Leave the cherry picking to farmers, Mr. Flood
As Ronald Reagan used to say during his debates when his opponents misconstrued data to intentionally mislead or advance an agenda; "there you go again” he would say. So it is with Mr. Flood's response to my letter.
Let's break it down. First, his understanding of the word “propagandist” and its use is rather disconcerting since, being a former editor, he should have a strong knowledge of word usage. A “propagandist” is not a “person of differing opinion” as he states. Webster's Dictionary defines propaganda as; information or ideas methodically spread to promote or injure a cause, movement, nation etc. So, Mr. Flood purposely deceives his readership in an attempt to deflect his intolerance by characterizing my article as intolerant.
Secondly, he characterizes the Republican attempt to repeal, replace or alter Obamacare as futile, not on behalf of the majority, extortion, and since Obama won two elections with this as his centerpiece, its “all that counts”
I don't recall any liberals champion the cause of George W. Bush as he won two elections.
The ACA (Obamacare) is neither affordable nor offers an enhanced level of care to the majority of our citizenry. Hence, as I stated in my letter, the Republicans are working on behalf of the majority to repeal or alter the ACA.. My goodness, we as Americans have always fought the fights that need fighting, not only the fights we can win! Following Mr. Flood's premise that “ Obamacare is law” we would still have slavery, prohibition, women not able to vote and so on.
Additionally, Mr. Flood mischaracterizes the term "sweetheart deals" and uses the “3/5 of a person” weight given to slaves in the enumeration clause of our Constitution as an example. Again, the use of “sweetheart deal” is to exact a certain outcome by giving an individual or very finite group dispensation or special treatment to the detriment of the whole. That's how the ACA was passed - 2,500 wavers, delayed employer mandate, exemptions for congress, concessions for unions and so on. The three-fifths weight to slaves was negotiated by the North to limit the influence of the slave owning southern states which at the time had 30 to 40 percent of their population as slaves. Our founding fathers abhorred slavery and knew that limiting the influence of slave owning states in the legislative process would slowly eliminate this ugly practice. This tactic benefited the country as a whole to the detriment of a few, exactly the opposite of “sweetheart deals.”
Moreover, Mr Flood's interpretation of issues just reinforces another observation Ronald Reagan made during his tenure; “It's not that my liberal friends are ignorant, its just that they know so much that isn't so.”
With this in mind, it would be refreshing to hear the “liberal elite” state their true intentions to create a one party rule in which government intrudes into every aspect of our lives, punishes success with oppressive taxes, rewards failure with government largess, and an environment in which the rules don't apply to them.
How many elections would you win then, Mr. Flood?