so, some links:
i read this article in the paper this weekend (yes, i know, i am the only person under 30 who reads a physical paper). Dionne describes moderates' "wins" rather morbidly and also brings up an argument that annoys me to no end:
"If a bill eventually becomes law -- as it must if the Democrats are not to look like a feckless, useless lot -- "
Annoying because now it's as if the democrats want (need) to pass health care reform just to do it - just to accomplish something. Yes, they're going to look like a bunch of idiotic pushover losers (kind of like the SEC... $150M is enough to get them wet, huh?) if they don't. But come on. Let's not let that become the impetus behind changing a nation's health care system.
Eh, who am i kidding? who am i to be so naive as to think that similar reasons haven't been the impetus behind hundreds of bills, tons of pork?
Anyway, I'd like to hope that, if we get health care reform, it's simply because we need (want) health care reform. A futile hope, perhaps.
In any case, i thought this musing in the article was pretty true, if not, amusing:
"...the conservatives relentlessly made a straightforward public case based on a syllogism: The economy is a mess. Obama and the Democrats are for big government. Big government is responsible for the mess. Therefore the mess is the fault of Obama and the Big Government Democrats.
Simplistic and misleading? Absolutely. But if liberals and Obama are so smart, how did they -- or, if you prefer, "we" -- allow conservatives to make this argument so effectively? Why do the mainstream media give it so much credence?"
Also, Newt and Jon, if you haven't seen it:
Favorite part:
when Gingrich acknowledged that part of his job is to reach out to the emotions of the American people, Stewart shot back, "I think that's wise. And don't let reality get in the way."
