Do American's really want a One Party State?

"One party RULE?" File this under "WTF?":

Americans' Preference Shifts Toward One-Party Government
Change in preferences driven mostly by Democrats

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- A record-high 38% of Americans prefer that the same party control the presidency and Congress, while a record-low 23% say it would be better if the president and Congress were from different parties and 33% say it doesn't make any difference. While Americans tend to lean toward one-party government over divided government in presidential election years, this year finds the biggest gap in preferences for the former over the latter and is a major shift in views from one year ago.

These findings are based on Gallup's annual Governance survey, conducted Sept. 6-9. The data show an increased level of support for one-party rule amid a currently divided government in which the Democrats control the presidency and the Senate, while the Republicans control the House. This suggests many Americans are experiencing divided-government fatigue.

Opinions on divided government have fluctuated over the years. When one party controlled both Congress and the presidency in 2006 and 2010, Gallup found near-historical lows supporting one-party rule. This suggests Americans may simply tend to prefer what they don't have or see problems in whatever the current situation is. At least one chamber of Congress changed hands in the subsequent elections, and the increase in support for one-party government in 2008 foreshadowed an election that would give the Democrats sole control of the presidency and both houses of Congress.

Just once, in 2005, have a plurality of Americans preferred divided government since Gallup began asking this question, indicating division at the federal level is rarely popular. The "makes no difference" response has generally been the most popular, though support for it fell this year to tie the lowest level Gallup has found. [...]

Ok, so its talking about One Party dominating government, not a one-party state. In theory, that at least leaves the door open for a change in government. BUT. For many years, I've heard many Democrats complain, that they hate our two party system of government. I've heard them say that they feel we really need only one party in the USA, and that to make any progress politically, the Republican party needs to be destroyed/disbanded. Or at least marginalized to the point where they have no power, and are merely "window dressing" for the pretense of a multiparty state.

Excuse me. There is a word for that. It's called "Fascism". And I'm afraid the Democrats have been flirting with fascism for a long while now, which is one reason why I stopped being a Democrat years ago.

This article by Gallop goes on to explain in detail how this "One Party" trend is being driven mostly by Democrats.  No surprise there.

Combine that, with our current Democrat Administration's penchant for quietly dismantling America, and what do we end up with? What will we end up with, if this Administration get's four more years, years where they will not have to worry about another election, and can just push 100% for what they want?

I don't like the Democrats. But I believe both the Democrats and the Republicans benefit by having a strong political opposition opposing them. It makes them both shape-up, try harder, and makes an incentive to strive to reach for bi-partisan legislation and solutions. When one party dominates too much, we end up with extremes, and the worst aspects of the dominating party. IMO, that is what we have seen in the past.

Absolute power corrupts absolutely. We need BALANCE.


   

Truely Bipartisan Health Care Reform

Unlike Obamacare, the Wyden-Ryan plan is truely a bipartisan effort, that does not dump any grandma's off a cliff. From Senator Wyden's website:

Bipartisan Health Options

U.S. Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) and U.S. Representative Paul Ryan (R-WI) introduced a new proposal that represents a major advance in the effort to build a more secure future for the millions of seniors who rely on Medicare.

The new report from Sen. Wyden and Rep. Ryan, titled “Guaranteed Choices to Strengthen Medicare and Health Security for All: Bipartisan Options for the Future,” outlines a detailed proposal to offer expanded health care choices for older Americans while preserving a traditional Medicare plan as an option. The report also proposes to give Americans under 65 more power and freedom to purchase insurance products they can carry with them into retirement.

[...]

Why do you say Wyden-Ryan won’t “end Medicare as we know it?”  Won’t allowing seniors to choose private health plans be a major change?

First of all, the hallmark of Medicare is not its structure but its guarantee that every American will have high quality health benefits as they get older.  And, as has been mentioned before, “Medicare as we know it” will end in 2022 if nothing is done to change its current course.  Wyden-Ryan takes action to ensure the Guarantee is preserved.

Contrary to what many believe, every Medicare beneficiary does not currently get their Medicare from the government-administered Medicare insurance plan.  Many seniors are already getting their Medicare from private health insurance plans.  In Oregon, for example, 56 percent of seniors currently get all or some of their health coverage from a private plan. (15 percent of Oregon seniors purchase private Medigap policies to supplement their traditional Medicare, while 41 percent of Oregon's Medicare beneficiaries are enrolled in private health insurance plans through Medicare Advantage.)Wyden-Ryan would allow seniors to continue to choose between the traditional government-administrated Medicare option and privately administered plans.  But instead of maintaining separate programs, Wyden would make those private plans more robust and accountable by forcing them to – for the first time – compete directly with traditional Medicare.

Every private plan that participates in the program would be required to offer health benefits that are AT LEAST as comprehensive as those offered by traditional Medicare and premium support payments would be pegged to the actual cost of health care in a given area, determined by an annual competitive bidding process.  Therefore, every senior – whether they get their health insurance from a private plan or the government – will be guaranteed to have the high quality health benefits that has long been Medicare’s promise.

How will Wyden-Ryan ensure that private insurance companies don’t take advantage of seniors?

All participating private plans will be required to offer benefits that are at least as comprehensive as traditional Medicare, with such standards enforced by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.  Any plan that is found taking advantage of seniors or providing inadequate care will be kicked out of the system. Cherry picking healthier seniors will be made unprofitable by robust risk-adjustment, and the Medicare Exchange where plans will seek to offer coverage to seniors, will be policed by the federal government.

It is worth noting that the Medigap law Senator Wyden authored to regulate the private market for Medicare’s supplemental insurance market has been protecting seniors from unscrupulous insurance practices for more than two decades.

How will Wyden-Ryan guarantee that health care will be affordable for all seniors? Isn’t it just a voucher?

A voucher suggests giving seniors a fixed amount of money indexed by a set rate of growth that may/may not have anything to do with the actual growth of health insurance costs.  Vouchers would not guarantee that seniors could afford health coverage.  (This is what the last year’s House Republican Budget did.)

Wyden-Ryan does not give seniors vouchers.  Instead Wyden-Ryan would guarantee that seniors can afford their health insurance premiums by giving seniors premium support payments, the amount of which will be determined by the actual cost of insurance premiums each year.

It would do this through a competitive bidding process in which private insurance plans, wanting to cover Medicare beneficiaries, would submit their benefit packages and the amount they will charge in premiums for the upcoming year.  The amount seniors receive in premium support will be determined by either the cost of traditional Medicare premiums or the second cheapest private plan available on the exchange (whichever is cheaper.)  This process will take place each year, so if health care costs – and therefore insurance premiums -- grow dramatically from one year to the next, so will the premiums support payments that seniors get to pay for them – thus ensuring that every senior can afford their health insurance premiums.

And again, every private plan in the Medicare exchange will be required to offer benefits that are at least as comprehensive as those offered by traditional Medicare. [...]

It's not a "Radical Plan to Kill Medicare". It actually builds on the Medicare options that already exist, in a way that will both control costs and offer more choices. And it's a plan we can actually afford!

It's definitely worth reading the whole thing. It's pretty much the same Medicare plan that Paul Ryan is advocating on his website.

In an interview for Human Events, Ryan explains the history of bipartisan support for the reforms he's advocating.

   

Is it a Good Thing that the Republicans didn't also take control of the Senate?

Strangely enough, the answer to that question is probably "yes". See why:

DIVIDED GOVERNMENT

So ... We now have a House solidly under the control of the Republicans. As things stand now the Democrats will have a three seat advantage in the Senate. I'm not upset with this scenario. I've been wondering aloud for weeks what the effect might be on 2012 if the Republicans had both the House and the Senate ... with Obama standing alone as the champion of the Left at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. It would be a classic "me vs. them" and would be so easy to spin in to an "Obama as besieged underdog" scenario. If the Republicans had taken the Senate it doesn't mean they would have been able to accomplish anything more than they can right now. Remember, it takes 60 votes in the Senate to pass important legislation, and there was no way the GOP was going to have those seats. I think the Republicans are better off following their agenda and sending bills to the Senate ... if the Democrats and Obama want to block that legislation - a repeal of ObamaCare, for instance, or an extension of the Bush tax cuts - then the voters will clearly see where the roadblocks are being erected.

[...]

But for the time being, we will now have (as of January) a divided government. This is a government where at least one chamber of Congress is controlled by the other party of the president. For all of the kicking and screaming we are prepared to endure from the Democrats, for the rest of us concerned about our future, divided government can actually be a good thing. The Cato Institute has some insight for us ...

Our federal government may work better (less badly) when at least one chamber of Congress is controlled by a party other than the party of the president. The general reason for this is that each party has the opportunity to block the most divisive measures proposed by the other party. Other conditions, of course, also affect political outcomes, but the following types of evidence for this hypothesis are too important to ignore:

• The rate of growth of real (inflation-adjusted) federal spending is usually lower with divided government.


• The only two long periods of fiscal restraint were the Eisenhower administration and the Clinton administration, during both of which the opposition party controlled Congress.


• The probability that a major reform will last is usually higher with a divided government because the necessity of bipartisan support is more likely to protect the reform against a subsequent change in the majority party.

The fact is, folks, is that we are headed into a crucial time in this country. We are at a crossroads. Yesterday, all we were doing was picking the people who would lead us down these roads. Now the journey begins. OK .. enough of the sappy metaphors. But do you understand what these next two years represent? We need fundamental change in this country - to our tax code, to Social Security, to Medicare and Medicaid, to deficit reduction - but I am not talking about the "fundamental" change that Barack Obama desires. Barack Obama, with the Democrats he has left, would prefer for our country to head down a path which punishes wealth, redistributes wealth, expands entitlements and expands government. The fundamental change that we now seek is not just stopping the Obama agenda from "moving forward" but reforming our nation in such a way that Americans can once again prosper.

So it's all for the good. The Democrats have been left with control of the Senate. If they block changes from Congress, they will have to accept full responsibility for it. They have been given enough rope to hang themselves. Of course, they don't HAVE to hang themselves. They could try working with Republicans. But I don't have a lot of faith that would happen. Not if they follow the president's lead:

After November, Obama will NOT be like Clinton

I could be wrong about that; time will tell. It's just that, Obama so far has shown a deplorable unwillingness to work in a bipartisan manner. He seems too ideologically rigid, too inflexible. Can he change? I doubt it, but the ball is in his court now. It's up to him, and his party, to make the most of it. Or not.

Coffee House Collectivists VS Tea Party Individualists, and the Middle Ground

Coffee vs. Tea: A political movement is brewing

Washington (CNN) -- Is the Coffee Party on the scale of the Tea Party movement? Saturday is the first big test in attempting to answer that question.

Leaders of the fledgling movement say they plan to hold 350 to 400 events at coffeehouses across the country. While the Coffee Party has become an instant hit online, gauging the success of Saturday's coast-to-coast events could be an indicator of the group's strength.

"We need to wake up and work hard to get our government to represent us," says Annabel Park, the movement's founder.

[...]

Park, who worked as a volunteer for then-Sen. Barack Obama's presidential campaign and Democratic Sen. Jim Webb of Virginia's 2006 campaign, says the Coffee Party is not aligned with any party. She calls the two-party system out of date.

"It encourages people to think of politics as a kind of game, like a football game, in which there are two sides, and it's a zero sum situation. If one person wins, the other person loses. That's really not a healthy way to conduct collective decision-making. That's not a democracy."

Park said the bitter battle over health care is an example of how government is not working.

"We feel like the health care debate showed not only that we are a very divided country, but there's something really wrong with our political process. We kind of got to see the innards of the political process and realize there's something very broken. I think that's what we're responding to." [...]

What "health care debate" is she talking about? One side dictating to the rest of us, is not a "debate".

The two party system is out of date? Really? What do we replace it with? Seriously?

When I've talked to Leftists about this, the answer I usually get is that we need a one-party state, in order to "avoid divisiveness and conflict, to make sure that we all agree. It's VERY IMPORTANT that we ALL AGREE".

That's been tried before. It's called totalitarianism. Or fascism. Nazism. Communism. Whatever the name, it's absolute power, corrupting absolutely.

A Multi-party system is messy and contentious, to be sure. But adversarial, multi-party democracy is the only way prevent absolute power, and to fight the corruption that always goes along with wielding power. It's not perfect, but it beats the alternatives.

In my experience, when collectivists talk about "collective decision making", that means agreeing with them. Period. When they say we have to avoid having winners and losers, they mean we should have only one party so there is no "opposition", no competition in the market place of ideas.

Collectivists are always saying "we need more democracy". That's because a 100% pure democracy is the same as mob-rule. That can sweep the collectivists to power, but pure democracies always destroy themselves, only to be replaced with some sort of totalitarian system. That's fine with many collectivists, because they don't want to compete; a totalitarian system that does what they want, is what they want.

The only thing wrong with our political process is, that it's not being respected.

The US Constitution is there to limit the powers of Government, so that no one political party can trample all others; to ensure that there is a middle ground on which we can meet, and stand and govern from. We need to respect that middle ground.

Something about our system is "broken"? Well, yeah; Our political system can't "work" if it's not followed. Duh. Unfortunately, we have politicians in our system who are deliberately working to break it, so they can then replace it with something else; yet another power grab, mob rule degenerating into totalitarianism, as history attempts to repeat itself. Same old story. We've managed to avoid that for over 200 years. Are we going to give in to it now?

When we no longer respect the Constitution and it's roll in our government, then our Republic cannot last. Will we only appreciate it when it's gone?

Our country has always had both collectivist and individualist traditions. I don't say that we need to discard one for the other; we can keep having both! We just need to preserve the middle ground on which we can all stand. We can do that by respecting and following the US Constitution, which will continue to serve us well, if only we let it. If we actively support it and not allow it to be subverted. It's ours to hold or lose. Use it, or lose it.
     

Message from the Summit: A bipartisan health care reform agreement can only be achieved when the Republicans sign on to Democrat ideas

That would seem to be the Democrats definition of "bipartisan".

From Neal Boortz:
THINGS WE LEARNED FROM THE HEALTHCARE SUMMIT

So yesterday's summit on healthcare was a big snoozer. I'm sorry, it was. For those of you who took the time to watch it, I commend you for being engaged. What was being discussed in that room will affect you life far more than American Idol or Entertainment Tonight. But we did come away from this summit with a clearer understand of a few things. So here we go with a list of things we learned from yesterday's healthcare summit.

* Barack Obama is the president. Got it?

* John McCain is NOT the president (and he may be very bitter about that)

* The GOP was worried that it would look like Obama was "standing up there like God" over them. Well the guy is "sort of a God" .. isn't he?

* Nancy Pelosi says their healthcare bill will create 4 million jobs

* Nancy Pelosi is worried about your health "security"

* The Republicans want to start over. The Democrats don't.

* CBO results can be skewed to support whatever you want them to support

* Obama doesn't appreciate it when Republicans bring the Democrat healthcare bill to a summit on healthcare reform

* Now what?

* Any ideas that the Republicans bring to the health care debate were essentially out of order because they aren't part of the Democrat plan and, thus, aren't really on the discussion agenda.

* A bipartisan health care reform agreement can only be achieved when the Republicans sign on to Democrat ideas.

* I would have loved to hear Lamar Alexander say "Excuse me, Mr. President, but you're the one who called this summit. Did you call us here to listen to you say the same things you've been saying for a year, or did you call us here to listen to and give some consideration to different ideas?"

THE TALK CLOCK

Here's the minute-by-minute talking time count of the health care summit yesterday.

DEMOCRATS (including President Obama) 233 minutes.

REPUBLICANS 110 minutes.

OBAMA solo 119 minutes

Someone out there really loves the sound of his own voice. But then I wasn't at the summit.

WHAT DID THE VOTERS THINK?

For this we go to Frank Luntz.

Watching Luntz this morning discussing the summit with a panel in Philadelphia. The overwhelming majority felt that the Republicans looked better and made better points at the summit. One detractor said the Republicans came with props. Well .. that certainly put the Republicans in their place, didn't it?

Another panel member says that the Democrats were totally condescending to the Republicans.

Here's the amazing part. After the Republicans discussed ideas such as tort reform, selling health insurance across state lines and creating insurance pools, there were still a few members of this panel who stated that the Republicans had no ideas, only objections.

Can we get a big WTF out there?

No ideas? It would seem that some of the Democrats are following the adage that, if you repeat a lie often enough, people will start to believe it's true.

Just for the record, the actual definition of bipartisan is:

Representing, characterized by, or including members from two parties or factions.

Unless Republican ideas are also included in any healthcare reform legislation, it won't be bipartisan. Duh.
     

Bipartisianship? Not without genuine liberals

Gerard Alexander: Why are liberals so condescending?

Every political community includes some members who insist that their side has all the answers and that their adversaries are idiots. But American liberals, to a degree far surpassing conservatives, appear committed to the proposition that their views are correct, self-evident, and based on fact and reason, while conservative positions are not just wrong but illegitimate, ideological and unworthy of serious consideration. Indeed, all the appeals to bipartisanship notwithstanding, President Obama and other leading liberal voices have joined in a chorus of intellectual condescension.

[...]

This condescension is part of a liberal tradition that for generations has impoverished American debates over the economy, society and the functions of government -- and threatens to do so again today, when dialogue would be more valuable than ever.

[...]

Indeed, when the president met with House Republicans in Baltimore recently, he assured them that he considers their ideas, but he then rejected their motives in virtually the same breath.

"There may be other ideas that you guys have," Obama said. "I am happy to look at them, and I'm happy to embrace them. . . . But the question I think we're going to have to ask ourselves is, as we move forward, are we going to be examining each of these issues based on what's good for the country, what the evidence tells us, or are we going to be trying to position ourselves so that come November, we're able to say, 'The other party, it's their fault'?" [...]

I'm tired of this grandstanding. The article goes into great detail, with many examples, of how the left refuses to listen to anything the right has to say. Yet it also acknowleges some similar resistance on the right, though it claims it's less prevelant.

Liberal isn't a dirty word to me, so I hate the way the word is used in this article. But it gets used like this, because so many people who are calling themselves liberal are really anything but.

A genuine liberal is easygoing, open-minded, and is flexible; not rigidly ideological. I think that description fits a lot of independents and people near the political center: conservative Democrats and liberal Republicans. Their voices need to be heard more, because it is they who can bring about genuine bipartisan consensus where it's desperately needed.

All the rest of it is too much fiddling, while Rome burns. Enough already.
     

House GOP responds to Obama's Heath Care Summit Invite: The sad truth about it all

From NRO's The Corner:

Monday, February 08, 2010

House GOP Responds to Summit Invite [Robert Costa]

House GOP Leader John Boehner (R., Ohio) and Whip Eric Cantor (R., Va.) just sent White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel a letter regarding the upcoming health-care summit:

Mr. Emanuel:

We welcome President Obama’s announcement of forthcoming bipartisan health care talks. In fact, you may remember that last May, Republicans asked President Obama to hold bipartisan discussions on health care in an attempt to find common ground on health care, but he declined and instead chose to work with only Democrats. Since then, the President has given dozens of speeches on health care reform, operating under the premise that the more the American people learn about his plan, the more they will come to like it. Just the opposite has occurred: a majority of Americans oppose the House and Senate health care bills and want them scrapped so we can start over with a step-by-step approach focused on lowering costs for families and small businesses.

Just as important, scrapping the House and Senate health care bills would help end the uncertainty they are creating for workers and businesses and thus strengthen our shared commitment to focusing on creating jobs. Assuming the President is sincere about moving forward on health care in a bipartisan way, does that mean he will agree to start over so that we can develop a bill that is truly worthy of the support and confidence of the American people? Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said today that the President is “absolutely not” resetting the legislative process for health care.

If the starting point for this meeting is the job-killing bills the American people have already soundly rejected, Republicans would rightly be reluctant to participate. Assuming the President is sincere about moving forward in a bipartisan way, does that mean he has taken off the table the idea of relying solely on Democratic votes and jamming through health care reform by way of reconciliation? As the President has noted recently, Democrats continue to hold large majorities in the House and Senate, which means they can attempt to pass a health care bill at any time through the reconciliation process.

Eliminating the possibility of reconciliation would represent an important show of good faith to Republicans and the American people.If the President intends to present any kind of legislative proposal at this discussion, will he make it available to members of Congress and the American people at least 72 hours beforehand? Our ability to move forward in a bipartisan way through this discussion rests on openness and transparency. Will the President include in this discussion congressional Democrats who have opposed the House and Senate health care bills? This bipartisan discussion should reflect the bipartisan opposition to both the House bill and the kickbacks and sweetheart deals in the Senate bill. Will the President be inviting officials and lawmakers from the states to participate in this discussion?

As you may know, legislation has been introduced in at least 36 state legislatures, similar to the proposal just passed by the Democratic-controlled Virginia State Senate, providing that no individual may be compelled to purchase health insurance. Additionally, governors of both parties have raised concerns about the additional costs that will be passed along to states under both the House and Senate bills. The President has also mentioned his commitment to have “experts” participate in health care discussions.

Will the Feb. 25 discussion involve such "experts?" Will those experts include the actuaries at the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), who have determined that the both the House and Senate health care bill raise costs – just the opposite of their intended effect – and jeopardize seniors’ access to high-quality care by imposing massive Medicare cuts? Will those experts include the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, which has stated that the GOP alternative would reduce premiums by up to 10 percent? Also, will Republicans be permitted to invite health care experts to participate? Finally, as you know, this is the first televised White House health care meeting involving the President since last March.

Many health care meetings of the closed-door variety have been held at the White House since then, including one where a sweetheart deal was worked out with union leaders. Will the special interest groups that the Obama Administration has cut deals with be included in this televised discussion?Of course, Americans have been dismayed by the fact that the President has broken his own pledge to hold televised health care talks. We can only hope this televised discussion is the beginning, not the end, of attempting to correct that mistake. Will the President require that any and all future health care discussions, including those held on Capitol Hill, meet this common-sense standard of transparency and openness?

Your answers to these critical questions will help determine whether this will be a truly open, bipartisan discussion or merely an intramural exercise before Democrats attempt to jam through a job-killing health care bill that the American people can’t afford and don’t support. ‘Bipartisanship’ is not writing proposals of your own behind closed doors, then unveiling them and demanding Republican support. Bipartisan ends require bipartisan means.These questions are also designed to try and make sense of the widening gap between the President’s rhetoric on bipartisanship and the reality. We cannot help but notice that each of the President’s recent bipartisan overtures has been coupled with harsh, misleading partisan attacks. For instance, the President decries Republican ‘obstruction’ when it was Republicans who first proposed bipartisan health care talks last May.

The President says Republicans are ‘sitting on the sidelines’ just days after holding up our health care alternative and reading from it word for word. The President has every right to use his bully pulpit as he sees fit, but this is the kind of credibility gap that has the American people so fed up with business as usual in Washington.We look forward to receiving your answers and continuing to discuss ways we can move forward in a bipartisan manner to address the challenges facing the American people.

Sincerely,

House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH)

House Republican Whip Eric Cantor (R-VA)

I'm tired of the repeated lies that Republicans have no alternatives to the Democrats plans, and most of the Media going along with it. I sincerely hope that game is now over. Enough is enough:

Obama’s Kabuki summit invitation: Just say no

Please.

The White House spends a full year trashing Republicans for having no ideas on health care reform.

The White House spend a full year promising transparency while subverting it.

And now, after a year’s worth of closed backroom meetings and midnight holiday weekend legislative sessions in which Republicans had severely curtailed ability to offer amendments, President Obama wants to invite them to a televised health care summit to talk about the GOP alternatives he said didn’t exist?

[...]

Unlike the question-time session with Republicans, the White House political machine will be in full control of the staging.

Republicans should feel zero obligation to participate in yet another White House health care dog-and-pony show:

Just say no.

If Obama really wants to learn about GOP health care reform plans, he can look them up online, where they have been for months.

Here is Sen. Jim Demint’s Health Care Freedom Plan.

And here is the here is the Patients’ Choice Act of Sens. Coburn and Burr and Reps. Ryan and Nunes.

And here is House GOP leader Boehner’s health care reform page.

Obama has enough human stage props to feed his ego and advance his agenda.

Republicans should not be a party to it.

***

Here’s an idea: Republicans can tell Obama they’ll participate in his health care summit after he provides transcripts of his s backroom meetings with Big Labor/SEIU. [...]

The MSM clearly doesn't want to talk about Republican ideas, but I think most Americans would welcome a genuinely bi-partisan approach, and a completely transparent process.

Are the Democrats going to try to ram their bills through anyway? I think they might. It's hard to believe that things have gotten this bad already.
     

Sarah and Barney?

The Comedy Duo of Palin and Frank

Sarah Palin may have some ‘splainin’ to do with the conservative fans on her book tour as word spreads of her partying Saturday night with the elites of the dread Mainstream Media. In her featured “roast,” the media types even got off easier than her former associates on the McCain campaign. [...]

Whatever.
     

Get the Czars out of our Government

Despite the fact that the Democrats managed to kill an amendment that would have imposed congressional oversight on some of Obama's Czars, there are still bipartisan efforts to hold hearings about the growing number of Czars in our government:

Feingold Plans Hearing on Czars

Senator Russell D. Feingold, Democrat of Wisconsin, plans to hold a hearing next week on the subject of the so-called “czars,” appointees who don’t go through the usual vetting process like presidential nominees needing confirmation by the Senate.

Mr. Feingold, the chairman of a Judiciary subcommittee on the Constitution, has been one of the Democrats lending a bipartisan edge to what had been largely Republican complaints about the number of Obama “czars.” (The White House and leading Democrats have forcefully rebutted the notion that the president has too many; former President Bush had placed many officials in the same/or similar positions.) [...]

I've complained before about this Czar crap:

"Czars" have no place in American politics

And yes, it was George Bush who opened the door for this. It was wrong then and it's wrong now, and worse too if you consider the growing number of "Czars". One of several bad precedents set by our former President.
     

Is Obama doing with Healthcare What Bush tried to do with Social Security?

This article makes an interesting case for it:

Obama's Ambition: Was His Strategy a Mistake?

[...] He knows he must succeed in passing health care, in some form or another. But should he try to do it with token Republican support?

In the ideologically polarized House, Obama can expect virtually no Republican support. The same could happen now in the Senate and many Democrats are prepared to move ahead on that basis. But not all believe that. Tad Devine, a Democratic strategist and a tough partisan in campaigns, said Obama should resist that course.

Devine argued that, given the state of public opinion and the complexity of overhauling the health care system, Obama should press for a package that can attract genuine Republican support, at least in the Senate, by which he means more than two or three votes. As he put it, while voters have become more comfortable supporting Democrats in the last two elections, "There hasn't been a deep ideological conversion to our side."

A new Gallup poll released this week showed the consequences of doing what Obama has done this year. The survey found that two in three independents now believe Obama's proposals call for too much government spending and three in five think that agenda calls for too much government.

Obama has a tough call ahead. Should he press for passage of a health care bill over near-universal Republican opposition, assuming that he and the Democrats will reap a political benefit for accomplishing something that has eluded others? Or should he make bipartisan agreement a top priority in the Senate, even with a scaled-down compromise, to ease concerns about the size of government and the deficit? [...]

Much of the rest of the article makes some interesting comparisons with George Bush's presidency. Bush also started out with a majority of his party in power, and he tried to use that to push through some of this campaign promises like reforming Social Security and our Immigration Policy. He failed because he did not build popular support for his changes first.

In so many ways, Obama seems to be doing the same thing. I can only hope his worst domestic policies get sandbagged before they can be implemented.


Related Link:

How to Make Health-Care Reform Bipartisan
     

Tax Day, Tax Protests, Bi-partisan Outrage

Tax Day Becomes Protest Day
How the tea parties could change American politics.

Today American taxpayers in more than 300 locations in all 50 states will hold rallies -- dubbed "tea parties" -- to protest higher taxes and out-of-control government spending. There is no political party behind these rallies, no grand right-wing conspiracy, not even a 501(c) group like MoveOn.org.

So who's behind the Tax Day tea parties? Ordinary folks who are using the power of the Internet to organize.

[...]

I spoke to an organizer for the Knoxville tea party who said that no "professional politicians" were going to be allowed to speak, and he made a big point of saying that the protest wasn't an anti-Obama protest, it was an anti-establishment protest. I've heard similar things from tea-party organizers in other cities, too. Though critics will probably try to write the tea parties off as partisan publicity stunts, they're really a post-partisan expression of outrage.

Of course, it won't be the same everywhere. There are no national rules, and organizers of each protest are doing things the way they want. And that's the good news and the bad news for Democrats. It's not a big Republican effort. It's a big popular effort. But a mass movement of ordinary people who don't feel that their voices are being heard doesn't bode well for the party that positioned itself as the organ of hope and change.

Will these flash crowds be a flash in the pan? It's possible that people who demonstrate today will find that experience cathartic enough -- or exhausting enough -- that that will be it. But it's more likely that the tea-party movement will have an impact on the 2010 and 2012 elections, and perhaps beyond.

What's most striking about the tea-party movement is that most of the organizers haven't ever organized, or even participated, in a protest rally before. General disgust has drawn a lot of people off the sidelines and into the political arena, and they are already planning for political action after today. [...]

The article goes on extensively about the bi-partisan nature of these protests. RNC chairman Michael Steele wanted to speak at one of the tea party events, and he was denied. For many people it isn't about partisan politics, it's about taking our government back from the "professional politicians" who don't listen to us taxpayers. I doubt these protests are going to be a mere "flash in the pan". We are talking about serious debt here, that will have to be paid off for generations. Dangerous debt that could drag us down. It can't just be swept under the rug.

These protests are happening because politicians on both sides are ignoring the tax payers. And I expect that most of the politicians will continue to do so, for as long as they can. As a result, I predict the protests will continue, and grow stronger. We'll see.


Related Link:

A Tax Day Tea Party cheat sheet: How it all started
     

Why be bi-partisan when you can just PUSH?

Is anyone still holding their breath, waiting for the bipartisan approach Obama promised during his campaign? Neal Boortz explains why it's not likely to ever happen:

HOW OBAMA GETS THINGS DONE

Does Barack Obama really think that he can push all of his dreams and schemes through Congress? The answer is yes. And when it comes to government healthcare, global warming initiatives and increasing taxes, he wants to make sure that there is no way the Republicans can stop him. How is he going to do this? By including these policy provisions in the annual budget. Then they can use a parliamentary procedure called reconciliation. Basically what that means is that the Democrats wouldn't have to worry about gaining Republican support in the Senate .. because reconciliation reduces the number of votes needed to pass legislation to a simple majority (which the Democrats clearly have in the Senate). It also limits debate to no more than 20 hours and imposes restrictions on amendments. So we are talking about less than 20 hours on the floor of the Congress would be devoted to such grandiose plans as government healthcare and cap and trade schemes.

So when the Democrats "Reform Immigration" this summer, the Republicans won't have any meaningful say in it; it will be a totally Democrat bill. The Dems will grant citizenship to 12 million illegal aliens who will vote Democrat, and the Republican Party can kiss it's ass goodbye. They will never win another election, unless they change drastically from what they are now.

To all the people who wouldn't vote for McCain because he wasn't "conservative enough"; let me know how that works out for you. You wanted it all your way or nothing, and now you get nothing. Unfortunately, so does the rest of the Republican party... what's left of it.

I'm seeing all sorts of crap happening that was not only completely predictable, but avoidable too. It looks like the next four years is going to be one big "I Told You So".


Related Links:

Washington really is broken. See how it "runs"

Has "Atlas Shrugged" become our reality?

Obama, the 1930's, and Excise Taxes
     

Time to make Lemonade, not Political Kool Aid

Pat's had some good posts at his blog the past week. Today he had these:

Party-poopers vs lemonade-makers

It has some excerpts from today's column by Jonah Goldberg, in which he responds to criticisms that Michelle Malkin made about his column yesterday that had an agreeable bi-partisan tone. Malkin claimed she would rather be a "crank" than agree with Goldberg. It's worth following the link to read Goldberg's comments and Pat's comments too, about "shrill permanently outraged conservatives". I left the following comment on the post:

Malkin most certainly is a crank, which is why I'll probably end up delinking her from my blog. She still makes some good arguments, but plenty of other conservatives do the same thing without the shrillness. Her commentary also seems to be increasingly petty.

How many conservatives are going to be suffering from Obama Derangement Syndrome for the next 4 to 8 years, beating the shrillness drum? If that's the way it's going to be, then maybe bringing back the fairness doctrine wouldn't be such a bad thing. Then at least, we may get some level-headed conservative commentary interjected into the mainstream media, aimed at ordinary folks who aren't particularly ideological.

I find the ideological shrillness of the right to be just as tiresome as the dopey knee-jerk emotionalism of the left.

It's time to make Lemonade, not Kool Aid. I'll be focusing my efforts regarding political posts on listening to and promoting what the adults are talking about. Kool Aid is for kids at best; at worst, it's for suicide cults.

For years I've heard conservatives joke about the Left drinking the political equivalent of arsenic-laced Kool Aid. It would be too ironic if the Right now starts doing the same, and can't see it.

For eight years, the Democrats were the "shrill" party, always against whatever the Republicans were doing, more than being "for" something positive.

Then came Obama. All the flowery speeches. You can say whatever you like about those speeches, but they were never shrill. But the criticism of his speeches often was.

I did a post a while back:

The Real Winner of the 2008 Election: Optimism

It went into detail about the optimism factors in elections, and even methods of measuring optimism in presidential campaigns, including the most recent one.

McCain tried hard to run an optimistic campaign, but the shrill segment of the party pushed him hard to be more negative, to attack more. He gave in to it periodically.

The final analysis for the 2008 election showed that Obama had a higher optimism factor in his campaign, and of course he won.

Too many people in the Republican party today are drinking the Kool Aid of shrillness. It didn't work well for the Democrats, and it won't be any better for us. Please folks, find a better political beverage. I recommend starting with the Lemonade. Sugar to taste as needed.


Related Links:

What W thinks about O

“To Don’t” List for the Right

No use crying over spilt milk
     

Sarah Palin: the best candidate for libertarians

David Harsanyi at Real Clear Politics makes the claim that Palin is the best candidate that libertarians can have in this election:

The Libertarian Case for Palin

The potential political consequences of Sarah Palin have been chewed over from every imaginable angle.

Though there is plenty to ponder, one thing is certain: libertarian-inclined voters should be encouraged. No, I'm not suggesting that your little Molly will be bringing home "The Road to Serfdom" from her (distinctly non-public) elementary school. But in contrast to any national candidate in recent memory, Palin is the one that exudes the economic and cultural sensibilities of a geniune Western-style libertarian. [...]

The article goes on to list the many ways that Sarah Palin is an ideal libertarian's choice among electable candidates in this election. It also goes a good ways in explaining her bipartisan appeal across party lines.
     

Why Oregon Senator Gordon Smith has my vote

Reality. I like to think I'm in touch with reality. The reality here in Oregon is, that this is a blue state. A Republican cannot win here without support from Democrats. You have to represent your constituents, and if the majority of them are Democrats, you reach out to them. Senator Smith has done just that, and enjoys the support of many Oregonian Democrats:

Democrats for Smith



He is an Oregon native, and understands the concerns of his constituents and is responsive to them. Here is some information about the senator, from his website at www.gordonsmith.com:

About Gordon Smith

Gordon Smith has served his home state of Oregon in the United States Senate since 1997. He has earned a reputation for independence and effectiveness, working with both Republicans and Democrats to do what is right for Oregon.

Helping grow the Oregon economy is a top priority. As a member of the powerful Senate Finance Committee, Gordon is using his clout to cut taxes and help working families keep more of their hard-earned money.

When it comes to health care, he is a leading advocate for mental health programs, expanding access to children's health care and providing coverage for the uninsured while protecting Medicaid. The Oregonian called Gordon Smith the “leading Republican voice against dismantling the nation’s health-care safety net.”

Oregon's farmers, fishermen and outdoor enthusiasts have come to know Gordon Smith as a friend. While others are looking to shut down the forests or fence off our farmers, Gordon Smith is making public policy that does not leave Oregonians high and dry. Whether writing salvage logging legislation or preserving landmarks like Mt. Hood, he balances the use of natural resources to protect Oregon’s treasures and people's livelihoods.

From pre-school to college, Gordon is working to make sure Oregon's schools are strong. In the Senate, he fights budget cuts to Head Start programs for preschoolers and works to make student loans more accessible for college students. As the Chairman of the Senate Hunger Caucus, the Senator is working to alleviate hunger in Oregon and address the problem around the globe.

Gordon Smith is the preeminent Republican advocate in the U.S. Senate for bringing our troops home from Iraq and focusing their mission on fighting terrorists. The Register Guard said Smith has “the courage to back up criticism” and that he speaks “honestly” about Iraq.” The LaGrande Observer says he “spoke with conviction and sincerity” when calling for a change in tactics in Iraq.

Gordon Smith, known as a “Gordy” to his nine brothers and sisters, grew up in Pendleton and later in Bethesda, MD where his father Milan served in the Eisenhower Administration. Gordon played basketball and is an Eagle Scout. After serving on a church mission in New Zealand, he graduated from Brigham Young University and Southwestern University School of Law.

Prior to his election to the United States Senate in 1996, Smith operated his family's frozen food processing company in Pendleton. He first entered public service in 1992 serving in the Oregon Senate, where he became Senate President in 1995.

A native Oregonian, Gordon and his wife Sharon live in Pendleton where they raised three children - Brittany, Garrett, and Morgan.

The far right has been critical of the senator for calling for a "change of tactics" in Iraq, but clearly, that was needed. I haven't always agreed with the senator, but he has been firm in his convictions, many of which I do agree with. Not supporting him would be like throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

I am in complete agreement with Pat, who said the following on his blog:

Why I support Sen. Gordon Smith

"An 80% friend is not a 20% enemy." - Ronald Reagan.

[...]

Smith is the only Republican who holds a statewide office in Oregon. He's certainly not perfect and he's definitely not popular with conservatives but, like Mitt Romney in Massachussetts, he is operating in a state which is overwhelmingly Democratic and has had to adapt to his constituents. At first he supported the invasion of Iraq but has since changed his mind. I can agree to respectfully disagree with him about that and he is entitled to change his mind. I was dead against the war from the start but later came to support it.

But, compared with Merkley, who is currently Speaker of the Oregon House of Representatives, Smith is most decidedly the lesser of two evils - which is all I ever expect from politicians. [...]

Pat gives and extensive listing of the senator's accomplishments. Those on the far right who want to purge the party of people like senator Smith, would sacrifice the Republican party for ideological purity. They would keep our party small, and losing elections.

I will not support them in this. I will support the Republican party, and will gladly be voting for Senator Smith.


Related Links:

Democrats for Smith: In the News

United States Senator - Gordon Smith

GOP Sen. Gordon Smith's track record draws Oregon tribes' support