I missed this when it came out. My loss. It’s superb. It highlights the essence of political discourse: dishonesty without lying.
Cannon and Ponnuru on health care
Share
Previous post: They think we’re children
Next post: Decriminalize Insider Trading
where orders emerge
I missed this when it came out. My loss. It’s superb. It highlights the essence of political discourse: dishonesty without lying.
Previous post: They think we’re children
Next post: Decriminalize Insider Trading
{ 22 comments }
Testing…
A+
A nice list – health reform is something that can tenably be both defended and opposed – but I hope neither the defenders nor the opposition is under the mistaken impression that the political face of either side of the discussion is conversing in anything but campaign slogans. It’s like the statements about “greed” when the administration talks about the crisis. I don’t really think much of those because I just assume that’s all politics. I’m not under the impression that when Larry Summers is confering with Obama they’re seriously discussing “greed” as a causal factor of the recession. It’s just a way to connect to people’s suffering in speeches. Good? Bad? Probably depends on exactly what rhetorical flourish we’re talking about.
However – this list raises an immediate question in my mind: Are Cannon and Ponnuru aware that the same nonsense characterizes the opposition’s rhetoric, that a similar list could be compiled for the opposition to health reform? I assume they’re aware of this, but I don’t know.
It’s just a way to connect to people’s suffering in speeches.
No, I disagree. If what you describe is true then it is demagoguery.
I suspect though that Obama does actually believe the whole greed angle to some extent or another; just like FDR bought into the notion that over competition was at the heart of the Great Depression. Don’t assume intelligence, etc. when ignorance and/or faulty reasoning are available alternatives.
RE: “If what you describe is true then it is demagoguery”Well, ok it can be demagoguery too. I’m not describing all possible related circumstances here. When he talks about people who “can’t afford health insurance” – obviously that’s not true, but that’s not really demagoguery either. It’s trying to make those people look more sympathetic. Other things, like raving about insurance companies killing people like Rep. Grayson does is demagoguery and it’s as much demagoguery as Republicans raving about the government killing people. And it’s all politics.Were there some greedy unscrupulous characters in the finance industry? I’d even believe that – I don’t think Obama would be crazy for believing that. Is that anything new? Is that descriptive of most of the finance industry? Is that the primary cause of the crisis? No, no, and no. And I doubt they talk much about “greed” in their cabinet meetings (unless of course they’re strategizing things to say in speeches… which I doubt much time is spent on in cabinet meetings).
It’s trying to make those people look more sympathetic.Let me complete that……than they really are.Which is of course a type of lie.Other things, like raving about insurance companies killing people like Rep. Grayson does is demagoguery and it’s as much demagoguery as Republicans raving about the government killing people.I being neither a Democrap nor a Repuglican really don’t give a whooping crane’s ass about who does what.And I doubt they talk much about “greed” in their cabinet meetings (unless of course they’re strategizing things to say in speeches… which I doubt much time is spent on in cabinet meetings).I’m fairly certain that they do actually. Never underestimate the stupidity of a politician. And of course the fact that Obama did what he did with regards to low end tires tariff (thus harming primarily poor people and aiding relatively wealthy tire workers in the U.S. – lovely fellow he is) illustrates just what sort of person he is. Just like Bush, we know Obama by his deeds.
RE: “Which is of course a type of lie.”
Yes, it is a lie.
Welcome to the discussion, mommsen1625.
“Are Cannon and Ponnuru aware that the same nonsense characterizes the opposition’s rhetoric”
Are you seriously suggesting that it matters? When judging politicians, I find that what works is to simply accept as true the negative things they say about one another, and discard as false the positive things they say about themselves.
Sure it does.
They might be more sanguine about their own position on health care than they should be if they thought that this sort of thing didn’t go on on the other side of the aisle too (however you define the other side of the aisle – conservatives, libertarians). I would probably be a lot less skeptical than I am of Obama’s plan if I was somehow under the impression that he doesn’t constantly play politics. But I know he does, which leaves me skeptical of a lot of this.
A lot of people think Obama is deceptive but Eric Cantor is a straight shooter, or Ron Paul is a straight shooter. It doesn’t make any sense – it’s crazy, but a lot of people think like that. And a lot of liberals think Obama is always up front and honest.
“A lot of people think Obama is deceptive but Eric Cantor is a straight shooter, or Ron Paul is a straight shooter. It doesn’t make any sense – it’s crazy, but a lot of people think like that. And a lot of liberals think Obama is always up front and honest.”
We’re supposed to wait for a Dagney Taggart or a Lenin to run for congress, I presume?
Why not judge politicians on their individual merits and faults? Obama stands out because he has so few of either. That’s what makes his statements on health care so error-laden.
Skepticism about Obama’s conceit-laden “plans” is great. But the whole point of the objection to them is that he shouldn’t have them. No individual or president should, or can. He doesn’t know what he’s talking about but presumes he can pick the winners. Say what you like about people like Cantor and Paul, but at least they have records that can be analyzed.
Well I’d propose doing just what you suggest – analyze their records and in the meantime recognize that politicians press flesh and kiss babies without getting overly concerned about it. I’m personally more concerned about what Obama does on health reform than what he says in a stump speech about it. I just think it’s notable that a lot of people think the only the OTHER side trades in these sorts of rhetorical flourishes.
Welcome to tonight’s episode of “Inoffensive Drivel” where we help you not to reach mildly offensive conclusions, or any conclusions whatsoever.
Let us engage in our bland etymology. Tonight’s contestant:
A nice list – health reform is something that can tenably be both defended and opposed
Nice – such a nice word,
Origin: 1250–1300; ME: foolish, stupid < OF: silly, simple < L nescius ignorant, incapable, equiv. to ne- negative prefix + sci- (s. of scīre to know; see SCIENCE ) + -us adj. suffix
Tenably – does anyone actually talk like this?
Origin:
1570–80; < F: that can be held, equiv. to ten(ir) to hold (≪ L tenēre) + -able -ABLE
be both defended and opposed – uh, yeah.
Well. That’s quite enough of that.
With apologies to the hosts for breaking the thread, but at the same time staying in context, I offer this that I just learned of today.https://www.safelinkwireless.com/EnrollmentPubl…Pay particular attention to the two boxes: Am I eligible? and Is it Free?Well of course if you are a thumbsucker you are eligible and of course it is free.LOL, most of us never heard of it because we are honestly supporting ourselves with our own labor.Just another redistribution of our wealth by our Communist in Chief and his democrat lackeys.The temptation is to say, “Un-freaking-believable” but if you were an adult when LBJ came to power and saw how he expanded FDR’s socialist state, this is simply another step down the communist road.Will this be scammed by the thumbsucking liberals and welfare queens and kings? Oh, you betcha it will and is already. We here in Houston can only think of how quickly and easily the thumbsuckers scammed FEMA and DHS after hurricane Katrina by becoming victims on the spot even though they had never been near New Orleans, and making off with those $2,000 plus checks to buy jewelry in the Galleria.Obamacare is just another redistribution scheme to buy more votes and retain the ones he already bought.
This:
“When President Obama makes a factual claim about health-care policy, he does not deserve the benefit of the doubt about its accuracy. We do not know whether he has been badly misinformed or is deliberately trying to mislead. Either way, he cannot be trusted to reform American health care.”
is as tongue-in-cheek as it gets.
Yeah we know that Obama is being deliberately a liar.
“When President Obama makes a factual claim about health-care policy…”
Oxymoron. Emphasis on moron.
Wow! That’s perfect for a socialist commie like me. I’m gonna use my cell phone to call and see if I qualify just like the lady in the ad. MinArc you won’t mind paying for my cell phone right? Since I’m paying for your retirement.
I just feel sorry for the people who do.
Wow! That’s perfect for a socialist commie like me. – Yasafi TorquemuirduckUh, that’s not a bad description of yourself, Yasafi. But you left out, “hypocrite”. You should never forget hypocrite when describing yourself. It’s at least as important as socialist, commie, and maroon. (HT: Bugs Bunny, on that last one.) in describing who you are
Billionaires For Wealthcare
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2QX9sMV5xI&feature=player_embedded
And of course one of the primary reasons that politicians lie is because the truth would not lead to the world that they envision for the rest of us. They also lie to CYA as well of course.
This is also why politicians like to propose legislation which will not be paid for in their term. They reap the rewards of the moment and someone else has to reap the costs down the road.
Imagine if politicians had the same fiduciary responsibilities as found in the business world.
Mommsen, you think the majority of the population sees the lies in this? It seems to me this time, they do. If only because they’re paying more attention to this than they were to other legislation.
Well, Mommsen, way back when Methinks and I were first building our HEALTHCARE BLOG, we actually kinda saw this link way before Russ, ya know, and then we kinda got sidetracked on other stuff. But Russ is a little slow on this healthcare thingy (wink wink) and there’s a really cool website with some interesting stuff including things just like Russ’ idea above, and it’s right Here.