori Dinauer
