Archive for the ‘politics’ Category

Can someone tell me where this move to the center is?

Since the election every network (except Fox of course) has one word for the president: “centrist”, “centrist” “centrist”. Son of Journolist lives!

Correct me if I’m wrong, but the President made one deal to avoid an embarrassing defeat concerning taxes. That’s it.

If the White House didn’t make that deal, democrats would have gotten all the blame for a tax debacle while letting Republicans get the credit for it for the solution.

Where is the move to the center? Where is this BS coming from? Are people uninformed enough to believe it?

It’s clear that this is the template that the White House/Democratic Party/MSM has embraced to prepare the ground for 2012 but in a world where social networks allow us to bypass these sources, can they convince the public to buy it?

If we do, or if we don’t, we will get the government we deserve.

…in an attempt to stop Obamacare. In a broadcast by 73wire with Stacy McCain and Ali Akbar (Brown’s new media guy) we talked about the healthcare bill and there was an interesting exchange. I stressed how important this election was because it was necessary to stop obamacare BEFORE it was passed prompting the following:

Ali: “And if it does pass, we will repeal it!”

DaTechGuy: “No we won’t.”

It was very telling that Ali (who is a really smart young man) didn’t argue the point with me and changed the subject.

Well Scott won, but the democrats realizing that the only chance to get the bill passed now was for the house to pass the version that had already gone through the senate did so avoiding both a conference and the chance of a filibuster.

So the repeal bill is now coming up and we will find out who was right. I think Ali knows the its very hard to repeal a law once passed. He knows businesses and government have already adjusted their plans based on it. A lot of favors were done for a lot of people in that bill and those lobbyists who had those favors inserted want them preserved. Most importantly as a rule it’s easier to stop something than to do something in congress. A determined minority and frustrate the majority every time.

Yet there are real reasons to think he might be right. The left and the media are declaring that effort dead and phony but are doing their best to discourage this vote. If my original thought was right why would they bother? After all the senate is still a majority democratic institution. Very little chance on any change there is there?

The dirty little secret is until the house passes this bill the senate doesn’t have to even pretend to care, but once it IS passed than it is before the Senate. There are quite a few democratic senators who are in a tough spot. They either ran against Obamacare (WV) live in states where it is unpopular (MO) or face uphill reelection fights (Va). The retirement announcement of Kent Conrad in ND actually hurts the repeal effort because he can now vote to preserve it while the democrat who does run in his state can claim opposition.

However there is another factor involved. Every single democratic senator was the deciding vote to the passage of Obamacare this means that every vulnerable senator on the democratic side has that vote hanging around their neck. Those senators desperate to retain their seats and the power and privileges thereof will not want to run on Obamacare. A repeal vote would give them a chance to vote against it saying they’ve “reconsidered”.

Harry Reid might, in order to increase the chance of holding his senate majority allow a vote. If a democrat filibuster blocks it then vulnerable dems can clam they voted against said filibuster and if he allows it to reach the floor he can either “Fishbait Miller” the vote (let the three most vulnerable dems vote against it) or allow it to pass and let the president veto it.

This is the position that the White House least wants to be in. The president casting a very prominent vote to preserve a law that he pushed for against popular opinion. This would be a great gift to Republicans going into 2012 and represents (along with the rising price of gas and oil and high unemployment) the best chance for this president to lose re-election.

This is the importance of the house vote. It turns 2012 into a referendum on Obamacare. The closer these actions come to election day 2012 the worse the situation gets for democrats. The second best move for them would be to allow a Senate vote ASAP and get this whole thing over with early. The best option for democrats? That I’m not saying until the day after the presidential election.

Obamacare will not be repealed before the 2012 election but this vote might be the first step to insuring its repeal with a new person in the White House.

I look at this headline and laugh at the intellectual weakness of it:

Bill Frist: Health Care Is ‘Law Of The Land,’ GOP Should Drop Repeal And Build On It

How weak an argument is that? Think about the variations:

John C. Calhoun: Slavery is the ‘Law of The Land,’ GOP Should Drop Repeal attempt and Build on it

Or how about this?

Herman Eugene Talmadge: Separate but equal is the law of the land (Plessy v Ferguson), the GOP should drop civil rights bills and Build on it

I can do this all day.

Considering how the left/media insists that this is not going to make a difference since the senate won’t repeal it they are fighting awful hard to keep this vote from happening in the house. They fear this vote for a reason.

Oh and the easiest way to be liked by the MSM is to be a republican in opposition to republicans.

I didn’t have a horse in this race myself. I heard good things about Ann Wagner and people I respect supported her (big tea party favorite). Other people I respect as well supported Michael Steele (on the he was in charge when we won theory).

The problem? The RNC is having is grass-roots fundraising problem. The conservative grass-roots does not like the idea of hundreds of thousands of dollars being spent on, shall we say, less that loyal conservatives/republicans (read Dede Scozzafava, Charlie Crist). Combine this with the internet and the ability of individuals to give cash directly to candidates the actually like, and poof the RNC becomes irrelevant.

Establishment republicans who really don’t like the rise of the tea party (because they understand a true anti-spending movement decreases the perks and the power that are the rewards of office) wanted to keep their favorite out of the chair. Those big donors are looking for a return on their investment. The tax payer spigot being turned off is the last thing they want.

The winner Reince Priebus as a former Steele is likely a safe choice who can hopefully navigate the shoal between those rocks that Steele didn’t.

The thing about being a party chairman is that by definition you have to support any person with a (R) next to their name. If the leaders were really devious they could have supported Wagner and then hit her if she didn’t give moderates the time of day.

The real smart move would be to build a structure to advance republican thought. Such a move would create republicans. The National party could rather than funding candidates, steer funds to groups closer to the ground while allowing the sub groups such as the tea party to give to specific candidates perhaps using funding in an emergency manner to push a close or promising candidate over the top.

It’s a tough job but if we win, there will be plenty of kudos to go around. It all depends of if the idea is to advance a philosophy or to get a meal ticket. The choices made by the party will tell us which goal really counts.