The News & Record's Doug Clark:
The White House supported [Health and Human Services secretary Kathleen Sebilius'] decision, which apparently has liberals up in arms.
If liberals are up in arms and the White House is not up in arms, then the White House must not be liberal.
Maybe that's what Clark meant, or maybe the knee-jerk expectation that everything about public policy must be consigned to liberal or conservative, us or them, is superficial and insufficient. Maybe, "Some women's health professionals are up in arms" would have been more informative and less ridiculous.
Good grief, Roch. If we want to nitpick to the point of silliness, we should note that the issue isn't about women's health but children's health. Or are you saying girls younger than 17 are women?
ReplyDeleteAlthough I didn't say all liberals are up in arms, to be more precise I should have said some liberals are up in arms. What a big deal.
Thanks for commenting Doug.
ReplyDeleteI never said the issue was about women's health, those were the sources to which you linked.
Yes, you could have written that "SOME liberals are up in arms," even though their policies preferences are more in line with Rick Perry than Barack Obama.
It's about the knee-jerk over-application of "liberal" and "conservative".