July 24-27, 2009

Jul 24 00:57 Is Pelosi Spinning This?
Jul 24 07:57 Gov. Pawlenty Takes the Gloves Off
Jul 24 14:26 I'm Right

Jul 25 05:56 Lindsey Graham: Utterly Clueless
Jul 25 21:50 That'd Be Interesting

Jul 26 14:05 VP Whopper Teller Strikes Again

Jul 27 00:41 It's Tough Being A Republican Right Now?
Jul 27 07:28 News Flash: Lefties Hate Profitable Companies
Jul 27 12:18 Cost vs. Price

Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun

Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008

Is Pelosi Spinning This?

Speaker Pelosi has said that she's got enough votes to pass the House's health care reform bill . The fact that she's saying that says that they're worried. This report explains why they're worried. First, here's what Speaker Pelosi said:

While Pelosi said she has "no question" that Democrats have the votes they need, she stopped short of promising the full House would act on the legislation before beginning a monthlong vacation at the end of July. "We are waiting to see what the president says, and what the Senate will do," she said.

Pelosi spoke as White House officials and Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, met with moderate and conservative Democrats who have stalled progress on the bill, demanding numerous changes as the price of their support.

Rep. Charlie Melancon, D-La., expressed unhappiness at the Speaker's words. "I've been meeting to death, so if that has been for naught until they counted votes, and just to occupy our time, I'm sorry," he said. "I thought we were legitimately having conversations about writing a good health care bill for America."

Rep. Melancon should know better than to think that Speaker Pelosi will tolerate people thinking for themselves.

At Least 42 House Democrats Are Holding Up The House Democrat Bill:

Rep. Jason Altmire (D-PA), Rep. Mike Arcuri (D-NY), Rep. John Boccieri (D-OH), Rep. Dan Boren (D-OK), Rep. Allen Boyd (D-FL), Rep. Bruce Braley (D-IA), Rep. Bobby Bright (D-AL), Rep. Kathy Castor (D-FL), Rep. Jim Clyburn (D-SC), Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-VA), Rep. Jim Cooper (D-TN), Rep. Bart Gordon (D-TN), Rep. John Hall (D-NY), Rep. Martin Heinrich (D-NM), Rep. Baron Hill (D-IN), Rep. Mary Jo Kilroy (D-OH), Rep. Ron Kind (D-WI), Rep. Dave Loebsack (D-IA), Rep. Nita Lowey (D-NY), Rep. Betsy Markey (D-CO), Rep. Jim Marshall (D-GA), Rep. Eric Massa (D-NY), Rep. Jim Matheson (D-UT), Rep. Mike McMahon (D-NY), Rep. Charlie Melancon (D-LA), Rep. Michael Michaud (D-ME), Rep. Scott Murphy (D-NY), Rep. Collin Peterson (D-MN), Rep. Jared Polis (D-CO), Rep. Earl Pomeroy (D-ND), Rep. Mike Ross (D-AR), Rep. Tim Ryan (D-OH), Rep. Herseth-Sandlin (D-SD), Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA), Rep. Heath Shuler (D-NC), Rep. Zack Space (D-OH), Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI), Rep. John Tanner (D-TN), Rep. Gene Taylor (D-MS), Rep. Harry Teague (D-NM), Rep. Dina Titus (D-NV), Rep. Tim Walz (D-MN

Here's a sampling of what Democrats have said:

Rep. Altmire: "I Can't Support The Bill As It's Currently Written." ALTMIRE: "Oh, I can`t support the bill as it`s currently written. The tax increases is going to put a burden on small businesses, who can`t afford to offer health care right now. What makes anything think that, by increasing their tax burden, they are somehow going to find a way to offer health care to people that they can`t afford to offer it to now?" (Fox News' "Your World With Neil Cavuto," 7/16/09)

Rep. John Boccieri (D-OH): "My Feeling Is There's Enough Money In The System Already." "Still, that's the kind of discussion that could raise concerns for centrist freshman Democrats like Rep. John Boccieri (D-Ohio), who says there's 'a little fear' among his constituents of a government-run plan, and no appetite for a tax increase. 'My feeling is there's enough money in the system already,' Boccieri said." (Mike Soraghan, "Speaker Pelosi Makes Aggressive Push To Finish Healthcare Reform This Month," The Hill, 7/8/09)

"Second District Congressman Dan Boren said Monday that health care reform rests largely on President Barack Obama's willingness to accept bipartisan compromise on the issue. 'If health care reform is going to happen it will have to happen in a bipartisan way,' Boren told the Tulsa Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce. 'It's really up to the president.' Boren, a Democrat, said he is trying to keep an open mind but said, 'The House bill that's out there, I can't support.'" (Tom Gilbert, "Boren: Bipartisanship Key To Health Care," Tulsa World, 7/20/09)

CLYBURN: "Well, the Republicans I've spoken with are very concerned about this surcharge, and I am concerned about that, too. I've had listening sessions working with John Larson, Xavier Baccera, the chair and vice chair of our caucus. We've had six listening sessions of our members, and we have come away from those sessions believing that we can do this with the savings that we will get out of the system. If we don't get the scoring from CBO, we can still go ahead and do the plan as we envision the savings to be. And I don't think we have to have the surcharge at all. A lot of Democrats on my side of the aisle believe that." (MSNBC's "Morning Joe," 7/20/09)

Three things jump out at me from those quotes. That the Democratic Whip would say that he's got concerns about raising taxes isn't what Speaker Pelosi wanted to hear. It's exactly what she didn't want to hear.

Another thing that jumped out at me was Rep. Boccieri saying that his constituents have a "little fear" of a government-run plan and that there's "no appetite" for "a tax increase."

Finally, Rep. Boren's remarks are stunning since he's the son of a longtime conservative Democrat senator. Saying that he couldn't support the bill in its current form is sending a message to Speaker Pelosi that they need to significantly change the bill.

UPDATE: Speaker Pelosi has suddenly backtracked on voting on the House health care bill before the August recess:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said Thursday that the House can go home for its August recess without passing a massive overhaul. Pelosi dismissed concerns expressed by many Democrats that a monthlong delay could give opponents more chances to rally opposition to the bill. "I'm not afraid of August," Pelosi said. "It's a month."

That is different from what she said Wednesday and contradicts one of her fellow Democratic House leaders. On Wednesday, Pelosi had indicated that she supported staying into August, saying, "70 percent of the American people would want that."

This is a defeat for Pelosi and a rather embarrassing one at that. Going from "We have the votes to pass the bill" to "We're outta here" in a matter of days is a major retreat and a major defeat for Speaker Pelosi.

Mark this on your calendar. This might be the tipping point where people realize that having a massive majority doesn't mean that the Democrats will get everything they want.

This might be the point where people understand that great ideas, communicated clearly and consistently, still matter.

Posted Friday, July 24, 2009 1:03 AM

Comment 1 by Ben Hartman at 24-Jul-09 08:19 AM

Magnificent blog written here regarding the lack of DEMOCRAT support for the healthcare bill. Very informative, and I give it incredible high praise. If you have the time, I would like to ask that you read my blog at hartmansright.blogspot.com. Thank you for your time,and I'll continue to read your posts.

Comment 2 by eric z at 26-Jul-09 08:24 AM

It is an interesting situation, Gary.

The Hartman comment seems to summarize your post in a nutshell.

The Blue Dogs and others have been induced to straddle the fence, and perhaps the finger-to-the-wind approach to decision making will cause this issue to still be prominent for the 2010 elections.

Do you think, Gary, that would be a good thing, making the 2010 elections in a way a mandate on what people prefer? On who they believe is proposing sounder solutions to healthcare reform?

Surely Obama has not been positioning the issue that way. He is suggesting alacrity in wrapping things up.

Is it Pelosi who'd make the 2010 elections yet another healthcare referendum, or the GOP and Blue Dogs? That's what I cannot answer.

Comment 3 by Gary Gross at 26-Jul-09 07:17 PM

Eric, If Democrats don't change their policies quickly, 2010 will be a very bad year for them politically.

To say that people are suspicious of their health care legislation is understatement. The Waxman-Markey bill is nothing more than a national energy tax. It's already been rejected by taxpayers.

People were expecting a quick jolt to the economy so that they hold onto their jobs or get hired into a new job. Instead, President Obama & Speaker Pelosi put a bill together with a $750 billion price tag that's mostly about paying off the Democrats' political allies.

What's worse than not having hope is not having hope, then having your hopes raised only to see that hope taken away again.

Gov. Pawlenty Takes the Gloves Off

Gov. Tim Pawlenty took the gloves off during his recent appearance on Neil Cavuto's program. Check out this video:

(H/T: Politico )

"This whole health care proposal by president Obama is really quite a joke on a number of levels," Pawlenty told Neil Cavuto. "I think he is scamming the American people. Even if you believe that it is only going to tax people over $1 million, what is known to happen is that is only going to cover about 25% of the total cost. the rest will be paid for by saving waste, fraud, and abuse. If you believe that, then I've got some January tee time in northern Minnesota."

What's particularly scary is that President Obama doesn't seem able to explain key provisions in his health care plan. At a time when people are looking for reassurance, it's disconcerting to see President Obama look like he's only capable of giving platitude-filled, detail-free speeches.

Picture Bill Clinton being put into that situation. It's easy to picture him being able to explain the details in the bill. Picture Tim Pawlenty in that situation. It's easy picturing him explaining the details of health care reform. Picture President Obama in that situation and you're likely to see a deer-in-the-healdlights type of look.

Bit by bit, people are noticing that President Obama is the pitchman to Speaker Pelosi's nuts-and-bolts person. That's why support for ObamaCare is eroding on a seemingly daily basis. People won't buy this product because they're worried that his administration isn't capable of running the program right.

Gov. Pawlenty's criticism just highlighted President Obama's inability to explain anything beyond the basics of health care reform. We should thank Gov. Pawlenty for pounding another nail in ObamaCare's coffin.

Posted Friday, July 24, 2009 7:57 AM

Comment 1 by eric z at 26-Jul-09 08:17 AM

If he does decline single payer preeminence in terms of wanting consensus, a mish-mosh will result that probably will be as ineffective as you suggest. I think that the public generally wants single payer, since it's worked and is the paragidm throughtout the civilized and industrialized world, from Germany to New Zealand; and that the public mood is dead set against foot dragging and weakening efforts against single payer in favor of the status quo of rapacious private insurers, the UnitedHealth-Lois Quom folks of our nation, who have been rationing access and procedures by intruding their bureaucratic paperwork and promotional expenses and excessive self-compensation between the patients and their doctors, and constraining decision making at that level to serve profiteering instead of patients and doctors interacting freely.

Get that snag out of the system, let the actual providers, the doctors and nurses have fair compensation, certainly, but get the insurance parasites off the body politic. That's the general public mood I perceive, and why people such as Col. Kline are soft peddling and dissembling over their positions on fixing the healthcare mess that the insurance industry has created over the years of too much bowing to their special interest lobbying.

You might disagree, and if so Gary, I would like to see the likes of UnitedHealth-Lois Quom profiteering by interposing bureaucratic constraints on the patient-physician relationship somehow cogently defended.

And I am less critical of the co-ops such as Group Health in Seattle and HealthPartners here, they have been somewhat progressive and innovative, but the insurers -- who will step up to the plate to argue convincingly that they've been at all good or helpful, and not simply parasitic on the process of doctors treating patients?

Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 26-Jul-09 03:00 PM

Eric, Poll after poll shows that there's little support for single-payer. That's as good as dead & buried.

I'm working on an exhaustive research post that'll chill people to the bone. The post talks about CER or comparative effectiveness research. Vesting that power in a government agency is downright scary. It's the embodiment of evil, IMO.

I'm upset with President Obama & congressional leaders railing against profit-making. Profit-making in health care means that people are making products that are making people's lives better. I prefer productivity & value over cheap prices 110% of the time.

Throwing away the highest quality health care for universal coverage & price controls is a foolish trade-off. NO THANKS!!!

If you want to fix our health insurance system, then I've got a suggestion for you.

Let's get rid of the gazillions of frivolous government mandates on what must be covered. Some are worthwhile. Most are sops to medical special interest groups.

Ridding the system of these mandates will reduce insurance premiums & health care costs.

Another thing that should be done is to encourage people who want insurance but who can't afford Cadillac coverage is directing them towards policies with modest deductibles that protect against catastrophic events.

Let's allow people to sit down with doctors so they can figure out what coverage they need & what coverage they don't.

I'm Right

Before President Obama's primetime snooze conference, I told the Lady Logician that President Obama's approval rating would drop as a result of it. This morning, Rasmussen published the proof :

Overall, 49% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the President's performance. Today marks the first time his overall approval rating has ever fallen below 50% among Likely Voters nationwide. Fifty-one percent (51%) disapprove.

That information is putting gray hairs on Democratic strategists' heads as we head towards the 2010 midterm elections. Unless the economy starts growing at a significant rate, they'll be heading into the election with an unpopular president tied around their necks and without a signature accomplishment to point towards.

By that time, Democrats will be distancing themselves from the stimulus bigtime. People already think it's a failure :

Confidence in the $787-billion economic stimulus plan proposed by President Obama and passed by Congress in February continues to fall.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that only 25% of U.S. voters now say the stimulus plan has helped the economy. That's a six-point drop from a month ago .

Every indicator is heading in the wrong direction for the Democrats. Everything points towards a difficult election for Democrats, thanks in part to President Obama's overreach, thanks in part to the Democrats' votes. Voters will vividly remember the votes for the failed stimulus bill and the national energy tax. Those votes won't be quickly forgotten.

Follow this link to read the Lady Logician's take on the latest polling. (Don't forget to let Cindy know what you think of her new design while you're there.)

If the health care bill is put online before the August recess, President Obama's poll numbers will continue trending down.

Posted Friday, July 24, 2009 2:28 PM

Comment 1 by eric z at 26-Jul-09 08:02 AM

Gary, do you have any ideas about how to get the economy back on track? Or do you see things as getting better on their own since Obama replaced Bush, independent of who is in the Whitehouse and what he does? I doubt that, since you have said a thing or two critical of the Obama approach -- so specifics about policy and actions would be good to hear instead of criticism of one approach without suggesting what would be a better one. Or is that unfair to ask?

Lindsey Graham: Utterly Clueless

Just when you thought Lindsey Graham couldn't say something more clueless, he says something utterly clueless in an interview with Politico :

In an interview with POLITICO Thursday, the South Carolina Republican defended his decision to back Sotomayor by laying out a broad critique of conservative activists who push "ideological purity" and refuse to cooperate with a Democratic Congress and White House.

"If we chase this attitude,that you have to say 'no' to every Democratic proposal, you can't help the president ever, you can't ever reach across the aisle, then I don't want to be part of the movement because it's a dead-end movement," Graham said.

"I have no desire to be up here in an irrelevant status. I'm smart enough to know that this country doesn't have a problem with conservatives. It has a problem with blind ideology. And those who are ideological-driven to a fault are never going to be able to take this party back into relevancy."

That's the type of blather why I consider Sen. Graham the most intellectually lazy Republican in the Senate. The strawman argument that there are significant numbers of conservatives who insist that Republicans reflexively say no to "every Democratic proposal" shows how little Sen. Graham understands about the underpinnings of conservatism.

Conservative activists aren't telling Graham to say no on the Sotomayor nomination just because it's a Democratic proposal. Conservative activists are telling Graham to vote aginst Sotomayor because she hasn't shown the proper respect for the Constitution, which means she'll vote her ideology more than she'll vote for liberty.

Why wouldn't Graham vote against a judge whose votes will have more to do with her ideological underpinnings than with the Constitution? Let's remember that Sen. Graham took an oath to protect and defend the Constitution. Shouldn't that oath be a code of honor, not just words that Sen. Graham mumbles so he can keep his membership in the elitist club of senators? Shouldn't they be words that you passionately fight for?

Sen. Graham bemoans the fact that "you can't ever reach across the aisle." I'd love hearing Sen. Graham explain what the halfway point between protecting and defending the Constitution vs. ignoring the Constitution.

That's we're better off without unprincipled politicians like Sen. Graham, Charlie Crist and Arlen Specter. I can deal with principled men that I disagree with because there's a rational starting point for a conversation. How do you build trust with someone that you don't know what they believe in from minute to minute? Why would you even try to build a trust with someone who's priorities are like shifting sand?

I disagreed with a number of things former Sen. Norm Coleman voted for. I enthusiastically supported him, though, because I knew he was a principled man who thought things through.

Sen. Graham said that "This country doesn't have a problem with conservatives. It has a problem with blind ideology." What he fails to understand is that unprincipled moderation is an ideology, too. In September, 2007, I wrote something called " Without a Vision, the People Perish ." Here's what I wrote then:

Part of why we got whipped in 2006 is because every other GOP commercial only talked about how America wouldn't like Nancy Pelosi's San Francisco values agenda. The GOP's message didn't inspire people to vote for GOP candidates. That's also why funds trickled into the RNC, the NRSC and the NRCC in 2006. People were fed up with Republicans who didn't act like Republicans. This year, the funds are trickling in again. The cure is in Republicans acting like Republicans. It's also about them not worrying about tailoring their message to appeal to moderates.

That last premise was proved right in 2008 when squishy John McCain picked Sarah Palin. People understood that she wouldn't tolerate corruption regardless of who the corrupt person was. They thrilled to the fact that she defeated corrupt members of her own party, then dealt with corrupt politicians on the opposite side of the aisle.

Most importantly, she had a vision for getting America going again.

Sen. Graham has been on my radar screen since the impeachment of President Clinton. In all that time, I've never detected a hint of a vision that Sen. Graham espouses.

Chris Chocola has it right:

Club for Growth president Chris Chocola says Graham "has it backwards."

"It's not about purity," he said. "It's about sticking to the fundamentals in order to build a sustainable majority. If you play a sport and you're not performing well, you don't say, "I have to try 10 new things." You ask, "What are the fundamentals I've forgotten about?" The same thing is true in politics. If you've had a few bad cycles, what are the fundamentals you're ignoring?"

That makes perfect sense. Joe Mauer had a rough patch prior to the All Star Game and the first couple games after. Thursday, Mauer was back to his old self, getting a couple hits, including his patented line sincle up the middle. Friday night, he hit home runs in his first two at-bats. His batting average is climbing because he's stopped trying to pull the ball too often. He's returned to Joe Mauer's fundamentals.

When Reagan won in 1984, he didn't get derailed from his principles. When Newt rode the revolution to the Speaker's chair in 1994, Republicans promised that they'd pass an appealing agenda. In both those elections, we didn't have a strategy for reaching out to moderates. We stood for time-tested principles, which moderates found appealing. It's time we returned to that.

It's time someone taught Sen. Graham a little bit about time-tested principles.

Posted Saturday, July 25, 2009 5:58 AM

Comment 1 by eric z at 26-Jul-09 07:58 AM

Gary three quick questions:

1- Who in the world is Charlie Crist? I never heard of him. He must not be too powerful a voice for whatever he is saying.

2- Is ideology the proper word? Would it be right to refer to Ron Paul's "ideology" or is it more Ron Paul's "world view?" I don't know what terminology to use, but over time the word "ideology" seems to have taken on negative contexts, such as "He'd not be goood, he's too ideological." As if pragmatic and ideological are incompatible. I would say Ron Paul's "ideology" is based on a pragmatic view of things. Is that making sense to you?

3- Chocola, isn't he the former Indiana Rep. who lost big time on a generally theocratic positioning, and had some staffers join the Bachmann staff at one point? Or am I thinking about someone else?

That'd Be Interesting

Gov. Rick Perry said that he'd challenge ObamaCare in federal court if it passes in its current form:

Gov. Rick Perry, raising the specter of a showdown with the Obama administration, suggested Thursday that he would consider invoking states' rights protections under the 10th Amendment to resist the president's healthcare plan, which he said would be "disastrous" for Texas.

Interviewed by conservative talk show host Mark Davis of Dallas' WBAP/820 AM, Perry said his first hope is that Congress will defeat the plan, which both Perry and Davis described as "Obama Care." But should it pass, Perry predicted that Texas and a "number" of states might resist the federal health mandate.

"I think you'll hear states and governors standing up and saying 'no' to this type of encroachment on the states with their healthcare," Perry said. "So my hope is that we never have to have that stand-up. But I'm certainly willing and ready for the fight if this administration continues to try to force their very expansive government philosophy down our collective throats."

Part of me wishes that this would get passed so that the Roberts Court would strike it down. Nonetheless, I'd rather it just got defeated outright so we wouldn't have to worry which direction Justice Kennedy would go.

Posted Saturday, July 25, 2009 9:51 PM

Comment 1 by eric z at 26-Jul-09 07:49 AM

Gary, do you see Rick Perry as having a national profile, presidential timber to sweep aside the Palins and Pawlentys to get a true conservative who's been CEO of a major state, not Alaska?

Or is he like a bank too big to fail, too important to the State of Texas for him to think of moving higher.

They did have one governor that went that route, but he had Dick Cheney to leaven things. Does Perry have such a strong Veep possibility, and political operatives like Rove?

Or do you see him as properly staying in Texas?

VP Whopper Teller Strikes Again

Vice President Biden's NYTimes' op-ed looks like something that White House speechwriters put together and that he signed his name to. What's clear is that this administration is short on understanding how economies work and long on using misleading statistics. Here's an example of them using misleading statistics:

SIX months ago, when President Obama and I took office, we were confronted with an economic crisis unparalleled in our lifetime. The nation was hemorrhaging more than 700,000 jobs a month, the housing market was in free fall, and the fate of the financial system hung in the balance. Credible economists were handicapping the probability of a depression.

First, the 700,000 job loss figure is a farce. We lost 681,000 jobs in December, 655,000 in January, 651,000 in February, 663,000 in March and 539,000 jobs in April. Where is Vice President Biden getting these numbers from? Does he think he can just make these statistics up and no one will notice?

It's a bit of a stretch to say that "the financial system hung in the balance." Not that it was in great shape but October of 2008 was when the financial system hung in the balance. By the time the Obama administration, things were improving but the path ahead was bumpy at best.

Here's another misleading statement:

The single largest part of the Recovery Act, more than one-third of it, is tax cuts: 95 percent of working Americans have seen their taxes go down as a result of the act.

I'd be charitable if I said that that's slight of hand. The "tax cuts" Vice President Biden is referring to are one time rebates. Tax cuts are permanent reductions in the marginal tax rates.

NOTE: Had this administration and the Democrat-controlled Congress cut taxes, the economy would likely have been performed better and the outlook would likely have been better.

The second-largest part, just under a third, is direct relief to state governments and individuals. The money is allowing state governments to avoid laying off teachers (14,000 in New York City alone), firefighters and police officers and preventing states' budget gaps from growing wider.

TRANSLATION: The second-largest part is money that allows states from owning the messes they created with overspending. Plus the money we sent them comes with heavy duty strings attached (cables really) that mandates states keep up this unsustainable rate of spending long after the one-time money disappears.

Saying that the money would've prevented the laying off of "teachers, firefighters and police officers" doesn't pass the laugh test. It's true that idiots like St. Paul Mayor Chris Coleman said that cutting LGA payments would've forced him to lay off police officers and firefighters. That's their choice but if cities refuse to set smart priorities, then that's their problem.

I will agree that state budget deficits would've grown wider without the stimulus money but that's only because too many states have Democrat-led legislatures with Democrat governors that reflexively say yes to their political allies' wish lists . (Sounds familiar, doesn't it?)

The bottom line is that two-thirds of the Recovery Act doesn't finance "programs," but goes directly to tax cuts, state governments and families in need, without red tape or delays.

Again, one-time tax rebates aren't tax cuts. They're mirages that disappear as quickly as they appeared. They don't spur economic growth. Another large chunk of money was sent to the states with the provision that states accepting that money are mandated to maintain spending at astronomical rates after the stimulus money disappears, meaning the states will have bigger deficits in the future than they had this year. How's that a benefit? A single step forward and two giant jumps back doesn't constitute a benefit. It constitutes a detriment. (Some might say it represents a nightmare but I digress.)

Polls show that the American people think that the stimulus has failed and that President Obama's handling of the economy hasn't been satisfactory. If he wants those impressions to change, he'll have to dramatically change policies. Swapping out this vice president wouldn't hurt, either.

Posted Sunday, July 26, 2009 2:12 PM

No comments.

It's Tough Being A Republican Right Now?

Sunday mornings at my house means the DVR is set for At Issue With Tom Hauser. I especially enjoy the In-Depth portion and the Face-Off portion of the show. This Sunday morning, the Democrat debating the topics was a leader of SEIU Local 526 (I think that's it but I'm not 100% certain.) Sarah Janacek represented Republicans during the In-Depth portion. Dave Thompson handled the Face-Off portion.

During the In-Depth portion, Ms. Janacek was asked if the trouble President Obama was having with health care was helping Republicans. Ms. Janacek said that it was, then said that it's tough being a Republican right now. I'll respectfully disagree with Sarah on that. Frankly, I think we're finally lifting ourselve out of the fog that's crippled us the last 2 election cycles.

Scott Rasmussen's polling says that conditions are improving for Republicans nationwide. Here's a sampling of what Rasmussen's polling showed recently:

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that voters trust the GOP more on economic issues 46% to 41%, showing little change from the six-point lead the party held last month. This is just the second time in over two years of polling the GOP has held the advantage on economic issues. The parties were close on the issue in May, with the Democrats holding a one-point lead.

That isn't the only good news from the polling:

Republican candidates lead Democrats for the second straight week in the latest edition of the Generic Congressional Ballot. A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey shows that 41% would vote for their district's Republican congressional candidate while 38% would choose the Democratic candidate. Support for the GOP remains unchanged this week, at its highest level over the past year, but support for Democrats dropped one point to tie its lowest level in the same time period.

My point isn't to beat up on Sarah Janacek. Rather, my point is to say that things are swinging away from Democrats and towards Republicans. Let's remember what's happening in Ohio:

Strickland's approval rating has plummeted by 11 points in the last two months and Ohioans now give him a thumbs down on the way he is performing his job, including that he has failed to keep his campaign promises, according to a poll released this morning by the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute.

A new Quinnipiac poll shows President Obama's approval rating has dropped 13 points over the last two months in Ohio, a key battleground state with plenty of critical Congressional contests in 2010.

Obama now only holds a 49 percent approval rating, with 44 percent of voters disapproving. It's his lowest approval rating in any Quinnipiac statewide poll taken since Obama's inauguration. In May, Obama held a 62 percent approval rating in the Buckeye state.

Meanwhile, a 48 percent plurality of Ohio voters disapprove of the way Obama is handling the economy, with 46 percent approving. Two-thirds of Ohio voters are dissatisfied with the way things are going in the state.

"The economy in Ohio is as bad as anywhere in America. These numbers indicate that for the first time voters have decided that President Barack Obama bears some responsibility for their problems," said Quinnipiac pollster Peter Brown.

Tea Party events are still drawing big crowds. People trust Republicans more than Democrats on 8 of the top 10 issues. People are questioning the Democrats' policies, especially health care and the stimulus bill/economy.

If anyone should be worried right now, it's Democrats. They're dealing with an increasingly unpopular president. They're on the wrong side of the most important issues of the day. People adamantly oppose tax increases and major changes to our economy.

People are resistent to change in the best of times. Making transformational changes in difficult economic times is an uphill battle at best. Combine that with growing voter distrust for the people proposing these changes and it's more like climbing Everest in jeans, a hooded sweatshirt and tennis shoes.

I'd strongly encourage Sarah Janacek to attend a tea party soon to get a feel for the crowd's intensity and optimism. In fact, as a goodwill gesture, I'm inviting Ms. Janacek to St. Cloud for our next tea party.

Posted Monday, July 27, 2009 12:41 AM

Comment 1 by Brent Metzler at 27-Jul-09 07:22 AM

It still remains to see if those tea party "supporters" will translate into actual votes for Republican candidates, or just Hot Air.

Comment 2 by Margaret at 27-Jul-09 08:49 AM

It's not hot air but the Tea Party is a movement and is as likely to produce supporters for independent and third party candidates as it is for Republicans, if Republicans don't recruit candidates that appeal to their concerns. It's pretty clear that this started as an anti-incumbent movement and even Republican incumbents need to court this group or risk being labeled as RINOs and getting challenged.

Comment 3 by Brent Metzler at 27-Jul-09 11:13 AM

Exactly my point. Even though the Tea Parties "seem" large, they are relatively tiny in comparison to overall voter turnout. If they are going to splinter up and vote for a random selection of Republicans, Democrats, independent and 3rd party candidates, it will be hard to see them having any influence in defeating Democrats.

Sure, the crowds may be optimistic and enthusiastic, but if that energy doesn't get funneled into productive results, they are going to disappointed and frustrated.

Despite the polls, Janacek is undoubtedly right, it is a difficult time to be a Republican now. There is no evidence that positive polling for Republicans now will result in victories for Republican candidates next year, not even considering effect of the tea parties.

There is no evidence that Democrats should be worried now, no evidence that there is a real "anti-incumbent" wave yet, and no evidence that voters will turn away from Democrat policies any more than they did in 2006 and 2008.

Comment 4 by Gary Gross at 27-Jul-09 12:41 PM

On Sept. 12, we're holding a 9/12 Tea Party in St. Cloud if we get the permit. Here's the motto we'll use for the Tea Party:

From Awareness to Action to Victory

The Tax Day Tea Parties were mostly about making people aware of the things Democrats are doing to ruin the country. This Tea Party will move beyond that to helping people plug into the GOP so they can be part of the recruitment & endorsement of candidates who share their values.

Give me credit for thinking this stuff through. I won't leave it to chance that people will just automatically flock to the GOP.

Brent, saying that there's "no evidence that Democrats should be worried now" is stupid. People who disagree with the Democrats' policies on 8 of the 10 most important issues of the day isn't evidence that they're on the wrong side of things? That's insulting.

The fact that Democrats led on the generic ballot question from 2005 through March 2009, often by substantial margins has now disappeared isn't proof that things have changed? Perhaps the fact that Republicans have lead Democrats the last 3 weeks says that things are changing.

The fact that a majority of people don't trust President Obama or the Democratic Party on the economy, the deficit & health care reform by outside-the-margin-of-error margins doesn't suggest anything to you?

News Flash: Lefties Hate Profitable Companies

Sorry for the sarcastic title but I couldn't resist highlighting something that's becoming increasingly obvious. Last week, President Obama talked about greedy pediatricians that treat a child's sore throat by taking that child's tonsils because it's a lucrative operation that they can cash in on. (Let's ignore the fact that pediatricians usually aren't surgeons.) Further proof is offered by this LTE in this morning's St. Cloud Times. Here's what the writer said about insurance companies:

We would all agree access to health care for everyone is a good idea, even a great idea. We all need to support this effort in every way possible. Doesn't this make good sense? So what is all the debate about?

It's all about insurance companies not being able to compete with a government-sponsored program. Why can't they compete? They want to charge you twice as much for care than it costs to provide it.

This guy is either an idiot or he's deceitful. They can't compete because the government doesn't have to make profits. Instead of making a profit, the government can either 'pay for' health care by passing on debt to future generations of taxpayers or they can have Congress strong-arm small businesses and working families with higher taxes. Or they can accumulate debt AND raise taxes.

If you're thinking that this sounds like a rigged contest, congratulations. You've figured out Control-Freak-In-Chief's strategy. His plan isn't to cover everybody. It's to control everybody.

If you're thinking President Obama wants to give Cadillac coverage to 46,000,000 uninsured, let's toss some statistics at you. President Obama wants to cut Medicare by $500,000,000,000 between today and 2019. At the end of 2019, it's projected that there will be 30% more people on Medicare than there is now. Already, doctors and hospitals are losing money on Medicare patients.

There's few options on how they can achieve all this. One option is to let doctors and hospitals go broke. Another option is to guarantee insurance but refuse certain treatments. Still another option is to tell a patient with arthritis in her hip that Medicare refuses to pay for her hip replacement because she's too expensive according to Medicare's cost-benefit analysis.

SIDENOTE: If insurance companies refuse to pay for something up front, people can look for another insurance company. If the government is the only game in town, that person is stuck. They either have to pay for the surgery or treatment out of pocket or they're stuck living with the pain. Or they're left to die. The good news if they let you die is that they'll give you plenty of morphine to mask the pain until you die.

It's also important to note that government mandates drive up costs far more than supposedly greedy health insurance companies. If Congress got rid of the vast majority of mandates, the insurance companies' costs would come down and more important treatment could be paid for.

Another consideration in this fight is whether we want supposedly greedy insurance companies raking in obscene profits or if we want the federal government creating thousands of new bureaucratic jobs :

The health care reform plan proposed by House Democrats would create at least a dozen new federal programs, boards and task forces, contributing to the proposal's hefty price tag that has drawn criticism from Congress' official scorekeeper.

Democrats say the bureaucratic infrastructure is necessary to administer the expansion of health care benefits to the tens of millions of uninsured Americans while creating more competition for private insurers to drive down out-of-control costs.

Let's think about this a bit.

"Bureaucratic infrastructure" is needed to "administer the expansion of health care benefits."

Whatever happened to the argument that "just 2% of each health care dollar" sent to the federal government is overhead vs. 20% of each dollar sent to supposedly greedy insurance companies is spent on overhead? How can Democratic politicians say with a straight face that the 2% statistic is still accurate after adding all these new programs, boards and task forces? Is it that Democrats won't count these as overhead costs?

QUESTION FOR DEMOCRATS: Why is it evil for private insurance companies to make profits but it's fine for government to exponentially expand government and raise taxes?

I think people are noticing that Democrats are downright hostile to corporate profits. The more people notice the Democrats' hostility towards capitalists, the more hostility there will be with them because people are smart enough to know that their wages, and potential promotions, are tied to their companies' profits.

Posted Monday, July 27, 2009 7:30 AM

No comments.

Cost vs. Price

Yesterday, Dave Thompson made a great argument about the inherent flaws in the Democrats' plan when he explained the difference between lowering the price of health care and lowering the cost of health care.

The way Dave made his case is that he highlighted the fact that prices would drop if Congress passed a law that set the maximum price of a gallon of gas at $1 a gallon. He rightly said that the maximum price of a gallon of gas would drop to $1 a gallon but that wouldn't mean that the cost of a gallon of gas would drop a penny .

In a capitalist society, which President Obama appears determined to change, operating at a loss can't be sustained very long. I'd suggest, in that environment, oil company executives would shut down production rather than attempting to produce oil at a loss.

Dave also argued that we should eliminate the vast majority of government mandates for health insurers and health care providers. His DFL opponent argued that we need regulation, which is true to an extent. I'd argue, though, that mandates and regulations aren't the same as oversight.

Regulating something simply means that government is setting the law by what health insurance companies and health care providers can do. Oversight by properly informed legislators can actually ask health care providers about adherence to or development of best practices. All the regulation in the world won't inspire consistently developing new best practices. Rigorous oversight potentially can inspire developing new best practices.

What government bureaucrat tucked away in the recesses of the HHS building spends time rigorously questioning best practices? I'd bet none. If a legislator is told by his constituents that constant oversight of health care best practices was a priority, it's a good bet that they'd get that legislator's undivided attention pretty quickly. If the legislator didn't take their demands seriously, the people could remove that legislator at the next election.

BTW, rigorous oversight of best practices means health care consumers would get the greatest value for their health care dollars, something that everyone thinks is important.

UPDATE: Welcome to HotAir readers. I'm all over the health care reform issues on a daily basis. I'm working on another post that will give everyone serious pause about the reforms.

Posted Monday, July 27, 2009 12:57 PM

Comment 1 by Walter Hanson at 27-Jul-09 08:30 PM

Gary:

I heard this thing called Lasix surgery. Doctors do commercials for them wanting people to do it. Over the years price has come down.

I wonder why. I suppose it has nothing to do with the fact that this isn't mandated in health coverage unlike a million other things.

Walter Hanson

Minneapolis, MN

Search This Blog

LFR 15 YEARS!