Rick Crawford wants my dad's support

My father recently received an email from Arkansas Rep. Rick Crawford.

As the Supreme Court hears arguments about the constitutionality of Obamacare’s individual mandate, I wanted to make clear that I favor a full scale repeal of the President’s healthcare law.

Obamacare took $575 billion from the Medicare Trust Fund to pay for the costly government takeover of healthcare. Robbing the Medicare Trust Fund to pay for Obamacare is bad policy and it will keep seniors from getting the medical care they need. Obamacare must be replaced with a reform that will make healthcare more accessible and affordable.

Click the above video player to hear Congressman Crawford’s thoughts on Obamacare.

My father sent him an email back.

Your  lame tactic of attacking an act legally passed by our duly elected legislators by applying a denigrating label – Obamacare – instead of by its appropriate title – Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act – is a signpost pointing to either abysmal ignorance or a penchant for stooping to any level, and I am having a hard time deciding which.  Can you help me figure that out?  Thank you.

Also, since the Supreme Court is supposedly above political  input and is deciding purely on the constitutionality of various parts of the Act, what possible significance does your approval or disapproval have?  This e-mail sounds like a pathetic attempt to score points with the gullible and ignorant far right wingers who don’t realize your disapproval as far as the SCOTUS goes is totally irrelevant.

John Eberhard

I love my dad.

On the other hand you, Rick Crawford, have been a very bad boy.  You either don’t know the basics of the way the system works, which means you’re unfit for your job, or you’re aware that your displeasure lacks the power to change anything and you’re willing to mislead your constituents while counting on them to be ignorant (which says a lot about what you think of them), in which case you’re unfit for your job.

Of course, his Republican base won’t mind that he’s dishonest and insulting to them.  They will only care that the word “Republican” has become synonymous with “loves Jesus”.

About JT Eberhard

When not defending the planet from inevitable apocalypse at the rotting hands of the undead, JT is a writer and public speaker about atheism, gay rights, and more. He spent two and a half years with the Secular Student Alliance as their first high school organizer. During that time he built the SSA’s high school program and oversaw the development of groups nationwide. JT is also the co-founder of the popular Skepticon conference and served as the events lead organizer during its first three years.

  • mck9

    With all due respect to your dad, I think he was a bit off the mark this time (assuming that you have quoted the entire text of Crawford’s email).

    Granted, a legislator’s preferences should have no bearing on how the Supreme Court will rule.

    However, Crawford doesn’t actually say how we wants the Supreme Court to rule. He says he favors repeal. A repeal is a legislative act, and it very much matters what a legislator thinks on the subject.

    It’s not quite fair to ridicule Crawford for saying something he didn’t actually say. I’m sure there’s plenty of other criticisms that would be fair game.

    • http://spaninquis.wordpress.com/ Spanish Inquisitor

      I’m more interested in knowing whether he’s right about A) Medicare Trust Funds being raided to pay for health care, and B) whether that actually means something. Maybe it’s designed to do that and it’s to the advantage of the recipients of health care to do so. I really don’t know enough about it to say.

      In that sense, I like JT’s father’s response.

      • eddie

        Wait, what?1

        You’re worried that government(taxpayer)-funded healthcare funds might be used for government(taxpayer)-funded healthcare?

        • http://spaninquis.wordpress.com/ Spanish Inquisitor

          Exactly. Doesn’t sound like a big deal to me. But Crawford thinks it makes a great bogeyman.

  • Aquaria

    However, Crawford doesn’t actually say how we wants the Supreme Court to rule. He says he favors repeal.

    You’re assuming Crawford knows the difference.

    I wouldn’t count on that if I were you.

    A repeal is a legislative act, and it very much matters what a legislator thinks on the subject.

    It matters when one of these nitwits gets off his ass and writes up the legislation repealing it and gets it to to a President’s desk. Until then, it’s perfectly fine to attack this piece of shit for trying to stir up gullible rightwing nitwits.

    • mck9


      However, Crawford doesn’t actually say how we wants the Supreme Court to rule. He says he favors repeal.

      You’re assuming Crawford knows the difference.

      I wouldn’t count on that if I were you.

      I’m not counting on it.

      He may really not know the difference. If he does know the difference, he may counting on his constituents not to know the difference. Or he may just be sloppy in his wording.

      However I’m not willing to count on the assumption that he doesn’t know the difference.

      That’s what you have to do if you want to make fun of him for saying something that he didn’t say. When he said A, he must have really meant B, because B is stupider.

  • Mriana

    Two thumbs up to your father, JT! Too bad he’s not here in MO, maybe he could take Blunt-head and Silly Shortmind (Billy Long) down. They really don’t give a crap about women.

  • amyc

    Can I have your parents? Mine would have fallen for this tripe.

    I remember a few years back my mom and step-dad got a “survey” from the Republican Party (they are registered Republicans). They showed it to me in hopes that I would recognize that the Republican Party actually cares about what its constituents think about the issues.

    I went through the entire survey and deconstructed each question to show how biased the survey was. I ended by saying that if I had turned that same survey in as my project in my stats class I would have failed for not understanding how write an unbiased survey (or I would have passes with flying colors for understanding all too well how to write questions to skew the respondents’ answers, it depends on how cynical my professor was willing to be).

  • dogmeat

    One thing, you have to be careful with the “Obamacare took…” meme, it isn’t quite accurate and is often used to scare people into opposing the affordable health care act (it’ll kill grandma, it’s rationing, etc.)

    Politifact does an analysis of the “raiding Medicare” claim:


    It ends up being about half correct, but even then it is misstating what is happening, including savings as cuts, ignoring expansion of funding, etc. The better program would have been Medicare for all, but the least they could do would be to actually attack the law for what it does.