“To be clear: it is not sufficient for those of us in the opposition to await a reversal of political fortune months or years from now before we advance action on health care reform. Costs will continue their ascent as the debt burden squeezes life out of our economy. We are unapologetic advocates for the repeal of this costly misstep. But Republicans must also make the case for a reform agenda to take its place, and get to work on that effort now.” – Paul Ryan in the New York Times
Is that “to be clear” intended as a little dig at the rhetorical style, or stylings, of our President? Gentle jokes aside, this is a very good Op-Ed.
*Because there’s more to life than Health Care Bills, here is a link about the William Eggleston photo exhibit at the Art Institute of Chicago. The exhibit is running until May 23.
2 thoughts on “To be clear….”
would have been fun if he used an “Obamism”: “now, let me be clear…”.
Then he could knit his brows together, look at his listeners sternly and while wagging is finger in admonition tell them exactly what he does and doesn’t want, what he will and will not tolerate and the sad state of the world he has inherited that he’s heroically sacrificing to fix for you.
uuuugh. Our president is an embarrassment and a clown. He’s an embarrassment to clowns.
Methinks: I wondered if he was referring to that famous Obamism? And to be cheeky – what does it say that the, arguably, most famous Obamism is a phrase to do with clarifying obscure speech or concepts? That can’t be good!
*As I watch the standard bearers for the Right on the old cable programs, I can’t help feeling that they ought to be able to lay out what they would do differently once the thing is repealed. It’s law now, and they will have to build a compelling vision of what better things await with real reform if they want to keep the momentum going, IMO. You can’t just talk about repealing a bill without convincing people your solutions are better. Maybe Ryan can do a wonky educational session for the Representatives and Senators? At least, in how better to explain things to a general public that may be skeptical?
Comments are closed.