Obama has now declared that critcs of his terrorism policies are serving the interests of Al Queda. Isn’t that fear-mongering, Mr. President? Isn’t that silencing dissent? Isn’t that questioning the patriotism of the opposing party? ISN’T THAT EXACTLY WHAT YOU SPENT EIGHT YEARS ACCUSING BUSH OF?
Author Archive
Michelle Malkin suggests that Republicans should avoid the open-camera discussion with Obama about health care. She suggests that they’re just opening themselves up to being cast as the villains in an Obama-run theatrical event.
I disagree.
I think there’s no good that would come from rebuffing Obama’s overtures, regardless of how insincere we believe them to be. For one thing, that will just get the Republicans branded as blind obstructionists, with no way to counter that opinion.
More importantly, though, where Obama goes, so go the cameras. The Republicans have submitted, over the past year, at least three health care bills that have gotten no exposure. Congressional Democrats have buried them, and the media hasn’t even had the courtesy to attend the funeral. To run an obituary for non-Obama health care reform would be to acknowledge that the deceased existed at all.
Beyond that, however, it allows the Republicans to make their case and force the Democrats to defend mandates, union favors, and denying mammograms to women. Republicans can push the issue and show America that there is a clear reason Republicans have been opposing Obamacare for so long and that not only do we have the answers, but the Democrats do not.
Did I mention that it would give us a chance to show that we have the answers? Good, just making sure.
We have the initiative in this debate; it would be folly not to pursue it.
That being said, the Republicans are going to have to do two things in order to pull this off.
First, they’re going to have to find someone in that gaggle of politicians who understands the issues and the issues behind the issues, and who can step up and be the voice of the party. He should be someone who is unashamed of the free-market concept of health care, an advocate of liberty, and eloquent. Unfortunately, Dr. Thomas Sowell doesn’t hold elected office, so we’ll have to find someone else.
Second, the Republicans will need to find a stage manager – someone who can take on Rahm Emanuel, head-to-head, and keep the Republicans from being hamstrung by absurd rules that give Obama all the stage time, and relegate the Republicans to ten seconds of rebuttal following a ten-hour Obama speech (with or without teleprompter – by the sixth hour, does its presence even matter anymore?). This someone’s sole job is to make sure it’s a fair fight for a change. Karl Rove, are you out there?
Tags: Health Care
19
Jan
Brown Teabags Coakley
What are the important things to take away from tonight?
1) A well-sold conservative message can work, even in Ted Kennedy’s home town. While it may be that Scott Brown isn’t the most solid conservative out there, his message and campaign were pure Reagan.
2) Standing up for yourself works. Brown refused to allow his opponents to define him or frame the issues. He publicly called them on their antics. Shades of Reagan’s “there they go again.”
3) If Massachusetts isn’t safe, NOWHERE is safe. And, tomorrow, every citizen needs to call their senators and congressmen to make sure they know that. If Obamacare can topple Massachusetts, then Virginia can’t be far behind… Sen. Warner… Sen. Webb?
4) Obamacare is Pyrrhic… and it hasn’t even passed yet. Wait until the taxes start in. If, as many are expecting, the House rolls over and passes the Senate version of the bill, several election cycles will pass between when we start paying more and when people can pull up to the public teat.
5) It helps to do a nude spread in Cosmo. At the very least, that should keep Newt off the radar.
A lot of noise has been made regarding the AIG bonuses. Obama has expressed his outrage. Congress has weighed in. AIG executives have been harassed in their own homes. So, is there cause for outrage?
Indeed there is, Virginia, indeed there is. However, it may not be directed at who everyone assumes.
As part of the ill-advised bailout plan, AIG has received about $170 billion of taxpayer dollars. One would assume that injecting that much money into a company would buy the American people a little bit of say into how the company is run. And, as far as I’m concerned, one would be right. In fact, Congress has made its wishes known in the stimulus bill. In that, they specifically allowed AIG to make good on pre-exiting bonuses. In fact, these bonuses represent contractual obligations on the part of AIG to its employees. In effect, Obama and Congress are upset that AIG is paying its debts.
It goes beyond that, however. During the uproar, we’ve had President Obama, Senator Chris Dodd (Senate Banking Committee Chairman), who wrote the amendment, and Secretary Geithner (Treasury Secretary) all claim they didn’t know about this. How can this be?
Obama voted for the stimulus bill. Did he not read it?
Dodd was the one who wrote the amendment regarding “excessive” executive compensation, where the exemption lies. After saying that he didn’t know how the exemption got there, he then said it was requested by Treasury. Which is it, Senator Dodd? If you were asked to put it in there, how can you not know how it got there?
Secretary Geithner, for his part, claimed no knowledge, until Sen. Dodd fingered him. Then he acknowledged requesting it.
This means that the Obama administration requested the exemption be placed into law, then made a public outcry when it was followed. On top of that, they tried to cover it up. At best, this screams of gross incompetence. More cynically, it speaks of intentional deception of the American public for purposes of demagoguing the issue for political gain. Is it time to ask “What did the President know, and when did he know it?”
Worse than that, however, is the decision by the House of Representatives to pass an ex-post-facto tax of 90% on those who received the bonuses. That’s right, congress writes the law to give them the money, then they take it back. That would be disgusting enough, however, even without the blatant disregard for the constitution that such a move demonstrates. Using the tax code as a weapon to punish those that the Congress doesn’t like is not just a disgusting piece of legislative abuse, it is also a Bill of Attainder, which is explicitly prohibited in the Constitution. It is also in violation of the equal protection clause and the prohibition on ex-post-facto laws.
What is surprising (or, alas, not-so surprising) is the number of Republicans who have voted for this law, including Virginia’s Eric Cantor. To disregard the Constitution in such a way, in pursuit of crass political points shows that they have learned nothing from the losses in 2006 and 2008. Cantor, and the rest of the Republicans who voted for this, need to find themselves in the unemployment line, come 2010.
The silver lining in all this, however, is the comic value for those who have been paying attention. Not only for the rank sanctimony, but also for the cognitive dissonance. Especially amusing is President Obama telling his Secretary of Treasury, despite all his screw-ups in such a short time, that he would not accept Geithner’s resignation. Yeah, you’re doing a heckuva job, Brownie.
3
Mar
Thoughts on liberty
Politics is a dangerous subject. In its practice, we ask the people to, at best, surrender some of their liberty, and more often, vote to involuntarily deprive others of theirs.
For this reason, the chief qualification to practice politics should not be an interest in governance, but rather a love of liberty, even above peace and prosperity. By that definition, the most dangerous person to whom we can trust politics is as politician. Even successful businessmen are dangerous, in as much as their success requires them to have entirely more control than is safe.
3
Jan
Start-shimasu!
Izzymandias, reporting for duty.