I’ve already seen one puff piece on my local Cox Communications cable news site about Olympia Snowe. As well as the inference of how noble she was to vote against her own party, there was the obligatory “well, we have to doooooo something” quote from Snowe with regards to Disastercare.
I’m sure that at some point, the other moderates will come out with their usual bevy of talking points once the debate resumes. If you want the Cliff’s notes version, here it is:
- We have to doooooooo something!
- Come to a “bipartisan” solution, as opposed to a correct one.
- Some gibbering about reason over emotion, which is that thing supposedly afflicting those of us with actual principles.
Specter pulled a lot of this on his site when he voted for the very Democrat “bipartisan” non-stimulus stimulus. He still wound up changing parties because no one bought it this time. And since I’m very seriously annoyed by the moderate position in general, I’m going to call their bluff.
If you truly are reason over
emotion, why don’t you give me
your reasons?
We rabid conservatives drowning in the tsunami of emotion and heated rhetoric gave you ours -
- We can’t afford the Obama route.
- It won’t actually solve anything any better than similar systems in other countries.
- The CBO has contradicted the White House when Obama said his plan would cut health care costs.
- Since it doesn’t specifically exclude illegals from using the system, it would be a magnet for more of them.
- And we could save money by making insurance companies compete across state lines and reign in the lawsuit madness, neither of which cost the taxpayer a cent.
Now it’s your turn. I’m sick of hearing the soundbites of “We have to do something” and “We’re the only rational people in the room”. Why don’t you tell me how Obama’s plan, which will be your “compromise” plan with a few tokenistic nods to compromise attached, works better? If you do possess the excess of rational thought you keep asserting, why don’t you outshine us rabid conservatives now?
If not, I’ll keep to my original conclusion with regards to you. Your “moderation” is little more than a desire to follow the path of least resistance, and possibly garner some puff press along the way. Don’t bother me with your airs of superiority unless you can produce better arguments as to why your way is better than the ones you’ve produced now.