Re: Liberal Supermajority
It's an op-ed, not an article - big difference. It's typical for an op-ed, too. Light on substance, long on rhetoric.
First, I agree with what the author says about potential concerns regarding unions and global warming. Each needs to be checked. However, the rest is pretty much bunk.
- Universal health care: Yes it costs. It's worth it. We take health care for granted, but many can't afford it.
- The business climate: Is the author actually arguing that Sarb-Ox is a bad thing?
- Taxes: Taxes will rise for 2% of Americans and fall for 98%. I really don't have a problem with that. And I'm part of the 2%.
- Free speech and voting rights: This is classic - "Increased access to the polls favors the Democrats". Seriously - is that an argument?
- Special interest potpourri: This is six of one/half-dozen of the other. The R's are just as bad. I will say - does anyone actually think No Child Left Behind is working?
__________________
Stop reading my signature.
|