You, Mr. Editor, bravely say that you have received not one legitimate criticism of President Barack Obama.
In this packet, I will be providing about 100 criticisms, having nothing to do with the color of his skin.
You have the bully pulpit where each week you can write 700 words of opinion. We readers are allowed only 300 words to respond.
Nevertheless, I accept your challenge. First of all, the only dangerous brinksmanship regarding the recent government shutdown was that of Democrats and our President, who absolutely refused to accept on amendment to their precious budget, even the one that the President now, two weeks later, is mandating without the vote of Congress – a delay in implementation of Obamacare, a law passed with not one Republican vote, and passed by a simple majority – an oddity in the history of large bills such as Social Security and Medicare.
It is well accepted by many that our government would only refuse to pay our country’s debts if our President himself decided that he would not let them be paid – for we have much money coming into government coffers each week. The Constitution declares the House to be the holder of the purse strings, to fund or not fund what they deem to be important. Since the Senate has not passed a budget since Obama took office, one on which the House can have input, the House is left to use the power of that purse in other ways.
His response to me:
You’ve put a lot of work into this, but as with most of your ilk, your work is filled with inaccuracies. I neither have the time nor the interest in debunking all the bunk you sent, but I’ll start with this one. If it’s representative of the rest of your “research” the rest of your arguments will be easy picking as well. I’ll leave that to some other masochist.
Selling insurance across state lines, tort reform, allowing individuals to join large insurance groups instead of having to find individual insurance, health savings accounts, being able to keep your insurance company even when changing jobs, eliminating the “pre-existing conditions” problem for job changes. Please show me where these are part of the ACA.
So easy of you to say I lie with a nuance about who in the NYT gives ACA an F (oh, it was an economist who WRITES for the NYT!). It is such a typical way to be dismissive, to put a halt to your possible education into what is really going on under the surface in America. That’s quite an effective tactic, but not a new one: without admitting that even one of my 90 or so criticisms may be true, you find one minor argument, then use that one nuance to declare my 56,000 words to be definitely full of lies and bunk and not worthy of your time or anyone else’s. “Pick your target and freeze it” – the mantra of Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals. I note that you do not address all the horrors of the Obamacare roll-out, which has happened with no Republican obstruction, just their broad disapproval and attempted obstruction.
As to my lists, even if some of the things were just thought about and planned for but not executed, it reflects the radical thinking and hoping of this man and the people with whom he has filled his Administration – a window into their souls. I did articulate valid reasons why I don’t like his agenda, but I know that my list, nor any part of it, will never see the light of your day. Will you be at least be noting in your column that you have finally received one criticism that stands up to “the most cursory analysis of rhetoric or argument”? Probably not – not from someone of “my ilk”. If you do not read, how can you possibly learn?
You are just plain wrong that most of what I write is not true, but that keeps you happy in your alternative universe, I’m sure.
Sign up to get alerts from Joe!