President Barack Obama accused his critics on Saturday of resorting to "outlandish rumors" and "misleading information" aimed at derailing his efforts to overhaul the $2.5 trillion U.S. healthcare system.
Obama struck back at conservative opponents as lawmakers returned home for their August break facing an increasingly rancorous battle over his top domestic legislative priority. A deal on healthcare has yet to be struck in Congress.
"As we draw close to finalizing -- and passing -- real health insurance reform, the defenders of the status quo and political point-scorers in Washington are growing fiercer in their opposition," Obama said, without naming names, in his weekly radio and Internet address.
"Some have been using misleading information to defeat what they know is the best chance of reform we have ever had," Obama said, adding it was critical for Americans to have all the facts as they meet their lawmakers in home districts.
And outlander is a foreigner; and "outlandish rumor" would first be a rumor that you would expect about foreign things ("there be dragons there"), or possibly a rumor from or by a foreigner. Next, an "outlandish rumor" could be a rumor about a foreigner, or possibly asserting that a person is a foreigner.
To say that Obama was born in Kenya and is, hence, a foreigner is a barely possible, but punny, interpretation of "outlandish rumor".
I tend to like B-in-B's sense of humor. Not usually cross-linguistic, but often a bit off-the-wall and subtle, however assuming that it's completely normal and obvious.
3. from what I can tell , he'll do what all good Democratic leaders do--
speak rationally, politely and respectfully to raving ,ignorant, incoherent and potentially ( and in a few cases , already more than potentially) violent opponents, and be shocked, SHOCKED I tells ya, when the other side doesn't respond in kind. Its been said that our side keeps trying to bring a knife to a gunfight. Hell, that'd be an improvement. We keep trying to bring a polite law school debate to a mugging.
5. I do remember when we were saying that during the primary when
he would not fight back against Hillary. In the end niceness won. I to feel the frustration that he does not come out punching but then I remember the primaries and wonder, "Does he know what he is doing this time also?" With these rioters I think he does. They are in the end going to hurt the GOP and lose the battle.
6. Valid point, but I purposely said "all Democratic leaders" as opposed to just Obama for a reason
Edited on Sat Aug-08-09 02:46 PM by abq e streeter
We as a party; as a single unified voice,must start shoving back( figuratively) at these people ; the entire republican/hate media etc. gang( as opposed to their pathetic little surrogates in the town hall disruptions) must be called out for who and what they are , and what they're doing and attempting to do, in the most strident "telling it like it is/politeness be damned" manner .Just my opinion...that at some point we must once again become the "give em hell" party.
Even in this retort by Obama it's plain to see how much capitulation has already taken the place. The use of the term 'insurance reform' rather than 'health care reform' sticks out like a sore thumb to me. And, as far as I'm concerned, whatever bill comes out of this absolutely ought to be the first step in government taking over healthcare. To assure the opposition otherwise sends as big a message to those of us that consider single payer to be the end game as it does to the 'intended' target.
I don't view this as being nearly as sinister as you do. When you say "health care reform" you're susceptible to "OMG, the government's going to take over your doctor's office!!11!1". All the government is talking about doing is having its own brand of nonprofit insurance available. "Insurance reform" is the more accurate term, and much harder to twist into something that sounds scary.
the pragmatism involved here, the debate was about "health care" reform until the "OMG SOCIALISM" crowd got loud and boisterous and dominating the "discussion" on the evening news. But the goal posts have already been moved significantly toward the right end zone and in response that minority is screaming even louder. I don't for a moment believe that the President (being much smarter than I am) believes that he can win these people over. They hate simply for hates sake. So, any watering down of terminology or long term possibilities that come out of what ultimately gets enacted is targeted for other ears.
With that said, national government sponsored health care could very well be the end result of a strong public option. The profit driven free market, which has no interest in health care aside from the profit derived in denying it to its own customers, can't compete with a meaningful non-profit option. Surely the President knows this, as well. So, in assuring the fearful that this won't lead to government run health care, he's either going to do his part to make sure it doesn't, or he's being dishonest with those he is assuring. And, even if it's the former, I also don't mean to suggest that is "sinister" in nature. I'm well aware that the President holds beliefs about the free market that I do not. In that, he and I respectfully disagree. If it is the latter, I can only say that I wish such tactics weren't a necessary evil. I would like to believe that "civilization" would follow the paths that the overwhelming evidence reveals as most civilized, but I'm not naive enough to believe that to be true.
24. Sinister was too strong a word, and I should have used something less pejorative.
But I think even a single payer system could be covered by the term "insurance reform", because as I understand it, in Canada the hospitals and doctors offices are still privately owned, and the government's only role is to pick up the bill. I may be wrong about that though.
I also may be wrong about the change of terminology. It could mean something more than I think. I'm just giving them the benefit of the doubt.
7. It wasn't exactly "niceness". It just did not have his fingerprints on it.
In the case of health care reform (sorry, is it now just health insurance reform or maybe only a health insurance mandate?), I just hope that what finally passes has at least the core of what most of us actually want and need.
I remain quite skeptical, but I hope I am proved wrong.
I would think that he has as much of a temper as anyone else, and I have a hard time imagining that he's not livid at some of the stuff that's being said. As a good politician, he's learned to reign it in in public.
Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators
Important Notices: By participating on this discussion
board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules
page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the
opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent
the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.