Posts Tagged ‘ObamaCare’

Zombie ObamaCare Still Lurching About Capitol Hill, Seeking Brains Votes

Thursday, February 4th, 2010

You would have thought that Scott Brown’s election would have caused even the dimmest bulbs among Congressional Democrats to give up on showing ObamaCare down the throat of a nation violently opposed to it.

You’d be wrong.

Like some sort of ghastly, undead thing, ObamaCare has risen from the grave yet again, shambling mindlessly along the halls of congress, seeking trillions of taxpayer dollars and ever-more-elusive votes. In a way, this is the best possible result for Republicans. Instead of throwing ObamaCare to the hordes of rake-carrying peasants howling for their blood in November, Democrats seem determined to clasp the deformed beast to their bosoms in order to drag it over the finish line, even at the cost of their own (political) life. Indeed, they’re still scurrying around trying to protect their various backroom deals.

If you wanted to design the perfect storm for Republicans to retake control of the House and Senate this fall, you’d have them keep working on dragging ObamaCare across the finish line until right before the November election, when voters can do nationwide what they’ve already done in Massachusetts. Every day they keep trying to breathe life into the hdieous, undead thing brings us a step closer to that goal.

Gentlemen, Your Crow

Sunday, January 24th, 2010

Given the huge upheaval in the political landscape following Scott Brown’s upset victory in the Massachusetts senatorial race, I thought it was time to revisit what many in the liberal punditocracy were saying following Obama’s victory in 2008. There may very well have been some liberal commentators advising caution and restraint, least liberal ambitions and hubris lay the Democratic party low. However, I don’t remember any of them. What I do remember is numerous notables bandying about phrases like “the Republican Party is finished” and “permanent progressive majority.” Let’s exhume that commentary from its dusty vaults (some over a year old; very dusty indeed in Internet years) and see who might be dining tonight in Hell on a generous, tasty helping of fricasseed crow.

For example, here’s The New Republic‘s John B. Judis in an article entitled “America the Liberal” published November 19, 2008 explaining how Obama’s election heralded a fundamental realignment in American politics:

If Obama and congressional Democrats act boldly, they can not only arrest the downturn but also lay the basis for an enduring majority. As was the case with Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal, many of the measures necessary to combat today’s recession will also help ensure long-term Democratic electoral success. Many Southerners remained Democrats for generations in part because of Roosevelt’s rural electrification program; a similar program for bringing broadband to the hinterland could lure these voters back to the Democratic Party. And national health insurance could play the same role in Democrats’ future prospects that Social Security played in the perpetuation of the New Deal majority.

-snip-

The Republican Party will be divided and demoralized after this defeat. And, just as the Great Depression took Prohibition and the other great social issues of the 1920s off the popular agenda, this downturn has pushed aside the culture war of the last decades. It simply wasn’t a factor in the presidential election.

If, however, Obama and the Democrats take the advice of official Washington and go slow–adopting incremental reforms, appeasing adversaries that have lost their clout–they could end up prolonging the downturn and discrediting themselves.

Or alternately, ObamaCare could doom that same realignment in less than a year after he took office. And of all the complaints about the Obama-Reid-Pelosi policy initiatives that Massachusetts voters voiced, I’m pretty sure that “going too slow” wasn’t among them. (Also, I think Sarah Palin and company might take issue with the assertion that the culture war “simply wasn’t a factor in the presidential election.”)

For another example, take Judis’ sometimes-collaborator, liberal demographer Ruy Teixeira, who has been predicting a “permanent democratic majority” for about as long as I can remember. In March 2009, his study “New Progressive America: Twenty Years of Demographic, Geographic, and Attitudinal Changes Across the Country Herald a New Progressive Majority” had this to say:

“At this point in our history, progressive arguments combined with the continuing demographic and geographic changes are tilting our country in a progressive direction—trends should take America down a very different road than has been traveled in the last eight years. A new progressive America is on the rise.”

Sunset seems to have come remarkably quickly for that “new progressive America.”

For the wisdom of another old Democratic party hand, let’s see what Robert Shrum (who managed just about every losing Democratic presidential campaign in living memory) had to say in The Week on September 22, 2009 about the political climate:

“After this summer of discontent, Republicans think they can ride a wave of bitter tea to electoral victory. Once the tide runs out, they will be left high and dry. After health reform passes, probably with the help of Republican Sen. Olympia Snowe of Maine, Republicans will crawl out of their hole to assail it in the campaigns ahead as ‘socialism’ or worse.”

With such vaunted prognostication skills, I can’t imagine how Schrum’s campaigns could possibly have failed.

The day after the 2008 election, Dan Conley of prominent left-wing blog MyDD proclaimed the “Death of the Center-Right Myth”:

“The CRM is dead. Long live the New Liberal America.”

However, he tempered his prediction with this: “Liberalism succeeds when Americans feel their faith in government restored. It won’t happen overnight … it’s a process that will probably outlive the Obama administration.”

Not only did Obama not restore America’s “faith” in government, the project itself didn’t make it a fourth of the way through Obama’s term.

Here’s another MyDDer, Todd Beeton, on November 9, 2008, saying that Americans had come around to the Democrat’s views on the virtues of big government, saying “Republicans Should Keep Running Against Big Government & Higher Taxes: That would be awesome.”

Well, Mr. Beeton, it appears that Scott Brown took your advice. I don’t think he garnered the results you were expecting.

(Confession: I went looking for similarly clueless pronouncements among the more prominent ranks of the Daily Kos Kids, and wasn’t able to find them, possibly because in the weeks after the 2008 election they seemed completely obsessed with ranting against the unimaginable perfidy of Joseph Lieberman.)

Here’s a story called “Requiem for the Republican Party” by a Mike Whitney (a self-proclaimed Libertarian) on a site called The Market Oracle on May 6, 2009. It’s, um, somewhat less than oracular:

“The poor GOP isn’t really even a party anymore; it’s more like a vaudeville troupe scuttling from one backwater to the next performing the same worn slapstick. They’ve simply become irrelevant, a ‘non-party’ that no one pays much attention to apart from the occasional zinger on the Daily Show or Letterman. In truth, the GOP is so deeply-traumatized from their shocking fall from power, they’d probably benefit from a spell on the couch. Perhaps if they spent a few weeks in therapy, they’d see what a mess they’ve made of everything….The Republican party is finished. Stick a fork in it.”

I don’t think I’ll be taking stock-picking advice from Mr. Whitney anytime soon.

In the more obscure corners of the web, take a look at the retrospectively hilarious map that one Dan Chmielewski offers up from Gallup on a site called The Liberal OC. It features Texas as a “competitive state” and Oklahoma as a “leaning Democratic” state. You know, the same Oklahoma that had just gone for McCain over Obama by 66% to 34%. It also notes that Massachusetts is the second most liberal state in the union.

How quickly things change.

Finally, it should be noted that it’s not only liberals who believed Republicans would be losing for the foreseeable future. Take perhaps the most singular example of that rarest of species, the “Pro-Obama Conservative,” New York Times columnist David Brooks, who proclaimed that “Traditionalists” would lead the party to defeat until “Reformers” (i.e., people who act, talk, and think precisely like urbane, mannered moderates like David Brooks) finally took control. “The reformers tend to believe that American voters will not support a party whose main idea is slashing government.” Mr. Brooks further states (and this is a real quote, not an Iowahawk parody) that “They cannot continue to insult the sensibilities of the educated class and the entire East and West Coasts.”

Heaven forfend that sensibilities be insulted! Why if they continue to do that, all they can hope to achieve is seizing Ted Kennedy’s old seat! Their failure is assured.

Gentlemen, dinner is served:

Postscript: Some may consider all the above a blatant case of schadenfreude. Well, yes. But that’s not the only reason to post it.

First, when your political opponents say something amazingly stupid, you have to call them on it. There’s a small chance they might learn better, and a larger chance that the populace at large will start to discount their opinions once they discover just how demonstrably divorced from reality those opinions are.

Second, I wanted to demonstrate how easy it was, in the flush of victory, to make unwise, sweeping statements that are very likely to look quite foolish at some point in the future. Generally, statements about the “unstoppable” electoral rise of one political faction or another (or, to use that hoary old chestnut of the left, “historical inevitability”) are going to be proven wrong sooner or later. There are no permanent political victories in a democratic society. It is possible for individuals (or even, as the Whigs found out, entire political parties) to lose so badly they never recover, but the game goes on. In this light, extrapolating Scott Brown’s win to proclaim the inevitability of widespread Republican gains this November would be equally foolish and ill-advised. Such gains now look entirely possible, especially if Republicans, tea party members, conservatives, etc. are willing to put in the time, effort, and hard work to make it so, but they are by no means inevitable. Or, to paraphrase Instapundit: “Great win, kid. Now don’t get cocky.”

For the Obama Administration, your health John Murtha’s Pals Come First

Wednesday, January 6th, 2010

Remember Rep. John Murtha? The congressman who called his own constituents racists? You know, the John Murtha who sits as the chairman of the House Appropriations defense subcommittee? The John Murtha whose nephew got $4 million in no-bid Defense contracts? The man at the center of the PMA Group lobbying scandal? The John Murthta who secured more than $200 million worth of taxpayer dollars for little-used John Murtha Airport?

You do? Good.

Well, guess what company got a single-source contract to produce anthrax vaccines? That would be PharmAthene, a company run by Murtha cronies Joel McCleary and James Ervin. And just who awarded the contract? That would be the Department of Homeland Security’s Under Secretary for the Science and Technology Directorate Tara O’Toole, who just happens (better sit down for this one) to be a friend of…Rep. John Murtha! (I know, it’s a shock. What are the odds?)

What would you care to bet that the same sorts of high ethical standards will be used to dole out funds for ObamaCare?

But wait! There’s still more exciting news on the Obama-anthrax front! If John Murtha’s cronies actually do succeed is producing enough anthrax vaccine, how will it be distributed in an emergency? Why, by that epitome of speed and efficiency, The U.S. Postal Service! As Stewart Baker at Skating on Stilts put it: “No one but an idiot would bet their children’s lives on that option.”

Here’s a link to CREW’s extremely informative interactive documentation of the web of corruption that surrounds Murtha, You Don’t Know Jack.

The Boot Murtha homepage may also be of interest.

Socialized medicine works great…if you’re rich

Sunday, January 3rd, 2010

Here’s a story about how socialized medicine actually works.

National health care works great… so long as you’re rich enough to afford the premium level of government insurance and to buy multiple additional private policies; so long as you have influential relatives; and so long as you’re willing and able to brazenly bribe the doctors and bureaucrats who run the system.

And this is Japan, we everything (except the air) is amazingly clean, efficient and orderly compared to just about any American city. (Even the homeless people are neater than ours.) And socialized medicine still results in worse care for most people than ours.

Read the whole thing.

Richard Epstein says Reid’s ObamaCare Bill is Unconstitutional

Monday, December 21st, 2009

Noted Constitutional law scholar Richard A. Epstein says Harry Reid’s ObamaCare bill is unconstitutional.

“The Supreme Court’s basic constitutional requirement is that any firm in a regulated market be allowed to recover a risk-adjusted competitive rate of return on its accumulated capital investment. See Duquesne Light Co. v. Barasch, 488 U.S. 299 (1988).

“The Reid Bill emphatically fails this test by imposing sharp limitations on the ability of health-insurance companies to raise fees or exclude coverage. Moreover, the Reid Bill forces on these regulated firms onerous new obligations that they will not be able to fund from their various revenue sources. The squeeze between the constricted revenue sources allowable under the Reid Bill and the extensive new legal obligations it imposes is likely to result in massive cash crunch that could drive the firms that serve the individual and small-group health-insurance markets into bankruptcy.”

I’m not even remotely enough of a Constitutional Law scholar to know if his argument is correction, but Epstein is certainly one of the heavy-hitters in that field, and his book Takings is is one of the most important works on the subject of the federal government exceeding its constitutional power in the last quarter century. And he actually appears to have read the bill, which probably puts him one up on, oh, more than half the Senators voting on it…

Spending Lots of Taxpayer Money to Accomplish Nothing

Monday, December 21st, 2009

If there’s a theme for the Obama years, and for the Pelosi/Reid legislation Obama has embraced, it’s that of spending tremendous amounts of taxpayer dollars to accomplish almost nothing. Consider:

What all three have in common?

  • All are hugely expensive. How expensive no one knows, but given the vast increase we’ve seen in the cost of Social Security, Medicare, etc., my guess would be tens of trillions of dollars over the next 30 years.
  • All are exteremly unpopular among the taxpayers who are being asked to foot the bill.
  • All accomplish almost nothing except increase the size of the federal government and channeling money to Obama allies like ACORN and SEIU.

The way things are going, the slaughter of Democratic incumbents in the 2010 election could make 1994 look like a picnic by comparison…

Update:

Greetings Farkers!

&#60Troy McClure&#62Hi, I’m Lawrence Person! You may remember me from such Flamewars as “ObamaCare is all about choice, or rather, taking choices away from American citizens and giving them to government bureaucrats” and “From Iran to Honduras, millions of people around the world long for freedom and democracy. And wherever those seeking freedom can be found, Obama will be there…grinding his bootheel into their face”.&#60&#47Troy McClure&#62

Come in and sit a spell. Have a beer and stretch your feet out to the toasty flamewar goodness. Feel free to buy a book or check out my other, completely non-political blog.

And, above all, Obey the Hypnotoad!

The Constitution is not a Suicide Pact, but ObamaCare is

Friday, December 18th, 2009

Given that it’s no so extrordinarily unpopular that it threatens to unseat numerous Democratic senators next year.

  • “A recent Zogby poll showed 28% of state voters support ‘reform.’ A full 40% said they’d be less likely to vote for Democratic Sen. Byron Dorgan next year if he supports a bill. In a theoretical matchup with Republican Gov. John Hoeven (who has yet to announce), Mr. Hoeven wins 55% to 36%. Mr. Dorgan has been in the Senate 17 years; he won his last election with 68% of the vote.”
  • “In Arkansas, 32% support this health-care legislation. Sen. Blanche Lincoln, also running next year, trails challengers by more than 50 points among the 56% of voters who strongly disapprove of the health plan.”
  • “Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, the public face of health reform, can barely break 38% approval in Nevada.”

Maybe they should be calling it “doctor-assisted political suicide”…

Polls for Obama, ObamaCare, continue to plunge

Friday, December 11th, 2009

61% now oppose ObamaCare.

And according to Gallup, only 47% still support Obama himself. (Quinnipiac puts it at 46%.)

And, to add insult to injury, 44% now say they’d prefer to have Bush 43 back as President rather than Obama.

OK, let’s start the pool: At what date do you predict a plurality of voters will say they would prefer Bush back as President rather than Obama? My completely unscientific guess is March 21, 2010.

ObamaCare To Cost $6 Trillion

Monday, November 30th, 2009

That’s the sort of money that would get even Dr. Evil’s attention.

Premonitions of a Democratic House Slaughter in 2010?

Friday, November 13th, 2009

Next year is shaping up as potentially disastrous for House Democrats. Especially given:

I hope to take a further look at some of the most vulnerable Democratic House members who voted for ObamaCare in greater detail at some point in the not-so-distant future.