A new President nearly always gets what he wants on his top legislative priority, especially when he has such big majorities in Congress to work with. Republicans nonetheless managed to keep their Members together, turn public opinion against the bill despite nearly unanimous media support for it, and in the end came a few votes short. They would have won if Mr. Obama and Nancy Pelosi hadn't been so willing to put so many of their Members at risk by pushing a partisan program and flouting normal Congressional rules.
The GOP's goal now should first be to remove some of the uglier parts of the bill in Senate reconciliation. Then they need to focus on taking back as many seats as possible this fall. Rather than publicly crowing that ObamaCare will deliver them the House—a hard task and a risky expectations game—they'd do better to concentrate on continuing to educate the public about what ObamaCare is going to do to insurance premiums, federal deficits, taxes and the quality of medical care.
Many Republicans are already calling for "repeal" of ObamaCare, and that's fine with us, though they should also be honest with voters about the prospects. The GOP can't repeal anything as long as Mr. Obama is President, even if they take back Congress in November. That will take two large electoral victories in a row. What they can do now is take credit for fighting on principle, hold Democrats accountable for their votes and the consequences, and pledge if elected in November to stop cold Mr. Obama's march to ever-larger government.
The ruthless and corrupt way this bill was forced through Congress on a party-line vote, and in defiance of public opinion, provides a road map for how other "historic" changes can be imposed by Obama, Pelosi and Reid.
What will it matter if Obama's current approval rating is below 50 percent among the current voting public, if he can ram through new legislation to create millions of new voters by granting citizenship to illegal immigrants? That can be enough to make him a two-term President, who can appoint enough Supreme Court justices to rubber-stamp further extensions of his power.
When all these newly minted citizens are rounded up on election night by ethnic organization activists and labor union supporters of the administration, that may be enough to salvage the Democrats' control of Congress as well.
The last opportunity that current American citizens may have to determine who will control Congress may well be the election in November of this year. Off-year elections don't usually bring out as many voters as Presidential election years. But the 2010 election may be the last chance to halt the dismantling of America. It can be the point of no return.
President Obama has crossed the Rubicon with the health care vote. The bill was not really about medicine; after all, a moderately priced, relatively small federal program could offer the poorer not now insured, presently not on Medicare or state programs like Medicaid or Medical, a basic medical plan. . . .
No, instead, the bill was about assuming a massive portion of the private sector, hiring tens of thousands of loyal, compliant new employees, staffing new departments with new technocrats, and feeling wonderful that we "are leveling the playing field" and have achieved another Civil Rights landmark law. . . .
[W]e are in revolutionary times in which the government will grow to assume everything from energy use to student loans, while abroad we are a revolutionary sort of power, eager to mend fences with Syria and Iran, more eager still to distance ourselves from old Western allies like Israel and Britain.
There won't be any more soaring rhetoric from Obama about purple-state America, "reaching across the aisle," or healing our wounds. That was so 2008. Instead, we are in the most partisan age since Vietnam, ushered into it by the self-acclaimed "non-partisan."
Gen. David H. Petraeus, the face of the Iraq troop surge and a favorite of former President George W. Bush, spoke up or was called upon by President Obama “several times” during the big Afghanistan strategy session in the Situation Room last week, one participant says, and will be back for two more meetings this week.
But the general’s closest associates say that underneath the surface of good relations, the celebrity commander faces a new reality in Mr. Obama’s White House: He is still at the table, but in a very different seat.
No longer does the man who oversees the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have one of the biggest voices at National Security Council meetings, as he did when Mr. Bush gave him 20 minutes during hourlong weekly sessions to present his views in live video feeds from Baghdad. No longer is the general, with the Capitol Hill contacts and web of e-mail relationships throughout Washington’s journalism establishment, testifying in media explosions before Congress, as he did in September 2007, when he gave 34 interviews in three days.
The change has fueled speculation in Washington about whether General Petraeus might seek the presidency in 2012. His advisers say that it is absurd — but in immediate policy terms, it means there is one less visible advocate for the military in the administration’s debate over whether to send up to 40,000 additional troops to Afghanistan.
The turning of the years can be cruel, and it is sad to lose men like Bill Safire, Robert Bartley, William F. Buckley Jr., Robert Novak, Irving Kristol, Milton Friedman, Jack Kemp and others who did so much to rescue America from the failures of the 1960s and malaise of the 1970s. Yet one reason we note their deaths is the great success they had in life. As Safire would have urged, our obligation is to stop grieving and return cheerfully to the barricades.
Former GOP Veep candidate Sarah Palin made her first speech abroad at one of Asia's largest annual investment conferences in Hong Kong today. The event was carefully hyped and stage-managed by the hosts, French-owned brokerage house CLSA Asia-Pacific Markets, with no press allowed into the venue. Even conference participants had to be "on the list" and show ID to get into the speech. (Local media were so keen to get the story that they staked out the Grand Hyatt hotel, frantically calling anyone in town with Republican Party connections.)
Nonetheless, in good Hong Kong-style, someone managed to sneak a recording device into the room and the transcript leaked.
The 80-minute talk was a broad affair, touching on everything from Alaska and trade protectionism to U.S. relations with China. The former governor took a realist's view of the authoritarian regime, calling for cautious engagement. "We can, must, should work with a 'rising China' to address issues of mutual concern," she said. "But we also need to work with our allies in addressing the uncertainties created by China's rise."
Unlike the Obama Administration, which has pandered to China's unelected leaders, downplayed human rights and snubbed the Dalai Lama, she spoke out strongly in support of China's democrats. Mrs. Palin also took a swipe at the Obama White House's trade policies, noting: "We want an Asia open to our goods and services." She labeled the White House-approved tariffs against Chinese-made tires "a mistake" and called on Congress to get the South Korea free trade agreement passed.
CLSA was thrilled by the speech, which brought the brokerage more press in a day than it's received in a year. In the French spirit of egalite, the closing night's entertainment will be left-wing icon Sheryl Crow.
I read Obama's editorial this morning on health care in the NY Times. A few things jumped out at me because they seemed incredible. I don't completely understand the issue nor do I pretend to; however, I did learn a thing or two in school along with everyone else who took Econ 110 and they could shoot holes through his argument as easily as I could.[ed. note: Branden, this is what you get for reading the NYT Op-Ed page.]
First, it's obvious that the President is putting the majority of his effort into demonizing insurance companies. For those who have read Atlas Shrugged, it is phenomenal how similar his language is to the looters in Rand's book. I am not saying that insurance companies are perfect entities or that Rand's philosophy is even mostly correct. It just blew me away that he was lifting their language so exactly:...in unwarranted subsidies to insurance companies that do nothing to improve care and everything to improve their profits.Secondly, take a few moments and read the following paragraph, think for a bit, and then tell me why this will not work.
...we’ll be able to ensure that more tax dollars go directly to caring for seniors instead of enriching insurance companies.
...reform will provide every American with some basic consumer protections that will finally hold insurance companies accountable.
...A 2007 national survey actually shows that insurance companies discriminated against more than 12 million AmericansWe will put an end to these practices. Our reform will prohibit insurance companies from denying coverage because of your medical history. Nor will they be allowed to drop your coverage if you get sick. They will not be able to water down your coverage when you need it most. They will no longer be able to place some arbitrary cap on the amount of coverage you can receive in a given year or in a lifetime. And we will place a limit on how much you can be charged for out-of-pocket expenses.Again, I understand that there are real people affected by the problems he outlined above. That said, what does he think is going to happen to the insurance premiums for everyone (including those that are sick) if companies are required to turn a blind eye to just about everything they use now in determine (insurance) premiums? He doesn't even acknowledge that your premiums are going to at least double and possibly triple or quadruple. At that point, the government will then step in and say that insurance companies can't raise premiums (as it was in Atlas). Insurance companies will then go bankrupt and the government will conveniently step in with their fixed plan, paid for with your tax dollars.
Finally, what does this last sentence mean?If you have health insurance, we will make sure that no insurance company or government bureaucrat gets between you and the care you need.The first "we" is Obama, a government bureaucrat. We could rewrite that to say:If you have health insurance, we [government bureaucrats] will make sure that no insurance company or government bureaucrat gets between you and the care you need.I don't normally do these sorts of rants but I could not believe that the President peddled these fallacies so blatantly in the morning newspaper.
In the last session of Congress, Democrats tried to: Raise the notice period required for certain layoffs at private companies to 90 days, extend health benefits for laid-off workers for up to a decade, and increase penalties for noncompliance (the expanded WARN Act); reclassify certain managers as employees who can be unionized, forcibly in non-right-to-work states (the Respect Act); facilitate class action suits for alleged gender-based pay discrimination (Paycheck Fairness Act); and much more. None passed, but now they might.In case you think it can't happen here, well, it can.In the Obama revolution, unions are the vanguard force. Contrary to promises of moderation, the Administration has so far sided firmly with the union left. On the day after the Inauguration, the Department of Labor stopped the implementation of new union financial disclosure rules that provide greater transparency about union finances. A fortnight on the job, President Obama issued four executive orders, on federal contracting and political spending, demanded by Big Labor. Mr. Obama this month endorsed card check and vowed that it "will pass."
If you read the top 5-10 opinion pieces on today's WSJ website you will realize that the leadership in our government right now SUCKS. I can't capitalize that word enough. It is unbelievable. Why could we not elect a group of real men to lead this country and not a bunch of slimy, spineless, uneducated losers that seem to occupy every power wielding position within our government? It is just unbelievable. Who were the people that decided that Frank, Pelosi, and Dodd had the capacity to do anything? I would not trust them to clean my house. I am just beside myself with this whole mess. I mean these people seem to be hell-bent on running the most successful economy of all time into the ground. Please tell me. How is it not obvious to EVERYONE right now that all of these people are incompetent and doing the exact opposite of anything that would make sense. It is hard to believe that the Dow is above 4K. How is it not obvious to again EVERYONE that Obama and Co. have not done a single thing that would be beneficial to our economy. I mean if you asked economists what would be the top ten things you could do to ruin the economy Obama has done 1-8 and is actively trying to cross off 9 and 10 (protectionism and strengthen unions).It's gotten so bad, even the NYT is writing op-eds (I'm loathe to link them, but oh well) urging the President to avoid the protectionist elements of his party. And the Unions are going to keep fighting.
What's worse than working in a sweatshop? Try living in a dump. Mr. Obama and the Democrats who favor labor standards in trade agreements mean well, for they intend to fight back at oppressive sweatshops abroad. But while it shocks Americans to hear it, the central challenge in the poorest countries is not that sweatshops exploit too many people, but that they don’t exploit enough.Meanwhile, the self-congratulatory do-gooders protesting in London & elsewhere pressure policy makers to keep these jobs--which people choose to do--away from those who most need them.Talk to these families in the dump, and a job in a sweatshop is a cherished dream, an escalator out of poverty, the kind of gauzy if probably unrealistic ambition that parents everywhere often have for their children.
“I’d love to get a job in a factory,” said Pim Srey Rath, a 19-year-old woman scavenging for plastic. “At least that work is in the shade. Here is where it’s hot.”
Another woman, Vath Sam Oeun, hopes her 10-year-old boy, scavenging beside her, grows up to get a factory job, partly because she has seen other children run over by garbage trucks. Her boy has never been to a doctor or a dentist, and last bathed when he was 2, so a sweatshop job by comparison would be far more pleasant and less dangerous.
Consider first an op-ed article in Sunday’s Los Angeles Times by Martha Nussbaum, a well-known professor of law and ethics at the University of Chicago. The article was headlined “Terrorism in India has many faces.” But one face that Nussbaum fails to mention specifically is that of Lashkar-e-Taiba, the Islamic terror group originating in Pakistan that seems to have been centrally involved in the attack on Mumbai.(emphasis added)This is because Nussbaum’s main concern is not explaining or curbing Islamic terror. Rather, she writes that “if, as now seems likely, last week’s terrible events in Mumbai were the work of Islamic terrorists, that’s more bad news for India’s minority Muslim population.” She deplores past acts of Hindu terror against India’s Muslims. She worries about Muslim youths being rounded up on suspicion of terrorism with little or no evidence. And she notes that this is “an analogue to the current ugly phenomenon of racial profiling in the United States.”
So jihadists kill innocents in Mumbai — and Nussbaum ends up decrying racial profiling here. Is it just that liberal academics are required to include some alleged ugly American phenomenon in everything they write?
It has been my view that the steady secularizing and insistent effort at dereligioning America has been dangerous. That danger flashed red in the fall into subprime personal behavior by borrowers and bankers, who after all are just people. Northerners and atheists who vilify Southern evangelicals are throwing out nurturers of useful virtue with the bathwater of obnoxious political opinions.Read the whole article. I'll take Dan Henninger over Tom Friedman every day of the week and twice on Sundays.The point for a healthy society of commerce and politics is not that religion saves, but that it keeps most of the players inside the chalk lines. We are erasing the chalk lines.
This is up there with saying that ol' bi/post-partisan-Obama is governing from the "center-right" because he nominated Hillary Clinton--friend of conservative-Republicans everywhere--as Secretary of State. (thanks to Morgan H. for the image)Reads the Washington Post headline: Obama Sets Expansive Goal for Jobs - Plan Aims to Create or Save 2.5 Million Positions by 2011
Has the WaPo turned into the Onion? How can they put something like that on the front page ... and keep a straight face? Could you imagine if President Bush had made such a claim? Yeah.
If you thought the media's inthetankedness for Obama would end with the election, think again: They got him there, now they aim to keep him there for 8 years (or longer, Obama willing).
If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.
Among the many wonders to be expected from an Obama administration, if Nicholas D. Kristof of the New York Times is to be believed, is ending “the anti-intellectualism that has long been a strain in American life.”(emphasis added)
He cited Adlai Stevenson, the suave and debonair governor of Illinois, who twice ran for president against Eisenhower in the 1950s, as an example of an intellectual in politics.
Intellectuals, according to Mr. Kristof, are people who are “interested in ideas and comfortable with complexity,” people who “read the classics.”
It is hard to know whether to laugh or cry.
Adlai Stevenson was certainly regarded as an intellectual by intellectuals in the 1950s. But, half a century later, facts paint a very different picture.
Historian Michael Beschloss, among others, has noted that Stevenson “could go quite happily for months or years without picking up a book.” But Stevenson had the airs of an intellectual — the form, rather than the substance.
What is more telling, form was enough to impress the intellectuals, not only then but even now, years after the facts have been revealed, though apparently not to Mr. Kristof.
That is one of many reasons why intellectuals are not taken as seriously by others as they take themselves.
As for reading the classics, President Harry Truman, whom no one thought of as an intellectual, was a voracious reader of heavyweight stuff like Thucydides and read Cicero in the original Latin. When Chief Justice Carl Vinson quoted in Latin, Truman was able to correct him.
Yet intellectuals tended to think of the unpretentious and plain-spoken Truman as little more than a country bumpkin.
Similarly, no one ever thought of President Calvin Coolidge as an intellectual. Yet Coolidge also read the classics in the White House. He read both Latin and Greek, and read Dante in the original Italian, since he spoke several languages. It was said that the taciturn Coolidge could be silent in five different languages.
The intellectual levels of politicians are just one of the many things that intellectuals have grossly misjudged for years on end.
During the 1930s, some of the leading intellectuals in America condemned our economic system and pointed to the centrally planned Soviet economy as a model — all this at a time when literally millions of people were starving to death in the Soviet Union, from a famine in a country with some of the richest farmland in Europe and historically a large exporter of food.
New York Times Moscow correspondent Walter Duranty won a Pulitzer Prize for telling the intelligentsia what they wanted to hear — that claims of starvation in the Ukraine were false.
After British journalist Malcolm Muggeridge reported from the Ukraine on the massive deaths from starvation there, he was ostracized after returning to England and unable to find a job.
More than half a century later, when the archives of the Soviet Union were finally opened up under Mikhail Gorbachev, it turned out that about six million people had died in that famine — about the same number as the people killed in Hitler’s Holocaust.
In the 1930s, it was the intellectuals who pooh-poohed the dangers from the rise of Hitler and urged Western disarmament.
It would be no feat to fill a big book with all the things on which intellectuals were grossly mistaken, just in the 20th century — far more so than ordinary people.
History fully vindicates the late William F. Buckley’s view that he would rather be ruled by people represented by the first 100 names in the Boston phone book than by the faculty of Harvard.
How have intellectuals managed to be so wrong, so often? By thinking that because they are knowledgeable — or even expert — within some narrow band out of the vast spectrum of human concerns, that makes them wise guides to the masses and to the rulers of the nation.
But the ignorance of Ph.D.s is still ignorance and high-IQ groupthink is still groupthink, which is the antithesis of real thinking.
Looks like Obama picked Ari Emmanuel's brother to be his Chief of Staff. In case you didn't know, Ari Emmanuel is the founder of Endeavor, a well known agency here in LA. Ari Emmanuel reps Marky Mark among others Ari/Endeavor is who and what Ari Gold and his agency on Entourage is/are rumored to be based on. I can't imagine what Yom Kippur gatherings must be like in that family. Especially if they play a "friendly" game of Monopoly or Acqui[re].Now, imagine Ari Gold running the White House. Good times.
Here's the rub: I don't care for Paul Krugman or his view of the world as found in his NYT columns. I'd like to be able to separate his work on economics from his much publicized opinions, but I don't think it's impossible.Paul Krugman, a professor at Princeton University and an Op-Ed page columnist for The New York Times, was awarded the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences on Monday.
-- The New York Times, Oct. 13
THE NEW YORK TIMESKrugman Awarded Economics Nobel Prize
In Unprecedented Times Sweep of HonorsBy R. Selig Postlethwaite
Stockholm —The Nobel prizes have yielded some strange bedfellows in the century since Alfred Nobel’s invention of dynamite, but scholars here in the Swedish capital agree that there has never been anything like this year’s list of honorees: All of them are New York Times Op-Ed page columnists.
This virtual grand slam home run of the world’s most prestigious award was made possible by the announcement last night that Op-Ed columnist Paul Krugman had won the Economics prize for, in the words of the Nobel Committee, “having shown the effects of economies of scale on trade patterns and the unrelenting lies and thuggery of the miscreants and goons in the criminal conspiracy that is the Bush White House.”
Krugman now joins New York Times colleagues Thomas Friedman (Peace), Frank Rich (Physics), Gail Collins (Chemistry), Maureen Dowd (Literature) and Bob Herbert (Medicine) as newly-minted Nobel laureates for 2008. According to the Nobel Foundation web site, this is the first time in the award’s history that journalists have won all six prizes; but that is not surprising, according to Foundation president Axel Hjergstrand, since “the mission of journalists is to afflict the comfortable and comfort the afflicted.”
Last week Maureen Dowd was awarded the Literature prize for her “unrelentingly sophomoric puns, schoolyard nicknames, and laser-like instinct for the superficial” while Gail Collins snared the Chemistry honors for “the explosive effect achieved by her combination of banality and short-term memory.”
Late last month the Nobel Committee bestowed its Physics prize on Frank Rich for “his pioneering work in demonstrating the parallels between American foreign policy and selected episodes of T.J. Hooker, as well as the relationship between U.S. transportation policy and the old Jerry Van Dyke sitcom, My Mother the Car.” The Medicine award went to Bob Herbert for what the committee called the “soothing sensation of his awkward prose, as well as the demonstrated therapeutic effect of the laughter his columns frequently inspire.”
Among colleagues and Nobel observers, there is widespread agreement that the Peace Prize for two-time Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist Thomas Friedman is long overdue, especially since, in the Norwegian Nobel committee’s citation, Friedman’s “lifetime of service to conventional wisdom, gross simplification, and mass hysteria has benefited countless executive retreats, Aspen Institute panels, and roundtable discussions on Charlie Rose.”
Liberal Media Bias 'Evidence' McCain Is LosingPoint to the polls, if you like, but don't point to the loss of respect by some idiot lib as evidence of why McCain is doing poorly. If the media ever liked McCain before, it was because he so often went against his own party, which they despised. Now that he stands in the path of their Chosen One, he reaps their derision and hate just like all the rest of us narrow-minded conservatives.
International Herald Tribune Website Joins Dinosaurs
More of the Same: NYT Does a Hatchet Job on McCain Campaign
Two liberal groups – one of them directed by a brother of the Democratic Party chairman Howard Dean – will begin running a graphic attack advertisement Thursday morning raising questions about Senator John McCain’s health. Showing vivid and unflattering images of the fresh scar that appeared on Senator McCain’s face immediately after his last operation for melanoma skin cancer eight years agoTo their credit, CNN refused to air the ad:
[...]
Brave New PAC and Democracy for America, said they were only showing the spot initially on MSNBC over the next few days, a limited run intended to draw news media attention on a network that has increasingly catered to liberal tastes.What else are these guys responsible for?
[...]
Leighton Akio Woodhouse, a spokesman for Brave New PAC, said late Wednesday that CNN declined to accept the commercial after reviewing its contents this week.
The ad comes from the same two groups that recently released an advertisement questioning whether Mr. McCain’s time as a prisoner of war in Vietnam adversely affected his ability to lead.This is exactly the type of ad that would appeal to, you guessed it, the twentysomething hipsters who already support Barack Obama. To them, old people are gross and The Man and if you don't (can't?) use a computer, well, what the hell is wrong with you?(!)
