Working on your own demise
Nov 3, 2009 Governmental Reach, Obama Administration
Today’s elections point out something very interesting. That something is not new, and in fact it seems to be the rule more than the exception, but it’s brought to light again today. That something is the idea that the country chooses its representation based on the motivation and interests of the electorate, the elected (including those who won on a recount or several recounts) think that it extends to their entire agenda, and then the elected begin to work on their demise in full force. In fact, when it comes to the presidency, they call this effort “The First 100 Days.”
Today we will see this referendum on governmental reach in all of the key races. There are places where conservatives should have no chance at winning, considering the results of just a year ago. There is even a place where a 3rd party candidate is going to win just to spite the president AND the liberalization of the so-called conservative party.
Mary Kate Cary of U.S. News and World Report points out that it is no other than fiscal conservatism that is winning out.
Maybe it’s because they can see what’s happening. Democrats can read the polls: Independent swing voters are moving toward the right, and the Republican base. The wide American mainstream is broadening to include fiscal conservatives—yes, some of whom have all sorts of opinions on social issues—but they are united in their concern about the growing size and scope of government. Wasn’t that the lesson of August’s tea parties—that people of all stripes are concerned about massive government growth? Isn’t that what’s really threatening the left?
This is something that happens on both sides of the aisle, though tonight will be a referendum on the one year of government overreach by the Obama Administration. It will be spun as something entirely different, but there’s simply no other reason why fiscal conservatives would be winning in these areas that were so largely won by Obama just one year ago.
Tags: elections, fiscal conservatism, Health Care, Obama
Thursday round-up on health care
Sep 10, 2009 Blogging's Best, Governmental Reach, Health Care, Obama Administration
There are some great pieces that have come out this morning regarding the health care debate, and particularly as President Obama’s speech last night affects it.
We start with Fred Barnes, where he was looking for the answers to five basic questions to see if the president had gotten back on track in the debate. Among them:
4) Did he demonize the health care providers he’s actually made deals with? Well, not all of them, but the health insurers took their usual beating.
5) Did he repeat the false claims he’s made repeatedly in earlier speeches? Yes indeed. He brought up nearly all of them, including the ones on no abortion coverage, no loss of one’s current health insurance, and the “savings” that would come from more preventive care.
Terry Madonna and Michael Young write, today, that not only is the conservative right gaining some momentum, but the left is becoming increasingly impatient with him.
The subtext of these and dozens of similar stories is crystal clear-Obama is in early trouble and the fate of his presidency may be at stake. The presidency that many thought might resemble FDR’s is looking more and more like Jimmy Carter’s. The aspirations of last November are becoming the trepidations of this September.
Madonna and young state that it’s not even out of the question that, among challenges from the conservative right, Obama could even be in store for a challenge from the liberal left come 2012.
The San Diego Union-Tribune, calling the speech a “missed opportunity,” sums up the problem with the president’s claims nicely:
We need to have a full and open debate about these concerns. But based on his speech last night, Obama would have us believe that he has a blueprint for a health care system that miraculously would be both much cheaper and much bigger — and the only thing that those who doubt him can offer is “misinformation.”
Sorry, Mr. President. That’s just not true.
In the end, keep in mind that even Congress “cackled” at the comment Obama made that “there remain some significant details to be ironed out.”
If you enjoyed this post, please use the “Tweet this!” button to share with your Twitter followers.
Tags: Health Care, Obama
“Straw men” arguments
Feb 25, 2009 Obama Administration
Karl Rove’s recent article in the WSJ pin-points one of the major stumbling blocks for Americans in their desire to truly want to believe what Obama is feeding us: we don’t know who “they” are. It’s one of my pet peeves, and when I catch myself doing it I try to stop and spell out who I am talking about, but it does not further your argument to throw out a generic “they” when citing support for your side of an argument. It seems with Obama at the helm that Michael Steele, Rush, Hannity, and other conservative leaders are going to have to continually press Obama to tell us who “they” are, so that “they” can defend themselves. It is only when he either cites specific people or forgets that tactic and gets down to having some ideas of his own that we will either start to believe him, or finally determine that he is the fraud that many of us think he is. We know the media isn’t going to do the work, and instead will use terms like “general consensus” and “widely believed” to try to represent the collective American idea. Truth is, the current picture has Obama looking like the ultimate straw man.
They aren’t your ordinary Republicans
Feb 10, 2009 Governmental Reach, Obama Administration
There has been quite a bit of talk from disgusted conservatives over the votes of Senators Specter, Collins, and Snowe. I’m disgusted, too, but there are a few considerations to be made.
1. These aren’t your ordinary Republicans, and that might just be part of the territory, literally. Consider that both Snowe and Collins are from Maine and that this is likely the only form of “Republican” that can be elected in these areas, at least at this time. Specter has been around a while and for whatever reason keeps getting re-elected. Again, there is nothing to suggest we are going to go from him to an ultra-conservative replacement. Sometimes we get jipped in the deal, and this is one of those times.
2. We need these people on other issues. Regardless of what anyone says, a guy like Arlen Specter was likely to go along with this joke of a stimulus bill. I didn’t know tons about Collins or Snowe, but Specter has routinely pulled these kinds of stunts out of his hat at big moments. Perhaps it’s so that when running for election he can boast of “reaching across the aisle” (as if one’s true constituents really want to hear that — how about “doing what’s right and best” as an option?). Still, there are other things that come up including, yes, bigger things like Supreme Court nominations. Specter will soon “owe us one” when it comes to the (very likely) situation where we are going to have to filibuster some joker that Obama nominates for the highest court. You win some, you lose some, and pro-lifers and libertarians alike will see greater results from a less-damaging Supreme Court nomination than they will this joke of a stimulus bill. We are less than four years away from choosing a President who can get us out of this economic mess that is likely to get worse under Obama, but we would be, perhaps, 50 years or more from having recourse to a bad SCOTUS nominee.
3. These three people may have done the conservative/libertarian movement a service in a couple of different ways. First, they were elected (and with a name that generally represents conservatism). Second, they botched their chance at being such, and when this plan crumbles into little pieces in the coming years, they will be exposed and the search will be on to find a true conservative to fill the roles.
There are a lot of people who said that things needed to bottom out to get better. I disagree with the idea that I should help that kind of a thing happen — those who supported this notion have hurt the current situation for themselves and me, alike — but right now we are at a spot where we have nothing else to do but oppose this crazy socialism we are getting going on and root for it’s ultimate failure. As long as there isn’t a whole lot we can do but threaten our representatives with our vote (and some of us asked for this more than others), we might as well just hope this thing bottoms out as quickly as possible and leads to a swift change starting in 2010. I doubt I will ever see the wisdom in rooting for this before election day, but we simply have no choice after it.
When it comes time, be sure to call in the favor owed to you by Senators Specter, Collins, and Snowe. As much as they have hurt us, they can also help us in the future.
Poor leadership, laziness by Obama costs him
Feb 6, 2009 Governmental Reach, Obama Administration
The spending bill currently advocated by President Obama and the furthest-to-the-left has done nothing but lose public support since the specifics were put on it. Ironically, public polls show that their favored solution to the economic downturn we are in would be to cut taxes, precisely what John McCain advocated while running against the big spender. Karl Rove says that part of the problem is that Obama ducked his responsibility.
Mr. Obama has only his own lack of engagement and leadership to blame. He outsourced the drafting of the bill to House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey through inaction. He refused to get his administration’s hands dirty in crafting the legislation by laying out a detailed plan in December. Then saying he looked forward to Congress passing a bill for him to sign on Inauguration Day was an invitation for liberal spenders to roll him. They did.
This is only the latest example of poor leadership in a Presidency that isn’t even three weeks old. Funny, too, that it was a presidency that was gained on the platform of “leadership” and “hope” when we, in actuality, got a man who is asking everyone else to do his work for him and even turning to the “I won” card as a part of his invalid argument. (Maybe he forgot that all of the people voting for or against this bill also, at some point, won their election.) This is, though, a telling example of things to come for the current president. This is supposed to be his honeymoon period, especially on policy matters, and it has been nothing but an old, bumpy dirt road. He’s likely to ultimately get there this time with perhaps a little less air in the tires than he was hoping. It’ll be interesting to see if those tires flatten out on him for whatever is next.
Republicans are right, both substantively and politically, to oppose this monstrosity and smart to offer a bold alternative. The GOP’s road back is about to be partly paved by Mr. Obama’s embrace of Democratic trickle-down economics. It’s terrible policy — but for Republicans, it provides an opportunity for sharp contrasts that can reset the debate on more favorable terms for the GOP.
Tags: economy, Obama, Rove, spending bill, Stimulus
Obama circus isn’t as funny as first thought
Feb 4, 2009 Obama Administration
I got some good chuckles about the disastrous start to the Obama Presidency, and most of those were due to just the lack of professionalism. In the last few days I have found it less funny and I couldn’t quantify exactly what has caused this change. That is, until I read Victor Davis Hanson’s summation of concerning things. He’s nailed the very reasons I’m worried, and added a few more I hadn’t concerned myself with to date. Most concerning, is that I don’t remember anyone looking this bad. Neither has he.
This is quite serious. I can’t recall a similarly disastrous start in a half-century (far worse than Bill Clinton’s initial slips). Obama immediately must lower the hope-and-change rhetoric, ignore Reid/Pelosi, drop the therapy, and accept the tragic view that the world abroad is not misunderstood but quite dangerous.
Tags: Obama, The Corner, Victor Davis Hanson
Tis the season for hopes, dreams, and political statements
Feb 2, 2009 Five Non-Negotiable Issues, Governmental Reach, Obama Administration
I had many discussions with various people leading up to the November elections regarding political duty. As it became clearer that there were only two politicians who could win the Presidency in November, the action from those who identified themselves as anything from Christians to conservatives also had a much clearer mission. (In hindsight I believe it would have taken a major international event or a major revelation about Obama to sway the situation far enough, but even that wouldn’t have done it for another candidate.) It is my firm belief, and my guilt of conscience, that leads me to believe that a person is called to be practical when they enter the voting booth. Very rarely are we presented with a good vs. evil decision in life. It is hardly ever obvious that one option is so right and one is so wrong. Only once in a blue moon, when considering all of the races we get to vote on, do we get to vote with a candidate with a real chance and can really excite me. I was very clear in stating my own voting intentions, and that I wasn’t particularly pleased to cast my vote for Coleman or McCain (though I’m convinced the latter is a great man). Yet, when I went into the voting booth with $5 and a chance to buy the milk my family really needed or a lottery ticket, it was time to be practical and do the best thing I could possibly do at the time.
That brings me to my point: now is the time to buy the lottery ticket. It’s time to take that chance on not having to worry about where the milk money is going to come from in the future. We are about 2.5-3 years away from beginning the whole mess again (if we are lucky). You’ll remember that the current President’s campaign started about a year into his Senate run. That is why it is a good time to pick out your ideal candidate. It is not time to worry about their chances of winning (about this time four years ago it seemed clear that it would be Rudi vs. Hillary) but time to make your political statement. This is a time, far from meal time, when we have all of the freedom in the world to support even the candidates with the most remote chances but the most far-reaching ideologies we can find.
Take the opportunity while you have it, though. As we draw nearer to the chance to unseat a radical pro-abortion, pro-government, pro-tax administration it will be time to start moving in the most responsible of mindsets. It will be nearing that meal time again, when the only prudent choice we have is to choose the best quality milk we can actually buy and put that lottery ticket back on hold.
*Only as it applies to everyone else
Feb 1, 2009 "Global Warming", Obama Administration
“He’s from Hawaii, O.K.?” said Mr. Obama’s senior adviser, David Axelrod, who occupies the small but strategically located office next door to his boss. “He likes it warm. You could grow orchids in there.”
Jeff Emanuel has a post on the left-wing branch of the greenest tree, who likes to tell all of us how we should conserve energy all the while running up $30,000 utility bills and then chide Washington for not having “Chicago-toughness” when the kids are kept home from school on a sub-freezing day from the greenhouse-temperatures of your new home. I don’t have a whole lot to add other than this being just another example of a lack of discipline from the Obama Administration. It’s not the end of the world, but it demonstrates:
1. That their attempt to be cute and like the common folk generally tells a larger (undisciplined) story, against what they want their message to be (but as I’ve always found, it’s hard to lie and therefore you simply shouldn’t put yourself into a position to have to). Many people are lowering their thermostats to try to keep their energy bills somewhere close to payable, and the message should not be that the “rules don’t apply to people who spent a few years in Hawaii.”
2. This lack of discipline will eventually lower confidence in the administration. This is a lot different than a man adding a syllable or two to a word. This shows a general dishonesty with the American people. “Please do this for your country, but allow me the privilege to live in excess.”
As Emanuel says, this is far from leadership. Go read the rest of the post.
Tags: "Global Warming", Al Gore, Obama
Church, Obama to clash early and often
Jan 28, 2009 Five Non-Negotiable Issues, Obama Administration
One of Obama’s first moves as President of the United States was to punch the Catholic people of his country in the face, reneg on his promise to do all he can to limit the need for abortions, and overturn key life-saving orders the Bush Administration had held. If Obama thinks he’s going to get the free pass that many other politicians have gotten (including many so-called Catholics), he’s got another think coming. It’s clear that the Church is toughening up.
“My impression is they’ve gotten more militant and assertive on the life issue, where they’re more willing to say we’re not just going to state our position and look the other way,” said Richard Esenberg, a law professor at Marquette University whose expertise includes religion. He noted that Catholic politicians have been excommunicated in recent years for not supporting positions consistent with the church’s teachings.
It is very important that Church avoid scandal and make an example of someone who professes to be Catholic, yet holds a public view that is not in accordance with the Holy See. The true Catholics will feel emboldened and will come to the Church’s defense, while the so-called Catholics will take notice and question their own political priorities.
“Among the many good things that he could have done, Barack Obama instead chose the worst,” said Monsignor Elio Sgreccia, a top official with the Vatican’s Pontifical Academy for Life.
“If this is one of President Obama’s first acts, I have to say, in all due respect, that we’re heading quickly toward disappointment,” said Monsignor Rino Fisichella, who heads the Academy.
I believe the Church’s leaders not only have the right, but the duty to do all they can to make Her followers understand the weight and severity of putting political affiliation at a higher priority than their own eternal soul. It is time to forget about tax exemptions. If the Church needs to spell out who a Catholic voter should vote for in our country, for instance, they should do so without regard to money. You can put no pricetag on souls, and God has always promised to provide everything needed and “the gates of hell should not prevail against it.”
To all Catholics: It is time to stand up and fight for what we know is right. Engage in conversation, pray, pray, pray, donate to worthy (and only worthy) causes, and pray. Teach your children well and, more importantly, know what your children are being taught. And pray. This is not for us in this lifetime but our reward shall be in heaven.
Tags: Catholic, Esenberg, Five Non-Negotiable Issues, Holy See, Obama
Interesting moral question from The Trog
Jan 27, 2009 Blogging's Best
The Trog asks a very interesting moral question about the use of technology as it affects a person’s reputation (of sorts).
In reading last week the story of how a Google bomb of George W. Bush has now been predictably and avoidably redirected to Barack Obama on the White House web site, I was faced with the puzzle of whether Google bombing the president, in general, is morally licit. Typical Google bombings ought to strike any one as a cross between mildly clever and slightly amusing.
As someone once said, “I guess it depends on what your definition of the word ‘is’ is.”
If you don’t already, make sure to frequent The Troglodyte’s blog. You never know what you might find over there.
Tags: Google Bomb, Morality, Obama, The Troglodyte
