One of the current frustrations is the tendency of some Democrats and others of a leftwards inclination to characterize the GOP and others opposed to the health care bills specifically and unbridled government generally as being the "party of no". The former is attempting to convert reasonable rebuttals of "your proposed legislation is unsuitable" into "there is no piece of legislation that you can propose that we would find suitable". The former is a reasonable position as acknowledge by Mr. Obama. The latter is a misrepresentation.....which Mr. Obama has unfortunately used more than once.
As small "L" libertarian, I am frequently accused of being opposed to any government spending. Megan McArdle....soon to be added to my blog roll....offers an excellent rebuttal to such flawed thinking.
I mean, it makes a certain amount of sense, insofar as I am one of the internet's leading advocates for getting rid of the police and fire departments, cutting spending on education, and eliminating street lights . . .
Oh, wait a minute, that was one of those anarcho-capitalists I once met at a cocktail party.
She concludes with:
If you can't understand why a libertarian is against your program, start with the possibility that they might not think it is a true public good. That way you don't need to jump straight to the ludicrous conclusion that opposing your new boondoggle means they logically must also want to rip down the guard rails on the highway.
And before someone asks, I have no idea what a "depratment" might be, but I am certain that it is uncomfortable and may not be suitable for women, children, and small flighted animals. Thanks for pointing it out.