July 16, 2007


IMPEACH BUSH


IMPEACH CHENEY

CALLOUS AND CLUELESS

George W. Bush says the health care system in the United States is fine. If you get sick, you just go to the emergency room. Life in Bush's world is so simple, isn't it? It's the same kind of "logic" that says if you're poor it's your own fault. Or if you're unemployed you just have to look at the classified ads in the newspaper. Before morons like Bush make these kind of summary pronouncements I wish they actually had to live like ordinary people for a while. Let them do an experiment like working for minimum wage without health insurance and see how well they survive. This column by Paul Krugman is at www.commondreams.org:

Being without health insurance is no big deal. Just ask President Bush. “I mean, people have access to health care in America,” he said last week. “After all, you just go to an emergency room.”

This is what you might call callousness with consequences. The White House has announced that Mr. Bush will veto a bipartisan plan that would extend health insurance, and with it such essentials as regular checkups and preventive medical care, to an estimated 4.1 million currently uninsured children. After all, it’s not as if those kids really need insurance - they can just go to emergency rooms, right?

O.K., it’s not news that Mr. Bush has no empathy for people less fortunate than himself. But his willful ignorance here is part of a larger picture: by and large, opponents of universal health care paint a glowing portrait of the American system that bears as little resemblance to reality as the scare stories they tell about health care in France, Britain, and Canada.

The claim that the uninsured can get all the care they need in emergency rooms is just the beginning. Beyond that is the myth that Americans who are lucky enough to have insurance never face long waits for medical care.

Actually, the persistence of that myth puzzles me. I can understand how people like Mr. Bush or Fred Thompson, who declared recently that “the poorest Americans are getting far better service” than Canadians or the British, can wave away the desperation of uninsured Americans, who are often poor and voiceless. But how can they get away with pretending that insured Americans always get prompt care, when most of us can testify otherwise?

MEDIA FLUFF

In what is supposed to pass for serious political commentary people like Chris Matthews gush over the appearance of Republican candidates like Mitt Romney and Fred Thompson. Never mind their positions on the issues or their leadership ability--it's "looking presidential" that counts. It's the same kind of nonsense the media have used since the days of Reagan. Ronnie "looked presidential" and read his lines well. In 1988 we got lots of stuff about the flag salute and Willie Horton, but nothing seriously involving the presidency. In 2000 we heard about Al Gore's earth tones and that Bush was the kind of guy you'd have a beer with. People in the media who promote this stuff are a disgrace. This article by J. Goodrich is at www.prospect.org:

What is new, of course, is the entry of a female candidate into the presidential race. This may be the reason why Greenwald notes that the attacks against the Democratic party have become more explicit and upfront. The battles are more urgent, and not only for Chris Matthews, who recently ran a poll about whether the next First Lady should resemble Laura Bush or Hillary Clinton. Doing this when the race includes a female candidate smelled a little panicky to me, but Matthews topped that in a later program when he delved into the question of women's ability to be war leaders. When a discussant noted that Margaret Thatcher and Golda Meir had both performed in that role, Matthews stated: "But we've got Patton and John Wayne on our side." Our side? Perhaps Chris Matthews should be treated as a separate category in this evaluation of pundit opinions.

Even ignoring Matthews, many pundits do seem to equate "presidential" with "masculine." How would this explain the recent focus on the good looks and fatherly demeanor of the three Republican candidates most often praised by the pundits? Are the approving comments aimed at the female voters in the audience, intended to draw their gaze to the attractive features of Giuliani, Romney or Thompson? Or are the pundits expressing their own emotional satisfaction with these candidates' manly aspects?

I'm not sure. But I found it curious that the Republican columnist Peggy Noonan chose to enter the debate by telling us that Hillary Clinton does not have to prove her manly attributes but her womanly ones. Funny how "masculine" qualities are deemed absolutely necessary to be president -- until the candidate is a woman. Then those same qualities are a liability.