Opposite responses to the Baucus bill
On the basis of the Congressional Budget Office’s positive report on the Baucus health care bill, Randall Hoven at American Thinker thinks that it’s all over. The bill meets all the principal objections that have been raised against the House bill and it will pass, period. He states this, not as a personal prediction, but as a fact. He states this, even though he also says the bill will be ruinous. Instead of analyzing the bill and acknowledging its political strengths and finding ways of opposing it, Hoven rushes to surrender.
What makes Hoven so sure? Even as he’s declaring that it’s all over, Jay Cost at RealClearPolitics says that the bill turns off both progressives and conservatives, and will face heavy opposition.
There are plenty of reasons to believe the Baucus bill can be stopped. I think Hoven makes his sage-like statements that the bill will be passed because he wants it to pass. Maybe it makes him feel wise and powerful to have the inside angle on what will happen in the future. But it makes him look the opposite of wise. The judgment of a person who is less interested in fighting for his side than in making absolute, authoritative predictions of ruinous defeat for his side, and who seems to derive pleasure from the prediction, is not to be trusted.
After drafting this entry last night, I wrote to Randall Hoven:
Mr. Hoven:Randall Hoven write back to me that he wished he had my “optimism.” He said he hoped he was wrong, but that he expects not, because insanity reigns, as shown by the Nobel prize for Obama.
You completely miss the point. I wasn’t urging “optimism.” I was arguing against your total defeatism which is nothing less than a huge assist to the side your supposedly oppose. I was saying that you should fight against this bill, not surrender to it.
Posted by Lawrence Auster at October 09, 2009 11:46 AM | Send