Dems censor GOP mailer

The Dem leadership in Congress does not want the American public to see just how convoluted the Obama/Reid/Pelosi health care plan is and that’s because average people with common sense can see just how badly something this poorly constructed can go wrong. GOP Representatives have attempted to send the flowchart of the plan shown below out to their constituents but the Democrats filed a complaint with the franking committee to have it blocked. Reading the original story over on Roll Call you find out that the Dem’s primary complaint is that the chart doesn’t have enough lines, which only makes the issue worse in my view.

Republican House members contend that the Democrats are simply scared of what people will think if they see how this monstrosity is actually constructed and have moved to censor the document rather than actually address the problems in the plan. See for yourself and decide that on your own:

Advertisements

2 comments

  1. Reading the Roll Call article, we find these statements:

    “In a memo sent Monday to Republicans on the House franking commission, Democrats argue that sending the chart to constituents as official mail would violate House rules because the information is misleading.

    “In their eight-point memo, which was obtained by Roll Call, Democrats identify a litany of areas where they believe the chart is incorrect.”

    The article goes on to mention just 2 of the areas. If you want to draw a conclusion that these represent the “primary complaint”, you can, but I won’t.

    The mailer is purely political, to no one’s surprise. Similar tactics have been used all around. I seem to recall a chart published that showed the monstrosity of the then-proposed Department of Homeland Security, which went on to be created over the top of objections about its scope and the kind of oversight it would need in order to protect the rights of the citizenry. This mailer you’ve posted is just more of the same: propaganda intended to influence people. Seen it all before.

    You might note that the Democrats’ complaint was filed with the franking commission, which is reviewing the issue, and has not made a decision. The mailing is being held up while they determine if the mailing is too inaccurate to let go. That commission, btw, is made up of 3 Democrats and 3 Republicans. Now, whoever thought making a committee with a built-in potential for deadlock was a good idea, I don’t know. But there it is.

  2. You sling that “propaganda” word around every time anyone says anything that doesn’t fit your worldview and you do it with no evidence whatsoever that what they’re saying isn’t correct. Your knee-jerk reaction to dismiss the concerns voiced by anyone with an “R” next to his name on the elected official roster is propaganda – should everyone just tune out every time you open your mouth?

    Interesting you bring up the Department of Homeland Security and the chart you “seem to recall.” If your assessment of what that chart showed was that the decision to form DHS was a mistake, why are you appearing to support the health plan when you’re saying this chart is “just more of the same?” Or was your point that the DHS chart published by Democrat Congressmen back in 2001/2002 was propaganda and shouldn’t have been allowed to be published? Had the GOP moved to block the mailing of that literature out to Democrat-represented constituencies, you would have approved?

    Forgive me if I doubt that you would have been OK with such an action on the part of GOP lawmakers. The answer to free speech is not censorship, it’s more free speech. If the Democrats and their supporters have accuracy issues with the literature being sent out, then respond with a public document showing why the chart’s got issues and let the American public decide on the credibility of both. Using what amounts to back-channel procedural technicalities to keep Congressmen from communicating their take on legislation pending before Congress doesn’t sound like the kind of “most open and transparent government ever” that we were promised both in 2006 and 2008 and I can’t really understand your defense of such actions.

Comments are closed.