GOP Establishment Keeps On Disappointing

There are three problems with the GOP establishment class. First, they mistake K Street for the public and they mistake K Street’s crony-capitalism for genuine capitalism. Secondly, they are technocrats who don’t understand the fundamentals of politics. And third, they are cowards who would rather lose than upset anyone. In the past week, we’ve received some classic examples of this.

Example One: Peggy Noonan

The first example relates to Rick Perry and comes from Peggy Noonan. Noonan is a former Bush I speech writer who wrote the obnoxious, backhanded attack on Reaganism: “a kinder, gentler nation.” She also wrote the ultimately foolish “read my lips: no new taxes.” She spent the 2008 election attacking Sarah Palin. Now she’s after Rick Perry.



There are good reasons to be concerned about Rick Perry. He seems to be a champion of crony capitalism, and I am concerned he will wrap Big Business socialism in the mantle of conservatism, just as Bush and Obama have done. And I am hearing similar concerns from other conservatives and Tea Party people everywhere. But that’s not Noonan’s concern. Nope, she unquestioningly takes him as a “natural conservative.” What troubles her is his style:

His primary flaw appears to be a chesty, quick-draw machismo that might be right for an angry base but wrong for an antsy country. Americans want a president who feels their anger without himself walking around enraged.

Really? So she doesn’t even see or care about the danger that he might be a Big Business Trojan Horse, but she’s worried that mushy centrists might not like him speaking confidently about his beliefs? Indeed, she equates having strong beliefs with being angry. This is a clear example of what is wrong with the establishment: they don’t see any conflict between conservatism and cronyism, yet they worry when the crony doesn't appear meek enough. Pathetic.

Example Two: Jeb Bush

Jeb Bush’s supporters tell us that he’s not like the rest of his family. “He’s a genuine conservative,” they say. His record doesn’t reflect that, and sure, he supports teachers unions and open borders and RINO candidates and his son is now a Jon Huntsman supporter, but "trust us," they say. Well, I’m not buying it. The Bush family are RINOs to the core and I will not support another one. I will vote for Satan before I vote for Bush.



So what did Bush do now? On Fox Business News, Bush warned the 2012 GOP contenders that they should not attack Obama. According to Bush, they can talk about his policies, but they need to steer clear of attacking Obama himself and “ascribing bad motives to the guy." Why? Because "that’s wrong” and it "risks alienating voters."



This is so fundamentally wrong. Elections that involve incumbent Presidents are referendums on the President. They are not contests of equals. In other words, with a few exceptions, it doesn’t matter who we pick as a candidate, the public will be voting based on whether or not they want to retain Barack Obama. . . that's it. And the only way to win an election against an incumbent is to turn the public against the incumbent. That means pointing out their failures, their flaws, the things they’ve done and said that the public has not liked. It means pointing out why their motivations are bad, i.e. “ascribing bad motives to the guy.” And it means attacking them personally over all the little things the public doesn’t like about them. That is how you beat an incumbent.



What Bush is proposing is for losers. It is the rules for some country club debating society, not a political campaign to lead the country. And the fact he would try to disarm his own side, once again shows why no one should ever trust another Bush anywhere near the White House.

Example Three: Stop Praising The Bad Guys!

Finally, we come to a series of Republicans going out of their way to give aid and comfort to the Democrats:

● Chris Christie tells us that global warming is real.



● Jon Huntsman called Republicans who reject the false science behind global warming “anti-science.”



● Former Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist says that we shouldn’t repeal ObamaCare because 70% of it is good.



● Massive RINO Tom Davis, former Congressman from Virginia who supports DC statehood, can’t bring himself to point out the Obama Justice Department’s sudden investigation of S&P is retaliation for making Obama look bad. The best he can suggest is that “it almost looks retaliatory.” Right, and World War II was kinda, sorta a shooting thingy.



● John McCain and Lindsey Graham are giving the President aid and comfort on Libya, saying that the United States should be “proud of the role our country played.” McCain had previously stated that Obama made “a strong case” for the use of the military in Libya. . . even as everyone else was calling the war illegal.

This is exactly what angers average Republicans with the establishment. These are issues on which the Democrats blew it. Yet, this group of weak-kneed, "can't we all just get along" Republicans cannot stop themselves from offering aid and comfort to the struggling Democrats. This must stop. They need to learn from the Democrats that you never praise the other side and you never bail them out of their messes. And you certainly NEVER attack your own side. Until the establishment learns these lessons, they are no better than Democratic collaborators.



[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Republicans Play Smart!

Prior to the Giffords shooting, the media was busy trying to discredit House Republicans for their first week in power. They spun stories of a lavish “Republican” fundraiser (though only a handful of Republicans attended), they whined about two Republicans not being properly sworn in (a non-issue at best), and they complained that Republicans didn’t cut $100 billion from the budget on day one. Of course, few people fell for these smears. What's more interesting though is something that's gone almost entirely unnoticed by the media, something that could turn out to be significant.



Years back, the Congress put a limit on the size of the federal debt. But the federal budget is so out of control that the Treasury keeps running into that limit. Consequently, the Congress must repeatedly vote to raise the debt ceiling or face the music as government spending grinds to a halt and the government begins defaulting on its obligations.



One such moment came up prior to the election. But with the Democrats likely to lose the election, they decided to set a trap for the Republicans. By voting only to extend the debt ceiling for a few months worth of spending, the Democrats hoped that one of the first votes the new Republican Congress would need to make would be to raise the debt ceiling. The Democrats hoped this would embarrass the Republicans and alienate them from their Tea Party allies. It seemed like a nice trick.



But like everything else the Democrats do, this one has blown up in their faces. Indeed, rather than just hold their noses and vote to raise the debt ceiling, as the Democrats expected, the Republicans decided to hold out until Obama agrees to budget concessions. Said Speaker John Boehner:

"The American people will not stand for such an increase unless it is accompanied by meaningful action by the president and Congress to cut spending and end the job-killing spending binge in Washington. While America cannot default on its debt, we also cannot continue to borrow recklessly, dig ourselves deeper into this hole, and mortgage the future of our children and grandchildren."

Even the RINOs are on board. Said Lindsey Graham (RINO-S.C.):

“This is an opportunity to make sure that the government is changing its spending ways. I will not the vote for the debt ceiling increase until I see a plan in place that will deal with our long-term obligations, starting with Social Security.”

Graham’s demands are similar to those of many Tea Party activists -- raise the retirement age for Social Security, means test benefits, and slash non-security discretionary spending to 2008 levels. The Republican leadership is on board as well, as are most members, though some are opposed to raising the debt ceiling under any circumstances.



Obama first tried to castigate the Republicans for “playing chicken” with “catastrophe,” but now indicates he’s willing to reach a deal with the Republicans. Harry Reid too has climbed on board, though many on the left continue to resist. Said Dick Durbin (D-Ill): "Using this doomsday scenario and putting the American economy at risk I don't think is a responsible way to govern." Wah!! What does Durbin know about responsibility?



What makes this such an interesting issue is that the Republicans could well be on the verge of obtaining actual, serious concessions from Obama. Consider that for a moment. When the Republicans won the House but not the Senate, the assumption was that nothing would happen until 2012, when Obama could be replaced and a majority obtained in the Senate. But through the careful application of political pressure, the Republicans may be about to obtain concessions that begin to right our fiscal house and reshape the federal budget toward conservative goals.



Combined with actual cuts ($35 billion in the House budget), Issa’s deviously clever plan to let American business have a hand in slashing regulations, and the seeming easy unity of Tea Party people and RINOs (and even some Democrats), things appear to be off to a pretty good start in Washington. Maybe these really aren’t the same old Republicans?



What do you think?



[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Amending the 14th Amendment, Another Fake Out?

Yesterday, a group of Republican Senators came out in favor of holding hearings on amending the 14th Amendment, which grants citizenship rights to anyone born in the United States. This wouldn't be unusual if the Republicans were Jim DeMint or a James M. Inhofe. But they weren’t. This time it was Arizona’s John McCain and Jon Kyl, McCain’s domestic partner Lindsey Graham, and Alabama’s Jeff Sessions. A strange collection indeed. So is this for real? In truth, I think the answer is “no.”

Right now the 14th Amendment guarantees citizenship to anyone born to American parents or anyone born on United States territory. This second part is the problem, as it allows what have been called “anchor babies.” This involves a mother rushing to the United States just in time to give birth. Once the child is born, it becomes an American citizen. The mother then uses the child as a means to stay in the United States legally and eventually become a citizen herself.

It is estimated that 3.8 million illegal immigrants in this country (of the currently estimated 10.8 million -- 2 million left because of the recession) have children who are United States citizens.

Of this, John Sessions says:

"I'm not sure exactly what the drafters of the (14th) amendment had in mind, but I doubt it was that somebody could fly in from Brazil and have a child and fly back home with that child, and that child is forever an American citizen."

Yeah, I kind of doubt that too.

The 14th Amendment was adopted in 1868 after the Civil War to grant citizenship to recently freed slaves. Had the 14th Amendment required that at least one parent be a United States citizen before the child could gain citizenship, then slaves would not have qualified as none of them were citizens. Thus, it provided citizenship to “all persons born or naturalized in the United States.”

At the time this was passed, it was never contemplated that Mexico would essentially fall apart south of us and that Mexicans would use this as a means of fleeing their country. Indeed, when this was passed in the 1860s, Mexico was quite prosperous. As for the rest of the world, it's not very likely that many pregnant women even traveled to the United States back then because a sea voyage would take far too long and would be too risky.

So what would be a good solution? Well, since the slavery issue is over, i.e. there are no more ex-slaves still needing citizenship, it is perhaps time to change the 14th Amendment to require birth to an American citizen -- as almost every other country in the world requires.

Of course, the Democrats will call this racist. . . but what don’t they call racist? (yawn) They will call it anti-immigrant, when it’s truly nothing of the sort, it’s anti-linejumper. They will call it anti-Hispanic, which only makes sense if you believe that all Hispanics got here illegally. Some are whining that this will create vague bureaucratic hardships for parents giving birth! As in they would need to provide proof of citizenship. . . like a drivers license. Big whoop. Others hide behind the idea “this won’t deter illegal immigrants,” but that’s just flawed reasoning, i.e. just because laws don’t prevent all murders doesn’t mean we should make murder legal.

The real problem here, however, is that this is probably a gimmick. The current rule resides in the Constitution. Thus, changing it will require an Amendment to the Constitution. That means 2/3 majorities in both chambers of Congress and 3/4 of the states would need to approve this. I can’t see that happening.

I suspect this is really a couple of RINOs desperate to prove that they aren't RINOs without having to actually do anything about it. So what they've done here is latch onto an issue that they know cannot be delivered. This gives them something deeply conservative to pound home to prove how conservative they really are without any fear that they will ever be called upon to actually pass it into law. That’s why it should not surprise you that Lindsey Grahamnesty and John McCain have signed up for this. Kyl isn't a RINO, but he seems to like trying to change the Constitution, having tried it before with both Graham and Diane Feinstein. Sessions is a strong conservative and has been battling illegal immigration, so that's probably why he's joined in this.

I don’t trust the motives of McCain or Graham, nor do I think this will work because of the impossible hurdles it must pass. I'm hoping it does. I really do. It’s time that this country fixed its immigration system and a good start would be to stop this practice of anchor-babying. But at this point, this looks like nothing more than the proverbial carrot tied to the string hanging just out of reach of the donkey, and that this intended simply to be dangled in front of us but never delivered.

But who knows? Maybe the RINOs have miscalculated? Maybe the people are upset enough about this issue that it will gain traction and eventually become law?

Wouldn't that be ironic, if the RINOs actually did something right?

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

PelosiCare’s Pyrrhic Victory

Once again, the MSM has it wrong. The House voted 220-215 to pass PelosiCare and today the media is busy celebrating Nancy Pelosi’s “victory.” But I wouldn’t buy the confetti just yet. As I see it, last night made it much more difficult for the Democrats to pass any version of ObamaCare. What a shame. Consider the following. . .

1. The Senate Problem

Passing the Baucus bill was already going to be a challenge. As we discussed before, the Democrats lacked the support of two key Senators -- Snowe and Lieberman, with several more sitting on the fence.

The House bill goes much further than the Senate bill. Indeed, even noted RINO Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-Reid’s Lap) stated today that: “The House bill is dead on arrival in the Senate. It was a bill written by liberals for liberals.”

Joe Lieberman likewise re-confirmed that he would not allow any bill that includes a public option to reach a vote in the Senate:

“If the public option plan is in there, as a matter of conscience, I will not allow this bill to come to a final vote because I believe the debt can break America and send us into a recession that's worse than the one we're fighting our way out of today.”

If Lieberman is to be believed, he will not let a bill pass that could result in a public option after the bill is reconciled with the House bill. But the House lacks the votes to pass anything that doesn’t include a public option. Basically, it’s a stand off.

Moreover, seeing that the House does not have the votes to move toward the center, and the Senate will not move left to meet the House, one should expect opposition to grow in the Senate to even putting this thing to a vote. Why vote on something that cannot pass? Indeed, I’m suspecting that several Democrats are quietly sending thank you letters to Snowe and Lieberman as we speak.

Thus, Pelosi’s inability to play well with others, her unwillingness to compromise and her inability to seek consensus before acting, may have just made a Senate vote much less likely. . . which would kill ObamaCare.

2. Unresolved House Problems

Even aside from the Senate problem, passage in the House actually still remains in doubt. Indeed, this vote solved nothing, it just put off the moment of decision:

• The Abortion Problem

Abortion has been a serious problem throughout this entire process. As we stated before, there are a group of 40 or so House Democrats, led by Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich) who have stated that they will not vote for any bill that allows the use of public funds to pay for abortion. On the other side are a group of about 190 pro-abortion Democrats who will not vote for this bill if it does not cover abortion. Another stand off.

Pelosi “resolved” this dispute with a stupid bit of double-dealing. She let the anti-abortion group insert language (tougher than they even demanded originally) into the bill, but she simultaneously promised the pro-abortion group that this language would not be in the final bill. Indeed, Rep. Janice Schakowsky (D-Planned Parenthood) has already stated that if the restrictions imposed by Stupak make it into the final bill, “many of us couldn’t support it at the end of the day.” Rep. Diane DeGette (D-NARAL) called this “the greatest restriction of a women’s [sic] right to choose passed by Congress in our career. [sic]”

So the problem remains. Both sides have the power to kill the bill, and neither side will budge. And even if this can ultimately be resolved, do nervous Senators take that chance and put their votes on record?

By the way, let me credit the Republicans with backing the Stupak amendment and thereby keeping this controversy alive. Brilliant tactical move.

• Illegal Aliens

Both the House and the Senate bill explicitly prevent illegal aliens from using the new system. This is a requirement for the bill to pass. But then. . . Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-Mexico) said that Hispanic lawmakers got a pledge from the House leadership “to defeat” any attempts to insert language that bars illegal aliens from participation, and they would oppose the final bill if it contained such language. Hmm.

3. Why Support Will Fall, Not Rise

Further, don’t expect support for this bill to grow, as usually happens after a bill passes. Normally, Americans give the benefit of the doubt to bills after they pass, and give them a chance to work. But support for this bill will not rise, it will fall as more and more negative details keep slipping out. Take a gander at these. . .

• Insurance Is Too Expensive

Section 224 of the bill requires the HHS Secretary to decide what constitutes a qualified plan within 18 months. On November 2, the Congressional Budget Office estimated what these “qualified plans” would likely cost. An individual who earns $44,000 will need to pay $7,300 a year -- 17% of their pre-tax income. A family earning $102,000 will need to pay $20,300 -- 20% of its pre-tax income. That will go over like a lead balloon.

But the public option or the exchanges will save us right? Actually, no. According to the CBO the public plans “would typically have premiums that are somewhat higher than the average premiums” for private plans.

• Options? You Don’t Need No Stinking Options

Under Section 303, the bill appears to provide for three options -- basic, enhanced and premium levels. But those levels refer only to the co-pays and deductibles (and you thought those would go away?). The plans themselves will be “one size fits all” in terms of coverage.

• The Jail Thing

The House Joint Committee on Taxation has confirmed that Pelosi can send you to prison if you don’t get coverage. Anyone who does not get acceptable health insurance coverage and who refuses to pay the fine (2.5% of income) is subject to a fine of $250,000 and imprisonment up to five years -- about what you get for armed robbery.

Interestingly, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-FascismLand) notes that: “There’s just going to be some people who choose rather to pay the fine than to pay for health care. There’s going to be some people that just philosophically don’t want to buy health care.” And if they don’t, we make them political prisoners. . . for the good of the American Volk!

• The Uninsurable Problem

The biggest supporters of this bill are the five million uninsurable Americans who think they’re going to be covered. But they’ve just learned that they need to wait six months to be considered uninsurable. Said the American Cancer Society, “if you are a cancer patient and have cancer now, you can’t wait six months to go into a plan because your condition can go from bad to death.”

Moreover, they won’t be able to afford their insurance. PelosiCare lumps these people into pools with other uninsurables, which pools are supposed to be self-sustaining. Translated into English, your premiums will be thousands of dollars a month.

To cut this cost, the Democrats have allocated just $5 billion dollars. That works out to $1,000 subsidy per participant over a ten year period -- less than $10 a month. Any chance that’s all it takes to help pay for someone with an uninsurable condition? And if that’s all it takes, why not just get Sally Struthers to beg rich foreigners for $10 a month. . . “33 cents a day can change a life.”

• The Funding Problem

Even leaving aside who the Democrats plan to tax to pay for this -- currently an impassable point of contention between the House and Senate -- this bill contains a bizarre contradiction: it relies on people refusing to participate to pay for the bill. Indeed, the House assumes that millions of Americans will rather pay the fine than buy the health care, to the tune of $167 billion. If these people fool us and sign up for the bill, this money vanishes. Chaos ensues.

• The End of Medicare As You Know It

The bill also cuts $500 billion from Medicare, a program that already bankrupts doctors. But what’s worse, the bill fundamentally changes the way Medicare works by allowing Pelosi to dictate your treatment decisions.

Section 1302 of the bill introduces something called a “medical home,” which is euphemism speak for an HMO. Right now Medicare lets you choose your own doctor and the doctor is paid for each service provided. This new plan requires primary care providers to determine whether or not you can see specialists or get specific tests. The CBO says these medical homes will resemble “unpopular gatekeepers of 20 years ago.”

• Interest Group Payoffs

Finally, the bill is crawling with giveaways to left wing interests. For example, Section 299V gives money to community groups. Section 222 provides reimbursement for culturally and linguistically appropriate services. ¿Qué es eso? And Sections 2521 and 2533 establish racial and ethnic preferences in nurse training.

4. Democrats Exposed

This has all the makings of a pyrrhic victory. How pyrrhic? To give Pelosi her moment in the sun (not literally of course, because that would kill her. . . but figuratively), the Democrats have now exposed themselves to the American people.

The public hates this bill. Poll after poll shows support dropping like a stone in a lake -- 42% at last check. And the elections in Virginia and New Jersey demonstrated the level of anger the public holds. Even Owens in New York had to promise to oppose PelosiCare to get elected, a promise he promptly broke.

With this vote, the public now sees the Democratic Party laid out in all of its public-ignoring, healthcare-system-seizing, petty-tyrannical glory. Leftist bastards. There is no hiding anymore. No one who voted for this monster can claim to be a moderate. . . and, best of all, they exposed themselves for the sake of a bill that will never pass!

And let’s not forget the “Blue Dogs” who voted against this thing. They aren’t blameless. They could have stopped this thing long ago on numerous procedural votes. They also could have joined with Republicans to create real reform. . . but they didn’t. They are as complicit in this assault on America as if they had loaned Pelosi the crowbar.

Moreover, their vote was nothing but self-preservation. Of the 39 Democrats who voted against the bill, 31 represent (and I use that term loosely) districts that voted for Old Man McCain over Menthol Smooth B. Obama. Of the remaining eight, three are freshmen who defeated Republicans in 2008. One Democrat, Rep. Betsy Markey (D-FingerInTheWind) only voted “no” after it was clear the Democrats had the votes to pass the bill.

So in the end, while the left trumpets this as a victory, this could well turn out to be the most pyrrhic victory in the history of pyrrhic victories.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Lindsey Graham: “[Only Some] Elections Have Consequences”

Let us be blunt. Sonia Sotomayor should never sit on the Supreme Court. Even without the hints of bigotry, she lacks the judgment, understanding and skill needed to make her a competent jurist, and she certainly does not display the kind of outstanding legal mind that should be elevated to the Supreme Court. She is, at best, a poser, and, at worst, an inconsistent tyrant.

Yet, she will be confirmed, and that’s fine. Everybody loves a fool, and history will simply add her to the growing list of albatrosses hanging around the well-feathered neck of Obama’s legacy.

But this post is not about Sonia Sotomayor. This post is about Lindsey Graham (RINO, SC) and those like him in either party.

Graham announced yesterday that he will support nominee Sotomayor because, as he put it, “elections have consequences.” But that is not a valid basis for supporting a President’s nominee. Indeed, the Constitution does not envision the Senate as a rubber stamp for a President’s appointments. Instead, the Senate is called upon to provide “advice and consent” on appointments, not to approve them without complaint.

If a nominee is inadequate, it is the duty of every Senator so finding to stand up in opposition to that nominee, and to demand that the President nominate someone else, someone the Senator can support. That’s called checks and balances. That’s how our government works. To surrender this role on the basis that the President has won an election is to abdicate one of the primary constitutional functions of a United States Senator.

Remember, Senator, the oath of office for Senators requires Senators to pledge to support and defend the Constitution and to faithfully discharge the duties entrusted to the office:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.

Nothing in there says, “unless the other guy won an election.”

Nor can Graham's submissive desires be attributed to some political courtesy extended by one party to another. Indeed, the Democrats extended no such courtesies when they smeared Robert Bork, Douglas Ginsberg or Clarence Thomas, or when they prevented John Tower from becoming Reagan’s Secretary of Defense (an historical first), in a party-line vote, because of suggestions of “womanizing” and “alcoholism.”

And speaking of elections, might one wonder why Senator Graham only recognizes the consequences of the election of the President? Was the Senator himself not elected to represent the people of South Carolina? How does declaring an intent to ignore that mandate in favor of rubber stamping a President recent-elect satisfy that election? Or do only some elections have consequences?

Now admittedly, Graham also stated that he felt that Sotomayor was well-qualified. And if that had been his sole reasoning, one could quibble with his conclusion but not challenge the good faith basis of his decision. But he had to add that extra piece. . . his abdication of his role. . . his declaration of submission, and that is the problem.

It absolutely pains me to say this, Senator Graham, but look at Robert Byrd. Agree with his politics or not, Byrd fully understands his role as a check on the power of the Executive.

And let me not limit this criticism merely to the submissive Senator Graham. This criticism should be extended to every member of Congress or the Senate, in either party, who fails to represent the people they have been elected to represent, and who fails to faithfully discharge the duties of their office.

Representative democracy only works when the representatives represent. It does not work, when they decide to make up their own rules.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...