The Mind's Eye
"Thus one could argue that ObamaCare is the domestic equivalent of a "war of choice."
But the comparison sells President Bush short in a way that is
independent of the merits of the policies. Whereas Obama seems to think
the country owes it to him to accept ObamaCare because he was kind
enough to agree to be our president, Bush actually made an effort to
persuade the public--including the opposite party--that his plan for
Iraq was a good idea. The effort was very successful: Congress
authorized the use of military force with strong bipartisan majorities,
and by early 2003, public approval of the plan was in the 70% range."
The Wall Street Journal often offers some of America's most lucid and insightful political analysis, and this has never been more true than with their offering of this particularly piercing and cogent insight.
The WSJ is entirely correct: George W. Bush and Dick Cheney cared enough about their war of choice in Iraq to lie to the American people, the American Congress, the United Nations, and, pretty much, everyone else in the world who had a radio or TV or access to a newspaper.
Obama, on the other hand, is simply telling the truth, and I think it's a stunning commentary on the difference between the work ethics of the two administrations. Bush and Cheney were willing to get right out there and dig in, rolling up their sleeves to do a truly Herculean task shoveling the b.s. in every direction.
Obama, on the other hand, just recites those same old facts and figures. He's making absolutely no effort whatsoever to embellish, to exaggerate, to distort, to manufacture outright lies and fabrications with which to sell his initiatives to the American people.
No, he's leaving all that heavy lifting to the Republicans and the corporate interests whose pockets they are in.
And this can't be stressed enough - if Obama were a real President, a real man, a real American, then by God, he'd take the time to lie to us.
Taranto doesn't stop there, though. In fact, all has been prelude. His true rhetorical genius can be seen in his next paragraph:
"Republican politicians did not label opponents of the war effort "un-American," as Steny Pelosi and Nancy Hoyer have done to ObamaCare foes. Bush's White House, unlike Obama's, did not urge supporters to report "fishy" pro-Saddam arguments. Bush did not tell his critics to shut up and "get out of the way," as Obama did last week. The Bush administration simply made a compelling argument and won. The Obama administration, on the verge of losing after making a poor argument, now is lashing out at its critics--which seems a strategy to maximize the damage of this effort."
And again, the points are inarguable and irrefutable. Certainly, George W. Bush never even considered setting up any programs where Americans would report on each other's activities to their own government, and it is, of course, absolutely true that no prominent Republicans ever said anything like "No matter what defeatist tack liberals take, real Americans are behind our troops 100 percent, behind John Ashcroft 100 percent, behind locking up suspected terrorists 100 percent, behind surveillance of Arabs 100 percent", and no Republican Congresswoman has ever called for the media to investigate other members of Congress to "find out if they are pro-America or anti-America", or has ever accused the President of the United States and his wife of being anti American on national television.And President Bush, of course, was never one to silence critics, or make any effort to keep them out of his way.
(Oddly, this page contains what were apparently once many links to news stories regarding the Bush Administration's propensity for confronting its own American detractors in a forthright, robust, and adult fashion; yet most of those links no longer function. Strange...)
Probably most cogent of all of Taranto's stinging, pithy observations, though, is the trenchant wit he displays when referring to a well known progressive e-journal as "MediaMutters". Zing! Another bullseye for the fearless conservative commentariat!
It's a shame, of course, that the Obama Administration is, indeed, "on the verge of losing after making a poor argument". I know it must be so because the Wall Street Journal and James Taranto say it's so, and they wouldn't lie. Yet when I spoke with my deeply conservative brother last weekend (it was his birthday) and the subject of health care reform came up, he seemed cynically, if bitterly, resigned to reform's eventual and inevitable passage. When speaking of recent confrontational, raucous, and even violent anti reform protests at a townhall meeting in Tampa thrown by Democratic Representative Kathy Castor (a fine person and excellent Representative, by the way; that's coming from a former resident of Tampa who voted for her twice), my brother sighed and said, "As if it's going to do any good". But I'm sure my brother is misinformed; again, if the WSJ and James Taranto states authoritatively that "Obamacare" is on the verge of defeat, well, defeat for Obamacare must be objectively, factually in the offing.
I suppose it's simply the clear and present difference between the two Presidential policies. Bush wanted to invade a country that did not threaten us for reasons that still haven't been made entirely clear, a course of action that would end up destroying that country and millions of its inhabitants, and costing hundreds of thousands of American soldiers their health and wellbeing, and thousands of them their lives. Obama wants to provide millions of Americans with better health care, and by doing so, help to strengthen an economy badly damaged by, among other things, that very same war of choice Bush initiated.
One President cared enough about his choice of action to lie to us about it, another can't even be bothered.
James Taranto is right. Enough is enough. If our own President won't make any effort to deceive us over something, then it can't be all that important, and I say to hell with it.
