I have stated before, in these very pages, no less, that we sometimes get far too wrapped up in over-heated rhetoric. In so doing, we lose sight of the important issues and make ourselves look foolish and simplistic.
In paragraphs 9-12 here, I gave passing reference to a very broad point. You can go read it, if you like. I’ll wait.
My point was fairly similar to a point Chris “Tingly” Matthews made on MSNBC last Friday, speaking with Chuckafuhtodd.. In his rant, Mr. “I forgot he was black for an hour” Matthews was castigating Rush Limbaugh for referring to the President and his administration as a “regime.”
Here’s the big difference between Matthews and myself: I was taking verbal shots at Laurence Verga, not because he simply used the word “regime,” but because he did not make the specific case to back it up.
Chris “Oh, I wish I were half as clever as Colin Quinn” Matthews, on the other hand, was positively apoplectic over the word even being used by Rush. (And nevermind the fact that Matthews, the New York Times, and the WaPo ALL referred to the Bush “regime” on a regular basis.)
Once again, Merriam-Webster defines “regime” thusly: “a method of government.”
In America, our method of government is a representative Republic under Constitutional law. The case can be made, and quite easily, that passage of Health Care Reform in the dead of night, on a weekend, facilitated by back room deals, bribery, ignorance of the bill’s text, and flatly against the will of the American people, all clearly constitute a far different “method of government” than what our founders envisioned.
A case that Limbaugh has, indeed, made. Add to this the fact that now, with the government takeover of health care signed into law, the Federal government has taken direct ownership of nearly half of the nation’s industries, and basically controls the remaining sectors through 78 THOUSAND pages of Federal regulation (read: fascism).
Matthews, as is to be expected from an MSNBC host, completely ignored the objective facts and unassailable logic of Rush’s argument, choosing instead to engage in his customary selective moral outrage over one word used in making said case.
Typical. Again, the point must be driven home that, when you are flying over the target with sights locked and payload engaged, you can expect to come under heavy fire. That is precisely when you must stay the course, not cater to some desire for validation from the mental midgets and bitter partisan hacks who comprise the vast majority of network media pundits.
As for Mr. Verga and the rest of our 5th District candidates, your case has been made in the paragraphs above. Feel free to use these facts in your arguments and in your own defense, should you desire to use the completely appropriate term “regime” from this point forward.
Do so with my blessing. As long as you make the case to back it up, and define your terms.
Bradley S. Rees
