Bloodthirsty Liberal

Some are portraying this transparent ploy (hey, finally, some transparency!) as something other than an obvious attempt to pass a political hot potato—but I say mash that bad boy up (the potato, not the president), stir in some crow, and serve it back to him (the president, not the crow):

President Obama made a dramatic attempt to jump-start the stalled health care debate Sunday, inviting Republicans in Congress to a half-day summit on the subject to be televised live later this month.

The president made the offer in an interview with CBS News anchor Katie Couric just hours before the Superbowl. Obama challenged Republicans to come to the discussion armed with their best ideas for how to cover more Americans and fix the health insurance system.

“I want to consult closely with our Republican colleagues,” Obama told Couric. “What I want to do is to ask them to put their ideas on the table… I want to come back and have a large meeting, Republicans and Democrats to go through, systematically, all the best ideas that are out there and move it forward.”

The invitation to join him later this month follows comments he made on Thursday during a speech at a Democratic fundraiser in which he said he wanted to sit with Republicans and “walk through the [health care plans] in a methodical way so that the American people can see and compare what makes the most sense.”

Oh, so he’s going to talk to us like you’re four year olds. That oughta help. ‘Cause we can’t be trusted to make decisions for ourselves. And we know he’ll only tell us the truth.

But nice of him to finally extend the Republicans an invitation. They’ve been about as welcome as a case of ebola in the negotiations so far.

Rush has always said that the Republicans should include themselves out of health care reform, at least on the terms proposed by the Democrats. I would agree, but why not take the opportunity to teach the president a thing or two about people running their own lives?

Or, in words he would understand: the Constitution doesn’t say what “government must do on your behalf” for a damn good reason! After life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, we’re done (words from the Declaration, but they best define the governing philosophy of the Republic). I have yet to find any mention of free prescription drug or cheap dental in the document.

Republicans have plenty to say on health care, and on everything else, if they talk conservative values. Let us live our lives, keep as much money as we fairly can from our hard work, leave our children in the best position to succeed. That’s not a bad message, and it makes everything else sound irrelevant.

PS: Sounds like the Republicans have the same thing in mind:

The best way to start on real, bipartisan reform would be to scrap those bills and focus on the kind of step-by-step improvements that will lower health care costs and expand access.

PS: Hugh Hewitt has three talking points for the Republicans: tort reform; interstate competition; and the effing economy, stupid.

PPS: Okay, so maybe President Obama isn’t even remotely serious:

In his rallying cry to a crowd of cheering supporters on Thursday, Mr. Obama described, in the clearest terms yet, his vision of how to enact comprehensive health legislation: House and Senate Democrats would resolve their differences and decide on a “final bill.” They would then invite “our Republican friends to present their ideas.”

…

In conversations today, the White House was quick to emphasize a couple of points. First, they’re not starting over. Legislation has already passed the House of Representatives and the United States Senate. That’s not to be taken lightly, and the White House isn’t taking it lightly. “The President has made it clear that he’s adamant about passing comprehensive reform similar to the bills passed by the House and the Senate,” one official said.

Having the GOP in for a debate after Democrats draft a “final bill,” similar to that virtually universally rejected by Republicans is absurd, which ought to be among the main points Republicans make if — as appears to be the case — they choose to attend.

We want to hear what you have to say, we just don’t want to listen to it—what a horse’s patootie.

I don’t know myself, because Animal Planet had a special on the mating habits of the tortoise (forget Sting, those guys can go forever!), but didn’t President Obama just tell Congress and the nation (with the exception of Janet Napolitano and Harry Reid, who were asleep) that the Democrats had numbers enough to do whatever the [bleep] they wanted (or words to that effect)?

To Democrats, I would remind you that we still have the largest majority in decades, and the people expect us to solve problems, not run for the hills.

Well, he’s right about that. Or he was, until Scott Brown won (you’re welcom, you’re welcome).

So then, what’s he doing wagging his finger in the faces of the Republicans?

Obama, attending the House Republicans’ retreat in Baltimore, began with conciliatory remarks but soon became more pointed. He said a GOP-driven “politics of no” was blocking action on bills that could help Americans obtain jobs and health care.

…

“The notion that this was a radical package is just not true,” Obama said. “I am not an ideologue.”

There was then a brief recess for Jim DeMint to wipe up the coffee that had spewed through his nose.

The President also said:

President Barack Obama Friday chided Republicans for portraying his health reform plan as a “Bolshevik plot” and for saying he wanted to do “crazy stuff that is going to destroy America.”

And as he also said in the SoTU:

If anyone from either party has a better approach that will bring down premiums, bring down the deficit, cover the uninsured, strengthen Medicare for seniors, and stop insurance company abuses, let me know.

So if he was open to good ideas and didn’t want Republicans to tar the plan as a “Bolshevik plot”, why have he and Harry and Nancy been locked in the broom closet for the past month with flashlights and red pencils, not letting anyone get a look at the thing?

As for not being an ideologue or a Bolshevik, let the Communist Party USA take a swing at that:

A broad multiclass, multiracial movement is converging around Obama’s “Hope, change and unity” campaign because they see in it the thrilling opportunity to end 30 years of ultra-right rule and move our nation forward with a broadly progressive agenda.

…

Notably, the labor movement has stepped up its independent mobilization for this election. It is leading an unprecedented campaign to educate and unify its ranks to elect the nation’s first African American president. Last week, AFL-CIO Secretary-Treasurer Richard Trumka told the Steelworkers convention that there is “no evil that’s inflicted more pain and more suffering than racism — and it’s something we in the labor movement have a special responsibility to challenge.”

If Obama’s candidacy represented nothing more than the spark for this profound initiative to unite the working class and defeat the pernicious influence of racism, it would be a transformative candidacy that would advance progressive politics for the long term.

…

One thing is clear. None of the people’s struggles — from peace to universal health care to an economy that puts Main Street before Wall Street — will advance if McCain wins in November.

(Rush had a great list of CPUSA endorsements of Obama and his agenda, but I’ll have to wait until he posts it to share it with you.)

PS: Re: namecalling: “It’s not just on your side, by the way.”

Sorry, no commentary or analysis, just ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha!!!

Mike Huckabee has a 45-44 advantage over Obama, aided largely by a 44-38 lead with independents.

…

Mitt Romney does the next best, trailing Obama 44-42. His favorability is 36/32, and he’s the most popular Republican among independents (41/32). Romney actually matches Huckabee with GOP voters this month and gets over 50%, ending a trend in his numbers that had seemed to spell difficulty for snagging a Republican nomination.

Sarah Palin trails Obama 49-41 largely because she loses 14% of the Republican vote to him, making her the only one of the GOP candidates we tested who Obama could get double digit crossover support against.

I’m not yet fussed over whom the Republicans might nominate, and Huck might be my least favorite among the three—but God it’s good to see the Preacher beating the Messiah.

Am I hitting the New Year’s Eve cheer a little early? I wasn’t aware that you could hit the New Year’s Eve cheer too early, but, no, I’m sober (at this moment) as a judge (a sober judge).

Could n Republican take Ted’s seat? Some are beginning to wonder:

Hey, folks, I’d love to tell you a Republican win is well within reach in Massachusetts. But the Democrat is fairly well-known and has run statewide before, the Republican is relatively little-known, and, as noted, Democrats start with a big advantage in the pool of possible voters.

…

Still, two readers make the case for optimism. From a reader in Cambridge:

I’m not saying you’re wrong, but you cannot believe the number of Democrats that I’ve talked to over the last month who intend to vote for him. Martha Coakley is not a formidable candidate by any stretch of the imagination. She is running solely on the “D” next to her name. It will be interesting to see what happens if and when a poll comes out showing Brown within 10%. If that does come to pass, I would hope that the national party would blitz the state over the final two weeks prior to the election.

And this case, which almost persuades me, from another reader in state:

First, It’s a special election. The few times Republicans have won elections in Massachusetts, it has been in special elections.

…

Second, the number of votes there are in the Democratic Primary is usually the high-water mark of what the Democrat will get. In 2001 special congressional election, Steven Lynch got more votes in the Democratic Primary than he received in the General Election. Fewer people voted for Nikki Tsongas in 2007 in the general than voted in the Democratic Primary.

Third, Coakley has basically shut-down and set the cruise control. She thinks she’s already won. Her base is no longer motivated. Scott is Senator 41. Obama’s Agenda screeches to a halt if Scott is elected . . .

All reasonable arguments, all backed by fact.

And this guy crunches some very interesting numbers:

[I]n the absence of any polling done in the past month, I embarked on a little thought experiment. One of the interesting things about the 2009 Governor’s races was how similar the movements in the states’ electorates were. In Virginia, the Republicans’ share of the electorate increased by 12% from 2008 to 2009; in New Jersey it was 10%. In Virginia, Democrats were at about 84% of their 2009 level; in New Jersey it was 93%.

In both states, the Democrats’ share of the Republican vote dropped by about 50% (50% in Virginia, 56% in New Jersey), and their share of the Independent vote dropped about 66%. The Democrats’ share of the Democratic vote was pretty stable; up 1% in Virginia and up 2% in New Jersey.

So what if we see a similar trend going into Massachusetts in 2010? Let me say before I go forward with this that I developed this methodology before I’d looked closely at any of the numbers, and without any real understanding of how the outcome would play out. I was kinda surprised.

…

In any event, if we take a 38%D, 19%R, 42%I electorate and have Coakley win 90% of the Democrats, 4% of Republicans and 38% of Independents, we come out with an exceedingly close 51.06-48.9% Coakley win. I did not expect that.

I skipped the minutiae, and there are plenty of caveats, but you get the point.

Let me give you my own take. I’ve heard Scott Brown on a number of local radio shows over the last couple of years, commenting as the nearly sole sane member of the Massachusetts General Court (our fancy name for the legislature). Scandal after Democratic scandal, sleazy maneuver after sleazy Democratic maneuver, Scott has appeared on Howie Carr’s or Michael Graham’s shows to decry the abuses of the one-party state. And he’s been on one or the other almost every day since the campaign started. He’s not flashy, he’s not eloquent, but he’s exceedingly decent.

Someone very smart and very gifted is advising his campaign. He produced only two commercials in the primary, but both were strong and memorable. They didn’t cost him a lot to make or run, but they did the trick.

And he’s doing it again:

Talk about the audacity of hope!

People are not enthused by this election, or by the machinations that led to it (well chronicled by our own humble selves). If enthusiasm means turnout, Brown could have a real chance. Coakley may have a record to run on, but more importantly, Brown has her record to run against. So far, he hasn’t done so, preferring to highlight their differences, not merely her deficiencies. Not going negative is probably prudent; she’s already played the victim card in the few debates she’s agreed to.

If things get too close, they’ll fire up the Kennedy machine, and we’ll have more oversized incisors in our faces than a horse dentist. But Brown is good looking (his family even more so), confident, a military man, and, not least, as far from the usual suspects as one could possibly imagine in this state (with fairly centrist stances on some social issues). I’m going to vote for him, I’m going to give him money, and I’m going to work for him.

And a good thing, I say:

Polidata Inc. projects from the 2009 estimates that the reapportionment following the 2010 Census will produce four new House seats for Texas, one for Florida, Arizona, Utah and Nevada, and none for California for the first time since 1850. Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Illinois are projected to lose one each, and Ohio two. Americans have been moving, even in recession, away from Democratic strongholds and toward Republican turf.

Massachusetts actually gained population last year, so watch out, Texas! Our 3,614 new residents (a decent crowd at a high school basketball game) will kick your ass.

I’ve been waiting for the migration from the liberal northeast to the conservative midwest and south to produce results for years—first with trepidation, more recently with anticipation, currently with frustration.

I’m happy Massachusetts will lose a seat. No one will miss a single one of the clowns we habitually re-elect. But moving a seat to Texas or Utah doesn’t always mean turning a Democratic seat Republican. There used to be no more conservative state than New Hampshire. But immigrants from tax-burdened Massachusetts brought their politics with them, and the Granite State is now more like talc. They fled the state of Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, and Barney Frank—and promptly elected Jeanne Shaheen, Carol Shea-Porter, and John Lynch.

Hope for the best, and expect the worst.

Did I scare you? Huh? Huh? Did I?

President Obama says I did:

President Barack Obama told House Republican leaders to “stop trying to frighten the American people” even as he and Democrats said they see a possibility for bipartisan cooperation on job creation legislation.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) told reporters that Obama made the admonition during a bipartisan meeting at the White House on Wednesday, producing a chart to show Republicans that “things are a lot better.”…

A chart? What kind of chart? Why do I suspect the Global Warming crowd put it together?

Sounds like it didn’t do the trick:

House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) pushed back on Obama’s request for an end to Republicans’ scare tactics by saying that Obama’s policies have led to a hiring freeze, and the GOP is simply telling constituents what is happening.

“[E]mployers are sitting there and they’re frozen because they don’t know what’s really going to happen here,” Boehner said. “And the president wants to blame us for informing the American people about what’s happening here and how it will affect them, but it’s not what we’re doing; it’s the policies that they’re promoting here in Washington.”

That’s exactly right, it seems to me, but then I’m just a werewolf in blogger’s pajamas.

This smacks of desperation, though what doesn’t in his economic policies? He’s like a steamship stoker, shoveling money into the stimulus boiler and up in smoke.

But I’m pleased to see he’s no longer blaming Bush for all his problems. The latest Nobel Peace laureate faces the future full of the promise of blaming someone else for all his messes. It truly is a good day.

How does a Massachusetts Republican possibly get elected to Ted Kennedy’s seat in the US Senate? He doesn’t, probably.

But if he does, he does so by running as a Kennedy Democrat—John Kennedy:

And if the voters didn’t get the point:

Scott Brown is right, of course, but this is the same electorate that sent Ted Kennedy (and John Kerry) back to Washington every six years, and Barney Fwank and the other socialist midgets back to the House every two (with apologies to midgets). And voted down a ballot measure repealing the state income tax. We like to take it up the you-know-where, in other words, and don’t see why everyone else shouldn’t also.

I’m still trying to learn more about Scott Brown’s positions on the foreign and domestic issues of the day—he’s a state senator for another district—but he could be Idid Amin’s twin brother and the temptation to vote for him over JAD (Just Another Democrat) would be hard to resist.

To vote Republican, press 1.

To vote Democrat, press 2.

If you’re not sure who you’re voting for, please stay on the line and wait for the next available ACORN volunteer:

The Democratic State Committee now admits paying for a robocall to Somerset County voters that slams Republican Chris Christie and promotes independent gubernatorial candidate Christopher Daggett.

A Democratic spokeswoman says the party’s chairman, Joe Cryan, was not aware of the robocalls when he denied that the state committee had anything to do with them yesterday afternoon.

Cryan, who told PolitickerNJ.com yesterday afternoon that the Democratic State Committee had “absolutely” nothing to do with the call, could not immediately be reached for comment…

Before the Democrats owned up to it, Daggett media advisor Bill Hillsman said the call might be a Republican trick to generate a sympathetic newspaper story.

Democrats shilling for Independents is bad enough—but Republicans shilling for Democrats?

This isn’t all she’s done for him, either: He asked her to swing by an event at the VFW and she merrily obliged.

…

The irony here is that it’s moderate Republicans who’ll end up being the big losers from Scozzafava’s betrayal. Not only does she make them look untrustworthy (or rather, more untrustworthy than before) but increasingly it seems like they’re not even going to get Hoffman’s scalp as a consolation prize.

The Republican brand may not be brightening as the Democrat brand fades. But more Americans identify themselves as conservative than ever before. The race in NY-23 could have been predicted without reading a single story.

For our liberal readers, let us do the math and point out that self-identified conservatives hold a 2-1 lead over self-identified liberals.

I’ve been a pretty staunch defender of the First Amendment, but given the craven surrender of the ink-stained wretches of the press, I don’t know why I bother:

Republican Congressman Connie Mack sent out a press release on Sept. 8. His flack received this reply from John Guerra, a reporter for the Key West Citizen in Florida:

“The Republican Party is now a mentally ill group of people who want nothing more than to destroy Obama’s first term no matter how much the country needs his policies. I despise your party’s activities and the hatred you spew on Fox and other sounding boards for the insurance companies. Please don’t you dare get him killed, which is the underlying goal of you right wing nuts.”

Intrepid reporter that I am (what can I say, it’s true), I found the press release of that date. Here is the incendiary document, the smoking gun, if you will, that set off Obama’s stenographer:

“This “trigger” idea is just another way for President Obama and Democrats in Congress to push our country down a path of nationalized health care.

“The Administration and the Democratic Leadership have made it quite clear that they believe the government, and not the free market, has all the answers. They refuse to listen to the American people, who are opposed to a government takeover of our health care system.

“The people of Southwest Florida and the nation aren’t going to fall for this gimmick. More freedom, and not more government, is the right path to reforming our health care system. Maybe one day the liberals will grasp this simple concept.”

That’s it, and there’s only one statement even remotely arguable: that the Democrats refuse to listen to the American people (and I’m being generous even there).

But the trigger is just a step toward socialized medicine; the Democrats do believe in government over the market; most Americans do oppose government takeover; the trigger is a gimmick; more freedom is always better than more government; liberals just don’t get it.

Those are axiomatic.

As a right wing nut, let me assure all my readers I wish President Obama a long and healthy life, in retirement. Give him a library, let him publish his memoirs (oh wait—he’s already done that—twice), may he have many grandchildren.

Just stop, please, sir.

So says DemocracyCorps

These base Republican voters dislike Barack Obama to be sure – which is not very surprising as base Democrats had few positive things to say about George Bush – but these voters identify themselves as part of a ‘mocked’ minority with a set of shared beliefs and knowledge, and commitment to oppose Obama that sets them apart from the majority in the country. They believe Obama is ruthlessly advancing a ‘secret agenda’ to bankrupt the United States and dramatically expand government control to an extent nothing short of socialism. While these voters are disdainful of a Republican Party they view to have failed in its mission, they overwhelmingly view a successful Obama presidency as the destruction of this country’s founding principles and are committed to seeing the president fail.

Instead of focusing on these intense ideological divisions, the press and elites continue to look for a racial element that drives these voters’ beliefs – but they need to get over it. Conducted on the heels of Joe Wilson’s incendiary comments at the president’s joint session address, we gave these groups of older, white Republican base voters in Georgia full opportunity to bring race into their discussion – but it did not ever become a central element, and indeed, was almost beside the point.

Now, who does that sound like?

My hope, and please understand me when I say this. I disagree fervently with the people on our side of the aisle who have caved and who say, “Well, I hope he succeeds. We’ve got to give him a chance.” Why? They didn’t give Bush a chance in 2000. Before he was inaugurated the search-and-destroy mission had begun. I’m not talking about search-and-destroy, but I’ve been listening to Barack Obama for a year-and-a-half. I know what his politics are. I know what his plans are, as he has stated them. I don’t want them to succeed.

…

Look, what he’s talking about is the absorption of as much of the private sector by the US government as possible, from the banking business, to the mortgage industry, the automobile business, to health care. I do not want the government in charge of all of these things. I don’t want this to work. So I’m thinking of replying to the guy, “Okay, I’ll send you a response, but I don’t need 400 words, I need four: I hope he fails.”

…

Why is it any different, what’s new, what is unfair about my saying I hope liberalism fails? Liberalism is our problem. Liberalism is what’s gotten us dangerously close to the precipice here. Why do I want more of it? I don’t care what the Drive-By story is. I would be honored if the Drive-By Media headlined me all day long: “Limbaugh: I Hope Obama Fails.”

It’s awfully big of James Carville to excuse conservatives (Rush most of all) from charges of racism—but he’s not done with them, not by a long shot:

The Republican base voters are not part of the continuum leading to the center of the electorate: they truly stand apart. For additional perspective, Democracy Corps conducted a parallel set of groups in suburban Cleveland. These groups, comprised of older, white, non-college independents and weak partisans, represent some of the most conservative swing voters in the electorate, and they demonstrated a wholly different worldview from Republican base voters by dismissing the fear of “socialism” and evaluating Obama in very different terms.

Oh, really?

Among independents, who provided Obama’s margin of victory last fall, 64 percent have severe doubts about his plans. The polls are averaging nearly 50 percent opposition.

Oh really?

The reason is Obama’s sinking numbers, particularly with independent voters. With all voters, Obama’s favorable ratings have slid 22 points since he was inaugurated in January. He still has a firm majority. However, a new Marist poll shows he has a small net negative with independent voters. Among independents, 45 percent approve and 47 percent disapprove. His disapproval rating is up 10 percentage points since August among independents.

Independent voters don’t matter much in New York, but they do in swing states that Obama won like Missouri, Illinois, Wisconsin and Ohio. And their congressional Democrats are watching.

Oh really?

Forty-three percent now of Americans, only 43 percent, would vote for him for president today.

You look at his approval ratings, he slipped back into the 40s, but more interestingly, independents, he’s losing, 46-41. And on health care, he’s losing independents, 53-36.

Oh really?

The approval ratings of the president by Democrats and Republicans are as one would expect with 77% of Democrats giving President Obama positive ratings compared to 14% of Republicans. Independents, however, are more down on the president as 60% give him negative ratings while 40% give him positive marks on his overall job performance.

Oh really?

A slim 43 percent plurality of Americans now disapproves of the job Barack Obama is doing on Afghanistan, an increase from the 32 percent who disapproved last month. Only Democrats, at 63 percent, assign positive marks to the president on Afghanistan, compared with 20 percent of Republicans and 38 percent of independents.

Oh really?

As health care legislation moves out of the Senate Finance Committee, a majority of Americans says they oppose the reforms being considered. A Fox News poll released Thursday finds that by 54 percent to 35 percent, Americans oppose the reforms.

…

Predictably, a 65 percent majority of Democrats favors the legislation, while 86 percent of Republicans oppose it. Independents oppose the reforms by 62 percent to 23 percent.

You get the point. Independents are trending Republican, and the Democrats are soiling their shorts.