Blog @ MoreWhat.com

President Obama, Attorney General Eric Holder and other US officials have not read SB 1070, the Arizona law signed by Governor Jan Brewer. Yet they criticize it and those who support it. The race card and other typical liberal tactics are employed to denounce opposition to illegal immigration and efforts to correct it. Both Democrats and Republicans and much of the corporate world support what they call ‘comprehensive immigration reform’ which is nothing more than open borders and amnesty for illegals.

President Calderon of Mexico addressed the US Congress this week. He criticizes US immigration policy even though enforcement rarely if ever exists. Allowing open borders and illegal immigration for decades is what caused the problem. An example of Mr Calderon’s dishonesty on this issue is demonstrated by the excerpt below.

Calderon Criticism of Arizona Law Overlooks Mexico’s Tough Immigration Policy

Mexico repeatedly has been cited by human rights groups for abusing or turning a blind eye to the abuse of migrants from Central America. Until recently, Mexican law made illegal immigration a criminal offense — anyone arrested for the violation could be fined, imprisoned for up to two years and deported. Mexican lawmakers changed that in 2008 to make illegal immigration a civil violation like it is in the United States, but their law still reads an awful lot like Arizona’s.

It’s real simple. The US needs strong immigration laws and associated enforcement. Employer sanctions are needed to dry up the job market for illegals. That effort and related immigration policies would solve the problem in a relatively short period of time.

And after self-deportation of illegals is achieved by eliminating taxpayer handouts that fuel illegal immigration supported by those listed above the liberal argument can finally be defeated. Meaning those who truly and honestly want to come here can get back in line and do it the right way. And those who have abused the situation for selfish purposes will no longer be enabled by lack of enforcement.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

related:

Mexico Tourism Promoter Running Threatening Ads in Arizona Newspaper?

There are dominant themes in political chatter this election cycle. That is not what distinguishes this year’s political season from any other. Public anger against business as usual in Washington DC and elsewhere has POLS operating outside their typical comfort zone. Where tax and spend typically applied to Democrats plenty of Republicans have earned the liberal moniker. And liberals calling the GOP the party of no while they enjoy majority party status indicates their ranks are not aligned.

An example of this bizarre political climate demonstrates a Democrat feeling the heat from organized labor. A relationship that represents a staple alliance in liberal politics may be changing.

In Arkansas, dissatisfied labor unions worked hard against Lincoln

Willie Holmes moved to Arkansas last year to push Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D) on the union membership bill known as “card check.” He lost, but he stayed to sway her vote on health care.

That did not go his way, either, but Holmes is still here. On Tuesday, he sat with four colleagues in the Plumbers and Steamfitters Local 155 union hall and waited for the votes to roll in. He was hoping that, this time, Lincoln would fall.

There was a time when organized labor supporting Democrats was as reliable as the sun coming up in the east. And there was also a time when the ‘establishment’ GOP chose the winning candidate in a primary.

Sen. Arlen Specter loses Pennsylvania primary; Rand Paul wins in Kentucky

In the Republican Senate primary in Kentucky, Paul, a political novice and a son of Rep. Ron Paul (R-Tex.), stormed past Secretary of State Trey Grayson, who had the support of Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) and much of the Bluegrass State’s political establishment. With almost all of the vote counted, Paul had 59 percent, a sign of the power of his and the tea party’s small-government message within the GOP.

You may have noticed the inclusion of Arlen Specter in the title of the excerpt from WaPo. After his defeat in PA that is about all you’ll be hearing from Specter after this year. More signs that the public has a serious opportunity to change the way politics work in the US. Let’s hope it does not go to waste. Better yet, rather than hope, let’s make sure it does not go to waste.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

crossposted at Maggie’s Notebook

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.

If our leaders faced facts, you see, they might also have to act. They might have to consider such measures as halting Islamic immigration to stop the demographic spread of Shariah.

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.

David Sorota suggests the following:

“I Want My Country Back” — this ubiquitous tea party mantra belongs next to Nike’s “Just Do It” on Ad Age’s list of the most transcendent idioms. In just five words, it perfectly captures the era’s conservative backlash.

And concludes with this:

As a marketing masterpiece, the slogan would certainly impress the old Madison Avenue mavens. The trouble is that as a larger political ideology, its hateful and divisive message is encouraging ever more misguided madness.

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.

And the first real casualty of the 2010 midterms is Senator Bob Bennett (R-UT). He didn’t make it through the state GOP convention as delegates chose two other candidates who may see each other in the primary.

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.

The former Republican vice presidential candidate made the endorsement on her Facebook page, saying Fiorina’s experience running a major corporation is sorely lacking in Washington.

In the Thursday posting, Palin called Fiorina a “Commonsense Conservative” who has the potential to beat “liberal” Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer in November.

But Eric Odom, chairman of Liberty First PAC, a Tea Party-fueled political action committee, called Palin’s endorsement an “unforgivable sin,” and her second strike after endorsing her 2008 running mate John McCain in his Senate race.

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!

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

related: DLTDHYOTWO: Bob Bennett gets the boot. And next… 

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.

“You don’t go on to the bench [saying], ‘I’m always going to be against the big guy,’ ” Kyl said, referring to Chief Justice John Roberts.

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.

“Let’s be candid about the Supreme Court being an ideological battleground today,” Specter said. “That happens to be a fact. When some decry judicial activism, what could be more judicial activism than reversing the 100-year precedent that corporations may not engage in political advertising, as the Supreme Court did in Citizens United?”

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.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

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.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

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.

The U.S. Congress appears headed for a final battle over health-care reform legislation in the next several days, and the political stakes for President Barack Obama, his Democratic allies and opposition Republicans are enormous.

Health-care reform has been President Barack Obama’s top domestic priority, and the president is making an energetic final push for support, including a recent visit to Ohio.

‘An energetic final push for support’ keeping President Obama in campaign mode since taking office was necessary as most Americans oppose the plan.

Public support for the Democratic health-care plan has eroded during the past several months, and Mr. Obama must now rely on Democrats alone to get the legislation through Congress.

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.

Health Care Bill Still Under 40% Approval

The polls above are from last week. You can click on the link to read more.

Perhaps the sixty percent opposed can send the Democrats home in November 2010 and retire the one in the White House in 2012.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

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.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

In Hypothetical 2012 Matchup, Obama in Statistical Dead Heat Against 2 Republicans: Nobody and Anybody

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.

“We’re not giving up.”
###

Given the roll call vote (number 165) for March 21, 2010 with a time stamp of 10:49PM in the US House of Representatives the fat lady may not have sung yet on the outcome of healthcare legislation but the situation looks rather dismal.

What it looks like from here is Obama will sign his Obamacare and the Senate has an opportunity to make fixes or changes. It also looks like Mr Stupak may have been duped. Accepting less than a million dollars in airport funding for his vote in exchange for an executive order from President Obama to protect Stupak’s claimed pro-life interests may be another healthcare scam.

While preparing to publish this post an unproductive search was conducted to determine who the other Congressman were in Mr Stupak’s little alliance. It is almost as if the others have effectively cloaked their names from the media. About all that was found so far was six more names to go with Mr Stupak at Wikipedia. A check of the roll call indicates they all did not vote one way.

But they are not the only ones who may deserve to be politically impaled for this travesty. You can start with the Republicans. Had they not squandered their last Congressional majority with a major fall from grace on conservative principles we wouldn’t be having these discussions.

Add to that the equally disgusting performance of the liberal agenda gone wild and a recurring theme in American politics emerges once again. Politicians are the largest impediment in politics and governing. They are the root of all evil in public affairs. They are what allows lobbyists to exist. For without the pursuit of power, election and re-election by politicians, lobbyists would have no reason to exist.

It’s the ageless battle between greed and corruption versus principle and virtue. So now the next chapter begins. What to do after the mindless tragedy that took place in Congress this past Sunday?

37 states will pursue opting out of Obamacare. Various entities will pursue legal action against Obamacare. And many politicians may have just signed their resignation papers with a vote for Obamacare. And some argue those who voted against it will experience the same fate.

Let the purging begin.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Seems like good timing for a basic blog rant. It’s been a tough couple of weeks and I’m cranky. Keeping the discussion on matters of politics a little review of the current situation seems in order.

Obamanation remains fixated on their, ‘let’s take over everything’ agenda. The central flaw in their quest beyond public disapproval and even outrage is similar to that of a typical spendthrift. They believe there is still money in the bank if they still have checks.

It’s amazing really. Politicians in both parties have frequently if not continuously committed the same financial sins for which they accuse others. Yet they have no shame for their own misguided actions or for political rhetoric employed as unemployment engulfs our nation.

By our votes we bestow upon them a public trust complete with perks for royalty yet we shed that anchor over two hundred years ago. And with the possible exception of the founding fathers those in public office have a two century record of malfeasance in office. If they were not directly involved with corrupt government they were willing participants by the fact of their incompetent objection.

As noted here elsewhere, notable Republicans like Palin, Romney and Scott Brown support McCain for re-election. Yet it is clear McCain is not a conservative. Which casts doubt on the credentials of the aforementioned.

Mr. Romney, who was supported on this blog since 2008, provided a less than convincing excuse for his endorsement. If McCain’s years of service and experience qualify him as the best choice for American leadership what does that say about his support of shamnesty during the second Bush 43 term? And then there’s Lindsey Graham with similar problems. The GOP has not turned the page toward conservative principles. How will they do that with barely half a year to go before the 2010 elections?

Yes, they are fiercely opposing the current liberal push for a totally out of touch agenda. But what else are they going to do? They believe this strategy against the Obamanation will translate to victory in November. What’s new about that? Sound like politics as usual just as much as the Dems failure on every level since the 2006 midterms.

The GOP fell from grace and have not returned in any meaningful way. The libs are apparently willing to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Worst of all, they have not drained the swamp. The culture of corruption is alive and well in Washington, DC and around the country in all levels of government.

The voters must drain the swamp in November 2010.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

editor’s note: The quality of this post has suffered as it is Friday and this month’s budget only allows for beer rather than top shelf single malt Scotch. Po’ Stanford. And no images were chosen for this post as none were available at the time of publication to fit the mood.

This is not political rhetoric or some lobbyist’s scheme to support a strategy not in the public interest. It is what this country has been missing lately. Plain, everyday, good old-fashioned American common sense.

An excerpt from a WaPo report on health reform provides a reasonable introduction to what’s wrong and why a step by step approach to reform the wise choice.

Their efforts suggest a return to the frenzied pace of last year’s health-care debate, which prompted more than $200 million in advocacy ads and broke records for lobbying. Companies and trade groups last year hired more than 4,500 lobbyists to influence health reform — amounting to about eight lobbyists for each member of Congress, according to an analysis released last week by the Center for Public Integrity.

Reacting to President Obama’s recent statements that he will move ahead with legislation, health insurance companies have enlisted hundreds of lobbyists in a full-court press against the proposed overhaul, which would force dramatic cuts and increased regulation on the industry. At the same time, insurers are pushing back against a separate bill approved by the House last week that would remove the industry’s antitrust exemption.

Assuming the article’s facts are straight, ‘eight lobbyists for each member of Congress’ should tell you all you need to know. But add to that all the talk of ‘agendas’ and what some POLS are obviously trying to do and it becomes clear there is little in the way of public interest included in this legislative nightmare.

For instance, by itself in the spirit of ’step by step’ do you suppose anyone would object to a ban on deals between drug manufacturers to keep generics off the market? That’s right. The only ones who would object are the drug manufacturers and their lobbyists.

Would anyone object to allowing insurance companies to compete across statelines? Sure, state and local POLS who claim their legislation protects the public by allowing only approved players to participate. Do you suppose any of the same political shenanigans are involved at the state level?

These are some of the cost-cutting ideas that may come from either side of the aisle and appear to have merit without benefit of reading specific legislative language that may render them less than ideal. But the point is without taking unthinkable risk with national debt and deficits in addition to what already exists, doing things step by step would remove the all or nothing pitfalls from what is otherwise just more politcal theatre.

Our nation needs to address health issues. But the manner in which it is being done currently does not resemble anything close to the word reform. You might want to tell your elected representative we should take a break, eliminate the insanity and take a common sense step by step approach to solving health issues.

Sure, the step by step idea has been a GOP mantra for some time now. So if you are a liberal you naturally oppose it. But this post does not suggest all the GOP talk is correct. But there is no benefit to dismissing all the GOP or the Democrats say just to present an argument. The generic deals ban mentioned above may quite possibly be a Democrat’s idea. It seems reasonable. Step by step was proposed by the GOP. Another reasonable idea.

So let’s scrap these reform bills that are nothing more than political agendas. And do it right one piece at a time.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

News reports out today regarding the Dems jobs bill and the vote of newly minted Senator Scott Brown (R-MA) raise questions. Brown is being described by some as a sellout. Others suggest he had no choice given circumstances in the state he represents.

You can view the roll call vote by clicking here. The questions about this vote should ask more than why did Senator Scott Brown vote for it. Why did seven other GOP members not vote?

Among those not voting was Senator Jeff Sessions. To this point Senator Sessions has been viewed as a positive force in the US Senate and that will probably continue. But the question remains. Why did he and six others not vote on this bill?

Voinovich and Bond voted ‘yes’ and are retiring. Collins and Snowe voted ‘yes’ and that is no surprise given they are RINOs. That suggests Scott Brown does not plan on being in the Senate long or is a RINO or both. If nothing else the last three statements are humorous. But only because the vote’s outcome is so pathetic.

The previous post on Romney, McCain and Palin is troubling. This post adds to that concern. Again, what the hell are Republicans thinking (or are they)?

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

With some troubling news coming out of CPAC 2010 along with similar revelations about various ‘conservative’ philosophies and their proponents more reports suggest 2010 is still wide open.

The recent endorsement of John McCain by former running mate Sarah Palin was analyzed by some as the former Alaska governor being polite. But that argument fails given her unnecessary decision to ’stump’ and raise money for the veteran Senator from Arizona whose conservative values have always been in question. His maverick status being built more by a departure from conservative values than adherence to it.

Now this:

Romney backs McCain in Arizona Senate primary race

It’s like 2008 all over again: Mitt Romney is endorsing John McCain. This time, though, it’s not after a bitter presidential primary between the two GOP rivals.

With too many Republicans appearing more like their liberal counterparts in the Democratic party the wonder is how anyone can suggest a GOP majority after the 2010 elections. This blog features sidebar links for Palin and Romney. And past posts have called for support of both in past elections. For now those links and the supportive posts will remain. But the troubling trends being reported render all that subject to change.

What the hell are these people thinking? Enough noise was made by the public this year that even POLS with hearing impairments should have received the message. A return to basic common sense American values is long overdue and more necessary for survival than previously thought. If those connected to the GOP are as unresponsive as their political opposition from the other major party then one thing remains clear.

They are no better than those they criticize and have apparently improved upon the liberal trend of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Here’s a suggestion for evaluating the soon to be televised (on Cspan) health summit hosted by the White House. You may recall President Barack ‘Mr Transparency during the 2008 campaign’ Obama was complicit in efforts by the Democratic party to exclude the Republican party from the business of crafting so-called healthcare reform legislation. Correction, that is now ‘health insurance reform.’

Just in case you forgot the following excerpt is provided as a reminder that much of the latest push in Congress and the White House for ‘reform’ has been behind opaque rather than transparent doors.

C-SPAN questions follow Obama

President Barack Obama might just wish he had opened even one health care meeting to the C-SPAN cameras.

The issue is starting to follow him around.

Once again Tuesday, he faced a question about it, from a high school student in Nashua, N.H., who asked him to grade the White House’s transparency efforts, given the fact that all the health care discussions have been behind closed doors.

Now that Obama has realized the mistake in hiding negotiations he expresses a ‘warning.’

President Obama warned lawmakers on both sides of the aisle Saturday not to turn the upcoming White House health-care summit into “political theater,” but rather “to seek common ground in an effort to solve a problem that’s been with us for generations.”

The ‘problem’ for the Dems is they have been trying to takeover healthcare for ‘generations.’

The standard rhetoric from the left now that they have initiated damage control for their lack of transparency is that the GOP is the party of ‘no’ and has no plans. The GOP counters with examples of their plans and a website to publish them. The right fears a setup or ambush by the left in this overdue suggestion of transparency. The left has the majority in DC as well as most of the cards yet have been unable to move their liberal agenda forward. It is reasonable to suspect all of this from both sides is politics as usual.

Everyone has an agenda including you and I. An agenda can be a good thing. But finding one in Washington DC that is good is next to impossible. Can politicians escape politics in this upcoming ’summit.’? Not likely.

The public is not happy with the Obama agenda or Congress. It is quite possible the GOP prefers the Dems own this one, meaning Obamacare. If health related legislation is passed in Congress without GOP support and turns out to be the disaster expected they can say we told you so. The Dems want the GOP to have ’skin in the game’ by signing on to this legislation without benefit of participation in its crafting. Obama’s health summit is likely a maneuver with that in mind.

Once again you are on your own to evaluate what is really going on. The upside is November 2010 holds the key. Tell the White House and Congress what you think with your vote.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

related: Reconciliation, the public option, and Demcare revival (Michelle Malkin)