August 18-19, 2009
bbbb
Steve Gottwalt, my adopted representative in the St. Paul, has been asking some tough questions about real, sustainable health care reform for some time. It isn't surprising that the Democrats nationally aren't answering those questions. The questions mostly pertain to the federal health care reform plan but Steve has asked some of the questions during committee hearings, too. I'm pleased to list Steve's questions on this blog because Steve's questions deserve answering.
I'm sure the liberal blogosphere will criticize Steve for asking whether people will have their care rationed if the Democrats' plan is implemented. Whatever. While the term rationing isn't found in any of the legislation, it's inevitable if Congress passes President Obama's announced Medicare cuts.
Steve asks whether people will lose specialty care. In Canada, the average wait for a primary care doctor is 17 weeks. The average wait for a specialist is even longer. That's a potential death sentence for people who've been diagnosed with cancer. Various Democrats, including Sen. Sherrod Brown, have said that Medicare is proof that government-run health care is efficient.
Once price controls are implemented, which is inevitable, what's the incentive for young people to go through the rigors of med school, run up a 6-figure debt from student loans, then go through residency, only to have your wages capped? The inevitable outcome is the doctor pool dries up. Once that happens, which will happen, why shouldn't we think that specialty care doctors will be in short supply?
Let's remember that Canada's health care system is imploding :
Simply put, the Democrats' health care legislation is counterproductive. They should scrap their legislation and start over. Part of starting over must include taking the Republicans' proposals seriously. It also includes admitting that single-payer systems will never work. Canada is finding that out the hard way.
It's time that the Democrats stopped being so arrogant. It's time that they stopped with their ideology-driven attempt to totally revamp a great health care system. It doesn't need the type of total overhaul that Democrats have in mind. They've been spreading hysteria that our system is in crisis. It isn't.
Finally, it's time that Democrats start answering Steve's questions and their constituents' questions. They've ignored people far too long. If they don't stop ignoring their constituents, they'll find out that there's a steep price to pay for their stubbornness.
Posted Tuesday, August 18, 2009 1:42 AM
No comments.
This morning, I'm betting that President Obama wishes he hadn't called on Zach Lahn during his townhall meeting in Grand Junction, CO. It took just sixteen seconds for Zach Lahn to ask the question heard round the anti-Obamacare world. Here's the question that Zach asked:
The Obama administration, with the assistance of the Democratic Congress, could tilt the playing field simply by subsidizing the public option. In that situation, the government wouldn't be a competitor. They'd be the monopoly. I'd love hearing the Democrats explain how a government monopoly that can self-subsidize, can increase taxes and can impose price controls is considered a competitor.
Based on that information, shouldn't Democrats admit that the government 'option' is really the eight hundred pound gorilla in the room, not the competitor?
This week, thousands of people will watch that video. When they do, they'll distrust this administration more than they currently distrust him. That's a crippling blow to the administration. They're already tanking in terms of support for their health care reform legislation. This administration isn't trusted on the health care issue. Scott Rasmussen's most recent polling shows that 54 percent of likely voters would rather see no health care reform passed than having this legislation passed:
People also fear that sweeping health care reform would add trilions of dollars to our debt while not providing universal coverage and without driving down the cost of health care longterm.
Here's another bit of delusion on Mr. Reed's behalf:
President Obama's charisma is gone. That's because he isn't a policy wonk. His speeches are filled with empty platitudes. They're utterly lacking in substance. That's why people aren't afraid of challenging him on the specifics of his plan. That's why he hasn't closed the deal with the American people. In fact, that's why he isn't even close to closing that deal.
That'll be as big a shock to him as it was to President Obama.
Posted Tuesday, August 18, 2009 2:55 AM
Comment 1 by Leslie Hittner at 18-Aug-09 05:37 AM
This morning's Rasmussen Report didn't provide alot of relief to the Obama/Pelosi camp. President Obama's approval rating is still in the crapper:
The Democrats' bad news isn't just on one end of Pennsylvania Avenue. Almost half the people polled don't believe Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader when they said "the passage of health care reform will mean more affordable coverage for all Americans."
Finally, Republicans held their advantage in the generic ballot question for the seventh consecutive week, though their support dropped by a point from the previous week's polling.
In short, this hasn't been a good month for Democrats on a variety of fronts. The thing that's most harmful to the Democrats is that people don't trust the things they're saying. The other thing worth factoring in is the fact that Pelosi is too much an ideologue to change directions in any meaningful way. She'll keep forcing Democrats into tough vote after tough vote. She's written her script and she's sticking to it.
Posted Tuesday, August 18, 2009 11:26 AM
No comments.
Lately, left-leaning pundits have dismissed raucus protesters that have disrupted townhall meetings held by spinning Democrats. Some Democrats, like Arlen Specter and Dick Durbin, dismiss the crowds as not being representative of where people are at in this country on health care reform.
Let's be blunt about something: Dick Durbin and Arlen Specter couldn't locate mainstreet public opinion if they were equipped with the best GPS money can buy. They're suffering from DC-itis, a mental disease that afflicts people who've spent too much time in Washington, DC, talking with K Street lobbyists and not enough time talking with their constituents.
Democrats have talked down to their constituents all month long. They've tried peddling some of the most outlandish crap imaginable. Now they're whining because the American people are fighting back against people who refuse to tell them the truth. Now the American people are upset because their senators and representatives refuse to talk straight with them. What do these Democrats expect?
Had these elitists paid attention to what's happening with the big newspapers, they would've noticed that the newspapers' decline started when the Paul Krugmans, Nick Colemans and Maureen Dowds started insulting their readers. Did these politicians really think that they could insult their constituents' intelligence without consequences? If they did, then they're not too bright.
Let's blunt about something else, too: Liberal pundits shouldn't have listened to the Democrats' talking points without examining their validity. Based on what I've seen, they didn't question whether the talking points had merit. They didn't even bother checking whether the Democrats' plans had stood the test of time.
Now the Democrats and liberal pundits are pleading with activists for increased civility. We've been civil most of the time, though there obviously have been times when tempers flared. Zach Lahn was civil when he blew the Democrats' public option clear out of the water. King's been totally civil while highlighting the flaws in H.R. 3200.
That said, We The People reserve the right to get in our legislators' faces if they insult us with BS talking points. If liberal pundits make snotty remarks or if Democrat legislators try feeding us assinine talking points, they should expect rough treatment, not civility.
Posted Tuesday, August 18, 2009 1:10 PM
Comment 1 by Brad C at 18-Aug-09 05:43 PM
Comment 2 by eric zaetsch at 19-Aug-09 08:42 AM
According to this article , Democrats are intent on ignoring the will of the people by pushing the government option down our throats whether we like it or not. If they attempt to push that down our throats, the electoral consequences will be harsh.
Simply put, whether these legislators vote for the government option is irrelevant. The NRCC will characterize them as the people that were Speaker Pelosi's lapdogs. Rest assured, they'll repeatedly get asked what justification exists for letting Speaker Pelosi and her cast of Democratic cronies stay in positions of power when they don't believe in listening to We The People.
Here's the good news on the policy front:
What's most likely to happen is that Senate Democrats will defeat the government option, forcing the House Progressive Caucus to vote en masse against President Obama's signature initiative or they'll cave after a healthy dose of whining.
Conservatives still need to keep applying the pressure to Democrats. If we don't, they'll accept their thirty pieces of silver just like Collin Peterson did on the National Energy Tax. The keys to winning this fight are persistence and principles. Now isn't the time to start coasting. It's time to persevere.
Posted Wednesday, August 19, 2009 2:03 AM
Comment 1 by eric zaetsch at 19-Aug-09 08:39 AM
Comment 2 by Tommy Johnson at 19-Aug-09 11:43 AM
Comment 3 by eric zaetsch at 19-Aug-09 01:53 PM
Now that the Vikings have signed Brett Favre, NFC defenses will frequently be asked to pick their poison. Despite all the grumbling from members of the Twin Cities and national media about Favre's flip-flopping, several things are apparent, starting with the fact that teams who put eight defenders in the box to stop Adrian Peterson will frequently get hurt by Bernard Berrian, Percy Harvin and Visanthe Shiancoe.
Another thing that's apparent to me is that Percy Harvin has the ability to become the NFC Rookie of the Year. Harvin will line up in the slot the majority of the time. He'll run alot of slants from that position. With 1,000 yard rushers Adrian Peterson and Chester Taylor in the backfield, a simple play action pass will freeze the linebackers, opening up slant and seam routes for Harvin.
I predict that Visanthe Shiancoe will quickly appreciate the fact that Brett Favre loves throwing to his tight ends, especially in the red zone or on seam routes. Those routes will loosen things up for other facets of the offense.
The chief beneficiaries of the increased attention on the passing game wear jersey numbers 28 and 29.
One thing that I noticed in last week's game is that the Vikings' starting offensive line looks formidable. Steve Hutchinson is the best guard in the NFL. Tackles Bryant McKinnie and Phil Loadholt are a solid, though not spectacular, pair of tackles. Second year center John Sullivan was solid in his first extended action.
I'd be surprised if Favre passes for 3,500+ yards this season but I won't be surprised if he isn't more efficient this season than in recent years. He's still got the famous Favre guile so he won't hesitate at trying to make big plays. Still, he'll be able to take pressure off of himself by utilizing Adrian Peterson and Chester Taylor.
One facet that will finally return to the Vikings' offense that's been absent during the Chilly years is the screen play. Expect to see Favre and Bevell to try and get the ball to Harvin on some wide receiver screens. Expect to see Chester Taylor catch alot of screen passes, too.
With a real offense, the Vikings' defense will be more rested than it's been the past few years. Couple that with the return of E.J. Henderson to anchor the linebacking corps and the Vikings should have a pretty solid defense, though I'm still not sold on their secondary.
This should be a fun season. It's already been fun for the Wilf family, considering the number of single game and season tickets they've sold in the first 24 hours of the Brett Favre Era. WCCO-TV reported that people were at the Mall of America ordering Brett Favre jerseys.
Another thing that I can't say silent about is how much the Wilf family has invested in this team. Their revenues are miniscule compared with the other NFL teams. Still, Zygi and Mark Wilf have coughed up the bucks to add players like Steve Hutchinson, Brett Favre, Jaren Allen and resigning the Williams Wall.
After putting up with the San Antonio Cheapskate all those years, it's refreshing to have owners who aren't afraid to sign impact players to big contracts.
Ron Jaworski said today that this makes the Vikings the favorite to represent the NFC in Miami this February. I'm not prepared to say that but I think their opponents won't take them lightly in mid- to late-January, either.
Posted Wednesday, August 19, 2009 3:10 AM
Comment 1 by eric zaetsch at 19-Aug-09 08:32 AM
Comment 2 by walter hanson at 19-Aug-09 11:10 AM
Comment 3 by eric zaetsch at 19-Aug-09 01:48 PM
Tarryl Clark's plan is to cast herself as a moderate in her campaign against Michele Bachmann. Her plan just got more difficult to pull off because she just spent time courting the insane left Nutroots Nation :
One of the most influential blogs supporting Nutroots Nation, FireDogLake, is telling its members to " reward politicians " who support the government option. Tarryl is an enthusiastic supporter of single-payer. I know this because she held a health care forum at the Whitney Senior Center in January, 2008. John Marty, the most enthusiastic supporter of single-payer health care in the Minnesota legislature, was her invited guest for the event. Speaker after speaker rose in support of single-payer. One of the women who spoke said this:
Let's face facts. Single-payer isn't accepted by centrists. The government option is frequently criticized across the nation.
I've known for over three years that Tarryl wasn't a centrist. She's voted for every major tax increase proposed during that time, including for the Green Acres tax increase that was touted as tax reform. When she talked with Leo and I after a January, 2007 townhall meeting, I asked her why the first six bills submitted in the Senate that year included tax increases. She told us then that the DFL leadership only supported the gas tax inccrease, that all the other tax increases "weren't sanctioned by the DFL leadership." It's worth noting that Minnesota had a $2,200,000,000 surplus at the time.
It's also worth noting that less than two months later, the DFL leadership was supporting all six tax increases and giving them substantial committee time.
Simply put, Tarryl is an expert at crafting an image. Unfortunately, she isn't so good at crafting an accurate image. I suspect that that's intentional. I suspect that because she understands that she couldn't get elected if she told voters about her outside-the-mainstream policies.
I guess she's only comfortable sharing those views with fellow radicals like Nutroots Nation.
Posted Wednesday, August 19, 2009 3:50 PM
Comment 1 by Eva Young at 23-Aug-09 07:14 PM
Comment 2 by Eva Young at 26-Aug-09 07:00 PM
One thing that hasn't been discussed much thus far is how much Democratic politicians want to intrude into our lives. That's about to change. The House Energy and Commerce Committee just requested the pay records for the executives of United Health Insurance . Here's a short list of things that the House Energy and Commerce Committee is requesting:
Here's what I want to know: What article in the Constitution gives these Democrats the authority to request such information?
It gets worse. According to this Chicago Tribune article , the information requested isn't being requested of those companies who've signed onto Obamacare:
This is how freedom is lost. When elected officials think that they can use their office's prestige to look into things that the Constitution doesn't give them the authority to do, that's where tyranny begins. That's the exact condition that the Founding Fathers wrote into the Declaration of Independence as warranting the replacing of such governance:
I just finished watching the Special Report online. They couldn't have been clearer on this: they think this is a PR nightmare for the White House and for Democratic strategists working for House candidates and incumbents.
Carl Cameron said that "this won't get much play in the mainstream media" because they don't want President Obama's image tarnished. My message to Campaign Carl is this: Thanks to Fox, conservative talk radio and blogs like mine, we'll get this information out. It'll likely take a vigorous 'word of mouth' campaign waged both with emails, Facebook and Twitter but also by telling people about Rep. Waxman's and Rep. Stupak's bullying tactics.
Let's understand the context that this letter was written under. Reps. Waxman and Stupak are highly powerful members of the committee that's trying to make the government option part of the health care reform bill. That means that the information that they're requesting is information that, should the government option become law, would give these 52 insurance companies' chief competitor all the information about pay scales, profit levels, etc.
In my way of thinking, that's downright evil. That's how intrusive this Democratic majority is. Their concerns for privacy are nonexistant. They want all the information they can get their hands on so they can build a government-run monopoly involving 16 percent of the American economy.
I said it before but it's worth repeating: There's nothing competitive about a monopoly. That's especially true when government is the monopoly. Does anyone think that they'll care about responsiveness or competitiveness if they essentially dictate health care pricing and policy?
There's an important question that must be asked now that we have this information: In light of this information, shouldn't we hesitate in trusting anything that this Democratic administration and this Democratic Congress says? Why should I trust them when they say that the government option is just to provide competition to health insurance companies?
The only way we can stop these Democrats is to defeat them this fall by telling them that their intrusive tactics aren't welcome, then defeating them in November, 2010. The government option can't happen if John Boehner is installed as the speaker in January, 2011.
Posted Wednesday, August 19, 2009 6:19 PM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 19-Aug-09 08:02 PM
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 19-Aug-09 11:08 PM
Aug 18 01:35 Asking Questions That Democrats Don't Want to Talk About Aug 18 02:49 How to Stump a President in Sixteen Seconds Aug 18 11:24 How's That Approval Thing Working? Aug 18 13:08 What Do They Expect? Aug 19 02:01 Prepare For the Mother of All Bloodbaths Aug 19 03:10 Pick Your Poison Aug 19 15:50 Tarryl Seeks Nutroots Support? Aug 19 18:13 House Committee's Intrusion In Private Sector Scary
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul
Asking Questions That Democrats Don't Want to Talk About
Steve Gottwalt, my adopted representative in the St. Paul, has been asking some tough questions about real, sustainable health care reform for some time. It isn't surprising that the Democrats nationally aren't answering those questions. The questions mostly pertain to the federal health care reform plan but Steve has asked some of the questions during committee hearings, too. I'm pleased to list Steve's questions on this blog because Steve's questions deserve answering.
How much will this really cost and who will pay for it?Section 122 of H.R. 3200 is written in such a way as to give unelected bureaucrats the wiggleroom they need to set the minimum standards just high enough to drive all but the people with the best policies into the public option, meaning most insured Americans will lose their current policies.
Will I lose choice?
Will I lose access to quality specialty care?
Will I eventually lose the coverage I have now?
What will be covered for me and who will decide?
If every socialized health care system in world history has used some form of care rationing to control costs, why is it wrong for me to be worried about that?
Is there any increased risk I will be left out when I get too old and frail?
Is HR3200 sustainable?
Are there better solutions to be found in market based, consumer driven reform proposals? Why aren't we hearing about those?
I'm sure the liberal blogosphere will criticize Steve for asking whether people will have their care rationed if the Democrats' plan is implemented. Whatever. While the term rationing isn't found in any of the legislation, it's inevitable if Congress passes President Obama's announced Medicare cuts.
Steve asks whether people will lose specialty care. In Canada, the average wait for a primary care doctor is 17 weeks. The average wait for a specialist is even longer. That's a potential death sentence for people who've been diagnosed with cancer. Various Democrats, including Sen. Sherrod Brown, have said that Medicare is proof that government-run health care is efficient.
Once price controls are implemented, which is inevitable, what's the incentive for young people to go through the rigors of med school, run up a 6-figure debt from student loans, then go through residency, only to have your wages capped? The inevitable outcome is the doctor pool dries up. Once that happens, which will happen, why shouldn't we think that specialty care doctors will be in short supply?
Let's remember that Canada's health care system is imploding :
Here in the United States, doctors are already overworked and nurses are understaffed. How will things work if 50,000,000 new people get dumped into an already fatigued system?SASKATOON - The incoming president of the Canadian Medical Association says this country's health-care system is sick and doctors need to develop a plan to cure it.
Dr. Anne Doig says patients are getting less than optimal care and she adds that physicians from across the country, who will gather in Saskatoon on Sunday for their annual meeting, recognize that changes must be made.
"We all agree that the system is imploding, we all agree that things are more precarious than perhaps Canadians realize," Doig said in an interview with The Canadian Press. "We know that there must be change," she said. "We're all running flat out, we're all just trying to stay ahead of the immediate day-to-day demands."
The pitch for change at the conference is to start with a presentation from Dr. Robert Ouellet, the current president of the CMA, who has said there's a critical need to make Canada's health-care system patient-centred.
Simply put, the Democrats' health care legislation is counterproductive. They should scrap their legislation and start over. Part of starting over must include taking the Republicans' proposals seriously. It also includes admitting that single-payer systems will never work. Canada is finding that out the hard way.
It's time that the Democrats stopped being so arrogant. It's time that they stopped with their ideology-driven attempt to totally revamp a great health care system. It doesn't need the type of total overhaul that Democrats have in mind. They've been spreading hysteria that our system is in crisis. It isn't.
Finally, it's time that Democrats start answering Steve's questions and their constituents' questions. They've ignored people far too long. If they don't stop ignoring their constituents, they'll find out that there's a steep price to pay for their stubbornness.
Posted Tuesday, August 18, 2009 1:42 AM
No comments.
How to Stump a President in Sixteen Seconds
This morning, I'm betting that President Obama wishes he hadn't called on Zach Lahn during his townhall meeting in Grand Junction, CO. It took just sixteen seconds for Zach Lahn to ask the question heard round the anti-Obamacare world. Here's the question that Zach asked:
Can a private corporation providing insurance compete with an entity that doesn't have to worry about making a profit, that doesn't have to worry about paying local property taxes. They aren't subject to local regulations. How can a company compete with that?That short question totally eviscerates the Democrats' argument that the public option is needed to provide competition. Considering the facts that Zach Lahn laid out, doesn't it sound like the government sound alot like the earliest monopolies? Those monopolies could run smaller companies out of business because they could take a loss for a period of time, knowing that smaller companies didn't have the capital needed to withstand their own losses.
The Obama administration, with the assistance of the Democratic Congress, could tilt the playing field simply by subsidizing the public option. In that situation, the government wouldn't be a competitor. They'd be the monopoly. I'd love hearing the Democrats explain how a government monopoly that can self-subsidize, can increase taxes and can impose price controls is considered a competitor.
Based on that information, shouldn't Democrats admit that the government 'option' is really the eight hundred pound gorilla in the room, not the competitor?
This week, thousands of people will watch that video. When they do, they'll distrust this administration more than they currently distrust him. That's a crippling blow to the administration. They're already tanking in terms of support for their health care reform legislation. This administration isn't trusted on the health care issue. Scott Rasmussen's most recent polling shows that 54 percent of likely voters would rather see no health care reform passed than having this legislation passed:
Thirty-five percent (35%) of American voters say passage of the bill currently working its way through Congress would be better than not passing any health care reform legislation this year. However, a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that most voters (54%) say no health care reform passed by Congress this year would be the better option.Despite this information, Salon's Bruce Reed thinks that there's ample support to pass sweeping health care reform:
Legislatively, health care reform's prospects are further along than ever before. The remaining policy differences, as Ezra Klein points out, are relatively narrow and far from irreconcilable.Process-wise, I'll admit that sweeping health care reform has gotten further than at any other time. Sweeping health care reform is still as far from passing as it's ever been because people are worried that a government-run co-op or public option (Co-op is essentially the same thing as a public option) would quickly become a monopoly. That monopoly would quickly be able to eliminate choice and introduce rationing without fear of competition.
Most important, the political hay-making in town halls and the legislative sausage-making that preceded it obscure a deeper consensus: Virtually all Democrats in Congress want to get health care reform done, and most Americans support the outlines of what they're trying to do. For all the passionate arguments over a few particulars, congressional Democrats across the spectrum want to pass a bill, not kick it down the road or try to make the issue go away.
People also fear that sweeping health care reform would add trilions of dollars to our debt while not providing universal coverage and without driving down the cost of health care longterm.
Here's another bit of delusion on Mr. Reed's behalf:
Down the stretch, Democrats still need to close the deal on health care-and the president was right to hit the stump and recognize that the cacophony in Congress can't win the debate for him. While Washington tends to go weak when polls wobble, Obama is a voice of reassuring calm.I'll agree that Democrats still aren't close to closing the deal on sweeping health care reform but I'm laughing at Reed's statement that "Obama is a voice of reassuring calm." During his speech at the fundraiser for Creigh Deeds, he essentially told the American people to shut up. Political pundits of all stripes said that that's the first time he sounded totally on defense. I agree.
President Obama's charisma is gone. That's because he isn't a policy wonk. His speeches are filled with empty platitudes. They're utterly lacking in substance. That's why people aren't afraid of challenging him on the specifics of his plan. That's why he hasn't closed the deal with the American people. In fact, that's why he isn't even close to closing that deal.
Already, he has helped lower the temperature, rebut the rumors, and focus the debate on the overriding imperative to pass health care reform because too many families and businesses will be sunk without it.I've paid attention to this debate since the outset. President Obama hasn't helped drop the intensity level even slightly. The American people are just as engaged now as they've ever been. As for President Obama focusing the debate on the importance of health care reform, the public was there before his inauguration. It's just that mr. Reed is just noticing that people are united in the goal. I can't wait until he notices that they aren't united in the specifics.
That'll be as big a shock to him as it was to President Obama.
Posted Tuesday, August 18, 2009 2:55 AM
Comment 1 by Leslie Hittner at 18-Aug-09 05:37 AM
I offer up an interesting - and I believe accurate - perspective on the ongoing health care debate here:
http://ncronline.org/news/politics/health-care-debate-poisoned
The Catholic Church seems to sit in both left and right camps. It is strongly opposed to abortion and euthanasia, but it supports strong social programs.
How's That Approval Thing Working?
This morning's Rasmussen Report didn't provide alot of relief to the Obama/Pelosi camp. President Obama's approval rating is still in the crapper:
The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Tuesday shows that 31% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Forty percent (40%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -9.The news for Speaker Pelosi isn't much better :
Lost in the uproar over a comment in USA Today by the top two House Democrats that those protesting health care reform are "un-American" were several statements aimed at assuring Americans that their access to quality care will be even greater. But new national surveying by Rasmussen Reports finds that voters are far from assured by the comments of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Majority Leader Steny Hoyer in the same article.As long as we're talking polling, let's highlight the unwanted trifecta :
Forty-five percent (45%) of voters nationwide think Pelosi and Hoyer are wrong when they say the passage of health care reform will mean more affordable coverage for all Americans. But 36% share the Democratic Congressional leaders' view and believe health care will become more affordable if the plan passes. Eighteen percent (18%) are undecided.
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey shows that 42% would vote for their district's Republican congressional candidate while 38% would opt for his or her Democratic opponent.President Obama's approval rating is bad, not just because his net is -9, but because 4 likely voters out of 10 strongly disapprove of his handling of his responsibilities. President Obama can't afford for his disapproval ratings to get any higher because that 40 percent isn't counting how many people somewhat disapprove of his handling of his presidential responsibilities.
The Democrats' bad news isn't just on one end of Pennsylvania Avenue. Almost half the people polled don't believe Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader when they said "the passage of health care reform will mean more affordable coverage for all Americans."
Finally, Republicans held their advantage in the generic ballot question for the seventh consecutive week, though their support dropped by a point from the previous week's polling.
In short, this hasn't been a good month for Democrats on a variety of fronts. The thing that's most harmful to the Democrats is that people don't trust the things they're saying. The other thing worth factoring in is the fact that Pelosi is too much an ideologue to change directions in any meaningful way. She'll keep forcing Democrats into tough vote after tough vote. She's written her script and she's sticking to it.
Posted Tuesday, August 18, 2009 11:26 AM
No comments.
What Do They Expect?
Lately, left-leaning pundits have dismissed raucus protesters that have disrupted townhall meetings held by spinning Democrats. Some Democrats, like Arlen Specter and Dick Durbin, dismiss the crowds as not being representative of where people are at in this country on health care reform.
Let's be blunt about something: Dick Durbin and Arlen Specter couldn't locate mainstreet public opinion if they were equipped with the best GPS money can buy. They're suffering from DC-itis, a mental disease that afflicts people who've spent too much time in Washington, DC, talking with K Street lobbyists and not enough time talking with their constituents.
Democrats have talked down to their constituents all month long. They've tried peddling some of the most outlandish crap imaginable. Now they're whining because the American people are fighting back against people who refuse to tell them the truth. Now the American people are upset because their senators and representatives refuse to talk straight with them. What do these Democrats expect?
Had these elitists paid attention to what's happening with the big newspapers, they would've noticed that the newspapers' decline started when the Paul Krugmans, Nick Colemans and Maureen Dowds started insulting their readers. Did these politicians really think that they could insult their constituents' intelligence without consequences? If they did, then they're not too bright.
Let's blunt about something else, too: Liberal pundits shouldn't have listened to the Democrats' talking points without examining their validity. Based on what I've seen, they didn't question whether the talking points had merit. They didn't even bother checking whether the Democrats' plans had stood the test of time.
Now the Democrats and liberal pundits are pleading with activists for increased civility. We've been civil most of the time, though there obviously have been times when tempers flared. Zach Lahn was civil when he blew the Democrats' public option clear out of the water. King's been totally civil while highlighting the flaws in H.R. 3200.
That said, We The People reserve the right to get in our legislators' faces if they insult us with BS talking points. If liberal pundits make snotty remarks or if Democrat legislators try feeding us assinine talking points, they should expect rough treatment, not civility.
Posted Tuesday, August 18, 2009 1:10 PM
Comment 1 by Brad C at 18-Aug-09 05:43 PM
Sometimes, when people refuse to listen, all you can do is yell.
And how dare Specter be outraged by the outrage against him- he was voted in as a Republican, switches sides, and the goes back to the people who elected him in and expects everyone to be civil.
Comment 2 by eric zaetsch at 19-Aug-09 08:42 AM
And they're not yelling at Joe Lieberman. Why's that?
Prepare For the Mother of All Bloodbaths
According to this article , Democrats are intent on ignoring the will of the people by pushing the government option down our throats whether we like it or not. If they attempt to push that down our throats, the electoral consequences will be harsh.
Given hardening Republican opposition to congressional health care proposals, Democrats now say they see little chance for the minority's cooperation in approving any overhaul, and are increasingly focused on drawing support for a final plan from within their own ranks.First off, this might be another trial balloon. I don't think so but it's possible. That said, if Speaker Pelosi tries ignoring the will of the people, she should prepare for the end of her speakership in January, 2011 because that type of stubbornness will paint a bullseye on every Blue Dog Democrat's chest for the 2010 election. Ditto with every member of the classes of 2006 and 2008.
Top Democrats said Tuesday that their go-it-alone view was being shaped by what they saw as Republicans' purposely strident tone against health care legislation during this month's congressional recess, as well as remarks by leading Republicans that current proposals were flawed beyond repair.
Simply put, whether these legislators vote for the government option is irrelevant. The NRCC will characterize them as the people that were Speaker Pelosi's lapdogs. Rest assured, they'll repeatedly get asked what justification exists for letting Speaker Pelosi and her cast of Democratic cronies stay in positions of power when they don't believe in listening to We The People.
Here's the good news on the policy front:
The Democratic shift may not make producing a final bill much easier. The party must still reconcile the views of moderate and conservative Democrats worried about the cost and scope of the legislation with those of more progressive lawmakers determined to win a government-run insurance option to compete with private insurers.If Democrats think they've felt pressure during this recess, which they have, they'd better prepare for months of you-ain't-seen-nothing-yet, melt the switchboards type of attention if their legislation includes a government option or co-op.
What's most likely to happen is that Senate Democrats will defeat the government option, forcing the House Progressive Caucus to vote en masse against President Obama's signature initiative or they'll cave after a healthy dose of whining.
Conservatives still need to keep applying the pressure to Democrats. If we don't, they'll accept their thirty pieces of silver just like Collin Peterson did on the National Energy Tax. The keys to winning this fight are persistence and principles. Now isn't the time to start coasting. It's time to persevere.
Posted Wednesday, August 19, 2009 2:03 AM
Comment 1 by eric zaetsch at 19-Aug-09 08:39 AM
I am surprised, Gary, I thought you'd be crowing about this:
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/09_33/b4143034820260.htm
It seems an interesting viewpoint; if you care to comment.
And I'd like to know how you view the gumshoe Matt Entenza candidacy for governor. I'd expect the GOP is licking their chops hoping for Entenza to be the DFL candidate. Then they can point out how the Entenza spouses, Matt and Lois Quam have been benefitted so much by UnitedHealth Group. That just might have enough voters holding their noses and voting GOP, as last cycle, in the Sixth District when DFL put Tinklenberg on the ballot.
Yes, no?
Comment 2 by Tommy Johnson at 19-Aug-09 11:43 AM
Gary, the last line in the story you linked to:
***
Further, Grassley said this week that he would vote against a bill unless it had wide support from Republicans, even if it included all the provisions he wanted.
***
Makes you real proud of your party, doesn't it?
Response 2.1 by Gary Gross at 19-Aug-09 12:44 PM
What a radical thought. I thought you'd mischaracterize what Sen. Grassley said. This article tells me I'm right:
"I've said all year that something as big and important as health care legislation should have broad-based support," Grassley said in a statement to The Hill.
"So far, no one has developed that kind of support, either in Congress or at the White House. That doesn't mean we should quit. It means we should keep working until we can put something together that gets that widespread support."WOW!!! What a rabblerouser that Grassley is. He actually thinks that congress should work for the good of the people instead of working to check another item off the liberal wish list. How dare he do such a thing to The One's agenda.
Comment 3 by eric zaetsch at 19-Aug-09 01:53 PM
One very positive fact, now that the shouting demonstrations have run their course - get some real facts:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/documents/united_health_group.pdf
I cannot see anything but really positive disclosure, transparency, arising from getting real and not speculated "facts" onto the table.
Any agreement or disagreement?
How else if it seems it will take time, do you assure a factual basis to believe what you are doing has a sound basis?
Pick Your Poison
Now that the Vikings have signed Brett Favre, NFC defenses will frequently be asked to pick their poison. Despite all the grumbling from members of the Twin Cities and national media about Favre's flip-flopping, several things are apparent, starting with the fact that teams who put eight defenders in the box to stop Adrian Peterson will frequently get hurt by Bernard Berrian, Percy Harvin and Visanthe Shiancoe.
Another thing that's apparent to me is that Percy Harvin has the ability to become the NFC Rookie of the Year. Harvin will line up in the slot the majority of the time. He'll run alot of slants from that position. With 1,000 yard rushers Adrian Peterson and Chester Taylor in the backfield, a simple play action pass will freeze the linebackers, opening up slant and seam routes for Harvin.
I predict that Visanthe Shiancoe will quickly appreciate the fact that Brett Favre loves throwing to his tight ends, especially in the red zone or on seam routes. Those routes will loosen things up for other facets of the offense.
The chief beneficiaries of the increased attention on the passing game wear jersey numbers 28 and 29.
One thing that I noticed in last week's game is that the Vikings' starting offensive line looks formidable. Steve Hutchinson is the best guard in the NFL. Tackles Bryant McKinnie and Phil Loadholt are a solid, though not spectacular, pair of tackles. Second year center John Sullivan was solid in his first extended action.
I'd be surprised if Favre passes for 3,500+ yards this season but I won't be surprised if he isn't more efficient this season than in recent years. He's still got the famous Favre guile so he won't hesitate at trying to make big plays. Still, he'll be able to take pressure off of himself by utilizing Adrian Peterson and Chester Taylor.
One facet that will finally return to the Vikings' offense that's been absent during the Chilly years is the screen play. Expect to see Favre and Bevell to try and get the ball to Harvin on some wide receiver screens. Expect to see Chester Taylor catch alot of screen passes, too.
With a real offense, the Vikings' defense will be more rested than it's been the past few years. Couple that with the return of E.J. Henderson to anchor the linebacking corps and the Vikings should have a pretty solid defense, though I'm still not sold on their secondary.
This should be a fun season. It's already been fun for the Wilf family, considering the number of single game and season tickets they've sold in the first 24 hours of the Brett Favre Era. WCCO-TV reported that people were at the Mall of America ordering Brett Favre jerseys.
Another thing that I can't say silent about is how much the Wilf family has invested in this team. Their revenues are miniscule compared with the other NFL teams. Still, Zygi and Mark Wilf have coughed up the bucks to add players like Steve Hutchinson, Brett Favre, Jaren Allen and resigning the Williams Wall.
After putting up with the San Antonio Cheapskate all those years, it's refreshing to have owners who aren't afraid to sign impact players to big contracts.
Ron Jaworski said today that this makes the Vikings the favorite to represent the NFC in Miami this February. I'm not prepared to say that but I think their opponents won't take them lightly in mid- to late-January, either.
Posted Wednesday, August 19, 2009 3:10 AM
Comment 1 by eric zaetsch at 19-Aug-09 08:32 AM
Does all that mean to you, Gary, that taxpayers should buy Zygi a stadium, a venue so he can rake in tons of cash at taxpayer expense? What's the "conservative" view there, Gary?
They did it for the banker-owner of the Twins, so isn't it Zygi's turn at the same trough? Any thoughts?
Comment 2 by walter hanson at 19-Aug-09 11:10 AM
Gary:
If Brett can get cured in three weeks to play a season of football than his knowledge of health care should be given to the HHS. Barack should make a call and get Brett to work on health care. He'll be better than Kathleen.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 3 by eric zaetsch at 19-Aug-09 01:48 PM
Walter-
I saw that one NYTimes article and photo. He looks like some homeless itinerant with that grey stubble, disheveled demeanor, etc. who decided to unretire and join the Vikings so he can get onto a health plan. Perhaps that's his angle.
But I bet he still reads the field, is like the chicken in that John Randle ad a few years back, still, and can zing the ball accurately. Do you leave him in with big leads, or big deficits, is the question. If you want a full season the wisdom would be to rely a lot on backup time in the pocket, even without greater injury than dings and such. That consecutive starts thing, for a quarterback, perhaps in not totally smart; or let him start but if you see it leading to a superbowl, health and energy level left once into the post season is a concern.
Tarryl Seeks Nutroots Support?
Tarryl Clark's plan is to cast herself as a moderate in her campaign against Michele Bachmann. Her plan just got more difficult to pull off because she just spent time courting the insane left Nutroots Nation :
PITTSBURGH--Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) is notorious among the progressive activists and bloggers attending Netroots Nation, so it should come as no surprise to hear that one of the Democrats vying to defeat her, state Sen. Tarryl Clark, is in Pittsburgh reaching out to the netroots.Tarryl isn't a centrist or a moderate. She's a hardline liberal. Her appearance is another bit of proof that she isn't a centrist. One of the topics on the Netroots Nation's agenda this weekend was fighting for full rights for LGBT citizens. Part of their fight is to enact legislation that permits gay marriage. While that's a centrist position within the Nutroots Nation, it's more than a little outside the mainstream of Sixth District politics.
"It's hard to go almost anyplace and not find that everybody know who she is," Clark told me, noting that in the past she has described Sarah Palin as Alaska's Michele Bachmann. "She's become a public opinion leader, though not the kind we'd like her to be."
Clark says that as a legislator with a base within the district, she begins with an advantage over the last two netroots-supported candidates who lost to Bachmann.
"I already represent part of the area," she said. "They were going from 0 to 60 miles per hour while we're already driving at 30 to 40 miles per hour and going to 60."
One of the most influential blogs supporting Nutroots Nation, FireDogLake, is telling its members to " reward politicians " who support the government option. Tarryl is an enthusiastic supporter of single-payer. I know this because she held a health care forum at the Whitney Senior Center in January, 2008. John Marty, the most enthusiastic supporter of single-payer health care in the Minnesota legislature, was her invited guest for the event. Speaker after speaker rose in support of single-payer. One of the women who spoke said this:
"Now they say that Canadians have to come over here for good treatment. Well don't you believe it. Don't you believe it one bit. That government is so good to all its people. I don't care if you're rich or poor. They take care of you. And so many of the people come and they talk crap about how awful their system is. Well, don't you believe it. Single payer is wonderful if it's run right."Based on this post , we know that Canadacare is imploding. Another woman said that we don't need insurance, we need health care. The organization that this activist is employed at enthusiastically supports single-payer.
Let's face facts. Single-payer isn't accepted by centrists. The government option is frequently criticized across the nation.
I've known for over three years that Tarryl wasn't a centrist. She's voted for every major tax increase proposed during that time, including for the Green Acres tax increase that was touted as tax reform. When she talked with Leo and I after a January, 2007 townhall meeting, I asked her why the first six bills submitted in the Senate that year included tax increases. She told us then that the DFL leadership only supported the gas tax inccrease, that all the other tax increases "weren't sanctioned by the DFL leadership." It's worth noting that Minnesota had a $2,200,000,000 surplus at the time.
It's also worth noting that less than two months later, the DFL leadership was supporting all six tax increases and giving them substantial committee time.
Simply put, Tarryl is an expert at crafting an image. Unfortunately, she isn't so good at crafting an accurate image. I suspect that that's intentional. I suspect that because she understands that she couldn't get elected if she told voters about her outside-the-mainstream policies.
I guess she's only comfortable sharing those views with fellow radicals like Nutroots Nation.
Posted Wednesday, August 19, 2009 3:50 PM
Comment 1 by Eva Young at 23-Aug-09 07:14 PM
Michele Bachmann's single minded pursuit of the Bachmann amendment while in the legislature, had less to do with "protecting traditional marriage", than marginalizing gays for political gain. Why else were signs such as "Death Penalty for Homosexuals as Prescibed (sic) in the Bible" so prominent at her 2004 rally for this cause?
While Bachmann was a state senator, she sent an email to supporters bragging about stopping any other legislative business to promote her amendment - which was all about anti-gay animus, despite the claims to be about marriage.
If Bachmann was serious about preserving traditional marriage, she would have focused on divorce. It's not the possibility of gays getting married that causes the high divorce rate among heterosexual married couples.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 24-Aug-09 01:14 AM
Blah, blah, blah, yada, yada, yada...Your animus towards Michele is well-known...NEXT
Comment 2 by Eva Young at 26-Aug-09 07:00 PM
Seems like you can't dispute the issues I raised.
Response 2.1 by Gary Gross at 26-Aug-09 09:45 PM
Nice post. Check your comments.
House Committee's Intrusion In Private Sector Scary
One thing that hasn't been discussed much thus far is how much Democratic politicians want to intrude into our lives. That's about to change. The House Energy and Commerce Committee just requested the pay records for the executives of United Health Insurance . Here's a short list of things that the House Energy and Commerce Committee is requesting:
- a list of every employee of United Health who made more than $500,000 a year in any year between 2003 and 2008;
- that individual's position within the company;
- that individual's salary;
- that individual's bonuses;
- that individual's stock options;
- the "realized value of all sales of stocks and exercised options" for these individuals.
Here's what I want to know: What article in the Constitution gives these Democrats the authority to request such information?
It gets worse. According to this Chicago Tribune article , the information requested isn't being requested of those companies who've signed onto Obamacare:
A spokesman for Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Mich., said Tuesday night that 52 letters had been sent to health insurers with $2 billion or more in annual premiums . He said letters were not dispatched to other industry groups, some of which have been airing television advertising in support of Obama's call for legislation .Forgive me for thinking that that sounds like the companies that signed onto the Obamacare plan were actually part of a protection money racket. Isn't such a racket considered extortion? Doesn't it also sound like the companies that didn't get House Energy and Commerce Committee letters agreed to a pay to play scheme? Or is it more accurate to call it a pay to not play scheme?
The request to insurance companies included records relating to compensation of highly paid employees, documents relating to companies' premium income and claims payments, and information on expenses stemming from any event held outside company facilities in the past 2+ years.
This is how freedom is lost. When elected officials think that they can use their office's prestige to look into things that the Constitution doesn't give them the authority to do, that's where tyranny begins. That's the exact condition that the Founding Fathers wrote into the Declaration of Independence as warranting the replacing of such governance:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. - That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, - That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government , laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.Simply put, Waxman's committee is running afoul of the Constitution. It can't be tolerated. I'm not suggesting that we rewrite the Constitution. I'm simply sugegsting that we defeat in the next election politicians that think they're entitled to any information they're interested in.
I just finished watching the Special Report online. They couldn't have been clearer on this: they think this is a PR nightmare for the White House and for Democratic strategists working for House candidates and incumbents.
Carl Cameron said that "this won't get much play in the mainstream media" because they don't want President Obama's image tarnished. My message to Campaign Carl is this: Thanks to Fox, conservative talk radio and blogs like mine, we'll get this information out. It'll likely take a vigorous 'word of mouth' campaign waged both with emails, Facebook and Twitter but also by telling people about Rep. Waxman's and Rep. Stupak's bullying tactics.
Let's understand the context that this letter was written under. Reps. Waxman and Stupak are highly powerful members of the committee that's trying to make the government option part of the health care reform bill. That means that the information that they're requesting is information that, should the government option become law, would give these 52 insurance companies' chief competitor all the information about pay scales, profit levels, etc.
In my way of thinking, that's downright evil. That's how intrusive this Democratic majority is. Their concerns for privacy are nonexistant. They want all the information they can get their hands on so they can build a government-run monopoly involving 16 percent of the American economy.
I said it before but it's worth repeating: There's nothing competitive about a monopoly. That's especially true when government is the monopoly. Does anyone think that they'll care about responsiveness or competitiveness if they essentially dictate health care pricing and policy?
There's an important question that must be asked now that we have this information: In light of this information, shouldn't we hesitate in trusting anything that this Democratic administration and this Democratic Congress says? Why should I trust them when they say that the government option is just to provide competition to health insurance companies?
The only way we can stop these Democrats is to defeat them this fall by telling them that their intrusive tactics aren't welcome, then defeating them in November, 2010. The government option can't happen if John Boehner is installed as the speaker in January, 2011.
Posted Wednesday, August 19, 2009 6:19 PM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 19-Aug-09 08:02 PM
Well, defeating them is certainly a tasty revenge served cold, but it would be equally delightful to see one or more of these companies stand up and say "NO!" to these bullies, and then take the contempt of Congress citation that /might/ follow if these congressional cowards actually follow through. I would love to be the defense lawyer arguing that contempt of Congress cannot be a crime when Congress is obviously so contemptible.
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 19-Aug-09 11:08 PM
Jerry, These companies probably have gotten pressured by Rahm & Axelrod. It's easier to go along than to have the powers of the federal government, whether it's Tim Geithner's IRS auditing you or Eric Holder's FBI investigating you.
I'm not accusing the Obama administration of threatening that. I'm just saying that these companies might think whether it's worth the risk of those possibilities.
