So what’s the answer? I know what’s not the answer: Demonizing either side, disruptive scare tactics, pithy sayings and talking points, or solutions concise enough that you can Tweet them. The rhetoric is nauseating. A real, positive solution is impossible to achieve the way the conversation has proceeded to this point. I’m talking to both sides.
I honestly think the President is doing a relatively good job trying to move a major issue forward, and trying to do so in a constructive way. Does he have an agenda–OF COURSE HE DOES! If he didn’t have one, what good would he be as a leader? Is it an evil agenda, a negative agenda–I don’t think so. Am I saying he’s right? No! (I’m not saying he’s wrong either–I’m saying I disagree with his proposals as presented. That’s fundamentally different than saying he’s wrong). He’s at least trying to have an intelligent conversation. Is he engaging in the mudslinging? Yes, but it’d be hard to avoid. When the nitwit Republican Senator DeMint made the statement “If we are to stop Obama on this, it would be his Waterloo. It will break him”, it’s pretty hard to fault the President for fighting back.
I mean, come on…what’s the priority here??? Fix health care, or “break” the President? If it’s the latter, we may have bigger problems than health care reform. Who among us, when trying to do our job overheard someone saying “this is our chance to break him” wouldn’t fight back? That statement wasn’t about health care, it was about the ugliest form of party politics–not standing for anything, simply opposing the person currently in power in order to depose him in order to gain that power for yourself.
The proponents of the President’s plan don’t get a pass from me either. Speaker Pelosi, among others, has characterized those who express an opposing opinion as uninformed, and even unpatriotic. Both sides appear to be focused more on defending their position and attacking those who disagree, than they do about solving problems.
Let’s get back to discussing the details, honestly evaluating the pros and cons, and proposing possible solutions, instead of calling the other side names, and labeling their ideas with inflamatory words that don’t add any value to the debate.