Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock


Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict


Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links


Regional News


News Publications

Tennessee’s freshman Senator learns how to get quoted in the NYT
Posted by: Billy Hollis on Sunday, September 30, 2007

If you're a Republican, like Tennessee's freshman Senator Bob Corker, a reliable way to get quoted in the New York Times is to go against your fellow Republicans and agree with the Democrats. Here's Corker, on SCHIP:
Mr. Bush has said the bill would move toward “government-run health care for every American.”

Senator Bob Corker, Republican of Tennessee, said those fears were unfounded.

“What will move our country toward socialized medicine is not this bill, which focuses on poor children, but the lack of action to allow people in need to have access to private affordable health care,” Mr. Corker said.
See, it doesn't even matter if what you say makes sense, as long as it fits the Times narrative. In this case, they want SCHIP. Furthermore, they want the version that redefines "poor children" way up into the middle class.

Considering that, saying that SCHIP isn't a step towards socialized medicine looks ludicrous on its face to me. But no, Corker says that's not true. He says what will move us towards socialized medicine is lack of action.

Let's be charitable. The only way that could make sense is to presume what he means is that lack of action will lead to a situation so bad that a real socialized medicine program is a lot more likely to pass.

But if we grant that interpretation, then for the government-run health care proponents, it's "heads we win, tails you lose". They can get what they want a little at a time, or all at once. Corker is apparently saying that a little at a time is better.

Why does it have to be either/or? Why can't "action" be defined as something that reforms the system in ways that don't lead towards government run healthcare? We've had programs that increased government involvment since Johnson's Great Society, and to hear Democratic wailing, healthcare has been getting worse the entire time.

Many in Tennessee warned that Senator Corker was a mushy moderate, but Tennessee's Republican voters had the chance to choose someone more conservative and didn't do it.

I'll give Corker some credit for standing firm during the immigration bill debate. But if we're up for six years of rationalizing why it's a good idea to give the statists in the Democratic Party what they want, Bob Corker could be on his way to being the next Chuck Hagel in the party. If that comes to pass, let me apologize in advance to freedom-loving people throughout the country. You have the right to expect better from Tennessee voters, and they've let you down by sending this man to the Senate.

(found via Nashville City Paper's "Political Animals" blog)
Return to Main Blog Page

Previous Comments to this Post 


Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Vicious Capitalism


Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks