I found it interesting to read the spin from the press today on the election results.  Unlike POTUS, I wasn't pretending last night to be so uninterested that I was watching a basketball game.  I didn't have staff slipping me the current tallies during the commercial breaks.  FoxNews was my source of coverage, and I watched it live.

As a former resident of NJ, I watched with fascination as Corzine lost.  Of course I could no longer vote in that election, but I'd voted with my feet earlier this year, and moved to a state with lower taxes, both income and property.  Morris County has been solidly Republican for as long as I can remember, but the rest of the state usually outvotes it, so for decades, I voted in all but an occasional local school referendum vote, and suspected my vote was worthless.  I really thought Corzine was going to pull it off, despite his widespread unpopularity.  So, evidently, did the Democrats.  NJ is almost as well known for corruption and voter fraud as Chicago.

Still, the warning signs that Christie might win were there.  Obama had pretty much already thrown the Democratic candidate for the governorship of VA under the bus, and made several last minute appearances in NJ to stump for Corzine meant the White House was a little more worried about losing than it would admit.

Predictably, the press and Democrats, including Nancy Pelosi, are downplaying the damage.  Pelosi herself considered last night's results to be a victory.  From Politico:

Most House Democrats tried to put a good face on Tuesday's election results, saying they picked up two more votes for a sweeping health care bill that could be on the floor as early as Friday.

[. . .]

Of course, the speaker, who told POLITICO recently she's "not big on showing weakness," brushed aside questions about how the Democratic gubernatorial losses in Virginia and New Jersey would impact her final tally and instead trumpeted the two special election House wins. 

"From our perspective, we won last night," the California Democrat told reporters during a Wednesday photo op. "We had one race that we were engaged in, it was in northern New York, it was a race where a Republican has held the seat since the Civil War. And we won that seat. So, from our standpoint, no, a candidate was victorious who supports health care reform, and his remarks last night said this was a victory for health care reform and other initiatives for the American people."

There are several things wrong with that.  I could be wrong, but I think those two gubenatorial elections were tied, at least in part, to voter displeasure with Democrats, including Obama himself.  Ms. Pelosi has a point, in that no state governor can vote for any of her house bills, and Owens (NY-23) can.  But, even he's against a public option in the "health scare" bill, and it would probably be political suicide for him to vote for it.  Besides, he's up for re-election next year.  Regarding "picking up two votes,"  the other Democrat who won a house seat was a liberal from CA who replaced another liberal from his district, so I don't see how that counts as an additional vote.  The last time a Democrat from NY-23 won a seat was in 1993.  Evidently, Ms. Pelosi learned history about as well as she learned math.

The most interesting piece I read was from Paul Mulshine of The Star-Ledger (Newark, NJ).  He and his paper endorsed Tim Daggett, the spoiler candidate, when the polls showed him getting some traction with voters, but his article read like sour grapes.

As a result, Christie can’t claim a mandate. That’s not just because he won by such a small margin in what should have been a runaway. It’s also because you can’t win a mandate to do nothing — which is what he promised to do.

A five point margin for a Republican governor in a state that is about as solidly Democratic as they come, is not that small a margin.  For NJ, it's pretty big.  What it means is that Independents voted for Christie, en masse, and that Corzine couldn't buy himself a third election (Senate first, then governor, twice).  Christie never promised to "do nothing," which invalidates this journalist's major point.

From what I read of the exit polls, voters weren't thrilled with any of the candidates, but voted out Corzine.  I consider that to be success.

Whether that will translate into election wins next year, I can't predict.  But I do like last night's results.

This morning, I woke up to the news that Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize.  Say what?

The Times (UK) reports:

The award of this year’s Nobel peace prize to President Obama will be met with widespread incredulity, consternation in many capitals and probably deep embarrassment by the President himself.

I doubt that.  Obama no more knows embarrassment than does Clinton.  Surprise, yes, but not embarrassment.

. . . the prize risks looking preposterous in its claims, patronising in its intentions and demeaning in its attempt to build up a man who has barely begun his period in office, let alone achieved any tangible outcome for peace.

Amen.

There is a further irony in offering a peace prize to a president whose principal preoccupation at the moment is when and how to expand the war in Afghanistan.

Is that why Obama's been dragging his feet on McChrystal's recommendation?  Hold off making a decision until after he's awarded the prize?

The committee said today that he had “captured the world’s attention”. It is certainly true that his energy and aspirations have dazzled many of his supporters. Sadly, it seems they have so bedazzled the Norwegians that they can no longer separate hopes from achievement.

Yes, folks, the Norwegians just awarded rhetoric to the tune of $1.4 million.

The prize worth 10 million Swedish crowns ($1.4 million) will be handed out in Oslo on December 10.

Gibbs claims the president was "humbled."

White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, who woke the president to tell him the news, said Obama was "humbled."

I doubt it.  He knows humility no more than he knows embarrassment.  Arrogance doesn't equal humility.  Arrogance, with a dash of petulant whininess, is all I've seen from Obama since he took office.

The deadline for nominations is Feb. 1, meaning the president was nominated after being in office for just 11 days.

This is further proof that this award has nothing to do with achievement.

Lundestad admitted that the committee knew the world would be surprised by the decision . . . and Obama has "nothing to fear."

Except the wrath of American voters in 2010 and 2012.

There have been some controversial winners in the past (Yassir Arafat, for example), but this win takes the cake.  In addition to making the committee look like a bunch of jokers, it dimishes the real accomplishments of other past winners who truly deserved the award.

The good news is that flag-at-whitehouse.gov is dead.  Remember that little inbox for people to snitch to the government on their friends, family and neighbors who didn't want Obamacare rammed down their throats?  I call it "Snitchgate."  From Politico, we have:

The “flag” service was introduced Aug. 4, with a White House blog post saying: “There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life care. These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation. Since we can’t keep track of all of them here at the White House, we’re asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov.”

To top it off, we have Rep. Eric Massa (D-NY), who plans to vote for a single-payer plan, stating:

I will vote adamantly against the interests of my district if I actually think what I am doing is going to be helpful.

Can you believe it?  Those who voted him into office by a very slim 2% margin deserve him, and his "I know what's better for you than you do" philosophy, but the rest of us in this country don't.

Here's the link to the video in case the embed doesn't work: 

David A. Patten's article on Newsmax that covered Obama's Town Hall meeting outside Bozeman on Friday has some interesting highlights.

Pundits are warning that a fact-challenged President Barack Obama is hurting his own credibility and further confusing the healthcare debate, after yet another litany of misstatements and dubious assertions during Friday's town hall meeting in Belgrade, Mont.

David Limbaugh wrote a recent column for Townhall about how Obama's credibility is already shot.  That was published the same day as the Montana meeting, but made no mention of the meeting itself.  Limbaugh writes:

Obama has said he just wants a dialogue with the American people on health care. Sorry, but there are just so many times a person can say the exact opposite of what he means and retain a shred of credibility. While saying he wants this dialogue, he's also telling his opponents to shut up -- literally. Even more revealing, he was adamant that this bill be passed before the August recess -- a bill whose provisions he admitted or pretended he was not familiar with. How could there have been a dialogue if he had already made up his mind and if the deadline he had artificially imposed could not possibly have allowed a dialogue?

How, indeed?  The Patten article goes on to mention that tickets for the event were not supposed to be handed out on a first-come-first served basis until 9am, yet had all been given out before 8am, to a lot of union people who were bused in from Chicago.  This is a tactic we've seen employed at other Town Hall meetings of late, hosted by members of congress.  In this case, Obama's union homies were bused in from Chicago, which, let's face it, is an awfully long way from Bozeman.  It just smells really fishy.

His strategy of reiterating talking points that already had been debunked or challenged drew heat from analysts who fault tactics they say are long on presidential charisma but sometimes short on credibility.

"Apparently he's more committed to 'selling' his plan than telling the truth," lamented Heritage Foundation spokesman Jim Weidman.

"Clever might have worked on less important issues, at least if the president had taken more care to maintain his credibility, which he has badly shot on healthcare," commentator Andy McCarthy fired off on a National Review blog.

Limbaugh isn't the only one who thinks Obama's credibility is shot.

"Something's a little fishy here," Jim Walters, eastern coordinator for Resistnet, a grass-roots organization affiliated with the Grassfire.org Alliance, told Newsmax prior to the event. "They weren't supposed to start handing out tickets until 9 o'clock. I had people up here at 8, and the tickets were already gone."

Walters estimated 1,000 people were gathered outside the airport near Bozeman, Mont., where the event was held. Walters told Newsmax that union members who arrived via bus from Chicago had initiated an altercation with town hall protesters. He said he saw police making several arrests.

What's unclear from the article is who was being arrested -- the union goons or the protesters.

The article quotes Rich Noyes, research director at th Media Research Center, states, regarding the Obama administration's bet that the MSM "remains sufficiently dominant to swing the debate in Obama's favor."

"It may have the boomerang effect of getting people more familiar with the facts than they otherwise would be, to the point where people may not come to the conclusion the network reporters and the White house want," Noyes says.

I think that's already happening.  Noyes is referring to people increasingly getting information from the internet, rather than the broadcast networks.  If that were not the case, would we see so many protesters at these Town Hall meetings?  I think not.

Limbaugh's article states:

All the proof we need that Obama and Democrats recognize the authenticity of this grass-roots protest is their hysterical reaction to it. They wouldn't be hyperventilating about it if they believed it to be fake, but would use their super-majorities to ram through this bill.

They also wouldn't be busing in union goos to populate these meetings, and rough up the crowds of protesters.

The Newsmax article says Everett Wilkinson, a leader and spokesman for Tea Party Patriots . . .

. . . emphasizes that the Tea Party Patriots' movement transcends party lines. And despite efforts to paint town hall protesters as violent extremists, corporate lackeys, or GOP operatives, voters identify with them and sympathize with their concerns, he says.

Obviously.  The lefties wouldn't be panicking, were that not the case.  Until the unions started busing in members to these meetings, the attendees were mostly senior citizens and small business owners, of all political parties.  Why?  Because they were either retired, or had the flexibility to take time off work to attend.  Your average rank-and-file employee doesn't have that luxury, unless he or she blows a vacation day on it.  The fact that some attendees were able to take time off work certainly explains the business suits they were wearing; there's nothing sinister about it.

And, yes, Obama and the lefties are losing credibility.

Anne Flaherty reports on My Way news that members of congress were flooded with emails yesterday, to the point of shutting down the servers.

Amid a boisterous debate on health care reform, people flooded members of Congress on Thursday with so many e-mails that they overloaded the House's primary Web site.

I don't ever recall such a reaction from an electorate.  Sure, the anti-Vietnam War protests of the 1960s roused a lot of people, but they were demonstrating on street corners and on college campuses, not flooding their representatives' snail mail boxes with letters of disgust.

Jeff Ventura, a spokesman for the House's chief administrative officer, which maintains the Web site, said traffic data was not available and could not be released without the lawmakers' consent.

But anecdotally, he said, the spike in e-mail volume was widely believed to be a result of the health care debate.

"It is clearly health care reform," Ventura said. "There's no doubt about it."

Duh.  Do.  Not.  Want.  Ever think it might be a good idea to scrap the bill(s), if this many people feel so strongly about it?  I think this is going to be a long, hot, August, even though climate-wise, it's been one of the coldest on record in a long time.

Democrats are trying desperately to regain control of the debate, with the White House posting a new Web site designed to dispel what it called "the misinformation and baseless smears that are cropping up daily." House Democratic aides have set up a health care war room out of Majority Leader Steny Hoyer's office.

The shriller you get, guys, the more it's obvious that you're losing your case for this health care reform baloney.  You have to set up a "war room," Steny?  War on your constituents, and those of fellow Democratics in the House?  Not cool.

Anne Flaherty reports on My Way news that members of congress were flooded with emails yesterday, to the point of shutting down the servers.

Amid a boisterous debate on health care reform, people flooded members of Congress on Thursday with so many e-mails that they overloaded the House's primary Web site.

I don't ever recall such a reaction from an electorate.  Sure, the anti-Vietnam War protests of the 1960s roused a lot of people, but they were demonstrating on street corners and on college campuses, not flooding their representatives' snail mail boxes with letters of disgust.

Jeff Ventura, a spokesman for the House's chief administrative officer, which maintains the Web site, said traffic data was not available and could not be released without the lawmakers' consent.

But anecdotally, he said, the spike in e-mail volume was widely believed to be a result of the health care debate.

"It is clearly health care reform," Ventura said. "There's no doubt about it."

Duh.  Do.  Not.  Want.  Ever think it might be a good idea to scrap the bill(s), if this many people feel so strongly about it?  I think this is going to be a long, hot, August, even though climate-wise, it's been one of the coldest on record in a long time.

Democrats are trying desperately to regain control of the debate, with the White House posting a new Web site designed to dispel what it called "the misinformation and baseless smears that are cropping up daily." House Democratic aides have set up a health care war room out of Majority Leader Steny Hoyer's office.

The shriller you get, guys, the more it's obvious that you're losing your case for this health care reform baloney.  You have to set up a "war room," Steny?  War on your constituents, and those of fellow Democratics in the House?  Not cool.

This article from the AP states that the Senate health care bill has dropped the provision for end-of-life counseling.

Key senators are excluding a provision on end-of-life care from health overhaul legislation after language in a House bill caused a furor.

Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa, top Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, said in a statement Thursday that the provision had been dropped from consideration because it could be misinterpreted or implemented incorrectly.

As I mentioned in my previous post, even Camille Paglia realizes that Sarah Palin's death squad metaphor is merely capturing Americans' collective unease with potentially ceding end-of-life decisions to a government-run national heath care system.

For more than a decade in Congress, Oregon Rep. Earl Blumenauer . . . So it is something of a surprise to the Portland Democrat that he has earned a new measure of fame in recent days — as author of a health-care provision that some critics say would set up a "death panel."

That's pushing it, but it does have potential for abuse, if patients are pushed into making such decisions by their doctors.

Blumenauer responds:

In nearly four decades of public life, "this is the starkest example I've ever seen of how, if we're not careful, political discourse dissolves into some type of partisan cage-fighting, where there are no rules and anything goes," said Blumenauer, 60.

Palin's response was this:

"With all due respect, it's misleading for the president to describe this section as an entirely voluntary provision that simply increases the information offered to Medicare recipients," she said, noting that the provision authorizes consultations whenever a Medicare recipient's health changes significantly or when they enter a nursing home.

Blumenauer defends his position thusly:

Blumenauer said the measure he supports would merely allow Medicare to pay doctors for voluntary counseling sessions that address end-of-life issues. Topics include living wills, designating a close relative or a trusted friend as a health care proxy and information about pain medications for chronic discomfort.

What on earth ever happened to people making these decisions for themselves, with their family members, and drawing up the paperwork either with a lawyer, or by using one of the sample forms available from various sites online?  Doctors don't already have enough to do treating their patients without having to play the role of lawyer, for which they don't have a degree and are not licensed to practice, as well?  It's absurd.  Let the doctors treat patients, and let the lawyers do the legal paperwork.

Blumenauer conters with this:

"This has taken on an outsized significance and so more people are paying attention to it than ever before," Blumenauer said. "I think you will see more people use this to say, 'What will happen to me if I am in an accident? Here's what I want.' More people are going to take matters into their own hands."

If that's the objective of the provision, then draft a bill requiring all citizens who are no longer minors to have such documents.  Make the forms available through congressional representatives' offices, and let those who don't have internet access and a printer print them out at their local library.  Don't make it part of a nationalized health care system.  And don't push lawyer duties onto doctors.

What I find really confusing though, is that the article switches back and forth between the Senate and Congress bills, and quotes from Senators and Representatives.  It sounds like the provision has only been dropped from the Senate version, and not from any of the ones floating around in the House.

Granted, the AP is one of the MSM news outlets, so the article has a liberal bias to begin with.  But, it really astounds me that anyone with a journalism degree is so devoid of clarity, and full of "reporting" that is just plain confusing.  There is nothing wrong with my reading comprehension.  The author of the piece was not given a byline -- just an AP dateline -- but, the article was about as clear as a potter's clay slurry.  A news article shouldn't require the reader to examine the subtext, and possibly re-read several paragraphs to digest it all, as if it was classic literature.

I almost never agree with Camille Paglia, but I have to hand it to her this time around.  Her article on Salon.com titled "Obama's Healtchare Horror" blasts Obama and the health care bill that the Democrats are trying to ram through Congress.  She even takes a jab at Nancy Pelosi.

But who would have thought that the sober, deliberative Barack Obama would have nothing to propose but vague and slippery promises -- or that he would so easily cede the leadership clout of the executive branch to a chaotic, rapacious, solipsistic Congress? House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, whom I used to admire for her smooth aplomb under pressure, has clearly gone off the deep end with her bizarre rants about legitimate town-hall protests by American citizens.

Even Paglia considers the protests that have been taking place at Town Hall meetings across the country to be perfectly legitimate.

Obama's aggressive endorsement of a healthcare plan that does not even exist yet, except in five competing, fluctuating drafts, makes Washington seem like Cloud Cuckoo Land. The president is promoting the most colossal, brazen bait-and-switch operation . . .

Yes.

I just don't get it. Why the insane rush to pass a bill, any bill, in three weeks? And why such an abject failure by the Obama administration to present the issues to the public in a rational, detailed, informational way?

Good question.

How is it possible that Democrats, through their own clumsiness and arrogance, have sabotaged healthcare reform yet again? Blaming obstructionist Republicans is nonsensical because Democrats control all three branches of government. It isn't conservative rumors or lies that are stopping healthcare legislation; it's the justifiable alarm of an electorate that has been cut out of the loop and is watching its representatives construct a tangled labyrinth for others but not for themselves. No, the airheads of Congress will keep their own plush healthcare plan -- it's the rest of us guinea pigs who will be thrown to the wolves.

Judging by the Town Hall meeting protests, and the reaction from members of congress, our representatives are shocked that their constituents are so out of touch with their benevolence.  I smell more than a whiff of panic in the air.  Somehow, though, I fail to see how bussing in union goons to fill Town Hall meetings, and locking out their constituents is going to help them get re-elected.  There was no violence at these meetings until the SEIU showed up.

Speaking about Republicans, Paglia states:

Nor have they generated new ideas for healthcare, except for medical savings accounts, which would be pathetically inadequate in a major crisis for anyone earning at or below a median income.

That's not true.  House Republicans proposed their own version of health care reform -- HR 3400, Empowering Patients First Act.  Can't say I really blame Paglia for not doing her research on it, since most mainstream media outlets aren't giving it any coverage.  To CBS's credit, however, it did provide a link to the bill.

And what do Democrats stand for, if they are so ready to defame concerned citizens as the "mob" -- a word betraying a Marie Antoinette delusion of superiority to ordinary mortals. I thought my party was populist, attentive to the needs and wishes of those outside the power structure. And as a product of the 1960s, I thought the Democratic party was passionately committed to freedom of thought and speech.

They're only committed to freedom of thought and speech from those who agree with them.  Otherwise, all bets are off.  Witness the union goons sent in to silence dissent.

The ethical collapse of the left was nowhere more evident than in the near total silence of liberal media and Web sites at the Obama administration's outrageous solicitation to private citizens to report unacceptable "casual conversations" to the White House. If Republicans had done this, there would have been an angry explosion by Democrats from coast to coast.

Right you are, Ms. Paglia.

I simply do not understand the drift of my party toward a soulless collectivism. This is in fact what Sarah Palin hit on in her shocking image of a "death panel" under Obamacare that would make irrevocable decisions about the disabled and elderly. When I first saw that phrase, headlined on the Drudge Report, I burst out laughing. It seemed so over the top! But on reflection, I realized that Palin's shrewdly timed metaphor spoke directly to the electorate's unease with the prospect of shadowy, unelected government figures controlling our lives.

A brilliant, if obvious, deduction.

What was needed for reform was an in-depth analysis, buttressed by documentary evidence, of waste, fraud and profiteering in the healthcare, pharmaceutical and insurance industries. Instead what we've gotten is a series of facile, vulgar innuendos about how doctors conduct their practice, as if their primary motive is money. Quite frankly, the president gives little sense of direct knowledge of medical protocols; it's as if his views are a tissue of hearsay and scattershot worst-case scenarios.

Of course, it didn't help matters that, just when he needed maximum momentum on healthcare, Obama made the terrible gaffe of declaring that, even without his knowing the full facts, Cambridge, Mass., police had acted "stupidly" in arresting a friend of his, Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. Obama's automatic identification with the pampered Harvard elite (wildly unpopular with most sensible people), as well as his insulting condescension toward an officer doing his often dangerous duty, did serious and perhaps irreparable damage to the president's standing. The strained, prissy beer summit in the White House garden afterward didn't help. Is that the Obama notion of hospitality? Another staff breakdown.

Ms. Paglia is absolutely right about both of the points she made in those paragraphs.  "Facile, vulgar innuendos" seems to be the only way our Chicago-on-the-Patomac community-organizer-in-chief knows how to operate.  Of course, it also doesn't help that Obama admitted to not knowing what was even in the health scare bill he wants rammed through congress at all costs.  And, yes, those costs will be plenty, for a wildly inefficient system.

Regarding Gates and the "beer summit," most of the coverage I've read about it seemed to ridicule both the summit itself, and the fact that Obama stuck his nose smack dab into a local matter in Boston that didn't concern him as President.  I suspect Biden was invited simply to make the racial quota even, but still, it was three guys ganging up on a cop who did nothing more than respond to a report of a break-in.

It was the wealthy, lordly Gates who committed the first offense by instantly and evidently hysterically defaming the character of the officer who arrived at his door to investigate the report of a break-in. There was no excuse for Gates' loud and cheap charges of racism, which he should have immediately apologized for the next day, instead of threatening lawsuits and self-aggrandizing television exposés.

Amen.  Ms. Paglia begins to stray from her original topic of the health care bill, but her article is an opinion piece, not a news article.  And, she's absolutely right.

When the director of the Valley Swim Club in Montgomery County cancelled its agreement with several urban day camps to use its private pool, the controversy was portrayed entirely in racial terms. There were uninvestigated allegations of remarks about "black kids" made by white mothers who ordered their children out of the pool, and the racial theme was intensified by the director's inept description of the "complexion" of the pool having been changed -- which may simply have been a whopper of a Freudian slip.

Personally, I think that's exactly what it was.

I have lingering questions about how much of that incident was race and how much was social class. Urban working-class and suburban middle-class children often have quite different styles of play -- as I know from present observation as well as from my Syracuse youth, when I regularly biked to the public pool in Thornden Park. Kids of all races from downtown Syracuse neighborhoods were much rougher and tougher, and for self-preservation you had to stay out of their way!

That pretty much sums up the incident.  The swim club at which it happened isn't very far away from where I live.  Although I'm not familiar with the town in which the swim club is, characterizing it as a middle-class suburb of Philadelphia is accurate.

The rest of Ms. Paglia's article strays even further, into music and the arts, and is thus irrelevant to this particular blog entry of mine.

As previously stated, I almost never agree with her, but she's smack on in this particular article of hers.  The health care bill is abhorrent, as is the way Obama's trying to ram it through without knowing what's in it.  Members of congress' behavior, doing their best to stifle dissenting opinions (by people who hope to get re-elected by the constituents they're locking out of Town Hall meetings, and roughing up, courtesy of union goons), is also abhorrent.  If they can't be bothered reading the bill upon which they were asked to vote, there's no rationale for walking into contentious Town Hall meetings to discuss the bill, armed with nothing other than talking points they were spoon-fed from the Obama administration -- and union goons.

Is congress out of touch with its constituents?  To be facetious -- just a little.  Are our representatives panicking?  Obviously.  Nobody busses in thugs to beat up the people who helped get them elected, and gives the goons reserved seating, if that's not the case.  Keep it up kids -- you just might get kicked out of congress, and have to enroll in that scary health plan you want to impose on the rest of us.  Karma.  It's a female dog.

I love this:

Democrats and the White House are claiming that the sometimes rowdy protests that have disrupted Democratic lawmakers' meetings and health care events around the country are largely orchestrated from afar by insurers, lobbyists, Republican Party activists and others.

Um, yeah, that's why they get shouted down by housewives, contractors, and retired veterans.

The Senate's most powerful Democrat on Thursday scolded health care protesters dogging his party's lawmakers at local meetings, arguing that some critics on the political right have run out of ideas—and ditched their civic manners. Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada accused the protesters of trying to "sabotage" the democratic process.

Actually, Harry, they're participating in the democratic process, and doing a darn good job of it.  If you don't like it, draft a bill that will take away the vote from all citizens, and their right to peacefully protest.  Ram it through.  While you're at it, you might want to take away our passports, too.  Just a thought . . . 'cause then we couldn't race across the border to Canada to wait three months for a doctor appointment, and get sent home with aspirin for a broken bone.

Obama's top political adviser, David Axelrod, participated in a Capitol Hill session at which senators were shown video of some of the boisterous town-hall meetings, and discussed how to respond to disruptions.

"It's a challenge, no question about it, and you've got to get out there and make the case," Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., said afterward. "This is not the time for the faint-hearted."

Yeah . . . or any ordinary citizen with a heart condition.  But all these jokers care about is how to escape a public meeting at their local church or school with their hides intact.  That speaks volumes.

Alright, guys and gals in congress, I'll toss you a chunk of cheese to go with your whine.  Maybe a cracker, too.  Just don't ask for my vote next year.  And don't tell me to shut up, when I voice my opinion.

Get off your fat duffs, and listen to the people who are protesting and beseiging your offices with email and phone calls.  They have legitimate concerns.

You do not know what is best for your next door neighbor.  You aren't God.  Heck, you aren't even a decent citizen, if all you can do is belittle your constituency.  They voted you in; they can vote you out.

Pay no attention to that woman behind the curtain!  Despite her Emerald City, and rainbow-hued horses, she can't get you back to Kansas, anyway.

According to a Bloomberg article:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said she has the votes to pass legislation overhauling the U.S. health- care system as Democratic Party leaders moved closer to an agreement with rebellious members of their own party.

The natives are getting restless.

Leaders are “making progress” with Democrats who want more cost cuts in the legislation, Pelosi told reporters in Washington today, a day after President Barack Obama met with a group of Democrats to try to convince them to back the plan.

I love this quote:

“I have no question we have the votes on the floor of the House to pass this legislation,” Pelosi said.

Maybe.

Talks have proven so difficult that Pelosi, Waxman and House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer left open the possibility Congress may fail to meet Obama’s August deadline for passage.

In other words, the dominatrix failed to chain her servants to the wall.  They're scampering around the room like unruly kittens.

The Blue Dogs on the panel “can’t support the bill as it stands,” Representative Mike Ross of Arkansas, one of the group’s leaders, said in an interview after the meeting. 

[. . .]

Asked today if the House should stay an extra week in Washington in August to pass the legislation, Pelosi said 70 percent of Americans believe it would be a “good idea.”

Where does this woman get her facts and figures?  Nevermind.  It's a rhetorical question.

Then, there's this article from Jake Tapper at ABC, who's about as liberal as Helen Thomas.

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., today insisted everything is smooth sailing with the House bill that would require every American to have health insurance or pay a fine . . .

[. . .]

“No, I don’t think they have the votes,” Rep. Mike Ross, D-Ark., said, arguing if that were the case he and the other six Blue Dogs on the House Energy and Commerce Committee who have been holding up the bill in committee would be under far less pressure.

The stilettos and whips aren't working too well.  Maybe strapping them into down filled mummy bags, and leaving them out on the mall to bake in the summer sun would work better.  Just a suggestion.

“We’re speaking for a silent majority within the Democratic caucus,” he said. “The American people want us to slow down and they want us to get it right.” 

And what about on the Senate side?

Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., chair of the Senate Finance Committee, was overheard jokingly telling House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Maryland, “let me tell you, praying might be helpful here.”

I consider this to be good news.  If this ridiculous bill passes, we'll all eventually get chucked into the equivalent of the VA system, and research into new drugs by the pharmaceutical companies will effectively be stifled.

An article on NationalJournal.com implies that the Obamessiah is fearful for his legacy.  The article, or course, deals with the horrible nationalized "health scare" plan that Obama wants to steamroll through congress.

"Let's just lay everything on the table," Grassley said. "A Democrat congressman last week told me after a conversation with the president that the president had trouble in the House of Representatives, and it wasn't going to pass if there weren't some changes made ... and the president says, 'You're going to destroy my presidency.' "

That'd be nice.  Better his presidency be destroyed, than sit back and watch everything get nationalized as if America were a banana republic.

Republicans who are against the steamroller tactic are generally dismissed as naysayers by the MSM, yet it's the DNC that is running ads to strongarm its own members into backing this horrible plan.

House Republicans Tuesday made hay of the issue, with Ways and Means minority staff sending out an e-mail asking, "Who's really blocking health care reform?"

"Do not be fooled by the president's repeated attempts to create a Republican straw man for his health care troubles," the e-mail reads. The GOP pointed to ads the Democratic National Committee is running to pressure Democratic lawmakers.

Then we have this lovely piece of ridiculousness from Rahm Emmanuel, in reference to Obama's primetime speech this evening.  Rahm-bo is already spinning faster than a gyroscope.

White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel told The New York Times Obama intends to use the news conference as a "six-month report card," to talk about "how we rescued the economy from the worst recession" and the legislative agenda moving forward, including health care and energy legislation.

Really?  Is there anyone in this country who is delusional enough to believe that?  Primetime network television is when entertainment shows air, not news programming.  Could it be that the White House realizes this speech will be entertainment, rather than news?

This quote from Kenneth Duberstein is priceless:

"He has a broad, broad agenda that he's in a rush to enact, and if he's not careful he will be viewed as a steamroller who tries to get things fast and not necessarily right."

Isn't that already the case?

Another article from the AP has a few juicy tidbits.

Pelosi, D-Calif., vowed weeks ago that the House would vote by the end of July on legislation to meet two goals established by Obama.

In reference to that, there's this quote from Charlie Rangel:

"No one wants to tell the speaker (Nancy Pelosi) that she's moving too fast and they damn sure don't want to tell the president," Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., a key committee chairman, told a fellow lawmaker as the two walked into a closed-door meeting Tuesday. The remark was overheard by reporters.

That's the first sensible thing I've heard from him in a long time.  Even Democrats realize this health scare abomination shouldn't be rammed through before congress has a chance to digest its contents.

Obama said those issues can be addressed as the legislation keeps moving forward. Congress has already spent years studying and debating the problems in the health care system, he said.

If that's the case, and they couldn't figure out how to tackle health care, what on earth makes Obama think he can do it in six months?  Hubris?  If pride goes before the fall, here's to you, Humpty Dumpty Obama.

The whole thing about fining citizens who won't buy heath insurance $2500 a year is absurd.  Next, the WH will fine citizens who refuse to buy a new Government Motors car, even if they live in central cities with no place to park a car, and rely on public transportation.  If this administration can't tax us to death, it'll fine us to death.  Chicago on the Potomac is nothing but bad news for all American citizens, living stateside or abroad.

Several thoughts struck me as I watched the inauguration proceedings.

First of all, Obama's speech was full of platitudes.  He just had to bring up segregation and racism, in a "we shall overcome" kind of way, didn't he?  It was like listening to an MLK speech.  Is that what an inauguration speech is supposed to be all about?

The woman in the red coat who follwed Obama's speech with a poem didn't know how to read it.  She looked around really nervously for several seconds before she began to read.  When she finally began reading, she did so in a really stilted tone that did the poem no justice.  The poem itself had racial undertones.  Was this supposed to be a message of hope, or a look back to the days of, um, George Wallace in Alabama?

After that came Rev. Joseph Lowery, who gave a speech that again, had racial overtones.  I can forgive his halting speech pattern; he's in his 80s.  It was the content of his speech with which I took issue.

I missed the very beginning of the inauguration.  Obama had already begun speaking when I flipped on the television.  Yet, the only white person I ever saw up on the podium to get anywhere near the microphone was the woman who introduced each person to speak.  Every time she tried to make the introduction, the cheers from the crowd drowned out her voice.  No wonder she just went on, regardless, and waved the next person up to the mike.  All the speakers I saw were black.  All the speakers I heard mentioned racism in some form or other, in the context of bringing the nation together, as if it's something to which we can all relate.

The only good thing I heard in any of this is that Obama did address the issue of Muslim jihadi terrorism, not using that particular terminology, of course.  Diplomatic, as it was, he did convey the message that he had no plans to be a lapdog for the jihadis.  I hope he backs up those words with action, if it becomes necessary.

An article from Simon Tisdall of The Guardian grabbed my attention this morning.  He's up in arms about Obama's deafening silence regarding the Hamas/Israeli conflict.  The title of the article, "Obama is losing a battle he doesn't know he's in" [sic], is telling enough.  The gist of the article is that Obama's already a disappointment, because, even though he's not yet president, he's not placating the Moslems in the Middle East.

But evidence is mounting that Obama is already losing ground among key Arab and Muslim audiences that cannot understand why, given his promise of change, he has not spoken out. Arab commentators and editorialists say there is growing disappointment at Obama's detachment . . .

As proof of his assertion, Tisdall states:

The Al-Jazeera satellite television station recently broadcast footage of Obama on holiday in Hawaii, wearing shorts and playing golf, juxtaposed with scenes of bloodshed and mayhem in Gaza. Its report criticising "the deafening silence from the Obama team" suggested Obama is losing a battle of perceptions among Muslims that he may not realise has even begun.

Remember, The Guardian was one of the biggest champions of Obama, pre-election, and practically danced in glee, with most of the rest of Europe, when he was elected.  Clearly, Tisdall is already disenchanted with Obama, but his article isn't much more than an opinion piece, framed as hard journalism.

"People recall his campaign slogan of change and hoped that it would apply to the Palestinian situation," Jordanian analyst Labib Kamhawi told Liz Sly of the Chicago Tribune. "So they look at his silence as a negative sign. They think he is condoning what happened in Gaza because he's not expressing any opinion."

This sounds like posturing to me.  Personally, I think that most rational citizens of both the Middle east, and EU countries are willing to take a wait-and-see approach to Obama's presidency, and recognize posturing for what it is.  Tisdall either buys it hook, line, and sinker, or recognizes it as posturing as well, but won't let it interfere with his opinion.  Either way, it diminishes his credibility as a reporter, as far as I'm concerned.

Regional critics claim Obama is happy to break his pre-inauguration "no comment" rule on international issues when it suits him. They note his swift condemnation of November's terrorist attacks in Mumbai. Obama has also made frequent policy statements on mitigating the impact of the global credit crunch.

Expressing a personal opinion regarding the Mumbai terrorist attacks, and speaking about what his official American government global policy would be, are two different things, at this point.  Nobody approves of terrorist attacks, except for those who either commit them, or back those who do.  Also, any statements that Obama has made about the current global economy are not official "policy."

There is a global credit crunch, to be sure, but at this point, Obama has ideas about how to deal with it, that are not government "policy," and let's face it -- he won't be able to cure it, anyway.  Financial crises are cyclical.  People tend to forget that the economy in the U.S. took a nice little nosedive with the dot-bomb crunch before the end of Bill Clinton's administration, which Bush inherited.  Those who like to say that Bush inherited a boom economy are merely dreaming about the past.

If Tisdall is so quick to criticize Obama for not speaking out about global issues, why is he not whining about Obama's silence regarding Russia's gas supply cutoff to Ukraine, since that's the country through which a good chunk (~ 20%) of Europe's supply comes?  This could easily affect the UK.

On the campaign trail, Obama (like Clinton) was broadly supportive of Israel and specifically condemnatory of Hamas.

So, where, exactly is the contradiction, here?  Obama's designated Sec'ty of State, Hillary Clinton, got elected to the senate, in large part, due to her NYC-based Jewish constituency.  Why does this journalist think that America's support of Israel will change -- or for that matter, should change?

As the Gaza casualty headcount goes up and Obama keeps his head down, those sentiments are beginning to sound a little hollow. The danger is that when he finally peers over the parapet on January 21, the battle of perceptions may already be half-lost.

They were already lost by those of us who didn't vote for him, and groaned when he won the election.  Obama may yet surprise me, but I won't be holding my breath, as long as Pelosi's running the senate.

There's another article about Obama proposing big tax cuts for us U.S. taxpayers, to stimulate the domestic economy, but that can wait for another blog entry.

Hillary lost MD, VA and DC yesterday.  For the second night in a row, she refused to do Obama the courtesy of conceding or congratulating him.  She's now off to Texas.


Let's see . . . Hillary carpet-bagged her way into NY politics, got re-elected by promising to serve out her full senate term rather than running for president, and now finds herself in a position in which serving out her term might be what she ends up having to do.

I can imagine her saying "Yo amo Texas, y'all!"  After all, she slipped into that phony Alabama accent in Selma.  The YouTube video of that speech was amazingly hilarious.

She knows her presidential aspirations rest on Ohio.


For now.  Maybe not long enough to win those states on March 4.  She's not even trying in Rhode Island or Vermont.

I watched this debate on FoxNews.  Unfortunately, I missed the first 10 minutes.  When I flipped it on, Huckabee and Romney were scrapping back and forth at each other.  Sadly, that was about as interesting as it got.

Toward the end of the debate, Huckabee slipped into a populist economic speech, which generally doesn't sell well in a part of the country known for self-reliance, that's not part of the bible belt.   I could be wrong, but my impression is that the last time populism worked in a campaign speech was during the Great Depression into WWII.

Guiliani was ineffectual.  He actually did make a good "Mayor of NYC," while in office, but can't ride on that forever, given his Bernie Kerik fiasco, and still huge ego.

Thompson looked older than his years, and mumbled so badly that I had trouble understanding what he was trying to say.  He came across as a corpse-for-office candidate.  That's unfortunate.  He's a lot more intelligent than I expected, but in a debate, it really doesn't help to deliberate too long before answering a question.  He seemed indecisive.

McCain should not have brought up his Navy service as an example of leading a squadron in lieu of a corporation or a state, then saying he did it for love of country, not economic rewards.  Enough of that.  We know.  We know.  Still, he got in some good shots against Romney.

Romney appeared cool and calm, but he lost all credibility with me when he made that lame joke about someone wanting to kick him in the teeth, and he said "Just don't mess my hair," then looked around with a wide grin to see if anyone else was laughing.  Nobody was.  Sometimes, the jokes a candidate tells are quite telling.

It's sad to say, but I think that McCain and Romney came out of that debate looking the best.  Neither one looked great.

There is still not one candidate for whom I want to vote.