Look! I'm a Low Information Voter

Remember back to the last senate campaign in Colorado when Mark Udall was running for reelection.  During that campaign no conservative was ever heard to refer to him by any other term than "Boulder-liberal, Mark Udall."  It was an obvious speaking point established either formally or informally on a national level.  Even the blond Stepford Wives female furniture on Fox referred to him as that "Boulder-liberal."  There has been a steady stream of similar catch phrase speaking points lately.  First of all, no conservative ever referred to the Affordable Care Act as anything other than Obamacare, being careful to use the term derisively, as if the syllables and the assonance left a nasty taste.  When Obama adopted the term as his own and proclaimed that he liked it during the first debate--the only bright spot he had that night in Denver--conservative pundits, phrase makers, and politicos immediately substituted "Government Take Over of Health Care".  While not as catchy as Obamacare, it's many syllables and loaded word choices provide plenty of opportunity for derision.

There is a new catch phrase speaking point going around and this one I take personally.  I first heard Bill O'Reilly use it during an end of show rant.  Today I saw it in print in Mike Rosen's column ("The Obama Gambit", 3-14-13).  Here, let Mike say it:  "President Obama apparently believes that the younger generation and his low-information voter base. . ."  It was the term "low-information voter base" that got my attention.  Am I the only one who finds irony in a writer who deals almost exclusively in ad hominem diatribes rife with Fox News speaking points drawing attention to folks with "low-information"?  This idea of "low-information voters", mind you, is coming from pundits who align themselves with the same political party that has brought you such high-info ideas as the notion that a woman's body shuts down when raped, assuming of course the rape was a legitimate one.

In today's assault Mike is outraged that Obama would cancel White House tours in response to the sequester.  It is just a political stunt that proves Obama is insincere in his warm and fuzzy reach out to Republicans.  And then he proves this by labeling Obama's offer as so extreme that it was just another cynical public relations ploy.  Apparently Mike wishes Obama's offer, an offer that most conservatives were arguing didn't exist until Obama had to take them to a fucking lunch to convince them that it did, were more reasonable like, say, Paul Ryan's.

Then he goes on to list all the untrue things Obama has claimed about the poor preyed upon Republicans.  For instance, the spurious accusation that Republicans don't want to raise revenue.  Of course they do, Rosen insists, and to suggest otherwise is just another example of Obama's demogoguery.  He adds further "evidence" by telling his loyal readers that the Republicans want more revenue, but they don't want "ever-higher tax rates on capital and successful America capitalists. . ."  Well how is that going to happen?

Let me give you my best take on the Republican position on revenue as told by Paul Ryan.    First of all Mike, you could not be more wrong, or more cynical in your attempt to spin the truth.  Republicans are not interested in increasing revenue.  Rosen looks at Obama's plan with such contempt because it faces reality and does raise revenue by eliminating loopholes.  What it doesn't do is lower the tax rates to 25% to offset the eliminated loopholes.  Their proposal is "revenue neutral", to quote Mr. Ryan.  That means that loopholes (some) will be gone, but that will not raise taxes.  Let me go back and capitalize that.  THAT WILL NOT RAISE TAXES.  All those loopholes will be offset by a lower rate and in fact, unless you are stupid enough to be stuck in the middle class, your taxes will go down.

Rosen's last three sentences:  "He needs to roll up his sleeves and make a deal with the elected loyal (sic) opposition.  And that means settling for some things he doesn't like.  Simpson-Bowles would be a good place to start."

Hey, Mike.  Guess which proposals out there stray furthest from Simpson-Bowles?  Ask Paul Ryan and the rest of the "loyal" opposition.  You could look it up.