February 27-28, 2010
Feb 27 06:25 Losing Ground the Old-Fashioned Way Feb 27 07:59 Hoyer: We're Listening Feb 28 00:45 There's One That's Right Feb 28 07:34 Dane Smith At It Again
Prior Months: Jan
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009
Losing Ground the Old-Fashioned Way
According to Scott Rasmussen's polling , President Obama's popularity keeps sinking:
The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Friday shows that 23% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Forty-three percent (43%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -20. For President Obama, the Approval Index has been lower only once.It isn't likely that President Obama's approval ratings will enjoy a significant upswing anytime soon. His performance yesterday was as usual: condescending, scolding and ill-tempered. Charles Krauthammer said it perfectly during last night's roundtable, saying that with the presidency comes Air Force One and a private chef but it doesn't make you the arbiter of what's legitimate and what's a prop.
I'm kinda curious what people think about the theory I'm working on, namely that Harry Reid's and Speaker Pelosi's incompetence, while not the main cause of his unpopularity, is contributing to his unpopularity.
Yesterday's winners include the GOP campaign committees, Paul Ryan, Lamar Alexander, Tom Coburn, Dave Camp, Eric Cantor and Jon Kyl. Yesterday's losers include, in my opinion, were President Obama, Harry Reid and Max 'We're not that far apart' Baucus.
In my opinion, President Obama took the biggest hit because Paul Ryan, Dave Camp and Eric Cantor all looked more knowledgeable than President Obama on reducing health care and health insurance costs and deficit reduction. Mssrs. Ryan and Camp did a great job of highlighting that the Medicare cuts weren't to strengthen Medicare solvency but that the cuts went to pay for another entitlement.
If I were advising the campaign committees, I'd tell them to turn those exchanges into campaign commercials that run daily the last month of the campaign. The other thing that can't be ignored is that people who watched the summit, whether they watched a little bit or most of it, heard the Republicans' ideas. The people that heard those ideas will start asking why Republicans had been shut out of the process thus far.
More importantly, they'll ask why the Republicans' ideas haven't been incorporated into the legislation. The Democrats don't have a defense for that question. By not including Republican ideas in the legislation, the Democrats will look overly partisan, which will hurt. While the American people will tolerate some partisanship, they won't tolerate that level of partisanship.
The bottom line is that the Democrats' election chances are sinking and they aren't likely to improve. If President Obama doesn't change course, it wouldn't be surprising to see him be a one-term wonder.
Posted Saturday, February 27, 2010 6:29 AM
Comment 1 by Elizabeth at 27-Feb-10 07:17 AM
I AM AGAINST ANYTHING THE SORRY EXCUSE MR PRESIDENT DOES,I HAVE BEEN A DEMOCRATE ALL MY LIFE AND I HAVE NEVER HEARD OF ONE PRESIDENT WANTED TO KILL THE ELDERLY IF THE NEW HEALTH PLAN GOES THROUGH,IT WAS IN EACH PARAGRAPH OF THE HEALTH OVERALL.TO KEEP THE COST DOWN HE WILL APPOINT ONE DR TO KILL THOSE WHO ARE UNABLE TO TAKE CARE OF THIERSELF DO WE LIVE IN THE GREAT USA OR RUSSIA , HE LIED TO GET ELECTED BUT GOD IS MY WITNESS I NEVER VOTED FOR HIM HE FOOLED HIS RACE BUT NOW THEY HATE THEY PUT HIM IN
Comment 2 by eric z. at 27-Feb-10 08:11 AM
Gary, do the Republicans have a draft bill?
If so, Gary, do you have a link to it online?
ELIZABETH - Aside from those feelings, would you give any hint of which congressional district you reside and vote in, and whether you are saying you will vote GOP or DFL?
The reason for that question, many are upset with Obama for being too middle of the road wishy-washy accommodating to the GOP obstructionism, and that does not translate into shifting toward GOP voting.
Response 2.1 by Gary Gross at 27-Feb-10 03:17 PM
Eric, Your wish is my command. Here's the link to the Patients' Choice Act, which was co-authored by Paul Ryan, Dr. Tom Coburn, Devin Nunes & Sen. Richard Burr.
Hoyer: We're Listening
Of all the outrageous claims coming out of Thursday's summit, Steny Hoyer's op-ed ranks right up there with Harry Reid's claim that "no one's talking about reconciliation." The American people know that Democrats haven't listened to the American people. They know that because the Republicans' ideas, which were on full display Thursday, haven't been included in the Democrats' health care legislation.
I believe in bipartisan compromise, but Senate Minority Leader John Boehner's recent AOL News op-ed piece was more about political talking points than common solutions. It deserves a line-by-line rebuttal.First, it's important that we mention that the American people, in poll after poll, say that they want nothing to be done as opposed to passing the Democrats' bill and that they prefer starting over as opposed to passing the Democrat's legislation.
"Americans want Washington to scrap this job-killing government takeover of health care and start over."
It's really the rising cost of health care that's killing jobs. A study from economists at USC and Harvard shows that passing health insurance reform would create 4 million more jobs over the next decade.
That alone refutes the notion that the Democrats are listening.
Another thing that refutes the notion that Democrats are listening is the fact that the American people's top priorities are getting spending under control and getting the economy creating jobs. In his SOTU address, President Obama promised that he was going to focus on jobs. After focusing on "jobs, jobs, jobs" for at least a split second, he's repivoted to health care. That might be a Democratic spinmeister's spin of listening to the American people but the American people aren't buying it.
Here's another part of Hoyer's op-ed that's been repeatedly refuted:
And no matter how many times Republicans call health insurance reform a "government takeover," in fact, the Democratic plan facilitates a transparent market for private-sector insurance and does not take away the coverage of any American who likes his or her plan .Leader Hoyer knows that the Democrats' health care legislation forces people out of plans that they like because the Democrats' legislation forces them out of HSAs . They know it because the federal government's mandates include a definition of what coverages must be included in every insurance policy sold in the United States.
This is typical Democrat behavior. Despite all the federal government's failures, they still believe that the federal goverment knows best. In my interview with Paul Ryan , I asked him about patients consulting with their physicians, then creating a health insurance policy that fits their needs. Here's Rep. Ryan's reply:
2. Shouldn't people, working in concert with their physician, have the option of putting together a customized health insurance policy?There's nothing in the Democrats' legislation that would allow that type of doctor-patient interaction. That very thinking is included in the Patients' Choice Act, which Congressman Ryan wrote with Sen. Coburn. Whenever that option is put before the American people, it's incredibly popular.
Yes ; that's a great idea and just the type of innovative thinking we don't want the federal government to squash. Patients have different needs, and that's exactly why health insurance shouldn't be run by the federal government. The government does not know what is best for patients. Patients and doctors should be able to make decisions together about the types of health plans that best suit their individual needs. That concept is exactly what motivated the Patients' Choice Act. We don't want the federal government taking over these decisions ; and we want to show people that there is another way that allows the individual to maintain control over these personal decisions.
That's additional proof that Democrats aren't listening to the American people.
"Republicans have offered a commonsense plan squarely focused on lowering costs. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office confirmed that it will lower premiums by as much as 10 percent."This is another argument that's been refuted. CBO said that the Republican plan will lower health insurance premiums and health care prices. Anyone thinking that making health care and health insurance less expensive won't affect access isn't just kidding themselves. They're delusional. Lowering health insurance prices will cause more young people to buy health insurance. Ditto with middle class families opting not to buy health insurance or self-insuring.
The CBO also confirmed that it will do next to nothing to cover the uninsured, whose ranks are growing every day as costs rise for middle-class families. According to the CBO, the Republican plan will cover only 3 million more people by 2020, out of 52 million Americans who will lack insurance. And paying for the care of those uninsured Americans adds an extra $1,100 to the average family premium.
In this instance, CBO's prediction isn't reliable because they aren't allowed to say that a change in dynamics changes behavior.
For all of the political slogans in Leader Boehner's op-ed, I didn't read a single factual description of what's actually in the health bill. There's a reason for that: When Americans hear "government takeover of health care," they naturally oppose it. When they hear the bill described in plain language, they support it.Listen to Hoyer's arrogance. When citizens were schooling Democrats at townhall meetings last August, they knew what was in the bill and they didn't like the Democrats' legislation. They told Baron Davis, Sheila Jackson-Lee and Arlen Specter that they didn't like the Democrats' plan. I remember the DNC's response: creating a web ad that said "the angry mob is back", that they couldn't accept losing another election.
That isn't how a political party that's listening to the people react. That's how a political party that's driven by a failed ideology reacts.
The Democrats' insistence on ramming through health care legislation are ignorning the American people. The American people want the focus paid on the economy, not health care. When health care is the subject, the American people want more of the Republicans' ideas included in the legislation.
That's before we ask the American people if they favor individual mandates, fines and tax increases. I'm betting the American people disagree with each of those proposals.
That's why I say without hesitation that Democrats aren't listening to We The People .
Posted Saturday, February 27, 2010 8:06 AM
No comments.
There's One That's Right
In the many conversations I've had with King, we've often talked about testing theories, situations where 2 people make statements that are diametrically opposed to each other. It's a situation where one person is wrong, the other right. Such is the case with Joe Klein's column and this IBD editorial . Let's start with Joe Klein's column first:
Shame on me. I was elsewhere yesterday and missed the health care summit. I'm catching up now, and the tea leaves seem to indicate that Obama came out well ahead of the Republicans. How do I know that? From Matt Drudge, of course. I mean, Drudge's takeaway from the summit is that the President talked a lot ; actually, the President, the Congressional Democrats and Republicans each spoke an equal amount; the Times of London found it boring and the networks turned to other programming.If ever there's a way to tell who won, there's no better way than by what the headlines on the Drudge page says. Is he kidding me??? The first thing I thought when I read Mr. Klein's analysis (I'm using that term loosely) was "Good grief Charlie Brown. How do idiots like this get paid a penny for their thoughts and their writings?"
Reading between the lines, you can conclude that the Republicans had nothing very interesting, or clever, to say (and were never able to get the President's goat). And that the President was his usual, unflappable, well-informed self. You can also conclude that not much progress was made at the summit, as Karen reports here--but that's a huge surprise, right?
Another thought I had was how similar Klein sounds to President Obama's opinion of what happened with Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates, first admitting that he didn't know anything, then saying that the police must've acted stupidly. Klein admits that he didn't watch the health care summit, then saying that Republicans must not have had anything interesting to say. How does he know that? Blind ideology? It isn't from verifiable facts and exhaustive research.
Just because the Agenda Media refuses to report something doesn't mean that President Obama didn't get his backside handed to him. In fact, had Mr. Klein checked out David Gergen's analysis and Gloria Borger's analysis, he might've reached a different conclusion.
Next, let's check IBD's editorial. Here's how it starts:
Many viewers were wowed by the president's performance at the health care summit, his command of facts and ability to rebut every point the Republicans made. We must have been watching another channel.IBD's rundown of the spinmeister media's is instructive, though in this case a bit repetitive. Here's where IBD parts ways with Mr. Klein:
'Obama dominates the room at health care summit" was the headline on a Reuters dispatch that found the president "always in command not only of the room but also the most intricate policy details, as he personally rebutted every point he disagreed with."
In a Washington Post column titled "Professor Obama schools lawmakers on health care reform," Dana Milbank marveled at how the president "controlled the microphone and the clock, (using) both skillfully to limit the Republicans' time, to rebut their arguments and to always have the last word."
It was the Wisconsin congressman who made the most pointed remarks about Obama's reform proposal. For example:Had President Obama tried refuting any of Congressman Ryan's statistics, each of which demolishes Obamacare's credibility, Ryan would've repeated reciting the statistics he'd just rattled off. Ryan's statistics are rock solid, with some coming from the CMS actuary and others coming from CBO. In other words, there's no disputing them because the CBO and the CMS actuary are serious people who take their professional responsibilities seriously.
"This bill does not control costs (or) reduce deficits. Instead, (it) adds a new health care entitlement when we have no idea how to pay for the entitlements we already have."
"The bill has 10 years of tax increases, about half a trillion dollars, with 10 years of Medicare cuts, about half a trillion dollars, to pay for six years of spending. The true 10-year cost (is) $2.3 trillion."
"The bill takes $52 billion in higher Social Security tax revenues and counts them as offsets. But that's really reserved for Social Security. So either we're double-counting them or we don't intend on paying those Social Security benefits."
"The bill takes $72 billion from the CLASS Act (long-term care insurance) benefit premiums and claims them as offsets."
"The bill treats Medicare like a piggy bank, (raiding) half a trillion dollars not to shore up Medicare solvency, but to spend on this new government program."
"The chief actuary of Medicare (says) as much as 20% of Medicare providers will either go out of business or have to stop seeing Medicare beneficiaries."
"Millions of seniors who have chosen Medicare Advantage (Medicare President Obama didn't dare question Ryan's analysis.
Klein's opinions apparently are based on the theory that President Obama wins if he talks enough. That theory was disproven months ago . President Obama has given 29 speeches on health care. After each of the early speeches, the public's approval of Obamacare has dropped before levelling off at a low level that it's currently stuck in.
President Obama is a wonderful orator but he isn't persuasive. He isn't persuasive because the people think that the things he's attempting to sell are rat poison. That's why they're rejecting Obamacare in the numbers that they've been rejecting it at.
If you don't think they're rejecting Obamacare, I'll make the argument short and sweet: Sen. Scott Brown. He promised to be the legislation-killing 41st vote against Obamacare in the Senate. He won by a semi-comfortable margin. I'll even throw in the fact that Obamacare is the reason why independents have fled President Obama and the Democrats like they were selling toxic waste.
For all of Joe Klein's bloviating, he still hasn't proven that he's got a clue:
But the obvious truth here is that the Republicans do not want any sort of health care bill to pass at all because they do not want to hand President Obama a victory. Shame on them.Had this egotist watched Thursday, he'd know that Republicans put forward a comprehensive health care reform package that didn't raise taxes, that cut health care and health insurance costs and that wouldn't add to the deficit. Instead, the American people are ill-served by Mr. Klein because he wrote something based on his biases and newspaper headlines rather than on verifiable facts.
This is why people would be far better informed if they forgot about pundits like Mr. Klein and instead got their information from the Right Blogosphere. People are free to disagree with our opinions but our research is real and our facts are verifiable. Unlike Mr. Klein, the serious people of the Right Blogosphere take pride in doing the research needed to present verifiable information.
That's why, when determining whether to trust Mr. Klein's opinions or IBD's editorial, I'll pick IBD's editorial every time. Their information is verifiable whereas Klein's post is pure hypothesis and supposition.
Posted Sunday, February 28, 2010 12:55 AM
Comment 1 by Walter Scott Hudson at 28-Feb-10 01:57 AM
Great post, Gary. The last couple paragraphs are like a double-tap to the head.
I have to laugh imagining your process in writing this one, reading Klein's idiotic incoherent ravings and trying to map out where to start and how to finish. Better you than me.
Comment 2 by Walter Scott Hudson at 28-Feb-10 02:03 AM
From Kline's post:
"To get these things, however, the Republicans would have had to say yes at some point. As in, YES, I'll vote for the bill if you throw in malpractice and pay for it with the money you get from limiting deductability. That is what happens in a negotiation."
No, Mr. Kline. That is not what happens in negotiation. That is what happens in compromise. As Representative Emmer did a fine job articulating at the BPOU conventions yesterday, the difference is crucial. Negotiation is conducted with the goal of strengthening one's position. Compromise sacrifices strength for the false comfort of consensus.
Dane Smith At It Again
Growth And Justice leader Dane Smith has written another op-ed for the St. Cloud Times. Unfortunately, Smith refuses to think that saying yes the DFL special interest allies' wish lists might be part of the problem. Here's a revealing quote from his op-ed:
As Pawlenty explores further a run for the presidency, it's interesting to note how close his words track with themes promulgated by national conservative kingmakers. "Leave us alone!" and "Get out of our way!" Pawlenty declared in his recent State of the State speech, presuming to speak for business leaders in the state, making the case that only the private-sector and captains of commerce and industry could be the "true source" of our economic salvation.The fact that Smith talks condescendingly about government being limited and that the private sector should being thriving says alot about his philosophy. It's interesting that Smith talks down the very things that the American people are saying right now. Is Dane Smith saying that he knows better than We The People what the nation needs?
Our Founding Fathers new that limited government that was closest to the people is the best form of governance. They knew that an oversized government was oppressive. Right now, the DFL and their allies like Dane Smith think that government isn't big enough and that they aren't spending enough.
We The People passionately and emphatically disagree.
Here's another glimpse into Smith's mindset:
As legislators in both parties grapple with the most troubling economic situation and the prospect of real damage to the people who rely on our governments, and that's all of us, I can't help but think of the contrast in language employed by another tall and lanky Midwestern Republican, Abraham Lincoln.Saying that all of us rely on government is Smith's way of saying that we can't survive without BIG government. While there's no doubt that each of us is affected by governments' decisions, there's no doubt that the DFL refuses to say no to their special interest allies, which is causing the budget fights that we've seen the last eight years.
At a League of Women's Voters Education Forum in September, 2007, Larry Haws was stunned into saying that "maybe we do need to prioritize" after Steve Gottwalt questioned the DFL's status quo education policies . Based on the look on his face, it was apparent that he hadn't thought of prioritizing spending prior to that event.
More revealing that day was when the panelists talked about kindergarten. Steve questioned the need for all day kindergarten, which caused another startling exchange:
Steve said that parents help their children as much simply by reading to them each day. At that point, Grandpa Larry said (in a rather condescending tone of voice) " Maybe I should pass a law mandating that parents read to their children ."Isn't it telling that the DFL's first reaction to something as simple reading to your children evokes a response that legislators need to pass a law to mandate that? If you're asking what this has to do with Dane Smith's op-ed, it's this: the DFL thinks that government must get involved to ensure that parents and businesses do the right thing.
I'll simply argue that not every problem has a governmental solution and that We The People know how to make the right decisions. Was a government program needed to create IBM or Fedex? Of course it wasn't. Did Microsoft need corporate welfare to launch itself? No. Do parents need the government to tell them that reading to their pre-school-aged children is the right thing to do? Not likely.
If you operate, like Dane Smith does, that government is needed in solving society's ills, then you operate from a mindset that tax increases are a way of life. If, hwoever, you think that people are capable of making good decisions on their own, which most of America agrees with, then you're more likely to think that government is too big and taxes too much.
I highlighted in this post that businesses and people are voting with their feet in favor of lower taxes and limited government. The IRS can even tell us where people who've left Minnesota go. It's that precise.
In arguing for tax increases and bigger government, Dane Smith and lefty politicians like Larry Haws are saying that the American people aren't capable of making their own decisions.
We The People passionately disagree.
Posted Sunday, February 28, 2010 7:34 AM
No comments.
