Possibly the Biggest Legislative Outrage of 2009

by Smitty (h/t Dan Collins at POWIP on Twitter)

Michelle Bachman says that Barny Frank's 1,300 page financial services takeover bill is worse than the healthcare legislation. Three hours of briefing, no analysis, and no debate. It went through the House like...thought...through the Speaker's head. Or something. This steaming pile must be stopped in the Senate at all costs.

Update: Jumping in Pools notes an Idaho Representative who voted in favor of H.R. 4173.

Of course, it the idea is bad, I almost don't need to check to see what my piece of work did. Can't find the voting record yet, but Jim Moran is nothing if not consistent.

Why CNN sucks

Greetings from the Buffalo Niagra International Airport. Just put Ali Akbar on his plane back home and, with deadline looming for the December issue of The American Spectator -- subscribe now -- the National Desk has been set up at the airport bar for a few hours.

I'm being forced to watch CNN, where the host of "American Morning" just finished interrogating (not interviewing) Rep. Michelle Bachmann. CNN's John Roberts did his assigned job, reading from DNC talking points and forcing Bachmann to respond point-by-point to the liberal argument -- which, however, was not presented as a liberal argument, but rather as "some critics say" or, simply, as facts.

At one point, Roberts raked Bachmann over the coals for calling ObamaCare "socialized medicine." That is to say, he was spinning for the Democrats, who know that "socialized medicine" has negative connotations compared to "health care reform."

This rhetorical battle is, however, only about politics, and has nothing to do with the policy at dispute. In terms of policy -- what will it cost taxpayers? how will it affect delivery of health care services? et cetera -- it doesn't matter if you call it Super Duper Rainbows And Unicorns Sexy Delicious Health Care Paradise. The policy is the policy is the policy.

John Roberts made no acknowledgment of this underlying reality. His job was to pretend to be objective while striving to depict Bachman and all other opponents of ObamaCare as extremist fringe kooks: "Socialized medicine! How dare you call it socialized medicine!" And he did that dishonest work with transparent enthusiasm.

This segment was followed, a few minutes later, by a puff-piece profile of Valerie Jarrett, who was given the kind of tough, aggressive, critical treatment that the Jonas Brothers get from the editors of Tiger Beat.

It is CNN's pseudo-objectivity -- a liberal perspective presented as The Way It Is -- that annoys the informed viewer.

The White House has waged a propaganda campaign against Fox News (which frankly presents a conservative perspective as The Way It Is) while Fox's two cable rivals (both liberal) slide into Nielsen irrelevance, unable to attract a mass audience. And the geniuses at CNN can't seem to figure out why this is.

Janeane Garofalo: So infinitely superior to you, she doesn't even need evidence

Behold, the authoritative power of liberal assertion:

It's obvious to anybody who has eyes in this country that tea-baggers, the 9-12ers, these separatist groups that pretend that it's about policy – they are clearly white-identity movements. They're clearly white power movements. What they don't like about the President is that he's black – or half black (applause) – and they, what also is shocking is that people keep pretending that that's not really the case with these people.
I'm not talking about people that do have problems with his policies, that's fine. But these people, who are also being led by the Glenn Becks, the Michelle Bachmans, the Rush Limbows [presumably Limbaugh], whomever, they are no different than any other white identify movement that's part of our history. This has been going on since the founding of this country that white power movements have tried to establish themselves and hold onto power.

See? "It's so obvious to anybody" that actual evidence to support her assertions is unnecessary. Conservative Republicans were equally opposed to liberal policies promoted by Democratic presidents Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter -- who were both white Southern males -- so the fundamental basis of Garofalo's argument is self-evidently unsound.

Yet notice how she pre-emptively negates any possibility of rational disagreement. If you dispute her assertion, then you're clearly one of those "people [who] keep pretending that that's not really the case" -- you're deluded, in denial, or engaged in deceit.

She claims she is "not talking about people that do have problems with [Obama's] policies," yet nowhere does she offer genuine evidence that anything other than policy disagreements inspire Glenn Beck or Michelle Bachmann to oppose Obama.

Exactly where does Garofalo derive her psychic mind-reading insights -- her expertise -- about the motives of people she's never met? Ah! The mere fact that you would ask such a question can only mean one thing . . .

Remember: There are five A's in raaaaacism!