What with all the scary stuff to focus on this Halloween season, it is worth a minute or two to take a breath and realize WHY we care so much about what happens in the political arena: Our freedom to search out the path to our own brighter future.
Today, we celebrate the founding of Montana’s capital city. Only 145 years ago, four miners chasing the dream of gold and untold wealth, ended up along Prickly Pear Creek and decided to take one “last chance” at finding gold before returning home with pockets empty and dreams dashed. They had no guarantee of success. No government stimulus money to fund their efforts. No promise of a bail-out should they fail. It was all up to them.
We know the story. The question is – have we forgotten the moral of the story?
“Far better to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs, even though checkered by failure, than to take rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy much nor suffer much, because they live in the gray twilight that knows not victory, nor defeat.”– Theodore Roosevelt
The American consumer long ago fell under the spell of the Madison Avenue marketing gurus who dazzled us with promises of instant gratification. “Charge it”, “No payments until…”, “Buy now, pay later” are phrases that we all have readily taken advantage of at one time or another. But there’s a new wrinkle out there these days, coming not from mid-town Manhattan, but from that bastion of fiscal creativity, Washington DC.
The latest shade of lipstick being put on the pig that is healthcare reform is an embarrassingly nauseating one: In order to pay for the increased costs of “the government option” or whatever they’re calling it now, the American taxpayer gets the stick first with promises of the carrot to come.
AP reported thusly, “Under the Democratic bills, federal tax credits to help make health insurance affordable for millions of low- and middle-income households won’t start flowing until 2013 — after the next presidential election. But Medicare cuts and a sizable chunk of the tax increases to pay for the overhaul kick in immediately.”
So tell me again why it’s so important that a bill – no matter how well or ill-crafted – gets passed in such a huge rush when we aren’t going to see any of the changes that are so desperately needed for at least three years. How can all those poor uninsured souls possibly continue to exist FOR THREE MORE UNINSURED YEARS???? Or how about all those pre-exisitng conditions that won’t be covered for THREE MORE YEARS???? Or all the frustrations caused by insurance coverage denials FOR THREE MORE YEARS????
From a political standpoint, it just doesn’t make any sense. Higher taxes now and nothing in return for The Won to campaign on in 2012. How does that make any sense?
It took me a while to figure this out, but I think I’ve finally got it.
If there’s one lesson to be learned from the 2008 Obama campaign, it’s that having a record to run on is not all that important to this President. He’s quite comfortable projecting smoke and mirror intimations onto the electorate and letting them conjure up the candidate they want to see and the promises they want to hear. Maybe Obama, or maybe someone on his staff, is sharp enough to understand that if healthcare reform were actually implemented next year, by 2012 the reality of reform would be all too clearly experienced by the public – and after that, the chances of Obama’s re-election sink deeper than the Titanic. Sure, the Republicans will attack them on the issue of higher taxes – but let’s face it – most of the people who would vote for Obama either don’t care or don’t pay taxes anyway.
The Democrats can buy votes with promises of something for nothing – they’ve been doing it for decades. As long as their candidates can assure the voters that they’ll get more stuff after the election, they stand a good chance of being returned to office. Obama needs to be able to say to the voters in 2012, “We passed healthcare reform and next year all that HOPE you’ve carried around these last THREE YEARS is about to CHANGE.” And the Progressives, the liberals, and the terminally naive will believe that – at last! – they have the perfect healthcare system they’e been waiting for.
It will only be after the 2012 election that stark raving reality will set in and Americans who bought into Obama’s rhetoric will find out that they’ve been bamboozled. Only in fairy tales does everybody live happily ever after. In the real world, you get higher taxes, fewer choices, and less control to show for the money you pay to the government to provide the services that used to be provided by the free market.
Despite all the fancy talk coming from the Democrats in Congress and the Administration, politically designed healthcare will cost more and deliver less. There is no way that they can provide full coverage to 47 million more people for the same amount of money. America’s new healthcare system – whatever it ends up looking like – will be an ugly monster. And whether you like it or not – and whether you call it “death panels” or not – someone besides you and your doctor will be deciding who gets what care:
No matter how we “reform” health insurance, there will still be close calls, where it’s not clear that a costly procedure will actually do any good. There will have to be someone, either in government or in the private sector, to decide which operations and treatments should be covered and which should not. And there will be patients who will die after being refused.
Health care “reform” won’t eliminate such incidents and may produce more of them.
But no health care measure can alter the fact that our resources are not unlimited. We may not want to hear it, but no matter what kind of insurance system you have, sometimes someone has to say “no.”
Obama can’t afford that reality to be a part of the debate in 2012. Ergo – pay now, buy later. We’ll have to see how it works out for him. Stay tuned.
In the meantime – here’s a little ditty to bring it all home….
For many of my faithful readers there has been something very important missing for the past few days: The Dextra RSS Feed. The constant updates from the Montana conservative blogosphere that magically appeared on the right side of the page as a new post was launched from Electric City Weblog, The Montana Misanthrope, Missoulapolis, Rabid Sanity, 2nd Grade Bike Rack, The Last Best Place, Montana Main Street Blog, TSN Roundup, and a couple other blogs that are currently on hiatus (which we hope won’t last too much longer!), and gratefully 2HH. It was disconcerting Sunday morning to wake up and realize that I had to visit each of my favorite sites without knowing whether or not there was a new subject to enjoy.
I don’t know how Craig does the magic. I just know I have become addicted to the ease with which my favorite sites can be accessed directly from my blog. (What – the rest of you don’t check out YOUR blogs first??? Of course not.) And I really appreciate that he has come to our rescue and made the magic continue.
Last week, the White House declared war on Fox News. At first, it seemed like another stupid, short-sighted, inexperienced, arrogant pronouncement by the Chicago thugs running the asylum at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. And, in fact, it is another stupid, short-sighted, inexperienced, arrogant pronouncement by the Chicago thugs running the asylum at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. But it is also a very serious attack on the First Amendment.
Freedom of the Press is at the heart of American democracy. Countless barrels of ink have been drained in asserting, demanding, extolling, and celebrating this treasured gift from our Founding Fathers. And millions of American lives have been sacrificed protecting this Precious Right.
Who’da thunk that when faced with the most insidious challenge to this fundamental principle the very institutions whose existence flows from it would be co-conspirators in it’s potential demise? And yet- that’s exactly what is happening.
Last week Obama sent his minions out to attack and vilify Fox News. And Fox’s competitors – CNN, NBC, ABC, CBS, MSNBC – are evidently even more stupid, short-sighted, arrogant and naive than the Chicago thugs who not only publicly and proudly admitted they controlled the press during the campaign but have signaled they obviously intend to continue to do so with the fawning acquiescence of these same media outlets.
It is the duty of the press in a free society to challenge and question the government at every turn. It is their responsibility to act on behalf of the citizens; to protect, to defend, to use the mighty power of the pen against the sword of tyranny. Given the antagonism the Obama Administration is displaying against Fox News they must be fulfilling this obligation. The rest of the pack have become no more than toothless lapdogs. And the White House knows it. And loves it.
This is scary. Really scary. Not so much that The One and his band of Merry Men are trying to destroy this country – that’s been an open secret since the campaign – but that the mainstream American press is an active accomplice in the effort. Shame on them.
Shame.
“Once a government is committed to the principle of silencing the voice of opposition, it has only one way to go, and that is down the path of increasingly repressive measures, until it becomes a source of terror to all its citizens and creates a country where everyone lives in fear.†—Harry Truman
Big news this weekend is the result of the latest Rasmussen poll showing Mike Huckabee leading Mitt Romney in a hypothetical Republican match-up.
Talking heads and media experts are weighing in with all sorts of theories on how and why this might be happening. Conventional wisdom (whoever that may be) seems to be suggesting that either of these two are the candidates that the left would most like to have at the head of the Republican ticket because, ultimately, they are most beatable, and therefore their rankings are being artificially inflated. Maybe. I can see where that might be the case for MItt Romney. He definitely has a constituency within the Party, but I’m not so sure how large it really is at this point. And I can sure see where the Dems would have a field day attacking him in an election – so yeah – he probably could be the liberals’ favorite candidate. But what about Huckabee?
I have my own little theory: Since Mike’s been a regular on Fox News with his weekend show, which is fairly well-rated, he’s become a very identifiable quantity. He’s in our living rooms every week – a guest in our homes, as it were. We’ve seen him play his guitar, we’ve heard him ask his guests some questions that we would ask if given the opportunity, and we’ve seen him empathize with celebrities and “real people” in conversations that bring out his warm fuzzy side. His corny humor, silly grin, and balding crown are familiar characteristics in millions of American
homes.
Does it surprise me that Huckabee is leading the Republican pack then? Nope. It makes perfect sense. He’s the guy we know. He stops in every Saturday evening just before dinner and shares a few snicks and grins and a song or two. His show is politics-lite, so we don’t end up too divided by his personal stances on issues. He plays to the center-right. Unlike Glen Beck, he isn’t hammering an agenda that is likely to alienate anybody much. (The White House hasn’t painted a target on his forehead yet – so he’s not the candidate they fear either.) So when the pollster calls, the name of Mike Huckabee is a ready answer.
Political reality: People vote for the candidate they feel they know best. This is true at every level of politics. I will submit that this is the underlying reality for the success of most incumbent campaigns: Voters feel like they know what to expect from the guy or gal already holding the office, whether or not they really do, and whether or not their own political beliefs mesh. Whether it is more true here in Montana, I can’t tell you for sure, but just look at the way the voters swung between democrats and republicans in this state in the last election: Republican McCain for President, Democrat Schweitzer for Governor, Max for Senate and Denny for House. Trusting the familiar – even if they didn’t always like the person all that much or think he was the best possible candidate. (Have you ever heard anyone – from either side of the aisle – seriously suggest Max Baucus was our best and brightest? Me neither.)
The moral of this story is one that political candidates and their campaign managers need to take more to heart. It’s NOT about the issues or your position on the issues that will get you elected. It’s about how many people feel they know you. Except for a few who strictly vote party line (about 20% on each side) the majority of people will vote for a person they know – or think they know – rather than a candidate that more closely matches their own political views. You may not like that. And you’re right, that’s not the way to get the best government. But it’s the way it is. Plan your campaigns accordingly.
H/T to my blogger-buddy Steve from Rabid Sanity for letting me know about Chris Stirewalt’s column in the Washington Examiner today. It focuses a couple of themes that have been simmering in the deep, dark recesses.
Stirewalt’s piece, “Disillusioned Liberals Yearn for Hillary Clinton” rather astutely notes that the Obama campaign pretty much snookered the Democrat faithful into believing in the impossible: That a completely inexperienced, untested, neophyte with a background in affirmative action/community service, steeped in the totally corrupt Chicago political machine of Da Mare, Tony Rezko, and Bill Ayers, baptized in the racist religion of Reverend Wright, and dressed to the nines in the Emperor’s fictional wardrobe of Hope and Change, could assume the responsibility of governing the most powerful nation in the world and somehow not fall face-first into the Fruit Loops. Dang. Blew that one, huh?
So they are now experiencing the first pangs of buyer’s remorse. Awww.
Two years ago the smart money was on Hillary. It seemed like all the stars were lined up in her favor – the money, the media, the momentum. Somehow the Upstart was able to undercut the Designated Diva. The Democrats threw their best candidate overboard for the promise of unicorns, rainbows, and hopey-changitude. Whatever the hell that’s supposed to be.
After less than nine months of fits and starts, ineffectual programs and policies, incomprehensible spending, diplomatic disasters, and a never-ending series of inexplicable TelePrompted pronouncements, most Americans are either regretting their votes or smugly chanting, “We told you so!” According to the latest Opinion Dynamics’ poll, only 43% of Americans would vote for Obama if the election were held today. This can’t be the way the Democrats hoped things would be going by this point in the presidency of the Anointed One. I mean – who could have imagined that this guy could lose an Olympic bid and win the Nobel Peace Prize in less than a month and end up the punchline on SNL for both?
Human nature being what it is, thoughts are now turning to what might have been…
Most conservatives had their moment of regret for Clinton’s loss long ago when they realized that Obama was completely out his depth.
It started during the period of “The Office of the President-Elect†and continued as Google proved better at vetting members of the administration than the transition team.
For those on the Right chiefly concerned with foreign policy, the lament about Clinton’s miserable campaign continues to deepen. They believe that radical Islam and Vladimir Putin will prove to be tougher adversaries than the insurance industry and the senior senator from Maine. The defense-minded Right is still thinking about the 3 a.m. call, and not the one from the Nobel Committee.
But conservatives know that they never would have had a chance with Clinton. Where Obama has overfilled his plate like a kid at Thanksgiving dinner and now stares at an unappetizing mountain of cold mashed potatoes, Clinton would have taken measured bites and finished the whole feast. But had she won, there’s no doubt that she would have ground up the bones of her enemies and baked chocolate chip cookies with them. Obama, though, has proven to be the only person who could make the GOP look reasonable again after the misadventures of the Bush years.
For liberals, though, the strange, sad longing for the woman they rejected has only just begun.
Apparently this White House just doesn’t get it. Today’s announcement that President “One”derful (or is it “Won”derful?) will not be granting interviews to any Fox News programs this year has further defined this administration as totally incompetent wimps.
Coming on the heels of what is undoubtedly the most undeserving award ever bestowed in the history of the planet, this moronic temper tantrum suggests that not only the President, but also his senior advisors, are so inexperienced, fearful, and weak that they cannot even contemplate dealing with a confrontational environment, let alone actually embracing one. Rather than confidently girding the lion in his den, Obie cowers in the Oval Office, hiding under the desk where Monica Lewinsky once cavorted with a previous tenant, imperiously issuing ultimatums that strike most Americans as sophomoric: “See. If you aren’t nice to me, I won’t play with you guys ever again. So there.”
While this may be a winning strategy in some situations (although I’m not sure what those might be), even Richard Nixon, who famously tried to shut out the NYT during his first term, found that Mark Twain had it right when he cautioned, “Never pick a fight with someone who buys ink by the barrel.”
David Gergen, who has worked for President Bill Clinton and three Republican presidents, questioned the propriety of the White House declaring war on a news organization.
“It’s a very risky strategy. It’s not one that I would advocate,” Gergen said on CNN. “If you’re going to get very personal against the media, you’re going to find that the animosities are just going to deepen. And you’re going to find that you sort of almost draw viewers and readers to the people you’re attacking. You build them up in some ways, you give them stature.” He added: “The press always has the last barrel of ink.”
Gergen’s sentiments were echoed by Tony Blankley, who once served as press secretary to former House Speaker Newt Gingrich. “Going after a news organization, in my experience, is always a loser,” Blankley said on CNN. “They have a big audience. And Fox has an audience of not just conservatives — they’ve got liberals and moderates who watch too. They’ve got Obama supporters who are watching. So it’s a temptation for a politician, but it needs to be resisted.”
Nia Malika Henderson, White House correspondent for the Politico newspaper, also questioned the White House offensive against Fox. “Obama’s only been a boon to their ratings and I don’t understand how this kind of escalation of rhetoric and kind of taking them on, one on one, would do anything other than escalate their ratings even more,” she said.
With his approval ratings steadily falling, his healthcare reform imploding, cap-and-tax off the table, and Afghanistan morphing into a huge mess, you’d think the President would try to sell his message to a broader audience. Fox has the largest cable news viewership in the country, particularly in the critical 18 – 54 and senior demographics (read “voters”). For such a brilliant man, you’d think the poor sucker would have at least an inkling that only talking to the people who already support him is a sure bet for ultimate failure. He can’t keep everybody in that audience enthralled forever. Already certain constituencies are beginning to to resist the gravitational pull. The LGTB march this weekend was evidence that the hopey-changitude magic isn’t working for those who thought that BO’s campaign promises were something to believe in. Then there is word on the street that Hispanic leaders are angry about Obama’s “lack of success in legalizing illegal immigrants.” And the fringe media – Saturday Night Live, Jay Leno, and Jon Stewart of The Daily Show, just for starters – are finding that their audience – Obama’s touted “youth vote” – are quite willing to watch their idol lampooned. How long do they think the adulation can last once the high priest become the head clown?
Eventually, he’s going to have to reach out to the people who watch Fox News. Of course, by then, the rainbows, unicorns, and fairy dust will have lost whatever appeal they originally had.
And they want those uniforms back! Thank God. That’s way too much ugly. Gold and brown – or mustard and poop – is bad enough (sorry Capital HIgh fans), but toss those stripe socks into the mix and “fashion faux pas” doesn’t begin to cover the disaster.
I believe I will go do something other than torture my eyeballs. 10 – 0 isn’t the worst part of this game for my Broncos – unfortunately.
UPDATE: Final Score – Broncos 20, Patriots 17. Still not pretty, but we’ll take it. Last time Denver started the season with a 5 – 0 record they won the Super Bowl. But the uniforms weren’t so obnoxious.
