Two stories lead the New York Times this morning. One gives notice that the Justice Department won’t be turning over internal memos revealing its lawyers’ on-again off-again opposition to the warrantless wiretaps and the theory of executive authority that went with them. The other tells us that the House just voted—in accord with the Senate and a promised signature by Bush—to cut “spending on health and education programs.” Said cuts include some items that might not be so bad. They also include “a freeze in payments to home health care providers” and “increasing co-payments and reducing payments for prescription drugs” for Medicaid recipients.
The average consumer (and producer) of the blogosphere can safely be predicted to care much more about the first story than the second. One story potentially affects people with time on their hands and a penchant for political dissent. The other affects the kind of person who will finally have to give up his own apartment and become an inmate in a nursing home, or who will now have to choose between treating her diabetes and buying enough peanut butter for her toddler’s lunch.
My opinion that Democrats should try to run on health care more than spying is mostly political. But it’s not just political. From those to whom much political information is given, much is expected.