February 10-11, 2010
Feb 10 01:16 The Strib's Hidden Agenda? Feb 10 04:18 Obama's Pathetic Messaging Machine Feb 10 08:31 Starting With a Trend, Then Building On It Feb 10 09:52 Legislating Censorship Feb 10 12:41 Bayh Bayh? Feb 11 04:30 Tipping the Balance? Feb 11 09:33 Reality Stranger Than Fiction Feb 11 16:30 President Obama, Speaker Pelosi Can't Be Trusted
Prior Months: Jan
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009
The Strib's Hidden Agenda?
Earlier tonight, Powerline's John Hinderaker posted something about the Strib's article about Minnesota's shrinking moose population in Minnesota's Arrowhead region. John questioned the DNR's conclusion on what's causing the decline. Here's the conclusion stated in the article:
Reasons for the decline are uncertain, but researchers continue to believe a warming climate is responsible. Minnesota, already at the southern fringe of the moose range, apparently is becoming inhospitable for the large animals. Moose are extremely heat-sensitive, and temperature readings in Ely show over the past 48 years, average summer and winter temperatures have increased substantially.Here's how John questions that conclusion :
Really? The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency says mean temperatures have increased in the state by a whopping one-half of one degree Fahrenheit in the last 50 years. Those moose must be sensitive creatures.I won't hesitate in admitting that I don't know what's causing the moose population's decline but I've got a hunch why the Strib ran this article. Bear with me a moment as I make note of another statistic relevant to this story:
Already in the northwest part of the state the number of moose has fallen from around 4,000 in the mid-1980s to around 100 today.Let's compare that with what's happening in Minnesota's Arrowhead region:
Wildlife researchers estimate that there are 5,500 moose in that region of the state. With a 23 percent margin of error, the estimate is not statistically different from last year's estimate of 7,600, but it supports other evidence that the moose population is declining.I think this part of the Strib's article is why this article ran:
" People come up here to catch fish and see wildlife ," said Bob Baker, owner of Gunflint Pines Resort and Campground on the Gunflint Trail, northwest of Grand Marais, Minn. " The moose is the one animal people want to see when they're here , and its decline could impact tourism."The three pillars of northeast Minnesota's economy are tourism, tourism and tourism. With Minnesota's economy struggling, people aren't likely to vacation in the BWCA and Grand Marais. They're far more likely to vacation in the Brainerd Lakes area or Alexandria or something closer to their homes.
By running this article, the DFL gets a two-fer: they talk about global warming and they get to highlight the 'need' for relief to northern Minnesota. It's just a hunch but I'd say that, with DFL gubernatorial candidate Tom Bakk representing Grand Marais, I'd think that there's a better than average shot that Sen. Bakk's itch will get scratched.
During the DFL's glory years of the Perpich administration, legislators kidded that Gov. Perpich changed the translation of the State seal "L'Etoile du nord" from "The Star of the North" to "the money goes north", which it did in prodigious amounts.
In the end, I suspect that the Strib's article has more with spending money in Minnesota's Arrowhead than it has to do with moose herd population declines.
Posted Wednesday, February 10, 2010 1:16 AM
Comment 1 by Eldo at 10-Feb-10 10:28 AM
Pathetic how the StarTrib chooses to ignore the obvious correlation between increasing wolf population and decreasing moose numbers.
Comment 2 by walter hanson at 10-Feb-10 11:12 PM
Gary:
If you didn't catch John was on Doctor Bennet's show this morning. He came up with a theory. Wolfs! It seems like moose grow where there isn't a large wolf population. Wolfs apparently love moose.
I'm surpise they didn't suggest that Sarah came down from Alaska and hunted all our moose.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Response 2.1 by Gary Gross at 11-Feb-10 03:39 AM
Walter, I listened to the entire interview. If it wasn't for the interview being in the show's final hour, I would've called in with my opinion.
Don't you know, Walter, that I'm everywhere & that I hear everything??? LOL
Obama's Pathetic Messaging Machine
During the Christmas break, we were told that President Obama would pivot to focus on jobs. Considering the fact that people are giving him grief because his policies have failed, it's surprising that President Obama is still obsessing over health care. According to Sam Stein's post , President Obama won't take reconciliation off the table:
President Obama wants to keep the option of using reconciliation to pass health care reform despite calls from Republican lawmakers that he agree to drop the parliamentary maneuver as a "good faith" gesture" before their bipartisan health care summit.The health care issue isn't a winner for President Obama or congressional Democrats, with 49 percent trusting Republicans most on the issue, with only 37 percent of people polled trusting Democrats more.
Setting that aside, though, the reality is that the American people want President Obama focusing on the economy.
This is, in my opinion, sloppy messaging control by the Obama administration. At this point, I haven't seen proof that they know how to sell their legislative initiatives. They wouldn't have passed the stimulus bill without their oversized majorities and the utter secrecy of the process.
Another issue that they're gettin hammered on is Mirandizing Nigerian terrorist Abdulmutallab. This time, Dana Perino gets to do some of the hammering:
The administration has spent the past two weeks telling anyone who will listen, including our enemies overseas (whom Abdulmutallab apparently is flipping on), that Abdulmutallab's family convinced him to start cooperating six weeks after he was Mirandized. Indeed, this is when Brennan himself writes that "[t]he most important breakthrough occurred." How, then, could Abdulmutallab have been "thoroughly interrogated" immediately after he was arrested if "the most important breakthrough" came six weeks later, and only after his family intervened? This glaring contradiction goes unaddressed.Each day that Abdulmutallab is that day's headlines, it's a terrible day for the administration. What's more is that the Obama administration only has itself to blame for it being a disastrous day.
Putting it as bluntly as I know how, their messaging team is pathetic. If this administration's team worked for a Fortune 500 company, they'd be fired in half a heartbeat, if not faster.
What group of idiots would let the administration's message for this week be anything but focusing on jobs? An effective chief of staff and a competent communications director would put the word out that this week's message centered on 3 things: jobs, jobs and jobs. They'd also put the word out that anyone talking about health care or Abdulmutallab will be humiliated, then fired.
Wherever you look in this administration, incompetence is all that's seen. The economic team is a disaster. The national security team is incompetent because they think terrorists shouldn't be interrogated until after they've been given constitutional protections. The foreign policy team is a disaster, too, especially considering their abandoning traditional allies like Israel, the British and Poland while cozying up to Russia, China and Iran.
That's what happens when you send a toy messiah to do a man's job.
Posted Wednesday, February 10, 2010 4:23 AM
No comments.
Starting With a Trend, Then Building On It
Each week, I check for Scott Rasmussen's generic ballot polling . Each week, the story remains the same, give or take a point. This week fits into that pattern perfectly:
Republican candidates lead Democrats by eight points in the latest edition of the Generic Congressional Ballot, marking little change since the first of the year.That's a pretty substantial lead, one which suggests a difficult election cycle for the Democrats. Still, that number isn't nearly as daunting as this statistic:
The new national telephone survey shows that 44% would vote for their district's Republican congressional candidate while 36% would opt for his or her Democratic opponent. Voter support for GOP congressional candidates is down one point from last week, while support for Democrats is down two points.
Among voters not affiliated with either major party, the GOP leads this week by a 46% to 20% margin. Support for Republicans among unaffiliateds held steady from the previous survey, but support for Democrats is down five points.It isn't that independents' trust of Republicans is strong. It's that they understand that elections are (a) essentially a binary choice and (b) about picking the better of the two options. This polling indicates that unafiliated voters still pick Republicans over Democrats at a 2:1 rate. That, too, is a trend first noticed last fall during the Christie-Corzine and McDonnell-Deeds races.
With terrorism and health care still dominating the headlines , and with unemployment staying high, it isn't likely that trend will ebb, much less reverse, anytime soon.
In addition to the generic ballot polling, Democrats face a uphill fight in Pennsylvania, where Arlen Specter leads Joe Sestak in the Democratic primary by 15 points and with a special election looming to fill the seat vacated by John Murtha's unexpected death.
I expect Sen. Specter to win the primary before losing to Pat Toomey in the general election. Rep. Sestak is doing the GOP a favor by continuing to run despite never beaking the 45 percent mark against Specter. According to TPMDC's post , this hasn't been that close of a race:
From the pollster's analysis: "Specter's support has ranged from 46% and 53% in the earlier polls. Incumbents who fall below 50% on a consistent basis are viewed as vulnerable, but this is the second month in a row where he's crossed that critical line. In the five previous Rasmussen Reports polls on the race, Sestak's support has ranged from 32% to 42%. He was most competitive in October when the numbers showed Specter with 46% of the vote and Sestak at 42%."The buzz making its way through political circles is that Republicans can pick off 5-6 seats in Pennsylvania. With numbers like these for Specter, that's certainly believable. If a Republican wins the Murtha special election, that just makes that possibility that much more likely.
Based on this article , things will have to swing pretty dramatically for Democrats to have a legitimate reason for optimism. Here's the important paragraph of the article:
With the new additions, the NRCC now has 63 candidates in its Young Guns program, which was designed to help GOP challengers develop well-organized campaigns to defeat Democratic incumbents. Thirty-three have reached "On The Radar" status, the first of a three-step process toward becoming a Young Gun, and 30 are now ranked as a "Contender."According to this article , here are the things that the NRCC looks for in Young Guns, Contenders and On the Radar:
"These candidates are putting the pieces of a winning campaign in place by meeting the rigorous goals laid out by the Young Guns program and aggressively paving their way toward victory on Election Day," said NRCC Chairman Pete Sessions. "The progress of these candidates is not only a testament to the Young Guns program, it is a sign of the hostile political environment that Democrats have created for themselves."
The Young Guns system ranks candidates in three levels from "On the Radar" to "Contender" to "Young Guns." Candidates are named to the program by meeting individualized benchmarks set by the committee, which include developing grass-roots support, fundraising and creating a media plan. Those benchmarks become higher and more stringent with each level of the program.In other words, people have to prove that they're viable candidates capable of running a serious campaign. I suspect that the numbers of viable candidates will grow over the next month, especially in the aftermath of Scott Brown's win in Massachusetts.
Based on the information I've seen, Democratic strategists should be very worried. They should be worried about the reversal of the Democrats' upward trend. More importantly, they should be worried that the NRCC has built on those trends.
Posted Wednesday, February 10, 2010 8:39 AM
No comments.
Legislating Censorship
Democrats Chuck Schumer and Chris van Hollen are putting legislation together in an attempt to get around the Citizens United v. the FEC ruling. Here's what's they're thinking about:
"I support a constitutional amendment, but that will not be part of the legislation that Sen. Schumer and I introduce. We are very focused on trying to pass something that will blunt the impact of the court's decision; but again, our goal is to get something that can be implemented sooner rather than later," Mr. Van Hollen said.The Supreme Court will shoot this down just as surely as they ruled against the FEC. That isn't what's important to Mssrs. van Hollen and Schumer, though:
He said they are looking at several approaches: banning foreign-controlled corporations from being able to run political ads; trying to curb the ability of companies that take federal contracts from running ads, since taxpayer dollars would in essence be used to campaign; and to require either approval or notification of shareholders before corporations run ads.
"It's a losing proposition for Republicans to be supporting a position which basically says corporations and unions need more influence and more money," said Mark McKinnon, a Republican strategist who worked on the poll with leading Democratic pollster Stan Greenberg. "I don't think there's a single voter in America that agrees with that position, or frankly that corporations and unions need more First Amendment rights."Democrats think they've got a winner with this but they don't. Right now, it's framed as the people vs. the pwoerful. The minute that it's framed as Censorship vs. the First Amendment, I'm betting that the polling shows a strong majority favoring the First Amendment.
For Democrats, there's another reason to act: According to the survey, most voters say special interests have more influence on the political process now than they did a year ago when Mr. Obama took office. "People think special interests are dominant," Mr. Greenberg said.
If I were put in charge of messaging to argue against the Democrat's legislation, I'd make the point that our First Amendment rights are given to us by our Creator, not from the government. Then I'd make the point that anything that the government can give us, a corrupt government can take away.
Considering the monopoly Democrats had on Washington, my next argument would be whether we'd trust government to properly regulate anything, especially something as precious as speech. To those who said that they'd trust government, I'd introduce them to Mark Lloyd's thoughts on the First Amendment :
It should be clear by now that my focus here is not freedom of speech or the press. This freedom is all too often an exaggeration. At the very least, blind references to freedom of speech or the press serve as a distraction from the critical examination of other communications policies.I'd then point out that Mr. Lloyd serves as diversity czar on the FCC, putting him in perfect position to regulate what can and can't be said on the airwaves, in print or on the internet.
[T]he purpose of free speech is warped to protect global corporations and block rules that would promote democratic governance.
Mr. McKinnon's statement that voting against the Democrats' bill is disturbing in that it tells me that he thinks that the First Amendment isn't worth fighting over. Sometimes, principled people need to cast a tough vote. I don't think voting against censorship is that difficult a decision but if it is, then so be it.
My bet is that the thought of Washington messing with the most precious constitutional right will stir up all kinds of support across the political spectrum.
There's no doubt that people are bothered by special interests getting their way too much of the time. I'd bet, though, that those same people would be more than upset if Washington tried messing with the First Amendment.
Posted Wednesday, February 10, 2010 9:57 AM
No comments.
Bayh Bayh?
According to this article , Sen. Dan Coats confirmed that he's running against Evan Bayh:
Former U.S. Senator Dan Coats confirmed this morning that he will run for U.S. Senate. During a live interview with Charly Butcher on WOWO radio Coats said his campaign is "up and running, with thousands of volunteers on the ground".As a former senator, it goes without saying that Coats is a top-tier candidate who will immediately put Evan Bayh's hold on the Senate seat in danger. It'll be interesting to see what the first polling shows but I wouldn't be surprised if the first polls show Coats leading Sen. Bayh.
Coats said, "I felt a call to service throughout my life, whether it was the Army early on or representing the people of Indiana, the ambassador to Germany...these calls keep coming. As I have watched things unfold this past year in Washington under Obama, Pelosi, Reed...I am more than alarmed the way this country is going."Apparently, Democrats are taking Coats seriously. This Politico article says that Democrats started going negative on Coats before he announced his candidacy:
In the week since Dan Coats announced he was preparing to challenge Democratic Sen. Evan Bayh, Democrats have launched a withering, no-holds-barred assault on the former Republican senator, throwing him off balance and raising questions about whether his prospective candidacy has suffered lasting damage.As usual, the Democrats are complaining about things that people are only mildly upset about. While people don't like banks, that's nothing compared with how worried they are about a job-creating economy and interrogating terrorists.
The oppo research mill began cranking up within hours of word last week that he was readying a campaign for his former Senate seat in Indiana. First came a Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee statement referring to him as a "federally registered lobbyist whose client lists include banks, private equity firms and defense contractors."
Democrats are rightfully frightened at the prospect of a true conservative running against a fake moderate this year. Sen. Bayh's been clearly exposed as a spineless liberal who's voted for the pork-filled failed stimulus bill and for the biggest new entitlement since LBJ's Great Society entitlement programs.
Posted Wednesday, February 10, 2010 12:45 PM
No comments.
Tipping the Balance?
DFL legislators Lyn Carlson and Richard Cohen drafted a bill they say would limit future governors' ability to unallot. According to this Strib article , here are some key provisions of the bill:
Specifically, the bill would limit the governor's unallotment power in three ways:This legislation wouldn't restore balance to the process. It tips the balance to the legislative branch. This legislation would forever give the legislature the ability to force special sessions by playing my-way-or-the-highway politics, which the DFL majority hasn't hesitated in playing.
Unallotment authority could be used only on the part of a projected budget deficit that was not known at the completion of the last legislative session.
When the governor unallots portions of the budget, payments must be reduced proportionately, and formulas or eligibility standards may not be modified.
The governor could not unallot more than two percent of the general fund appropriations and could not unallot more than 10 percent of a single general fund appropriation.
Hypothetically speaking, had this been law last May, the DFL likely would've forced a special session. It's probable that they would've held out until there was a government shutdown or Gov. Pawlenty signed another job-killing tax increase.
BULLETIN: The DFL doesn't have a good economic track record becuse they're too wedded to uncompetitive tax rates :
Compounding the figures over the thirteen years assessed in this study, Minnesota has lost $22,703,034,000 in net income and $2,548,131,000 in state and local tax revenue due to out-migration. Seventy percent ($827 million) of Minnesota's anticipated $1.16 billion state budget shortfall in FY 2011 is due to lower individual income tax collections.The DFL's progressive tax policies, coupled with their reckless spending habits, are driving people and their small businesses to other states. It's economic suicide to continue losing this much capital, this much revenue and this much job-creating potential.
"Minnesota should work toward reducing the tax burden via reductions in the income tax which would encourage both people and income to stay in Minnesota or move into the state," said J. Scott Moody, co-author of the report. "Without action by the legislature and the governor, out-migration will surely continue reducing the ability of both the private and public sector to ensure Minnesota's economy remains strong and vibrant."
Where are Minnesota's out-migrants going and why? According to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), between 1995 and 2007, the top five states are Florida (21,256), Arizona (19,605), Wisconsin (9,449), Colorado (6,894) and Texas (6,551), states with far more competitive state tax structures. Income left Minnesota in every year, even in years when more people moved in than moved out, which suggests that people with higher-than average incomes have been leaving the state.
We can do better. Most importantly, it's imperative that we do better. That won't happen with DFL majorities in the Minnesota legislature.
It's important that people understand that this legislation won't become law. It's purely political designed to energize the DFL's allies. It shouldn't become law because it strips the executive branch of its options to reign in a reckless and irresponsible legislature. Without unallotment, the legislature could've held out until Gov. Pawlenty signed a job-killing tax increase.
What the DFL legislative leadership hasn't figured out is that this legislation is getting conservatives fired up too. We've noticed that reckless DFL legislators will do anything to raise taxes.
Most importantly, we've realized that the best way to eliminate the DFL's reckless spending is to defeat the DFL this November. That's the only way to protect Minnesota's taxpayers, whether they're small businesses or middle class families, from the DFL's irresponsible behavior.
Posted Thursday, February 11, 2010 4:30 AM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 11-Feb-10 04:34 PM
What I don't understand is what sort of fantasy world these DFLers live in. The Constitution requires a balanced budget. You DFLers failed to balance it. How did you think it was going to become balanced? The governor MUST have this authority, to any degree necessary, to prevent the idiotic and essentially impossibile circumstance of spending money you do not have and cannot get. When the legislature comes back to their senses, they can undo what the governor has done and implement their own priorities again, so long as the budget balances.
Reality Stranger Than Fiction
Everyone's heard the old saying that truth is stranger than fiction. It's been around decades. It's apparent that Speaker Pelosi's perspective and Vice President Biden's view isn't just stranger than fiction. Quite possibly, their opinions are stranger than anything imagined by an LSD junky.
First, let's see what thoughts have meandered through Vice President Biden's mouth:
Asked if he feared [Palin] politically, Biden said he did not. "But my sense is that Gov. Palin appeals to a group of people who are generally frustrated, feel disenfranchised, are very conservative, not all of them,Tea Party people," he said. "She has appeal beyond that as well, but I don't [see] that it represents anything approaching a significant portion of the population ."That's vintage Joe. He's one of the most entertaining quote machines in American political history. He doesn't have a clue what's on the minds of America's mainstream but he's entertaining. Next, let's see what's rumbling through Speaker Pelosi's mind:
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) is pinning the blame on Republicans for a lack of bipartisanship in Congress and plans to bypass them if they continue to oppose efforts to enact near-universal health care.The Democrats' health care legislation and their failed stimulus package tell the world that their legislation isn't worthy of bipartisan support. Speaker Pelosi would be better off if the legislation they're voting on effectively dealt with the American people's priorities. Had Pelosi's Democratic puppets crafted legislation with even a modicum of bipartisan appeal, their legislation would've gotten enough Republican support to provide the Democrats with the political cover Speaker Pelosi is pleading for.
"A constitutional majority is 51 votes," Pelosi said in an interview Tuesday with Roll Call. "If in fact the Republicans are going to say nothing can be done except by 60 percent, then maybe we all should be elected with 60 percent. It isn't legitimate in terms of passing legislation."
The shattering of the 60-vote Democratic Senate supermajority with the election of Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.) has revived talk among Democrats of bypassing filibusters, and Pelosi has forcefully argued for doing just that to complete work on the party's stalled health care package.Speaker Pelosi has gone farther than that. She's worked out a strategy that will put Democrats in the minority for a decade, if not more :
In comments reported by Congress Daily, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's top health care aide Wendell Primus admitted top Democrats have already decided on the strategy to pass the Senate's pro-abortion, government-run health care bill .Democrats living in swing districts will be history. It won't matter whether they voted for the bill or not. The thought that they've voted for a Speaker Pelosi will be enough to defeat them. Their only hope is to abandon the sinking ship USS Pelosi.
Primus explained that the Senate will use the controversial reconciliation strategy that will have the House approve the Senate bill and both the House and Senate okaying changes to the bill that the Senate will sign off on by preventing Republicans from filibustering.
"The trick in all of this is that the president would have to sign the Senate bill first, then the reconciliation bill second, and the reconciliation bill would trump the Senate bill," Primus said at the National Health Policy Conference hosted by Academy Health and Health Affairs. "There's a certain skill, there's a trick, but I think we'll get it done," he said.
People already hate the Democrats' health care legislation. Passing it with that type of gimmickry will only serve to infuriate them. This would be the type of thing that GOP strategists would use against every Senate Democrat up for re-election this year and in 2012. Passing this legislation would guarantee President Obama being a failed one-term president, ranking at the bottom with Jimmy Carter.
GOP leadership should send President Obama a second letter insisting that he veto any bill passed with this trickery. I'd also recommend that they insist that President Obama tell Speaker Pelosi and House Democrats to immediately abandon this strategy. Finally, I'd include in this letter that failure to call off this strategy will be proof that he doesn't plan on negotiating in good faith.
The people of Massachusetts have already sent the message that they don't want this legislation passed. They aren't the only voters who vehemently disagree with this legislation. There isn't a poll I've seen that shows Pelosi/Obamacare with support approaching 40 percent. If Pelosi's Democrats pass this monstrosity of a bill this way, the political bloodshed will be nationwide, not just in select swing districts.
People used to say that Bill Clinton was blessed to have the enemies he had. Admittedly, some of his adversaries weren't the brightest bulbs in the chandelier. It's totally fair to say that Republicans have been blessed by opponents like Vice President Biden and Speaker Pelosi. In fact, that might be understatement. Here's how flimsy Speaker Pelosi's argument is:
"We have set the stage for that. It's important for us to remind the American people of the inconsistency that the Republicans have in saying this is unusual. No, five times President Bush used it...This is what the Republicans did to pass their bills, their tax cuts for the rich," Pelosi said.I can't say that I'm surprised that Speaker Pelosi is using this argument. In fact, it's what I expected. It's also feeble. President Bush used reconciliation to pass the tax cuts that expire next year. He didn't use it to change a health care system that 80+ percent of the American people like.
"It's up to us to make sure the public knows that this is not extraordinary. And the public knows that a constitutional majority is 51. It would be a reflection on us if we could not convince people that this is not an unusual place to go."
If Speaker Pelosi thinks that she can do this without suffering dramatic political consequences, then she's more out of touch with America than I thought.
Posted Thursday, February 11, 2010 9:40 AM
No comments.
President Obama, Speaker Pelosi Can't Be Trusted
Thanks to Wendell Primus , Speaker Pelosi's top health care aid, we now know that President Obama's health care summit isn't a substantive meeting. Rather, it's a total farce. Here's how we know that:
In comments reported by Congress Daily, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's top health care aide Wendell Primus admitted top Democrats have already decided on the strategy to pass the Senate's pro-abortion, government-run health care bill.Any Democrat that votes for this bill should be targeted this fall. If you think that people are upset with Speaker Pelosi's Democrats now, you ain't seen nothing yet. If a bill this unpopular gets passed by using this type of trickery, the political bloodshed this November will be massive.
Primus explained that the Senate will use the controversial reconciliation strategy that will have the House approve the Senate bill and both the House and Senate okaying changes to the bill that the Senate will sign off on by preventing Republicans from filibustering.
"The trick in all of this is that the president would have to sign the Senate bill first, then the reconciliation bill second, and the reconciliation bill would trump the Senate bill," Primus said at the National Health Policy Conference hosted by Academy Health and Health Affairs.
You think that people were upset this past August during the townhalls across the country? If Democrats vote for this, then Democrats will encounter angry voters that'll make them wish for the good old days of August, 2009. Those voters will have so much adrenaline pumping through their veins that they'll be able to spit nails through a brick wall from 50 yards.
The Democrats' bill hasn't gotten 40 percent support since last April. If President Obama signs that bill into law, his support will drop into the low 30s. Independents will flee the Democratic Party like they were selling nuclear waste.
The lesson that must be taken from this is that President Obama, Speaker Pelosi and Sen. Reid can't be trusted. Pelosi's scheme isn't a secret to the White House. If they didn't devise this strategy, they've, at minimum, had significant input into this strategy. That means that President Obama's invitation to Republican leadership for a health care summit was about staging a photo op. It wasn't about having a good faith negotiating session. That's why Robert Gibbs refused to take reconciliation off the table .
Mark Tapscott's observations are spot on:
The comments from Primus raise an obvious question: Since it is inconceivable that Democratic congressional leaders are moving in this direction without the knowledge of the White House, why call a health care summit and challenge congressional Republicans to come with their best ideas when the plan is already in place to use legislative trickery to pass Obamacare?Considering this new information, it's imperative that Republicans hit the airwaves and tell the nation that President Obama's invitation isn't a good faith effort to negotiate a health care bill that the American people can support. Republicans everywhere should flood the airwaves and TV with the message that, despite President Obama's cries for bipartisanship, President Obama is only interested in signing legislation that contains the language that leads to the federal government's takeover the health care industry.
The most logical answer would seem to be that the summit is part and parcel of a White House/congressional Democratic strategy to distract attention from what is about to happen on the Hill. It's the classic magician's trick of distracting you with the left hand while the right hand does the "trick."
The Democrats' treachery on this will have some consequences that might bite them in the backside:
The states, as sovereign entities, granted express and limited powers to the federal government by way of the United States Constitution. To prevent one branch of the federal government from exceeding its express and limited powers, we have a "horizontal" system of checks and balances, the three branches of the federal government.The thought that a Democratic-controlled legislature is about to pass legislation that would prevent the federal government from imposing mandates on the state should startle and scare Democrats living near the Mason-Dixon line. Let's understand that Gov. McDonnell will fight Obamacare in the courts and that he'll have lots of support from other states' attorneys general if it gets that far.
However, we also have a "vertical" system of checks and balances between the states and the federal government. This vertical system of checks and balances has been used too infrequently, but Virginia is now using it to declare our own law regarding healthcare freedom as a means to counteract an unconstitutional law (if it passes) at the federal level. This would create a conflict of laws.
But as James Madison wrote in Federalist 51, freedom is best protected when political ambition counteracts political ambition. Virginia is protecting the freedom of its citizens by "checking" the federal leviathan on the matter of healthcare.
The courts would need to resolve the coming conflict. Ultimately, however, the voters will decide: do federal politicians who may vote for Obamacare stand with the people and the Constitution? Virginians are saying "no" on a bi-partisan basis.
If President Obama signs a bill that imposes individual mandates but lets unions escape a huge tax increase, non-union households will be furious. This stunt indicates that President Obama knows that he's lost independents and that his base is fracturing. He has to act like he's still fighting because, if he doesn't, unions will stop supporting Democratic candidates . If they do that, a bad election cycle will turn into an historic disaster for the Democrats.
President Obama's invitation is meant to help him appear interested in bipartisanship. It isn't meant to provide him with a vehicle for being a bipartisan president. Like everything else about President Obama, it's all about appearances. It isn't about achieving victories that garner the support of the American people.
During the 2006 campaign, Republicans frequently talked about Speaker Pelosi's "San Francisco values." It didn't work then because people hadn't seen her priorities or her proclivity for hardball politics. now they have and they don't like what they see. They now have proof that she can't be trusted. For that matter, they understand that she'll bully her spineless puppet, aka Blue Dog Democrats, into doing whatever she tells them to do.
The American people are finally speaking with a unified, clear voice that they want this Congress and this administration to get out of their way. Additionally, they want them to work on common sense solutions. This Democratic congress and this administration hasn't done that. They've tried playing PR games while ignoring the will of the people.
It's apparent that neither this president nor the Democratic leadership is interested in the opinions of the American people. It's equally apparent that they'd rather listen to their special interest allies, even if that means pulling the types of stunts that they're currently planning.
That isn't what servant leadership is about. In fact, it's the opposite of what servant leadership is about. That's why I wouldn't trust President Obama, Speaker Pelosi or Sen. Reid any farther than I could throw them if I had 2 broken arms and a bad back. They've done nothing to earn my trust.
Posted Thursday, February 11, 2010 4:38 PM
Comment 1 by CottonMan at 12-Feb-10 12:54 PM
I liked the comment about Obama/Pelosi, that they are not "interested in the opinions of the American people".
Well, the People will ultimately speak & will be heard (already in MA/NJ/VA).
If ur interested, there's a new book just out about a small town that stands up to federal tyranny that doesn't "listen" to Americans needs & ends up starting the 2nd American Revolution.
I recommend it for what's coming in 2010.
www.booksbyoliver.com
Comment 2 by eric z at 13-Feb-10 09:02 AM
"Can't be trusted" is a term that approaches actionable defamation, should they care to chase you, Gary.
What you really are saying, I think, is you don't trust either, and you lay out grounds for others to judge trustworthiness, on your playing field, your rules.
I understand wanting a headline with a zing.
Surely, neither Obama nor Pelosi would care to sue Gary Gross in Minnesota.
But would you headline something, "Tarryl Clark can't be trusted"?
That's getting local, and there is a line between "defamation by implication" not being actionable, and something on the other side of the line. There is a doctrine about some things being defamation per se.
This is not a criticism. Nor any suggestion to quell your right to opinions and to publish them.
Just a thought. "I don't trust Obama or Pelosi - consider this," might be as zinging a headline, but closer to characterizing it as opinion and argument, not fact.
Comment 3 by eric z at 13-Feb-10 09:07 AM
On the substance of your post, Gary, you might consider whether some people have a notion of "majority rules" that does not make 41 out of 100 senators a majority. Some might say 41 foot-dragging sore-heads, should NOT rule over 50+ senators wanting to do their job, bill by bill, moving on without undue friction and impediment from a clear minority bloc.
