Parabolic Healthcare Bliss

   Many have referred to Obama’s current approval ratings as his "honeymoon", which is soon to be over. Right now, we are in the throes of the honeymoon for the new Obamacare, according to blogster Daniel Foster. His argument is that just as the $887 billion stimulus bill initiated last year peaked and then tanked, Obamacare will enjoy this approval for a short while, then people will begin to realize the pitfalls, and ratings will drop. "A January 2010 CNN poll showed approval of the stimulus at 42 percent, down 18 points from its high the previous February", states Mr. Foster in his blog roll.

   Here, the intended audience is, well, you me, and Dupree! I really feel that Mr. Foster missed the target. I only chose his article because he was making a clear statement (approval for Obamacare will eventually drop off) and because his opinion is about something meaningful and current. Would I have bothered to finish his article if it were not for the sake of this assignment? Doubtful. His writing is bland, and chalk-full of statistics- none of the data presented are very surprising or eye-opening.

   As far as credibility goes, there isn't too much to be said. He doesn’t appear to have a degree in political science, and is writing for National Review Online, not his own blog. Also, the archives for his name show that he has only been writing with them for a few months. Otherwise, he has twitter and not much else to offer. Maybe he missed the target audience because of a lack of experience. Like I said before, his ideas are coherent and clear, if not a little boring. Maybe he just needs more time to develop as a writer.

   Finally, the actual argument made by Daniel Foster is truthfully a sound one. A lot of politics in America can be said to behave in a sinusoidal manner, or hyperbolically- however one thinks of it, it is said to fluctuate. So, of course, the argument can be made that any new political information that doesn't go down in flames immediately following take-off will soar for a short while, then ratings will drop as people lose interest and have time to see the flaws in the given political "thing". The evidence by Mr. Foster presentedin support of these findings is, again, not shocking, but is by all means accurate. Mr. Foster references both the Gallup poll and the more right-wing Rasmussen poll. He also references the Quinnipiac rating in one instance.

   The logic here is solid. In America, it’s very obvious that the laws of gravity always prevail when the helium runs out. Things that are just plain stupid usually never gain enough popularity to cause any major change, while things that are stupid, but appear to be good ideas (like Obamacare), take off flying out of the gate as the front-horse, but then stumble at some point and fall back with all the rest of the ideas that people don't like. For now, Obamacare is enjoying some fame and high ratings. But soon, to be sure, people will open their eyes and see that it is a flawed idea, and approval will fall again, just like the approval ratings of last year's stimulus started high then stooped. At that point, will it even matter that no one like the idea anymore?