Today, on "Mother Jones", Michael Reynolds penned the mother of all hypocrisy. The title of the liberal brilliance is "Should Obama Reveal his Inner Pissed-Off President".
The whiney/crying of the subject matter goes to show how the Liberals are handling the loss of absolute power when they lost the House in 2010. Of course this loss is now causing all of them to go bonkers because they have not been able to finish force feeding their Obamacare meal to us in the timeline they are accustomed.
The opening salvo is a trite run on sentence but has everything rolled into it. From Radical Conservatives, to world ending doom:
"Once again, a rump group of Republican radicals in the House are throwing the US government into chaos, threatening a shutdown of federal agencies (unless Obama agrees to smother Obamacare in the crib) that could harm the economy and setting up another showdown over the debt ceiling that could cause a financial crisis that stretches from the United States to markets around the world."
First of all Michael, can I call you Michael, the House Republicans are not threatening to shut the Government down, Harry and Barack are. The CR that left the House had the Government funding attached. Michael, you seem to think it's the Republicans fault. How's that?
Next, you lament that Barack has not been forceful enough against these rogue conservatives. You wish for him to bring a gun to a knife fight, don't you. The next blurb shows this -- "On Friday, he decried House GOP "grandstanding," noting that "House Republicans will have to decide whether to join the Senate and keep the government open, or shut it down just because they can’t get their way on an issue that has nothing to do with the deficit." And he criticized GOPers for playing politics with the full faith and credit of the US government: "do not threaten to burn the house down simply because you haven’t gotten 100 percent of your way. " Yet Obama has still not turned up the rhetoric full-blast, and this is a situation when he would be justified in amping up to an 11."
OK, let me educate you a bit. Obamacare has everything to do with our deficit. You lost that argument a long time ago. As far as the threat to burn the house down if you don't get 100% thingy I think it applies more so to Obama and his baby, as Chris Mathews said on MSMBC by way of analogy. But hey, I notice you also plagiarized Mr. Tingle yourself with "(unless Obama agrees to smother Obamacare in the crib)" which should be easy for you and your type supporting late term abortions.
But first, more lamenting -- "Let's review for a moment. The House Republicans—led more these days by freshman Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) than Speaker John Boehner—keep screaming that the American people have demanded that they block Obamacare. But what's the evidence of that? Last year, the presidential candidate who called for repealing Obamacare, received 59.1 million votes; the fellow who owned Obamacare earned 62.6 million votes. And House Democratic candidates together won over a million more votes than GOP House candidates. (It's partially because of gerrymandering that this lopsided vote count resulted in Republican control of the House.) So however you slice it, the last time this nation voted, more people voted for the party of Obamacare. Yet because the GOPers control a little more than one half of one body of Congress (or, put it this way, a bit more than one-half of one-third of the legislative-executive branches of the government), their extremists believe they are entitled to take hostages to eviscerate a law that was previously passed by Congress, signed by the president, and okayed by a conservative-led Supreme Court."
Phew, that is one heck of a rant. OK, let's dissect a little. Cruz Control. The reason Ted (Bundy Obama killing madman) Cruz has held sway over the feckless Boehner and the old time GOP'ers the likes of McConnel and McCain is because, well, he has the backing of those very constituents you seem to get lost on. You point to a failed GOP nominee for President, who I may add was the George Washington of Government run healthcare, as popularity for Obamacare. If you stretch any further you may hurt something. Next, you speak of House Democrats receiving more votes than Republicans in the 2010 mid-terms when it is obvious these votes come from heavy populated Democratic enclaves. Nice try. You end with a watered down version of a force feeding a law upon a populace that does not, nor never did, want this monstrosity.
OK, next -- "But right now there are two clashing views of reality in the political cosmos: one is being pushed by a ready-to-blow-up-the-building minority; the other is accepted by….everyone else. Yet in many pockets of our current media environment, both views are granted equal currency. There are few referees who can call fouls and say, House Republicans you are out of line and this is outrageous—if you want to continue your never-ending crusade against Obamacare (like those Japanese soldiers stranded on Pacific islands who kept fighting World War II years after the emperor surrendered), then you have to do so with reasonable means (say, votes on specific repeal legislation) and without wrecking the government and the economy."
OK, I thought you Liberal intellectuals were suppose to embrace "the minority"? To say that the opposing view (yours) is the one accepted by everyone else is laughable. How else do you explain the traction Cruz has in his obstruction efforts, when, in your own words the Republicans only "one-half of one-third of the legislative-executive branches of the government"? You have every MSM referee crying foul, just look at this diatribe you call an opinion piece. For your information, the House has voted, I believe on 17 different occasions, to repeal Obamacare without the threat of "wrecking the economy".
Next, this is good because there is a modicum of truth to it -- "No longer are there media figures such as Edward Murrow or Walter Cronkite who can call out official chicanery and lies and change the course of public events. These days—for good or bad—there are fewer megaphones, and most are smaller. But there is one person who still commands a fair bit of attention: the president of the United States. If he pumped up the volume, it might be noticed."
This is because of the alternative and truthfully balanced media that has replaced the dinosaur media that had no opposing views. OK! The next screed also has a modicum of truth to it, but by mentioning it you blow apart your whole argument of the popularity of Obamacrare -- "The public does take cues from its leaders. Certainly, the steady drumbeat of Obamacare trash-talk from Republicans and conservatives—which has far surpassed words of praise from its proponents—has affected public attitudes toward the health care law. The White House has not continuously campaigned for the law, promoting its benefits. (The president has a job to do beyond selling what he has already enacted.) But the law's lackluster standing in opinion surveys has encouraged Republican extremists to adopt their repeal-or-shutdown stance."
The truth is their is a steady drumbeat against the law. The reason these drumbeats have "far surpassed words of praise" is because there is nothing to like about it as polls have continuously shown and is the real impetus for Cruz's popularity much to your chagrin. The law is truly lackluster and contrary to your statement that Obama has failed to promote his baby the fact of the matter is there is nothing beyond "selling" snake oil for him to do.