Of course, Rodriguez has issued an apology-coupled with this "explanation":
"Unfortunately political operatives associated with my opponent's campaign tried to turn it into something else -- attempting to hijack a 'congress [sic] on your corner' event merely to engage in uncivil, cynical videotape baiting tactics."
"The people of Southwest Texas deserve better than that."
Well, he got it partially right. The people of Texas deserve better than that boob.
7 comments:
Yeah, you can fairly judge a person based on a thirty second clip.
And your post dodges the important question - was he telling the truth or not? If not, then yeah, that kind of makes him look bad. If he was telling the truth, then you can kind of see why he'd get a bit annoyed.
Lance,
I got as news flash for you. None of these Dems are telling the truth about health care reform.
This guy apparently has a reputaion for this kind of behavior toward those who dare to disagree with him.
This is how you treat your constituents when they dare to disagree?
If that wasn't the truth, then what is it?
This is how you treat your constituents when they dare to disagree?
If what he said wasn't true, then the problem isn't that she was disagreeing. It was that she was accusing him of lying. Like I said though, if he is wrong (which you have yet to prove that he is) then his conduct is out of line.
Again, we have the problem of subjective reality. Facts are facts. You don't get to disagree on what the facts are.
The whole bill is so big and complex that it is impossible to know what the facts are. The question was whether the congressman was lying when he said the deficit was forecasted at 4.1 TRILLION dollars.
I read this forecast in March:
"According to Table 8 of the report (pages 27-28), the ten-year deficit forecast for fiscal years 2009-18 has gone from $2.313 trillion, to an astounding $4.085 TRILLION –a deterioration of $1.772 trillion. (The ten-year deficit corresponding to the new budget window of 2010-19 is $3.135 trillion.)"
Then in May, the CBO issued another upward revision that was going to cost another $115 billion. This was after the CBO had the opportunity to actually read and study the implications. This increase was to fund "discretionary programs overhaul" and "administrative costs to fund the overhaul"
(I suppose this is for the 159 (!) new agencies and committees, etc. the bill provides for as well as the additional tens of thousands of new IRS agents to enforce it... who knew that it would cost so much?)
So, he was not current on the additional cost estimates. She may well be right to assume that he knew or should have known the figure was higher and that is why she said he was lying.
In all probability neither of them knew the scenario but it is clear the people in the audience (and in my view around the country in ever increasing numbers) think the whole bill is a monstrosity that will cost far more than anyone anticipated. They are upset on how it was passed and with a despicable disregard for the will of the people. Obama is changing the nature of the social contract between the people and the government and they don't like it. They will demonstrate it at town hall meetings and every other way they can ... especially at the ballot box.
In all probability neither of them knew the scenario but it is clear the people in the audience (and in my view around the country in ever increasing numbers) think the whole bill is a monstrosity that will cost far more than anyone anticipated. They are upset on how it was passed and with a despicable disregard for the will of the people.
Miggie, I take it you didn't see that I wrote a more detailed response to you on the other health care post.
A recent Gallup poll indicates that this assertion that the bill is being rejected by the majority doesn't seem to hold up very well.
(And please, don't put words in my mouth again and declare that I'm therefore claiming that it's "wildly popular".)
Lance, I responded to you on the other thread and gave you more current polling numbers on how unpopular the healthcare bill is.
For this massive a change, there should be a large consensus and bipartisan support. Not there.
For this massive a change, there should be a large consensus and bipartisan support. Not there.
I think that this country has a history of massive changes that didn't have a large consensus or bipartisan support.
This, of course, doesn't mean that just because something's unpopular that it's therefore right...but sometimes it is.
Post a Comment