Pelosi: Hey, let’s start calling the public option by another name
posted at 8:40 pm on October 26, 2009 by Allahpundit
I kind of like this one, just because it’s so shameless in its Orwellianism. If you’re going to go for “black = white” Newspeak, really go for it, you know? Now think: If you were trying to sell a policy like the public option, the big fear of which is that it’s going to drive private insurers out of business and lead to a single-payer government monopoly, what’s the most Orwellian euphemism you could come up with for it? Think hard.
Right.
In an appearance at a Florida senior center, the Democratic leader referred to the so-called public option as “the consumer option.” Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Fla., appeared by Pelosi’s side and used the term “competitive option.”
Both suggested new terminology might get them past any lingering doubts among the public – or consumers or competitors.
“You’ll hear everyone say, ‘There’s got to be a better name for this,’” Pelosi said. “When people think of the public option, public is being misrepresented, that this is being paid for with their public dollars.”…
“I think she’s going to go up and test-drive it when she goes back to Washington,” Wasserman Schultz said. “It might stick.”
It’s not going to be paid for with public dollars? Wasn’t this the same woman who, not three weeks ago, went on Charlie Rose to mumble about maybe passing a VAT to address health-care costs and giant deficits more generally? Hello?
Then again, let’s remember what kind of intellect we’re dealing with here. Exit question: Why does the public option need rebranding? I thought the lefty talking point of the month was that the public loves loves loves the public option, even though it really doesn’t.
Related Posts:
Breaking on Hot Air
Report: Oversight on IRS targeting came from Washington all along
DOJ seized logs for five Fox News phones, possibly James Rosens’ parents’ house
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2
This insanity should not even make it to print media, never mind digital like this site.
It’s like printing a story that a homeless man in NYC said it instead of some idiot elected official in FL. Its just as insane and whoever said it should be fired and committed to the local hospital for a mental evaluation. This may have prevented a mass murderer, maybe this FL elected official is asking for help by being obviously psychotic?
TX-96 on March 9, 2013 at 8:19 PM
.
Especially having kids !
It appears to me that half of the children in my vicinity are born to “living-together-couples”.
An absolutely unimaginable, heinous act took place in the small town I use to reside in, this past October.
I don’t know that it was the result of “anger”, but the young parents certainly didn’t qualify to have custody of their baby.
listens2glenn on March 9, 2013 at 8:39 PM
How ’bout we sent Sen. Gibson (D – of course) to a stupidity management course …..
BD57 on March 9, 2013 at 10:10 PM
NEVER trust ANY liberal because they ALWAYS speak with forked tongues.
Where is the proof of my assertion, you ask. Look below:
Gabby Giffords’s Husband Buys AR-15
DannoJyd on March 10, 2013 at 4:18 AM
A woman came up with this harebrained idea, naturally.
Nomennovum on March 10, 2013 at 8:23 AM
IOW, simply owning a gun is in and of itself evidence of a mental disorder.
This is the propaganda meme the lefties want to drum into the
sheepelectorate.It has many precedents in history, mostly in the Soviet Union and in Mao’s China. Where, for example, simply wanting to own private property was in and of itself evidence of a mental disorder that required the state to act to protect the people. Likewise wanting to earn more than one’s “fair share”. And so on and so forth.
farsighted on March 10, 2013 at 10:58 AM
I’d wager any amount of money that by speaking calmly to the Senator, I could make him angry in a much shorter amount of time than he could me. I’m pretty sure I could do it in well under 5 minutes and only have to state things that are true, but contrary to his blind, Party loyalty.
TugboatPhil on March 10, 2013 at 12:07 PM
I was being facetious, when I posted that – equating “anger management” with the trials and tribulations associated with “menstruation,” to point out the buffoonery of this buffoon. Also, I try to be as snide and sarcastic as possible, when I’m confronted with the policy aspirations of legislative rejects, like this imbecile.
I am a huge proponent of women being armed.
OhEssYouCowboys on March 10, 2013 at 12:36 PM
*I* think all blacks should be required to take an Anger Management Class before entering any Wendy’s, McDonald’s or Dunkin’ Donuts.
Czar of Defenestration on March 10, 2013 at 12:40 PM
Absolutely sickening. These people are predators.
avagreen on March 10, 2013 at 1:30 PM
.
To the esteemed Mark E. Kelly, and Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords:
.
Advancements in weapons technologies since the Constitution was ratified (and the Bill Of Rights added), does NOT justify a rethinking or reinterpretation of the Second Amendment, by our elected government officials.
listens2glenn on March 10, 2013 at 1:49 PM
.
A predatory society, is what “urbanites” have evolved to.
Neither of these “kids” had any sense of “real life” responsibility, as parents. I don’t know that they had sense of ANY responsibility, period.
The Lancaster Co (PA) District Attorney called it “the worst, most horrible thing I’ve ever seen”, and hopes he never has to see another one like it.
listens2glenn on March 10, 2013 at 2:04 PM
Let’s alter that by a couple of letters.
.
That’s better.
listens2glenn on March 10, 2013 at 2:07 PM
IMHO, those working to disarm law enforcement officials are taking the right track.
If these Communists don’t like us owning guns, let’s see how they like having an UNARMED GUARD protecting them.
I love delivering payback. BWAHAhahahaha….
DannoJyd on March 10, 2013 at 3:29 PM
I need some anger managements since I’m pissed I can no longer find 9mm or 5.56 ammo any more…
Wyznowski on March 10, 2013 at 4:36 PM
If you think that guns are scary and you want others to change so you can feel better, then you must really hate seeing gun violence in movies, on TV, and in video games (especially first person shooter games).
You really cannot ban these shows, movies, and games (first amendment versus second amendment), but you can tax them. Sin tax, baby. Tax ‘em hard and tax ‘em good.
You want to watch a Quentin Tarantino movie? Pay the Excessive Violence Tax (EVT) of $25 per movie or episode per watcher.
But first, you need to take and pass a required anger management class for $50.
And, you will need to wait for thirty days while the government performs a background check to see if you have, or someone thinks you might have, a history or an incident of violence in your behavior. Fee: $100. Renewable and payable annually.
Of course, you local paper will be required to post your name and address on a Google map with a pushpin at your address. In case that’s not enough, you must have a sign in your yard saying that a person of violent persuasion lives in the house. When a member of your family, especially a spouse, sustains an injury, then the police will come to you for answers and will stop looking anywhere else or to anyone else. $5,000 to expunge your name and address in private.
Oh, yes, you will not be able to live within three miles of a public school, playground, or a fast food restaurant with playground equipment. You will not be allowed to be a scout leader, a Sunday School teacher, participate in the boys and girls club, or be anywhere near, say, a 711 store where one might find kids. We don’t want your polluted ideas soiling young, impressionable minds. All moving expenses are on your dime.
I had this idea as a tongue-in-cheek spoof, but, you know? I like it. I believe that it has a kind or ironic justice to the ideas behind it.
Please write Senator Feinstein and ask her to amend he gun ban to include these fines and requirements for excessive violence. Who knows? With all the TV shows and movies produced in Hollywood, maybe Jerry Brown can raise enough cash to balance California’s budget?
Nah, Jerry will just spend it.
billrowe on March 10, 2013 at 6:08 PM
People don’t kill people….ANGRY people kill people. Since our tax dollars are going to study Tai Chi, perhaps we should make THAT mandatory for anyone wanting to buy ammo as well?!
easyt65 on March 11, 2013 at 11:33 AM
How anger management for drivers first? Everyday someone is killed or injured over a road rage incident.
johnnyU on March 11, 2013 at 1:24 PM
Obvious projection, it is her who needs it and it is because of her raging on this issue.
jake49 on March 11, 2013 at 7:51 PM
What? No party affiliation is mentioned? Neither the politician’s name, their party affiliation nor their district were mentioned in the article.
Since when has Hot Air become a Mainstream Media outlet shilling for the LibTard cause?
My money says it’s a Democrat politician from St Lucie County. And the politician is a carpetbagger from either New York City or North Jersey (home of New York’s rejects)
CatchAll on March 11, 2013 at 10:07 PM
Here they come ! !
California Seizes Guns as Owners Lose Right to Bear Arms
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-03-12/california-seizes-guns-as-owners-lose-right-to-bear-arms.html?cmpid=yhoo
Texyank on March 11, 2013 at 11:19 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2