Thursday, September 10, 2009

Joe Wilson, Illegals and Presidential Honesty

First, let me start by saying that Rep. Joe Wilson’s interruption of President Obama last night was completely inappropriate. Regardless of how vehemently one disagrees or even despises a president, we must return to the traditions of political discourse in which a certain reverence for the office of the presidency is exhibited by our elected officials. I condemned poor behavior exhibited by Democrats when they treated President Bush in a similarly rude manner and every conservative should do the same with Wilson.

That being said, President Obama’s speech was viciously partisan and angered a great many of us on the right. We do in fact believe that President Obama is guilty of misrepresenting various elements of his plan to the American people. If Mr. Obama is going to continue to call those opposed to this plan “liars” then we as conservatives have every right to set the record straight if the president himself is pushing talking points that don’t hold up to scrutiny.

Obviously illegal immigration is a sensitive topic in this country and the idea that a government run health care plan such as the public option, would allow illegal aliens to receive coverage, is simply unacceptable.

Real questions remain as to how the current House bill treats illegals.

There is indeed a provision in the House bill, which states that illegal immigrants would not be eligible for the public plan. However, unlike Medicare and Medicaid, the pending legislation currently contains no provision that would require proof of citizenship when an individual attempts to sign up for the program. In fact, Democrats killed a GOP sponsored amendment that would have mandated that individuals show proof of citizenship in order to be eligible for the plan. This means that while illegals would be breaking the law by signing onto the plan, no effort would be made to prevent them from doing so. If an individual had no qualms about entering the country illegally in the first place, what reason is there to believe that they would not do so again in helping themselves to taxpayer funded health care?

Now, perhaps I’m not as familiar with the legislative process as I should be. If someone could assure me that there are provisions which would ensure that the legal status of those who signed up for the plan would be checked, and that this is something that will be added by government bureaucrats upon the bills passage, then I will happily cede the point to the president. But when compounded with the misleading statements that have already come from the president, such as his claim that the plan would not add to the deficit. Or his insistence (up until last night when he carefully changed his phrasing) that if you like your current plan, you can keep it, puts me in the company of a great number of Americans – including Rep. Wilson – who are increasingly skeptical as to whether this president is being honest with us when it comes to the very important subject of health care reform.

Again, the president can’t have it both ways. If he is going to chastise opponents of his plan for peddling “misinformation,” then he must be completely upfront in his own selling of the plan to the American public.

I never believed George W. Bush lied to the American people. At this point I would not go as far as to say that Barack Obama has done so either, but it appears that he is coming dangerously close. Dishonesty from our president is just as inappropriate as any disrespectful outburst made towards the Commander In Chief by a member of Congress.


Sphere: Related Content


Anonymous said...

Been reading your blog.


Do you have a job?

PandaFan said...

Real bold, anonymous.

I don't think Panda would be the kind of asshole to be worried about illegal immigrants living it up off the labor of others if he wasn't gainfully employed.

Get some cojones, anonymous and stop trolling on great blogs

Dan said...

Wow. Redmond, Washington and Astoria, New York. I wonder who these annonymous posters could be? I do have a tracker guys.

PandaFan said...

I'm actually in Glendale, CA

Trackers are not always acurate.

Anonymous said...

We all have trackers.

It's part of the government takeover of banks, the Internet, and healthcare.

So, really, I'm curious, after all this time, I know how you can never answer a question straight...

What exactly do you do for a living? Do you even PAY into the tax system?

Anonymous said...

and ps,

Politics IS personal.

People ARE actually affected everyday by public policy. It isn't a game, even though you continue to think that there are teams, sides, and winners.

There are people involved, many of them.

Thread closed.

Dan said...

Just for the record, I work my tail off and I haven't been making any money in the process. What I have to show for my efforts is a 450-page book which I hope will bring me a return on my investment in the near future. I hope that all of you get a chance to read it.

I've been supplementing my savings by selling my possessions online and have been eating gas station food for the past three months.

If you don't view this type of work as legitimate then I don't know what to tell you But,it's a bit insulting to suggest that just because someone doesn't have a typical 9 to 5 job, that they have less of a right to share their opinion on matters of national policy. I think that many stay at home mothers would agree with me.

You're absolutely correct when you say politics is personal, but one needn't be personally attacked for their views. If you disagree with something I've written, explain why in a reasonable, coherent way and I am always happy to respond in a similar fashion. But it's intellectually lazy to proclaim that anyone's arguments lack merit because of their own personal experiences.

Anonymous said...

Dan, I do apologize, my last remarks were a little TOO personal. No reason for that. And yeah, I've spent much of my life working as a writer, not inside a normal 9to5 as well, so I feel you.

But honestly, this: "If you disagree with something I've written, explain why in a reasonable, coherent way and I am always happy to respond in a similar fashion."

99% of my interaction with you has been that. And you've never responded reasonably, or coherently. You've only attempted to undercut me with knee-jerk reactions that have nothing to do with any points I've ever addressed.

You've proven yourself time and time again to be unreasonable in the forum of discourse.

Just because something has a high word count doesn't make it unreasonable or incoherent.

And also, this: "The second half of the book is an issue-by-issue guide that explains the tenants behind conservative principles and why the typical liberal positions on these same issues are almost always inferior to ours."

Inherent in this statement is that you are incapable of responding in a reasonable manner, because you believe that any 'liberal'-leaning perspective is "inferior".

That's dogmatic ideology.
Not rational discourse.

Anonymous said...

Example: I state some cases and bring up some issues.

Your response: Woah! Been to any 9/11 Truther meetings there, buddy?

That's your version of responding reasonably and coherently?

Whenever a string of questions or issues come up, all you can say is "Woah there, crazy!"

Come on. All you're doing is avoiding having to respond to anything.

Anonymous said...

Oh, and ps, I didn't ask you if you had "a typical 9 to 5 job".

I asked if you had A job, as in any job, not a typical one.

Just wanted to call out the twisting of words, I don't know what you heard, but it clearly wasn't what I said. This is indicative of a bigger problem in your conversations.

I find it funny how you much you selectively (i.e. anything proposed by a Democrat) rail on government expenditures when you don't pay into the system.

And yeah, sorry about the gas station food times... been there.

It sux.

But seriously, good luck with the book. I think the record is clear that you've got a strong chance of getting it published, and very possibly, selling a large number of copies.

Our country really supports one-sided demagogues (right and left) in the media rather than those who attempt to create open-minded, logical debates.

Check this book out if you ever get a sec... would be interested to hear your take on it.

dan said...

First of all, you tried to detract from my points about health care by pointing to TARP and other unrelated topics. If you want to discuss TARP or have a broader discussion about government spending, that's fine. But we were discussing the specifics of the health care debate and I really didn’t any point in going off on a tangent and talking about something that was unrelated to the topic at hand.

In the course of your postings you referred to me as being:

“…incapable of thinking.”

“…a sycophant”

“…a borderline psychotic”

“..very sad”

and a “…racist megalomaniac.”

You said that I have:

a “…personal glitch in [my] socio-emotional matrix...”

“…selective partisan judgment”

and that I

“…didn't have much of an opinion before the internet.”

And was planning an “…abortion clinic shooting.”

You then proceeded to insult the intelligence of every one who reads my postings and agrees with them. So who’s really being “..unreasonable in the forum of discourse” here?

I think you can understand why I would choose to disregard your statements as being less than thoughtful, even if there were a few legitimate points peppered in among the long thread of invective.

I don’t try to hide the fact that I’m a partisan. But it’s inappropriate to assume that just because I’m a partisan, that I don’t have well thought out reasons for being one. Or,that my views are simply a regurgitation of something that I’ve read or heard somewhere else.

And even if they were, so what? The whole reason that the Internet has become such a powerful political tool is because it enables the spread of information to people who may not otherwise have gotten it. If the information is accurate and can be explained to people who have less knowledge on the subject in an easy to understand fashion, then it can only serve to heighten the national conversation. No one’s ideas are completely original, they all have their basis in information that the individual promoting them has learned somewhere else throughout their lives.

Yes, my book will explain “why the typical liberal positions on these same issues are almost always inferior to ours." The key word is “explain.” That’s the purpose of the book and much of the material I post on the blog. I don’t simply say that “liberals are wrong” and then go on to promote the conservative view. I also talk a lot in the book about how conservatives should go about engaging liberals in a debate and when they should avoid debating a liberal. One of the lessons is that you should never seriously engage someone who begins the debate by yelling at you or personally attacking you for your views. I try to remain true to this philosophy as often as I can, but if I don’t feel that I’m talking to a rational individual then I really don’t see any reason to waste time, energy and brain power on them.

PandaFan said...

Good luck with the book Dan.

If you're willing to sacrifice to make a dream happen, great!

I too have to agree with Ed. Often you don't respond in a coherent reasonable manner. You often find some wording or phrase that allows you to completely dismiss a larger argument.

Whether or not you feel this is a valid criticism, this is how several people perceive your online interactions. Since you're attempting to launch a career in a realm where public perception matters far more than average, you may want to address this issue.

Or you could continue on a course of pushing your agenda while belittling opposition.

This will probably allow you to have a successful and lucrative career, but it will put you in a class with Ann Coulter and Michael Moore.

Has this back and forth gotten out of hand, yes!

But you know what started it for me, where I lost my ability to regard your argument with any credibility? It was "Estoban at the carwash" on Barton's facebook posting.

Once you moved the debate into stereotypical racism, whether you meant it as humor or not, you ceded you right to be regarded as a rational member of a debate.

Steve said...

It could be worse Dan, at least Shanonymous isnt posting anymore. Hope the book comes out well.