In a welcome case of serendipity, today's Bottomliners provides me with a springboard from which to launch a rant without violating the Prime Directive.
In short, there's a lot more content than facts out there, particularly over Trumpcare:
Yesterday, I said I was going to hold off on ranting at length about the vote until things shook down, and that process is only just beginning. I certainly wouldn't expect cartoonists to hold off on commenting about the process, however, and that's what Scott Stantis has done here.
There's no doubt but that the House has saddled the Senate with a hasty, sloppy mess and a no-win challenge, particularly in light of the premature victory dance they staged.
Change it and you lose, reject it and you lose, pass it and a lot of people will lose.
I cannot imagine any emerging facts that will make Stantis's comment inoperable, including the "rabid puppies" element, given the hostile atmosphere of confrontation in which it passed and is being analyzed.
Matt Davies has the other valid commentary for the moment, which is that we don't really know what's in it, which should constrain us from going too far out on a limb about specific impacts, but clearly has not.
Example: The Washington Post Fact Checker has an interesting takedown on the claim that the revisions will make rape and sexual assault a pre-existing condition. Their verdict is Four Pinocchios, and I'm not crazy about that approach because Pinocchio deliberately lied, while this seems more like people just going off on a tear in the wrong direction.
But there's also such a thing as being deliberately sloppy. There are a couple of cartoonists at each end of the spectrum whom I dislike because they are quick on the trigger and slow on the research. However, I'm seeing that approach on the bill from cartoonists whose work I generally respect.
For instance, here's an obvious example of changing opinions:
Back in the days of the ACA, its foes chanted "Read the bill!" and mocked Nancy Pelosi for saying that the complexities of the act might be confusing but that, once it was in place and people saw how it functioned, they'd understand it.
Now Trumpcare opponents are excoriating the GOP for not having read the bill.
Mind you, accusing them of "acting in haste" is a different proposition: Waiting for the CBO report is not only wise but is something the Senate has announced it plans to do.
But when a Republican congressman told Wolf Blitzer that, while he hadn't read the entire bill, his staff had, how was that different than when Democrat Elijah Cummings told Blitzer the same thing 10 minutes later?
I don't know, but Wolf kept coming back to the "fact" that the Republican hadn't read the bill and never mentioned that Cummings hadn't either.
Legislators have staff for a reason, and, while some barroom buffoon may not know it, anybody who studies this stuff for a living should.
To expect legislators to personally read every bit of legislation in its entirety is as foolish as to accuse them of only being at work when they're actually on the floor of Congress debating. (Much like accusing teachers of only being at work when they are in the classroom teaching.)
Whether you consider Wolf Blitzer a professional journalist or a barroom buffoon is something we could discuss, certainly, but perhaps we can just mock his name with the term "Boy who cries 'wolf'" merged with the sudden blitzkreig rather than a well-planned attack.
Here's the thing: If, to oppose Donald Trump, you find it necessary to cry "wolf" over rumors and precipitously leap into action without checking sources, you're not part of the solution.
There are so many valid, thoughtful, intelligent ways to go after the Head Nincompoop In Charge that undercutting the effort with ill-considered foolishness is not simply unnecessary but counterproductive.
Another example: Saying that Desiree Fairooz was convicted for laughing at Jeff Sessions.
The jury has very plainly, clearly said that they would not have convicted her for laughing, that it was her subsequent hell-raising that crossed the line and violated the law that forbids disruption of hearings.
Had she left when she was ordered to leave, she could have held a press conference later protesting her unfair treatment and the absurdity of the law.
Not that she'd have gotten any coverage, of course, but, still, when you purposely raise hell, you are supposed to embrace your martyrdom, not whine to be made an exception.
There was no "Letter From A Birmingham Holiday Inn."
And anyone who has ever sat on a jury knows that it's possible to consider a law stupid or poorly written but still be forced by the available facts to rule that the defendant violated it.
However, if you feel "free speech" includes protesting during hearings, answer this: How you would have felt if, while Hillary Clinton were testifying before Chaffetz's committee, people in the gallery had been openly guffawing and breaking into chants of "Lock her up! Lock her up!"?
In any case, Fairooz was not convicted of laughing. Stop saying she was.
It makes it very hard for me to ask if Trump is deliberately lying or just that incredibly stupid if I have to ask the same question about you.
Juxtaposition of the Day
This pair got an especially hard laff this morning because, for those of us who work at home, time off means time spent thinking there is something more productive you ought to be doing.
Dan Collins is clearly joking (except for that second panel), because successful cartoonists live chained to their drawing boards.
But Donna Lewis nails what a day off turns into, if you give yourself permission, which I tend to and why not?
Trust me: I would not put forth an opinion I had not carefully researched.
Perhaps — and this is just my thought on the subject — Blitzer was being so hard on the schmuck *because* the GOP had been so vicious on Pelosi? "It's okay for me not to because the Dems didnt either!"?
Sure, he says his staff read it. Uh huh. Dont believe that either, sorry.
Frankl,y I dont know why you Americans tolerate these idiots. Every two years you send them back, in some kind of wild expectation they're actually gonna smarten up and do their jobs — and then you get things like the one from Idaho who actually stood up last night and proudly said "No one ever died from lack of healthcare."
Yet another moment when I Thank God I'm Canadian...
Posted by: sean martin | 05/06/2017 at 01:37 PM