Transportation Secretary Adds Voice to Health Debate
Some might consider it a jarring leap for the DOT’s head honcho to chime in on health care reform. But remember that Ray LaHood is a lifelong Republican who spent 14 years in the U.S. House representing Illinois’ 18th Congressional district before President Obama tapped him for his cabinet.
In a commentary apparently slated for the print edition of tomorrow’s Chicago Tribune, LaHood writes the following.
… most people wouldn’t expect me to be an advocate for comprehensive health care reform. But the truth is, I believe there is no bigger issue to solve and no better chance to solve it than now.
If I were still a member of Congress, I would proudly vote for the bill that President Barack Obama is championing and I would urge my colleagues to do the same, not because I don’t believe in fiscal discipline, but because I do.
Will LaHood’s advocacy on this topic make any difference? Will it persuade any Republicans in the House to break ranks when their chamber takes up the Senate bill as early as next week?
It’s doubtful. Watch for the current batch of congressional Republicans to dismiss LaHood’s op-ed on at least two grounds …
1. He’s only following orders from his current boss.
2. When in Congress, he was a RINO (Republican in Name Only) — one of those so-called moderates.
Clarification: I am not saying LaHood’s fellow Republicans should dismiss his counsel, nor am I agreeing with their potential attacks on his motives. I’m only outlining what I think their reaction will be.
6 Responses to “Transportation Secretary Adds Voice to Health Debate”
I think the voice against this bill by dozens of Democrats who are still in Congress kinda outweighs a former Republican member.
It's not persuasive because he merely lists the talking points for what the bill purports to accomplish. He gives absolutely no supporting arguments to show why he believes it will work out that way. It's not as though writing the words on paper magically makes them come true.
This argument is in itself unpersuasive. Any number of people, in government and in the media, have given any number of supporting arguments to why they believe this health care reform bill will work. None of that changed the minds of anyone who opposed the legislation.
I doubt that more supporting arguments would change your mind, either. Many have been given, on many occasions, and you just respond, essentially, that you don't think it'll work out that way, or that point A or point B is valid.
It's not that you don't have a right to disagree, or that your disagreement is not to be respected, in and of itself — it's just that in this context, your explanation for why you reject the validity of LaHood's endorsement of the health care reform bill strikes me as being disingenuous.
Many have been given, on many occasions, and you just respond, essentially, that you don't think it'll work out that way, or that point A or point B is invalid.
I must have missed the articles where those many supporting arguments have been given, Kathy. Virtually everything I read here and on most other blogs is more of the format that it's a foregone conclusion that the bills will achieve the stated goals, and when I or someone else points out why we don't think so the 'rebuttals' are generally of the form 'Well, at least the Dems are trying, the GOP has nothing' or “You don't have any better ideas', etc, etc.
Now, there are some blogs that do more actual analysis, like Ezra Klein's- but even on the rare occasion that an article here focuses on some argument that someone like him is making, in the comment section I still haven't seen anything to back up the claims made there if someone explains why we think that he's wrong.
Granted, none of us our experts in this type of analysis…but if you are going to argue a political position you have to at least understand what the counterarguments are and how or why you discredit those counterarguments. “It's better than nothing” or “At least it's a start” (while refusing to acknowledge that it may in fact not be better than nothing and may be a start in the wrong direction) doesn't change anyone's mind. You assume that no one is persuadable instead of realizing that well-reasoned arguments have been lacking.
“Will LaHood’s advocacy on this topic make any difference?”
No, Pete, other than to make us scoff at him for doing this.
The problem the Obama administration (and the Dems in Congress have) is that they repelled the mainstream all year and we're still suspicious as can be of what they're doing (as well as what other bad legislation they'll seek “progress” with once they get past the GOP opposition using reconciliation).
“he merely lists the talking points for what the bill purports to accomplish”
In all fairness, that's true for so many Democrats this year on this issue (and on other legislation).
His advocacy now seems like more clumsy amateurishness of the Obama administration. He should go back to alarmism like telling everyone to stop driving Toyotas. (I can't wait until he says something like that about the airlines.)