Prior to seeing his latest column linked at Hot Air’s headlines, I’ve never heard of Paul Mulshine. Upon reading it, I’ve determined that’s a good thing.
Mulshine has “got a creepy feeling Sarah Palin’s a socialist.” Okay, he gets points for coming up with an attack we haven’t heard before, but socialist? How does he figure? By quoting Palin’s now-infamous “death panel” statement, in which she says:
The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama’s “death panel” so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their “level of productivity in society,” whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil.
Somehow, Mulshine concludes Palin’s “central thesis” to be “that Medicare should indeed provide essentially unlimited coverage for Palin’s child as well as her parents.” Next comes a lengthy lecture on Ronald Reagan & the free market, which is all well & good—except for the fact that it’s a complete non-sequitur. Palin’s “central thesis” exists only in Mulshine’s imagination. As would be obvious to anyone with an IQ above that of a toaster, she was discussing what she thought would happen under a government-run, single payer healthcare system—y’know, when nobody but the government is there to cover anyone?
Not once does Palin indicate she believes paid healthcare for all is a right. In fact, let’s turn Mulshine’s challenge to Palin supporters to “find the slightest indication on her Facebook pages that Palin realizes she is responsible for paying for her children’s health care” around on him—prove your assertion that she doesn’t, Paul. Oh, and this time, remember to show your work.
More examples of Mulshine’s crappy reading skills can be found in his observation that Palin “seems to be assuming that [baby Trig’s] care comes under the Medicare law,” despite the fact that Palin never mentions Medicare or Trig’s current healthcare; and this gem: “Unless I miss the plain meaning of her words, Palin is arguing that it is evil for the taxpayers to deny anyone any coverage ‘to reduce the growth in health care spending,’ as she put it in a later post.” But if you read the post he’s referencing, you’ll see that phrase isn’t Palin’s at all—she’s quoting the “stated purpose” of HR 3200, Section 1233, in the process of analyzing what the legislation says. Brother, you’ve missed the plain meaning of all her words.
This article did make me ask questions, though. Questions like, how could a self-described conservative author such a train wreck? And then I saw the bottom of the page, where Mulshine approvingly links to a Ron Paul video. Ah. Now I see…
It’s a good thing Paul Mulshine’s “Pre-emptive Moron Perspective Alert” to his commenters doesn’t come until the end of his article. Any higher and it would have disqualified his own commentary.
PS: Andy McCarthy, Thomas Sowell and Mark Steyn think Sarah Palin was right to warn America about the prospect of “death panels,” and even a couple liberal, pro-Obama advocates of nationalized healthcare have conceded there’s cause for concern with the current legislation.