The Obama Offer And What Should Be The Republican Response

Congressional Republicans are about to make a mistake. Earlier last week, Obama announced that he would like to meet with Congressional Republicans about health care in a televised event. This is a trap for Republicans. It's Obama in place of Lucy, waiting for the Republican Charlie Brown to try and kick the football. Here is how it is being spun by the Washington Post.

President Obama brought Republicans to the negotiating table on Tuesday, hoping to stem a steady deterioration in relations between the two parties that has brought business in Washington to a standstill, left the Democratic agenda in tatters and angered voters who are eager to have lawmakers address their concerns.

The two-hour session was part of a renewed drive by the White House to create legislation by consensus, regardless of party label. Obama tried the approach after he took office, but it did not take hold. . . .

A new Washington Post-ABC News poll suggests that the public is frustrated by the bickering and recriminations. According to the survey, 57 percent of Americans consider the loss of the Senate Democrats' filibuster-proof supermajority a "good thing," but few think Republicans should wield their new power to block bills frequently. Nearly six in 10 say that Republicans are not doing enough to forge compromise with Obama on important issues, while nearly half view the president as doing too little to overcome differences with the GOP.


On the issue of health-care reform, public attitudes about the stalled Democratic legislation remain virtually deadlocked. But nearly two-thirds of voters, or 63 percent, want Congress to keep trying to tackle the issue. . . .

One, what has brought Washington to a standstill has not been the Republicans who, until two weeks ago, couldn't effect any piece of legislation the left wanted to steamroll through Congress. Democrats brought Washington to a standstill. Two, if this poll WaPo talks about wasn't a push poll I'll eat my hat. It is at the very least an outlier. Every poll I have seen to date puts health care reform a couple of rungs below the top of what voters care about, and the health care monstrasity that has been crafted by the left is what gave Scott Brown his victory in blue Mass. This article could have been authored by Robert Gibbs. And lastly, the claims to bipartisanship efforts by Obama are just surreal.

The 2700 page Healthcare monstrosity is dead - and there is not a single thing inside that bill, not a even a single period or comma, that should be resuscitated. It was a bill that Republicans were all but completely shut out of - by Obama, Reid and Pelosi - from the start. Indeed, through much of 2009, Obama closed the doors of the White House to the Republicans on the health care issue. And lest we forget, there was his infamous response to Republican calls for bipartisanship in regards to the Stimiulus bill last January - "I won." That's right, and he owns it all now.

That is precisely why Obama now wants to make a dog and pony show of "bipartisanship" in the run up to the 2010 elections? Spare me. He wants to pass his radical agenda without change. Barring that, he wants to portray himself and his far, far left agenda as middle of the road, while Republicans are made out to be the "obstructionists" - and in that effort, he will be given the full support by the MSM, as the opening salvo by WaPo makes clear.

CBS's Mark Knoll deals with the reality of "bipartisanship." He assesses that Obama's calls for bipartisanship are nothing more or less than a call for Republicans to surrender:

Unannounced, President Obama took to the lectern in the White House briefing room today to give a personal readout of his meeting earlier with congressional leaders of both parties.

"Despite the political posturing that often paralyzes this town, there are many issues upon which we can and should agree, he said.

It was more a plaintive plea than a political observation. His top legislative priorities are going nowhere and he's searching for a way to get them out of lockup.

In this 13th month of his presidency, he's anxious to pass a jobs bill and be seen addressing an unemployment rate that only last week declined from double digits. And his efforts to enact bills on energy, financial regulatory reform and especially health care are stuck in Congress despite the solid majority his party holds in both chambers.

He's appealing for a spirit of bipartisanship - urging Democrats and Republicans alike "to put aside matters of party for the good of the country."

It's a familiar refrain from U.S. presidents who can't get their way in Congress. . . .

What these presidential appeals for bipartisanship always mean is: do it my way.

Mr. Obama said he "won't hesitate to embrace a good idea from my friends in the minority party." But he wants his way. He wants his energy policy enacted along with his jobs bill, his financial regulatory reform and his health care plan.

And if the opposition continues to block his objectives, he said he "won't hesitate to condemn what I consider to be obstinacy that's rooted not in substantive disagreement but in political expedience."

When a sitting president calls for bipartisanship by the opposition – he really means surrender. And if they block his proposals, its "obstinacy" and not political views they hold as strongly as he holds his. . . .

(H/T Hot Air)

This offer from Obama of a televised meeting with Republicans on health care holds no upsides for Republicans. What Republicans should do is recount how they have been shut out of the crafting of the bill. They should explain that there is no way to simply tweak this health care monstrosity in a way to make it anything but a drain on, if not a destroyer of, our economy, They should point out that the far left health care plan has been rejected by the American people. Then they should announce a stand on principle - that unless Obama is willing to throw out the health care bill and start over on a true bi-partisan bill, there is nothing to talk about on that issue. That should be coupled with an offer to meet in a televised meeting on jobs, unsustainable deficits, profligate spending, spending and tax cuts, and a national couterterrorism effort dangerously reduced to tatters - the immediate priorities of the American people (well, except for the last one, which is my own). Let Obama choke on that one.

Read More...

Summary only...

The Washington Post's Primal Scream

The Washington Post is the latest paper to do a liberal primal scream over the failure of Obama to destroy capitalism and enact a full transition to socialism in his first year in office. They find multiple people and acts to blame, but topping the list is . . . wait for it, . . . Republican obstructionism. Who could have guessed that the party holding a minority in the House and with too few seats in the Senate to filibuster could be the cause of Obama's epic failure in 2009? Coming in second for WaPo's opprobrium was Harry Reid and disloyal Senate Democrats:

For House Democrats, who enjoy a 256 to 178 majority, the main obstacle in 2009 was not Republicans, but the Senate. Even with 60 Democrats, Reid was unable to advance the climate-change and student loan bills that the House approved last summer. The Senate regulatory-reform bill is still in the banking committee.

One might think that with this admission, the authors would realize that it exposes the lie of their headline theory of Republican obstructionism. But it seems that one of the great achievements of the modern far left is their ability to hold a belief in the truth of two or more diametricaly opposed thoughts at the same time.

No matter. According to Wapo, the problem was that Republicans unreasonably refused to take any part in Obama's "remaking of America." Obama's proposals amounted to a vast expansion of government, massive increases in deficit spending, and new taxes, whether directly or indirectly on every American. Yet WaPo seems mystefied why Republicans should object to any of that on substantive grounds. Their alternative take on it is that "[s]ome of the bills . . . were perhaps too unwieldy for voters to digest and too easy for GOP opponents to demagogue." Of course, that's it. There's nothing wrong with any of the legislation. It is just Republicans taking partisan advantage of an electorate that is too stupid to understand the great things Obama was doing for America. The arrogance and hubris of the far left knows no bounds.

WaPo also seems to have a dim memory of the facts reported in their paper over the past year. From the very start - indeed, within three days of taking office, Obama told Republicans who attempted to engage and have input into bipartisan legislation - specifically the Stimulus - that "I won." So much for bipartisanship. Facts are such inconveinient things for the left - unless you are very selective about them of course.

The left, from Obama through Reid and Pelosi, felt no need to engage in bipartisanship other than for some minimal political cover. And indeed, when one looks at the internal problems that Democrats had in 2009, the fact is that Pelosi and Reid treated most Congressional Democrats the same way they treated Republicans. Radical legislation was drafted behind their closed doors, only to be unleashed on Republicans and many Democrats alike vitrually on the eve on which they were to be voted. It was not merely bipartisanship that Obama and the Democratic leadership felt no need to consider, it was deliberative democracy itself. And indeed, the reason for that is the that the legislation, from cap and trade to health care to financial regulation, was so over reaching that even moderate Democrats blinked at the degree of the radical changes proposed by Obama-Pelosi-Reid.

WaPo concludes looking at what 2010 holds in store.

Before the Massachusetts loss, the White House officials touted 2009 as the most productive legislative year in decades. Prodded before Tuesday's election whether Obama and his team would change anything about its Hill strategy, Axelrod replied, "I've thought about that and I don't see how."

Lawmakers expect Obama to set a course for 2010 on Wednesday, in his State of the Union speech. Democrats want the focus on one issue: jobs. But on Friday in Ohio, given a few days to digest Brown's upset, Obama defended and promoted the same long to-do list he brought with him to office.

"I didn't run for president to turn away from these challenges," he said. "I didn't run for president to kick them down the road. I ran for president to confront them -- once and for all."

It would seem that Obama and his administration have as tenuous a grasp on reality as do the WaPo authors - though Democrats seeking reelection in 2010 seem to be grasping it well enough. I think it safe to say that we will be hearing primal screams from the left for at least the next few years. No matter to me, at least, as I find them oddly comforting.

Read More...

Summary only...

Truer Words Never Spoken

Obama said yesterday in a speech to the VFW that "McCain doesn't know what he is up against." That is the most accurate statement Obama has made to date. And therein lies his problem. No one knows what McCain is up against. Obama has yet to articulate a doctrine, policy or principal that he has not revoked, revised or tossed out - all the while claiming that his latest articulation represents no change whatsoever from the views he has always held. Obama, whose poll numbers are dropping just slightly slower than lead dropped into the ocean, is vowing to fight back - aided and abetted by the MSM, of course. But his problems are all self-inflicted. Thus, it seems his only options are to delegitimize criticism and to dishonestly paint John McCain.

Obama is losing ground in the polls, with at least one poll, the Zogby poll, now showing a McCain with a 5 point lead. McCain has led a steady drumbbeat against Obama for lacking substance. In response to the Russian invasion of Georgia, McCain looked decisive, Obama weak. And all of that was topped off with a commanding performance by John McCain and a weak performance by Obama at the Saddleback pseudo debate.

A big part of Obama's problem is his dishonesty and blaring hypocrisy. He has raised flip flopping to an art form heretofore not seen in American presidential politics and added on top of it a layer of dishonesty and hypocrisy that is breathtaking. The abortion issue is but the latest shining example. On the day of the Saddleback interview, Obama claimed that he was being maligned with suggestions that he supported infanticide:

The presumptive Democratic nominee responded sharply in an interview Saturday night with the Christian Broadcast Network, saying anti-abortion groups were "lying" about his record.

"They have not been telling the truth," Mr. Obama said. "And I hate to say that people are lying, but here's a situation where folks are lying."

He added that it was "ridiculous" to suggest he had ever supported withholding lifesaving treatment for an infant. "It defies common sense and it defies imagination, and for people to keep on pushing this is offensive," he said in the CBN interview.

At issue is the Born Alive Infant Protection Act, a bill in the Illinois state Senate that sought to protect against bungled abortions by requiring that a fetus that survived an abortion be defined as a person. . . .

It turns out that Obama was lying about his position. He voted against the above referenced bill in the Illinois Senate. Big Lizards has the whole story and Doug Ross also has an excellent post complete with copies of the documentation. And then when that lie was caught, Obama added another layer of dishonest nuance, as Hot Air explains. All of this was on top of his craven refusal to answer the question put to him at Saddleback of when does life begin.

Another Obama problem is his inabiity to back up his promises with anything substantive. He has been asked several times now, in light of his promise to heal the partisan divide, to show an instance where he reached across the aisle on a contentious issue. His answers have been inane, weak and deceptive. When first asked that question a few weeks ago by during a Fox News interview, Obama responded that, while he voted against the appointments of Judge Alito and Roberts, he nonetheless defended Democrats who voted for them. When asked the question at Saddleback, he responded that he had worked with John McCain on bi-partisan ethics legislation. That of course was true - for one week in 2006. That was until Obama backtracked and refused to participate any further, garnering this response from McCain:

Republican Sen. John McCain on Monday accused his Democratic colleague Barack Obama of “partisan posturing” on the issue of lobbying ethics reform . . . “I concluded your professed concern for the institution and the public interest was genuine and admirable,” McCain, R.-Ariz., wrote in a letter to Obama, D-Ill., Monday. “Thank you for disabusing me of such notions.”

Thus, Obama's problems are self inflicted. He is a fundamentally weak candidate with a few superficial strengths. He has tried to ride the wave of his utopian and meaningless rhetoric - but that only went so far before McCain started pointing out the obvious, that the emporer had no clothes. On specific issues, Obama pretty much has no identifiable positions or the positions he does hold, once identified, are disclaimed as the need arises. Again here, McCain has done little more than point out the obvious, often with a bit of humor.

Obama's response has been to "fight back" against the McCain onslaught. We seem to be getting a taste of that in Obama's speech to the VFW and his latest deeply dishonest ad on the economy now playing in the swing states.

Obama's fighting back against McCain at the VFW was to simply demand that McCain stop being critical of Obama. In essence, it was Obama's attempt to paint any criticism of himself as being an attack on his patriotism. I suspect this will work as well as Obama's attempts to paint any criticism of him as being racially motivated. This from the WSJ:

Speaking before the Veterans of Foreign Wars this morning, Barack Obama delivered an amazing show of chutzpah. John McCain had addressed the VFW yesterday, and as the Associated Press reports, he was predictably critical of Obama:

McCain . . . said Obama "tried to legislate failure" in the Iraq war and had put his ambition to be president above the interests of the United States. He said the Illinois senator did this by pushing for a timetable for withdrawal of U.S. combat troops from Iraq and by voting in the Senate against a major appropriations bill to help fund the troop increase.

Here is Obama's reply:

"One of the things that we have to change in this country is the idea that people can't disagree without challenging each other's character and patriotism. I have never suggested that Sen. McCain picks his positions on national security based on politics or personal ambition. I have not suggested it because I believe that he genuinely wants to serve America's national interest. Now, it's time for him to acknowledge that I want to do the same. . . ."

Of course, if Obama were to accuse McCain of picking his positions on national security based on politics or personal ambition, everyone would laugh, because it obviously is not true. By contrast, there is quite a bit of evidence that Obama has placed political expediency above national security . . .

In politics one often hears the charge of hypocrisy: My opponent criticizes me for X, but he has done Y, which is just as bad or worse. Obama's argument here, though, is roughly opposite in form. He concedes that McCain is above reproach on this particular subject and therefore demands that McCain treat him as if he were beyond reproach. Obama's acknowledgment of a McCain virtue is well and good, but it does not mitigate or excuse his own shortcoming.

Powerline also does an exceptional deconstruction of Obama's VFW speech and his attempt to cloak himself from criticism under the rubric of patriotism. It is not Obama's patriotism that is suspect, its his judgment and his willingness to put his ambition over the best interests of the country.

In the swing states, Obama is running ads that amount to cutting and splicing, taking quotes out of context and taking statements McCain made assessing the economy from a time before the economy went into its current rough patch. This from the NYT:

In Philadelphia; East Lansing, Mich.; Green Bay, Wis.; and at least five other major cities, Mr. Obama is heavily showing an advertisement contrasting a statement by Mr. McCain that “we have had a pretty good, prosperous time with low unemployment,” with appearances by people making statements like, “The prices of gas are up; the prices of milk are up.” . . .

Here is Factcheck.org's take on the ad:

"An Obama ad uses dated and out of context quotes to portray McCain as clueless on the economy.

Summary

Obama's campaign is running a TV ad in Indiana that asks the question: "How can John McCain fix the economy, when he doesn't think it's broken?" But the ad uses quotes from McCain that are old and taken out of context:

The ad shows McCain saying, "I don't believe we're headed into a recession." But McCain said that in January, and he also acknowledged at the time that the American economy was in "a rough patch."

The ad then shows McCain saying in April, "[T]here's been great progress economically." But the quote is lifted from a much longer response; McCain went on to say that the "progress" made during Bush's tenure still wouldn't console American families who are facing "tremendous economic challenges."

The third quote from McCain, "[W]e have had a pretty good prosperous time, with low unemployment," also comes from January. In his full response, McCain went on to say "things are tough right now."

So, at any rate, to return to the initial quote from Obama, no, we, like John McCain, really do not have any idea what we are up against in Obama. We do not know what he stands for. But we do know that he is trying every card in the book to deflect all criticism by delegitimizing it as impermissibly motivated. We do know that he is governed first and foremost by ambition. We do know he has a history of close association with radicals. We do know that he is fundamentally dishonest and hypocritical. We do know that he is ducking and running from any real debates with McCain. Is there anything else we really need to know to round out the picture before November?

Read More...

Summary only...