Peter offers what is, in my not so humble opinion (an opinion, however, shared by folks a lot smarter than anyone in this modest forum), a wrong-headed, cynical, erroneous, cruel and unfair stereotyping response which besmirches those he considers on "the other side," paints an extremist view of what has gone on (I guess he doesn't believe that any of the precautions saved any lives or prevented any suffering) and imparts the worst motives to everyone, including the nation's scientific and medical experts and accuses - without even examples - Democrats of stealing the nation's resources.
I can only guess that he preferred the previous "response," which was:
1. denial that there was a virus
2. declaring that stupid "cures" or warm weather would solve the problem
3. ignoring the mounting death toll
4. encouraging behavior said to be dangerous even by his own people
5. failing to put any kind of national response in order
6. failure to fully use the Defense Production act
7. continually lying, even about his own encounter with the virus.
Credit? I suppose there is some. He said to the pharmaceutical companies: "Hey. Go find a vaccine. When you do we'll buy it." Whoo hoo.
But then came the distraction for the "thing" closest to his agenda - re-election. And concern for the virus and its victims fell far below that.
We are, today, on the way to a much better situation than we had (or would have achieved) in the last 12 months. We have leadership against the pandemic from the top, we have concern from the top for those who have died, we have specifics action to see that the vaccines get to everyone. We have economic and financial actions to help those who have lost jobs and businesses, those whose jobs may be slow to return, and families strapped by additional child care or expense.
Yeah, in one way, that is funded by "my" money. I approve.
Peter doesn't. But his "side" lost. (Oh, wait!, he thinks his side didn't lose.)
Good grief.
Peter, do you intend to be vaccinated?