Response to Neil Steinberg

To: nsteinberg@suntimes.com

Mr. Steinberg, I must respectfully object to the Opening Shot of today's column. It is you, Sir, who are "dead wrong."

You refer to those who oppose Obama's ideology and initiatives as "the enemy within," who are motivated by "purely ideological, if not pathological reasons." The fact of the matter, Mr. Steinberg, is that the citizens who have been turning up at town halls in droves are motivated of late primarily by a desire not to have a government run health care system foisted upon us. We respectfully called our representatives before the stimulus vote, to voice our opposition. We were ignored. We respectfully called again as the vote on Cap & Trade was drawing near. We were concerned about a bill that would lead to tax hikes and substantially higher prices on everything from electricity to pork chops. We were rebuffed. Then came health care reform. We weren't about to wait around for that infliction.

Depending on which surveys you check, fully 77-80+% of the population are more or less happy with their healthcare the way it is--at least to enough of a degree not to wish it transformed into a Canada-style "single payer" system. And yet the President has stubbornly charged full steam ahead, his administration going so far as to hire "supporters" on Craigslist to turn out at town halls to plug his health care plan. And yet it is the opponents of this health care bill who are "astroturfing," sayeth Speaker Pelosi, who today in an article jointly written by Rep. Steny Hoyer referred to all who are opposed to Obamacare as "un-American." Last week, Speaker Pelosi went so far as to liken us to Nazis. At least you only went so far in your column as to liken us to Nazi sympathizers.

All we want, Mr. Steinberg, is for our elected officials to hear us, and then act in accordance with our wishes. That's kind of what elected representatives are supposed to do. Or so I once erroneously thought. Thank you for helping me understand that our elected leaders should not be held accountable, should not have to answer to us, and should instead (in their immaculate wisdom) merely act in what they see as our best interest. Yes. Thank you for showing me the light. "Representative Republic"... why, that's Nazi speak.

Lastly, you suggest that we oppose President Obama's agenda simply for the sake of opposing President Obama. Not so. If President Obama announced across-the-board tax cuts tomorrow, we would laud him. If President Obama took a hardline stance with brutish thugs like Ahmadinijad and Chavez, and extended the hand of friendship to Israel (as opposed to what he has done, which is the exact opposite), we would commend him. If President Obama announced that government run mortgage, auto, and (I fear, soon) healthcare industries are bad idea, and announced that he was immediately reversing his policy, we would sing his praises in the street. Short of these pipe dreams, we would settle for the President and members of Congress abandoning their ambitions for government-run health care, in recognition of the fact that the vast majority of the populace does not want it.

Because you see, Mr. Steinberg, it's President Obama's ideas we oppose. Not President Obama. It's nothing personal. Of course, you know this, and hopefully someday, you'll bring yourself to admit it in print, and not immediately rush to baseless ad hominem. Of course, when you're under deadline, ad hominem is easier than reflective thought.

Steinberg's column.