The city of Los Angeles, California highlights the logic of referring to the state as Americ’a Greece with passage of a nonsense boycott of the state of Arizona. California’s pathetic state of financial affairs causing it to hover over the brink of economic disaster can be linked to the stupidity of public officials. Not the least of which reside in Los Angeles.
Oh, the bold move to shore up liberal sentiment in the land of fruits, nuts and flakes relies on exactly what California cannot do. Manage the public sector or its finances. Even one of the authors of the boycott admits the move is a paper tiger.
If Arizona countered with a similar measure California would likely be the loser. And failing to act against illegal immigration points to a major reason California is all but bankrupt. Liberal fantasies transformed to political action are doomed to fail. History is full of examples.
So go ahead California, continue to demonstrate how incredibly feeble you are by continuing to support your nonsense agenda. But let us all know when your going out of business sale gets scheduled. Everyone could use serious discounts if you have anything of value left to sell. And we’ll pass on the cheap imported labor.
The great divide between the political left and right often described as the degree to which America has become ‘polarized’ is present in every debate on issues of the day. National defense, border security, terrorism and illegal immigration are related issues featuring this obstacle to good governance.
Two recent columns from the Washington Examiner highlight the problem. In one, Diana West recounts the Times Square bomber episode and reactions from Mayor Bloomberg and others including the MSM. While they were hoping the bomber was some ‘right wing militia man’ or someone angry over Obamacare or a foreclosure one media marvel hoped it wasn’t someone from an Islamic country and slipped in the race card while she was at it.
West makes valid points throughout the piece not the least of which places responsibility where it belongs.
Beyond terrorism the issues of national defense, border security and illegal immigration were ignited again in Arizona with the passage of SB 1070. And the rising anger of voters has been felt since last summer’s townhalls and the emergence of the tea party movement. And it should be no surprise that the other column mentioned from the Washington Examiner is another attempt to demonize voter outrage as something it is not.
Both major political parties in the US would probably like the tea party movement to go away. With the November 2010 midterm elections poised to empty Congress of incumbents both Dems and the GOP are nervous. How else do you explain the preemptive exit by so many POLS? Roll Call has the casualty list. Retirements and resignations alone total 28 house vacancies and 15 in the Senate.
The story behind this news finds Mitt Romney introducing Bennett at the convention. The same Romney who like Sarah Palin endorsed John McCain in his re-election bid. Palin also sinned again by endorsing Carly Fiorina in the race against Barbara Boxer in California. Fiorina was the failed CEO of HP and an adviser to the McCain/Palin ticket in their failed bid in 2008.
That’s a fair assessment from Odom. Conservatives certainly do not need Bennett or Fiorina any more than they need McCain. As for the actions of Palin and Romney this year it would appear they learned little from the 2008 campaign season.
And last but not least, David Obey (D-WI) announcing his retirement this past week is too much of a coincidence to believe being ‘bone tired’ is the primary reason (pun intended) for his decision. Most of those leaving office voluntarily are controversial and vulnerable. Obey was no exception.
The tea party movement contrary to Sirota’s description demonstrates the public is fed up with the ‘establishment’ POLS in our country and yes, we want to take it back from them. So Mr Sirota, given Bennett, a member of the GOP, is the first 2010 casualty try this mantra for your analysis. Throw the bums out!
Oh my, let’s get all indignant on the topic of Wall Street and the liberal pursuit of villains to take the blame for choices made by others. Maureen (Moron) Dowd does her level best to support the Democratic party’s attempt to shift blame. She pans ‘Las Vegas metaphors’ used by POLS in chastising Goldman Sachs while ignoring a basic rule designed to remind consumers of the pitfalls in the marketplace - caveat emptor, let the buyer beware.
According to Princeton’s Wordnet, caveat emptor is described as ‘a commercial principle that without a warranty the buyer takes upon himself the risk of quality.’ Does it get any simpler than that?
Sure, let’s talk about the greed of Wall Street and the bonuses received by Blankfein and others. Never mind the greed of those who were stung by real estate investments they would never have purchased had they performed the due diligence required.
This is no different than the wailing and gnashing of teeth coming from Enron employees who lost their jobs when that house of cards imploded as well as retirement accounts exclusively or largely built around Enron stock. Though one should never place all their investment eggs in one basket, the meteoric rise of Enron stock enticed the greedy to ignore another simple and common concept. If it seems to good to be true it probably is.
Conveniently, Dowd also ignores the role of many politicians steering Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, banking regulators and other government entities toward real estate disaster. A long history of accommodating the notion that everyone should own a home whether they can afford it or not led to ‘no docs’ loans and banking interests scurrying to unload bad mortgages they would not have produced on their own.
While POLS ‘grill’ Goldman Sachs in the US Senate and call for ‘Wall Street reforms’ take a look at Fannie and Freddie now and tell me anything has changed. As for those facing foreclosure since taking a mortgage they cannot afford or others lured by greed during the recent real estate ‘bubble’ POLS advocating more bailouts for bad decisions should be retired in November 2010.
It’s about time people begin taking responsibility for their own failures. Crying foul when you end up on the losing side of a transaction and expecting others to take the blame is childish. Some forget that transactions on Wall Street between buyers and sellers are a zero sum game. For each transaction there is a winner and a loser. Someone posts a gain and someone posts a loss. Get over it or get out.
Conservative talkers point to one of many subtle tactics used by liberals regarding their legislative reform proposals. That is beyond the point that they call their legislative agenda, ‘reform’. This week’s propaganda centers on what liberals refer to as ‘wall street reforms.’ They even have the media doing it.
This points to an old and trusted tactic by liberals to manufacture a villain right after creating a crisis. Rahm Emanuel has been quoted as saying, ‘never let a crisis go to waste’ or something similar. That would be especially true if you create the crisis. You might want to ask the Obama Chief of Staff where he acrrued most of his net worth. You can add the Senator from Countrywide, Chris Dodd, to that list. Follow the money, the committees and other congressional career paths to understand what caused the so-called financial crisis.
President Obama and other Democrats would like you to believe that Wall Street is the villain for economic turmoil around the planet over the last few years. Nothing is that simple. But it is a simple idea to create a crisis, invent the villain and pursue the rest of your liberal agenda by convincing the public you are gettin’ the bad guys.
Try this for a simple explanation. Changes were made after the Crash of ‘29′ to ensure what led to the Great Depression never happened again. You might want to study something called Glass-Steagall which was passed in 1932 and repealed in 1999 by the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act and President Clinton.
You might also consider the Community Reinvestment Act as well as other actions by Congress and the FDIC and Fannie and Freddie, etc. over time. The list can get quite long and like any whodunnit it takes some effort to sort out the mess. Nothing is as simple as Wall Street did it. But President Obama would like you to believe that. So would his cronies who share the blame for much of what happened. And the GOP is certainly not without fault in this. Neither is the general public.
Look for the phrase ‘help to put an end’ when referring to ‘cycles of boom and bust.’ That’s right Mr President. You may help but it won’t eliminate up and down cycles. And some say your legislation will make things worse not better. One of these days POLS may get the message that when you muddy the waters with politics you have to slow down to prove what you’re saying.
While the GOP may be opposing Dems on general principle if only by accident they have been correct lately.
A little too much political fluff in that statement but we get the point. And the larger point is legislators need to bring proof of concept to the table not just political or any other kind of rhetoric.
As a final note for this post, if Chris Dodd had anything to do with it, throw it out.
Yes, it’s early yet. But you can always count on an abundance of opinion, speculation and concern when it comes to judicial nominations especially for SCOTUS. This time out is no exception. So where are we at rignt now? Who knows?
Here’s a recap of recent predictions or at least a not so short list with some, shall we say, historical notes.
It appears the replacement for Justice John Paul Stevens may come from a list of ten candidates.
elena kagan
merrick b garland
diane wood (of chicago)
sidney thomas
janet napolitano
martha minow
elizabeth warren
leah ward sears
jennifer granholm
hillary clinton (now, reportedly, off the list)
How about Merrick B Garland being on the ’short list’? The Wiki data will be skipped. Why? Clinton and Chicago in this potential nominee’s resume’ as well.
Diane Wood is another Chicago connection. Go figure, the University of Chicago is in her resume’. At least she was born in New Jersey rather than Illinois. But this one also is a Clinton nominee from 1995. And these three figure as top nominees to replace Stevens. BTW, you might want to check Wiki for Wood’s ‘noteworthy rulings.’ There is more than one of interest.
As for the remainder of this list, a humble opinion from this blog author. Judge Sidney Thomas is another Clinton nominee from 1995. This criteria for Steven’s replacement is laughable. Can Obama not draw on something other than political considerations? Oh, excuse me, we’re talking about a community organizer here.
Martha Minow gets no pan on this blog…. yet. A brief review of the Wiki data suggests this potential nominee may not have the typical resume’ of other Chicago or Clinton tainted cnadidates. Nonetheless there is reason to be concerned. A later post will be needed to expand on this list member.
Leah Ward Sears presents another unknown quantity and her ‘decisions’ may provide some troubling analysis. Like Minow, another post will be required to explore this candidate.
Hillary Clinton appears to have been dropped from the list if she in fact was ever on it. As for Granholm, Napolitano and Warren only the last name presents an interesting choice. Some information related to Elizabeth Warren is promising. But then, if she is on the Obama ’short list’ one has to be suspicious. But there are acceptable choices in Obama’s list. Given you cannot expect the Messiah to nominate a conservative.
Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com
BTW, here’s an interesting opinion from the WaPo report…..
WH Press Secretary Robert Gibbs has taken plenty of criticism. Whether you view him as incompetent or an astute barrier between the press and the Obama administration his performance could fairly be described as less than stellar. How does that play with WH plans for his career suggested in a WaPo article?
AS 2012 approaches Axelrod will focus on re-election while Plouffe gets top strategist and Gibbs gets what, exactly? Like you would want to accept the take of a failed communications director.
“Robert is far more of a strategist and plays more of a strategic role than people realize,” said Anita Dunn, the Obama administration’s former communications director. “He is one of the very few people who can sit in on anything he wants to sit in on.”
And it is always a waste of time to accept information from an undisclosed source without the stones to go on record to protect against looking the fool later.
“The idea of Gibbs taking on a senior adviser role was under discussion as a possible arrangement even before the current arrangement,” said one Democratic official with knowledge of staffing decisions during the transition, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss private conversations.
And it gets better. In the quote below it would be more fun to know why the pair left the Kerry campaign ‘abruptly.’
“He’s definitely got the chops for a broader political portfolio,” said Jim Jordan, the Democratic operative who brought Gibbs onto the 2004 Kerry campaign, before they both left abruptly. “He understands campaigns and Washington and the way that politics and policy and communications mesh.”
Number one, if you’re such a hot strategic commodity why would you be burdened and embarrassed by a stint as a press secretary? And why would you be referred to as a ‘confidant’ to a US President when two others are in line for the top strategy posts? Is this just a not so subtle attempt to repair Gibbs’ sad history to date?
Number two, Barack Obama is not a stranger to throwing people under the bus. His approval ratings continue to slide. More and more Americans are expressing their displeasure and disappointment with Obama and the liberal majority in Congress. If Axelrod is point for 2012 and Plouffe is his replacement what does that forecast for Gibbs? When it all collapses he will be turned out as the failure’s scapegoat. Or just one of many who will see the underside of the bus.
One report this week suggests the GOP will not oppose President Obama’s next nominee for the US Supreme Court. After confirmation of Sonia Sotomayor and the recent announcement of Justice Steven’s retirement later this year the sad rhetoric from both major parties demonstrates what has become an absurd process.
Although the sentiment, taken out of context here, may make some kind of point it certainly misses the mark when describing the judicial nomination process and the people and strategies involved.
Likewise a quote from the other side of the aisle is equally partisan and also misses the mark about the process.
The Citizens United decision allowing ‘political advertising’ from previously banned sources is just one SCOTUS opinion. One can make a reasonable argument that those either in favor or opposed to it drew a conclusion based on how it affects their own agenda. Which is to say that Democrats don’t believe they can win the advertising game while Republicans do.
Why don’t they simply state the truth? Based on political considerations each nominee to SCOTUS or anywhere else is submitted to Congress in support of the current President’s agenda. It has little if anything to do with what may be good for our nation overall. And judges or others who may be nominated for any bench know this too. Over time the process has become dangerously flawed and all the players use it to their political advantage.
While other judicial nominations may not receive the public attention of a SCOTUS nominee they are no less disturbing or flawed. And they serve as the stepping-stone to other political absurdities. Just like Kyl or Specter offering quotes for public consumption on the topic. Lobbyists and campaign war chests drive American politics. And they expect us to believe a philosophical debate has anything to do with the process.
This blog author is certainly not opposed to throwing all the bums out in November. That means Republicans as well as Democrats. Contrary to the fix the party chatter making the rounds these days a couple of election cycles of throwing the bums out would force the necessary repairs. We don’t need a third party. We don’t need the two we have.
Break the cycle of political corruption. Throw them all out.
Could you equate slow economic growth to zero economic growth? Sure you could. Much of that which affects performance is influenced by perception. If you are optimistic there may be a greater chance for success. Conversely, if you are pessimistic the odds may favor failure. Even athletes contend visualizing the next contest in advance improves their chances to win.
With all the reports about the questionable ethics of those elected, appointed or nominated to the Obama Administration it is not difficult to be suspicious of information from the government. This is nothing new. Reasonable people may be skeptical of government and it may be prudent to do so. And it is likely the sentiment varies from time to time depending on what is known about public officials.
That is what gives rise to the question alluded to earlier in this post. The slow economic growth indicated by more than one source could actually be zero growth. After all, zero growth is obviously slow if not absent. But for the ethically challenged among us it could be argued the analysis is honest.
Be that as it may how do they expect anyone to believe ‘overall prices were unchanged’? Or is that just political-speak for nothing much happened? Prices change all the time and mostly go up. So these reports may be crafted not to cause more pessimism in a situation sensitive to the psychology of perception.
After the conclusion of this phase of healthcare legislation the Democrats still appear clueless on jobs. The same group of reports indicate another week of lower unemployment numbers relying on those who filed for benefits. Even though nearly a half million people signed up for UI compensation officials focus on that being 5000 less than the time before.
Obama and friends continuously pointed to a figure of 32 million uninsured when pushing their health agenda. That was reduced from 45 million when they were called out for inflating the numbers. Yet they seem disinterested in similar numbers suggested as the state of those unemployed or under-employed in the US.
Did they ever suggest all this talk and analysis may involve the same group of people? In other words, if the unemployed had jobs and those not wanting health insurance were removed from their math is there really a problem with uninsured?
These questions are not sophisticated. All that is being suggested here is that citizens continue to compel their elected representatives to come clean. And it helps if the citizens asking the questions are being honest about the issues as well. Staged Q&A from less than honest officials and citizens alike is counterproductive. All this should red flag much of what happens in the public sector. You cannot be too diligent in search of the truth.
Put another way, challenge your reps to prove what they say.
President Obama added insult to injury by adding education spending to the massive spending already in the Democrats’ healthcare agenda. In 1965 President Johnson signed the Higher Education Act as part of his failed ‘great society’ agenda. You can learn something about the folly of nanny state agendas from Johnson’s speech on that occasion.
In a very few moments, I will put my signature on the Higher Education Act of 1965. The President’s signature upon this legislation passed by this Congress will swing open a new door for the young people of America. For them, and for this entire land of ours, it is the most important door that will ever open–the door to education.
And this legislation is the key which unlocks it.
It always starts the same way. Someone in a leadership capacity in government suggests that what they propose will solve the problem. Whether a problem exists or not, they claim their idea will solve it. You can count on it costing something and that taxpayers will have to pay for it. But there is no such certainty about solving a problem, real or imagined.
Right after stating his legislation opens the door to education the rhetorical retreat begins.
To thousands of young men and women, this act means the path of knowledge is open to all that have the determination to walk it.
It means a way to deeper personal fulfillment, greater personal productivity, and increased personal reward. This bill, which I will make law, is an incentive to stay in school.
Although more than a million people were to benefit from this bill Johnson chose to limit the number to ‘thousands’ understanding and acting on this liberal ‘incentive’ to ’stay in school’. As if no beneift otherwise comes from being educated.
And liberals never stop with one legislative item on an issue.
This bill is only one of more than two dozen education measures enacted by the first session of the 89th Congress. And history will forever record that this session-the first session of the 89th Congress–did more for the wonderful cause of education in America than all the previous 176 regular sessions of Congress did, put together.
I doubt that any future Congress will ever erect a prouder monument for future generations.
Yup, now as it was before there is little risk in suggesting what history will say or how future POLS will be viewed. But the rhetoric is typical for selling flawed ideas. And yet President Johnson let the cat outta the bag on just how flawed this legisiation was.
This bill, which we will shortly make into law, will provide scholarships and loans and work opportunities to 1 million of that 1.3 million that did not get to go on to college. And when you, the first year, with the first bill, take care of 1 million of that 1.3 million through this legislation, we are hopeful that the State and the local governments, and the local employers and the local loan funds, can somehow take care of the other 300,000.
Not only one large bill for education spending but many more as expressed by Johnson. And an admission that it will not solve the problem after suggesting it will solve the problem. That anyone would honestly believe government can solve problems after reading this should challenge even the weakest minds
A subsequent post will address the problem with the Department of Education and why calls to eliminate it make sense. If you are a liberal addicted to nanny state agendas paid for by others you will not understand it. But try anyhow.
Will the Democratic party’s effort to force their agenda on the American people receive help from the short term memory of those same Americans? Part of all political strategies rely on that simple fact. The fact that most Americans can only focus on critical issues for a limited time. And most politicians can leverage that fact to their benefit.
The townhall meetings and Tea Party gatherings over the last year support poll numbers like those expressed by David Broder at WaPo on April Fools Day 2010.
Most Americans also oppose Obamacare. And while many favor reform to solve their own problems with healthcare more believe Obamacare will raise taxes, cost too much and do little for them personally. Yet the Democrats pushed their plan through Congress and President Obama gladly signed it.
That President Obama feels the need to be in campaign mode to convince the public his reform is worthy confirms that everyone views it as flawed. If there are any benefits to the legislation little will be distributed before 2014. But the downside of attempting to pay for it will start right now.
The events surrounding Democrats’ healthcare reform becoming law against overwhelming opposition suggests this will be the standard for advancing the liberal agenda as long as they are in the majority. It should give everyone a clue on what will happen from this point forward.
If other agenda items of the Democratic party are as unpopular as their version of healthcare reform you can count on the same method for passage being employed. They will force their agenda on all Americans until they are removed from office. And you thought it was nonsense to suggest Obama and his crew, including Dems in Congress, are socialists.
This brief post is dedicated to all those convinced Obamacare and the remainder of the Democrats’ liberal agenda is good for America. It should also include those positioning themselves to take advantage of what they can from legislation they opposed. Most of those individuals would be politicians, lobbyists and their clients.
Ordinarily such strategies might be deemed reasonable. But under current circumstances strategies to make the most of a bad situation were in effect a dishonest concession. Had lobbyists and other special interests spent their money on forceful opposition there would be no need to pursue selective treatment outside the national interest.
There comes a time when individuals who happen to be American citizens must put country ahead of self. Allowing dangerous agendas to advance does not serve the country or the individual. And no argument to justify self-interest trumps the obligation to protect our nation.
The effect of the liberal agenda on the national debt, deficits as well as the economy in general is equal to the risk presented by any enemy foreign or domestic. Fortunately there is still time to correct the situation. But that may not always be the case.
So, once again, here’s to the fools on April 1, 2010. Those who support the liberal agenda for any reason.
If anyone cares to offer a compelling argument to explain the results of the following roll call vote it would be appreciated. The only condition for the argument is that it does not offer political strategy as an excuse.
While the GOP would like to be viewed as the loyal opposition to the Democratic party’s far left agenda some Republicans defy explanation for their voting choices. The roll call vote presented here deals with earmarks. Senator DeMint offered an amendment described as an earmark moratorium for fiscal years 2010 and 2011. More than a dozen members of the GOP voted to table the amendment along with the Democrats. One Democrat, Russ Feingold from Wisconsin voted ‘no’ with most Republicans. But that may be due simply to political considerations in a re-election year.
That DeMint’s amendment clearly limited the earmark moratorium to 2010 and 11 should have made it easy for anyone to support it given current economic conditions. If you cannot support what may amount to nothing more than a symbolic gesture of disapproval for wasteful government spending how serious can you be about reducing the national debt and deficits? Earmarks are reported to account for ‘only’ a tiny amount of government spending. But eight or nine billion dollars per year is real money to most people. Money that could be used to solve real problems that get postponed due to lack of funding. How’s that for twisted logic?
It is understood POLS regularly tout their ability to direct federal taxpayer dollars to their respective states. You can visit many websites of Congressional members of either party listing all the, let’s face it, PORK, they provide their constituents. But isn’t it really a select number of constituents? Isn’t this simply more election campaigning and vote buying sponsored by the American taxpayer?
This sort of thing needs to stop. It may explain in part the popularity of what some call the Tea Party Nation. The GOP and even the Democratic party should adopt measures like the one Senator DeMint introduced mentioned earlier. It is just common sense. And it would go along way to convince the public that politicians are actually serious about controlled spending, deficit reduction and retiring the national debt.
And it could all be done without the political risk of attacking the real problem. Entitlements like the latest healthcare legislation or the majority of the annual budget that is, go figure, entitlements.
Less than two weeks ago the news was dominated with stories surrounding the contentious health reform debate. Opposition to President Obama’s obsession with his top agenda item in Congress mirrored that of the voting public.
There never was strong support for Obamacare as demonstrated by public opinion polls and the need for Democratic party leadership to strong arm their membership, buy votes with special deals at taxpayer expense as well as abusing their majority status in Congress to force a simple majority vote on the measure that would otherwise require 60 votes in the Senate.
Democrats including President Obama could not muster 60 votes of support in the Senate nor more than 40 percent in public opinion polls. Even without the ever-present political considerations politicians evaluate common sense opposition from the voting public demonstrates healthcare legislation forced through Congress by the Democrats is seriously flawed. And that Democrats have nothing but contempt for those who oppose their questionable agenda. That includes about sixty percent of the American public.
A column by Dana Milbank at WaPo may be representative of the liberal view on healthcare reform and the associated politics in Washington DC. And right out of the gate Milbank is wrong. In the first paragraph he tries to be cute and references a Kenny Rogers song suggesting the GOP should ‘know when to fold’em’. And two more errors are offered in the next paragraph. One, that healthcare reform is a done deal. And two, bad behavior and death threats ‘no doubt’ were caused by actions of Republicans.
On the topic of folding Milbank should be more concerned about the financial strain another huge entitlement will place on our nation. He should also point out that politics, majority party politics is responsible for the selfish choice to place a favorite liberal agenda item, healthcare ‘reform’, ahead of attending to jobs and the economy.
Perhaps Milbank’s real meaning for his ‘folding’ advice was requesting that the loyal opposition simply roll over and play dead. There are those of us who would prefer they did not. Bad enough that GOP errors caused them to lose the majority in 2006 that led to the leadership mess we’re in now. But the best way to fix that is learn from your mistakes, retake the majority and correct what damage the liberals cause.
To suggest that healthcare reform is a done deal is for Milbank to concede his lack of understanding. Beyond the fact that 37 states have initiated legal moves to opt out of Obamacare and talk about repealing the new legislation there is an underlying problem Milbank ignores.
There are no done deals in politics. Obamacare is no exception. Most new legislation alters older legislation and the party battles, wins and losses, perpetuate the process. And if Milbank thinks other liberals are content to stop meddling in healthcare after the bill is signed by the President, he knows nothing.
‘No doubt’ Milbank would prefer you had ‘no doubt’ about who or what is behind threatening behavior directed at politicians. But it is prudent and sensible to withhold judgment until there is something other than guesswork or personal opinions available like evidence. Or we can fan the flames like Milbank and point fingers and hurl accusations. Or just hurl.
For Milbank to jest about viagra for pedophiles misses the point which is government failures in managing programs produce outrageous outcomes. Milbank mentioning Lindsey Graham or John McCain as sensible voices in the GOP confirms they’re RINOs. Thanks for making one point conservatives can agree upon.
There is much about Milbank’s column that is foolish. Not the least of which is getting it wrong on why the GOP won’t fold’em.
The GOP used the majority party’s choice of reconciliation to send Obamacare back to the House allowing liberals one more chance to do what’s right and kill the bill. They also used amendments they knew would be rejected as nearly all have been to date in order to provide a record of many items that are in Obamacare and wrong. And to have those who support Obamacare go on record as promoting and accepting bad legislation.
There may be those who believe the GOP needs to use the record of these proceedings to challenge Democrats in November. It may be necessary to inform those not paying attention. I for one do not require it for opposing those who supported Obamacare. And Milbank does not need it to vote for liberals. No doubt.
It would be entertaining if it wasn’t so serious. First of all, make no mistake, there is rhetoric everywhere. Political rhetoric is a familiar tool. Everyone uses it. And those opposed to any such rhetoric typically submit a rebuttal. The following is an example.
This blog offers a rebuttal to those who characterize any criticism of Obamacare as somehow sponsored by the GOP or otherwise supported or connected to the Republican party.
The Democratic party has been in the majority throughout the so-called health reform debate that has now lasted, in its current form, for more than a year. The Democrats raised the issue. President Obama has placed it as his top priority. The entire issue was brought forward by the Democratic party. And few would argue against the fact it has been a liberal cause for decades. No need to repeat a description of the Ted Kennedy saga or the fallacy that current health reform proposals are in any way relevant to frequent references about Theodore Roosevelt’s efforts on behalf of public health issues.
Democrats currently own this issue and any results that occur because of it. The GOP has been effectively shut out of the process as shown by the massive number of amendments they offered compared to the few that have not been rejected by the majority. Even some Democrats opposed to this reform have had their ‘yes’ votes paid for by special deals. And there is not one poll available during the entire debate to indicate adequate public support for the Democratic party’s health reform legislation.
Connecting opposition to current healthcare reform exclusively as a function of the GOP is absurd. While the GOP opposition certainly has a political component the same cannot be said for the majority of Americans opposed to the Democratic party’s healthcare reform legislation.
Just because a majority of Americans oppose the Democratic party’s healthcare reform legislation does not make them Republicans. And the fact that this blog is presenting content in this post from Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell is not an endorsement of the GOP. But it does demonstrate something about the loyal opposition to Obamacare. Most Americans oppose Obamacare and that includes the GOP and this blog. Although it is fair to say each opponent may have their own reasons for opposing Obamacare.
The point is Obamacare is opposed by most Americans. And the Democratic party majority is forcing it upon citizens anyway. That’s the issue.
Here’s the Mitch McConnell content……
and the text version……
WASHINGTON, DC - U.S. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell made the following remarks on the Senate floor Wednesday regarding the health care bill:
“The administration and some in Congress would like to think this debate is over.
“They want the American people to sit down and quiet down.
“That’s been their approach to health care for an entire year.
“Well, Republicans think Congress serves the people, not the other way around.
“So we’ve fought on behalf of the American people this week — and we’ll continue to fight until this bill is repealed and replaced with common-sense ideas that solve our problems without dismantling the health care system we have and without burying the American Dream under a mountain of debt.
“That’s what we’ve been doing all week here in the Senate.
“While Democrat lawmakers and staffers threw a party for themselves at the White House yesterday, Republicans were here at the Capitol fighting a 150-page postscript that Democrats added on at the last minute to the health care bill.
“This add-on bill took a terrible health spending bill and made it even worse.
“If you thought the tax hikes in the original bill were bad, this bill raised them even higher. If you thought the Medicare cuts were bad, this bill made them deeper. If you thought the first bill cost too much, this bill made it even more expensive.
“If you didn’t like the special deals in the first bill, they slipped more into this one.
“The whole thing was one last slap in the face of Americans across the country who’ve been howling at Democrats for the past year to stop this bill and to work instead across party lines on reforms that would actually drive costs down.
“So today, Republicans will give Democrats one last chance to reject the horrible impact the underlying bill and this last-minute add-on will have on our country.
“Unfortunately, we already know that they plan to turn the other way.
“We’ll offer an amendment to direct the Medicare cuts in this bill back into Medicare, to preserve and strengthen it for future generations. They’ll reject it.
“We’ll offer an amendment to strike all the new sweetheart deals in this bill. They’ll reject it.
“We’ll offer an amendment that would have obliged the President to keep his pledge that families earning under $250,000 won’t see any tax hikes as a result of this bill. They plan to reject it.
“We’ll offer an amendment requiring HHS to certify that this bill doesn’t increase premiums. They’ll reject it.
“We’ll offer an amendment to strike a job-killing mandate on businesses. They’ll reject it.
“So while the White House is trying to sell this health spending bill to a skeptical public — Senate Democrats today will speak loudly and clearly about the things in this bill the White House doesn’t want people to know — and vote to endorse them:
* Massive cuts to Medicare for seniors
* Job killing mandates and small business tax hikes
* Higher insurance premiums
* Sweetheart deals
* Tax hikes on middle class families
“This is the real story of health care reform.
“Americans may not be hearing about it from the White House, but I assure you they’ll be feeling the pain. Americans know this, and they want to know that someone’s fighting for them in Washington, to make their voices heard.
“That’s what Republicans have been doing on this issue for the past year. That’s what we’ve been doing this week. That’s what we’re doing tonight.
“And that’s what we’ll keep doing until those voices are heard.
Conservative talkers point to one of many subtle tactics used by liberals regarding their legislative reform proposals. That is beyond the point that they call their legislative agenda, ‘reform’. This week’s propaganda centers on what liberals refer to as ‘wall street reforms.’ They even have the media doing it.
If anyone cares to offer a compelling argument to explain the results of the following 