Nancy Pelosi and the un-Americans
Even though I am a conservative, I normally do not get into a lot of the talking points that conservative media usually gets into. I much prefer to do my own research and discuss the facts as I see them. I suppose you could say I trust myself much more than I do people like Rush Limbaugh and company. That being said, I have a very large problem with the op-ed article in the USA Today, written by Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer.
In the article, they bemoan the fact that the town hall meetings that are being held by some members of Congress are being disrupted by protesters who are angry over what the health care reform legislation contains and how it is being shoved down our throats. While I personally do not agree with how some of the protesters have conducted themselves, they do have a right to voice their opinion. I have stated more than once that shouting at each other usually gets us nowhere and I stand by that statement.
Despite polls that say Americans are overwhelmingly concerned about the cost of the legislation now in Congress, Nancy Pelosi and her fellow Democrats continue to say their proposals are supported by the majority of Americans. That is simply not the truth. Most Americans are very concerned about the cost of the health care reform proposals that are being considered. Why is that? Because they are worried about the budget deficit that continues to march higher and higher.
The real problem I have with Pelosi and company is how they seem to believe they know what is best for us, that we need to sit down and shut up. From the USA Today op-ed piece:
These disruptions are occurring because opponents are afraid not just of differing views — but of the facts themselves. Drowning out opposing views is simply un-American. Drowning out the facts is how we failed at this task for decades.
Is there misleading information being circulated by some conservative media? Yes there is, but there are also some very real concerns about the legislation, again mainly due to the overall cost. I believe we have a right to question President Obama, Nancy Pelosi, or any other political leader. That included President Bush.
Nancy Pelosi thinks we are un-American if we disagree with her and her radical agenda? I have just one question for her. Where was she when Hillary Clinton made her famous speech and declared that it was not un-patrotic to disagree with George W. Bush, that she and other Democrats had a right to disagree with any administration? Where was Nancy Pelosi when Code Pink and other anti-war demonstrators were comparing George W. Bush to Hitler and were very disrespectful while doing so? Okay, I know that’s actually two questions, but I rest my case.
This is the big problem with the current “debate”. It has ground down to ideological war, and the entire subject seems to have been set aside in favor of the easy shots. Unfortunately, I think this is about as American as we can get these days.
Some good old fashioned American objection: Sarah Palin puts out incendiary remarks about “death panels” one day, and the next calls for a rejection of rhetoric. Newt Gingrich is invited on a network talk show and refuses to discuss what’s actually in the bill, choosing instead to talk about what he thinks it might lead to. Mike Huckabee blames the unruliness of the town hall shouters on Democrats. And those at the town hall meetings? The ones being heard bring their anger and emotion and “questions”, then proceed to utter nothing more than the current rhetoric circulating. This is leadership?Hardly, and all these things represent nothing but a need to “win” the ideological debate with good zingers. A couple of good ones common to the blogs and the town hall meetings themselves:
“We need to get the government out of seniors’ health care!” is a common thread. One must then suppose that these folks are unaware that Medicare, which covers most American seniors, is entirely a product of the government. Silly, and borderline ignorant.
“The Democrats refuse to read the bill” is another common utterance, and one that people seem quite sure of. This one presupposes a knowledge of Congressional habits that is impossible for an individual to posses. But if you click back a bunch, you’ll note that this one started months ago with the right-oriented media, who loudly began asserting this “fact” before a bill even began to be written. Silly again, and extremely arrogant.
And then we come to the op-ed in question, which uses a tactic that the left decried for years under the Bush administration. Irritating, unproductive and borderline dangerous.
It would be great if Americans were taking the opportunity to ask real questions, even better if any organizers would take the opportunity to give out talking points that would force actual debate and compromise and were specific to the bill. Neither seems to be happening, and the majority of folks who have real questions are shouted out of the equation-and left unrepresented.
Shame on the whole process, which I’m afraid will end in a net zero for the people who need the help the most.
If I may, let me respond to Laurie who has raised the issue of rhetoric.
Laurie said, “It would be great if Americans were taking the opportunity to ask real questions, even better if any organizers would take the opportunity to give out talking points that would force actual debate and compromise and were specific to the bill. Neither seems to be happening, and the majority of folks who have real questions are shouted out of the equation-and left unrepresented.”
In most cases, debate is civilized but valid questions are being asked. Our elected officials, many of whom haven’t read the various versions of the bill (I believe that there are five) are defending it or saying or denying that certain points within the bill aren’t there.
I think that most of the frustration coming forth is because our representatives are not listening. And, when they do listen, they come across as patronizing.
You mention a number of incendiary remarks being made by some. Calling people “un-American” or espousing Nazi tactics is stunning. No wonder people are fed up.
Matt Keegan´s last blog ..Flippa: Buy And Sell Web Sites
That last paragraph is right on, Larry! There is nothing “un-American” with exercising one’s First Amendment rights, no matter which party occupies the White House or controls Congress.
MuskogeePolitico´s last blog ..Muskogee City Council Meeting – August 10th
Matt,
You’re right on about the Nazi tactics, we should decry them from both sides.
As far as civilized debate? When a United States Senator stands in front of a group of citizens and repeats propaganda that further stokes fear and myth, that’s not civilized. At a town hall meeting in Iowa, Grassley had this to say:
“There is some fear because in the House bill, there is counseling for end-of-life. And from that standpoint, you have every right to fear. You shouldn’t have counseling at the end of life. You ought to have counseling 20 years before you’re going to die. You ought to plan these things out. And I don’t have any problem with things like living wills. But they ought to be done within the family. We should not have a government program that determines if you’re going to pull the plug on grandma.”
That’s not only uncivilized, it’s something that the Senator (who, I presume, can read) knows to be patently untrue. And the concern for the value of Grandma’s life value is rich from a man who supports tort reform, something that caps the value of Gramdma’s life based on her low productivity, future earnings potential and number of dependents. So, it would appear that while Grassley is intent upon not rationing Grandma’s health care, he doesn’t mind rationing her right to justice and her ability to seek it when it’s necessary. Bizarre and hypocritical.
Vigorous debate about a bill that alters 17% of the US economy is vital. But somehow, honesty and consistency needs to be a requirement especially of elected officials. Citizens have a right to voice even the basest fears. Politicians, on the other hand, have a responsibility to keep this emotion in check. Grassley and the GOP are failing us in that regard.
It’s safe to say there are many people in this country who are confused, fed up and ready to see some relief from all the spending. It’s also not a far stretch to see we are now reaping the consequences of our recent presidential election.
Seemingly, what’s good for the goose is not good for the gander as far as the left is concerned. They have a short memory, indeed. As you wrote, they fail to remember all the junk hurled at President Bush while he was in office.
Some of those who hold high offices in our land just don’t “get it.” I say fire every one of them, disband the IRS, do away with the czars and get spending under control. One can hope, right?
Pastor Ron´s last blog ..This Week’s Featured Blog – CindyBeall.com
A little humor to calm frayed nerves….
The American Medical Association has weighed in on National Health Insurance.
The Allergists voted to scratch it, but the Dermatologists advised not to make any rash moves. The Gastroenterologists had sort of a gut feeling about it, but the Neurologists thought the Administration had a lot of nerve.The Obstetricians felt they were all laboring under a misconception. Ophthalmologists considered the idea shortsighted. Pathologists yelled, “Over my dead body!” while the Pediatricians said, “Oh, grow up!” The Psychiatrists thought the whole idea was madness, while the Radiologists could see right through it. Surgeons decided to wash their hands of the whole thing. The Internists thought it was a bitter pill to swallow, and the Plastic Surgeons said, “This puts a whole new face on the matter.” The Podiatrists thought it was a step forward, but the Urologists were pissed off at the whole idea. The Anesthesiologists thought the idea was a gas, and the Cardiologists didn’t have the heart to say no. In the end, the Proctologists won out, leaving the entire decision up to the assholes in Washington.