Repeat After Me: "You Are Not Worthy"

Atlantic blogging weenie Marc Ambinder is on a bit of a roll: He's managed to make a horse's ass out of himself two days in a row. Here's today's bit o' dreck:

Sarah Palin, the former Republican vice presidential candidate, has every right to submit an opinion piece on health care to the Wall Street Journal's op-ed page, and they've got every right to print it.

But Palin's existence in this debate does not (a) lend her voice any credibility and, beyond that, even if you believe that her experience as a state governor does give her at least a modicum of credibility, it does not follow that, because her voice is credible, it ought to be influential. Newt Gingrich is influential by rights; he's done the work, come up with original ideas, and been in the trenches. (Replacing Medicare with vouchers...not new or remotely plausible, even if GOPers do well in the next two elections. Quoting Ronald Reagan talking about that type of proposal...not new. Etc.)

My, aren't we the snooty one.

Well, Marc, since this seems to be all about influential street cred, let me ask you a couple of questions:

1. What on Paul Krugman's resume qualifies him as having the credibility to spout about health care reform? He has neither training nor experience in any part of the field, and his academic work certainly hasn't focused on that portion of the economy, right? So why is it Democrats, liberals and progressive routinely genuflect in his general direction every time he passes wind on the subject in the New York Times?
2. What on Nancy Pelosi's resume qualifies her as having credibility on the subject? The last time I checked, needing mental health services doesn't qualify you as a health care expert.
3. What on Max Baucus' resume qualifies him as having credibility? Nothing other than chairmanship of the Senate Finance Committee, right?
4. Finally, where's Barack Obama's cred on this issue? His background is legal, academic, and legislative. He has less executive experience than Palin has. Beyond that, he was for single payer before he was against it, and was for a "robust" public option before it became but a "sliver" of the entirety of reform. And... Barack Obama still hasn't articulated what his plan for health care, er, insurance, er, whatever the fuck is it today reform is actually supposed to be.

So, Marc, feel free to sniff your haughty sniff about Sarah Palin's lack of credibility. Who of the four listed above have labored "in the trenches" long enough to have really established they should be influential based on their merits? Is eight months enough? That's what Barack Obama has, at the most.

Evidently what has passed you by is the fact that as of this moment, the one with the credibility problem on health care, er, insurance, er, whatever the fuck it is today reform is Barack "Please Make My Mind Up For Me" Obama... Otherwise he wouldn't be boring us tonight with a "high stakes" speech on the subject, now would he?

Are you ready to hold Obama to the same standard as Palin? If so, then why would you - or anyone else - be at all interested in his speech tonight? He is influential not because of what he's done (which is nothing), but rather because of the position he occupies. Just like Krugman, Pelosi and Baucus. Why should that confer credibility and influence in and of itself to a matter of public policy?

Moron.

Comments

[Jim Ryan]

Palin's existence in this debate does not (a) lend her voice any credibility....

It's amazing how much muddy thinking a person can pack into a sentence. What does that even mean? How could anyone's existence in a debate lend his voice any credibility in that debate? Also what's credibility in a debate, in the first place? In a debate we have evidence and inference. Nobody's "credibility" counts for squat. It doesn't matter if you're a janitor or a Harvard JD; if the janitor refutes you, you're toast. If you have background experience from which you learned certain facts, then you must present those facts in evidence; your word alone counts for squat.

So, let's get down to brass tacks instead of dicking around. Palin and her army of janitors won the debate. Not that they deserve any kudos. Refuting the weasels who want the government to control everyone's health insurance is about as hard as tying shoes.

I guess when you lose a debate, you try wailing about the "credibility" of the victor?

[JeffS]

Refuting the weasels who want the government to control everyone's health insurance is about as hard as tying shoes.

Jim, that's precisely their problem. They know it's easy to refute their crap, which is why they try to control the message.

But Palin poked at Obama from Facebook, fer God's sake! FACEBOOK. And he responded.

So they resort to their standard Plan B when losing the debate: denigrate the winning debaters.

[bobv]

Hey Dennis, read a few of your posts recently, have no idea what you actually think should happen yourself. All I have to go by is what set of people you're criticizing.

Maybe you had a sentence or two there before I was paying attention? Well I guess I know where to come for some all-purpose bile, for when I have heartburn too. Scorn is like skin, right? If you show some people will look.

[Mona]

But Dennis, c'mon now. Whatever Krugman or Obama's faults, they ain't dumber than a sack of rocks. Sarah Palin is. (And whether one agrees with Krugman or not, as an economist he has more cred than most others doing opining on healthcare.)

[just passin by]

OTOH, Dennis isn't proposing a trillion dollar boondoggle that may or may not socialize the medical industry, and then tell a different story about what it will contain every time a hard question is asked.

[Jim Ryan]

Krugman and Obama are losing a debate to a sack of rocks. I'll file that under "Reagan was an amiable dunce."

[Mona]

I'll file that under "Reagan was an amiable dunce."

If you do, don't do it on my account. Reagan was not a dunce, (altho he was amiable). Sarah Palin, however, is an idjit.

[PeterUK]

No. Neither Krugman nor Obama have any credibility on health care. Neither have any qualifications in the subject.

[Dennis the Peasant]

Well, Palin might not be a super-genius like Barack Obama, but it's hard to imagine her spending three or so months campaigning for health care reform without ever telling anyone what health care reform actually means.

[JeffS]

Whatever Krugman or Obama's faults, they ain't dumber than a sack of rocks.

Except that those faults outweigh their IQ. An intelligent person can still pull stupid stunts, and rationalize their way out of it. Which is exactly what Obama, Krugman, and Ambinder are trying to do. And that is indeed moronic.

BTW, Mona, if you paid attention to context, you would know that Dennis wrote the post about Marc Ambinder, and his attempt to denigrate Palin based on her credibilityh. Dennis then points out where Ambinder's logic goes astray.

And for that, Dennis calls Marc Ambinder a moron, not Krugman or Obama.

But it's nice to see that you agree that Ambinder is a moron, anyway.

[Dennis the Peasant]

Actually, when it comes to public policy, Krugman is dumber than a box of dead crabs. That's because you can always count on him to adopt a public policy position that has no relevance to current political reality. Invariably, Krugman's personal "solution" to any particular public policy problem simply has no chance of actually being enacted. In one sense, it's a neat trick, in that it means he can claim infallability (and I think that is important to him), but on the other, it limits his usefulness in any debate.

[Dennis the Peasant]

I have no particular opinion on the worth of Sarah Palin at the moment, she may be a lightweight and she may not... I don't have enough information. Irrespective of her merits or lack thereof, until Barack Obama demonstrates that he can touch anything without fucking it up completely, I find arguments such as Ambinder's to be little more than disingenuous bullshit.

[Mona]

But it's nice to see that you agree that Ambinder is a moron, anyway.

I have no respect for Ambinder.

However -- Dennis et al. -- surely the universe of those entitled to intelligently opine on healthcare cannot be limited to those very few who hold a Ph.D. in economics with a specialization in healthcare? Presidents using the bully pulpit, and congresscritters (across the partisan divide), have legislated on all manner of issues about which most, if not all, lack narrow expertise.

To a great -- tho not exclusive -- extent, my political guru is F. A. Hayek. He won a Nobel in economics, but did not specialize in healthcare. He is considered libertarian. But he did not rule out all safety net programs; merely command-and-control economies. Further, he wrote most intelligently about matters in which he had no degree.

[PeterUK]

"Presidents using the bully pulpit, and congresscritters (across the partisan divide), have legislated on all manner of issues about which most, if not all, lack narrow expertise."

That is why public policy is such a mess.

[JeffS]

I have no respect for Ambinder.

And yet you defend his point. Or at least support the target of his ire.

... surely the universe of those entitled to intelligently opine on healthcare cannot be limited to those very few who hold a Ph.D. in economics with a specialization in healthcare?

This is the point that Dennis makes, and Jim Ryan amplifies. "Credibility" is not a requirement in a debate. Facts and reasoning are. In that, Sarah Palin (be she a loser, lightweight, or something else) and other people are ahead in the debat. Way ahead.

How far ahead? Well, in Obama's talking points for his speech tonight, he singles out exactly one Republican by name. One.

Who? Sarah "Dumb As A Box Of Rocks" Palin.

Tell us again, Mona.....just how smart is Obama?

[PeterUK]

Here is a classic from Max Baucus

"Here is the key provision, as described a day later in the Times:
Employers would not be required to offer insurance coverage to their employees. But companies that did not would have to pay a fee for each low-income employee who received a subsidy, in the form of a tax credit, for coverage bought through a health insurance exchange. The maximum assessment on employers would be equal to $400 multiplied by the total number of employees."

Spot the flaw?

[No one you know]

Still don't see how anyone figures Obama is smart? He just seems like a run of the mill race hustler to me. I'm sure his transcripts reflect the affirmative action credentials, otherwise, we would have seen them by now. I don't know what the word is in Austrian, but it looks like the Special Olympics out there at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. Anyway, Happy Cinco de Quatro everyone. What you didn't hear me? I said Happy Cinco de Quatro everyone.

[Allen]

Peter, if that's for the year then I can hear the giant flushing sound as companies get rid of their health plans.

[Dennis the Peasant]

However -- Dennis et al. -- surely the universe of those entitled to intelligently opine on healthcare cannot be limited to those very few who hold a Ph.D. in economics with a specialization in healthcare?

Correct. It cannot and should not be limited so. But lets not pretend - as Ambinder does - that Sarah Palin doesn't belong in that universe while Nancy Pelosi does. Either they're both in or they're both out.

[Dennis the Peasant]

Peter-

Which one?

[PeterUK]

"However -- Dennis et al. -- surely the universe of those entitled to intelligently opine on healthcare cannot be limited to those very few who hold a Ph.D. in economics with a specialization in healthcare?"

Ahbut, there seems to be some elitist selectivity concerning who is intelligent.

[PeterUK]

Dennis.
I think there is probably enough to keep lawyers and accountants in work for life,and there are a thousand pages of this bilge.

[Mona]

Either they're [Palin and Pelosi] both in or they're both out.

Dennis, I disagree. Sarah Palin is not as well-informed as Nancy Pelosi, who has served for so long in Congress -- whether and to what extent one agrees with Pelosi or not. Pelosi knows how to draft, read and sometimes pass complex legislation at the federal level, and does not routinely say stupid things such as claiming foreign policy creds cuz she can see Russia from her state.

My opinion of Sarah Palin's smarts was formed during the presidential race, and not by what people wrote or said about her, but rather, by what I heard from the woman's own mouth.

[Mona]

And yet you defend [Ambinder's] point. Or at least support the target of his ire.

I "defend" Krugman as being intelligent. (And Dennis, it doesn't matter whether Krugman's views are likely to be adopted as policy for purposes of this discussion; neither were most of Goldwater's, and yet Barry was not an idiot.)

[PeterUK]

Have you ever spoken to Sarah Palin Mona?