"The leaders of the Democratic Party need to move back toward the center," so warns William Daley, former Clinton Commerce Secretary. Some brief excerpts:
"The announcement by Alabama Rep. Parker Griffith that he is switching to the Republican Party is just the latest warning sign that the Democratic Party -- my lifelong political home -- has a critical decision to make: Either we plot a more moderate, centrist course or risk electoral disaster not just in the upcoming midterms but in many elections to come.
The political dangers of this situation could not be clearer.
Witness the losses in New Jersey and Virginia in this year's off-year elections. In those gubernatorial contests, the margin of victory was provided to Republicans by independents -- many of whom had voted for Obama. Just one year later, they had crossed back to the Republicans by 2-to-1 margins.
All that is required for the Democratic Party to recover its political footing is to acknowledge that the agenda of the party's most liberal supporters has not won the support of a majority of Americans -- and, based on that recognition, to steer a more moderate course on the key issues of the day, from health care to the economy to the environment to Afghanistan."
A fair warning by a centrist Democrat to the liberals who now "lead" his party. It is a Christmas present to them if they are listening - and a present to those of us in opposition if they aren't.
Be sure to read it all.
UPDATE: Jennifer Rubin observes that Daley's warning may just be too late:
"You see, to move back to the center, the Democrats and the White House would have to do a political about-face and repudiate a year of tax-and-spend policies. That might be advisable, but how likely is it? Not very. After all, Democrats fought tooth and nail for ObamaCare and Nancy Pelosi made her troops walk the plank on cap-and-trade."
Rubin is probably correct.
UPDATE: Cover?
Thursday, December 24, 2009
It's Not Over Yet
Ramesh Ponnuru provides your morning "optimistic jolt":
"Democrats are doing a victory lap. White House spokesman Robert Gibbs says that with Senate passage of the Reid bill, “Health-care reform is now a matter of when.” The press is doing its best to convey the impression that Republicans are throwing in the towel — follow the link in the last sentence to see a good example of such reporting. Pundits have moved on to arguing what the opponents of the health legislation did wrong.
But the Democratic celebrations are premature, as Republican despair would be. This battle isn’t over, and opponents of the legislation could still win."
He observes in conclusion:
"So on the one hand Democrats gain Blue Dog votes because of the dropping of the public option, and on the other they lose votes because of abortion, public opinion, and, um, the dropping of the public option. Of course it is impossible to predict that the opposition will net the three required votes. But the possibility can’t be ruled out, either."
It may be depressing but it ain't over.
Here's your daily inspiration:
"Democrats are doing a victory lap. White House spokesman Robert Gibbs says that with Senate passage of the Reid bill, “Health-care reform is now a matter of when.” The press is doing its best to convey the impression that Republicans are throwing in the towel — follow the link in the last sentence to see a good example of such reporting. Pundits have moved on to arguing what the opponents of the health legislation did wrong.
But the Democratic celebrations are premature, as Republican despair would be. This battle isn’t over, and opponents of the legislation could still win."
He observes in conclusion:
"So on the one hand Democrats gain Blue Dog votes because of the dropping of the public option, and on the other they lose votes because of abortion, public opinion, and, um, the dropping of the public option. Of course it is impossible to predict that the opposition will net the three required votes. But the possibility can’t be ruled out, either."
It may be depressing but it ain't over.
Here's your daily inspiration:
Merry Christmas To All! (UPDATED)
We'll catch up on the healthcare mess later (we'll assume that the Senate does what it said it will do today and pass the monstrosity that is before it). For now, have a safe and peaceful Christmas.
UPDATE: Done, 60 to 39.
MERRY CHRISTMAS!!!
UPDATE: Done, 60 to 39.
MERRY CHRISTMAS!!!
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
Surprise! Obama Lied, The Public Option Died
ABC News (!) takes apart Obama's credibility:
"I didn't campaign on the public option," President Obama told the Washington Post yesterday.
Is that true?
It depends on what the meaning of "campaign" is.
Was it a major emphasis of his campaign? Not after he won the Democratic presidential nomination.
But did he mention it?
Was it part of his "campaign"? Yes.
He told Planned Parenthood activists in 2007 that he wanted to set up "a public plan that all persons and all women can access if they don't have health insurance. It will be a plan that will provide all essential services, including reproductive services."
Ok, so no one is really surprised by this. Every time Obama opens his mouth these days, his credibility sinks lower and lower. Here's one blog that hits Obama head-on:
"Talk about hopeless audacity. Barack Obama’s petulant performance today presented a persona to the American people that they are likely to see with increasing frequency over the next three years. And the more they see the less they will like."
And yet another calling out Obama for his, um, lack of candor.
Now compare and contrast this campaign video:
I guess he truly believes that the American people are stupid. Well, Mr. President, we are not. And, sir, don't think that we're not keeping score.
"I didn't campaign on the public option," President Obama told the Washington Post yesterday.
Is that true?
It depends on what the meaning of "campaign" is.
Was it a major emphasis of his campaign? Not after he won the Democratic presidential nomination.
But did he mention it?
Was it part of his "campaign"? Yes.
He told Planned Parenthood activists in 2007 that he wanted to set up "a public plan that all persons and all women can access if they don't have health insurance. It will be a plan that will provide all essential services, including reproductive services."
Ok, so no one is really surprised by this. Every time Obama opens his mouth these days, his credibility sinks lower and lower. Here's one blog that hits Obama head-on:
"Talk about hopeless audacity. Barack Obama’s petulant performance today presented a persona to the American people that they are likely to see with increasing frequency over the next three years. And the more they see the less they will like."
And yet another calling out Obama for his, um, lack of candor.
Now compare and contrast this campaign video:
I guess he truly believes that the American people are stupid. Well, Mr. President, we are not. And, sir, don't think that we're not keeping score.
NY Senator Chuck Schumer: He Ain't No Ben Nelson
Thanks, Senator Schumer, for your legislative prowess:
"When the feds whack New York, you usually hear Chuck Schumer lead the outrage. But on health care, he's been practically mute about some mighty hits headed our way.
Mayor Bloomberg and Gov. Paterson both slammed the Senate bill Monday, charging it would cost the city more than $500 million and rip a $1 billion-a-year hole in the state budget.
Schumer, a veteran streetfighter for federal cash, has been suddenly recast as a defender of Washington - and a deal he helped cut that shafts New York.
"He's being uncharacteristically quiet in part because the numbers don't look that good," said Baruch College political scientist Doug Muzzio."
Egads, this stinks.
Read it all here.
"When the feds whack New York, you usually hear Chuck Schumer lead the outrage. But on health care, he's been practically mute about some mighty hits headed our way.
Mayor Bloomberg and Gov. Paterson both slammed the Senate bill Monday, charging it would cost the city more than $500 million and rip a $1 billion-a-year hole in the state budget.
Schumer, a veteran streetfighter for federal cash, has been suddenly recast as a defender of Washington - and a deal he helped cut that shafts New York.
"He's being uncharacteristically quiet in part because the numbers don't look that good," said Baruch College political scientist Doug Muzzio."
Egads, this stinks.
Read it all here.
Backlash! - "10 Red States Now Questioning Nelson Deal" (NYTimes)
This didn't take long:
"At least 10 states are now raising questions about the legality of the deal that Senator Ben Nelson, a Democrat, cut for his home state of Nebraska during the health care negotiations.
Under the agreement, which is on the verge of being approved Thursday by the Senate, Nebraska is permanently exempt from paying for its expansion of Medicaid, shoving that cost onto taxpayers in every other state.
Mr. Nelson was able to exercise such leverage because in exchange, he was providing the magical 60th vote that Democrats needed to advance their health care bill.
The deal has enraged other Senators, especially those from red states, whose Republican Senators didn’t bring home any pork at all because they were not part of the negotiations with Democratic leaders. Several other Democratic Senators did get concessions for their states, but no deal has hit the nerve struck by Mr. Nelson’s.
Attorneys general in at least 10 states held a conference call late Tuesday to consider how they might challenge the deal, which they call federally subsidized vote-buying." [Emphasis added].
Rushed and unread legislation, middle-of-the-night corrupt deal-making, increased premiums, fewer services and growing public opposition . . . what's not to like?
Other litigation threatens as well (h/t Instapundit):
"FoxNews reports that the Liberty Legal Institute and the Fund for Personal Liberty/10th Amendment Foundation are contemplating constitutional lawsuits against certain provisions of Obamacare."
It looks like passage, if it occurs, will not be the end of the story.
And even more troubles are brewing (Riehl World View):
"Put these pieces together.
McConnell is going to throw up some road blocks:
"At least 10 states are now raising questions about the legality of the deal that Senator Ben Nelson, a Democrat, cut for his home state of Nebraska during the health care negotiations.
Under the agreement, which is on the verge of being approved Thursday by the Senate, Nebraska is permanently exempt from paying for its expansion of Medicaid, shoving that cost onto taxpayers in every other state.
Mr. Nelson was able to exercise such leverage because in exchange, he was providing the magical 60th vote that Democrats needed to advance their health care bill.
The deal has enraged other Senators, especially those from red states, whose Republican Senators didn’t bring home any pork at all because they were not part of the negotiations with Democratic leaders. Several other Democratic Senators did get concessions for their states, but no deal has hit the nerve struck by Mr. Nelson’s.
Attorneys general in at least 10 states held a conference call late Tuesday to consider how they might challenge the deal, which they call federally subsidized vote-buying." [Emphasis added].
Rushed and unread legislation, middle-of-the-night corrupt deal-making, increased premiums, fewer services and growing public opposition . . . what's not to like?
Other litigation threatens as well (h/t Instapundit):
"FoxNews reports that the Liberty Legal Institute and the Fund for Personal Liberty/10th Amendment Foundation are contemplating constitutional lawsuits against certain provisions of Obamacare."
It looks like passage, if it occurs, will not be the end of the story.
And even more troubles are brewing (Riehl World View):
"Put these pieces together.
McConnell is going to throw up some road blocks:
It is looking like Mitch McConnell will object to the appointment of conferees to create a formal conference that would attempt to reconcile the House and Senate versions of Obamacare.The problems are even bigger in the House. And with 72% of America against funding abortions with tax dollars, that's still a weighty wild-card. Meanwhile, they already lost NOW and others on the Left. He has no room to give Left, or Right on that issue."
What If Scott Brown Can Actually Win In Massachusetts?
Bill Kristol tackles the question of whether Massachusetts (!) can save us from ObamaCare (h/t HotAir) because of the special election there on January 19, 2010 to fill Kennedy's Senate seat:
"Now, of course the Democrat Martha Coakley is the overwhelming favorite. But someone might want to commission a poll in Massachusetts to see what might happen if the Senate race could be made a referendum on Obamacare. [Massachusetts State Senator Scott] Brown and Coakley debated last night, and they clashed on the health care bill. But so far as I can tell, Brown didn’t emphasize that by electing him, the voters of Massachusetts have a chance to save the country from Obamacare. What if there were a massive independent expenditure that made that point? I bet Obamacare isn’t popular even in Massachusetts. And it would be novelistically satisfying if the Democrats lost Ted Kennedy’s seat on the issue of government-run health care, thereby dooming...government-run health care."
Folks, it may be a long-shot but it's worth a try. What do opponents of ObamaCare have to lose?
And how many political candidates can actually run on a platform of "absolutely nothing to hide"?
[Warning: somewhat-explicit photo].
"Now, of course the Democrat Martha Coakley is the overwhelming favorite. But someone might want to commission a poll in Massachusetts to see what might happen if the Senate race could be made a referendum on Obamacare. [Massachusetts State Senator Scott] Brown and Coakley debated last night, and they clashed on the health care bill. But so far as I can tell, Brown didn’t emphasize that by electing him, the voters of Massachusetts have a chance to save the country from Obamacare. What if there were a massive independent expenditure that made that point? I bet Obamacare isn’t popular even in Massachusetts. And it would be novelistically satisfying if the Democrats lost Ted Kennedy’s seat on the issue of government-run health care, thereby dooming...government-run health care."
Folks, it may be a long-shot but it's worth a try. What do opponents of ObamaCare have to lose?
And how many political candidates can actually run on a platform of "absolutely nothing to hide"?
[Warning: somewhat-explicit photo].
Obama Throwing Congress "Under The Bus"? (UPDATED)
Is this really true? Healthcare "reform" being put off until February 2010 so that Obama can "hard pivot" towards jobs in the State of the Union Address? If so, it sounds like a deadly strategy for those Dems who are placing large amounts of political capital on the line for a Christmas Eve vote:
"Politico’s Mike Allen and Alexander Trowbridge have some bad news for Democrats, especially in the Senate, where Harry Reid has kept the chamber locked in battle over ObamaCare for weeks in an attempt to hit the finish line by Christmas. Barack Obama plans to put the health-care overhaul on the back burner until after the State of the Union address, pushing any conference between the House and Senate off until February. Instead, Obama plans a “hard pivot” towards jobs and the economy."
Does this make any sense to anyone . . . except Obama?
UPDATE: This from Contentions (Jennifer Rubin):
"Harry Reid’s effort to jam this through without public scrutiny may fail spectacularly. Senators emboldened by the late-night sessions and the cloak of opaqueness have wheeled and dealed without a second thought.
Now the public can tell the lawmakers what they think, and put to the fire the feet of those supposedly “responsible” Democrats who were going to protect taxpayers (but not those with incomes less than $200,000) and the elderly (except for sucking $500B out of an already shaky Medicare system). Time has never been on the side of the Democrats and news that there will be a significant delay, if accurate, comes as a welcomed holiday gift to ObamaCare opponents."
And from Professor Jacobson:
"I'd like to believe it, but I can't help the feeling that this is disinformation put out by Rahm Emanuel to ease the pressure on Congressmen and Senators over the holiday break.
If this is true, then the Democratic Senators rushing to pass a bill by Christmas are about to jump off a political ledge without a parachute."
"Politico’s Mike Allen and Alexander Trowbridge have some bad news for Democrats, especially in the Senate, where Harry Reid has kept the chamber locked in battle over ObamaCare for weeks in an attempt to hit the finish line by Christmas. Barack Obama plans to put the health-care overhaul on the back burner until after the State of the Union address, pushing any conference between the House and Senate off until February. Instead, Obama plans a “hard pivot” towards jobs and the economy."
Does this make any sense to anyone . . . except Obama?
UPDATE: This from Contentions (Jennifer Rubin):
"Harry Reid’s effort to jam this through without public scrutiny may fail spectacularly. Senators emboldened by the late-night sessions and the cloak of opaqueness have wheeled and dealed without a second thought.
Now the public can tell the lawmakers what they think, and put to the fire the feet of those supposedly “responsible” Democrats who were going to protect taxpayers (but not those with incomes less than $200,000) and the elderly (except for sucking $500B out of an already shaky Medicare system). Time has never been on the side of the Democrats and news that there will be a significant delay, if accurate, comes as a welcomed holiday gift to ObamaCare opponents."
And from Professor Jacobson:
"I'd like to believe it, but I can't help the feeling that this is disinformation put out by Rahm Emanuel to ease the pressure on Congressmen and Senators over the holiday break.
If this is true, then the Democratic Senators rushing to pass a bill by Christmas are about to jump off a political ledge without a parachute."
Gitmo To Close . . . In 2011??!! (UPDATED)
Is this the "Hope and Change" you expected? From the New York Times today:
"Rebuffed this month by skeptical lawmakers when it sought finances to buy a prison in rural Illinois, the Obama administration is struggling to come up with the money to replace the Guantánamo Bay prison.
As a result, officials now believe that they are unlikely to close the prison at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, and transfer its population of terrorism suspects until 2011 at the earliest — a far slower timeline for achieving one of President Obama’s signature national security policies than they had previously hinted."
I guess Obama didn't work long enough in the private sector to know that you are supposed to under promise and over deliver - not the other way around!
UPDATE: Obama never intended to close Gitmo?
"Rebuffed this month by skeptical lawmakers when it sought finances to buy a prison in rural Illinois, the Obama administration is struggling to come up with the money to replace the Guantánamo Bay prison.
As a result, officials now believe that they are unlikely to close the prison at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, and transfer its population of terrorism suspects until 2011 at the earliest — a far slower timeline for achieving one of President Obama’s signature national security policies than they had previously hinted."
I guess Obama didn't work long enough in the private sector to know that you are supposed to under promise and over deliver - not the other way around!
UPDATE: Obama never intended to close Gitmo?
Obama's Top Ten Foreign Policy Blunders
The guys at Powerlineblog link to a U.K. Telegraph column by Nile Gardiner which reviews some of Obama's worst foreign policy moves in 2009 (unfortunately there were many from which to choose). The list below comes from the summarized version at Powerlineblog, but the original article contains the details - so read the whole thing:
1. Surrendering to Russia over missile defence.
2. Appeasing the mullahs of Iran.
3. Ending the war on terror.
4. Announcing a surge while declaring an exit.
5. Apologizing to France for America's "arrogance."
6. Giving DVDs to the British Prime Minister.
7. Siding with Marxists in Honduras.
8. Bowing to emperors and kings.
9. Embracing genocidal killers in Sudan.
10. Throwing Churchill out of the White House.
What an embarrassment.
1. Surrendering to Russia over missile defence.
2. Appeasing the mullahs of Iran.
3. Ending the war on terror.
4. Announcing a surge while declaring an exit.
5. Apologizing to France for America's "arrogance."
6. Giving DVDs to the British Prime Minister.
7. Siding with Marxists in Honduras.
8. Bowing to emperors and kings.
9. Embracing genocidal killers in Sudan.
10. Throwing Churchill out of the White House.
What an embarrassment.
McConnell Deserves Our Support
Whether it's a game of cards, politics, or life itself, you always to have the play the hand you are dealt. Senator Mitch McConnell played his cards well, accordingly to Byron York:
"Some commentators have accused Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of caving to Democratic pressure by agreeing to hold the vote on final passage of the national health care bill on Christmas Eve morning as opposed to the originally-planned 7 p.m. "Mitch McConnell Surrenders," reads one blog headline "McConnell Weasels Out," reads another.
But according to a well placed GOP Senate source, it was Majority Leader Harry Reid who approached McConnell in hopes of holding the vote earlier, and McConnell, who was prepared to go ahead with the evening vote, got some key concessions from Reid in return for agreeing to move the vote up a few hours.
There's no doubt that McConnell, with just 40 Republican votes, holds the weak hand in negotiating with Reid.
But according to the source, in exchange for agreeing to hold the vote on Christmas Eve morning instead of evening, McConnell got Reid to agree to hold a high-profile debt-limit vote next month -- just before the president's State of the Union address -- instead of burying the issue later, as Democrats had wanted. In addition, McConnell got Reid to agree to showcase a number of deficit-related Republican amendments, forcing Democrats to vote on issues they had hoped to avoid." [Links removed by me].
Well played, Senator. Thanks for hanging in there. Reinforcements are on the way (we hope!)
"Some commentators have accused Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of caving to Democratic pressure by agreeing to hold the vote on final passage of the national health care bill on Christmas Eve morning as opposed to the originally-planned 7 p.m. "Mitch McConnell Surrenders," reads one blog headline "McConnell Weasels Out," reads another.
But according to a well placed GOP Senate source, it was Majority Leader Harry Reid who approached McConnell in hopes of holding the vote earlier, and McConnell, who was prepared to go ahead with the evening vote, got some key concessions from Reid in return for agreeing to move the vote up a few hours.
There's no doubt that McConnell, with just 40 Republican votes, holds the weak hand in negotiating with Reid.
But according to the source, in exchange for agreeing to hold the vote on Christmas Eve morning instead of evening, McConnell got Reid to agree to hold a high-profile debt-limit vote next month -- just before the president's State of the Union address -- instead of burying the issue later, as Democrats had wanted. In addition, McConnell got Reid to agree to showcase a number of deficit-related Republican amendments, forcing Democrats to vote on issues they had hoped to avoid." [Links removed by me].
Well played, Senator. Thanks for hanging in there. Reinforcements are on the way (we hope!)
Michael Barone On ReidCare
(h/t Instapundit). The great Michael Barone compares ReidCare to the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 . . . and not in a good way!:
"On the health care bill, there can be little doubt about public opinion. Quinnipiac, polling just after the Senate voted cloture, found Americans opposed by a 53 percent to 36 percent margin. Polls suggest that Democrats may suffer as much carnage in the 2010 elections as they did in 1854."
His conclusion:
"Kansas-Nebraska was an attempt to settle a fundamental issue by legislative legerdemain and political trickery. The Democrats' health care bills are an attempt to settle a fundamental issue by partisan maneuver and cash-for-cloture. As Stephen Douglas learned, such tactics can work for a while, but the country -- and the Democratic Party -- can end up paying a heavy price."
As always with Barone, be sure to read it all.
"On the health care bill, there can be little doubt about public opinion. Quinnipiac, polling just after the Senate voted cloture, found Americans opposed by a 53 percent to 36 percent margin. Polls suggest that Democrats may suffer as much carnage in the 2010 elections as they did in 1854."
His conclusion:
"Kansas-Nebraska was an attempt to settle a fundamental issue by legislative legerdemain and political trickery. The Democrats' health care bills are an attempt to settle a fundamental issue by partisan maneuver and cash-for-cloture. As Stephen Douglas learned, such tactics can work for a while, but the country -- and the Democratic Party -- can end up paying a heavy price."
As always with Barone, be sure to read it all.
A (Modern) Christmas Story
On being a "Closet Christian" in the Big City:
"It was Sunday morning in my scruffy Brooklyn, N.Y., neighborhood, and I was wearing a dress. Walking to the subway, I ran into a friend heading home from yoga class. She wore sweats and carried her mat over her shoulder. "Where are you going so early all dressed up?" she asked, chuckling. "To church?" We shared a laugh at the absurdity of a liberal New Yorker heading off to worship. The real joke? I totally was."
Be sure to read it all . . . before Christmas!
"It was Sunday morning in my scruffy Brooklyn, N.Y., neighborhood, and I was wearing a dress. Walking to the subway, I ran into a friend heading home from yoga class. She wore sweats and carried her mat over her shoulder. "Where are you going so early all dressed up?" she asked, chuckling. "To church?" We shared a laugh at the absurdity of a liberal New Yorker heading off to worship. The real joke? I totally was."
Be sure to read it all . . . before Christmas!
One Side Is Obviously Disconnected From Political Reality
Will passage of ObamaCare help or hurt the Democrats? The Democrats believe that it will actually enhance their 2010 chances, but most polls show otherwise. Jennifer Rubin makes this observation:
"The Democrats are convinced that ObamaCare will be their ticket to political survival, the only way of avoiding a 2010 wipeout. So far, it doesn’t look that way. From Rasmussen: “Republican candidates now have an eight-point lead over Democrats, their biggest lead of the year, in the latest edition of the Generic Congressional Ballot."
And the president? The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Tuesday shows that 25% of the nation’s voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Forty-six percent (46%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -21. That’s the lowest Approval Index rating yet recorded for this President. … Overall, 44% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the President’s performance. Fifty-six percent (56%) now disapprove."
2010 will prove to be an interesting year - one that will confirm that one side of this debate clearly has been engaging in wishful thinking. I know where I would place my bet.
"The Democrats are convinced that ObamaCare will be their ticket to political survival, the only way of avoiding a 2010 wipeout. So far, it doesn’t look that way. From Rasmussen: “Republican candidates now have an eight-point lead over Democrats, their biggest lead of the year, in the latest edition of the Generic Congressional Ballot."
And the president? The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Tuesday shows that 25% of the nation’s voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Forty-six percent (46%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -21. That’s the lowest Approval Index rating yet recorded for this President. … Overall, 44% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the President’s performance. Fifty-six percent (56%) now disapprove."
2010 will prove to be an interesting year - one that will confirm that one side of this debate clearly has been engaging in wishful thinking. I know where I would place my bet.
Althouse Takes On DC Mayor Fenty . .. . And Wins
The great Professor Althouse is unhappy with DC Mayor Fenty's decision to sign a same sex marriage bill "in a church!":
"What a shameful and embarrassing display! Here you are, purporting to extend rights to people, and flouting the fundamental principle of keeping government separate from religion. The perfect location? Yes, it was the perfect location to show your lack of respect for constitutional limitations on government."
Spot on. But "shameful"? I have long ago given up on our political class experiencing shame over anything.
Well, as one of the comments said, to be fair, it wasn't a real church.
Read it all here.
"What a shameful and embarrassing display! Here you are, purporting to extend rights to people, and flouting the fundamental principle of keeping government separate from religion. The perfect location? Yes, it was the perfect location to show your lack of respect for constitutional limitations on government."
Spot on. But "shameful"? I have long ago given up on our political class experiencing shame over anything.
Well, as one of the comments said, to be fair, it wasn't a real church.
Read it all here.
Huffington Post Goes Postal . . . .On Obama
This is one scathing column from the Huffington Post (Drew Weston) that directly takes on Obama's leadership style - actually, his lack of leadership style. Here's just an excerpt:
"What's costing the president are three things: a laissez faire style of leadership that appears weak and removed to everyday Americans, a failure to articulate and defend any coherent ideological position on virtually anything, and a widespread perception that he cares more about special interests like bank, credit card, oil and coal, and health and pharmaceutical companies than he does about the people they are shafting.
The problem is not that his record is being distorted. It's that all three have more than a grain of truth. And I say this not as one of those pesky "leftists." I say this as someone who has spent much of the last three years studying what moves voters in the middle, the Undecideds who will hear whichever side speaks to them with moral clarity."
His damning conclusion:
"I don't honestly know what this president believes. But I believe if he doesn't figure it out soon, start enunciating it, and start fighting for it, he's not only going to give American families hungry for security a series of half-loaves where they could have had full ones, but he's going to set back the Democratic Party and the progressive movement by decades, because the average American is coming to believe that what they're seeing right now is "liberalism," and they don't like what they see. I don't, either.
What's they're seeing is weakness, waffling, and wandering through the wilderness without an ideological compass. That's a recipe for going nowhere fast -- but getting there by November."
Ouch. And that's from one of his supporters, someone who wants to like him. Obama is in deep political trouble when his base questions both his style and his motives after just 11 months. No wonder Obama has reached a new polling low.
Be sure to read the whole thing.
"What's costing the president are three things: a laissez faire style of leadership that appears weak and removed to everyday Americans, a failure to articulate and defend any coherent ideological position on virtually anything, and a widespread perception that he cares more about special interests like bank, credit card, oil and coal, and health and pharmaceutical companies than he does about the people they are shafting.
The problem is not that his record is being distorted. It's that all three have more than a grain of truth. And I say this not as one of those pesky "leftists." I say this as someone who has spent much of the last three years studying what moves voters in the middle, the Undecideds who will hear whichever side speaks to them with moral clarity."
His damning conclusion:
"I don't honestly know what this president believes. But I believe if he doesn't figure it out soon, start enunciating it, and start fighting for it, he's not only going to give American families hungry for security a series of half-loaves where they could have had full ones, but he's going to set back the Democratic Party and the progressive movement by decades, because the average American is coming to believe that what they're seeing right now is "liberalism," and they don't like what they see. I don't, either.
What's they're seeing is weakness, waffling, and wandering through the wilderness without an ideological compass. That's a recipe for going nowhere fast -- but getting there by November."
Ouch. And that's from one of his supporters, someone who wants to like him. Obama is in deep political trouble when his base questions both his style and his motives after just 11 months. No wonder Obama has reached a new polling low.
Be sure to read the whole thing.
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
Chicago-Style Politics And The World
Obama lied in Copenhagen? Yes, says . . . Cuba!:
"Cuba's foreign minister called President Barack Obama an "imperial and arrogant" liar Monday for his conduct at the U.N. climate conference, a reflection of the communist island's increasingly fiery verbal attacks on the U.S. Government.
Bruno Rodriguez spent an hour and a half lambasting Obama's behavior in Copenhagen, telling a news conference, "at this summit, there was only imperial, arrogant Obama, who does not listen, who imposes his positions and even threatens developing countries."
He called the summit "a fallacy, a farce" and said Washington used back-room deals and strong-arm tactics to foist on the world a deal that he labeled "undemocratic" and "suicidal" because it urges—but does not require—major polluters to make deeper emissions cuts."
When it's Cuba denouncing our President as liar and thug, I don't know whether to be angry at Obama for bringing Chicago-style politics to the world stage . . . or proud of him!
"Cuba's foreign minister called President Barack Obama an "imperial and arrogant" liar Monday for his conduct at the U.N. climate conference, a reflection of the communist island's increasingly fiery verbal attacks on the U.S. Government.
Bruno Rodriguez spent an hour and a half lambasting Obama's behavior in Copenhagen, telling a news conference, "at this summit, there was only imperial, arrogant Obama, who does not listen, who imposes his positions and even threatens developing countries."
He called the summit "a fallacy, a farce" and said Washington used back-room deals and strong-arm tactics to foist on the world a deal that he labeled "undemocratic" and "suicidal" because it urges—but does not require—major polluters to make deeper emissions cuts."
When it's Cuba denouncing our President as liar and thug, I don't know whether to be angry at Obama for bringing Chicago-style politics to the world stage . . . or proud of him!
The Backlash Begins . . .
Peter Wehner has the details about where things stand after the Senate's middle-of-the-night, 60 to 40 partisan vote on healthcare "reform". Here are his top two observations:
"1. Few Democrats understand the depth and intensity of opposition that exists toward them and their agenda, especially regarding health care. Passage of this bill will only heighten the depth and intensity of the opposition. We’re seeing a political tsunami in the making, and passage of health-care legislation would only add to its size and force.
2. This health-care bill may well be historic, but not in the way the president thinks. I’m not sure we’ve ever seen anything quite like it: passage of a mammoth piece of legislation, hugely expensive and unpopular, on a strict party-line vote taken in a rush of panic because Democrats know that the more people see of ObamaCare, the less they like it."
Wehner's solid conclusion:
"Together, these actions tell quite a tale. Mr. Obama has revived the worst impressions of the Democratic party – profligate and undisciplined, arrogant, lovers of big government, increasers of taxes. The issues and narrative for American politics in the foreseeable future has been set — limited government versus exploding government, capitalism versus European style socialism, responsible and measured policies versus reckless and radical ones.
Barack Obama is in the process of inflicting enormous damage to his presidency and his party. And there is more, much more to come." [Emphasis added].
Be sure to read it all.
More here on the political backlash to Ben Nelson's cave-in:
"1. Few Democrats understand the depth and intensity of opposition that exists toward them and their agenda, especially regarding health care. Passage of this bill will only heighten the depth and intensity of the opposition. We’re seeing a political tsunami in the making, and passage of health-care legislation would only add to its size and force.
2. This health-care bill may well be historic, but not in the way the president thinks. I’m not sure we’ve ever seen anything quite like it: passage of a mammoth piece of legislation, hugely expensive and unpopular, on a strict party-line vote taken in a rush of panic because Democrats know that the more people see of ObamaCare, the less they like it."
Wehner's solid conclusion:
"Together, these actions tell quite a tale. Mr. Obama has revived the worst impressions of the Democratic party – profligate and undisciplined, arrogant, lovers of big government, increasers of taxes. The issues and narrative for American politics in the foreseeable future has been set — limited government versus exploding government, capitalism versus European style socialism, responsible and measured policies versus reckless and radical ones.
Barack Obama is in the process of inflicting enormous damage to his presidency and his party. And there is more, much more to come." [Emphasis added].
Be sure to read it all.
More here on the political backlash to Ben Nelson's cave-in:
"Despite the perks Nelson managed to garner for Nebraska in finally agreeing to support the overhaul bill, the backlash from those who wanted Nelson to hold a hard line against the measure was immediate.
Abortion foes howled in protest. Nebraska Right to Life, which has long endorsed Nelson, issued a scathing statement that dubbed Nelson a traitor. The state's Catholic bishops followed Sunday with a statement that they were "extremely disappointed" in him."
Abortion foes howled in protest. Nebraska Right to Life, which has long endorsed Nelson, issued a scathing statement that dubbed Nelson a traitor. The state's Catholic bishops followed Sunday with a statement that they were "extremely disappointed" in him."
A Political Earthquake
Rick Richman observes that what it took George W. Bush eight years to achieve, Obama has accomplished in just 11 months - he should be proud:
"In today’s Rasmussen presidential poll, only 26 percent of the nation’s voters strongly approve of Barack Obama’s performance as president, while 43 percent strongly disapprove — giving him a Presidential Approval Index rating, a sum calculated by subtracting the number of strong disapprovals from the number of strong approvals, of negative 17. His overall disapproval rating is 53 percent (it has been 50 percent or more for over a month). But it is the extraordinarily high proportion of those who strongly disapprove that bears noting.
In January, George W. Bush left office with a “Strongly Disapprove” rating of … 43 percent. It took Bush eight years to achieve that level of strong disapproval, despite how the mainstream media pummeled him for years. Obama has reached that level in 11 months, despite a media that for months could not use his name in a sentence without also adding “Lincoln” and “FDR.”
"Unprecedented!" as our C in C likes to say! Healthcare "reform" certainly has worked wonders . . . for the opposition.
"In today’s Rasmussen presidential poll, only 26 percent of the nation’s voters strongly approve of Barack Obama’s performance as president, while 43 percent strongly disapprove — giving him a Presidential Approval Index rating, a sum calculated by subtracting the number of strong disapprovals from the number of strong approvals, of negative 17. His overall disapproval rating is 53 percent (it has been 50 percent or more for over a month). But it is the extraordinarily high proportion of those who strongly disapprove that bears noting.
In January, George W. Bush left office with a “Strongly Disapprove” rating of … 43 percent. It took Bush eight years to achieve that level of strong disapproval, despite how the mainstream media pummeled him for years. Obama has reached that level in 11 months, despite a media that for months could not use his name in a sentence without also adding “Lincoln” and “FDR.”
"Unprecedented!" as our C in C likes to say! Healthcare "reform" certainly has worked wonders . . . for the opposition.
Monday, December 21, 2009
Healthcare "Reform" As Football
Posted this morning to remind us that it's not over until it's over (from Jeffrey H. Anderson):
"Senior White House Advisor David Axelrod said today that supporters of Obamacare are "right on the one-yard line." It is interesting that he said this less than 24 hours after Fresno State, in this season's first college football bowl game, also was on the 1-yard line very late in the game. At that point, a determined Wyoming defense stopped the Bulldogs on four consecutive plays from the one. The Cowboys, a huge underdog, then went on to win the game in double-overtime.
Axelrod's analogy is fine as far as it goes, but it isn't complete. It would be more accurate to say that the Democrats are on the 1-yard line -- with the clock running down -- but they trail by 8 points and it's 4th down. They have almost no margin for error. They need to sneak the ball across the goal line for a touchdown (at 1:00 AM, in the Senate), followed by a 2-point conversion (in the House). Then they need yet another score in overtime (back in the Senate) to win. All the while, they'll have to overcome the roar of the crowd, which is audibly and increasingly against them.
And even if they were to win, they would then have to defend their victory in 2010 and 2012, after the crowd, which is also the owner, has changed the composition of the players.
In short, there's a lot of football to be played."
Indeed. Now is not the time to give up, give in, or give out.
"Senior White House Advisor David Axelrod said today that supporters of Obamacare are "right on the one-yard line." It is interesting that he said this less than 24 hours after Fresno State, in this season's first college football bowl game, also was on the 1-yard line very late in the game. At that point, a determined Wyoming defense stopped the Bulldogs on four consecutive plays from the one. The Cowboys, a huge underdog, then went on to win the game in double-overtime.
Axelrod's analogy is fine as far as it goes, but it isn't complete. It would be more accurate to say that the Democrats are on the 1-yard line -- with the clock running down -- but they trail by 8 points and it's 4th down. They have almost no margin for error. They need to sneak the ball across the goal line for a touchdown (at 1:00 AM, in the Senate), followed by a 2-point conversion (in the House). Then they need yet another score in overtime (back in the Senate) to win. All the while, they'll have to overcome the roar of the crowd, which is audibly and increasingly against them.
And even if they were to win, they would then have to defend their victory in 2010 and 2012, after the crowd, which is also the owner, has changed the composition of the players.
In short, there's a lot of football to be played."
Indeed. Now is not the time to give up, give in, or give out.
Sunday, December 20, 2009
Keep This In Mind In November 2010
Jennifer Rubin persuasively makes the case that "when the chips are down, all Democrats are liberals":
"The Senate is moving slowly toward the first cloture vote around 1:00 a.m. on Monday, heading to a final vote on the health-care bill Thursday evening. At this juncture the most realistic avenue for upsetting the freight train is Rep. Bart Stupak, who unlike Sen. Ben Nelson, was not snookered (willingly or otherwise) into abandoning his pro-life constituents. As others have pointed out, Nebraska pro-life voters like voters in every state will, under the Harry Reid “compromise,” have their tax dollars go toward subsidizing abortions in states that choose not to “opt out” of abortion coverage.
There are several noteworthy aspects to all of this. First, we have heard a lot in the last year from some snooty ostensibly-conservative pundits who would like to rearrange the conservative coalition and dump social conservatives overboard. However, the health-care bill is as good an example as we will find as to why this is politically idiotic. Here we see that it is social conservatives who remain the last men and women standing against liberal economic- and social-engineering projects. The numbers may just not be there for Stupak to disrupt the juggernaut, but it is instructive that the final battle is likely to be over abortion subsidies, not taxes or any other economic issue. Perhaps it’s not a good idea for conservatives to tell some of their most stalwart allies to get lost."
Be sure to read the whole thing.
"The Senate is moving slowly toward the first cloture vote around 1:00 a.m. on Monday, heading to a final vote on the health-care bill Thursday evening. At this juncture the most realistic avenue for upsetting the freight train is Rep. Bart Stupak, who unlike Sen. Ben Nelson, was not snookered (willingly or otherwise) into abandoning his pro-life constituents. As others have pointed out, Nebraska pro-life voters like voters in every state will, under the Harry Reid “compromise,” have their tax dollars go toward subsidizing abortions in states that choose not to “opt out” of abortion coverage.
There are several noteworthy aspects to all of this. First, we have heard a lot in the last year from some snooty ostensibly-conservative pundits who would like to rearrange the conservative coalition and dump social conservatives overboard. However, the health-care bill is as good an example as we will find as to why this is politically idiotic. Here we see that it is social conservatives who remain the last men and women standing against liberal economic- and social-engineering projects. The numbers may just not be there for Stupak to disrupt the juggernaut, but it is instructive that the final battle is likely to be over abortion subsidies, not taxes or any other economic issue. Perhaps it’s not a good idea for conservatives to tell some of their most stalwart allies to get lost."
Be sure to read the whole thing.
It's Come To This . . . Prayer As Bullying
Posted without comment this Sunday afternoon:
"A devout Christian teacher has lost her job after discussing her faith with a mother and her sick child and offering to pray for them.
Olive Jones, a 54-year-old mother of two, who taught maths to children too ill to attend school, was dismissed following a complaint from the girl’s mother. She was visiting the home of the child when she spoke about her belief in miracles and asked whether she could say a prayer, but when the mother indicated they were not believers she did not go ahead.
Mrs Jones was then called in by her managers who, she says, told her that sharing her faith with a child could be deemed to be bullying and informed her that her services were no longer required."
"A devout Christian teacher has lost her job after discussing her faith with a mother and her sick child and offering to pray for them.
Olive Jones, a 54-year-old mother of two, who taught maths to children too ill to attend school, was dismissed following a complaint from the girl’s mother. She was visiting the home of the child when she spoke about her belief in miracles and asked whether she could say a prayer, but when the mother indicated they were not believers she did not go ahead.
Mrs Jones was then called in by her managers who, she says, told her that sharing her faith with a child could be deemed to be bullying and informed her that her services were no longer required."
Saturday, December 19, 2009
Stupak: Is He Working To Kill The Reid Bill After Ben Nelson's Sell-Out?
Yes, says this report from HotAir (with links):
"So strange have the bedfellows become that this story is breaking almost at the same time that this one is. Pro-life and pro-choice, united at last!
Question: Will the nutroots regard Stupak as a traitor for working with the evil GOP or an unwitting hero in trying to block a bill they regard as a sellout to corporate America?
An aide to Rep. Bart Stupak (D. Mich.) coordinated opposition to a Senate compromise on the place of abortion in health care legislation this morning with the Republican Senate leadership, the Conference Catholic Bishops, and other anti-abortion groups, according to a chain of frantic emails obtained this morning by POLITICO.
The emails show that Stupak — who has so far remained silent on language accepted by Senator Ben Nelson (D. Neb.) and faces intense pressure from the White House to accept it — is already working behind the scenes to oppose the compromise…"
There may be a turn or two left in this debate but we are getting very close to a yes on passing healthcare "reform." I can't help but believe that actually passing this monstrosity - a rushed bill that large segments of the left, right and center now oppose - will cause a political tsunami the likes of which we haven't seen in generations. Democrats in Congress: you have the votes to pass this thing (for now), but watch out for the coming political backlash. It. Will. Be. Brutal.
More here:
The left and the right are united:
"The National Organization of Women:
National Right to Life:
NRLC will score the upcoming roll call votes on cloture on the Reid manager’s amendment, and on the underlying bill, as votes in favor of legislation to allow the federal government to subsidize private insurance plans that cover abortion on demand, to oversee multi-state plans that cover elective abortions, and to empower federal officials to mandate that private health plans cover abortions even if they do not accept subsidized enrollees, among other problems.
In addition, if the final bill produced by a House-Senate conference committee does not contain the Stupak-Pitts Amendment, NRLC will score the House and Senate votes on the conference report as votes to allow federal mandates and subsidies for coverage of elective abortion."
"So strange have the bedfellows become that this story is breaking almost at the same time that this one is. Pro-life and pro-choice, united at last!
Question: Will the nutroots regard Stupak as a traitor for working with the evil GOP or an unwitting hero in trying to block a bill they regard as a sellout to corporate America?
An aide to Rep. Bart Stupak (D. Mich.) coordinated opposition to a Senate compromise on the place of abortion in health care legislation this morning with the Republican Senate leadership, the Conference Catholic Bishops, and other anti-abortion groups, according to a chain of frantic emails obtained this morning by POLITICO.
The emails show that Stupak — who has so far remained silent on language accepted by Senator Ben Nelson (D. Neb.) and faces intense pressure from the White House to accept it — is already working behind the scenes to oppose the compromise…"
There may be a turn or two left in this debate but we are getting very close to a yes on passing healthcare "reform." I can't help but believe that actually passing this monstrosity - a rushed bill that large segments of the left, right and center now oppose - will cause a political tsunami the likes of which we haven't seen in generations. Democrats in Congress: you have the votes to pass this thing (for now), but watch out for the coming political backlash. It. Will. Be. Brutal.
More here:
The left and the right are united:
"The National Organization of Women:
We call on all senators who consider themselves friends of women’s rights to reject the Manager’s Amendment, and if it remains, to defeat this cruelly over-compromised legislation.Planned Parenthood apparently agrees.
National Right to Life:
NRLC will score the upcoming roll call votes on cloture on the Reid manager’s amendment, and on the underlying bill, as votes in favor of legislation to allow the federal government to subsidize private insurance plans that cover abortion on demand, to oversee multi-state plans that cover elective abortions, and to empower federal officials to mandate that private health plans cover abortions even if they do not accept subsidized enrollees, among other problems.
In addition, if the final bill produced by a House-Senate conference committee does not contain the Stupak-Pitts Amendment, NRLC will score the House and Senate votes on the conference report as votes to allow federal mandates and subsidies for coverage of elective abortion."
A View From Congress, By Former Member Martin Frost
Martin Frost, former Texas Representative (D) has an interesting take in The Hill on the House's abdication of power to the Senate, and its implications for Obama:
"If President Obama lets divided Senate Democrats dictate the shape of his legislative agenda, he will have a difficult year.
There has always been a certain amount of tension between the House and Senate, even with both bodies controlled by the same party. However, we have entered into new territory during the past year, and the next 12 months will be fascinating to watch.
It has not been unusual in recent years for far-reaching legislation to originate in the House, only to have it walked back to the center by the Senate, with compromises then made in conference. This has been true under both Democratic and Republican control.
What is different about this session of Congress is the suggestion that the Senate is so tied in knots that the House will simply have to accept without change whatever can win 60 votes in the Senate.
That would be a remarkable abdication of power by the House and is not likely to occur with any regularity in 2010."
There has also been a complete abdication from the executive to the Congress under Obama. His lack of experience - political, managerial, executive - has clearly come home to roost.
"If President Obama lets divided Senate Democrats dictate the shape of his legislative agenda, he will have a difficult year.
There has always been a certain amount of tension between the House and Senate, even with both bodies controlled by the same party. However, we have entered into new territory during the past year, and the next 12 months will be fascinating to watch.
It has not been unusual in recent years for far-reaching legislation to originate in the House, only to have it walked back to the center by the Senate, with compromises then made in conference. This has been true under both Democratic and Republican control.
What is different about this session of Congress is the suggestion that the Senate is so tied in knots that the House will simply have to accept without change whatever can win 60 votes in the Senate.
That would be a remarkable abdication of power by the House and is not likely to occur with any regularity in 2010."
There has also been a complete abdication from the executive to the Congress under Obama. His lack of experience - political, managerial, executive - has clearly come home to roost.
A "Progressive Backlash Against The Progressive Backlash"??
So says that mini-master of the universe, Rahm Emanuel:
"Turn off MSNBC. Tune out Howard Dean and Keith Olbermann. The White House has its liberal wing in hand on health care, says White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel.
“There are no liberals left to get” in the Senate, Emanuel said in an interview, shrugging off some noise from the likes of Sen. Bernie Sanders (I., Vt.) that a few liberals might bolt over the compromises made with conservative Democrats.
As the White House leans on conservative Democrat Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska for the 60th health care vote, Emanuel has made the case that this generation of liberal political figures will not make the mistake of their predecessors.
Emanuel pointed to a New York Times column by economist Paul Krugman and another coming from National Journal writer Ronald Brownstein pressing for passage of the Senate health bill. “What you’re seeing is the progressive backlash against the progressive backlash,” he said."
No. What we are witnessing is the inevitable Democrat "circular firing squad." To mix metaphors, Democrats always eat their own. This splintering of Obama's base - a developing chasm, really - will have severe political implications in the days and months head. We can only hope.
"Turn off MSNBC. Tune out Howard Dean and Keith Olbermann. The White House has its liberal wing in hand on health care, says White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel.
“There are no liberals left to get” in the Senate, Emanuel said in an interview, shrugging off some noise from the likes of Sen. Bernie Sanders (I., Vt.) that a few liberals might bolt over the compromises made with conservative Democrats.
As the White House leans on conservative Democrat Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska for the 60th health care vote, Emanuel has made the case that this generation of liberal political figures will not make the mistake of their predecessors.
Emanuel pointed to a New York Times column by economist Paul Krugman and another coming from National Journal writer Ronald Brownstein pressing for passage of the Senate health bill. “What you’re seeing is the progressive backlash against the progressive backlash,” he said."
No. What we are witnessing is the inevitable Democrat "circular firing squad." To mix metaphors, Democrats always eat their own. This splintering of Obama's base - a developing chasm, really - will have severe political implications in the days and months head. We can only hope.
Friday, December 18, 2009
Uh Oh: Nader Utters Racist Comment About Obama
From Don Surber:
"Benjamin Sarlin at the Daily Beast interviewed Nader, who is doing an I-told-you-so on health care, somehow blaming the rejection of Obamacare by the vatst majority of Americans on President Obama. Said Nader: “This is what I meant a year ago when I said the next year will determine whether Barack Obama will be an Uncle Tom groveling before the demands of the corporations that are running our country or he’ll be an Uncle Sam standing up for the American people.”
No good can come from this. It looks like the wing nuts on the left have totally lost it. In just 11 short months, Obama has managed to alienate the right, the center and the left. And Europe, India, China and Russia aren't all that pleased either. Who's next?
Wait . . . do I hear the sound of angels crying?
"Benjamin Sarlin at the Daily Beast interviewed Nader, who is doing an I-told-you-so on health care, somehow blaming the rejection of Obamacare by the vatst majority of Americans on President Obama. Said Nader: “This is what I meant a year ago when I said the next year will determine whether Barack Obama will be an Uncle Tom groveling before the demands of the corporations that are running our country or he’ll be an Uncle Sam standing up for the American people.”
No good can come from this. It looks like the wing nuts on the left have totally lost it. In just 11 short months, Obama has managed to alienate the right, the center and the left. And Europe, India, China and Russia aren't all that pleased either. Who's next?
Wait . . . do I hear the sound of angels crying?
Wehner: "The Left's Uprising Against Obama"
Realty has now intruded on the Obama fantasy, as Peter Wehner shows us:
I received a note from a friend commenting on the Left’s uprising against President Obama (see here and here and here). He told me that he thinks “all this lefty fulmination against Obama is sound and fury signifying nothing.”
I have a different take.
Quite apart from whether the revolt among Obama’s liberal-Left base will help derail health-care legislation, the Left’s unhappiness with Obama is significant. Let’s start with the most obvious thing first: the spell he had cast over many of them has been broken, and it will never be reclaimed.
In addition, Obama’s presidency is already weaker than any other presidency has been at a comparable point into the mandate. To have this new fissure complicates Obama’s political life considerably. When independents are fleeing your party in overwhelming numbers, which is now happening to Obama and the Democrats, it is doubly important that your core supporters remain by your side. For Obama to alienate many of them this early into his presidency means that he’s heading toward politically treacherous territory. And Obama has alienated his liberal/Left base at precisely the same time that the rest of the country is convinced that Obama is pursuing a liberal and, in some respects, genuinely radical agenda.
This rupture will also dampen the enthusiasm of his base as we head toward mid-term elections."
Be sure to read it all. 2010 may well prove to be Obama's Waterloo.
I received a note from a friend commenting on the Left’s uprising against President Obama (see here and here and here). He told me that he thinks “all this lefty fulmination against Obama is sound and fury signifying nothing.”
I have a different take.
Quite apart from whether the revolt among Obama’s liberal-Left base will help derail health-care legislation, the Left’s unhappiness with Obama is significant. Let’s start with the most obvious thing first: the spell he had cast over many of them has been broken, and it will never be reclaimed.
In addition, Obama’s presidency is already weaker than any other presidency has been at a comparable point into the mandate. To have this new fissure complicates Obama’s political life considerably. When independents are fleeing your party in overwhelming numbers, which is now happening to Obama and the Democrats, it is doubly important that your core supporters remain by your side. For Obama to alienate many of them this early into his presidency means that he’s heading toward politically treacherous territory. And Obama has alienated his liberal/Left base at precisely the same time that the rest of the country is convinced that Obama is pursuing a liberal and, in some respects, genuinely radical agenda.
This rupture will also dampen the enthusiasm of his base as we head toward mid-term elections."
Be sure to read it all. 2010 may well prove to be Obama's Waterloo.
The Power of Persuasion (UPDATED)
Obama speaks, China and India walk. The story is here:
India and China have taken a united stand and walked out of the climate summit as Copenhagen talks fail. Tensions prevailed at the climate talks at Copenhagen today, as Indian prime minister Manmohan Singh and China premier Wen Jiabao walked out of the summit along with their respective delegations, as talks failed."
How's that hope and change working out for you?
UPDATE: The One is mocked by Castro:
"Obama is not ignorant. Like (Al) Gore, he knows the grave danger that threatens everyone, but he vacillates and is weak in the face of a blind and irresponsible oligarchy in that country," Castro wrote in an editorial published December 9."
[Ed. Note: I think that last quote mistakenly put the period in the wrong place. It should have read: "Obama is not ignorant like (Al) Gore . . . " ].
India and China have taken a united stand and walked out of the climate summit as Copenhagen talks fail. Tensions prevailed at the climate talks at Copenhagen today, as Indian prime minister Manmohan Singh and China premier Wen Jiabao walked out of the summit along with their respective delegations, as talks failed."
How's that hope and change working out for you?
UPDATE: The One is mocked by Castro:
"Obama is not ignorant. Like (Al) Gore, he knows the grave danger that threatens everyone, but he vacillates and is weak in the face of a blind and irresponsible oligarchy in that country," Castro wrote in an editorial published December 9."
[Ed. Note: I think that last quote mistakenly put the period in the wrong place. It should have read: "Obama is not ignorant like (Al) Gore . . . " ].
Chicago Style Politics Now In Fashion In DC
FromThe Hill comes this:
"[Rep. Peter] DeFazio was one of only two Democrats to vote against those measures and the $700 billion bank bailout. (The other was Rep. Gene Taylor (D-Miss.) a Blue Dog conservative.)
Yet he’s also a pro-gun Democrat who has a B rating from the National Rifle Association.
“I would have less of a voice and I would have less respect if I voted for things I didn’t believe in because of pressure from the leadership,” DeFazio told The Hill in an interview.
Obama himself has taken notice.
“Don’t think we’re not keeping score, brother,” Obama told DeFazio during a closed-door meeting of the House Democratic Caucus, according to members afterward." [Emphasis added].
Nice. You want thuggish statements coming from a President. Especially a weak one.
"[Rep. Peter] DeFazio was one of only two Democrats to vote against those measures and the $700 billion bank bailout. (The other was Rep. Gene Taylor (D-Miss.) a Blue Dog conservative.)
Yet he’s also a pro-gun Democrat who has a B rating from the National Rifle Association.
“I would have less of a voice and I would have less respect if I voted for things I didn’t believe in because of pressure from the leadership,” DeFazio told The Hill in an interview.
Obama himself has taken notice.
“Don’t think we’re not keeping score, brother,” Obama told DeFazio during a closed-door meeting of the House Democratic Caucus, according to members afterward." [Emphasis added].
Nice. You want thuggish statements coming from a President. Especially a weak one.
Let it Snow, Let It Snow, Let It Snow . . . .
As they hammer out a "solution" to global warming, world leaders face a harsh winter reality. But they remain undeterred from their goal (of destroying the world's economy):
"World leaders flying into Copenhagen today to discuss a solution to global warming will first face freezing weather as a blizzard dumped 10 centimeters (4 inches) of snow on the Danish capital overnight. “Temperatures will stay low at least the next three days,” Henning Gisseloe, an official at Denmark’s Meteorological Institute, said today by telephone, forecasting more snow in coming days. “There’s a good chance of a white Christmas.”
Ah, faith - it's such a wonderful thing to realize that nothing will stop those who have it, despite scientific data to the contrary. The belief in things not only unseen, but also a belief in things common sense and your own eyes show otherwise. I guess it's true about all religions - all things are possible for those who believe!
"World leaders flying into Copenhagen today to discuss a solution to global warming will first face freezing weather as a blizzard dumped 10 centimeters (4 inches) of snow on the Danish capital overnight. “Temperatures will stay low at least the next three days,” Henning Gisseloe, an official at Denmark’s Meteorological Institute, said today by telephone, forecasting more snow in coming days. “There’s a good chance of a white Christmas.”
Ah, faith - it's such a wonderful thing to realize that nothing will stop those who have it, despite scientific data to the contrary. The belief in things not only unseen, but also a belief in things common sense and your own eyes show otherwise. I guess it's true about all religions - all things are possible for those who believe!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
