I have intentionally stayed away from all the furor over this post on the Whitehouse.gov blog (my emphasis):

There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life care. These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation. Since we can’t keep track of all of them here at the White House, we’re asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov.

The good half of the blogosphere appears, unfortunately, to have lost its senses over this post. Many bloggers I like and read regularly have mischaracterized this, not out of malice, but because they expect the worst from Obama (and really, who could blame them) and read the post through that prism. Some examples:

• Carol’s Closet calls it the “Obama Administration’s ‘Rat Out Your Neighbor Program.’”
• Michelle Malkin calls the initiative the “Internet Snitch Brigade.”
• Gateway Pundit called it the “Marxist Snitch Brigade.”
• Dan Collins wrote that “the White House has put out a call for narc minions to let them know about you, should you let it drop, even in casual conversation, that you oppose Nationalized Health Care.”
• Donald Douglas calls it “creepy.”
• Jeff Emanuel at RedState put a flashing emergency light at the top of his post labeling the white house.gov post a “call for informants” and exclaiming that “If you see anybody publicly opposing President Obama’s plan to implement a government-centric overhaul of the health care system, the White House wants you to report that person (or persons) ASAP.”
• Pundette called the whitehouse.gov post “truly astonishing“
• Even The Corner got it wrong, saying that the post was “asking people to rat out anyone expressing an opinion that the White House would classify as ‘fishy.’

And on and on and on and on. I like you guys, but you’re all wrong. The White house’s post says nothing about reporting your neighbors and everything about reporting what arguments are being made against the health care proposal. This is nothing more than the administration looking for help in what arguments may be circulating against its policies so that it can react to those arguments. (Why the administration of a president so touted for his organizational internet savvy needs help is another question.) UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh puts it quite correctly, I think:

In this instance, it strikes me that the terms “snitch” and “rat” are entirely misplaced (even allowing for some facetiousness on the poster’s part), as is the criticism of the government. The Administration is trying to promote a particular political agenda. They are naturally and reasonably interested in hearing what the arguments against it are, and doubtless sincerely believe that many of the arguments may be unsound or even factually false. They want to rebut such arguments, but they can’t do so promptly unless they hear about it promptly.

There’s nothing totalitarian about asking supporters to gather this information. And there’s nothing morally contemptible (as the terms “snitch” and “rat” suggest) in passing along this information, if you genuinely think that the information is misleading.

JammieWearingFool started out hysterical, then quoted the Volokh piece, but  he either missed the point or was writing tongue in cheek when he wrote that Professor Volokh “seems to believe I’m [JWF] about to be carted off by the Stormtroopers.” What Volokh wrote was:

Now of course if you think that the Administration would prosecute your friend for e-mailing you supposed “disinformation about health insurance reform,” then indeed you shouldn’t help the Administration do it. But, seriously, is that really likely?

I don’t see how JWF got that turned around.

Anyway, what is far more disturbing to me than the administrations “fishy” list — besides the obvious “what if Bush had done it?” double standard — is that the White house automatically classifies counterarguments as “disinformation” while it spews shit like an open sewer pipe. Which brings me back to The Corner, which redeems its hysteria earlier in its post with what I think is the best suggestion to come out of this mess:

The White House asked for a truth squad, so it seems to me that conservatives should submit any “fishy” statements from administration officials to flag@whitehouse.gov. But don’t expect any retractions anytime soon.

Just right!

UPDATE (8/7/09): Donald Douglas of American Power doubles down in a response to Washington Monthly’s Steve Bennen. First, Bennen:

It’s a shame yet another conspiracy theory reached the White House briefing room. ABC News’ Jake Tapper reports this afternoon:

Asked about Cornyn’s letter on Thursday afternoon, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said, “nobody is collecting names.”

The blog and tips email was because, Gibbs said, “we have seen, and as I’ve discussed from this podium, a lot of misinformation around health care reform. Some of it I think spread purposely. We have used on many occasions the Web site to debunk things that are simply not true. We ask people if they have questions about health care reform and about what they’re hearing about its affects on them, to let us know and we’d provide them information to show that that wasn’t true.”

Continued Gibbs: “but nobody is collecting names.”

Well, no, of course not. The very idea that the White House would be “collecting names” is about as legitimate as the idea that the president is a not a natural-born citizen. As nutty Republican conspiracy theories go, this was even more headache-inducing than most.

To which Douglas responds:

Hey, Benen, duh, THE OBAMACRATS PUT OUT THE CALL FOR NAMES, AND THEY POSTED A WHITE HOUSE E-MAIL ADDRESS SO OBAMALINGS COULD NAME NAMES!! THEY’RE GOING TO DO SOMETHING WITH NAMES!!

Don, where do you see that? You are inferring an awful lot. I’m with Douglas that I wouldn’t put it past the government, especially any Democratic administration (because they routinely attribute domestic policy positions of the other side to greed and evil) to gather names and harass its opponents. But the White House blog post didn’t ask for names. Period.

Now, if the administration does actively solicit names in this effort, I’ll reconsider my position. But Douglas (and I don’t mean to pick on him here, he’s one of many) simply assumes it is already going on.

My fight disagreement with my conservative colleagues has never been over what the administration is doing or is capable of doing, but if what the White House blog post said. Like a contract, I suppose, the parties’ conduct in performance can be used to interpret its terms. If that conduct tends to prove the administration meant the post as nefariously as my colleagues on the right seem to think, you’ll find me screaming as loudly as anyone.