Senator Isakson isn’t very happy with the president’s invoking him as a supporter of health-care deform.
But actually, the reason I’m posting is for a grammar flame:
“This is what happens when the President and members of Congress don’t read the bills,” says Isakson in a paper statement. “The White House and others are merely attempting to deflect attention from the intense negativity caused by their unpopular policies. I never consulted with the White House in this process and had no role whatsoever in the House Democrats’ bill. I categorically oppose the House bill and find it incredulous that the White House and others would use my amendment as a scapegoat for their misguided policies…”
No, Senator. It is you who is “incredulous,” not what the White House did. What you find about that is “incredible.” This is a common error (like confusing “imply” and “infer”) but that’s no excuse for it in a written press release.
So Obama praises his amendment, and in return Isakson bad-mouths Obama. And people wonder why there isn’t more bipartisanship in D.C.
So Obama praises his amendment, and in return Isakson bad-mouths Obama.
Jim, you are truly a piece of work.
Yep. The way to achieve “bipartisanship in D.C.” is to allow the The Big Zero! and His Leftist flunkies to lie about His actions and to expect everyone else to cover for Him.
Poor Senator – Ezra Klein misquotes him at great length in the Washington Post just yesterday!
Maybe he should sue the Post?
“It is you who is incredulous”?
He should read my book “How to Talk and Write English Good.”
And people wonder why there isn’t more bipartisanship in D.C.
Bipartisanship? Don’t make me laugh.
At this point the GOP has no choice, but to be bipartisan. They are simply too few in numbers. The Dems can pass anything they want at any time.
Take the stimulus bill for example. GOP congress members were physically locked out of the committee meetings and told their input on the bill was not needed or desired. The Dems never refuted this. Furthermore, the GOP has no time to even form an opinion on a bill before being asked to vote. Many bills are written, distributed and voted on within hours — not giving enough time for review despite Obama/Pelosi/Reid promising this would not happen. The Cap and Trade farce being a very prominent example.
Obama may have talked a pretty game during the election, but he pretty much proved to be a partisan hack like any other politician. Case and point. The “folks” Obama is talking about are the Republicans on the other side of the isle. Yes, a wonderful way of seeking bipartisanship. Don’t you think?
GOP congress members were physically locked out of the committee meetings and told their input on the bill was not needed or desired.
Jim hopes we forgot.
Whoever hired Jim as there socialist sales pitch man needs to fire him. If he were a cars salesman his pitch would be about as effective as, “Yea, this GM Chevy Impala has the reliability of a Chevette”. In other words, your doing more harm than good at this point Jim.
Good as quitting while quitting is good.
BTW, Jim (begging Rand’s pardon) you are a socialist dwarf and can go suck an egg.
I will not stand by while people like Jim disparage our American dream and only serve to delegitimize the very things that our founding fathers fought like hell to establish. Europeans have had thousands of years to screw themselves over. We’ve only been at this business for a couple of hundred years so far. The fact that we have made it this far (civil wars and all) only speaks to how innovative this American experiment really is. Let’s not preempt this exercise of a humanity which seeks liberty. We shall not let the ember of liberty dwindle in the suffocating stench of socialist apathy.
Call me silly, point out my incongruity all you want, but one thing you will never take; my liberty.
Even lifelong democrat and big Obama supporter Camille Paglia recognizes what Jim refused to admit:
There is plenty of blame to go around. Obama’s aggressive endorsement of a healthcare plan that does not even exist yet, except in five competing, fluctuating drafts, makes Washington seem like Cloud Cuckoo Land. The president is promoting the most colossal, brazen bait-and-switch operation since the Bush administration snookered the country into invading Iraq with apocalyptic visions of mushroom clouds over American cities.
You can keep your doctor; you can keep your insurance, if you’re happy with it, Obama keeps assuring us in soothing, lullaby tones. Oh, really? And what if my doctor is not the one appointed by the new government medical boards for ruling on my access to tests and specialists? And what if my insurance company goes belly up because of undercutting by its government-bankrolled competitor? Face it: Virtually all nationalized health systems, neither nourished nor updated by profit-driven private investment, eventually lead to rationing.
I just don’t get it. Why the insane rush to pass a bill, any bill, in three weeks? And why such an abject failure by the Obama administration to present the issues to the public in a rational, detailed, informational way? The U.S. is gigantic; many of our states are bigger than whole European nations. The bureaucracy required to institute and manage a nationalized health system here would be Byzantine beyond belief and would vampirically absorb whatever savings Obama thinks could be made. And the transition period would be a nightmare of red tape and mammoth screw-ups, which we can ill afford with a faltering economy.
As with the massive boondoggle of the stimulus package, which Obama foolishly let Congress turn into a pork rut, too much has been attempted all at once; focused, targeted initiatives would, instead, have won wide public support. How is it possible that Democrats, through their own clumsiness and arrogance, have sabotaged healthcare reform yet again? Blaming obstructionist Republicans is nonsensical because Democrats control all three branches of government. It isn’t conservative rumors or lies that are stopping healthcare legislation; it’s the justifiable alarm of an electorate that has been cut out of the loop and is watching its representatives construct a tangled labyrinth for others but not for themselves. No, the airheads of Congress will keep their own plush healthcare plan — it’s the rest of us guinea pigs who will be thrown to the wolves.
Yes, socialism is for suckers, but getting back to grammar … Is there some secret rule, known to people who went someplace better than Franklin Junior High, that makes “you who is” correct and “you who are” incorrect?
I would start a riot at a town hall meeting if a Representative or Senator said “disinterested” when they meant “uninterested.” ;^)
Is there some secret rule, known to people who went someplace better than Franklin Junior High, that makes “you who is” correct and “you who are” incorrect?
As far as I know, if the “you” referred to is plural (namely, a group) then you’d use “you who are”. Rand, for example, was referring to a single senator. So “you who is” seems appropriate there.
While I am not a proponent for the proposals that are being touted, this tiny bit of input may be the only good legislation in the entire bill. I live with this issue every day so I speak with some knowledge on the subject. It is true that a large portion of the monies spent by the health care system are spent by families of elderly patients in the last days of their lives. I won’t quibble over percentages. These patients have for many different reasons have not sat down with family members and care givers to spell out exactly what their care in their final days should look like. It is important to make these decisions before you become incapacitated. A living will is a good idea for anyone. The problems begin when Mom or Dad or Grandma have left no direction. This leaves the family member who has power of attorney or similar stature with the responsibility of making the health care decisions. This person who is in an emotional state or being influenced by others in an emotional state invariable chooses to keep the dying patient alive as long as possible. In many cases in direct opposition of the patients physicians advise. Most feeding tubes are placed in dying patients are done so out of ignorance of medical knowledge. The patient who is terminally ill is then forced by their own body to continue to linger in an incredibly expensive hospital bed until complications finally take then. This is all done to relieve the emotional angst of family members not ready for their loved one to pass. What they are in fact doing is prolonging their loved ones suffering. In doing so they are also needlessly driving up the cost of medical care. All this could be avoided by having a two or three hour conversation with their loved ones and their care givers. The dark humor in nursing homes puts it succinctly. We will torture your loved ones at your request. I have no problem with a person deciding they want every possible action taken to prolong their life. But that person should be making that decision in advance. Don’t leave this important decision to those suffering, and whom you will soon leave behind. That is the real issue of choice that keeps the healt care problem from being resolved.
Getting back to Isakson: Obama praised Isakson’s amendment, the same amendment that gave rise to the phony “death panel” and euthanasia hysteria. And Obama was right to do so — Medicare should cover end-of-life discussions. In return, Isakson not only indicated that he did not support the health care bills before Congress that include his amendment, he went out of his way to attack Obama personally.
So we’ve reached the point where you can’t include and praise the legislation of a member of the other party without being attacked in return. That seems like a new low in inter-party civility.
Camille Paglia tries to be interesting at the expense of accuracy. Of course you promote ideas before the final bill exists — you don’t have a final bill until after everyone in Congress has voted. And no, this isn’t a bait and switch: Obama and the rest of the Democratic party has been talking ad nauseam about health care reform for the last two years. The process may seem rushed to her, but it’s been excruciatingly slow to anyone paying attention.
GOP congress members were physically locked out of the committee meetings and told their input on the bill was not needed or desired. The Dems never refuted this.
Which is rude, but the fact is that the Dems had the votes. It isn’t as if Dems were consulted much when they were in the minority. And in fact the ARRA bill did include GOP ideas (e.g. the AMT fix).
Obama may have talked a pretty game during the election, but he pretty much proved to be a partisan hack like any other politician. Case and point. The “folks” Obama is talking about are the Republicans on the other side of the isle. Yes, a wonderful way of seeking bipartisanship. Don’t you think?
The expression is “case in point”. My guess is that Obama was referring to insurance and health industry lobbyists, not GOP members, but even if I’m wrong about that I don’t see how preferring to hear from people who haven’t had a voice or been in charge lately makes Obama less than bipartisan.
I will not stand by while people like Jim disparage our American dream and only serve to delegitimize the very things that our founding fathers fought like hell to establish.
Defensive much?
For whatever it’s worth, I live the American dream. I’m a self-made millionaire. I can write and say whatever I want about politics, or anything else. I get to live in a rich country with amazing resources and opportunities. My life would be utterly different, for the worse, were it not for those “things that our founding fathers fought like hell to establish.”
Which is why I write the things I do. I don’t want to see this country succumb to ignorance and paranoia when it could move forward.
So we’ve reached the point where you can’t include and praise the legislation of a member of the other party without being attacked in return.
No, we’ve reached the point where a president can’t disingenuously imply that a Republican supports a bill when he doesn’t, and not get called on it.
Since Isakson had publicly supported the amendment the day before the President spoke, I’m not sure Obama is the one being disingenuous.
Hmm, let’s see. Suppose a member of the German government in 1942 proposes a plan that, instead of exterminating all Jews would amend the “Final Solution” plan to deport them all to some other country. And suppose afterward the Fuhrer touts this individual as a supporter of the “Final Solution” plan because he offered an amendment to it.
Who’s being disingenuous?
If one is on board enough with the plan to get an amendment approved, and gives a lengthy interview in support of the plan the day before the President is going to speak on the plan, it would be reasonable to assume that one is a supporter of the plan.
I live the American dream. I’m a self-made millionaire. I can write and say whatever I want about politics, or anything else.
Good for you, Jim. Have you ever thought about just being happy with your millions instead of trying to replace our values with yours?
My guess is that Obama was referring to insurance and health industry lobbyists, not GOP members
Jim, unsurprisingly you are indeed wrong. Obama was not talking about insurance companies, but rather federal fiscal policy. Blaming Republicans for his trillion dollar deficit, when in fact it was a Democrat congress that has been in charge of the final budget since 2006.
See for yourself. The whole speech is here on CSPAN (relevant section starts around 18:30 mark): http://tinyurl.com/nyqpzw
This person who is in an emotional state or being influenced by others in an emotional state invariable chooses to keep the dying patient alive as long as possible.
Not invariably. I have personal experience.
Yours,
Tom