Up front, let me remind readers that, in the current health care debate, I have multiple, strong reservations about the so-called “public option.” I’d much rather see Congressional energy focused on enacting these fundamental consumer protections sans a “public option.” Some will argue you don’t get the latter without the former, but I’m just not convinced that’s true.

Regardless — though I’m not sold on the President’s plan and I think his team and their allies in Congress have mismanaged large chunks of the reform process to date — I am compelled to step to their defense on the now infamous “[email protected],” which can be sourced to the following paragraph from this blog post:

There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life care. These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation. Since we can’t keep track of all of them here at the White House, we’re asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to [email protected].

That seemingly innocuous invitation has since been characterized by certain members of the political right as an attempt by the Obama Administration to compile an “enemies list.” Phrases like “we’re asking for your help” are translated to mean “heavy handed tactics of demanding names and information.”

In turn, when the Administration goes out of it’s way to rebut such charges, noting that it does not retain “names” and “sources of information,” other members of the political right are quick to accuse the White House of breaking the law.

The latter critic adds this question:

If George Bush had told people to send “fishy information” to the White House about the Iraq War, so he could tell you the truth[, w]ould you have supported it?

Maybe, but if you remember, I didn’t get a chance to support or not support it because the prior administration never asked. Instead, they authorized a program wherein government sources were allowed to monitor communication without prior judicial consent.

Seriously: Do many of the same people who (presumably) defended warrantless wiretapping and possibly other forms of unchecked surveillance now want us to believe that such an approach was better, more legal — more American — than an openly published request that information be voluntarily submitted?

———–

Addendum: I also have to wonder if it occured to these right-wing critics that, if anyone was legitimately concerned about sending along personally identifiable information to the White House, they could easily delete that information — or copy and paste the text only into a separate email — before forwarding it? If such options did not occur to said critics, I’m guessing they might not understand the unkind humor at this site.