Many thanks to Sally, Robert Thorn and Smoothfur for holding down the fort last night during the President's press conference. I had a meeting that ran late in Arlington and then was on the road to the farm. I suppose I could have listened to it on the radio, but I got involved with my Teaching Company course (The Great Ideas of Philosophy) and forgot to tune in. The lecture that took me home was one on the Federalist Papers, and any discussion of Alexander Hamilton trumps listening to the President any day--no matter who the President is.
That said, I've now devoured the morning wrap-ups of the event, and I've read through the comments on the blog. Sally's comment gets to the heart of the political side of the health care debate. The bottom line here is that he's got sufficient Democratic votes to pass anything he wants--so if he can't get what he wants through, his beef is with his own party.
"Anonymous Joe"made what he felt was a "balanced" comment, questioning whether the posters had given GWB's decision to go to war "...like you are questioning BHO's health care proposals". Putting aside for a moment the notion that there is anything "balanced" about his question, I would answer for myself, no, I did not question GWB's going to war like I am questioning BHO's health care proposals, and there's a very simple reason why--I AGREED WITH GOING TO WAR IN IRAQ. One does not agree with a policy, and then spend time disparaging it, at least not beyond the doors of those facilities dedicated to the rehabilitation of diseased minds. One does disparage policies with which one disagrees....call it ideology if you wish (and remember--ideology isn't a bad word here on the CW). And there are clearly people here who disagree with the way the President and many of his party wish to reform the health care system. I reference readers again to the title of the blog--"Conservative" Wahoo. Not "Balanced" Wahoo. That the overwhelming majority of people here would be ideologically opposed to much of the Democratic government takeover of healthcare should not surprise anyone.
Now--onto "balance". "Balance" isn't a schoolyard taunt--"oh yeah, well where were you when Bush took us to war!" "Balance" isn't accusing someone of "palpable hatred" because of policy differences--ideologically based or not. "Balance" (my view) is injecting into the debate points or questions that might cause one to have to defend a position. "Balance" might be asking just what is wrong with trying to see that every American has health care. "Balance" might be asking whether or not BHO is simply being politically pragmatic (a skill upon which I personally place great weight) in shifts in his positions. "Balance" could include asking whether a millionaire paying $5000 more a year in income taxes is too big a burden to bear in closing the gap on the number of uninsured people. There are a ton of very important questions that could be asked of someone who is ideologically opposed to the President/Congressional Democrat's healthcare plan, and I have great faith that the readers of this blog would rise to the challenge.