Ok, but half (or more) of the things people say they don't like about the proposals in congress aren't actually in the proposals in congress. These people may be against single payer or single provider (which aren't the same thing). They may be against forced euthenasia. They may encourage their congresscritter to keep the government's hands off Medicaire. But none of those things are in any of the proposals currently before congress.
I'm all for vigorous opposition. I just haven't seen a lot of opposition to ideas actually currently in play.
And I said the people involved were being assholes when they showed up at Bush speeches and tried to shout over him or the Code Pink people doing it at congressional hearings (or by forcing the evacuation of Christopher Hitchens or Ann Coulter from speeches they were giving). And showing up now intending to try and shout down everybody else is still being just as big an asshole.
Quote:
|
The speed with which they believe it has to be passed to me shows they know that it will get only more and more unpopular as the voting public learns about what is in it.
|
Or, possibly, they know that the more time there is to spread lies about what is in the bill the more of those things will stick in the popular imagination and torpedo the bill regardless of whatever is actually in it. And the sudden emphasis on reading bills line by line in their entirety is suspiciously disingenuous when I'm guessing that not a single Republican had read, in their entirety, the defense budget and "emergency" funding bills for fudning the Iraq war which any attempt to slow down was presented as thoroughly unpatriotic.
I agree they should be well briefed on the contents of bills (though I don't care if they've read it as that is frequently a purely meaningless thing to do). I just also think it would be good if the people criticizing a bill had more familiarity with it as well than just listening to Glenn Beck tell them what WorldNetDaily has told him is in it.