What Is Seen and What Is Not Seen

I did not watch the president's speech, although I did manage to catch the Joe Wilson "Liar!" outburst. I was surprised, not just at Wilson's outburst, but at the noisy commotion raised by the Dems, and more especially by the tone and posture of Obama. At that moment, having just denounced Sarah Palin (without naming her. He must think saying her name would give her too much credit) he was aggressive, frustrated, and angry. The whole sequence was highly reminiscent of Question Time in the Lower House of Parliament. I seem to recall a lot of progressive chortling over the idea of "what if GW Bush had to face a British-style question & response." Well, we saw an improvised American version of it last night. I don't think Obama or his caucus enjoyed the experience.

Others more insightful than I have gone over Obama's speech with a conservative toothed comb and found some interesting passages that went over the heads of the Dems who were standing and applauding, even as Obama silently moved the goalposts on them.

First, Keith Hennessey notes a surprising omission from a president whose party has been chasing the dream of universal health care: Reviewing The Checklist

OK, this one is fascinating. Nowhere in the speech does he promise universal health insurance, or universal health care. His only specific universal statement is “It’s time to give every American the same opportunity [to buy health insurance through an exchange] that we’ve given ourselves.” This is a fallback, allowing him to declare victory if expanded coverage falls far short of universality. You have to look carefully to see this. (I had to word search for “universal” and “every.”)

No way that was a mistake. The Right picked up on it, but has the Left? Most likely, yes, but the Left always silently acquiesces to such bits of rhetorical three card monte in the end.

Second, remember the 47 million uninsured? Well, Byron York noticed that they have been demoted:Betway-confidential

In his speech tonight, the president introduced a new number in the health care debate. Remember all those statements from Democrats, including Barack Obama himself, that 47 million Americans are without health insurance? That's no longer the operative number. "There are now more than thirty million American citizens who cannot get coverage," the president said in tonight's speech

Now, that is just incredible. How long have we been hearing about the 47 million uninsured? Years. In fact, it was a progressive talking point just last week. Now, the number has been miraculously reduced by 17 million. Will anyone dare ask what happened to them? Did anyone notice? (Answer: for all the talk of opponents' bad faith and lies, the criticism of the highly exaggerated number of 47 million uninsured was taking its toll, inasmuch as illegal aliens and people already on government programs were lumped in with the rest of the "uininsured." Progressive health care reform's greatest weakness is its lack of credibility, as it is based on a combination of shifty numbers, contradictory promises, and pompous moralizing. Bringing the number of uninsured closer to reality is a way to restore credibility without offending the left-wing base that loves the idea of millions of opporessed people without insurance).

York predicts that progressives will smoothly shift their advocacy to the new & improved 30 million uninsured. "There are 30 million uninsured. There have always been 30 million uninsured." The question is whether such a reduced number can still serve as the basis for the moral argument in favor of progressive health care reform.