What Place Do Demands and Threats Have in Public Debate?

Monte Kuligowski
There is something terribly wrong with using these words, “The president warns his critics and tries to seize the reins of the health care debate at a rally,” to described a news headline on the healthcare “debate.” Since when is “warning” the other side part of debating? I guess that’s how the machine-politicians debate in Chicago.

Clicking the Yahoo! link took me to the Sept. 12 AP story, “Obama says status quo no solution on health care.” The story covers Obama’s healthcare campaign rally in Minnesota where he fired up the crowd. Maybe the cold weather has frozen one too many brain cells in the Gopher State.

Incidentally, don’t forget that the only reason we’re having a so-called debate is because Obama wasn’t able to sneak through another mess of unread, power-grabbing legislation before the August congressional break.

“I will not accept the status quo. Not this time. Not now,” demanded a puffed-up Obama at the rally with the “yes, we can” crowd. Mr. Obama also said he wouldn’t allow critics to “use the same old tactics to keep things exactly the way they are.”

So, we have a classic “either or” fallacy set up by the master of the yes-we-canners. Mr. Obama wants to pretend that it’s either the status quo in which things remain “exactly the way they are” or it’s over 1,000 pages of entitlement healthcare from which federal commissioners interpret and apply the so-called reform law.

The tone of Obama’s frozen-brain rally notably mirrored his tone at the Congressional Address: demanding, demeaning and arrogant. The good guys want “reform,” and the bad guys want to “kill” the bill. It was classic Obama: an arrogant tone with a simplistic message.

Obama “talked” about compromise: “If you come to me with a serious set of proposals, I will be there to listen. My door is always open.” But, he repeated his warning that he wouldn’t “waste time” with people who believe that “it's better politics to kill this plan than improve it.”

Translation: His door is always open, but don’t come in proposing anything but the “public option.” Obama is all for bipartisanship; so long as other proposals don’t disturb what the Democrats are planning to ram down our collective throat. Obama and the far left Democrats have already baked the cake and they will not “waste time” with the majority of Americans who wish to bake an apple pie. The most he will allow of the opposition is to place a sprinkle or decoration here or there.

If Obama really wanted a debate he wouldn’t be out there warning his critics. That’s how dictators operate, not statesmen. The process of passing law with far-reaching ramifications should not be rushed. It should be a deliberate process of real debate not a furious campaign accompanied with threats, demands and coercion.

Since Obama says he wants a debate, why not have a real debate or series of debates? The first could be with Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC) on exactly how the healthcare plan assures that illegal immigrants wont’ become part of the multi-trillion dollar entitlement program.


There is something terribly wrong with using these words, “The president warns his critics and tries to seize the reins of the health care debate at a rally,” to described a news headline on the healthcare “debate.” Since when is “warning” the other side part of debating? I guess that’s how the machine-politicians debate in Chicago.

Clicking the Yahoo! link took me to the Sept. 12 AP story, “Obama says status quo no solution on health care.” The story covers Obama’s healthcare campaign rally in Minnesota where he fired up the crowd. Maybe the cold weather has frozen one too many brain cells in the Gopher State.

Incidentally, don’t forget that the only reason we’re having a so-called debate is because Obama wasn’t able to sneak through another mess of unread, power-grabbing legislation before the August congressional break.

“I will not accept the status quo. Not this time. Not now,” demanded a puffed-up Obama at the rally with the “yes, we can” crowd. Mr. Obama also said he wouldn’t allow critics to “use the same old tactics to keep things exactly the way they are.”

So, we have a classic “either or” fallacy set up by the master of the yes-we-canners. Mr. Obama wants to pretend that it’s either the status quo in which things remain “exactly the way they are” or it’s over 1,000 pages of entitlement healthcare from which federal commissioners interpret and apply the so-called reform law.

The tone of Obama’s frozen-brain rally notably mirrored his tone at the Congressional Address: demanding, demeaning and arrogant. The good guys want “reform,” and the bad guys want to “kill” the bill. It was classic Obama: an arrogant tone with a simplistic message.

Obama “talked” about compromise: “If you come to me with a serious set of proposals, I will be there to listen. My door is always open.” But, he repeated his warning that he wouldn’t “waste time” with people who believe that “it's better politics to kill this plan than improve it.”

Translation: His door is always open, but don’t come in proposing anything but the “public option.” Obama is all for bipartisanship; so long as other proposals don’t disturb what the Democrats are planning to ram down our collective throat. Obama and the far left Democrats have already baked the cake and they will not “waste time” with the majority of Americans who wish to bake an apple pie. The most he will allow of the opposition is to place a sprinkle or decoration here or there.

If Obama really wanted a debate he wouldn’t be out there warning his critics. That’s how dictators operate, not statesmen. The process of passing law with far-reaching ramifications should not be rushed. It should be a deliberate process of real debate not a furious campaign accompanied with threats, demands and coercion.

Since Obama says he wants a debate, why not have a real debate or series of debates? The first could be with Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC) on exactly how the healthcare plan assures that illegal immigrants wont’ become part of the multi-trillion dollar entitlement program.