Get Out Your Protractors People !!!

[WillyT]

Journalists Cheerfully Urinating On Senate Bill’s “Ideological” Critics
The Plum Line - Greg Sargent's blog

<snip>

It would really be nice if certain Beltway journalists could get it into their heads that the Senate bill’s critics on the left have actual substantive differences with the bill’s proponents, and are not motivated solely by “ideology,” whatever the hell that means.

Ronald Brownstein, for one, is actually trying to claim that Howard Dean opposes the bill because he’s a “wine track” Democrat who doesn’t lack insurance and hence has the luxury to indulge in ideological struggles.

Brownstein writes that Dean and the “digital left” are able to “casually dismiss” the bill because “they operate in an environment where so few people need to worry about access to insurance.” He adds that for these critics, the debate is “largely an abstraction” and merely a crusade to “crush Republicans and ideologically cleanse the Democrats.”



Brownstein doesn’t meaningfully respond to any of Dean’s substantive policy objections to the bill. If he did, he could no longer claim Dean’s critique is purely “ideological.”

He’s not the only one making this claim. Sheryl Gay Stolberg of The Times today wrote that “ideology” is “smacking the pragmatic president in the face,” presumably meaning that the word “ideology” is a good catch-all for all criticism of the bill. And Joe Klein has dismissed critics for being in the grip of “ideological fetishes.”

People using this word need to explain what they mean by it. Anyone who actually reads criticism of the bill on sites like Firedoglake and DailyKos can immediately see that much of it is substantive and detailed. Agree or not, most critics are making a case against the bill as flawed policy that will have adverse real-world consequences. Why is it “ideological” to claim a mandate with inadequate subsidies risks forcing people to buy insurance they can’t afford?

<snip>

More: http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/political-media/journalists-cheerfully-urinating-on-senate-bills-ideological-critics/

It's all so 90's.

:shrug:

[laughingliberal]

1. It's how they do it. Make it all a big sporting event and don' let the nature of the real objections

see the light of day. Public option is just a political point the left is trying to score, not something that would turn this nation destroying bill into something that would help.

[WillyT]

2. Exactly !!!

:hi:

[Laelth]

3. Excellent exposition.

Along much the same lines as your exposition in this thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7264738

And I think you're right, btw, it's Clintonian triangulation all over again. If so, Obama's principal motivation is to be liked by a broad swath of people in the "middle," and in order to do that, he needs to appear to be pissing off the left. Sad, and tragic, but it worked for Clinton for two terms.

:dem:

-Laelth

[WillyT]

5. I Hear Ya..

Two different but similar stories. I used the second OP to provide evidence of the first.

Hope that's Ok...

:hi:

[Laelth]

6. No problem at all. If I can edit, I will.

Cheers.

:toast:

:dem:

-Laelth

[ixion]

4. same old tactic... the only reason it works is because

often times the dems don't even respond, which then solidifies the meme.

And the irony, of course, is that it is this author that is sporting an ideology. You can always tell, because their argument attacks the messenger personally, and avoid any substantive debate.