Free Markets, Free People

Did he really say that?

Does everything have to be about race today?

Juan Williams, who I have always thought was a somewhat sane liberal, had this to say about the Missouri vote on health care while speaking with Chris Wallace on "Fox News Sunday":

WILLIAMS: Look, I think this is, and as far as the Missouri vote, you get 70 percent inside an echo chamber of older white people, no not in St. Louis not in Kansas City, saying, "Oh yeah, we don’t like a requirement that everybody has to have healthcare even though the hospitals in Missouri say it’s gonna drive up our costs, everyone is just going to run to the emergency rooms when they have their accidents."

Sort of stunning isn’t it?

Well, because a bunch of old white folks in an "echo chamber" decided they didn’t care to be forced into a system they didn’t want, so it really doesn’t mean anything.

He goes on to make it worse:

WALLACE: What happened to respect for democracy?

WILLIAMS: I have tremendous respect for democracy, but as Ted Olson…

WALLACE: The proposition was on the ballot…

WILLIAMS: Yes.

WALLACE: …and 71 percent voted in favor of it.

WILLIAMS: That’s who’s energized. The unions didn’t participate and they didn’t get out there…

WALLACE: Well, that’s their problem, isn’t it?

It is indeed. But using Williams argument, the last presidential election doesn’t mean anything because the side that voted for Obama was "who’s energized" at that time.  But this is the first time I’ve seen “who’s energized” as a basis of dismissing the result.

This is how the left writes you off.  They categorize you, make up nonsensical claims about legitimacy or illegitimacy, try to make it about race or pseudo-rights and then dismiss the result.

That, in a nutshell, is why they’re going to get shellacked in November.  And they haven’t a clue as to “why”.  They think you dumbass white folks, or tea partiers or angry white men or grouchy senior citizens don’t know what you’re talking about.  So you turn out, after being duped in the “echo chamber” and go through your preprogrammed vote. Thus they, and their vote, are irrelevant.

It is an amazing bit of self-delusion, but there you have a perfect example found in the words of Juan Williams.

~McQ

[ad] Empty ad slot (#1)!

[tweetmeme only_single=”false”]
Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUponShare on RedditPin on PinterestEmail this to someone

14 Responses to Did he really say that?

  • I wonder if “who’s energized” will become a new variant of “the silent majority.”  Hey, polls or election results show that this idea is unpopular or this candidate lost, but it doesn’t mean anything because of who was energized.  If the November mid-terms go poorly for Democrats, it doesn’t mean anything because the tea partiers skewed the results with their energy!  Maybe the Tea Party can use the Energizer Bunny as its national mascot…

  • Glad to be a Missourian who voted for Prop C and was excited to see the margin.  Like it or not, it sends a clear statement.  Funny that in the literature I just received from Congressman Emanuel Cleaver…there is NO mention of any Health Care Reform listed as an accomplishment.

    • Harry Reid: Health Reform Won’t Hurt a Bit

      Except in Nevada, that is. In a July 21 letter to U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Service Kathleen Sebelius, the Senate Majority Leader complains that ObamaCare’s cuts to Medicare will “result in a net reduction in payment to Nevada’s hospitals when they are unable to absorb such a cut.” Furthermore, he questions the method used by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to calculate the payments to hospitals, and is “very concerned about potential effects on beneficiary access if this regulation is finalized without adjustment.”
      Did Senator Reid finally read the bill, almost four months after passing it and a year after masses of Americans began to demand that Congress do so?

  • If your side isn’t energized, do you get a do over when they are energized?  How about a do over of the 2008 Presidential elections?

  • Someone once said: ” Ridicule is man’s most perfect weapon. It is almost impossible to counterattack ridicule. Also, it infuriates the opposition, who then react to your advantage.” This adage probably doesn’t apply to something the Missouri vote, but good old Senator Harry Ried is sure using it to his advantage in Nevada.

  • Can someone point out to me in the Constitution where votes are not final until Unions weigh in?

    • Only the “energized” votes of non-white people count.  It’s there under Article Making This Stuff Up As We Go Along of the Constitution.

      • If our benevolent, kind, wise and all-knowing rulers are not careful, they may find themselves facing a much more “energized” white population than they can deal with successfully.

  • Yes, Juan, we live in an echo chamber.  A big gigantic echo chamber.  In fact it’s so big that it encompasses almost the entire country, except for a few areas on the coasts.  And you’re not allowed in. Because it’s only for raaaaaaaacists, that’s why.

  • McQJuan Williams, who I have always thought was a somewhat sane liberal…

    Why on earth would you ever think that???

    At risk of opening myself to charges of being a raaaaacist, I’ve always thought of Williams as a token black: he’s got just enough smarts to not look a total fool all the time, and so NPR and Fox hire him to satisfy their “diversity” requirements.  He certainly hasn’t gotten as far as he has on his mental ability, that’s for sure.

    [A]s far as the Missouri vote, you get 70 percent inside an echo chamber of older white people, no not in St. Louis not in Kansas City, saying, “Oh yeah, we don’t like a requirement that everybody has to have healthcare even though the hospitals in Missouri say it’s gonna drive up our costs…

    1.  So, is he claiming that all those seventy percenters are ALL “older white people”?  Did younger white people and non-whites just not turn out?  And what’s with the “not in St. Louis not in Kansas City”?  Does this represent and urban / rural divide?  Or is he trying to bolster the raaaaacist angle?

    2.  This opens a window into Williams’ mental processes* and, by extension, the mental processes of liberals in general: faced with two explanations for an event – economic self-interest or raaaacism – he reflexively chooses the latter.  All those nasty old white people voted against ObamaCare NOT because they are concerned about what it will do to their health care costs, but just because they are white and therefore raaaacist.

    Bah.

    —–

    (*) I try not to use the word “think” when discussing liberals, because I am not at all convinced that what goes on between their ears qualifies as “thinking”.

  • Why would you consider Juan Williams a “somewhat sane” liberal? He’s an idiot. He’s a talking head liberal idiot. Every time I see his sorry face on tv, I know he’s about to be spanked, and I turn him off. He reminds me me of Colmes, another empty headed liberal talking head.
    I find it hard to believe these clowns can still be on tv at all.