Saturday, January 23, 2010
Friday, January 22, 2010
Massachusetts Earns Their Brownie Points
How does a Democrat running for senate, in what is supposed to be the bluest state in the union, lose a 30 point lead in the span of just of three weeks? But on top of that lose the seat that was held by the same man for almost 47 years in a state where his family name is almost royalty. This is my take on what actually enabled Scott Brown to win Massachusetts and turn what was a Democrat guarantee into a GOP win.
Registered Democrats outnumber registered Republicans 3 to 1 in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. However the majority of registered voters are not Democrats, and in fact they outnumber both Democrats and Republicans combined. They are the Independents and Scott Brown's campaign was geared strictly towards those voters. But here is how he won.
Common Sense on Terrorism: Everyone in this country will tell you that we are at war with terrorism. Everyone except for maybe this administration. The administration proves this through the civilian trials of the 9/11 terrorists coming soon in NYC. For some reason, according to this administration, these terrorists who murdered thousands of Americans (and would do it again in a heart beat), somehow deserve the same rights as you and I in a civilian courtroom in NYC while on the taxpayer dime. It is absolutely disgraceful and insulting to us as Americans that this is going on. And Barry saw the beginning consequences of his actions with Scott Brown's win. More to come in November.
Common Sense on economics: Never raise taxes during a recession! However, every policy put forth by the democrat congress and Barry has been an indirect if not direct tax on the entire country no matter what his campaign promises were. People understand this because while working hours decrease, their income does the same, however this administration feels the need to make them pay more in taxes? Barry's problem is that he believes government is the answer to all of our problems. Maybe if he studied history he would understand that his policies and beliefs do not work (but this is a totally different story that would take pages to write). His idea of "change" was not what America voted for.
Common Sense on Health Care: When over 60% of Americans being polled disagree or strongly disagree with the Obama Care (Communist Care), why would Barry and the Democrats continue trying to push it through? Answer: They DON'T CARE. They believe for some reason that government run health care is the answer despite the living proof across the pond, that it does not and will not work. By ignoring that 60% and calling them the minority or fringe, Barry and the Democrats lost their senate super majority and a seat held by their party for since 1953.
Furthermore, Americans are getting tired of special interest groups, union bosses, favors, bribes, back room deals, etc. The only special interest group that Congress should be listening to is the American people. Everybody knew that saying one thing and then doing another was certainly going to catch up with Barry sooner or later. The thing is, it took less than a year for that to happen. Well before anybody's guess.
Last but not least, this one is for Barry- "YOU LIE!"~ Joe Wilson
Registered Democrats outnumber registered Republicans 3 to 1 in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. However the majority of registered voters are not Democrats, and in fact they outnumber both Democrats and Republicans combined. They are the Independents and Scott Brown's campaign was geared strictly towards those voters. But here is how he won.
Common Sense on Terrorism: Everyone in this country will tell you that we are at war with terrorism. Everyone except for maybe this administration. The administration proves this through the civilian trials of the 9/11 terrorists coming soon in NYC. For some reason, according to this administration, these terrorists who murdered thousands of Americans (and would do it again in a heart beat), somehow deserve the same rights as you and I in a civilian courtroom in NYC while on the taxpayer dime. It is absolutely disgraceful and insulting to us as Americans that this is going on. And Barry saw the beginning consequences of his actions with Scott Brown's win. More to come in November.
Common Sense on economics: Never raise taxes during a recession! However, every policy put forth by the democrat congress and Barry has been an indirect if not direct tax on the entire country no matter what his campaign promises were. People understand this because while working hours decrease, their income does the same, however this administration feels the need to make them pay more in taxes? Barry's problem is that he believes government is the answer to all of our problems. Maybe if he studied history he would understand that his policies and beliefs do not work (but this is a totally different story that would take pages to write). His idea of "change" was not what America voted for.
Common Sense on Health Care: When over 60% of Americans being polled disagree or strongly disagree with the Obama Care (Communist Care), why would Barry and the Democrats continue trying to push it through? Answer: They DON'T CARE. They believe for some reason that government run health care is the answer despite the living proof across the pond, that it does not and will not work. By ignoring that 60% and calling them the minority or fringe, Barry and the Democrats lost their senate super majority and a seat held by their party for since 1953.
Furthermore, Americans are getting tired of special interest groups, union bosses, favors, bribes, back room deals, etc. The only special interest group that Congress should be listening to is the American people. Everybody knew that saying one thing and then doing another was certainly going to catch up with Barry sooner or later. The thing is, it took less than a year for that to happen. Well before anybody's guess.
Last but not least, this one is for Barry- "YOU LIE!"~ Joe Wilson
Thursday, January 21, 2010
Spinning the Massachusetts Election
The Democratic spin is working overtime in the wake of the upset victory of Scott Brown on Tuesday. The White House and other Democratic leaders want people to think the only reason Martha Coakley lost was because she was a bad candidate who ran a terrible campaign. Coakley fires back and blames the national Democratic party for not getting involved in the race soon enough. Now, we all know there's nothing more enjoyable than watching a circular Democratic firing squad. But these analyses are ridiculous. I will readily concede that Martha Coakley ran a terrible campaign and Scott Brown ran an excellent, even brilliant, campaign. But that's not the reason Brown won. Brown won because his message resonated with Massachusetts voters, and his message was uniformly conservative -- lower taxes, no government takeover of health care, an aggressive approach to terrorism, and a government more responsive to the people. If it hadn't been for the anti-government mood of voters, which was a direct response to the policies of Democrats running Massachusetts and the federal government, then a virtually unknown state senator named Scott Brown would have never even been competitive. Martha Coakley's gaffes and mistakes did not occur until after the race had already become competitive; they were not the reason the race was competitive. Remember, Coakley was elected to the statewide office of attorney general only about three years ago with 74% of the vote; I didn't hear anybody saying she was such an unelectable candidate then.
The message from the Massachusetts election for Democrats, if any of them are willing to listen, is that voters are angry. They are angry that Obama and Reid and Pelosi are trying to force a massive health care entitlement down their throat that they don't want. They are angry at the hyper-partisan nature of the health care negotiations, with backroom deals and corrupt payoffs in exchange for votes and secret meetings. They are angry at the out-of-control spending. They are angry that no matter how loud the protests, as seen by townhall meetings and a barrage of letters and phone calls and marches on Washington and unfavorable polling, the politicians continue to show indifference and even contempt for their opinion. And they took that anger out on the Democratic party on Tuesday. Obama explicitly campaigned for Coakley as his 60th vote on health care, and even left-wing Massachusetts rejected him.
A few Democrats seem to be getting the message, as seen by the statements by Evan Bayh and Jim Webb yesterday. But for the most part, the Dems remain clueless. Last night, I briefly watched MSNBC, a channel I normally avoid because of its unbelievably blatant left-wing bias. But I was in a victorious mood and wanted to watch the Rachel Maddows of the world squirm a bit at the election results. Shockingly, the folks at MSNBC think it should be full steam ahead on Obama's agenda. First, I watched Maddow interview Senator Debbie Stabenow of Michigan. Stabenow certainly didn't seem to have learned any lessons from the MA results. She rambled on and on about how it was so hard for the Democrats because no Republicans would reach across the aisle and work with them because the GOP doesn't care about helping people, but the Democrats would do the best they could with the paltry 59 votes they had. Oh yeah, and she whined about how the Democrats needed to get rid of those annoying filibuster rules but unfortunately they didn't have 67 votes (a 2/3 majority is required). Awww. It's a rough life. Then Maddow gave her own analysis, and she was livid that the Democrats seemed to be backing off of health care reform. She accused Evan Bayh and Joe Lieberman, two senators who clearly got the message from the election, of being cowards who wouldn't stand up and fight. In her opinion, so what that the Republicans won one seat? The Dems still have 59, so pass it through reconciliation or whatever. It's as though the election on Tuesday never happened.
I hope all the Democrats in Congress were watching her and take her advice to heart. I hope they try to ram this thing through using reconciliation and keep up their scorched-earth tactics. Because if they do, they will get a shellacking in November that will make 1994 look like a status quo election. I can't wait.
The message from the Massachusetts election for Democrats, if any of them are willing to listen, is that voters are angry. They are angry that Obama and Reid and Pelosi are trying to force a massive health care entitlement down their throat that they don't want. They are angry at the hyper-partisan nature of the health care negotiations, with backroom deals and corrupt payoffs in exchange for votes and secret meetings. They are angry at the out-of-control spending. They are angry that no matter how loud the protests, as seen by townhall meetings and a barrage of letters and phone calls and marches on Washington and unfavorable polling, the politicians continue to show indifference and even contempt for their opinion. And they took that anger out on the Democratic party on Tuesday. Obama explicitly campaigned for Coakley as his 60th vote on health care, and even left-wing Massachusetts rejected him.
A few Democrats seem to be getting the message, as seen by the statements by Evan Bayh and Jim Webb yesterday. But for the most part, the Dems remain clueless. Last night, I briefly watched MSNBC, a channel I normally avoid because of its unbelievably blatant left-wing bias. But I was in a victorious mood and wanted to watch the Rachel Maddows of the world squirm a bit at the election results. Shockingly, the folks at MSNBC think it should be full steam ahead on Obama's agenda. First, I watched Maddow interview Senator Debbie Stabenow of Michigan. Stabenow certainly didn't seem to have learned any lessons from the MA results. She rambled on and on about how it was so hard for the Democrats because no Republicans would reach across the aisle and work with them because the GOP doesn't care about helping people, but the Democrats would do the best they could with the paltry 59 votes they had. Oh yeah, and she whined about how the Democrats needed to get rid of those annoying filibuster rules but unfortunately they didn't have 67 votes (a 2/3 majority is required). Awww. It's a rough life. Then Maddow gave her own analysis, and she was livid that the Democrats seemed to be backing off of health care reform. She accused Evan Bayh and Joe Lieberman, two senators who clearly got the message from the election, of being cowards who wouldn't stand up and fight. In her opinion, so what that the Republicans won one seat? The Dems still have 59, so pass it through reconciliation or whatever. It's as though the election on Tuesday never happened.
I hope all the Democrats in Congress were watching her and take her advice to heart. I hope they try to ram this thing through using reconciliation and keep up their scorched-earth tactics. Because if they do, they will get a shellacking in November that will make 1994 look like a status quo election. I can't wait.
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
Now this is just silly...
It seems that some folks will get their panties in a bunch about nearly anything. Here's a story about a US weapons supplier who inscribes references to Bible verses on its equipment. (For example, one inscription is an eight-character serial number immediately followed by JN8:12, an abbreviation for John 8:12.) A small number of noisy people, including Mikey Weinstein of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, have discovered this and are kicking up a stink about it.
I guess I have to give the complainers just a little bit of credit this time. Instead of making the usual complaints ("STOP SHOVING GOD DOWN MY THROAT*(#@)#%@^#&$&#@^@!"), these complainers are at least attempting to sound reasonable by citing their concern for the troops, arguing that having Biblical references on US military rifles could give militant Muslims (who already view their conflict with US troops as a holy war) the idea that the US is fighting a war against Islam.
Of course, if Mikey Weinstein really gave a rip about the safety of the troops, then he would have kept his big trap shut. (Honestly, I would have thought that the inscription is just a long serial number if I had seen it and knew nothing about it.)
I guess I have to give the complainers just a little bit of credit this time. Instead of making the usual complaints ("STOP SHOVING GOD DOWN MY THROAT*(#@)#%@^#&$&#@^@!"), these complainers are at least attempting to sound reasonable by citing their concern for the troops, arguing that having Biblical references on US military rifles could give militant Muslims (who already view their conflict with US troops as a holy war) the idea that the US is fighting a war against Islam.
Of course, if Mikey Weinstein really gave a rip about the safety of the troops, then he would have kept his big trap shut. (Honestly, I would have thought that the inscription is just a long serial number if I had seen it and knew nothing about it.)
Scott Brown for Senate!
I now believe that a political earthquake is going to happen today in Massachusetts. For the first time in nearly 40 years, liberal Bay State voters are going to the polls to elect a Republican to the U.S. Senate! I believe Scott Brown will narrowly defeate Democrat Martha Coakley today to replace Democratic icon Ted Kennedy.
If I'm right, and Brown really succeeds in defeating Coakley, the ramifications for this GOP victory are huge. It shows how unpopular Obama's policies are, even in the most left-wing states in the country. It shows how little clout he has left -- his campaign appearance for Coakley on Sunday apparently had no effect on the race. It foreshadows a very bad 2010 election cycle for Democrats. It will likely send panic through the ranks of Democratic congressmen and senators, who realize they could be the next ones on the chopping block and may start to retire in droves. Most importantly, a Brown victory could well sound the death knell for ObamaCare. Once Brown is seated in the Senate, the Dems will no longer have a filibuster-proof majority, and will need to make significant compromises and modifications to pass a bill through the Senate.
GO, SCOTT BROWN!!!! Let's remind the party in power that not only is the Massachusetts' Senate seat the "people's seat," but the U.S. Senate is the "people's house."
If I'm right, and Brown really succeeds in defeating Coakley, the ramifications for this GOP victory are huge. It shows how unpopular Obama's policies are, even in the most left-wing states in the country. It shows how little clout he has left -- his campaign appearance for Coakley on Sunday apparently had no effect on the race. It foreshadows a very bad 2010 election cycle for Democrats. It will likely send panic through the ranks of Democratic congressmen and senators, who realize they could be the next ones on the chopping block and may start to retire in droves. Most importantly, a Brown victory could well sound the death knell for ObamaCare. Once Brown is seated in the Senate, the Dems will no longer have a filibuster-proof majority, and will need to make significant compromises and modifications to pass a bill through the Senate.
GO, SCOTT BROWN!!!! Let's remind the party in power that not only is the Massachusetts' Senate seat the "people's seat," but the U.S. Senate is the "people's house."
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
The Party of Corruption
I know that a lot of people think I'm excessively partisan. But frankly, I only consider myself "one half" partisan. I do not believe I am excessively pro-Republican. In fact, one of my posts a couple months ago had some very harsh things to say about the Republican party establishment. I consider myself to be a Republican, but there are plenty of Republicans that I don't like very much and I don't blindly vote the party line. My loyalty is to specific (mostly conservative) principles, not to the Republican party. However, it is true that I am partisan when it comes to Democrats. I am passionately anti-Democrat, especially the Democratic party as it exists today. Here are a few reasons why I think the Democratic party deserves to be known as The Party of Corruption:
1. I am amazed at the way the Democratic party and black leaders have rallied in support of Harry Reid. Reid made an inexcusable statement -- one that is demeaning and insulting to all blacks and also insulting to the American people as a whole. I can't even find a leading Democrat who will condemn Reid's comment at all. Everyone from Obama to Democratic senators to the NAACP keeps saying Reid made a "mistake" or he "misspoke," and then rushes on to say how great Reid is on "civil rights issues," whatever that means. That is not condemning him. It's excusing him. I heard a clip on the radio of Al Sharpton speaking out to defend Harry Reid, and he was laughing and cracking up with people around him while he was speaking. Apparently Al Sharpton thinks it's funny that the Democratic leader in the Senate makes racially insulting comments.
One of the worst hypocrites in the bunch is Senator Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, who back in 2002 said this about Trent Lott's racially insensitive comments: "If a Democratic leader said such a thing, they would not be allowed to keep their position." Of course, Senator Landrieu has no comment about Reid and thus is implicitly supporting him, just like every other Democrat in the Senate. This tells you all you need to know about the Democratic party. They don't care if their leader demeans African-Americans. They act principled when a Republican makes an inappropriate comment, but when one of their own does it they prove that they don't really believe those principles. All they care about is getting their agenda passed. And since Reid is necessary to get health care passed, they will support him no matter what he says.
(Let me a make a side comment about the comparison of Reid to Trent Lott, who was forced to resign as Senate Minority Leader in 2002 after making comments about how our country would have been better off if Strom Thurmond -- who at the time was a segregationist -- had been elected president in 1948. Despite what some are claiming, I think Reid's comments were significantly worse than Lott's. Lott was joking around at Thurmond's 100th birthday party. He had probably had a few beers and wanted to flatter his friend. He never said anything about race or segregation at all, and there's no reason to think it was on his mind. The only way you can find Lott's comments racist is to read into them some sinister intent that was not stated. Reid's comments, on the other hand, were explicitly racial and were in the context of a serious private discussion. If anyone "misspoke," it was Lott, not Reid. But I would note that most Republicans made no real effort to defend Lott, and their lack of support forced him to resign. Note the contrast between how the two parties handled the situation.)
2. Harry Reid is not the only person in a position of Democratic leadership in Congress who is a disgrace. Charlie Rangel has been under investigation for years for various types of corruption, including flagrant tax violations. Rangel is one of the key leaders in the House of Representatives, chairing the powerful Ways and Means Committee. Of course, Democrats rallied around him and allowed him to keep his chairmanship, refusing even to censure him. (Even though they voted to censure Republican congressman Joe Wilson for a much lesser offense of violating congressional decorum.) Again, Democrats don't care what their members do. They can be frauds, cheats, and lawbreakers; as long as they help "advance the agenda" they are welcomed as top Democratic leaders. It is the ultimate "end justifies the means" mentality.
3. Tim Geithner, the Secretary of the Treasury, was nominated by Obama and confirmed by Democrats in the Senate, despite owing $34,000 in backtaxes that he failed to pay (until after he was nominated!). Obama also nominated two other people to Cabinet-level positions who were guilty of tax evasion. Again, for the Democrats this is no big deal. It doesn't matter how you break the law, as long as you can advance the agenda.
4. The health care debacle in Congress really shines a spotlight on the Democrats' corruption. As the debate has unfolded, it has become clear that the Democrats will stop at nothing to pass their bill. They paid off various senators for hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars in order to secure their votes, and flagrantly violated their pledge of transparency by excluding cameras from the conference deliberations. They showed shocking indifference for the actual content of the bill, forcing quick votes before senators had even had time to read the entire bill, and inserting and deleting provisions at will. They refused any attempt at bipartisanship and displayed complete contempt for the concerns of the American people (as illustrated by townhall meetings and polls). Again, this shows that to Democrats, principles, promises, and even voters don't matter. The only thing that matters is keeping their power and passing their agenda.
1. I am amazed at the way the Democratic party and black leaders have rallied in support of Harry Reid. Reid made an inexcusable statement -- one that is demeaning and insulting to all blacks and also insulting to the American people as a whole. I can't even find a leading Democrat who will condemn Reid's comment at all. Everyone from Obama to Democratic senators to the NAACP keeps saying Reid made a "mistake" or he "misspoke," and then rushes on to say how great Reid is on "civil rights issues," whatever that means. That is not condemning him. It's excusing him. I heard a clip on the radio of Al Sharpton speaking out to defend Harry Reid, and he was laughing and cracking up with people around him while he was speaking. Apparently Al Sharpton thinks it's funny that the Democratic leader in the Senate makes racially insulting comments.
One of the worst hypocrites in the bunch is Senator Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, who back in 2002 said this about Trent Lott's racially insensitive comments: "If a Democratic leader said such a thing, they would not be allowed to keep their position." Of course, Senator Landrieu has no comment about Reid and thus is implicitly supporting him, just like every other Democrat in the Senate. This tells you all you need to know about the Democratic party. They don't care if their leader demeans African-Americans. They act principled when a Republican makes an inappropriate comment, but when one of their own does it they prove that they don't really believe those principles. All they care about is getting their agenda passed. And since Reid is necessary to get health care passed, they will support him no matter what he says.
(Let me a make a side comment about the comparison of Reid to Trent Lott, who was forced to resign as Senate Minority Leader in 2002 after making comments about how our country would have been better off if Strom Thurmond -- who at the time was a segregationist -- had been elected president in 1948. Despite what some are claiming, I think Reid's comments were significantly worse than Lott's. Lott was joking around at Thurmond's 100th birthday party. He had probably had a few beers and wanted to flatter his friend. He never said anything about race or segregation at all, and there's no reason to think it was on his mind. The only way you can find Lott's comments racist is to read into them some sinister intent that was not stated. Reid's comments, on the other hand, were explicitly racial and were in the context of a serious private discussion. If anyone "misspoke," it was Lott, not Reid. But I would note that most Republicans made no real effort to defend Lott, and their lack of support forced him to resign. Note the contrast between how the two parties handled the situation.)
2. Harry Reid is not the only person in a position of Democratic leadership in Congress who is a disgrace. Charlie Rangel has been under investigation for years for various types of corruption, including flagrant tax violations. Rangel is one of the key leaders in the House of Representatives, chairing the powerful Ways and Means Committee. Of course, Democrats rallied around him and allowed him to keep his chairmanship, refusing even to censure him. (Even though they voted to censure Republican congressman Joe Wilson for a much lesser offense of violating congressional decorum.) Again, Democrats don't care what their members do. They can be frauds, cheats, and lawbreakers; as long as they help "advance the agenda" they are welcomed as top Democratic leaders. It is the ultimate "end justifies the means" mentality.
3. Tim Geithner, the Secretary of the Treasury, was nominated by Obama and confirmed by Democrats in the Senate, despite owing $34,000 in backtaxes that he failed to pay (until after he was nominated!). Obama also nominated two other people to Cabinet-level positions who were guilty of tax evasion. Again, for the Democrats this is no big deal. It doesn't matter how you break the law, as long as you can advance the agenda.
4. The health care debacle in Congress really shines a spotlight on the Democrats' corruption. As the debate has unfolded, it has become clear that the Democrats will stop at nothing to pass their bill. They paid off various senators for hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars in order to secure their votes, and flagrantly violated their pledge of transparency by excluding cameras from the conference deliberations. They showed shocking indifference for the actual content of the bill, forcing quick votes before senators had even had time to read the entire bill, and inserting and deleting provisions at will. They refused any attempt at bipartisanship and displayed complete contempt for the concerns of the American people (as illustrated by townhall meetings and polls). Again, this shows that to Democrats, principles, promises, and even voters don't matter. The only thing that matters is keeping their power and passing their agenda.
Scott Brown in Massachusetts Senate Debate
Check out this awesome video from the U.S. Senate debate last night. The moderator asked Republican candidate Scott Brown whether he would sit in Teddy Kennedy's seat and vote to kill health care reform. Brown's reply: "With all due respect, it's not the Kennedys' seat and it's not the Democrats' seat; it's the people's seat." Wow!
By the way, Brown raised over $1,000,000 in one day yesterday, and polls are showing him running competitively in Massachusetts, a state that hasn't elected a Republican to the U.S. Senate in nearly 40 years. Even in left-wing Massachusetts, ObamaCare has only 43% support. If Republicans are competitive in this state, imagine how bad it could be for the Democrats in the rest of the country this November....
By the way, Brown raised over $1,000,000 in one day yesterday, and polls are showing him running competitively in Massachusetts, a state that hasn't elected a Republican to the U.S. Senate in nearly 40 years. Even in left-wing Massachusetts, ObamaCare has only 43% support. If Republicans are competitive in this state, imagine how bad it could be for the Democrats in the rest of the country this November....
Monday, January 11, 2010
Letting Crooks and Illegals Vote
Check out this editorial in The Washington Times. The Democrats want to push universal voter registration legislation through Congress. Their proposal is to automatically register every person on every government list, whether they want to be registered or not. This really scares me. Nothing is more important in a democracy than the integrity of the election process. As The Times points out, this legislation opens the door for convicted felons and illegal aliens to vote and is certain to increase voter fraud by making it easier for individuals to be registered multiple times.
Protecting the integrity of our elections is not that hard, and my guess is that large majorities of Americans agree on how that can be done:
1.) Voting is a privilege reserved only for American citizens, not a right guaranteed to non-resident and illegal aliens.
2.) Convicted felons should not be allowed to vote, especially felons currently serving time in jail.
3.) No one should be registered to vote automatically based on some list. This opens the door to fraud. If someone doesn't care enough about our political process to bother to register on their own initiative, they shouldn't be able to vote.
4.) No one should be able to register on Election Day or to vote in locations other than the one in which they live. Such voter "flexibility" laws make voter fraud much easier.
5.) Photo ID should be required to vote at a polling station. Again, it's the surest way to prevent fraud. This is not an unreasonable requirement. Photo ID is required for simple bank transactions; why shouldn't it be required for voting?
Protecting the integrity of our elections is not that hard, and my guess is that large majorities of Americans agree on how that can be done:
1.) Voting is a privilege reserved only for American citizens, not a right guaranteed to non-resident and illegal aliens.
2.) Convicted felons should not be allowed to vote, especially felons currently serving time in jail.
3.) No one should be registered to vote automatically based on some list. This opens the door to fraud. If someone doesn't care enough about our political process to bother to register on their own initiative, they shouldn't be able to vote.
4.) No one should be able to register on Election Day or to vote in locations other than the one in which they live. Such voter "flexibility" laws make voter fraud much easier.
5.) Photo ID should be required to vote at a polling station. Again, it's the surest way to prevent fraud. This is not an unreasonable requirement. Photo ID is required for simple bank transactions; why shouldn't it be required for voting?
Double Standard
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has created quite a buzz in the political world with the revelation of his comments during the 2008 election campaign about Barack Obama. A book about to be published reveals that Reid called Obama "light skinned" and a candidate "with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one."
I personally don't think these comments are racist, though they are certainly insensitive and crass. The thing that really upsets me about this is the shocking double standard. All the people who are usually up in arms about racial discrimination or insensitivity in this country are giving Reid a complete pass. The Congressional Black Caucus, which went ballistic over allegedly racist comments by Rush Limbaugh and Trent Lott, issued a statement offering strong support for Reid. Even more shocking, Rev. Al Sharpton, who makes his living by stirring up racial controversy and is about as sensitive as they come to real or imagined prejudice, also made a statement brushing off Reid's comments and offering his unqualified support for Reid's continuance as Senate Majority Leader (since he apologized!). The NAADP (National Association for the Advancement of the Democratic Party) has also been pretty quiet. These people claim to speak for the black community, but it seems that in reality they only speak for the Democratic party agenda.
As I have said in a previous post, I personally think our culture is far too quick to brand people as "racist" with far too little evidence. This hyper-sensitivity makes it very difficult to discuss racial issues openly and honestly, and destroys the reputations of many good people who are unfairly branded as prejudiced. But worse than the hyper-sensitivity is the incredible double standard perpetrated by Democrats, leaders of the black community, and the media. Basically it comes down to this: the Al Sharptons, Jesse Jacksons, Maxine Waters's, and Kweisi Mfumes of America wield racist grievances like a club to attack conservatives, while behaving with complete indifference to racial insensitivities perpetrated by liberals. The vast majority of liberals in the Democratic party and the media are just as guilty of this double standard, because they go along with it instead of exposing it. It's not just Harry Reid. The Vice-President of the U.S., Joe Biden, said during the 2008 campaign that Obama was “the first mainstream African American [presidential candidate] who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy.” Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia is a former Ku Klux Klan member who has a history of using racial slurs. Yet, Biden and Byrd continue to be well-respected leaders in the Democratic party. What Republican could get away with saying and doing these things and maintain a respected position in public life?
Friday, January 8, 2010
Liar
Obama is a liar. It's as simple as that. He promised eight times -- EIGHT times -- during and after his campaign that he would let C-Span cameras into the room to televise all health care negotiations. You can watch him lie through his teeth to the American people over and over again here. Now he and his left-wing cronies in Congress are going back on their word and refusing to allow C-Span or any other television networks in to televise the Democratic health care negotiations. Think they might have something to hide? So much for Nancy Pelosi's pledge to preside over the most "transparent" Congress in history.
Thursday, January 7, 2010
Wednesday, January 6, 2010
Year in Review by Dave Barry
Check out this hilarious 2009 year in review article by Dave Barry. My wife and I laughed until we cried. A lot more could have been said about the health care debacle in Congress, but otherwise it hits the highlights of 2009 pretty well.
Monday, January 4, 2010
Lessons from The Blind Side
My wife and I watched the movie The Blind Side on Saturday night. The movie is funny, well-acted, and very emotionally moving. It is the true story of how a wealthy white family adopted a destitute black teenager from inner city Memphis. That destitute kid, Michael Oher, made the Dean's List at Ole Miss and is now an NFL star. Two things struck me as I watched the movie. First, the pain and tragedy of Michael's childhood. He never knew his father, and his mother was a crack addict who had a dozen children, apparently all with different fathers. He was essentially homeless at age 15 when the Tuohy family picked him up on the side of the road, wearing nothing but a t-shirt & shorts on a cold night. Watching the scenes in the movie where Mrs. Tuohy meets Michael's mom and where Michael tells Mrs. Tuohy he wants to stay with them will tug at your heart strings.
The other thing that struck me about the movie was the genuine Christian faith of the Tuohy family. To bring a virtually unknown 15-year-old kid to stay in your house from off the street takes both compassion and courage, and the Tuohys had plenty of both. The movie makes clear that this compassion and courage was a result of their evangelical Christianity, and it is surprising and refreshing to watch a Hollywood film that paints believers in a positive light rather than ridiculing them. Because of the Tuohys' intervention, Michael's life was transformed. Without them, he would likely have continued the rest of his life in poverty and hopelessness; thanks to their love and support, he was able to achieve greatness.
I don't think there's a government program on earth that could have transformed Michael's life in that way. One loving family did more for him than tens of thousands of welfare payments could ever do. That doesn't mean that I think we should eliminate welfare or other social programs for the poor. But those programs have not eliminated poverty, and they will never do so. And ironically, some of the cities that spend the most on social programs for the poor have some of the worst problems with homelessness and addiction (like San Francisco, which spends an average of $130,000 per homeless person without any appreciable reduction in homelessness levels). A well-designed government program to help the poor can provide needy people with their most basic needs while encouraging them to help themselves and take responsibility. But I think what truly destitute people need to enable them to get out of poverty is a personal connection -- individual people to demonstrate love, compassion, and help tailored to their specific situation. They don't need just money; they need a change in their thinking, habits, and lifestyle. Large government bureaucracies can't do that very well. That is why individuals and private non-profit charities are usually much more efficient and effective at helping the poor than the government is. Ask victims of Hurricane Katrina who helped them more: FEMA or church groups and other private volunteers!
I think this provides a challenge for us as individuals. What are we doing to help people around us in need? What are our churches doing to show compassion to those who need it the most? It also provides us with a needed caution. Let us not confuse real compassion with politicians spending other people's tax dollars on bloated bureaucracies that do more to encourage laziness and government dependence than to provide lasting help.
The other thing that struck me about the movie was the genuine Christian faith of the Tuohy family. To bring a virtually unknown 15-year-old kid to stay in your house from off the street takes both compassion and courage, and the Tuohys had plenty of both. The movie makes clear that this compassion and courage was a result of their evangelical Christianity, and it is surprising and refreshing to watch a Hollywood film that paints believers in a positive light rather than ridiculing them. Because of the Tuohys' intervention, Michael's life was transformed. Without them, he would likely have continued the rest of his life in poverty and hopelessness; thanks to their love and support, he was able to achieve greatness.
I don't think there's a government program on earth that could have transformed Michael's life in that way. One loving family did more for him than tens of thousands of welfare payments could ever do. That doesn't mean that I think we should eliminate welfare or other social programs for the poor. But those programs have not eliminated poverty, and they will never do so. And ironically, some of the cities that spend the most on social programs for the poor have some of the worst problems with homelessness and addiction (like San Francisco, which spends an average of $130,000 per homeless person without any appreciable reduction in homelessness levels). A well-designed government program to help the poor can provide needy people with their most basic needs while encouraging them to help themselves and take responsibility. But I think what truly destitute people need to enable them to get out of poverty is a personal connection -- individual people to demonstrate love, compassion, and help tailored to their specific situation. They don't need just money; they need a change in their thinking, habits, and lifestyle. Large government bureaucracies can't do that very well. That is why individuals and private non-profit charities are usually much more efficient and effective at helping the poor than the government is. Ask victims of Hurricane Katrina who helped them more: FEMA or church groups and other private volunteers!
I think this provides a challenge for us as individuals. What are we doing to help people around us in need? What are our churches doing to show compassion to those who need it the most? It also provides us with a needed caution. Let us not confuse real compassion with politicians spending other people's tax dollars on bloated bureaucracies that do more to encourage laziness and government dependence than to provide lasting help.
Thursday, December 31, 2009
State attorneys general challenge the Senate health care bill
Thirteen state attorneys general are challenging the constitutionality of a provision in the Senate health care bill which was passed just as Santa slid down the chimney at the White House. This provision basically bought Senator Ben Nelson's vote by providing federal aid to Nelson's home state of Nebraska. (Nelson's vote was the deciding vote which broke the Republican filibuster.) I cannot say for sure if this provision is unconstitutional, but I can state with certainty that it's pretty damn weaselly. I applaud these attorneys general for their efforts to bring this to the attention of the voters.
Source: AP
Source: AP
Thursday, December 24, 2009
Merry Christmas!
All praise to Thee, Eternal Lord,
Clothed in a garb of flesh and blood;
Choosing a manger for Thy throne
While worlds on worlds are Thine alone.
Once did the skies before Thee bow;
A virgin's arms contain Thee now:
Angels who did in Thee rejoice
Now listen for Thine infant voice.
A little child, Thou art our guest
That weary ones in Thee may rest;
Forlorn and lowly is Thy birth
That we may rise to heav'n from earth.
Thou comest in the darksome night
To make us children of the light,
To make us, in the realms divine,
Like Thine own angels round Thee shine.
All this for us Thy love hath done;
By this to Thee our love is won:
For this we tune our cheerful lays
And shout our thanks in ceaseless praise!
~Martin Luther, 1524
Clothed in a garb of flesh and blood;
Choosing a manger for Thy throne
While worlds on worlds are Thine alone.
Once did the skies before Thee bow;
A virgin's arms contain Thee now:
Angels who did in Thee rejoice
Now listen for Thine infant voice.
A little child, Thou art our guest
That weary ones in Thee may rest;
Forlorn and lowly is Thy birth
That we may rise to heav'n from earth.
Thou comest in the darksome night
To make us children of the light,
To make us, in the realms divine,
Like Thine own angels round Thee shine.
All this for us Thy love hath done;
By this to Thee our love is won:
For this we tune our cheerful lays
And shout our thanks in ceaseless praise!
~Martin Luther, 1524
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
Government's Abortion Mandate
Here's a great editorial in The Washington Times today about Ben Nelson's "line in the sand." http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/dec/22/governments-abortion-mandate/.
The whole article is worth reading, but the last paragraph really stood out to me: "Many Americans wanted to believe Mr. Nelson was a decent man of his word, but the senator caved in when his vote could have made a difference for the lives of the unborn. A politician can't get any more despicable than that."
The whole article is worth reading, but the last paragraph really stood out to me: "Many Americans wanted to believe Mr. Nelson was a decent man of his word, but the senator caved in when his vote could have made a difference for the lives of the unborn. A politician can't get any more despicable than that."
ObamaCare, Part II
Since my last post, the "logjam" in the Senate has been broken and ObamaCare appears well on its way to passage in the Senate. Ben Nelson, the last Democratic holdout against the bill, caved under intense pressure from his Democratic colleagues and agreed to vote for cloture. At 1:19 in the morning, the U.S. Senate voted 60-40 to end debate on Harry Reid's manager's amendment, which essentially re-writes the health care bill (the amendment is almost 500 pages I believe). Not a single Republican voted for this amendment, not even liberal Republicans like Olympia Snowe & Susan Collins of Maine. The final bill will probably be rammed through on Christmas Eve, with little or no debate and no Republican votes. This is health care reform, Democrat-style: votes in the middle of the night, secret amendments, back-door deals, stifled debate, and hyper-partisanship.
Let's talk about Ben Nelson for a moment. Senator Nelson represents one of the most conservative states in the country, Nebraska, a state in which large majorities of voters are pro-life and oppose ObamaCare. Senator Nelson has been elected twice by Nebraska voters by claiming to be pro-life and fiscally conservative. If there were ever a significant test of Nelson's principles, it would be this bill. The Senate bill will use taxpayer money to fund abortions, and it creates a huge new government entitlement that significantly increases taxes and is certain to dramatically expand the deficit as well. Nelson knew both of these things about the bill. He knew that the bill would use taxpayer funds to pay for abortions, and spoke out against it. He also knew the bill was too costly and fiscally irresponsible, and he spoke out against that as well. But in the end, he caved on his principles and disregarded the will of his constituents. And what did he get out of the deal? In exchange for his vote, Harry Reid added language to the bill that binds the federal government to pay the state of Nebraska's share of Medicaid premiums for Nebraska residents in perpetuity, which is worth about $100 million. Awww...isn't that nice? Nelson sells out his principles for $100 million, the public gets Nelson's key 60th vote on a health care bill they don't want, and all federal taxpayers are on the hook to pay the price of Harry Reid's little backroom deal!
Let's be clear: the bill that is about to pass in the U.S. Senate will use taxpayer money to fund abortion. The so-called "abortion compromise" in the bill that managed to secure the support of so-called pro-life Democrats like Bob Casey and Ben Nelson is not a compromise at all. The bill clearly states that federal tax dollars will be used to subsidize private plans that cover abortion on demand. A bookkeeping gimmick in the bill states that abortion charges will be separated from regular premiums, but this is meaningless because the abortion charge is not optional. So any distinction between abortion premiums and regular health coverage premiums is purely a paper distinction and not a real one. (And even this paper distinction only exists as long as the Hyde Amendment exists -- and there is a real danger that the Hyde Amendment will not be renewed by this president and this Congress in the near future.) Further, this bill provides that the federal government will administer a program of multi-state plans that also cover abortion on demand. This is a sharp break from current law, which prohibits any private plans from covering elective abortion if they are part of the Federal Employees Health Benefits program administered by the federal government. Finally, the Senate bill provides authority for the Department of Health and Human Services to require all private health plans to cover all abortions as a "preventive" service. All of these provisions explain why, unlike the House bill, the Senate bill does not prevent taxpayer funds from being used to provide and promote abortion. A conscience protection provision for health providers, which is in the House bill, is also not in the Senate bill. In light of these facts, I don't see how any member of Congress could vote for the Senate bill and legitimately claim to be pro-life. Congressman Stupak, the Democrat who fought courageously to ensure that the House bill did not use taxpayer funds to cover abortion, is angry about this "compromise" and has expressed his strong opposition to the Senate language.
I watched The O'Reilly Factor last night, and I was amazed at some of the claims made about ObamaCare by Mary Ann Marsh, a Democratic strategist. The most amazing thing to me was the fact that this seemingly intelligent woman could appear on TV and say with a straight face that ObamaCare would reduce the deficit. That is laughable. How stupid do you have to be to think that you can create a huge new federal entitlement that is already projected to cost over $1 trillion (and is certain to cost far, far more than that in the long run) and think that it will not significantly increase the deficit? The bill pretends to reduce the deficit because it projects almost $500 billion of cuts to Medicare that will not happen and about $275 billion in reductions in reimbursements to doctors that will not happen. Further, Congress has deceptively made the bill appear much less costly than it really is by arranging to have taxes, and fees, and costs begin to be collected in 2010 while most benefits do not take effect until 2014. Thus, the 10-year $1.1 trillion dollar price tag factors in 10 years of taxes, fees, and costs but only 6 years of benefits. The real, hidden 10-year cost is closer to $2 trillion. You don't reduce the deficit by creating huge new government programs.
Mary Ann Marsh also claims that this bill will reduce taxes for individuals and businesses and promote growth for small businesses. Again, this is a foolish claim. The bill includes more than $500 billion in taxes, and the burden of paying them will fall on both individuals and businesses. Businesses are going down to be weighed down by all the additional taxes, fees, regulations, and burdensome requirements in the bill. This bill is a job-killer and will stifle, not promote, economic growth. There's a reason why the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has expressed such strong opposition to this bill.
The House and Senate bills will now go to conference to iron out the differences, and so there will still need to be another vote in both houses of Congress on the final conference version of the bill. If the Senate abortion language is adopted by the conference committee (which I think is likely), are there any Democrats in the House other than Bart Stupak who will stand their ground and vote "no" on a bill that funds abortion with taxpayer money? Or will they all cave like Ben Nelson? We will soon find out.
Let's talk about Ben Nelson for a moment. Senator Nelson represents one of the most conservative states in the country, Nebraska, a state in which large majorities of voters are pro-life and oppose ObamaCare. Senator Nelson has been elected twice by Nebraska voters by claiming to be pro-life and fiscally conservative. If there were ever a significant test of Nelson's principles, it would be this bill. The Senate bill will use taxpayer money to fund abortions, and it creates a huge new government entitlement that significantly increases taxes and is certain to dramatically expand the deficit as well. Nelson knew both of these things about the bill. He knew that the bill would use taxpayer funds to pay for abortions, and spoke out against it. He also knew the bill was too costly and fiscally irresponsible, and he spoke out against that as well. But in the end, he caved on his principles and disregarded the will of his constituents. And what did he get out of the deal? In exchange for his vote, Harry Reid added language to the bill that binds the federal government to pay the state of Nebraska's share of Medicaid premiums for Nebraska residents in perpetuity, which is worth about $100 million. Awww...isn't that nice? Nelson sells out his principles for $100 million, the public gets Nelson's key 60th vote on a health care bill they don't want, and all federal taxpayers are on the hook to pay the price of Harry Reid's little backroom deal!
Let's be clear: the bill that is about to pass in the U.S. Senate will use taxpayer money to fund abortion. The so-called "abortion compromise" in the bill that managed to secure the support of so-called pro-life Democrats like Bob Casey and Ben Nelson is not a compromise at all. The bill clearly states that federal tax dollars will be used to subsidize private plans that cover abortion on demand. A bookkeeping gimmick in the bill states that abortion charges will be separated from regular premiums, but this is meaningless because the abortion charge is not optional. So any distinction between abortion premiums and regular health coverage premiums is purely a paper distinction and not a real one. (And even this paper distinction only exists as long as the Hyde Amendment exists -- and there is a real danger that the Hyde Amendment will not be renewed by this president and this Congress in the near future.) Further, this bill provides that the federal government will administer a program of multi-state plans that also cover abortion on demand. This is a sharp break from current law, which prohibits any private plans from covering elective abortion if they are part of the Federal Employees Health Benefits program administered by the federal government. Finally, the Senate bill provides authority for the Department of Health and Human Services to require all private health plans to cover all abortions as a "preventive" service. All of these provisions explain why, unlike the House bill, the Senate bill does not prevent taxpayer funds from being used to provide and promote abortion. A conscience protection provision for health providers, which is in the House bill, is also not in the Senate bill. In light of these facts, I don't see how any member of Congress could vote for the Senate bill and legitimately claim to be pro-life. Congressman Stupak, the Democrat who fought courageously to ensure that the House bill did not use taxpayer funds to cover abortion, is angry about this "compromise" and has expressed his strong opposition to the Senate language.
I watched The O'Reilly Factor last night, and I was amazed at some of the claims made about ObamaCare by Mary Ann Marsh, a Democratic strategist. The most amazing thing to me was the fact that this seemingly intelligent woman could appear on TV and say with a straight face that ObamaCare would reduce the deficit. That is laughable. How stupid do you have to be to think that you can create a huge new federal entitlement that is already projected to cost over $1 trillion (and is certain to cost far, far more than that in the long run) and think that it will not significantly increase the deficit? The bill pretends to reduce the deficit because it projects almost $500 billion of cuts to Medicare that will not happen and about $275 billion in reductions in reimbursements to doctors that will not happen. Further, Congress has deceptively made the bill appear much less costly than it really is by arranging to have taxes, and fees, and costs begin to be collected in 2010 while most benefits do not take effect until 2014. Thus, the 10-year $1.1 trillion dollar price tag factors in 10 years of taxes, fees, and costs but only 6 years of benefits. The real, hidden 10-year cost is closer to $2 trillion. You don't reduce the deficit by creating huge new government programs.
Mary Ann Marsh also claims that this bill will reduce taxes for individuals and businesses and promote growth for small businesses. Again, this is a foolish claim. The bill includes more than $500 billion in taxes, and the burden of paying them will fall on both individuals and businesses. Businesses are going down to be weighed down by all the additional taxes, fees, regulations, and burdensome requirements in the bill. This bill is a job-killer and will stifle, not promote, economic growth. There's a reason why the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has expressed such strong opposition to this bill.
The House and Senate bills will now go to conference to iron out the differences, and so there will still need to be another vote in both houses of Congress on the final conference version of the bill. If the Senate abortion language is adopted by the conference committee (which I think is likely), are there any Democrats in the House other than Bart Stupak who will stand their ground and vote "no" on a bill that funds abortion with taxpayer money? Or will they all cave like Ben Nelson? We will soon find out.
Monday, December 21, 2009
Change Nobody Believes In
Check out this great article in the Wall Street Journal. This article does an excellent job of explaining both the the terrible content of the Senate health care bill and also the disgraceful tactics of the Democratic majority in ramming it through.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704398304574598130440164954.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_sections_opinion
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704398304574598130440164954.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_sections_opinion
Friday, December 18, 2009
The Short But Happy History of ObamaCare
I'm sorry I haven't posted in awhile...life has been busy and I've found that listening to Christmas music is much more soothing than talk radio!
If you look at the polls, you find a steady erosion of President Obama's job approval rating. Back when Obama took office, his popularity was among the highest of any modern-era president and the country's hopes were soaring. Now, recent Gallup & NBC/Wall St. Jrnl polls both have him at 47% approval, the lowest ever recorded for a modern-era president at this point in their presidency (less than one year in office). Polls also show clear majorities of American oppose Obama's signature issues & decisions -- Democratic health care reform, cap-and-trade legislation, bringing terrorist detainees to the U.S., etc. Independents have turned decisively against the President's agenda, which is an ominous sign for the Democrats in next year's mid-term election. Don't even get me started on the Democratic Congress, which has a job approval rating in the 20%'s. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's national job approval rating is 15% (and 38% in his home state of Nevada). Voters are developing a bad case of buyer's remorse as they find out what happens when liberals control the country.
The health care "reform" debacle illustrates clearly how radical, inept, & out-of-touch Democrats are. As I watch the "debate" (back-room maneuvering would be a better word) unfold, I sometimes get the urge to laugh. If the consequences for our country weren't so severe, I would. How can the Democrats manage to botch this legislation so badly when they have such huge majorities in both houses of Congress? How can they be so oblivious to the wishes of their constituents?
Here's everything you need to know about the status of health care reform over the past few months. President Obama announced way back in the summer that reforming health care was urgent (never mind the benefits in these bills don't take effect for four or five years) and that his "drop-dead deadline" for passing the legislation was the end of July, before the congressional August recess. (Because we all know that the most effective way to pass sweeping legislation that overhauls 17% of the U.S. economy is to do it as fast as humanly possible!) Never mind that there WAS no legislation, because the President did not present a plan. Hmmm...well the Democrats didn't quite make their little August 1st deadline, and so they got to go home and hear from their constituents. The townhall meetings were truly democracy in action -- individual Americans getting involved in the political process and letting their representatives and senators know how they felt about an important issue. For this unforgivable sin of exercising their rights as citizens, the Democrats showed their common touch by smearing participants in townhall meetings as "people carrying swastikas" and "brownshirts" (Nancy Pelosi) and "evilmongers" (Harry Reid). Ahh...insulting voters. It works every time. Polls showed that a majority of Americans were increasingly sympathetic with the townhall protestors.
So, having heard the thunderous voice of the American people, Democrats returned to Washington, chastened and ready to modify their bill to address the concerns of their constituents about government control over health care. OK, I made that up. Democrats returned to Washington, more determined than ever to defy their constituents' wishes and push through a massive government-run health care bill by spending nearly a trillion dollars of taxpayer money that isn't there. (That's what deficits are for!) Multiple bills were proposed by multiple House & Senate committees, conveniently enabling the Donkey Party to avoid being pinned down on any specific unpopular provision by saying that some particular version of the bill didn't have that particular provision. Meanwhile, President Obama floated above the fray, appearing around the country at staged venues packed with supporters and giving vague speeches with no specifics but lots of pablum about the "moral imperative" of passing whatever version of the bill the Democrats might eventually decide to settle on.
Finally Nancy Pelosi (a very wise woman) realized that there is only one thing to do when you are contemplating passing a bill against the public's wishes that will establish one of the largest entitlement programs in America's history and will bring 1/3 of its economy under heavy government control. The answer should be obvious. You jam it through with minimal debate and with no bipartisan support whatsoever! And that's exactly what Pelosi did. She unveiled, with much fanfare, a left-wing 2,000-page bill filled with new taxes and mandates and a "robust" public option. She drastically limited debate, allowed only one amendment under protest, and forced a vote at 11:00 pm on a Saturday night. The Democrats have an 83 vote majority in the House of Representatives, and they passed the bill by only 5 votes, with 39 Democrats voting "no" (and only one Republican voting "yes"). Pelosi was visibly joyful as she banged the gavel and announced the vote results. Oh boy, we sneaked one past the American people while they were watching their family night movie!
Then things got really interesting in the Senate. Listening to Harry Reid & Barack Obama discuss whether or not the public option would be included in the bill was somewhat analogous to reading the daily weather report. One day it's in, the next day it's out. One day a Senate committee voted down the public option, and a few days later Harry Reid completely circumvented the committee process and presented a new bill once more containing the public option. Problems started early, as Reid was having a hard time getting even members of his own party to vote to bring this masterpiece to the Senate floor for debate (much less Republicans). However, he solved that problem nicely by offering fence-sitting Senator Mary Landrieu $100 million in financial aid to her state of Louisiana. Landrieu proudly informed her constituents that she really wasn't that cheap and that she had actually secured $300 million in exchange for her vote.
Once the bill arrived on the Senate floor, Senator Harry Reid, the statesman leader of that august deliberative body, set the tone for bipartisanship by comparing Republican opposition to senators who had historically supported slavery and opposed the rights of women and blacks to vote. Debate progressed and amendments were offered, but it was an open secret among Senate insiders that the whole process was all for show. In reality, Democrats were scrambling to get a backroom deal that would secure all 60 Democratic caucus votes so they could invoke cloture and shut down any further debate. Joe Lieberman was a pesky holdout, refusing to support any bill with a public option.
Then, just when you thought it couldn't get any more exciting, Harry Reid made news once again! He breathlessly held a press conference announcing that a deal had been reached on a completely rewritten bill that all Democrats could support, but he couldn't release the details to the Senate or the public. Trust me, it's really good, and no, nobody can read it, why would you ask? What do you think this is, a democracy? He did condescend to mention that the public option was now gone and to be replaced with a drastically expanded Medicare to include people age 55 and up. Within a day or two of Reid's "breakthrough," Lieberman criticized the new bill and announced his opposition to the Medicare buy-in proposal. Oops...we have our whole caucus on board, except for all the members that weren't on board before. If there were any justice in this world, Reid would be gainfully employed with a traveling circus.
Back to the drawing board again. We have to get some bill, any bill, that can barely pass, and who cares what's in it. The content is irrelevant. The main thing is to pass the longest, most expensive bill possible before Christmas. We'll give any Democrat anything they want, just vote for the darn thing! In the meantime, the Left unleashed their big guns on Lieberman. What the heck is this, a Democrat who thinks for himself? Let's attack his wife. Let's demonize him and accuse him of mass murder. And that's exactly what happened to Lieberman.
Finally, Reid backed down and took out both the Medicare buy-in and the public option provisions. Lieberman was back on board -- but now another Democrat, Ben Nelson, was backing out because of the provisions to fund abortion. And here we are, one week before Christmas, with a huge blizzard about to hit Washington, DC, and Reid is still insisting on a vote before Christmas. On a bill that no one in the Senate has even seen yet -- a bill that hasn't even been fully written yet. On a bill that will take eight hours just to read on the Senate floor. On a bill that will cost almost a trillion dollars and dramatically alter 1/3 of our economy. But everyone has to vote "yes" because it's a moral imperative and Obama says so! Don't worry about what's actually in the bill -- we'll get to read it once it's safely passed.
This is not liberty. This is not how representative government is supposed to work. This is tyranny and socialism. This is an audacious power grab by an out-of-control government that is well on its way to bankrupting our country -- right in the teeth of huge popular opposition. The Democrats may well get their way in the end, but they will pay a heavy price for this. Our whole country will pay a heavy price for this.
If you look at the polls, you find a steady erosion of President Obama's job approval rating. Back when Obama took office, his popularity was among the highest of any modern-era president and the country's hopes were soaring. Now, recent Gallup & NBC/Wall St. Jrnl polls both have him at 47% approval, the lowest ever recorded for a modern-era president at this point in their presidency (less than one year in office). Polls also show clear majorities of American oppose Obama's signature issues & decisions -- Democratic health care reform, cap-and-trade legislation, bringing terrorist detainees to the U.S., etc. Independents have turned decisively against the President's agenda, which is an ominous sign for the Democrats in next year's mid-term election. Don't even get me started on the Democratic Congress, which has a job approval rating in the 20%'s. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's national job approval rating is 15% (and 38% in his home state of Nevada). Voters are developing a bad case of buyer's remorse as they find out what happens when liberals control the country.
The health care "reform" debacle illustrates clearly how radical, inept, & out-of-touch Democrats are. As I watch the "debate" (back-room maneuvering would be a better word) unfold, I sometimes get the urge to laugh. If the consequences for our country weren't so severe, I would. How can the Democrats manage to botch this legislation so badly when they have such huge majorities in both houses of Congress? How can they be so oblivious to the wishes of their constituents?
Here's everything you need to know about the status of health care reform over the past few months. President Obama announced way back in the summer that reforming health care was urgent (never mind the benefits in these bills don't take effect for four or five years) and that his "drop-dead deadline" for passing the legislation was the end of July, before the congressional August recess. (Because we all know that the most effective way to pass sweeping legislation that overhauls 17% of the U.S. economy is to do it as fast as humanly possible!) Never mind that there WAS no legislation, because the President did not present a plan. Hmmm...well the Democrats didn't quite make their little August 1st deadline, and so they got to go home and hear from their constituents. The townhall meetings were truly democracy in action -- individual Americans getting involved in the political process and letting their representatives and senators know how they felt about an important issue. For this unforgivable sin of exercising their rights as citizens, the Democrats showed their common touch by smearing participants in townhall meetings as "people carrying swastikas" and "brownshirts" (Nancy Pelosi) and "evilmongers" (Harry Reid). Ahh...insulting voters. It works every time. Polls showed that a majority of Americans were increasingly sympathetic with the townhall protestors.
So, having heard the thunderous voice of the American people, Democrats returned to Washington, chastened and ready to modify their bill to address the concerns of their constituents about government control over health care. OK, I made that up. Democrats returned to Washington, more determined than ever to defy their constituents' wishes and push through a massive government-run health care bill by spending nearly a trillion dollars of taxpayer money that isn't there. (That's what deficits are for!) Multiple bills were proposed by multiple House & Senate committees, conveniently enabling the Donkey Party to avoid being pinned down on any specific unpopular provision by saying that some particular version of the bill didn't have that particular provision. Meanwhile, President Obama floated above the fray, appearing around the country at staged venues packed with supporters and giving vague speeches with no specifics but lots of pablum about the "moral imperative" of passing whatever version of the bill the Democrats might eventually decide to settle on.
Finally Nancy Pelosi (a very wise woman) realized that there is only one thing to do when you are contemplating passing a bill against the public's wishes that will establish one of the largest entitlement programs in America's history and will bring 1/3 of its economy under heavy government control. The answer should be obvious. You jam it through with minimal debate and with no bipartisan support whatsoever! And that's exactly what Pelosi did. She unveiled, with much fanfare, a left-wing 2,000-page bill filled with new taxes and mandates and a "robust" public option. She drastically limited debate, allowed only one amendment under protest, and forced a vote at 11:00 pm on a Saturday night. The Democrats have an 83 vote majority in the House of Representatives, and they passed the bill by only 5 votes, with 39 Democrats voting "no" (and only one Republican voting "yes"). Pelosi was visibly joyful as she banged the gavel and announced the vote results. Oh boy, we sneaked one past the American people while they were watching their family night movie!
Then things got really interesting in the Senate. Listening to Harry Reid & Barack Obama discuss whether or not the public option would be included in the bill was somewhat analogous to reading the daily weather report. One day it's in, the next day it's out. One day a Senate committee voted down the public option, and a few days later Harry Reid completely circumvented the committee process and presented a new bill once more containing the public option. Problems started early, as Reid was having a hard time getting even members of his own party to vote to bring this masterpiece to the Senate floor for debate (much less Republicans). However, he solved that problem nicely by offering fence-sitting Senator Mary Landrieu $100 million in financial aid to her state of Louisiana. Landrieu proudly informed her constituents that she really wasn't that cheap and that she had actually secured $300 million in exchange for her vote.
Once the bill arrived on the Senate floor, Senator Harry Reid, the statesman leader of that august deliberative body, set the tone for bipartisanship by comparing Republican opposition to senators who had historically supported slavery and opposed the rights of women and blacks to vote. Debate progressed and amendments were offered, but it was an open secret among Senate insiders that the whole process was all for show. In reality, Democrats were scrambling to get a backroom deal that would secure all 60 Democratic caucus votes so they could invoke cloture and shut down any further debate. Joe Lieberman was a pesky holdout, refusing to support any bill with a public option.
Then, just when you thought it couldn't get any more exciting, Harry Reid made news once again! He breathlessly held a press conference announcing that a deal had been reached on a completely rewritten bill that all Democrats could support, but he couldn't release the details to the Senate or the public. Trust me, it's really good, and no, nobody can read it, why would you ask? What do you think this is, a democracy? He did condescend to mention that the public option was now gone and to be replaced with a drastically expanded Medicare to include people age 55 and up. Within a day or two of Reid's "breakthrough," Lieberman criticized the new bill and announced his opposition to the Medicare buy-in proposal. Oops...we have our whole caucus on board, except for all the members that weren't on board before. If there were any justice in this world, Reid would be gainfully employed with a traveling circus.
Back to the drawing board again. We have to get some bill, any bill, that can barely pass, and who cares what's in it. The content is irrelevant. The main thing is to pass the longest, most expensive bill possible before Christmas. We'll give any Democrat anything they want, just vote for the darn thing! In the meantime, the Left unleashed their big guns on Lieberman. What the heck is this, a Democrat who thinks for himself? Let's attack his wife. Let's demonize him and accuse him of mass murder. And that's exactly what happened to Lieberman.
Finally, Reid backed down and took out both the Medicare buy-in and the public option provisions. Lieberman was back on board -- but now another Democrat, Ben Nelson, was backing out because of the provisions to fund abortion. And here we are, one week before Christmas, with a huge blizzard about to hit Washington, DC, and Reid is still insisting on a vote before Christmas. On a bill that no one in the Senate has even seen yet -- a bill that hasn't even been fully written yet. On a bill that will take eight hours just to read on the Senate floor. On a bill that will cost almost a trillion dollars and dramatically alter 1/3 of our economy. But everyone has to vote "yes" because it's a moral imperative and Obama says so! Don't worry about what's actually in the bill -- we'll get to read it once it's safely passed.
This is not liberty. This is not how representative government is supposed to work. This is tyranny and socialism. This is an audacious power grab by an out-of-control government that is well on its way to bankrupting our country -- right in the teeth of huge popular opposition. The Democrats may well get their way in the end, but they will pay a heavy price for this. Our whole country will pay a heavy price for this.
Tuesday, December 8, 2009
Statesman Harry
Yesterday, on the Senate floor, the Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid, gave a speech on health care in which he said the following:
"Instead of joining us on the right side of history, all the Republicans can come up with is, 'slow down, stop everything, let's start over.' If you think you've heard these same excuses before, you're right. When this country belatedly recognized the wrongs of slavery, there were those who dug in their heels and said 'slow down, it's too early, things aren't bad enough.' When women spoke up for the right to speak up, they wanted to vote, some insisted they simply slow down, there will be a better day to do that, today isn't quite right. When this body was on the verge of guaranteeing equal civil rights to everyone regardless of the color of their skin, some senators resorted to the same filibuster threats that we hear today."
Reid is the most powerful member of the U.S. Senate, and the person picked by the Democrats in the Senate to be their leader. Forget about the fact that he's a liberal and a generally unhappy person (and struggles to put together coherent sentences in speeches). He's not even an adult. He's not even capable of behaving in a civilized way on the Senate floor. I thought it was pretty bad a few months ago when he said that angry citizens (not politicians or pundits) speaking at townhall meetings were "evilmongers." Now Reid has shattered his own record for partisan rancor by comparing senators who oppose his health care bill to people who support slavery and oppose the right of blacks and women to vote. If you don't support government-run health care, you're pro-slavery, anti-woman, and racist. This kind of demagoguery has no place inside the walls of the Capitol Hill, but is especially disgraceful coming from the purported leader of the U.S. Senate. No wonder our country is so politically divided. We are represented at the highest levels of government by petty, uncivilized children. Harry Reid is an embarrassment to his party and to his country.
"Instead of joining us on the right side of history, all the Republicans can come up with is, 'slow down, stop everything, let's start over.' If you think you've heard these same excuses before, you're right. When this country belatedly recognized the wrongs of slavery, there were those who dug in their heels and said 'slow down, it's too early, things aren't bad enough.' When women spoke up for the right to speak up, they wanted to vote, some insisted they simply slow down, there will be a better day to do that, today isn't quite right. When this body was on the verge of guaranteeing equal civil rights to everyone regardless of the color of their skin, some senators resorted to the same filibuster threats that we hear today."
Reid is the most powerful member of the U.S. Senate, and the person picked by the Democrats in the Senate to be their leader. Forget about the fact that he's a liberal and a generally unhappy person (and struggles to put together coherent sentences in speeches). He's not even an adult. He's not even capable of behaving in a civilized way on the Senate floor. I thought it was pretty bad a few months ago when he said that angry citizens (not politicians or pundits) speaking at townhall meetings were "evilmongers." Now Reid has shattered his own record for partisan rancor by comparing senators who oppose his health care bill to people who support slavery and oppose the right of blacks and women to vote. If you don't support government-run health care, you're pro-slavery, anti-woman, and racist. This kind of demagoguery has no place inside the walls of the Capitol Hill, but is especially disgraceful coming from the purported leader of the U.S. Senate. No wonder our country is so politically divided. We are represented at the highest levels of government by petty, uncivilized children. Harry Reid is an embarrassment to his party and to his country.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)