Obama = WTC?

An idealistic president sweeps into office against all odds, and is confronted with enormous economic and foreign policy challenges. Sound familiar?

Those old enough to remember will recall the Carter Presidency. Actually, those old enough to remember have probably blocked it out. The Carter years are best forgotten now, even as Jimmy Carter continues to poke his nose into a variety of global issues, generally screwing them up in a similar manner to the way he screwed up his term in office. Carter is a leading candidate for the daily presidential double: worst President and worst ex-President. Mercifully he was voted out after one term.

And now we have President Obama treading a familiar path. On the foreign stage, Obama’s olive branch to America’s enemies has proven to be both ineffective and naïve. In an attempt to demonstrate humility he has instead conveyed weakness. We don’t see Venezuela and Iran (to take two examples) moderating their belligerence. Sensing weakness, they will press their perceived advantage. RedStateVT has given Obama credit for (finally) surging troops in Afghanistan, but even that correct foreign policy decision was undermined by his endless dithering over what to do.

On the domestic front, the Obama Presidency is eerily mirroring that of Carter with an economy in disarray. Obama does not yet have the high inflation of the Carter years, but he does have the high unemployment. And yet, Obama’s overriding domestic policy concern is his health care overhaul. His solution on unemployment is “green” jobs.

Our friends on the left will say that Obama inherited Bush’s wars and economy. Even if we were to concede these points, the question quickly turns to: “If Bush was wrong, what did Obama do to fix it?

We wonder whether in their most private, reflective moments the Administration thinks about the Carter years and worries that history will judge them Worse Than Carter. For the rest of us, there is hope. Carter was followed, of course, by Ronald Reagan who restored American pride and strength.

Dilly-Dally

The Obama administration said Friday that a decision on where to prosecute Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and four accused of conspiring in the Sept. 11 attacks would not be made “for weeks,” following a flare-up in the debate about whether that trial should take place in civilian court or before a military commission. The White House sought to dampen speculation that a decision on where to hold a trial might be imminent. (our emphasis) (NYT, 3/5/10)

Here we go again. What is it with Obama? Can’t he ever make a decision? Remember the endless procrastination over sending more troops to Afghanistan?


Quote of the Week
"The Senate has given us a lot of reason not to trust them," Rep. Jason Altmire, D-Pa., who voted against the House bill last year and is currently undecided, told "Fox News Sunday." (FoxNews.com, 3/7/10)

Obama vs. Business: First in a Series

The Legal Business of Health Insurance
President Barack Obama's obsessive, opportunistic demonization of insurance companies in his quest to pass his not-yet-written health care proposal is growing tiresome. Aren't you getting sick of a president attacking American citizens and businesses as if they -- not Obama's beloved government -- were the enemy? (David Limbaugh, Townhall.com, 3/5/10)

RedStateVT applauds the insurance company executives who recently met with the President. After months of demagoguery by President Obama, they could have easily said: the heck with you, Mr. President. Instead, they demonstrated dignity and class, took the meeting and acted entirely professional. The last time we looked, insurance was still a legal business. And as we have said before, if the President or Dems think that a health insurer is acting illegally, then by all means, indict them. That never happens, however, as it is much easier (and more cowardly) to lob insults at them. Let’s hope the execs reminded the president that he could go a long way towards fixing health care by reining in the trial lawyers and allowing inter-state competition.


Body Count
The ethical woes facing Democrats are piling up, with barely a day passing in recent weeks without headlines from Washington to New York and beyond filled with word of scandal or allegations of wrongdoing. The troubles of Gov. David A. Patterson of New York, followed by those of two of the state’s congressmen, Charles B. Rangel and Eric J. Massa, have added to the ranks of episodes involving prominent Democrats like Eliot Spitzer, Rod R. Blagojevich and John Edwards.

Taken together, the cases have opened the party to the same lines of criticism that Democrats, led by Representatives Nancy Pelosi, now the House speaker, and Rahm Emanuel, now White House chief of staff, used effectively against Republicans in winning control of the House and Senate four years ago. (NYT, 3/5/10)

You know things are bad when the New York Times writes about corrupt Dems!

RedStateVT Grills Obama

Mr. President, you have stated that your health care plan actually helps to reduce the deficit. However, others have noted that the plan counts revenue for more years than it counts expenses. This appears to be dishonest. How do you respond?

Mr. President, many believe that frivolous medical malpractice lawsuits (see Edwards, John) contribute to skyrocketing medical costs. Yet you have only recently – and seemingly begrudgingly – included minor provisions in your bill to address this issue. Many would say that this is because the trial lawyers are major contributors to the Democrat Party. How do you respond?

Mr. President, as a senator you decried the use of reconciliation. Now you endorse it. This appears duplicitous. How do you respond?

Mr. President, yesterday you nominated the brother of a House Democrat whose vote you seek on health care to a prestigious judicial appointment. This gives the appearance that you are seeking to buy a vote. How do you respond?

Mr. President, polls show that a majority of Americans oppose your health care plan. How do you respond?

The Great Reconciler

But Before You Said......
Reconciliation is therefore the wrong place for policy changes…In short, the reconciliation process appears to have lost its proper meaning. A vehicle designed for deficit reduction and fiscal responsibility has been hijacked to facilitate reckless deficits and unsustainable debt.” (Sen. Obama, Congressional Record, S .14150, 12/20/05)


The president will call for an up or down vote on health care reform, as has happened in the past, and though he won't use the word "reconciliation," he'll make it clear that if they're not given an up or down vote, Democrats will use the reconciliation rules as Republicans have done in the past. (abcnews.com, 3/2/2010)

Never mind!

Meanwhile Re Priority #1
“When it comes to domestic policy, I have no more important job as president than seeing to it that every American who wants to work, and is able to work, can find a job, and a job that pays a living wage,” Mr. Obama said. “That was my focus last year, and that is my focus this year.” (NYT, 3/2/2010)

Mr. President: Please define “focus.”

Health Care End Game

President Obama’s discourteous riposte to Senator John McCain during the televised health care summit tells us all we need to know about the Democrat strategy. By essentially saying: we won, you lost, Obama-Pelosi-Reid are saying to the country: you are getting this health care bill. This explains why they are seemingly deaf to the polls: both those which show that the bill is enormously unpopular, as well as those that indicate their party may suffer huge electoral defeats as a result. Obama and company are focused on the last election – the one that brought them to power – and not the next one which may sweep them out. As with all federal entitlement programs, they view passage of a health care bill as a bell which cannot be unrung.

Sure Obama would prefer to have Republican support as a hedge against the bad things that will result from this bill (e.g. higher deficits, new taxes, cuts in Medicare). This is why he previously lauded the one Republican Senate vote in favor as “bipartisan.” And it is further why he will today seemingly signal openness to several Republican ideas. But this 11th hour willingness to consider the opposition party’s ideas is politically transparent. Now? Now you will discuss ideas that have been out there for months?

As to the big question of whether Dems will use reconciliation and any other parliamentary maneuvers to pass a bill, the answer is yes. Yes, because as Obama said, they won. The only remaining question then is whether Dem leadership can again get their House colleagues to drink the kool-aid and commit political suicide.

Harbinger of things to come
There's no Obama bump for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. A poll conducted for the Las Vegas Review-Journal showed President Obama's visit to Nevada two weeks ago had a negligible effect on Reid's poll numbers. Though the president spent time praising Reid effusively for his leadership, 75 percent of those surveyed said the visit would not affect how they vote. Of those who might be swayed, more respondents said they'd be more inclined to vote against Reid than for him. Seventeen percent said the visit made them less likely to vote for Reid, while just 7 percent said the visit made them more likely to vote for him. (FoxNews.com, 3/1/2010)

Two For You

Pelosi: Let them eat pie!
Pelosi told CNN that "in a matter of days" Democrats will have specific legislative language on health care to show to the public and to wavering lawmakers. She predicted voters will warm up to the bill once they understand its details.

"When we have a bill," she said, "you can bake the pie, you can sell the pie. But you have to have a pie to sell." (FoxNews.com, 2/28/10)

Speaker Pelosi channels her inner Marie-Antoinette.

Credit where credit is due
President Barack Obama has signed a one-year extension of several provisions in the nation's main counterterrorism law, the Patriot Act. Provisions in the measure would have expired on Sunday without Obama's signature Saturday. The act, which was adopted in the weeks after the Sept. 11, 2001 terror attacks, expands the government's ability to monitor Americans in the name of national security. Three sections of the Patriot Act that stay in force will:

--Authorize court-approved roving wiretaps that permit surveillance on multiple phones.
--Allow court-approved seizure of records and property in anti-terrorism operations.
--Permit surveillance against a so-called lone wolf, a non-U.S. citizen engaged in terrorism who may not be part of a recognized terrorist group. (FoxNews.com, 2/28/10)

President Obama channels his inner Dick Cheney.