A blog at the Atlanta Journal Constitution asks a question about whether “ObamaCare” is a disparaging word. Extreme liberal Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz from Florida thinks so and got into a huff about it. She felt it was important enough to pick at this that she had to interrupt a colleague’s speech (hey, I thought interruptions earn a nasty glare from her leader, Pelosi?) and unintentionally cause a video clip to be floated around the blogosphere. The previously unknown Congressman Graves got a bunch of free publicity, as did his interrupted speech. The speech would have been completely ignored had it not been for the esteemed Florida Democrat’s helpful interruption. Thanks for the promotional entertainment, Ms. Wasserman Schultz.
As an opponent to the multithousand page boondoggle that was rammed through Congress without initially giving a chance for the Democrat rubber stampers (some of whom were later shellacked) to even read and digest it, my opinion is that you can call skunk cabbage by whatever lengthy name you want and it still stinks. But let’s face it, everyone knows what one means mean when they say “ObamaCare.” It just rolls off the tongue so easily. Unfortunately, when Congresspersons bloviate on the House floor, they have limited time. Repeatedly saying “the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act” takes precious seconds away from the allotted time for pontificating. “ObamaCare” is short, simple, and to the point. Democrats would have more time if they would just use it like some Republicans.
But beyond that, was it not Obama’s signature issue to force all citizens to pay big insurers by the month as a sort of “life tax,” and give the Secretary of Health and Human Services nearly limitless power over our personal health decisions (note the multithousand page bill has hundreds of places where it allows the HHS Secretary to promulgate regulations — growing a boondoggle of a few thousand pages into tens or even hundreds of thousands of pages!)? So, with that said, why would anyone consider the term “ObamaCare” to be disparaging? It was his major goal and he achieved it via massive Democrat control of Congress due to the 2008 “hope and change” hysteria, um, I mean election, as well as things like the Louisiana Purchase and Cornhusker Kickback. He should be proud of that achievement and rightfully take credit. Afterall, this is the president who has been merchandised like no other, from dolls to collector plates to collector coins (not legal tender) to just about everything. He’s a mega super star, the biggest modern celebrity we’ve ever had as president. But with 2012 fast approaching, the guy is going to need more marketing. Get those plates and coins rolling out of the likely Chinese factories again. Fly him all over the country (at our expense this time) and at each stop get him before his teleprompter so he can read phrases like “hope and change” and “yes we can” to mesmerized zombies. There’s never enough money to do it all in a campaign, and those presidential campaigns need all the money they can get. So really, saying “ObamaCare” is just free advertising for him. It reminds people of Obama and the “health care” bill brought to us by he and his party. Why balk at a freebie?
Seriously, visit West Virginia and you’ll find many things named after Robert Byrd. If he didn’t mind putting his name on things the pork projects he championed for West Virginia, why should Obama shy away from having his name on his signature issue? As we are constantly being told how great it is and taxpayers are funding commercials promoting it, OF COURSE Obama should want his name on it!
So, anyway, Wasserman Schultz was funny as usual. As she is OBVIOUSLY sensitive about the term “ObamaCare” and declares it to be “disparaging,” I’d like to get her take on people who call governors “NAZIs” and such…