Gov. Palin, that impulsive rabble rouser (or so the media would have us believe), recently took the lead on urging health care protestors to remain sensible and respectful:
A few days after suggesting that Democratic health care proposals being debated in Washington may imperil the life of her son, Trig, Sarah Palin on Sunday urged reform opponents to not give the opposition fodder by disrupting town halls.
Palin’s comments, posted on her Facebook page, come after weeks of raucous town halls in which conservatives have shouted down members of Congress.
“There are many disturbing details in the current bill that Washington is trying to rush through Congress, but we must stick to a discussion of the issues and not get sidetracked by tactics that can be accused of leading to intimidation or harassment,” Palin wrote. “Such tactics diminish our nation’s civil discourse which we need now more than ever because the fine print in this outrageous health care proposal must be understood clearly and not get lost in conscientious voters’ passion to want to make elected officials hear what we are saying. Let’s not give the proponents of nationalized health care any reason to criticize us.”
Sarah’s instructions make sense, as Dems and the media will harness every opportunity they get to paint the protesters as “manufactured and organized by right-wing groups looking to tear down President Obama and his agenda”.
Chris Cillizza has written a nice article on likely candidates for appointment to Mel Martinez’s Senate Seat. The individuals he named: Jim Smith, former Florida Secretary of State and Attorney General, Bob Martinez, former FL Governor, Allan Bense, former FL House Speaker, George Lemieux, Crist’s chief of staff during his tenure as state AG, and Jeb Bush. Interesting point to note: two of the mentioned candidates – Smith and Martinez – switched parties in the 80s. I agree with Matthew Miller – that appointing Jeb would provide Crist with the greatest possible gain from the situation – as long as Jeb agrees to not run for a full term for the seat (something Jeb apparently does not want to do).
And lastly, today Hugh Hewitt penned an article for Politico, in which he ruminates on the possibility of Obama choosing another running mate in 2012 (thanks to Biden’s loose lips) and how possible replacements for Biden could affect their attractiveness with their performance in the health care debate. Some key excerpts:
The obvious trade of Slow Joe for Hillary will be endlessly analyzed as the months go by, but there’s still no love lost between the organizations, and even if the big switch worked November magic, the 2016 campaign would begin the day after the president’s reelection, undermining his agenda and effectiveness in the traditionally difficult second term.
Governors and former governors like Tim Kaine, Kathleen Sebelius and Janet Napolitano who have joined the administration may offer easy choices if their success is widely recognized, but their electoral pull in a particular state will be less than any sitting elected official, and, of course
, members of the administration won’t be able to bring to the 2012 ticket any promise of new initiative or new perspective.
The biggest pop would come by the addition of a very visible, charismatic centrist Democrat who will be able to argue that a second Obama term will be defined by a move back to the center and the delivery of the much-promised bipartisan approach that has obviously been thrown overboard in the first six months of the Obama presidency.
Which brings us to the most interesting question of all: If you are a Democratic senator or governor nursing the dream of being asked to replace Slow Joe on the ticket in three years, do you vote for Obamacare or work for its passage if you don’t have a vote?
Or do you cast a no vote, take some heat, but put down a serious marker that distinguishes you as someone who saw it coming and tried to help the president by preventing the passage of the bill that became a political burden of enormous weight?
If you are Evan Bayh, for example, or Michael Bennet, from key states Indiana and Colorado, respectively, and both facing campaigns in 2010, does a “no” vote on Obamacare help not only your current campaign but also your positioning for the big audition? If you are North Carolina’s Kay Hagan, sitting in another potential swing state but also one that just won’t care for Obamacare, doesn’t a “no” vote now pay certain dividends when reelection rolls around in 2014 and perhaps make you a very interesting Joe replacement in 2012?
Obamacare is splitting the Democratic Party before our eyes, but the most interesting ramifications from September’s votes won’t be who isn’t invited to the White House in late 2009 but who is invited in 2012. The short-term pain of a “no” vote now could bring independent Democrats valuable political capital for years to come.
I believe we are losing the war in Afghanistan. As I previously reported, US and NATO casualty rates are skyrocketing, Al-Qaeda and the Pashtun warriors are becoming more aggressive in their attacks against NATO and Pakistani forces and we are now targeting poppy fields, to cut the military funding of our enemy. Obama and Democrats are not seeking a military victory and seem willing to sacrifice the lives of our best and brightest until they have determined a politically acceptable strategy. Like the Korean war, our leadership is focusing on containing the enemy, instead of defeating them or determining a passage to peace. In fact, I harbor the notion that our President has no idea what to do with the Afghan war. Displaying his inexperience, Obama may just be hoping that events work themselves out?
Today, top U.S. commander in Afghanistan acknowledged that the Taliban has gained the upper hand on US forces.
Describing the Taliban as “a very aggressive enemy,” McChrystal said that the Taliban militants are operating beyond their traditional strongholds while mounting sophisticated attacks, which caused significant U.S. fatalities.
Fighting a ‘just’ war is not an immoral activity, but sending soldiers to their death, without a clear strategic vision or for the purpose of geographic containment, is an ethically criminal act.
If President Obama and the Democrats lack a blueprint or the willingness for victory, then withdraw the troops, absorb the political fall-out and hand the towns and villages back over to Osama bin Laden. This may be the wrong path to take, but at least it is one we offer our young men and women who are suffering for our security.
____________________________________
Kristofer Lorelli can be contacted at lorville@rogers.com, on Facebook and twitter/Kris_Lorelli.
Rasmussen Survey on Health Care
Do you favor or oppose a single payer health care system where the federal government provides coverage for everyone?
- Favor 32%
- Oppose 57%
Would a single payer healthcare system lead to higher healthcare costs, lower healthcare costs or would costs remain about the same?
- Higher 45%
- Lower 24%
- About the same 19%
Would a single payer healthcare system lead to higher quality healthcare, lower quality healthcare or would the quality of healthcare remain about the same?
- Higher 13%
- Lower 52%
- About the same 27%
When it comes to healthcare decisions who do you fear most: the federal government or private insurance companies?
- Federal Government 51%
- Private Insurance Companies 41%
Survey of 1,000 Likely Voters was conducted August 7-8. The margin of error is +/- 3 percentage points.
Inside the numbers:
There’s wide political disagreement over the single-payer issue. Sixty-two percent (62%) of Democrats favor a single-payer system, but 87% of Republicans are opposed to one. As for those not affiliated with either major party, 22% favor a single-payer approach while 63% are opposed. Investors oppose a single-payer system by a three-to-one margin. However, a narrow plurality of non-investors favor such a plan.
Among those who have insurance, 53% fear the government more than insurance companies while 39% take the opposite view. Those without insurance fear the insurance companies more.
Adults under 30 fear the insurance companies more while those in their 40s are evenly divided. However, a solid majority of those over 40 fear the government more.
Not surprisingly, there is a huge partisan divide on this question. Sixty-seven percent (67%) of Democrats fear private insurance companies more than government while 82% of Republicans hold the opposite view. As for those not affiliated with either major party, 53% fear government more.
Most of those who attend church at least once a month fear the government more. Those who rarely or never attend church or religious services fear private insurance companies more.
It’s very easy to disguise a medical program as a humanitarian project. Most people are a little reluctant to oppose anything that suggests medical care for people who possibly can’t afford it.
____________________________________
Kristofer Lorelli can be contacted at lorville@rogers.com, on Facebook and twitter/Kris_Lorelli.
Rejoice, Republicans! Day after day, the Democrats in power are doing the GOP – lately so discouraged and woebegone! - favor after favor, whole heaps of good.
With their unwieldy unread bills designed to transform the land of the free into a land of whimpering dependents; their budgets putting generations to come into unimaginable debt; their irrational refusal to use the country’s own natural resources to supply the energy the nation needs; their monstrous arrogance in refusing to listen to criticism from the voters; their Stasi-like attempt to turn citizens into snitches – all this is rousing the wrath of the people against Obama and his party. What a moment for the GOP to seize!
This should be the tide in the affairs of Republicans which, taken at the flood, leads on to fortune.
But division within the party threatens to waste the moment. It is along the old lines between economic and cultural conservatives, but certain issues have come newly to the fore, chiefly the teaching of creationism as science in the public schools and the clamor for proof that the president was born in the USA. The mainstream media – those voluntary disseminators of Democratic propaganda – are crowing with Schadenfreude over the heated arguments going on within Republican ranks.
With the talking points they raise, the leftists are trying to make a connection between the religious-fundamentalism of some conservatives and what they choose to regard as incitement to murder by anti-abortion groups (in the wake of the Tiller murder). They go even further and suggest that voices on the right, on talk radio and TV, are deliberately creating a climate of hate in order to incite violence (as Clinton did in the wake of the Oklahoma bombing, when he blamed ‘loud and angry’ voices and was widely understood to mean Rush Limbaugh in particular.) A picture is painted by the left of a GOP that is falling into barbarism under the baleful influence of its religious wing. And the pity of it is that some Republicans are beginning to believe this propaganda and call for denunciations – even expulsions – of GOP leaders who support or do not emphatically denounce their religious constituents, and the ’birthers’, and the most effective conservative radio and TV hosts such as Rush Limbaugh and Glen Beck.
What do they hope to gain by such appeasement? All they are doing is allowing the left to define the Republican Party.
It is likely that every potential Republican leader will be asked these questions by the MSM: Do you believe in creationism? Do you believe Obama was born in the USA? Do you believe that abortionists are murderers? And depending on their answers – so the left hopes – they must either alienate their constituencies and so lose voters, or prove themselves to be bigots.
So the GOP had better prepare itself for this mode of attack. Its leaders must not allow themselves to be sidetracked away from what really matters.
And what is that?
What is taught in the schools, and the strict observance of constitutional legality (even when it is being invoked over a lost cause by the ‘birthers’), and the evils of abortion are far from being trivial issues. But they are subordinate to the most essential tenets of Republicanism.
When the Republican Party was formed in 1854 it was in order to take a stand on a great issue: opposition to slavery. The founding members not only opposed slavery in principle, they believed that in practice a free labor market promotes prosperity far better than slavery can. Today the Republican Party must continue to stand for the great principles: free-market capitalism, strong defense, small government, individual freedom, and the rights of the States. These are the issues that matter most.
If some Republicans think that they can acquire ‘more enlightened’ members from the political centre by repudiating a mass of their present ‘less enlightened’ culturally conservative members, they are deluding themselves. Those cultural conservatives, by instinct if not by education, unwaveringly want to keep government out of their lives. This alone makes them a huge asset to the GOP. And the Party is surely broad enough to accommodate their differences of opinion on the subordinate issues. The question of whether creationism should be taught in science classes does not need to be dealt with at the federal level. A proliferation of creationist school boards will not do anything like the damage that a central government can do – and is intent on doing – by interfering in all aspects of life. Local foolishness is better than national idiocy.
In any case, it isn’t hard to tolerate creationism, even if it is taught in some science classes. Parents can contradict any teaching they don’t agree with. They can school their kids at home with the help of the internet, or choose private education, or move to a different school district. Besides, the harm done by creationist teachers can only be tiny in comparison with the harm being done by the dominant left ideologues in the teaching of all subjects throughout the whole of the United States.
Generations of children are being taught by socialist teachers to look to government to solve all of life’s problems. Individualism and whatever stems from it – most significantly entrepreneurship and innovation – are systematically discouraged. These are the educational ills that need to be cured, not some southern ‘science’ teacher’s insistence that the world as we know it came into existence a few thousand years ago. Real science will triumph where it matters. Its products, especially its technological progeny, are used daily by everyone.
The GOP should positively welcome dissenters as long as they agree on its great principles, as creationists and ‘birthers’ do. Dissenters are by definition independent-minded. Self-supporting religious fundamentalist families, however ‘cranky’ they may seem to the majority, are doing more to uphold the principle of independence by working and supporting their families than many a pragmatic Republican who accepted ‘compassionate conservatism’ and an enlargement of the welfare state in the vain hope of wooing left-leaning voters. Let the GOP hold on to its muddled masses as long as they are yearning to be free.
Jillian Becker is editor-in-chief of The Atheist Conservative
As I was ruminating on politics this evening following another riveting episode of the HBO original series True Blood, it dawned upon me that there are a lot of similarities between the first year of George W. Bush’s second term and the first year of Barack Obama’s first term as president. Both men misinterpreted the mandate that they had received from the voters and attempted to enact a major policy reform relying only on support from their own party and their own ideological base. In both cases, the reform failed and support for the president and his party began to erode among the voters in the vast American Center.
In Bush’s case, it was Social Security reform that began the unraveling of his presidency. While it’s clear that the current Social Security system is unsustainable due to longer life-spans and declining birth rates, President Bush squandered the political capital from his re-election on a plan that was unable to attain majority support due to its overtly ideological design and half-hearted attempts at cost-control. The centerpiece of Social Security reform was the attempt to reorganize the system into private accounts which individuals would own and would have the ability to invest as they saw fit. This plan does have a utilitarian aspect given that private retirement accounts such as the 401(k) tend to leave retirees much fatter and happier in their golden years than does the Social Security system. But the plan was ultimately ideological inasmuch as conservatives have always opposed the communitarian aspect of Social Security. There’s nothing inherently wrong with that philosophy — heck, I consider myself a strong individualist — but the problem with too much ideology is that it often inhibits compromise and pragmatism. Americans feared the consequences of chipping away too much at the sure thing of a guaranteed Social Security check upon retirement, and the Bush Administration also made no effort to explain how it was going to pay for the transition from the current system to private accounts, claiming that future growth would make up the difference. Americans have heard that too many times from both parties, yielding a Republican congressional majority that was unable to pass any legislation on the issue.
Now, it’s Barack Obama who is trying to enact an ideological, half-hearted reform of a major component of American life. The centerpiece of ObamaCare is the public option, which every honest Democrat has admitted is a path to single-payer and which would ultimately drive the private health insurance industry out of business and lead to the same lack of innovation and health care rationing that goes on in every other country that has adopted such a system. Now there is a utilitarian aspect to this legislation, as many Americans are uninsurable in the individual market, and as a dynamic economy continues to make employer-based insurance obsolete, some sort of consumer-based risk pool is definitely needed. But the primary motivator behind the government plan is ideology — Pelosi and Waxman and the rest have wanted single-payer for decades and they finally sense the chance to get it. Americans, however, correctly intuit that such a plan will reduce quality of care and the Obama Administration has made no effort to explain how all of this won’t lead to skyrocketing costs. Americans have heard all of this before, yielding a Democratic congressional majority unable to pass legislation on the issue.
If President Bush had accepted a modified version of his Social Security reform plan, perhaps giving individuals the option of investing their money in a few, very conservative, very safe areas of the private sector, and had agreed to pay for it by putting the Social Security trust fund in a lock box, changing the way benefits are indexed for new retirees, raising the retirement age for young workers, and raising the cap on income that is subject to Social Security taxation, Social Security would have been saved and more and more Americans would now be investors. Similarly, if President Obama had made a Romney-esque deal with insurers in which they agreed to insure all Americans, even the sick ones, provided that all Americans were required to purchase insurance, even the healthy ones, and had made it easier for professional associations to pool risk among their members to help replace employer-based insurance, and had coupled all of this with cost-cutting measures, perhaps we would be on the road to universal access to health care that would also become more affordable too without losing innovation or quality. In both cases, however, ideology trumped reality. As it often does.
And that brings me to Bill Clinton and Tim Pawlenty. One of the most fascinating aspects of American politics over the past two decades involved the Democrats becoming the supposed party of fiscal responsibility and sanity. After Obama, this may change, and Bush certainly gave the Dems lots of ammo, but it was Bill Clinton who pulled off this coup in the 1990s when he both raised taxes and slowed the growth of government, leading to deficit reduction while continuing to fund the big, important programs that everyone supports. The Left likes tax increases, the Center likes deficit-reduction, and both like the big domestic programs that the government spends money on. By doing this, Bill Clinton created a center-left majority on fiscal issues that Republicans have never quite recovered from, especially in the Northeast, where lots of flinty voters used to vote GOP just to protect their pocketbooks (and many of them still do at the state level, hence the GOP governors who still populate the region).
All of this leads me to believe that Tim Pawlenty could be the Republican Bill Clinton, in the sense that T-Paw could co-opt the Democrats’ biggest issue just as Clinton co-opted what was once one of the biggest Republican selling points. Pawlenty’s rhetoric on health care has been downright brilliant. His articulation of health care as a three-legged stool, consisting of quality, cost, and access, was pure political gold. And when he framed the issue as one between the forward-thinkers like himself and the Democrats who were stuck in the 1970s, he had me all but convinced that he could run circles around Barack Obama in a debate on the issue. Pawlenty has articulated a policy of market-driven efforts to bring down costs, which is what the Right wants, along with mandates on insurers that would yield greater access, which is what the Center wants. And of course everyone wants high-quality health care, which is why Pawlenty’s three-legged stool on health care is a perfect mechanism to create a center-right majority on health care and steal the issue from Democrats, just as Democrats stole fiscal issues from the Republicans.
Like the Bush Administration, the Obama White House has thus far demonstrated that getting the base excited during the campaign season is no indicator of ability to govern. Perhaps the outgoing Minnesota governor will be able to capitalize on his proximity to Iowa and his natural fit for the state of New Hampshire to propel himself to the GOP nomination in 2012, giving him a Clinton-style opportunity to move his party and the country forward on a substantive basis, much to the chagrin of those on both sides who prefer red meat and endless bickering to actual solutions.
Much has been made of Sarah Palin’s recent Facebook comments about the President’s health care plans. The passage most in question reads as follows (italics mine):
The Democrats promise that a government health care system will reduce the cost of health care, but as the economist Thomas Sowell has pointed out, government health care will not reduce the cost; it will simply refuse to pay the cost. And who will suffer the most when they ration care? The sick, the elderly, and the disabled, of course. The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama’s “death panel” so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their “level of productivity in society,” whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil.
Now, opponents are breathlessly pointing out that the current health care bill contains no explicit references to “death panels”. However, if you both read the bill and watch the Michelle Bachmann speech which was actually the main subject of Gov. Palin’s Facebook message, there is nothing even remotely strange about what Palin said.
For one, Gov. Palin’s spokewoman pointed out the passage of the bill (H.R. 3200) that was referenced, and there is in fact coverage for “advance care planning”, which involves “explanation by the practitioner of advance directives, including living wills and durable powers of attorney, and their uses,” and “explanation by the practitioner of the role and responsibilities of a health care proxy.”
Does this explicitly say, “we’re going to advise you to slit your wrists.” Heck no. However, there are no explicit controls on what can’t be advised in these consultations. So, there it could be technically allowed for whoever is doing these consultations to advise grandma that it would be better for society if she made an early appointment with St. Peter.
Now, I will be the first to admit that - in a vacuum - everything I said in the previous paragraph is somewhat alarmist. However, we do not exist in a vacuum, and nor were Gov. Palin’s comments made in a vacuum. Instead, she was referencing a speech by Rep. Michelle Bachmann (R-MN).
Bachmann was talking about two specific points:
First, she noted that Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, a key health adviser in the Obama administration and the brother of White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, has indeed supported denying care to the elderly and disabled as a way of redirecting care to more able-bodied members of society.
Second, she pointed out that the administration is working to remove congressional supervision of Medicare and place it under the direction of panels in the executive branch (like the one on which Dr. Emanuel serves).
I would also pause to note that many conservatives like myself believe that increased government involvement in the health industry will eventually and inevitably lead to the rationing of health care – resulting the redirection of care away from the elderly and disabled.
So, if you combine the apparently harmless provision in H.R. 3200 with the removal of congressional Medicare oversight and the fact that powerful health care advisers in the administration are cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs – well, it is not at all hard to envision the evolution of “death panels” that could indeed make life difficult for little Trig Palin. In fact, while the writing is not exactly on the wall just yet, it does seem that groundwork is now being laid which will make such radical moves possible in the near future. And frankly, even if they choose not to use it, I am personally not wiling to accept a government that even theoretically has the power to ration heath care.
The left may be accusing Palin and any other critics of ”health reform” of being conspiracy theorists, but when you consider the number of high-ranking officials who seem to be wearing tin hats themselves, there is indeed reason to be a little paranoid.
Sarah Palin has a knack for bluntly picking out issues that her opponents would rather ignore out of political expediency - and that is exactly what she did by noting (rightly) that Orwellian ”death panels” are indeed one step closer to reality thanks to our friends in Washington, DC.
Gingrich, Huckabee, Palin and Romney Considered Potential Candidates
Consider this: In the first half of 2009, Mitt Romney’s political committee paid $188,000 to a small army of consultants, Newt Gingrich’s dropped $628,000 on charter flights, Mike Huckabee’s wrote staff paychecks totaling $131,000 and Sarah Palin’s spent $107,000 raising more money. All four are considered potential presidential candidates, and…….
——
Review of ’08 primary finds officials who voted in other party
On the other side of the state, Larry Mierle ran for township trustee in November as a Republican and was re-elected to the Spring Lake board. He voted for a Democrat in the presidential primary.
They both can explain their defections. But, like most of the other 1.5 million people who voted in the January 2008 primary — the one that featured John McCain vs. Mitt Romney on the GOP side and Hillary Clinton virtually uncontested on the Democratic side — they never figured they’d be asked to…..
——
There are a whopping 1189 days until the 2012 election, but you wouldn’t know it by looking at the moves of GOP presidential hopefuls. Tim Pawlenty, Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee, Sarah Palin and other Republicans looking to oust Barack Obama are already lining up staff, raising money, building networks of supporters, and helping fellow politicians as they lay the groundwork for the next battle for the White House. In fact, you have to look no further than the hottest policy issue of the moment – healthcare reform – for signs……
—–
Already signs that fix is in for 2012
If you think the Iranian election was rigged or if you are wondering how Minnesota ended up with more votes than voters in heavily Democratic areas, well, hold on to your seats, you ain’t seen nuttin’ yet.
Obama is already setting up the mechanism to ensure his victory in the 2012 presidential election. He has given $2 billion to ACORN (the organization that manages……
—–
Romney Writes Book Geared for 2012
It will read like a campaign platform, including Romney’s take on the economy, military and families, jobs, education, health care, energy and citizenship, The Times reports.
St. Martin’s hasn’t revealed how much Romney will be paid……
—–
He’s on the trail and traveling light
As he develops a political presence across the country, Pawlenty is truly traveling light. No big political group, no fundraising committee and no formal campaign organization — just what he calls an “ad hoc” band of operatives who chip in advice……
—–
____________________________________
Kristofer Lorelli can be contacted at lorville@rogers.com, on Facebook and twitter/Kris_Lorelli.
H/T: Brett Passmore
According to President Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and the liberal media, we are all members of a mob, because we support individual liberty and health care choices.
Our ’connected’ friends understand that you cannot be a member of a mob, without an appropriate mob name.
Take the test and discover your mob name;
My mob name is, Kristofer ‘The Xerox‘ Lorelli.
____________________________________________________________
Kristofer Lorelli can be contacted at lorville@rogers.com, on Facebook and twitter/Kris_Lorelli.
From The WSJ, a report on Congressional Travel:
This month, for example, 11 separate congressional delegations will swing through Germany. House Minority Leader John Boehner of Ohio is leading five other lawmakers on a trip around the world. Sen. Richard Shelby (R., Ala.) is taking a group of senators and their spouses to Europe for three weeks.
A spokesman for Mr. Boehner said he couldn’t comment on the trip for security reasons. A spokeswoman for Mr. Shelby said the same.
We have a great opportunity to score big gains in Congress in 2010 and 2012, and maybe even take back the White House, if we can show our party is the party of fiscal responsibility. So our Congressional GOP leaders are going on a trip around the world with their spouses at tax-payers’ expense. No explanation is given, “for security reasons”.
Don’t nobody in this here place know how to play this game?
Governor Huckabee Discusses Faith and Jesus.
Supporter or not, Mike Huckabee is a transparent and honest Republican leader.
____________________________________________________________
Kristofer Lorelli can be contacted at lorville@rogers.com, on Facebook and twitter/Kris_Lorelli.
ObamaCareDems put in writing what Democrats scared Seniors into fearing from Republicans for last 40 years
Recent polls even in the Age of Obama, consistent with most polls ever taken on the subject over the last century and the present one, confirm a majority, center-right nation. Yet, we find ourselves led by very liberal democrats in the White House and Congress.
Conservative seniors can now join their natural party
How is this possible? Mainly because so many naturally conservative, high voter turnout, Senior Citizens have continued to vote for the Democratic Party, despite its increasingly liberal views, thinking it could only trust Democrats to preserve their Social Security and Medicare benefits.
Since Medicare’s passage under LBJ with mostly Democrat votes, the world’s oldest political party has essentially scared our oldest citizens with the “Republicans will take yo’ check” line, into sticking with a party whose values are mostly anathema to those who ought be conservative if over 40 unless they have no brain. Of course, the 20-year olds with a heart naturally remain captive to the donkeys, but I digress.
Democratic Party’s fragile coalition severed by ObamaCare
So, despite no Republican president nor GOP majority proposed laws to take away the checks, the elderly mostly stuck with the devil they knew since the checks kept coming in. I say mostly, because the last time Democrats held the White House and super-majorities in Congress resulting in inflation so high that their checks were rendered worthless, they did turn to a fellow senior named Ronald Reagan to fix the checks, despite his conversion to the GOP. But once fixed, they reverted to their “unnatural” yet default Democratic Party.
So, we can almost understand why Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her fellow democrats remained so confident that they continue to condescend to this vital constituency group, even to the point of directly contradicting the import of a written bill that ends Medicare as we know it.
Arrogant Democratic Party leaders forgot the elderly can read
The difference this time is that, unlike lies about what Republicans might do, the present lies from their mouths are drowned out by the actual, written House bill proposed, and written exclusively by democrats.
Did I mention that the bill is written? Do elected democrats understand that the elderly are literate?
Geezer mobs outnumber Public Employee Union mobs
They do now! Witness the mobs of geezers daring to shout when their elected democrats directly contradict (see lie, prevaricate, bear false witness) with their mouths, what the geezers see, with their own Coke-bottle thick corrected lenses, on pages 421-422 of the bill.
As a former Dem Party official of 18 years before 2000, I have often referred to the ubiquitous glazed-over eyes looks in Dem Party meetings among those of us that repeated known lies to each other that justified our embrace of known failed policies, but dared not admit same lest the whole House of Cards come tumbling down. The GOP is a party primarily defined by like-minded people on values, principles and policies. The Dems are an amalgam of factions that support each other on quid pro quos.
The Dems forgot the pro quo for the old when they wrote the health care reform bill. They long ago betrayed their minority faction by throwing the black man out the house and making Uncle Sam daddy. The only faction they don’t betray are public employee union leaders. Under ObamaDem rule, John Edwards would be right. There would be two Americas: Union and non-Union. Only the unions would be exempt from ObamaCare. How many states can Democrats carry with only black and union votes? Would only D.C. and the native state of McGovern be safe?
How dare mere constituents read and comprehend what John Conyers needs two lawyers and 48 hours he doesn’t have, to understand. They understand the import of required, periodic, end of life counseling every five years after age 45; increased Hospice emphasis; “cost savings” despite 40 million new insureds and no new doctors; and more. They are especially enlightened when democrats at Town Halls like Keith Ellison (D-MN) and President Barack Obama announce the principles likely to inform the Government Board replacement for “evil” Blue Crosses and Shields, include eschewing “guilt trips” and “subjective” concerns over “objective” criteria when choosing pain meds over life-prolonging treatment for the retired.
Denials of life-prolonging treatment is not active, life-taking euthanasia, but the result is the same.
Before Obama let Pelosi write all this down, did they overestimate the votes Democrats normally get from the dead, with the loss of votes from those seniors that continue to live?
Blue Dawgs ruled by We the People this time
The conservative movement has new life. Rumors of its death were greatly exaggerated, especially when Rahm Emanuel only crafted a majority with Blue Dogs running as fiscal conservatives in districts that voted heavily for Bush and McCain.
Even when Obama himself felt the need to run to the center and to repeat the mantra that if you “like your current coverage, you can keep it.” He ran on that, and keeps repeating that, but neither he, nor the yellow and blue, dogs can hide from a bill that has no such guarantee in it.
We did cover the fact that elderly democrats can read, right?
And so, the majority of old folks that have always eschewed apologies for America to foreigners; abortion on demand; non same-sex marriage; high taxes; Jeremiah Wright; Bill Ayers; those that call cops stupid; and those that unleash pitchforks on those that dis the Godfather.
GOP new protector of Medicare could be permanent majority party
The elderly have found the true protector of their checks, and it turns out to be the folks they agree with on most all other issues. So now, than can correct the cognitive dissonence of a center-right nation reuled by liberal elites.
ObamaCare aroused the silent majority. It is silent no more. Taking away Medicare checks was bridge too far. A betrayal that will not be forgiven.
The Dems made the mistake of putting their overreach in writing, depending on blue dogs to fold before the recess. Four did fold on the committee. But five joined Republicans on that committee, and at least 36 in anonymity refused to fold on the floor.
Now, at least two blues aren’t true blues as they have gone public in Town Halls against Obama and Pelosi.
Pitchforks may work on Bank execs and corporate CEOs fearing business death, Mr. Obama. But when seniors face an earlier death sans the pitchforks, then the threat of pitchforks has no power.
We the People have the power, and blue dogs are getting the message.
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer, Examiner.com and Minority Report columns
“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson
Originally published @ Examiner.com, where all verification links may be accessed.
First off, I will forgive Matthew E. Miller for swiping my open thread idea on Friday and not try to enforce my intellectual property rights regarding same 
.
Next, a few things that have stuck out to me.
Anyway, have at!
With Mel Martinez stepping down, Charlie Crist supposedly faces a tough choice. He needs to fill the senate seat with someone who is A.) Unlikely to run, and B.) Conservative enough to fend off any Rubio criticisms. Speculation has zeroed in on the unpopular, but relatively conservative, former Governor Bob Martinez. Martinez wouldn’t be a disastrous pick for Crist, but he could do much better. If Charlie Crist had any sense he’d appoint another former Governor, Jeb Bush. The pundits seem to think that this would be a bad move because Bush is no Crist ally and doesn’t fit into the mold of a typical “placeholder”. But, this is superficial analysis at best. Jeb Bush does not want to be Florida’s Senator for the next 6 years. He declined to run initially, when he surely could have won both the primary and the general. Crist MIGHT be more popular than Jeb statewide, but he’s considerably less popular among Florida primary voters. So Jeb is deeply unlikely to try to keep the job past 2010.
A Jeb selection would accomplish two things: 1.) Secure some of Crist’s right flank. Rubio would have no ammunition to attack the pick of his former mentor and 2.) Make it considerably more difficult for Jeb to endorse Rubio. Either Jeb Bush plans to endorse Rubio, or he doesn’t. It’s hard to see how he’d be MORE likely to do so from the Senate. After all, it’s not as though his endorsement would carry any more weight from Washington. If Jeb does plan to eventually endorse Rubio, than Crist’s coup would put Jeb in a bind; decorum would argue that he stay out of the race and he is nothing if not honorable. If Jeb doesn’t plan to endorse Rubio, than it’s hard to see how Crist loses at all in the trade. He preempts a major Rubio talking point, earns some good will from Florida’s conservatives, and is seen to be putting a real player into the Senate instead of a mere crony. It makes Crist look gracious and, oddly enough, might finally make him a BIGGER figure than Bush. He’s doing the appointing, after all.
In the worst case scenario, Jeb bucks tradition and endorses Rubio. But, again, Crist wouldn’t be any worse off than if Bush had otherwise endorsed Rubio. He might be better off, because Jeb’s endorsement would seem a little unseemly after Crist’s graciousness. Why, it might be asked, would Jeb want the job though? Well, he gets to participate in important debates on the national stage without the committment that comes with a full-term. It also allows him to engage Obama directly and begin a long process of distinguishing himself from his brother. It seems like a perfect situation for a guy with Jeb’s reputed ambition. Of course, because it’s a no-brainer, I expect Crist to go in quite the opposite direction.
Peter Schiff, Senate candidate in Connecticut, has raised over $700,000 in a very brief period of time. Largely this has occurred as Ron Paul’s 2008 supporters rally around Schiff.
That’s quite a decent fundraising for a group based around a failed primary candidate with a narrow base.
Some might ignore it but I believe the Ron Paul supporters will be a force in 2012 whether Ron Paul runs or not. They’ve shown they can organize on the grassroots level and raise serious amounts of money.
I’m not sure where the Ron Paul movement came from but it appears to have staying power beyond the man himself.
Depending on your perspective this could either be the harbinger of a Lyndon LaRouche type movement in the Republican Party or it could just be a new and dynamic movement in the party.
I’m known around here — rightly! — as the resident anti-theist. I speak out against conservative Christians and Muslims on a regular basis, and get into spats regularly with commenters about whether a god exists. So because it’s probably the only nice thing I’ll say about you in this context, I dedicate this post to said commenters.
When discussing my outrage at the barbarism of Islam or the pacifism of Christianity, I’m always bombarded with a plethora of angry protests from religious moderates, who insist that “it’s all up for interpretation,” and that I shouldn’t call the Qur’an a fascist, anti-Semitic, misogynistic piece of violent literature just because it contains dozens of verses that are fascist, anti-Semitic, misogynistic and violent. (Apparently, calling the Jews descendants of apes and pigs looks much better once it’s put “into context.”)
It’s all up for interpretation, is it? So it was meant to be a cryptic document that anyone can write his own preconceptions, prejudices, and wants into? All of the great theologians and ‘prophets’ (who lived their laws) failed utterly in achieving a modicum of understanding of their respective holy books, but yet these “religious moderates,” few of whom have ever read the texts or bother to live their lives by them, feel that they have come to the ultimate understanding? Lucky for them that it lines up with their modern social ideas!
A question must be posed, though: if it’s so cryptic, so easy to misconstrue, why not just toss it? A document so ridiculously easy to distort can’t be of much use to us, right?
The truth, of course, is that this nonsense that the texts are “up for interpretation” stems from religious liberals and moderates not liking the conclusions that the texts so obviously want to bring their readers to. The Gospels are a pacifistic, ascetic, socially conservative collection. Materialists and social relativists don’t like that, so they simply deny that Jesus really meant what he plainly spoke. Muhammad was an imperialist child molester whose views are utter anathema to modernity, but fools like Karen Armstrong insist that he remains a “prophet for our time.” Don’t like what the text says? Deny that it has any meaning. Write what you want into it. See what you want to see, rather than what’s there.
Relativism seems to run through everything liberalism touches. The Constitution? Its words mean what you want them to mean. The Qur’an? Clearly, you’re interpreting it incorrectly if your conclusion about it doesn’t line up with modern ideals. Evil dictators and terrorists? One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.
The essence of liberalism is an utter failure of courage to pronounce proper judgment upon something. Religious “moderation” is nothing more than intellectual dishonesty. Those who truly live the faith are the ones we call radical. To me, that’s somewhat of a good thing: people who actually take their religion seriously are called radical. But it has implications beyond itself, and it’s not helping us fight Islamofascists.
Alex Knepper can be contacted at apkkib@aol.com
As more Americans delve into the disturbing details of the nationalized health care plan that the current administration is rushing through Congress, our collective jaw is dropping, and we’re saying not just no, but hell no!
The Democrats promise that a government health care system will reduce the cost of health care, but as the economist Thomas Sowell has pointed out, government health care will not reduce the cost; it will simply refuse to pay the cost. And who will suffer the most when they ration care? The sick, the elderly, and the disabled, of course. The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama’s “death panel” so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their “level of productivity in society,” whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil.
Health care by definition involves life and death decisions. Human rights and human dignity must be at the center of any health care discussion.
Rep. Michele Bachmann highlighted the Orwellian thinking of the president’s health care advisor, Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, the brother of the White House chief of staff, in a floor speech to the House of Representatives. I commend her for being a voice for the most precious members of our society, our children and our seniors.
We must step up and engage in this most crucial debate. Nationalizing our health care system is a point of no return for government interference in the lives of its citizens. If we go down this path, there will be no turning back. Ronald Reagan once wrote, “Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we’ll ever see on this earth.” Let’s stop and think and make our voices heard before it’s too late.
- Sarah Palin
Rep. Bachmann’s speech can be viewed here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5CHBvKGmevI
____________________________________________________________
Kristofer Lorelli can be contacted at lorville@rogers.com, on Facebook and twitter/Kris_Lorelli.
Brad Warbiany, over at The Liberty Papers, has an excellent piece on the incentives of legislators facing tough problems. Rejecting an Ezra Klein argument, he writes:
Ezra Klein is assuming that Congress wants to solve problems. To some extent, of course, I will agree with him that many in Congress want problems to be solved. But those same folks in Congress want to be re-elected. They know that making hard decisions that might solve problems (but piss off voters) doesn’t help them get re-elected. This is why they’re so scared to vote for tax increases to balance the budget….
Ezra believes that at some point Congress will be unhappy with their inability to rein in the action of the bureaucracies they created and empowered. I disagree. They have the ability to let these bureaucracies enact unpopular policies — ones the politicians believe to be necessary — while giving them plausible deniability about their own role in the matter. Sure, sometimes there’s a show trial to be had, as you see now with the Audit the Fed movement. But I don’t think that’s about actually hampering the fed** as much as it is about kowtowing to public anger at the government for letting the economy tank while they’re tossing money around to banking fat-cats.
Congress is happy to let the bureaucracies handle this….Congress has no incentive to solve problems. They have incentive to look like they’re trying to solve problems.
I’d add something else; attempting to directly solve tough problems is not only politically risky for these folks, but not necessarily all that beneficial from a policy perspective. Two very interesting things happen in direct congressional action: 1.) The decisions are placed in the hands of folks with minimal information, and 2.) All of the pressures, compromises, and incoherencies of the legislative process boil up. Conservatives are fond of beating up on bureaucracies, and I’m no exception. They interpose another layer between conception and implementation which all too often drives up costs, and they’re somewhat at odds with democracy. But, they do have at least minimal advantages. Those involved ordinarily have some knowledge of the topic and they’re at least somewhat insulated from political pressures.
Klein seems to assume, as Brad notes, that somehow these extra constitutional independent agencies are second-best policy options, which “true-reformers” merely tolerate. More likely, those in Congress recognize that when you bring together the interests of 50 sometimes wildly disparate states, and try to reconcile them through purely Democratic compromises, not only will you be likely leaving enormously complex legislation to those who don’t have the slightest idea what to do with it, but you’ll be subjecting it to the “input” of a billion different special interests.
Both the current health care bill and the cap and trade bill are key examples of this. Even liberals have derided the cap and trade bill as, at best, sub-optimal and, at worst, useless. And it’s hard to read the health-care bill without feeling as though it’s a product of a badly disfunctional set of political compromises-destined to fail as policy, even if we accept liberalism’s terms.
This leaves us with an uncomfortable reality: a Republican democracy- where legislators come together from increasingly disparate sections of the country and try to reckon with their own interests, the interests of their constituents, the pressures brought to bear upon them by every independent organization under the sun: all without very substantial knowledge of the shatteringly complex issues at hand- simply doesn’t do BIG things very well.
Maybe a mayor of Tom’s River, New Jersey would be willing to spend some political capital to actually take charge and solve pressing problems. He, at any rate, can at least get a grasp on the issues confronting him and deal with the local Elks Lodge and the PTA lobbying well enough. There’s a chance that when the political process has finished he’ll come out with something both coherent and beneficial. But, why in the world would we expect the folks in Washington to stick out their necks when something like the current health care bill is the result? Better to leave it to the bureaucrats. They won’t do much worse and you can avoid responsibility for the ensuing mess.
-
Matthew E. Miller can be contacted at Obilisk18@yahoo.com
The Club for Growth announced a major new ad campaign with a budget of $1.2 million, targeted to stop Obamacare. Their new TV ad starts today in key states – the states with members of Congress who could cast the deciding votes on whether Obama’s radical experiment with the healthcare system passes or fails.
The goal of the Club for Growth is to highlight the impact of Barack Obama’s European-style takeover of medicine;
- Cost over $1.6 TRILLION, a price tag that will cause the debt to soar and your taxes to skyrocket;
- Place American health care under the control of government bureaucrats who could decide if you or your family gets procedures or not;
- Force you and other Americans into a government-run or “approved” health care plan, stripping millions of their current health coverage;
- Hike taxes on those Americans who are lucky enough to keep their existing health benefits by taxing them as income. Or cause the top income tax rate in America to soar to over 55%! Or both.
The CFG also released an ad in Nevada, targeting Harry Reid on the issue of government run health care.
______________________________________________________________
Kristofer Lorelli can be contacted at lorville@rogers.com, on Facebook and twitter/Kris_Lorelli.
One of our loyal readers forwarded me an email from Matthew Staver, lawyer, professor and Chairman of Liberty Counsel. It highlighted many frightening aspects of HR 3200, the Obama health care plan.
Wanting to avoid posting hundreds of pages of the proposed law, I highlighted a few dozen of Mr. Staver’s take-aways from the bill, for your review. HR 3200 reads like the Canada Health act. Limited choice, limited competition, limited service, limited freedom and limited privacy.
—————–
Pg 30 Sec 123 of HC bill – THERE WILL BE A GOVT COMMITTEE that decides what treatments/benefits you get
Pg 42 of HC Bill – The Health Choices Commissioner will choose your benefits for you. You have no choice!
Pg 58HC Bill – Gov’t will have real-time access to individual’s finances & a National ID Health care card will be issued!
Pg 59 HC Bill lines 21-24 Govt will have direct access to your banks accts for electronic funds transfer.
Pg 124 lines 24-25 HC No company can sue Govt on price fixing. No “judicial review” against Govt Monopoly.
Pg 127 Lines 1-16 HC Bill – Doctors/ #AMA – The Govt will tell YOU what you can make.
Pg 145 Line 15-17 An Employer MUST auto enroll employees into public opt plan. NO CHOICE
Pg 195 Officers & employees of HC Admin (GOVT) will have access to ALL Americans financial and personal records.
Pg 241 Line 6-8 HC Bill – Doctors, it does not matter what specialty you have, you’ll all be paid the same.
Pg 272 SEC. 1145. Treatment of certain cancer hospitals – Cancer patients – welcome to rationing!
Pg 317 L 13-20 PROHIBITION on ownership/investment. Govt tells Drs. what/how much they can own.
Pg 425 Lines 4-12 Govt mandates Advance [Death] Care Planning Consult. Think Senior Citizens end of life.
Pg 425 Lines 17-19 Govt will instruct & consult regarding living wills, durable powers of atty. Mandatory!
Pg 425 Lines 22-25, 426 Lines 1-3 Gov’t provides approved list of end of life resources, guiding you in death.
Pg 427 Lines 15-24 Govt mandates program for orders for end of life. The Gov’t has a say in how your life ends.
Pg 429 Lines 1-9 An “adv. care planning consult” will be used frequently as patients health deteriorates.
Pg 429 Lines 10-12 “adv. care consultation” may incl an ORDER for end of life plans. AN ORDER from GOV
Pg 429 Lines 13-25 – The govt will specify which Doctors can write an end of life order.
PG 430 Lines 11-15 The Govt will decide what level of treatment you will have at end of life
Pg 503 Lines 13-19 Gov’t will build registries and data networks from YOUR electronic med records.Pg 503 lines 21-25 Gov’t may secure data directly from any depart or agency of the US including your data.
Pg 632 Lines 14-25 The Gov’t may implement any “Quality measure” of HC Services as they see fit.
Pg 635 to 653 Physicians Payments Sunshine Provision – Gov’t wants to shine sunlight on Docs but not Govt.
Pg 686-700 Increased Funding to Fight Waste, Fraud, and Abuse. You mean like the Gov’t with an $18 million website?
Pg 769 3-5 Nurse Home Visit Services – “increasing birth intervals between pregnancies.” Govt ABORTIONS anyone
Pg 770 SEC 1714 Fed Gov’t mandates eligibility for State Family Planning Services. Abortion & State Sovereign.
Pg 838-840 Gov’t will design & implement Home Visitation Program for families with young kids & families expect kids.
PG 844-845 This Home Visitation Prog. includes Gov’t coming into your house & telling you how to parent!!!
PG 935 21-22 Govt will identify specific goals & objectives for prevention & wellness activities. Control YOU!!
PG 936 Govt will develop “Healthy People & National Public Health Perform. Standards” Tell me what to eat?
PG 1001 The Govt will establish a National Medical Device Registry. Will you be tracked?
______________________________________________________________
Kristofer Lorelli can be contacted at lorville@rogers.com, on Facebook and twitter/Kris_Lorelli.
Mitt penned an Op-ed in the Denver Post detailing why Card Check is such a bad idea. His hook is an interesting one. He argues that it is bad for education. To wit:
In 2006, my last year as governor of Massachusetts, I vetoed a card check bill that would have applied to public employees. But the following year, after I had left office, big unions again campaigned for the legislation, and this time my Democratic successor signed the bill into law. No one expected what happened next.
With new authority to compel workers to join unions, labor leaders and organizers unionized a charter school for the first time in Massachusetts, unbeknownst to school administrators and parents. One of the crucial benefits of charter schools is that they operate outside public employee union contracts.
Charter schools can be flexible and innovative, reward results, and provide alternatives to traditional public schools. They do not face the often burdensome union contract rules that stifle creativity and reward ineffective and unproductive teachers protected behind the muscle of union power.
Romney uses that hook to serve as a base to apply pressure upon Colorado Senator Michael Bennett. Sen. Bennett has a record of challenging the educations unions while serving as superintendent of the Denver Public Schools. Yet he appears to be wavering on Card Check.
Romney goes on to make a number of the more conventional arguments against the measure, but the Education Angle is definitely one I had not seen before.
1) Mitt Romney – Gov. Romney remains in the best position to win the GOP nomination in 2012. He continues to do everything right; good interviews, smart policy critiques of Obama without the red meat attacks, joining the he National Council for a New America, etc. He gave a wide ranging speech on national defense spending and budgets to the Heritage Foundation, the most convincing sign yet that Romney is all in for 2012. Until someone else emerges clicking on all cylinders, he will remain poised as the undisputed front-runner for 2012. The misfortune of many 2012 potential candidates is beginning to make me think Mitt has a voodoo doll collection of GOP upstarts. Their failings are Mitt’s gains, as he looks more and more the solid, intelligent, national leader with each passing day. Palin is just the latest Republican to make Romney look good by default.
2) Tim Pawlenty - Minnesota’s governor has the proven ability to win in the bluest of states (even Reagan never won Minnesota) with his blue-collar Republican message. I imagine T-Paw’s Sam’s Club populism could be quite effective in 2012 after years of bailouts and debt. He is also an evangelical, and could give Palin and Huckabee a run for the support of values voters. Governor Pawlenty could appeal to all sectors of the party in ways that the Big Three from 2008(Romney, Huckabee, Palin) have failed to do. Having decided against a third term bid, Pawlenty is now free to build a national organization and shape his message for a GOP primary. With the stumbles and affairs of Palin, Ensign, and Sanford, Pawlenty has the chance to become the new face in leading a revival for the GOP. The Governor has been make several smart TV appearances and solid speeches, mirroring Romney in this regard. His consistent attacks on the Massachusetts healthcare system is a direct attack on Gov. Romney, helping to position T-Paw as one of, if not the top rival to Mitt at this point.
3) Mike Huckabee – Palin’s resignation helps Gov. Huckabee more then any other candidate. Huckabee is unlikely to be able to match Romeny over the long haul with limited resources without building momentum in Iowa and South Carolina. Palin and Sanford have now helped make Huckabee the front-runner to repeat in Iowa, and given him an early edge in South Carolina. Romney would have been well served with Palin and Huck splitting social cons, but now may not have that scenario to aid him. Unless Palin’s new found freedom helps her build a strong network and leads to a 2012 bid, then Huckabee will certainly have a chance at topping Romney and becoming the front-runner. However, Huckabee’s big weakness is money, and the struggles of his PAC are not good signs at this point.
4) John Thune - Senator Thune is the most likely member of the Senate to get the GOP nod in 2012. He has the conservative resume to win over the base, the looks and communication skills to win over the broader electorate, and a chance in the Senate leadership to become the rhetorical counter to Obama the next four years. His lobbying ties and strong religious values could hurt him some with moderates. It seems more and more, however, that the Senator is making all the subtle moves to run. He has become the strategic point man to defeat Obama on Card-Check, Cap and Trade, and other legislation. Senator Thune could emerge as a unifying figure in a field with a number of candidates who have difficulty winning over certain parts of the party; Romney with evangelicals, Huckabee with fiscal cons, Palin with moderates. Sen. John Ensign’s scandal all but eliminates him as a potential 2012, and Thune stands to gain the most from it politically. Not only does it eliminate a fellow senator and rival, but now Thune is the leading candidate to replace Ensign in the Senate Leadership, proof of Thune’s rising star. His gun amendment was seen as many as a ‘coming out’ moment for the young senator, a chance to unite his party and divide Democrats on a difficult issue in swing states, showing Thune’s skill both politically and legislatively.
5) Newt Gingrich – The next generation of Republicans are not off to a great start, which makes it all the more likely that the party turns to an old hand to help revive it. Speaker Gingrich, amazing as it is, is beginning to look like an old, steady hand compared to some of the young guns, and given his potential for bold ideas and solid fundraising, puts him back near the top of the list. It is quite possible that if Obama fails that the country prefer a more proven, older leader to that of some new, young unknown. However, Newt is the only ‘old guard’ potential candidate with 1994 cred and strategic acumen. Gov. Barbour, in his former capacity as RNC chairman had a lot to do with 1994’s success, along with Gingrich, Dick Armey, and Bob Dole, and some would argue the most to do with the success that cycle. However, Newt continues to build support behind the scenes and his 527 raised more then $8 million in the first half of the year, far more then any other potential candidate (though 527s have different rules then PACs).
6) Haley Barbour - Governor Barbour is perhaps the greatest strategist in the party. Putting those considerable skills to use, he could build a strong campaign and give himself a good chance to win the primary. However, Barbour is also the man who virtually invented modern lobbying and ran the most powerful lobbying firm in D.C., and while this may make him a legend to the inside-the-Beltway crowd, it would make him a tough sell to average voters. Barbour is still going to be a very important player in the rebuilding of the party, whether he runs or not. Mark Sanford’s affair and resignation as head of the RGA moves Barbour into the leadership role ahead of schedule, and elevates Barbour by process of elimination. As troubles for other governors mount, Barbour could continue this elevation by his competence alone, and further it with his famed political instincts.
7) Mitch Daniels - A very successful Rust Belt governor, Mitch Daniels proved himself by running what many call the best governor’s campaign of 2008 despite the dreadful climate for republicans. He is a graduate of Princeton and Georgetown, and served as Director of the OMB, while also sitting on the National Security Council and Homeland Security Council. Oh and he’s Arab-American(Syrian to be exact), proving once again that the GOP is far more inclusive then advertised. Recently Daniels has stepped up not only his criticism of Obama’s policies, but of the GOP’s current standing too, sounding a lot like someone who wants to lead the party out of the wilderness.
It’s legal, but House Speaker Nancy Pelosi doesn’t like it. Citizens have been voicing their concerns about health care reform and other hot button issues to their Representatives at Town Hall meetings recently. Unfortunately, a few protestors of Health Care Reform were injured and some arrested at town hall meetings yesterday in St. Louis, Mo. and Tampa, Fla. At the Tampa town hall where U.S. Rep. Kathy Castor (D-FL) spoke, crowd chants of “You work for us!” and “Open Door Policy!” and “Hear our voice!” went on for some time at the public meeting. Once you see and read the details, you may wonder what exactly happened, how some people got hurt, and why the police made arrests.
Town halls have become something those opposed to Health Care Reform have recognized as a way to make their voices better heard. But will voices be heard, if Town Hall meetings are not held?
As the U.S. Senate wraps up its work August 7 and goes on break, some U.S. senator’s offices polled yesterday were keeping details of Town hall meetings close to the vest. Perhaps some of the closed-mouth attitude was due to some U.S. Representatives who have been surprised by upset constituents questioning them on Health Care Reform at town halls. Many have seen the YouTube video of Sen. Arlen Specter’s recent town hall meeting, in which an uproar arose when Sen. Specter said the Health Care Reform bill was so big, but it’s divided up and…”we have to make judgements very fast.” He added after the crowd roared in disapproval that “Every bill is read slowly and understood by me before I vote.” Does that include the stimulus bill, too, Sen. Specter?
Reading the Health Care Reform bill, I had big concerns: 1) How are we were going to pay for it? 2) Abortion is included (is that health care?) 3) Health care will be rationed 4) The disabled and elderly seemed to be headed for very rationed care and possibly euthanasia, and 5) The way it is written, most companies will dump their employees into the public health care plan because it will be too costly to keep private health insurance.
After calling one of my senators, Bill Nelson (D-FL), and asking his office when he was holding a Town Hall meeting, I was asked for my name, address, and phone number so that I could possibly attend if he hosts a Town Hall. Shocked that my senator might not be having a Town Hall, considering the biggest change to Health Care is being considered when Congress returns in September, I decided to conduct an unscientific but fair poll.
Senators from Blue States and Red States were called, picked randomly, and asked whether they were having a regular, in-person Town Hall meeting, a phone conference Town Hall meeting, or were unsure because plans had not been finalized in that regard yet.
Unsurprisingly, due to the number of people who have shown up recently to Town Halls and vociferously announced their opinions to their Representatives, some senators’ plans had not been finalized, and a few spokespeople did not return calls by press time.
Health care reform has been a very hot topic among constituents in a number of states. Health care listening sessions are going to be held across the state of North Dakota, said Chris Gaddie, spokesperson for Sen. Kent Conrad (D-ND). The ‘health care listening sessions’ will be held in person, not via phone, Gaddie said.
A couple states over, in Idaho, Sen. Mike Crapo (R) has gotten an earful on Health Care Reform from his constituents. “He’s certainly heard loud and clear” what most constituents want, and it’s not the public option, said Lindsay Nothern, Sen. Crapo’s spokesperson. He added that Sen. Crapo would be available for this recess. During last month’s Town Hall conference call, almost the whole call was on health care, Nothern noted.
As the Senate’s break begins and some Town Halls are held (or not held), it will be interesting to see how senators and representatives alike handle hearing from their constituents. And since the White House is handing out advice on the best way to handle Town Halls, I expect that the break — is going to be a hot one.
Below is my letter that I wrote and am mailing to President Obama in response to the destructive, intimidating and harsh attacks by his party against protesting citizens.
President Obama,
I am writing to you in concern about the recent actions of your party and the harsh and libel statements that senior officials in the Democratic Party have made. President Obama, you ran on a platform of unifying America to fix the daunting challenges ahead. You ran on a platform of bi-partisanship and claimed that you were going to work with both Republicans and Democrats to solve those challenges. President Obama, I am not seeing that promise kept in the last seven months of your administration. Your party has done nothing but instigate fear of further economic turmoil while attacking your constituents, the American people.
When elected to the office of President, it should not be a partisan game. The job description should entail a service to all American people. However, your political party is not promoting fair and equal service to all Americans. Leaders of your party, including Nancy Pelosi are making startling and false rhetoric. Speaker Pelosi has even suggested that protestors are brandishing swastikas at town hall meetings. This is simply untrue. Senator Boxer has suggested that if you are against the health care reform bill, which needs to be made public instead of hiding in the shadows, you are trying to hurt the President. Alongside this nasty rhetoric, your political party, the Democratic National Committee is putting out ads suggesting that the Republican Party is using average citizens as a mob, attempting to hurt you and the country. Mr. President these accusations are scary and hold no truthful value. As the highest elected official of your party, you need to take leadership and silence these disgusting attacks. As an elected President, you hold the highest power over the DNC and whatever actions are taken are assumed to be of your own liking and approval.
President Obama, you could silence this rhetoric and extend your hand to your conservative opposition, your independent opposition, your democratic opposition and average Americans. Instead, your administration has established an email address to report “fishy” emails regarding health care. The administration claims this will help sort of information and inform citizens of slandering efforts and untrue facts. However, this appears to be an effort to silence your opposition. President Obama I would like to remind you of a quote that as Americans we should all hold to the highest respect, “ Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” Mr. President, that is our first and most important amendment. That amendment allows the American people to address their grievances, when your administration attacks Americans addressing their government grievances and attempts to put down criticism, violations of the first amendment have occurred.
Americans should be free to choose sides and voice opposition. Actions the Democratic Party and the administration have taken do not allow this free expression. For the first time in my life as a conservative voter and active member in the Republican Party and as a citizen of the United States I am intimidated and fearful to voice my opinion against my government. President Obama we have the power to criticize and question the actions of our government. Stop this madness and allow the American people to address their grievances with your, your party and their government. This government is for the people by the people, when you attack and silence the people we no longer have a government to protect us.
Sincerely,
George E. Gibbs Jr
Mel Martinez resigns, Politico reports. Get ready to see a 70 year old Crist crony in the seat.
Unemployment goes down a scotch, to 9.4%.
Oh, and I’ve got a barely political guest post on Harry Potter up over at Mrs. Peel’s blog, if you’re interested.
One of the most common misconceptions in politics in the US is that conservatives are for “the rich” and liberals are for “the poor.” This is a rather odd position, as liberals have dominated the affluent Northeast and West Coast states for over a decade, while the conservatives have been very strong in the South and the West. Add to this that Pres Obama won the $200K+ demographic in 2008, that rich Hollywood elites tend to be staunchly liberal, as well as a multitude of other reasons, and this theory that the rich are who vote conservative begins to look questionable.
Given that it’s questionable that rich/poor is the right dividing line to be drawn, what would the proper dividing line be? Quite simply, it’s an urban vs rural battle. It also explains the natural constituencies of each ideology.
Think about this for a minute. In a rural setting, you get to know your neighbors pretty well (even though they may be 1/2 a mile or more away), and everyone kind of looks out for each other. To them, gov’t coming in and handling much of anything is more bothersome than it’s worth, as they’ll know what Billy Bob up the road needs and help him out long before the gov’t could even find out about it. Conversely, in an urban center, you tend to avoid too much interaction with your neighbors (heck, you usually share a wall with at least three other people, so you cherish your privacy more!), and it’s much simpler for the gov’t to take care of problems that arise than it is for you to take the time and effort to find out what’s going on and so forth. Different living circumstances, different solutions.
Why, then, does this “rich vs poor” analysis keep coming up, if it’s so far off? Simply, it’s because liberals know that they’re more likely to win if they can cast the debate as rich v poor than urban v rural. As liberals control the main broadcast networks, they have taken advantage of being able to redefine the argument to their liking. As conservatives don’t tend to be too forceful about correcting the terms of the debate, they’ve allowed it to stick to them, and so many people believe this lie that it would be difficult to combat it, despite evidence it isn’t true.
In short, this is another instance of conservatives allowing liberals to control the terms of the debate, and harm being done to the conservative view because of it. Challenge assumptions and “known” stereotypes, as it’s the only hope for conservatism in the long-term.
Rasmussen New Jersey 2009 Gubernatorial Survey
- Chris Christie 50% (46%)
- Jon Corzine 37% (39%)
- Some other candidate 5% (5%)
- Not sure 8% (10%)
Favorable / Unfavorable [Net]
- Chris Christie 49% (57%) / 42% (36%) [+7%]
- Jon Corzine 37% (43%) / 62% (56%) [- 25%]
How would you rate the job Jon Corzine has been doing as Governor?
- Strongly approve 11% (16%)
- Somewhat approve 26% (24%)
- Somewhat disapprove 19% (14%)
- Strongly disapprove 44% (44%)
How would you rate the job Barack Obama has been doing as President?
- Strongly approve 36% (39%)
- Somewhat approve 20% (16%)
- Somewhat disapprove 8% (10%)
- Strongly disapprove 35% (34%)
Which gubernatorial candidate do you trust more on taxes?
- Chris Christie 45% (55%)
- Jon Corzine 35% (32%)
Which candidate do you trust more to cut government spending?
- Chris Christie 53% (54%)
- Jon Corzine 21% (29%)
Which candidate is more likely to crack down on government corruption?
- Chris Christie 50% (57%)
- Jon Corzine 28% (28%)
If Barack Obama campaigns for Jon Corzine in New Jersey this fall, will that help Corzine, hurt Corzine or have no impact?
- Help 38% (47%)
- Hurt 22% (16%)
- No impact 35% (32%)
Survey of 500 likely voters was conducted August 4. The margin of error is +/- 4.5 percentage points. Results from the poll conducted July 7 are in parentheses.
Inside the numbers:
Eighty-four percent (84%) of Republican voters now back Christie, but only 64% of Democrats support Corzine. The GOP candidate leads 64% to 19% among voters not affiliated with either major party.
Research 2000/Daily Kos New Jersey Gubernatorial Survey
- Chris Christie 48% (46%)
- Jon Corzine 40% (39%)
Favorable / Unfavorable [Net]
- Chris Christie 44% (38%) / 29% (15%) [+15%]
- Jon Corzine 35% (36%) / 56% (55%) [-21%]
Survey of 600 likely voters was conducted August 3-5. The margin of error is +/- 4 percentage points. Results from the poll conducted May 25-27 are in parentheses.
Move aside, grandma!
I kid you not, this is the most disturbing aspect of the Obama Health Care plan. Obama will fund and direct State agencies to access your homes and families, to monitor your parent skills.
This is how the liberal Congressional lawyers worded the entitlement description of this ‘service’:
…provide parents with knowledge of age-appropriate child development in cognitive, language, social, emotional, and motor domains…modeling, consulting, and coaching on parenting practices; [and] skills to interact with their child…
Possible translation: ‘Stop being their parent and start being their friend’?
Read the entire section (440).
It’s is unclear if it would remain ’voluntary’ after the government official have engaged the household/family. What if the government official disagrees with the parenting skills and tactics used in the household? Do they have the authority to remove children from the household or force the parents to follow a government mandated parenting program? Will these officials support spanking, or time-outs? What will be the policy for the appropriate bed-time for children under the age of 3?
The wording is too vague and allows for vast interpretation by State agencies.
______________________________________________________________
Kristofer Lorelli can be contacted at lorville@rogers.com, on Facebook and twitter/Kris_Lorelli.
I’ve got to think somebody’s polling this question. I’ve got to wonder whether the Clintons are polling this question.
Rasmussen Reports flirted with it Tuesday, when we learned that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton earns a favorable view from 53% of Americans, and an unfavorable view from only 43% of Americans. Among Democrats, 79% view Clinton favorably, and independents are about 50-50.
Perhaps if/when government-run healthcare is rejected, polling firms will feel more comfortable asking this question.
