Dan Riehl: There needs to be outrage

Dan Riehl and Melissa Clouthier caught on Fox News camera during CPAC 2010 last month. "The youth are first and foremost among us in throwing off authority," writes Riehl. We agree with him that "McCain's progressivism does not represent any future for the GOP … Statism will never appeal to the silent majority of America's youth. In fact, libertarianism can. And the large presence of young political guns at CPAC demonstrated it."

Dan Riehl is a force of nature and a master of the agitator's art. The average person's reaction to news of Harry Reid's wife's and daughter's accident yesterday was to express sympathy and wishes for a speedy recovery. We were sort of there ourselves, trying to repress our visceral disgust with the Senate Majority Leader's totalitarianesque health-care-reform agenda in recognition of our common humanity when human suffering strikes. But not Riehl, who burst fearlessly center stage into the blogosphere this evening with a politically incorrect showstopper guaranteed to precipitate a social-network-a-lanche in the coming hours: 

Isn't it time to euthanize Reid's wife?

Vintage Riehl. Anyone who's been paying attention through the years knows the man has a heart of gold, but when it comes to defending this Shining City Upon a Hill, he takes no prisoners. His wilfully callous-sounding words had the usual suspects shocked, shocked at the insensitivity of it all. The point was that Democrats trying to ram Obamacare 2.0 — AKA socialized medicine, which always leads to long waits, rationing of treatment and, yes, death panels — down our throats have no intention of submitting themselves and their families to such substandard health regimes:

I'm not sure I quite understand this, given that cost is so important as a burden to taxpayers when it comes to health care. If Democrats want so badly to abort babies because of it, why are we bothering with someone who has a broken neck and back at 69? It sounds to me like she's pretty well used up and has probably been living off the taxpayers for plenty of years to begin with. Aren't we at least going to get a vote on it?

I realize her crook of a husband and his pals in Congress have excluded themselves from the mess they're going to compel everyone else to join, but we're still paying the bills, are we not? I don't see that she's worth it at this point, frankly. I can't recall her ever doing anything for me.

Come on, Harry — do your civic duty. The nation's broke and counting on you guy. Pull the plug and get back to work.

"A lot of people [are] pissed at Dan Riehl right now for saying what deserved to be said," writes Dan Cleary in a Twitter exchange among Dan, Melissa Clouthier, Leon Wolf and Cleary this evening:

Leon Wolf: I'd love to see where the people comdemning Dan Riehl right now got equally outraged at this.

Clouthier: It is taking the argument to the end, but most people won't read it that way.

Cleary: I say life's too short to waste on people who miss the quite obvious point of Riehl's post.

Clouthier: There will be outrage. Still, since Dems use the utilitarian argument, might as well use it back.

Riehl: Let them be outraged. Where's the outrage at their willingness to kill babies, many hispanic and black and they know it! There needs to be outrage, we have been civil for decades, only to lose more and more ground. When will people stand up?

Well, a "Call to action! March 16th, 2010 — Stop Obamacare 2.0," when tea-party-minded citizens from across the nation converge upon DC to speak with as many representatives as possible, encouraging them to just say no, should be a good start.

Update: Instalanche! Our secret is out:

FORCE OF NATURE? I think Sissy Willis kind of has a thing for Dan Riehl. At least a blog-crush, anyway …

Update II: A bit of advice to Gregory Koster and others in the comments:

You need to work on your sense of irony. As fellow commenter Filbert Rusco notes, your argument suggests you "probably thought Jonathan Swift really wanted to eat Irish babies too."

Neither Dan Riehl nor we are advocating death panels that would say one person's life is worth more or less than another's. Quite the opposite.

Update III: "I've always maintained that irony is the final proof of our transcendence beyond mere evolution," writes Joanofargghh in the comments:

Judging by the misguided outrage at Dan's splendid debating style, I'd say my observation stands up to the proofs.

Take that, primordial ooze!

Update IV: Joanofargghh links with a rousing "Dan Riehl: Man on Fire."

Update V: Little Miss Attila weighs in with a link: "Who doesn't have a thing for Dan Riehl?"

Comments

[Gregory Koster]

Dear Ms. Willis: I'm on the opposite side from you on this one. I found Riehl's post repellant, and said so in the comments there. All he is doing is degrading his great blogging skill with ghetto manners and spelling in the name of "attitude." This will do him quite a bit of good with many people, as you yourself have proved. But it's not so different from Jane Hamsher photoshopping Joe Lieberman in blackface. Hamsher, too, loves her country and will claim this love excuses everything. I doubted it then, and doubted it now.

What's the crux of this situation? Obamacare will be a colossal disaster for this country. The only ones who can stop it are the Democratic members of the House of Representatives. How many of them will change their votes on this issue to "no" after reading Riehl's post? I hope he answers this question. I think you should too. To my mind, Riehl merely took a page out of Sullivan's notebook, something no honest citizen should do.

Many thanks for your blog and for hearing me out.

Sincerely yours,
Gregory Koster

[Warren Bonesteel]

Words offer the means to meaning and, for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth. And the truth is there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of Surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting submission. How did this happen? Who's to blame? Certainly there are those who are more responsible than others and they will be held accountable. But again, truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty you need only look into a mirror.

[Filbert Rusco]

Gregory Koster probably thought Jonathan Swift really wanted to eat Irish babies, too.

[Jeff S.]

Rusco shoots. He scores!

[vegasjillie]

I wish Drs. in this country were more like restaurants. I wish they could refuse service. Mr. Reid has demonized and devalued the practice of medicine for his entire tenure on the public teet. I wish the physicians who responded to his wife's accident would have looked at him and said, "call HICFA or your insurance adjuster: maybe they can cure her." Sadly though, doctors in this country will always get screwed to the wall because they feel a moral obligation to treat the sick and injured regardless of their willingness or ability to PAY for their care. Some specialties in medicine barely make ends meet after 12 or more years of education. Sad but true. Harry Reid is just one more politician promising people something for nothing. Anyone who believes that to be possible is a fool or brain damaged. Which are you?

[AmericanLady49]

Dan Rocks...Have known him through his blog for years. AND...yes he does have a heart of Gold. He helped me in a big way back in 2005 and I will never forget it. An awesome person and I love it when he tells it like it is.
Thank you for writng this article about his article. :O)
GOD BLESS AMERICA !

[Kristian]

Somebody once said the means are the end. The problem with playing to the lowest common denominator is the denominator just keeps getting lower.

[DaveP.]

Harry Reid's family is just as off-limits as Sarah Palin's family or George W. Bush's family.

What goes around, comes around... and Harry and his buddies have set the rules for this one.

[ic]

"What are Democratic leaders saying? “If you pass the Stupak amendment, more children will be born, and therefore it will cost us millions more. That’s one of the arguments I’ve been hearing,” Stupak says."

Democrats are so compassionate, they would preserve the life of a 69 years old woman of the ruling class at all cost, even if it means to kill babies of the poor to do so. Less underclass kids on welfare, less underclass grown ups to claim Social Security.

We rubes are arguing about healthcare reforms, our rulers are actually solving the welfare and Social Security problems. We are griping about short term costs, they are looking out for our future.

'They Just Want This Over'

[Sissy Willis]

Gregory Koster: You need to work on your sense of irony. As fellow commenter Filbert Rusco notes, your argument suggests you "probably thought Jonathan Swift really wanted to eat Irish babies too.

[Donna B.]

I often agree with both you and Riehl. But not this time. If something is wrong, it is wrong regardless ideology.

You are wrong this time. Principles matter. While I am a conservative, I'm not the type of conservative to go back to medieval thought and morals.

Are you sure you want to go there?

[Sissy Willis]

Donna B: Please see my comment regarding a sense of irony, above. Neither Dan Riehl nor I am advocating death panels that would say one person's life is worth more or less than another's. Quite the opposite.

[nadadhimmi]

These greedy politicians like Reid will continue to suck personal wealth off the public tit until they are beaten down, stepped upon and ground into the earth by an enraged public. This will soon happen at the ballot box to Reid. Let his hag of a wife, who has also screwed over the public for years, get thrown in with the rest of us "rabble" in medicare. F**k these elitist whores and their concubines and hell spawn. F**K THEM!!!!

[Donna B.]

Oh I got the irony part right off the bat. Unfortunately, since the days of Swift, irony has lost a bit of its value. And... neither Riehl nor you are as adept as Swift.

Riehl, especially, is not capable of fully carrying out the analogy. He simply hints at it in an insulting and demeaning manner. See definition #2 part b in the link you provided.

Irony may have been intended, but it was so clumsily executed that the intent is blunted, therefore useless... and possibly harmful.

I suggest you read Swift again. Was he using a blunt instrument?

[Joanofargghh]

I've always maintained that irony is the final proof of our transcendence beyond mere evolution. Judging by the misguided outrage at Dan's splendid debating style, I'd say my observation stands up to the proofs.

[Sissy Willis]

Donna B: Glad to see you roused to righteous indignation. Sorry to say I have no Swiftian pretensions, but contemporary detachment from the subject, as in definition #2b at the link, is so not where I'm at. Again, quite the opposite. Yes, irony has been devalued in our dumbed-down culture. I blame it on the Gramscian march through the institutions.

[Sissy Willis]

Joanofargghh: I've cited you in an update. Your prose is pure poetry!

[Joanofargghh]

I courtsey and blush at the favor of my hostess!

[Joanofargghh]

You realize, of course, that we are dealing with a generation that believes along with Alanis Moronisette that the definition of irony is "like rain on your wedding day."

Irony is no fun if you have to explain it!

[tysm]

How about this?
Pass Obamacare..with the caveat that those who vote for and advocate for it....if it increases costs, and cuts quality of care, and results in death panels (I.E. Denial of care)..then they and their families pay for it with their lives....hanging from Liberty trees in village greens....

sounds fair to me...it's called bet with your life.....something our military do every day they are in combat....

[goomp]

Vote the hypocritical rascals out of office and start over.

[Pvbella]

The problem of Congress exempting itself from HCR is compelling and the great big secret. No one is pushing it. This could be the defining issue to drive the public to stop this bill. It could cause a polling revolt.

If the Republicans were not such cowards, they would demand the legislature be subject to the same health care choices as the rest of the citizens. The servants would lose their insurance and be put in the same pools as us lowly masters, subject to the same costs.

The Republicans should cite and expose exactly what health care benefits congress and the senate gets, naming it the Rolls Royce of health insurance- the gold standard, while criticizing and slamming HCR for us as the Yugo on blocks.

If the Republicans were not such cowards, they would remind the Democrats they are all servants of the people. Servants do not own a Rolls while masters are forced to walk.

But the Republicans are cowards. That is why we will get the Yugo on blocks.

[Joanofargghh]

Reading the comments at Media Matters has proven to me that vampires really are unable to see themselves in the mirror.

[Beej]

I think Sissy Willis kind of has a thing for Dan Riehl. At least a blog-crush, anyway …

Oh please, who doesn't?

[Gregory Koster]

Dear Ms. Willis: You could be right that my perception needs work, but if irony is what's at stake, it's Mr. Riehl's judgment that needs work...I posed a question to you and to him. He dismissed it with a "your premise isn't valid." You have not addressed it at all. Once more:

At present, all that needs to happen for Obamacare to become law is for the House to vote and pass it. Reconciliation is not needed; reconciliation would come into play only if Obama decided to add still more features to the Senate version. If the vote is on party lines, the Senate bill will pass, and Obamacare becomes law. So it is up to the Democratic members to decide if this disaster for the country becomes law. Once more: if all the Democratic members read Mr. Riehl's post, how many would switch votes to "no?" That is the crux of this issue for me.

Specific example: my own Representative, Brian Baird, a Democrat, voted "no" on the original House bill. How will he vote on the Senate bill? He has said that the Democratic leadership can't take his vote for granted. Encouraging, right? Mr. Riehl would say the way to get Baird's vote is to put your Howard Beale mask on and howl, "You've got to get mad! I want you angry!" But threats to Baird won't work: he has announced his retirement when this term ends. So his constituents have no leverage on him; he's leaving. His vote will be determined by his conscience and his judgment. One more tidbit of information for you: in 2007, he voted for Geo. W's surge, and took a ferocious pounding from his constituents for doing so. But he stuck to his position. I think this shows independence, independence that would be valuable in any struggle with that dreadful harridan Pelosi (I also think the pounding helped him decide to retire.)

If Baird read Mr. Riehl's post, would it make him decide to stick to his "no" vote? Or might it anger him enough to make him flip? Mr. Riehl would be successful in his stated goal of making people angry, to a mighty perverse result.

Mr. Riehl blew off this question. That isn't conclusive, but it suggests Obamacare doesn't bother him enough to stop using it as a means to leverage his own position. Put it another way: if God came to Mr. Riehl in a vision and said "Dan, I'l defeat Obamacare for you, but at the price of no one ever caring about RIEHL WORLD VIEWS again. Or I'll let Obamacare go through, and you can title your autobiography ON THE MAKE: THE RISE AND RISE AND RISE AND RISE AND RISE OF A NEW MEDIA STAR WITH THE FATTEST ROLODEX IN THE NATION."

"What'll you have, Dan?"

Yes indeed. What does Mr. Riehl want? Secondarily, what do you want? If it's the defeat of Obamacare, how is Mr. Riehl's post going to get Baird's "no" vote? You might even say this is an ironic situation, though I will let such masterminds as "Jeff S." decide that. As for the pseudonymous "Filbert Rusco": pseudonymous commenting only shows the color of the author, yellow in this case, and isn't worth consideration. He can jeer at me while he waits and waits and waits in line for that liver transplant (which will take the yellow color out of his skin, though not his character) while Pelosi and her family waltz by, smirking and smiling, calling out, "How's this for irony, Fil?" A fitting fate.

Mr. Riehl's great blogging skills have not served the "defeat Obamacare" cause well here.

Many thanks for your blog, and your willingness to hear me out at such sizable length.

Sincerely yours,
Gregory Koster