Hennessey was responding to this:
to be fair, a good deal of the other party’s opposition to our agenda has also been rooted in their sincere and fundamental belief about the role of government. It’s a belief that government has little or no role to play in helping this nation meet our collective challenges.
Keith goes on to respond:
The President also makes a silly argument. He takes specific examples of bigger government (like seat belts) and points out that at the time they were opposed by those who favored smaller government. He chooses as examples government policies which are overwhelmingly accepted in today’s society. He then implies that such flawed judgment must also apply to those who oppose his new favored expansions of government. I don’t think I need to walk through all the reasons why this logic is flawed.
I don’t think I agree this is a silly argument on the President’s part. I think Keith is saying Republicans don’t hold wing nut views opposing programs that have held up well over time. But haven’t we just witnessed continued skepticism on the part of a GOP senate candidate about the civil rights law 45 years after its passage and generally acknowledged success?
Keith raises some interesting ideas that more market based alternatives to Obama’s health care initiative would have been advisable. I may agree, but Republicans went AWOL on trying to propose any reasonable alternatives
If more Republicans were as reasonable as Keith Hennessey, they could do well by doing good, but that’s not where we are at.