In an article titled "Why do people often vote against their own interests?" the author (a Brit) opines, "There is nothing voters hate more than having things explained to them as though they were idiots." He then proceeds to explain to his readers why American voters are idiots for choosing not to listen to "liberal elitists" even though they clearly know what is best for the country. To clearly illustrate his point he quotes two liberal elitists...
This site was linked to this evening by the Huffington Post.
Friday, January 29, 2010
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
A National Embarrassment
So the speech has been over for less than 45-minutes and I'm already being called a hate-monger for not liking it. Listen people, I took my lumps for supporting W for eight long years from people a helluva' lot less informed than me and made it my pledge to never subject someone from the opposing viewpoint to the disgust with which Republicans were treated during the Bush administration. That is why my opinion is informed and measured, so if you're like me and abhorred tonight's speech, maybe these thoughts will help put into words your distaste.
My primary complaint with the speech was that it was woefully un-presidential. Now that requires quantification because there are plenty on the left who would call W's speeches "un-presidential" because he was not as eloquent or skilled in the use of a teleprompter as is Obama. So what then, do I mean by "un-presidential?" Well the best (or worst) example was this:
Apparently CNN has tape of Justice Alito shaking his head and mouthing, "No" as Obama said this and the Justice is right. The Court struck down 2 USC Section 441a. That is the section that prohibits corporate political spending. It left untouched 2 USC Section 441e, which prohibits foreign nationals and corporations from making contributions to political parties and campaigns.
In one sentence the President blatantly misled the American people while slapping the face of a co-equal branch of government; two remarkably un-presidential things to do in a State of the Union. (And to those who will say, "So did Bush!" your response should be, "Does that make it right?")
But that's one example and by all accounts it's inside political baseball. Here is one that's easier to explain:
He sets up a straw man then blows it over with a cheap, partisan line meant only to excite the base while at the same time claiming that it is his desire to bring the parties closer together... So let me get this straight... You hope to gain the Republican's cooperation by insulting them? That might work in Adam Sandler movies or fifth-grade lunch rooms but in the "real world" cooperation is a bit more complicated.
OK - to the issue, what do I mean by a "straw man?" Let's dissect his sentence.
First he claims the republicans want to, "make fewer investments in our people." That's a blatant lie that preys on peoples' ignorance of the differences between the two parties.
At their core, Democrats think that it is the government's job to take the money American citizens and businesses pay in taxes and use that money to fund governmental programs to make peoples' lives better. That's their political philosophy - their definition of an "investment" in the people.
Republicans believe that by keeping taxes low and not spending money on costly social programs, the money that people make by working (contributing to the economy goods and services that people need, want and desire) can be saved by the person who earned it and put to use as that person sees fit - by purchasing goods and services (thereby further stimulating the economy) or using that money for charitable purposes, to fund the kind of programs Democrats would fund through government.
It's a simple disagreement in philosophy - one that has existed for generations. The Republicans define an investment in the people as a tax cut the Democrats by a spending increase, either way they hope to achieve the same goal!
The President goes on to claim that Republicans want to "maintain the status quo on health care." If you believe that, you're not paying attention. Republicans want to reform health care as much as Democrats do - so why haven't you heard about an opposing Republican plan? The simple answer - the media! Why would they cover a story about the republicans talking about health care reform when the Democrats shut them out of the process from the beginning. It's a documented fact that Obama, Pelosi and Reid crafted this health care legislation without republican input. Their plan was simple - create a bill that they can pass with their super majority - whip all their own people into line (hence the Louisiana Purchase and the Cornhusker Kickback) and if a few Republicans want to jump on-board, great!
The truth is the Republicans have ideas on how to reform health care - the two leading calls for reform are addressing the Tort issue and opening up insurance for purchase across state lines, neither of which are even mentioned in the bill as it now exists.
In the end this was a campaign speech, delivered to pander to a flagging base. It was truly disappointing to hear this from a person who promised an "end to politics as we know it." It seems as though he's hell-bent on delivering more of the same. That is why YOUR voice is important - make it heard and don't let the opposition silence you simply because you disagree.
My primary complaint with the speech was that it was woefully un-presidential. Now that requires quantification because there are plenty on the left who would call W's speeches "un-presidential" because he was not as eloquent or skilled in the use of a teleprompter as is Obama. So what then, do I mean by "un-presidential?" Well the best (or worst) example was this:
With all due deference to separation of powers, last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests, including foreign corporations, to spend without limit in our elections.
Apparently CNN has tape of Justice Alito shaking his head and mouthing, "No" as Obama said this and the Justice is right. The Court struck down 2 USC Section 441a. That is the section that prohibits corporate political spending. It left untouched 2 USC Section 441e, which prohibits foreign nationals and corporations from making contributions to political parties and campaigns.
In one sentence the President blatantly misled the American people while slapping the face of a co-equal branch of government; two remarkably un-presidential things to do in a State of the Union. (And to those who will say, "So did Bush!" your response should be, "Does that make it right?")
But that's one example and by all accounts it's inside political baseball. Here is one that's easier to explain:
From some on the right, I expect we'll hear a different argument, that if we just make fewer investments in our people, extend tax cuts, including those for the wealthier Americans, eliminate more regulations, maintain the status quo on health care, our deficits will go away.
The problem is, that's what we did for eight years.
He sets up a straw man then blows it over with a cheap, partisan line meant only to excite the base while at the same time claiming that it is his desire to bring the parties closer together... So let me get this straight... You hope to gain the Republican's cooperation by insulting them? That might work in Adam Sandler movies or fifth-grade lunch rooms but in the "real world" cooperation is a bit more complicated.
OK - to the issue, what do I mean by a "straw man?" Let's dissect his sentence.
First he claims the republicans want to, "make fewer investments in our people." That's a blatant lie that preys on peoples' ignorance of the differences between the two parties.
At their core, Democrats think that it is the government's job to take the money American citizens and businesses pay in taxes and use that money to fund governmental programs to make peoples' lives better. That's their political philosophy - their definition of an "investment" in the people.
Republicans believe that by keeping taxes low and not spending money on costly social programs, the money that people make by working (contributing to the economy goods and services that people need, want and desire) can be saved by the person who earned it and put to use as that person sees fit - by purchasing goods and services (thereby further stimulating the economy) or using that money for charitable purposes, to fund the kind of programs Democrats would fund through government.
It's a simple disagreement in philosophy - one that has existed for generations. The Republicans define an investment in the people as a tax cut the Democrats by a spending increase, either way they hope to achieve the same goal!
The President goes on to claim that Republicans want to "maintain the status quo on health care." If you believe that, you're not paying attention. Republicans want to reform health care as much as Democrats do - so why haven't you heard about an opposing Republican plan? The simple answer - the media! Why would they cover a story about the republicans talking about health care reform when the Democrats shut them out of the process from the beginning. It's a documented fact that Obama, Pelosi and Reid crafted this health care legislation without republican input. Their plan was simple - create a bill that they can pass with their super majority - whip all their own people into line (hence the Louisiana Purchase and the Cornhusker Kickback) and if a few Republicans want to jump on-board, great!
The truth is the Republicans have ideas on how to reform health care - the two leading calls for reform are addressing the Tort issue and opening up insurance for purchase across state lines, neither of which are even mentioned in the bill as it now exists.
In the end this was a campaign speech, delivered to pander to a flagging base. It was truly disappointing to hear this from a person who promised an "end to politics as we know it." It seems as though he's hell-bent on delivering more of the same. That is why YOUR voice is important - make it heard and don't let the opposition silence you simply because you disagree.
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
More than one revolution got its start in Massachusetts
In 1962 John F. Kennedy was President, John Glenn became the first American to orbit the Earth, the first WalMart opened in Rogers, Arkansas, John Carson took over as host of the Tonight Show and Ted Kennedy was elected United States Senator from the state of Massachusetts.
In 2008 President Obama carried the state of Massachusetts by 800,000 votes, a 26-point margin of victory, 62% to 36%. According to Gallup's exit polling in 2008, independents, which made up 40% of the electorate, favored the Democratic candidate by 17 points, 57% to 40%. During the Brown/Coakley race, Rasmussen's last poll before the one that counts had independents favoring the Republican by 48 points, 71% to 23%.
Had you told any reasonable political analyst, had you told anyone with a modicum of political knowledge that a Republican had a chance to win the Senate seat that for forty-seven years had been occupied by the "Liberal Lion" Ted Kennedy, you would have been laughed out of the room. And yet here we are and it's worth taking a minute to consider how we got here and reflect on the importance of political "independents" in our electoral process.
It is my opinion that President Obama was elected largely by independent and moderate Democrat voters drawn to the candidate's promise of running a transparent, non-partisan government. After six years of some of the most rancorous and mean-spirited political discourse in our nation's modern political history, the American people wanted a change. They wanted a candidate who was willing to reach across the aisle and work with his opposition, taking the "bit from column a, bit from column b" approach to government.
However, once elected Obama took a hard turn to the left. Angrily lecturing his opposition, closing them out of pressing negotiations and pushing an agenda seemingly more intereted in moving this country closer to European socialism than restoring a disenchanted public's confidence in a shaken economy and agressively waging a winning war on Islamic extremism. Many of those who voted for the President, particularly independents, must feel as though they were sold a bill of goods but there was no way to measure that sentiment... until now.
Brown's win tonight proves unequivocally that the United States of America is not interested in a slow march toward socialism and will not suffer disingenuous politicians leading them along said path. The Democrats ignore this message at their own peril.
P.S. - The Big Win tonight is that Obama-care is officially dead. If the Democrats try to use reconcilliation or delay seating Senator Brown in order to pass this bill they will suffer a political backlash the likes of which this nation has never seen and lock themselves out of power for generations.
In 2008 President Obama carried the state of Massachusetts by 800,000 votes, a 26-point margin of victory, 62% to 36%. According to Gallup's exit polling in 2008, independents, which made up 40% of the electorate, favored the Democratic candidate by 17 points, 57% to 40%. During the Brown/Coakley race, Rasmussen's last poll before the one that counts had independents favoring the Republican by 48 points, 71% to 23%.
Had you told any reasonable political analyst, had you told anyone with a modicum of political knowledge that a Republican had a chance to win the Senate seat that for forty-seven years had been occupied by the "Liberal Lion" Ted Kennedy, you would have been laughed out of the room. And yet here we are and it's worth taking a minute to consider how we got here and reflect on the importance of political "independents" in our electoral process.
It is my opinion that President Obama was elected largely by independent and moderate Democrat voters drawn to the candidate's promise of running a transparent, non-partisan government. After six years of some of the most rancorous and mean-spirited political discourse in our nation's modern political history, the American people wanted a change. They wanted a candidate who was willing to reach across the aisle and work with his opposition, taking the "bit from column a, bit from column b" approach to government.
However, once elected Obama took a hard turn to the left. Angrily lecturing his opposition, closing them out of pressing negotiations and pushing an agenda seemingly more intereted in moving this country closer to European socialism than restoring a disenchanted public's confidence in a shaken economy and agressively waging a winning war on Islamic extremism. Many of those who voted for the President, particularly independents, must feel as though they were sold a bill of goods but there was no way to measure that sentiment... until now.
Brown's win tonight proves unequivocally that the United States of America is not interested in a slow march toward socialism and will not suffer disingenuous politicians leading them along said path. The Democrats ignore this message at their own peril.
P.S. - The Big Win tonight is that Obama-care is officially dead. If the Democrats try to use reconcilliation or delay seating Senator Brown in order to pass this bill they will suffer a political backlash the likes of which this nation has never seen and lock themselves out of power for generations.
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
Something to Think about this Christmas
Twenty eight years ago today an unconventional meeting took place in the Oval Office between the President of the United States and a Soviet defector.
On December 13, 1981 the government of the "People's Republic" of Poland declared martial law in an attempt to quell the growing opposition to communist rule. Pro-democracy movements were banned and their leaders, including Lech Walesa, were incarcerated. The action drew the sharp rebuke from leaders around the world including Margaret Thatcher.
Reacting to reports that the Communist government was employing "church watchers" to take down the names of those who were attending religious services for later persecution; the Pope, himself a Pole, used the influence of the church throughout the crisis to quietly sustain the work of Walesa's Solidarity movement in his absence but fearing that injecting the Vatican in the situation would only worsen matters, was careful about what he said in public
Meanwhile, across an ocean, another man was being deeply affected by the Catholic faith and worsening conditions in his homeland. Francis Romuald Spasowski was, by all accounts, a good and faithful Communist. His father, a university professor and leading intellectual, had taught his son the "virtues" of Marxism from birth. He served his government following World War II, believing that Communism held great promise for his fellow countrymen. Fluent in English and Spanish, he was appointed the Polish Ambassador to the United Kingdom and Argentina in the early 1950s before being sent to the United States to represent his country in 1955. He was recalled in the 1960s and sent on a number of other diplomatic missions on behalf of the Polish government.
In 1978, Spasowski returned to the United States, again as Poland's ambassador. Spasowski's wife, a practicing Roman Catholic, joined him during his assignment. For years, the ambassador's wife's religious beliefs had been slowly undermining his inclinations toward Communism. The day that a fellow Pole was elevated to the papacy was one of great joy for all Poles, especially Roman Catholics like Mrs. Spasowski. However, this appointment was of grave concern for the Communist government, itself at odds with religious institutions, particularly the Vatican.
On October 16, 1978, a special mass was held at Saint Matthew's Cathedral in Washington, D.C. to celebrate Karol Cardinal Wojtyła's elevation to the papacy. As Polish Ambassador to the United States, Romuald Spasowski and his wife were invited to attend, and they did - taking a place of honor in the first pew. This began Spasowski's contentious relationship with Poland's government.
In September of 1981, Spasowski's daughter and son-in-law, supporters of Walesa's Solidarity movement were forced to flee from Poland. Arriving in the United States they sought, and were granted, asylum. The next month, the Polish Foreign Ministry ordered the ambassador home, but he protested and was granted an extension pending review.
The imposition of Martial Law proved to be Spasowski's breaking point. On December 19, 1981, he contacted the United States' State Department and informed them of his intention to defect. The very next day, flanked by FBI agents and under the protection of the United States Goverment, the ambassador made clear his intentions to the world. The Polish government's response was swift and decisive; they confiscated his family's property, branded him a traitor and sentenced him to death.
President Ronald Reagan found himself in what we might consider a tough spot. He was disgusted by what the government was doing in Poland and certain that the Kremlin was behind it, but as with all things during the Cold War, he knew that appearances must be considered. Siding forcefully with Solidarity would be seen as an act of aggression toward the Polish government and Soviet Union. But Reagan saw the issue as a simple case of good vs. evil. Embracing the ambassador and siding with Solidarity, to the President, was simply the right thing to do. Undeterred by the message he would send, Reagan invited the defector and his wife to meet with him in the Oval Office.
Accounts of the meeting vary, some say Vice President George Bush was in attendance, others that Nancy was present, Reagan remembered it differently in his book, "An American Life," stating that he met with them alone. During that reportedly emotional meeting, Ambassador Spasowski told the President that the Polish people had taken to lighting candles and placing them in their windows to show that even in the face of oppression, the light of liberty still burns strong in their hearts. The Ambassador then made the unusual request that the President light a single candle on Christmas Eve and place it in a window at the White House as a sign of solidarity with the Polish people.
The next day, Reagan took to the airwaves with what was to be his Christmas address to the nation. Following his meeting with the Ambassador, he changed the speech entirely - devoting a full half of it to the worsening situation in Poland. He closed by telling the American people of the Ambassador's request, and asking that they join him in honoring it. In his words...
The response to Reagan's call to action was immediate and forceful. The Soviets and Polish government condemned him immediately, but others found their voice. Perhaps most notably, Pope John Paul II closed his Christmas Eve address by stating in Polish that he was sending an embrace, "to all of Poland, our common homeland," including "those here in the square who represent Solidarity and all those listening on the radio."
That Christmas Eve, millions of candles found their way into windows around the world, but perhaps the two that burned brightest were the one on the second floor of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue and the one facing St. Peter's Square from a window in the Pope's private study.
EPILOGUE
Spasowski later converted to Catholicism under the spiritual direction of (who else?) the Jesuits. Read this beautiful homily dedicated to the Ambassador delivered by Rev. William Watson, S.J. during Gonzaga's Mass of the Holy Spirit in 1999.
Read about the event in Reagan's own words thanks to Google Books.
Before TIME magazine sold its editorial board to the Democrat party they were a reputable news magazine. Check out their reporting on the issue.
A transcript of Reagan's 1981 Christmas Speech to the nation courtesy of the Reagan Library at the University of Texas.
On December 13, 1981 the government of the "People's Republic" of Poland declared martial law in an attempt to quell the growing opposition to communist rule. Pro-democracy movements were banned and their leaders, including Lech Walesa, were incarcerated. The action drew the sharp rebuke from leaders around the world including Margaret Thatcher.
Reacting to reports that the Communist government was employing "church watchers" to take down the names of those who were attending religious services for later persecution; the Pope, himself a Pole, used the influence of the church throughout the crisis to quietly sustain the work of Walesa's Solidarity movement in his absence but fearing that injecting the Vatican in the situation would only worsen matters, was careful about what he said in public
Meanwhile, across an ocean, another man was being deeply affected by the Catholic faith and worsening conditions in his homeland. Francis Romuald Spasowski was, by all accounts, a good and faithful Communist. His father, a university professor and leading intellectual, had taught his son the "virtues" of Marxism from birth. He served his government following World War II, believing that Communism held great promise for his fellow countrymen. Fluent in English and Spanish, he was appointed the Polish Ambassador to the United Kingdom and Argentina in the early 1950s before being sent to the United States to represent his country in 1955. He was recalled in the 1960s and sent on a number of other diplomatic missions on behalf of the Polish government.
In 1978, Spasowski returned to the United States, again as Poland's ambassador. Spasowski's wife, a practicing Roman Catholic, joined him during his assignment. For years, the ambassador's wife's religious beliefs had been slowly undermining his inclinations toward Communism. The day that a fellow Pole was elevated to the papacy was one of great joy for all Poles, especially Roman Catholics like Mrs. Spasowski. However, this appointment was of grave concern for the Communist government, itself at odds with religious institutions, particularly the Vatican.
On October 16, 1978, a special mass was held at Saint Matthew's Cathedral in Washington, D.C. to celebrate Karol Cardinal Wojtyła's elevation to the papacy. As Polish Ambassador to the United States, Romuald Spasowski and his wife were invited to attend, and they did - taking a place of honor in the first pew. This began Spasowski's contentious relationship with Poland's government.
In September of 1981, Spasowski's daughter and son-in-law, supporters of Walesa's Solidarity movement were forced to flee from Poland. Arriving in the United States they sought, and were granted, asylum. The next month, the Polish Foreign Ministry ordered the ambassador home, but he protested and was granted an extension pending review.
The imposition of Martial Law proved to be Spasowski's breaking point. On December 19, 1981, he contacted the United States' State Department and informed them of his intention to defect. The very next day, flanked by FBI agents and under the protection of the United States Goverment, the ambassador made clear his intentions to the world. The Polish government's response was swift and decisive; they confiscated his family's property, branded him a traitor and sentenced him to death.
President Ronald Reagan found himself in what we might consider a tough spot. He was disgusted by what the government was doing in Poland and certain that the Kremlin was behind it, but as with all things during the Cold War, he knew that appearances must be considered. Siding forcefully with Solidarity would be seen as an act of aggression toward the Polish government and Soviet Union. But Reagan saw the issue as a simple case of good vs. evil. Embracing the ambassador and siding with Solidarity, to the President, was simply the right thing to do. Undeterred by the message he would send, Reagan invited the defector and his wife to meet with him in the Oval Office.
Accounts of the meeting vary, some say Vice President George Bush was in attendance, others that Nancy was present, Reagan remembered it differently in his book, "An American Life," stating that he met with them alone. During that reportedly emotional meeting, Ambassador Spasowski told the President that the Polish people had taken to lighting candles and placing them in their windows to show that even in the face of oppression, the light of liberty still burns strong in their hearts. The Ambassador then made the unusual request that the President light a single candle on Christmas Eve and place it in a window at the White House as a sign of solidarity with the Polish people.
The next day, Reagan took to the airwaves with what was to be his Christmas address to the nation. Following his meeting with the Ambassador, he changed the speech entirely - devoting a full half of it to the worsening situation in Poland. He closed by telling the American people of the Ambassador's request, and asking that they join him in honoring it. In his words...
Let the light of millions of candles in American homes give notice that the light of freedom is not going to be extinguished. We are blessed with a freedom and abundance denied to so many. Let those candles remind us that these blessings bring with them a solid obligation, an obligation to the God who guides us, an obligation to the heritage of liberty and dignity handed down to us by our forefathers and an obligation to the children of the world, whose future will be shaped by the way we live our lives today.
Christmas means so much because of one special child. But Christmas also reminds us that all children are special, that they are gifts from God, gifts beyond price that mean more than any presents money can buy. In their love and laughter, in our hopes for their future lies the true meaning of Christmas.
The response to Reagan's call to action was immediate and forceful. The Soviets and Polish government condemned him immediately, but others found their voice. Perhaps most notably, Pope John Paul II closed his Christmas Eve address by stating in Polish that he was sending an embrace, "to all of Poland, our common homeland," including "those here in the square who represent Solidarity and all those listening on the radio."
That Christmas Eve, millions of candles found their way into windows around the world, but perhaps the two that burned brightest were the one on the second floor of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue and the one facing St. Peter's Square from a window in the Pope's private study.
EPILOGUE
Spasowski later converted to Catholicism under the spiritual direction of (who else?) the Jesuits. Read this beautiful homily dedicated to the Ambassador delivered by Rev. William Watson, S.J. during Gonzaga's Mass of the Holy Spirit in 1999.
Read about the event in Reagan's own words thanks to Google Books.
Before TIME magazine sold its editorial board to the Democrat party they were a reputable news magazine. Check out their reporting on the issue.
A transcript of Reagan's 1981 Christmas Speech to the nation courtesy of the Reagan Library at the University of Texas.
Sunday, December 20, 2009
Sunday Rundown
The Big Story: With a commitment from Ben Nelson (D) Nebraska, Senate Democrats appear to have the sixty votes they need to override a Republican filibuster and pass their version of the Healthcare Bill.
Why you should care:
Obama will spend the remainder of his political capital on this bill. At his direction, his party will pass an incredibly unpopular (the RCP average is 38% favor, 52% oppose), remarkably large (fundamentally restructuing more than 17% of our nation's economy) bill on a straight party line vote. In doing so, he will condemn several Senators already facing tough reelection battles. Chris Dodd (D-CT), a 25+ year Senate alumnus, is down 13 points to his republican challenger. Arlen Specter (D-PA)is in a dead-heat with challenger Pat Toomey. Joe Biden's former seat is up for grabs - his son trailing in three of the latest four polls. Obama's seat is in trouble too - if Roland Burris (D-IL) wins the primary he will almost certainly lose the general. Blanche Lincoln (D-AR), a late hold-out in going along with the Healthcare Bill, will lose her seat by casting her vote in favor of this piece of legislation. Right now there are four republicans running against each other in a primary election to see who will face her in the general - according to Rasmussen, she trails every single one of them. In short, passing this bill is political suicide for the Democrats.
This is of no consolation to those of us who oppose this bill, after all, we're convinced that this thing will bankrupt the country while dismantling the world's greatest healthcare system. What's worse, while the actual healthcare "reform" outlined in the bill won't happen for another four years, the taxes will take effect immediately and will be remarkably difficult to roll back once they have been put in place.
But what of the man himself? Obama's approval rating is hovering at an average of 48% - that tells us nothing (Reagan's approval rating after his first year was 49%). What is very telling are Obama's disappoval numbers. It's not a fair comparison to stack Obama against W at the same time in his presidency, not four month's after 9/11 (82% approve, 12% disapprove). One year in Clinton was looking at 54% approve, 38% disapprove; George H.W., 78% approve, 10% disapprove; Reagan, 49% approve, 38% disapprove and Carter, 54% approve, 26% disapprove. To find a President with disapproval numbers as high as Obama at the end of his first year... well, you can look, but you won't find him - the closest is Reagan and Obama's got him beat by 10.
Normally, you wouldn't think much of these numbers but Obama campaigned on the promise that he would bring the country closer together. Throughout the campaign, even in his inaugural speech, he promised to, "...end the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn-out dogmas that for far too long have strangled our politics." Countless commentators and admirers claimed he was the "post-partisan" candidate and his margin of victory among independents seemed to cement the claim. Indeed, most Obama voters with whom I spoke told me they were voting for him because they beleived he could bring the parties together far better than McCain/Palin. So the question remains - now that Obama has proven himself to be just as partisan (if not more so) than his predecessor, will those supporters who believed him to be the harbinger of "hope and change" continue to lend him their support? They clearly didn't earlier this year in New Jersey and Virginia, what they will do in the future no one knows. After all, we call them independents for a reason.
Why you should care:
Obama will spend the remainder of his political capital on this bill. At his direction, his party will pass an incredibly unpopular (the RCP average is 38% favor, 52% oppose), remarkably large (fundamentally restructuing more than 17% of our nation's economy) bill on a straight party line vote. In doing so, he will condemn several Senators already facing tough reelection battles. Chris Dodd (D-CT), a 25+ year Senate alumnus, is down 13 points to his republican challenger. Arlen Specter (D-PA)is in a dead-heat with challenger Pat Toomey. Joe Biden's former seat is up for grabs - his son trailing in three of the latest four polls. Obama's seat is in trouble too - if Roland Burris (D-IL) wins the primary he will almost certainly lose the general. Blanche Lincoln (D-AR), a late hold-out in going along with the Healthcare Bill, will lose her seat by casting her vote in favor of this piece of legislation. Right now there are four republicans running against each other in a primary election to see who will face her in the general - according to Rasmussen, she trails every single one of them. In short, passing this bill is political suicide for the Democrats.
This is of no consolation to those of us who oppose this bill, after all, we're convinced that this thing will bankrupt the country while dismantling the world's greatest healthcare system. What's worse, while the actual healthcare "reform" outlined in the bill won't happen for another four years, the taxes will take effect immediately and will be remarkably difficult to roll back once they have been put in place.
But what of the man himself? Obama's approval rating is hovering at an average of 48% - that tells us nothing (Reagan's approval rating after his first year was 49%). What is very telling are Obama's disappoval numbers. It's not a fair comparison to stack Obama against W at the same time in his presidency, not four month's after 9/11 (82% approve, 12% disapprove). One year in Clinton was looking at 54% approve, 38% disapprove; George H.W., 78% approve, 10% disapprove; Reagan, 49% approve, 38% disapprove and Carter, 54% approve, 26% disapprove. To find a President with disapproval numbers as high as Obama at the end of his first year... well, you can look, but you won't find him - the closest is Reagan and Obama's got him beat by 10.
Normally, you wouldn't think much of these numbers but Obama campaigned on the promise that he would bring the country closer together. Throughout the campaign, even in his inaugural speech, he promised to, "...end the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn-out dogmas that for far too long have strangled our politics." Countless commentators and admirers claimed he was the "post-partisan" candidate and his margin of victory among independents seemed to cement the claim. Indeed, most Obama voters with whom I spoke told me they were voting for him because they beleived he could bring the parties together far better than McCain/Palin. So the question remains - now that Obama has proven himself to be just as partisan (if not more so) than his predecessor, will those supporters who believed him to be the harbinger of "hope and change" continue to lend him their support? They clearly didn't earlier this year in New Jersey and Virginia, what they will do in the future no one knows. After all, we call them independents for a reason.
Wednesday, December 9, 2009
The Transparent Secret
President Obama vowed to usher in a new era of transparency in government - in that vein earlier this week he hosted a "closed-door meeting on openness" and then congratulated Senator Reid and his colleagues in the Senate on a "major breakthrough" in the health care reform -- even though no one could be bothered to tell the American people what said "major breakthrough" is... Instead Senator Reid asked for our trust stating that the "broad agreement" Democrats came to on Tuesday evening "moves this bill way down the road."
According to inside sources, the Democrat's agreement includes setting up some kind of non-profit overseen by the Federal Government that would replace the odious "Public Option." While there are few details at the moment I cannot help but wonder if said non-profit overseen by the Federal Government will look more like Fannie May or Freddie Mac, because we all know how well those two panned out.
Additional information indicates that the compromise will also decrease the minimum age for Medicare coverage from 65 to 55. So they are going to open-up a system whose trustees say will be bankrupt by 2017 to an additional +34 million people while at the same time cutting $50 billion in cost from said program AND guaranteeing that there will be no additional rationing or interruption of care AND promising that the entire project will come out budget neutral... If you believe that, I've got some moon rocks I'd like to sell you...
Write your Senators people, this is too important for them to screw up.
According to inside sources, the Democrat's agreement includes setting up some kind of non-profit overseen by the Federal Government that would replace the odious "Public Option." While there are few details at the moment I cannot help but wonder if said non-profit overseen by the Federal Government will look more like Fannie May or Freddie Mac, because we all know how well those two panned out.
Additional information indicates that the compromise will also decrease the minimum age for Medicare coverage from 65 to 55. So they are going to open-up a system whose trustees say will be bankrupt by 2017 to an additional +34 million people while at the same time cutting $50 billion in cost from said program AND guaranteeing that there will be no additional rationing or interruption of care AND promising that the entire project will come out budget neutral... If you believe that, I've got some moon rocks I'd like to sell you...
Write your Senators people, this is too important for them to screw up.
Thursday, July 23, 2009
Health Care "Reform" - What you need to be reading today...
"Facts are stubborn things..."
- John Adams
Experts Dispute Some Points in Health Talk
By Robert Pear and Peter Baker
The New York Times
Published: July 22, 2009
The New York Times takes issue with some of the "facts" in President Obama's Wednesday evening news conference.
FACT CHECK: Obama's health care claims adrift?
By Calvin Woodward and Jim Kuhnhenn
The Associated Press
Published: July 23, 2009
A more comprehensive look at the "facts" of the President's speech.
Common Sense May Sink ObamaCare
By Peggy Noonan
The Wall Street Journal
Published: July 24, 2009
Noonan writes of Obama's news conference, "...he didn’t seem to be telling the truth. We need to create a new national health-care program in order to cut down on government spending? Who would believe that? Would anybody?"
The Costs
Health Reform's Hidden Victims
By John Fund
The Wall Street Journal
Published: July 23, 2009
The Wall Street Journal examines the health care reform proposals currently on the table to identify some of those who stand to lose if the current plan passes.
Obama Overhaul Delay Makes Health a Buy, Say Analysts
By Lisa Rapaport
Bloomberg
Published: July 23, 2009
Analysts react favorably to news that Obama's plans to revamp health care may be stalling, lending considerable credence to the claims that this reform, if passed, will do irreparable damage to our health care industry.
- John Adams
Experts Dispute Some Points in Health Talk
By Robert Pear and Peter Baker
The New York Times
Published: July 22, 2009
The New York Times takes issue with some of the "facts" in President Obama's Wednesday evening news conference.
FACT CHECK: Obama's health care claims adrift?
By Calvin Woodward and Jim Kuhnhenn
The Associated Press
Published: July 23, 2009
A more comprehensive look at the "facts" of the President's speech.
Common Sense May Sink ObamaCare
By Peggy Noonan
The Wall Street Journal
Published: July 24, 2009
Noonan writes of Obama's news conference, "...he didn’t seem to be telling the truth. We need to create a new national health-care program in order to cut down on government spending? Who would believe that? Would anybody?"
The Costs
Health Reform's Hidden Victims
By John Fund
The Wall Street Journal
Published: July 23, 2009
The Wall Street Journal examines the health care reform proposals currently on the table to identify some of those who stand to lose if the current plan passes.
Obama Overhaul Delay Makes Health a Buy, Say Analysts
By Lisa Rapaport
Bloomberg
Published: July 23, 2009
Analysts react favorably to news that Obama's plans to revamp health care may be stalling, lending considerable credence to the claims that this reform, if passed, will do irreparable damage to our health care industry.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)