Recent Commentary & Blog & Story RSS

Election dissection: Be afraid, be very afraid

Drew Mckissick — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 15:35:48 -0500

There are two groups of people that have reason to be scared over Tuesday's election results: moderate Democrats and Republican leadership.

Why any Democrat should be concerned is obvious. They're the current majority party and they're in control of Congress and the White House. Off year elections are normally bad for the party in the White House, but Tuesday's election results point to something big next year.

In Virginia, a state Obama carried by five percent, the Republican candidate for Governor wins by eighteen percent - a twenty-three point swing.

In deep blue New Jersey, a state where Democrats outnumber Republicans by two to one; where the Democrat incumbent outspent the Republican by three to one; where Obama himself won by fifteen points and made multiple campaign stops, the Republican wins by four points - a nineteen point swing.

And in moderate Maine, voters supported a referendum to overturn a recently passed gay marriage law, the thirty-first state in a row to affirm its support for traditional marriage.

It's enough to give Democrats night sweats from now until next November.

But why should the Republican leadership be concerned? Because many of them have been (or continue to be) completely tone deaf to the sentiments of the party's base. Many of them either "don't get it", or would rather minimize what's driving this train.

It's been said that, given a choice between a Democrat and a fake Democrat, people will usually opt for the Democrat.

A false choice is no choice at all. A lesson taught with enough clarity in New York's 23^rd congressional district election that even the national GOP leadership should understand.

A false choice is exactly what RINO Republican Scozzafava proved herself to be when, after withdrawing, she endorsed the Democrat. In the process she did perform an invaluable service for conservatives by proving what they have said about such Republicans for years.

The race also serves as a graphic demonstration of just how small the Republican coalition is without those crazy conservatives that elite Republicans spend so much time trying to denigrate and minimize.

On the day of her withdrawal, the latest poll put Scozzafava in 3^rd place with barely twenty percent of the vote.

Conservative party candidate Doug Hoffman ran as a principled Reagan conservative...and was promptly rejected by the insiders in the NY GOP and the national Republicans n Washington in favor of a pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, pro-government, pro-bailout, tax and spend RINO. And they wasted over a million dollars in Republican donor's contributions in the process.

So much for those guys being experts on how to win a campaign, or being reliable when it comes to using their positions within the party to advance the conservative cause.

Grassroots Republicans have taken notice. According to the latest Rasmussen poll, 73% of Republicans nationwide think that the congressional GOP has lost touch with their base. In other words they've been paying attention.

What makes the leadership's support for such "Republican" candidates even more insidious is, when they do manage to win, they usually end up cooperating with the Pelosi's of the world and giving the Democrats the fig leaf of bi-partisanship for their big government agenda...thus making the GOP the co-conspirator of this agenda in the minds of voters and making it more difficult for other Republicans to credibly campaign against it.

That's why Democrats are so concerned with finding a few Republicans to hop on board with bailouts and Obamacare, and spend so much of their time accusing the GOP of being the "party of no" when they currently have the votes to enact their agenda all by their lonesome.

They don't want the blame all to themselves. Our strategy should always be to let them have it.

The fact is that thanks to Obama voters are growing more conservative but, thanks to past GOP leadership, they've yet to grow more Republican. This comes down to principles...or more precisely a lack thereof.

The voters have spoken. The Democrats probably won't listen. But the Republican leadership should.

***

Cross-posted at Conservative Outpost

Right-wingers, conspiracies and racists, oh my!

Drew Mckissick — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 14:00:11 -0400

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

When political times get tough for liberal Democrats in Washington, conservative conspiracies are the bogeymen of choice.

Back in 1998 when things got tough for Bill Clinton, Hillary declared that there was a “vast right-wing conspiracy” looking to bring her husband down. Other Democrats where quick to pick up the mantra and do anything they could to discredit those who criticized Clinton.

Now here we are eleven years later and, (although there are no chubby interns involved), we have another liberal President facing hard times. So out pop the conspiracy theories like some worn out jack-in-the-box. The only difference is that now we have two former Democrat Presidents cranking the handle.

In response to a question by NBC’s David Gregory on whether or not “the vast right-wing conspiracy” still exists, Bill Clinton responded, “Oh, you bet. Sure it is. It’s not as strong as it was, because America’s changed demographically, but it’s as virulent as it was.”

He lamented that the current focus of the conspiracy “seems to be wanting (Obama) to fail.” I suppose when Democrats oppose Republicans it’s just wholesome bi-partisanship?

This comes after another failed, former Democrat President, Jimmy Carter, accused Obama’s critics of being racists.

One could easily be excused for thinking that liberals are under the impression that it’s impossible to disagree with or oppose them in any way without having some sort of evil motivations.

In a recent column for the LA Times, former Congressman J.C. Watts, (who just so happens to be a black Republican), addressed Carter’s silly suggestion by stating that “There are people of all colors who believe it is wrong for the government to take over our health care system… There are people of every color who believe it is bad economic policy to raise taxes, especially in a weak economy.”

So much for the racist conspiracies.

The truth is that the opposition to Obama is “vast” and it is “right wing”, at least from where Clinton and Obama are standing. But given recent opinion polls, there’s nothing conspiratorial about it.

On issues like a government takeover of health care, raising taxes, amnesty for illegal immigrants, gay marriage, tax-payer dollars for abortion, opposing bailouts, etc., the people being derided as “right wing” look a whole lot like the majority of the American public.

If anything, the opposition is a response to the decades long conspiracies of those on the left that want to “transform” America in their own image. The increase in intensity is simply a reaction to the increase in intensity and speed of action by Obama and the Democrats in Congress.

People have a much clearer vision now of what’s at stake when it comes to the government and its policies. If they opposed Obama before, they’re revolting now. If they were ambivalent before, they’re opposed now. And some who even supported him previously have now decided that this isn’t what they signed up for. And calling them names won’t make them go away.

If Clinton and company want to look for conspiracies, perhaps they should start looking closer to home.

What does he call generations of Democrat opposition to the basic tenets of capitalism? To say nothing of their more recent efforts to restructure one-sixth of the American economy without so much as a trial program – let alone enough time for everyone to actually read the language of the legislation they’re about to pass.

Then there’s the news media.

A recent News Consumer study found that eighty-nine percent of the American public believes that “the national media played a very or somewhat strong role in helping elect President Obama. Further, sixty-nine percent believe that the media is “intent on promoting the Obama presidency”.

It should come as no surprise then that only twenty-two percent of the people surveyed thought that their tax dollars should be used to help bailout failing newspapers – which is exactly what some on the left see as the “next” bailout they’d like to push. All of which should tell you something about how important liberals feel the media is in pushing their agenda.

How’s that for a conspiracy?

***

cross-posted at Conservative Outpost

Will Obama and the media throw ACORN under the bus?

Drew Mckissick — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 11:36:53 -0400

As the most recent scandal surrounding ACORN grows, it begs the question of “will they or won’t they?” As in, will Barack Obama and the mainstream media decide that it’s in their best interest to “throw ACORN under the bus”?

Things haven’t been going so well for either of them lately, and the ACORN scandal presents them with an opportunity to try and gain a little credibility.

The “mainstream” media continues to take a beating with steadily declining readers and viewers, and many media companies are in (or on the verge of) bankruptcy all over the country.

They have allowed themselves to become so invested in certain groups and politicians that they have forgotten their jobs – that thing they are supposed to do to attract readers and viewers and earn money – and now they are going down the tubes.

Obama’s in a similar situation. After taking office in what seemed like a coronation, accompanied by high public approval ratings, he has spent much of his time pushing policies that many who supported him have found to have little resemblance to the “hope and change” they thought they voted for. As a result, his numbers have been heading south. Fast.

A recent Gallup poll confirmed his slide in public approval as the third largest and fastest drop in presidential polling history. Currently only half of the country approves of the job he’s doing.

And now along comes ACORN, with pimps, prostitutes and fraud – all caught on hidden camera.

What’s so bad is that this is what it took to bring ACORN the attention is so richly deserves.

A report compiled by Republicans on the House Oversight Committee demonstrated plenty of reasons to look into ACORN. It found cases of tax evasion, obstruction of justice, investment fraud, defrauding government by using taxpayer dollars for partisan activities, submitting false information to the US Department of Labor and the IRS, and even violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. This is in addition to dozens of investigations (and many convictions) for voter fraud.

But if it’s not on video, it doesn’t seem to matter.

To make things even more frustrating, we’re talking about an organization that has received over fifty million dollars in federal tax dollars since 1994 and, thanks to the “stimulus bill”, they’re eligible for over eight billion more. And yes, that’s billion with a “b”.

Some have already been shamed into action.

In the past week, the Inspector General of the Justice Department announced that his office will begin an investigation into any misuse of grant money from that department. And the House and Senate have each passed differing versions of amendments to de-fund some or all of ACORN, but it still must pass both houses and then be signed into law by Obama.

For the media’s part, even after the videos were there for everyone to see they paid only scant attention to the issue. A week after the first video hit, ABC News Anchor Charlie Gibson stated in a radio interview that “I didn’t even know about it”.

As for Obama, he told ABC’s George Stephanopoulos that “it’s not really something I’ve followed closely. I didn’t even know that ACORN was getting a whole lot of federal money.” Uh-huh.

If either Obama or the media want to attempt to salvage any credibility, they have to act. Sooner or later their instincts for personal gain have to kick in and they’ll see that they have to throw ACORN under the bus.

It’s not as though they’ve never done it before, as countless of their friends, grandmothers and former pastors could testify.

The media should do what they used to do well. Report. There are plenty of other ACORN offices around the country engaged in other activity which is sure to be just as salacious. Suit up the next Steve Kroft with his hidden camera and send him in.

Obama should express some of that self-righteous indignation he does so well and, considering the size and scope of the scandals involving ACORN’s many branches and subsidiaries, he should appoint a special counsel.

If he doesn’t do something, he’ll soon lose control as Republican governors and prosecutors take the lead. If he does, some in ACORN’s ranks will probably turn on him, (or others in his administration).

All in all, a pretty sticky wicket. But with the smell of blood in the water, it’s better to get ahead of the story than be carried by it.

Which is why he needs to throw ACORN under the bus.

***

Cross-posted @ Conservative Outpost

Obama begins undermining the Defense of Marriage Act

Drew Mckissick — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 16:35:20 -0400

While Americans have been busy focusing on one Obama overreach after another, with health care currently occupying the front burner, the issue of gay marriage has escaped scrutiny.

When he was out campaigning for President, Obama understood the politically explosive nature of gay marriage and decided that getting elected was more important than being honest. He contorted himself to say the he supported the definition of marriage as one man and one woman, while at the same time letting homosexual activists groups know that he opposed the federal law which defines marriage as just that.

Among normal people this would be understood as being duplicitous at best.

The problem Obama has at the moment is that as the nation's chief law enforcement officer his job is to defend federal law, which at this point includes the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (or DOMA). Solution? Make a half-baked defense of the law and tell everyone, even the judges before which you're defending the law, that you think it is wrong and should be overturned.

In briefs related to a recent case in California, Obama's administration stated that it supports the repeal of DOMA.

In their own filings with the court in defense of the law, the Justice Department went out of its way undermine a conservative argument for the law by stating that "the United States does not believe that DOMA is rationally related to any legitimate government interest in procreation and child-rearing and is therefore not relying upon any such interests to defend DOMA's constitutionality."

In other words, "we think it's based on discrimination, but it's the law, so we'll pretend to defend it since that's our job".

The Justice Department's own spokesman admitted as much in late August when she stated "the administration believes the Defense of Marriage Act is discriminatory and should be repealed".

Well. I'm pretty sure that some large majorities of Americans in well over thirty states would object to such a statement being made by their government on their behalf.

And you can be sure they've got their best lawyers on the case. One can just imagine the rigorous process of determining which Justice Department lawyer gets to mount the government's DOMA defense in court, (the guy with the least years of experience...writing his briefs on Monday mornings after long weekends, etc.).

By way of background, DOMA was passed in 1996 (a Clinton re-election year) as a compromise (by moderates and some liberals) to avoid passage of a federal constitutional amendment. It was a tactical retreat.

Opponents correctly determined that passage of DOMA would take some of the steam out of the push for a federal marriage amendment, (which had been building at the time due to Hawaii's attempts to legalize gay marriage). They knew that a law is easier to change in the future than an amendment, and that it can always be overturned by the right Supreme Court. Much better to gamble on getting a new liberal majority in Congress someday.

And now that day has arrived.

The problem is that there are over thirty plus states that have passed statewide votes (amendments or referendums) banning gay marriage. Which means there are a lot of "red" and "purple" state Democrats who want no part of a debate over gay marriage. They're all too happy to let the judiciary do their dirty work for them, freeing them to rant and rave that they were on the people's side, depending on what people they're talking to at the moment.

The good news (politically) for Obama is that he doesn't have to fight it out in Congress just yet. He's currently spending all of his political capital on health care reform, but in the meantime he can let his Justice Department "throw" the case to defend the law and roll the dice that Anthony Kennedy might wake up on the left side of the bed the morning the high court ultimately decides the issue.

If the law is overturned, problem solved. If it's upheld, then he can go at it with the Congress - after he's re-elected.

In the meantime, the issue is coming soon to a federal courtroom near you. And Obama's Justice Department will be there to mount a tepid defense on DOMA's behalf.

Obama using the CIA to re-shuffle the political deck

Drew Mckissick — Tue, 01 Sep 2009 11:46:24 -0400

It’s time for some honesty in the current debate over the CIA’s interrogation methods of terrorists. The argument isn’t really over whether we were too harsh, given that even Obama has said we would continue turning terrorists over to other governments, knowing full well that those guys play rougher than we do.

It’s all about politics.

Soon after his inauguration as President, Obama stated that he didn’t want to re-open an investigation into CIA interrogations of terrorists because he knew that it would become a tremendous, political distraction – which is exactly why he’s changed his mind.

Normally, the last thing a guy with Obama’s messianic ambition would want is for all of Washington to become sidetracked with such a divisive issue, much less one that exposes the political weaknesses of his own party.

For years, national security, or “keeping the country safe”, has been one of the few issues where polls have fairly consistently shown Republicans with an edge over Democrats, and it’s an issue that would be highlighted by a divisive over how the CIA went about its business in the aftermath of September 11th.

In such a debate, the burden of proof (politically) would be with CIA opponents, a point underlined even further by the recent release of the Inspector General’s report, which demonstrated that “how” the CIA did its thing provided valuable intelligence on the Al Qaeda network. Not the least of which was what amounted to 9-11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed’s “rolodex” of terrorist contacts. All in all, pretty useful information.

So what’s changed Obama’s mind about a new investigation? Two words: health care. Specifically, the fact that the liberal ambition of a single-payer, government run program is politically dead – and its potential forerunner, the proposed “public option”, is dying due to massive grassroots opposition among Republicans, conservatives, moderates, independents and even some Democrats.

The more Obama and the nation have focused on his health care reform plans, the more massive the opposition has become, the lower his approval ratings have gone and the greater his need for a distraction.

Over half the country opposes his health care plan, and those with “strong” feelings one way or another oppose it by two to one. And Obama’s own public approval numbers just hit a new low of fifty percent in the latest Gallup poll, the third fastest drop in presidential approval in the poll’s history.

Even political handicapper Charlie Cook, (who usually sees donkey’s in his sleep), admitted in a recent political report that “the situation this summer has slipped completely out of control for President Obama and Congressional Democrats”.

Despite accusations to the contrary, the grassroots opposition has been just that, “grassroots”. Its mere size and intensity underlines the fact that no Republican conspiracy is driving this train. It’s too big, and if they were this capable where the heck were they last November?

And isn’t Obama supposed to be the guy with the massive grassroots structure, capable of virtual push-button organizing? The failure to effectively counterpunch says that a lot of his supporters aren’t buying what he’s selling, which indicates not many of them knew what he was selling to begin with. They just knew he wasn’t they guy that they had been conditioned to hate.

Which brings us back to Obama’s decision to let Attorney General Eric Holder start investigating the CIA.

Obama figures that he’s already won one race against George Bush, (considering the fact that he “wasn’t Bush” was the primary reason he won), so why not re-open the Bush files with all that stuff that got the people who supported him so worked up to begin with and get them reenergized?

In other words, it’s time to re-shuffle the deck.

He figures that in the current political dynamic health care will be a bust, so he has to change it and then try to salvage health care reform in the new environment. And then hope that he can use the next year to deal with the political fallout before the 2010 elections.

In the end, Democrats will probably come to regret going after CIA officers doing their jobs defending Americans. Politically it leaves them open to the charge of being weak on national security, not to mention the risks to our country’s ability to gather valuable intelligence, (a concern that reportedly has new CIA Director Leon Panetta on the verge of quitting after just half a year on the job).

It’s a risky gamble. There’s a reason why “24” has been one of the most popular shows on TV for eight years.

But it’s a gamble Obama’s willing to take in order to re-shuffle the deck.

I'm from the government and I'm here to help

Drew Mckissick — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 12:57:52 -0400

Despite all the ruckus concerning town-halls lately, most of which is the ruckus made by liberals upset that conservatives are attending and expressing their opposition to Obamacare, we have been treated to some important, if accidental, moments of honesty and clarity.

For example, while conducting a recent town-hall meeting, Missouri Democrat Senator Claire McCaskill attempted to calm constituents upset over the proposed “reform” by asking “Don’t you trust me?” The resounding “no’s” reverberated throughout the room, along with many boos, which provides us with our moment of honesty.

So why don’t voters trust the government or its representatives to “fix” the problem? Partially because they’ve gotten a better look at the proposed “solution” over the past few months, and the closer they look, the less they like what they see. From federally funded abortions (as “health care”), to reduced choices in the free-market, to likely tax increases and health care rationing, there’s plenty to have a problem with.

According to the latest Rasmussen poll, fifty-four percent of Americans would rather have no health care reform at all, rather than the bill currently being considered by Congress. The poll also shows that, while eighty percent of Republicans oppose the bill, a surprising forty percent of Democrats are opposed as well.

The other reason they’re lacking in the “trust” department is that they know the government’s track record when it comes to “fixing” things, or generally getting anything productive done at all, much less done well.

They know government programs only get bigger, not smaller, (unless you’re talking about defense programs under a Democrat administration). They know the stories about the five-hundred dollar hammers and six-hundred dollar toilet seats, not to mention the obscene overspending and fraud in Medicare and Medicaid. They saw the great job done by local, state and federal agencies during hurricane Katrina, and they weren’t impressed.

Which brings us to our moment of clarity, courtesy of one of Obama’s recent town-hall meetings, in which he gave a great reason why we shouldn’t trust the government to fix much of anything, much less manage one-sixth of the economy.

He offered the example of the Post Office in an analogy of how the public (or government run) option wouldn’t hurt or hinder the free market in delivering health insurance. Yes, the US Post Office – the government agency whose failure to sufficiently master delivery of packages from point A to point B prompted the rise of free market choices like FedEx and UPS.

In other words he was saying, “Don’t worry about a government run program killing off private competition, because it will be awful, just like the Post Office”. (How’s that for a vote of confidence!)

Yes, FedEx and UPS are doing fine in their competition with the government, just as the free market would do a better job of delivering quality, affordable health care, if not for government interference. But that’s because the Post Office doesn’t get to set the rules under which its competitors operate.

Health care is another matter. Currently, the government tells insurance companies what products they can sell and where they can sell them, and what policies customers can buy and where they can buy them, (and forces them to use the government product – Medicare – when they turn sixty-five).

I think it’s fair to say that the competitors to the Post Office wouldn’t do so well under similar rules, which would leave consumers with less reliable and lower quality service.

Rules and regulations under a government run health care scheme would be even worse – and so would the service.

Ronald Reagan used to tell the joke, “I’m from the government, and I’m here to help”, and it always got a laugh. Why? Because the notion of the government being helpful, as opposed to usually screwing things up, getting in the way, or infringing on our liberties is laughable.

But if we allow this so-called “reform” to become law, health care in America will “go postal”. And the joke will be on us.

***

cross-posted at Conservative Outpost

Saying "no" increases Republican mojo

Drew Mckissick — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 13:25:39 -0400

Slowly but surely, it seems that the Republicans are getting a little bit of their mojo back.

How? Simply by saying “no”. Because, when it comes to Obama’s agenda, it seems that saying “no” is enough for Republicans to gain more support of the American people.

Some recent polling from Rasmussen tells the tale.

By a long-shot, the economy is the number one issue on people’s minds, and they don’t think Obama and the Democrat’s are doing such a good job dealing with it.

Overwhelmingly, they think the government is spending (and borrowing) way too much money, and the national deficit and debt are looming larger in voter’s minds. Seventy-one percent agree that Obama’s policies have driven up the deficit.

As for Obama’s latest push for bigger government, so-called health care “reform”, it would seem the Democrats aren’t on the same page with voters. Forty-eight percent rate the US healthcare system as “good” or “excellent”, with only nineteen percent rating it as “poor” – hardly a cry for a radical overhaul of the system.

Over half the country now opposes the “reform” plan working its way through Congress…which seems to demonstrate that the harder Obama and Pelosi push for it, the more ground it loses.

Seventy-six percent of voters believe that it’s at least “somewhat likely” that their taxes will be raised if Obama’s healthcare “reform” becomes law, (at least fifty-nine percent are positive about it).

All of which helps explain the latest “generic ballot” poll, (asking voters which party they would support in the next congressional election), which showed Republicans leading Democrats by a margin of 43% to 38%.

In other words, being the “party of no”, as Obama, Pelosi and Harry Reid have put it, hasn’t exactly hurt the GOP.

This isn’t to say that a party should always and only define itself by what it’s against. It shouldn’t, and the GOP doesn’t. But don’t blame the Republicans if Obama has given the American people so much to be against lately.

As the old saying goes, “make hay while the sun’s shinning”. And you don’t have to look any further than your local town-hall meeting to see that Obamacare is providing the warm sunshine needed to make plenty of hay for the GOP. (The bailouts, the stimulus, and government takeovers of private enterprise continue to provide a warm glow as well)

Simply put, opposition to Obama’s agenda is re-energizing the Republican Party, just as much as opposition to Bush and the Iraq War energized the Democrats, if not more so.

Yet oddly enough, while conservative Republicans seem to be undergoing a bit of a rebirth, at least in terms of enthusiasm, many of them are being set upon by others in the party.

Take Ohio Senator George Voinovich for example, who bemoaned the visibility of conservative southerners in the GOP, followed up by columnist Kathleen Parker, who spent the better part of the last year complaining about the ascendancy of cultural conservatives such as Sarah Palin.

In fact, Parker has written so often and so disparagingly of Palin, that one could almost be forgiven for mixing her up with Maureen Dowd of the New York Times.

Why is it that these people only tend to have problems with conservatives who take their cultural and traditional values seriously, or who think those values have something to do with our country’s greatness?

What makes it worse is the things (and people) these quasi-Republicans seem to hold in such low esteem are exactly what’s conspiring to bring the party back.

For months we were treated to endless stories about “who is the leader of the GOP?”, or “who’s going to lead?”, which quite frankly is far less important than what the party stands for – and against. And what it does to advance that agenda.

Leadership will take care of itself. Right now, the grassroots are the leadership – and they’re leading the party to say “no” to Obamaism. What’s more, they’re bringing their friends and neighbors with them, and that’s how you build a party.

Come 2012 the GOP will need a candidate that can clearly articulate a conservative alternative vision to the American people in contrast to the silver-tongued, teleprompter reliant Obama.

But between now and November 2010, “no” will do just fine.

***

Cross-posted at Conservative Outpost

Health care reform devil is in the details

Drew Mckissick — Wed, 05 Aug 2009 10:45:37 -0400

When it comes to legislation, there’s a general rule of thumb that the number of details someone doesn’t want you to see is directly related to how quickly they try to pass it. The so-called health care “reform” bill is a text-book example.

The reason Obama and liberal Democrats are pushing so fast and furious is because the details, (where the Devil usually hides), are beginning to get out. And as the details start to sink in, they’re cutting through all of the “yes we can” rhetoric and leading more Americans to say “no you don’t”.

So what’s getting them worked up? Let’s take a look at some of the details of this “reform”.

Despite Obama’s best efforts, the financial implications are finally becoming more widely appreciated, (so to speak). According to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the proposed legislation would not reduce the overall amount of money spent on health care in America, which undermines Obama's rationale for the massive overhaul in the first place.

They estimate that the “reform” would add between one and one and a half trillion dollars to our national debt, just over the next decade alone. The result will be a call for massive tax increases and the eventual rationing of care to cover and reduce costs. And of course this is before we find out how much more it will really cost once it becomes law, as every federal program eventually costs more than initially advertised.

And there are plenty of non-financial “details” to be concerned about as well.

The legislation would provide taxpayer funding of abortion by mandating coverage in the "public" (government run) version of health insurance. Democrats specifically opposed an amendment that would have mandated that no public funds go to cover abortion in the bill, and worse yet they approved an amendment that explicitly includes abortion coverage. In short, the bill would represent the greatest expansion of abortion in America since Roe vs. Wade.

There’s trouble for doctors and nurses too, as they’re likely to lose the "conscious protections" that keep them from being forced to provide abortion services, or risk losing their jobs. Obama’s administration has already moved to rescind Bush era regulations that helped guarantee those protections.

The "public" (government run) version of health insurance would provide free health care to illegal aliens, but would result in the rationing of care for elderly and disabled American citizens in order to save money. Congressional liberals even defeated an amendment that would have specifically banned the rationing of health care.

And what happens when the government starts to ration care? Who decides who gets what, and when? Why bureaucrats and politicians, that’s who. And what happens when people are left to wonder what kind of care they’ll get if they’re not supporters of the right political party? Such fears (not to mention corruption) become plausible given a government run system.

Obama claims that rationing is already going on by our insurance companies, so we shouldn’t get worked up about it. Maybe so, but that doesn’t mean we should trade private rationing (done by private companies that have to compete for consumer dollars) for public rationing by a government with no competition.

Then there’s Obama’s pledge that, “if you like your current insurance plan, you can keep it”, which is a hollow promise at best, if not an outright lie.

A recent Heritage Foundation study projects that the “reform” Obama wants would cause almost 90 million Americans to lose their current employer-based insurance, as many employers will simply cease to offer coverage and push employees onto the government plan in order to save money.

Worse yet, the current version of the legislation would make it illegal for Americans to buy, or for insurance companies to sell, any individual private insurance plans after the first of the year.

The “reform” also would force all Americans to pay for health insurance, whether they want it or not – and use the IRS to levy fines on anyone who doesn't have the level of coverage that the government mandates.

The bottom line is that this plan represents a massive foot-in-the-door towards a "single-payer" system, where private insurance is completely abolished and all medical personnel work for the government. In fact, many of its supporters have admitted as much.

Representative Jan Schakowsky was caught on video in April stating that this was indeed an attempt to move toward a single payer system and to run the insurance companies out of business. And Obama himself stated in 2003 that, "I happen to be a proponent of a single-payer, universal health care plan." What more do we need to know?

Who doesn’t believe that this plan won’t become a gateway for the regulation of an ongoing list of human behaviors? Once the government’s paying the tab, every type of human behavior becomes a potential cost to be analyzed and controlled.

Don’t believe me? Look no further than the Pentagon’s recent trial balloon about banning smoking in the military because it increases military health care costs. Now just replace “Pentagon” with “National Health Service”, and replace “smoking” with “cheeseburgers” or “mountain climbing”. You get the picture.

Americans seem to be catching on.

The most recent polls bring bad news for Obama, showing a continued drop in just about every category…job approval…his ability to “fix” health care…support for his plan…and with at least one poll showing the Republicans now leading Democrats on a “generic ballot” test. Which means that, at least for the moment, being the “party of no” is working just fine for the GOP.

As a result, the Democrats just this past week re-tooled their rhetoric to make insurance companies the latest boogie-man in their attempt to distract people from the facts. But the only problem is that this “reform” means more government, which is one of the few things people dislike more than insurance companies.

And speaking of insurance companies, if the Democrats do run them out of business, who will all the trial lawyers sue? Just curious. John Edwards has child support to pay!

***

Take Action: Join the campaign to STOP Obamacare!

Senate Republicans should use Sotomayor to put Democrats on the spot

Drew Mckissick — Tue, 21 Jul 2009 12:09:48 -0400

With a newly minted sixty-vote Democrat majority in the US Senate, the approval of the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court is all but assured.
But what isn’t assured is that it won’t cost the Democrats something before all the dust settles. And that’s up to the Republicans.

Do they have what it takes to make her positions on hot-button issues so toxic that the Democrats from “purple” or “red” states who support her will find themselves in political hot water back home?
Her record represents just such an opportunity.

Before becoming a judge, Sotomayor was a leader of the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund (PRLDEF), even serving as the Chairman of its Litigation Committee. And there we get a glimpse of some of the issues she was willing to lend her support to.

On abortion: On two separate occasions, the PRLDEF filed briefs arguing that taxpayer dollars must be used to fund abortions and further argued that restrictions on abortion were analogous to slavery. They also argued against such modest abortion restrictions as parental notification or waiting periods on abortion.

On the death penalty: Sotomayor signed on to a statement by the PRLDEF opposing the reinstatement of the death penalty in New York state, arguing that capital punishment creates "inhuman psychological burdens" for the offender. (I’m sure the family members of victims feel the same way.)

On bilingualism: The PRLDEF filed several suits to force the provision of bilingual services, including bilingual election ballots. In one case, they even argued that the education system didn’t meet the needs of immigrant students because their non-citizen parents couldn’t vote in school board elections.

Since becoming a federal judge in 1992, Sotomayor has remained true to her liberal roots.

On property rights: In Didden vs. Village of Port Chester, she joined an opinion that dramatically expanded the government’s authority to seize private lands under eminent domain.

On Second Amendment Rights: In Maloney v. Cuomo, she joined an opinion that decided that the Second Amendment did not apply to the states, and in the US vs. Sanchez-Villar, she added insult to injury by joining an opinion that concluded that “the right to possess a gun is clearly not a fundamental right.”

On Self-defense rights: When questioned in the confirmation hearings about how courts cannot see the explicitly stated Second Amendment "right to keep and bear arms" as fundamental, yet can hold as fundamental the unexpressed right to privacy (read: abortion), Sotomayor answered: "Is there a constitutional right to self-defense? And I can't think of one. I could be wrong, but I can't think of one."

On racial preferences: In the case of Ricci vs. DeStefano, she sided with a city that denied promotions to white firefighters because they performed better than minorities on a test designed to determine who should be promoted. The Supreme Court just overturned the decision in this case a few weeks ago.

On gay marriage: In her confirmation hearings, Sotomayor refused to recognize the 1971 Baker vs. Nelson case as a binding Supreme Court precedent that would forbid the recognition of gay marriage at the federal level, which is a good indication that she can't be counted on to uphold the constitutionality of the 1996 federal Defense of Marriage Act. But she's fine with recognizing Roe vs. Wade as a "binding" precedent on abortion.

On impartiality: In a 2002 speech at Berkeley, she stated that she believes it is appropriate for a judge to consider their "experiences as women and people of color”, which she says should "affect our decisions”. She went on to state that "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life." She repeated this line on at least five other occasions.

On judicial activism: Sotomayor was caught on video stating that "the Court of Appeals is where policy is made", suggesting her comfort with judicial encroachment on legislative turf.

Further, thanks to her confirmation hearings, we got a better look at her philosophy when she stated: "The task of a judge is not to make the law - it is to apply the law. And it is clear, I believe, that my record in two courts reflects my rigorous commitment to interpreting the Constitution according to its terms; interpreting statutes according to their terms and Congress intent; and hewing faithfully to precedents established by the Supreme Court and my Circuit Court."

Note that she mentions the importance of “intent” when interpreting congressional statutes, but not the Constitution, which is right in line with the liberal philosophy of a “living Constitution”. Which is liberal-speak for a Constitution we can change by judicial fiat without having to go to the political trouble of amending it.

Each of these issues represents an opportunity for Republicans to put Democrats from “purple” or “red” states on the wrong side of their voters back home. That is, if they have the courage to make point them out and make the case to the public.

We’re not just talking about press releases here. We’re talking about interviews and floor speeches that make the evening news, highlighting how out of step her positions are with mainstream America. You know, the kind of high profile opposition that the Democrats brought against Robert Bork. Only true in this case.

Americans will have to suffer her presence on the Court for years, if not decades to come. The least we should be able to ask in return is the possibility of softening up a handful of Democrats’ re-election prospects in the process.

***

cross posted on ConservativeOutpost.com

Time for the GOP to adopt the "Schumer Doctrine" on judges

Drew Mckissick — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 11:53:33 -0400

It seems that every time we have a contentious judicial nomination process, especially for the Supreme Court, a great fuss is made over not asking certain questions. More to the point, we're told that nominees should not answer questions that could disclose how they may rule on certain issues in the future.

Hogwash.

The problem with this notion is that the federal judiciary has grown ever more powerful over the years versus our other branches of government. Further, the Supreme Court is held to be the final arbiter of what the Constitution actually "means" at any given point in time - information that's surely useful to the people that document is meant to govern.

This being the case, it's ludicrous to suggest that the US Senate, to say nothing of the American people, should not have a good idea "what" these would be solons will say the Constitution means once they're given a lifetime appointment.

Can you imagine a candidate for President telling voters that he can't answer specific questions about incredibly important (even constitutional) issues, and that they shouldn't even be asked such questions, but rather we should just trust that they're a wise, experienced and empathetic person? (Insert laughter here...)

Historically, the importance of our judicial nomination process began to change as more judges began to see their role in our federal system differently than had been previously understood. In short, many of them began to think of themselves less as "umpires" and more as "players" in the game of politics and public policy. This in turn causes political tensions to increase as voters see their voices being ignored, (witness the issues of abortion, gay marriage and property rights).

This growing judicial supremacy is the primary reason nominations have become more contentious affairs, since people rightly recognize the judiciary's increased role in public policy. The result is a nomination process that's far less casual and far more like a political campaign.

Liberals were quick to promote this new reality, given their reliance on the judiciary to enable the expansion of government and the invention of new rights (while ignoring some of the old ones). Which meant that the nomination process became more important to them.

In June of 2001, with a Republican in the White House, NY Democrat Senator Chuck Schumer declared that the judiciary was too important (presumably to liberals) for a Republican to be allowed a free hand in making judicial appointments. He declared that experience and qualifications were nice, but ideology would be the determining factor.

But when it comes to a public fight over ideology, Republicans have a clear opportunity.

A recent Gallup poll found that Americans who self-identify themselves as conservatives (40%) comprise the largest bloc in American politics, more numerous than independents, (35%), and twice as large as self-identified liberals, (21%). The same poll also found that Democrats are more split ideologically than Republicans, with conservatives making up a fifth of the Democrats' base of support, and a full third of independents.

This makes a strategy of highlighting judicial liberalism a political opportunity for Republicans. It's time to ask some hard questions on critical issues - and demand some answers.

What does Sotomayor believe the Second Amendment means? Does she agree with last year's Supreme Court decision in the Heller case that it guarantees an individual right to bear arms? Does she believe that Roe vs. Wade was a sound legal opinion? Does she see a "right" to privacy in the Constitution?

What's her opinion of the Kelo decision and the "taking" of private property from one citizen and giving it to another? Does she believe the Constitution should force one state to recognize gay marriages performed in another state? Does she believe that the Supreme Court is the sole arbiter of what the Constitution "means"?

There's no political downside for Republicans to be aggressive in seeking answers to perfectly reasonable questions that any voter would expect a candidate for a two-year term in Congress to answer. How much more so for a lifetime appointment on the Supreme Court?

In other words, it's time to adopt the "Schumer Doctrine".