Oppose ObamaCare? You must be racist. That's the not-so-subtle message emerging from the wash-up of this week's healthcare vote. Not surprisingly, the New York Times is among the loudest dog-whistlers of this tune, running an article explicitly linking the fight to spend a trillion dollars to insure thirty million Americans to the fight to achieve civil rights for all. Opponents of the bill - 59 % of the American people according to one CNN poll - are no better than Bull Connor, or so goes the implication.
Don't believe me? Check out the latest from Paul Krugman, who in his latest health care column claimed that Newt Gingrich compared Barack Obama's signing of health "reform" to LBJ's signing of civil rights legislation, saying they were both cosmic errors:
And on the other side, here's what Newt Gingrich, the Republican former speaker of the House a man celebrated by many in his party as an intellectual leader had to say: If Democrats pass health reform, They will have destroyed their party much as Lyndon Johnson shattered the Democratic Party for 40 years' by passing civil rights legislation.
Only, of course, it wasn't true. Check out the correction sheepishly appended to Krugman's column:
Editor's Note: This column quotes Newt Gingrich as saying that "Lyndon Johnson shattered the Democratic Party for 40 years" by passing civil rights legislation, a quotation that originally appeared in the Washington Post. After this column was printed, The Post reported that Mr Gingrich said that his comment referred to Johnson's Great Society programs, not the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
Oh, well, I guess that's OK then. I'm not sure which is worse: that no one at the Washington Post thought the original, erroneous, and defamatory quote might require a double check, or that Krugman didn't smell a rat and check it himself. Either way, it suggests a lot about the mentality of those in the media and how they will likely deal with their opponents on the Right in the months leading up to November.
It's funny, just as Tom Wolfe famously quipped that fascism always seems to be descending on America but landing on Europe, those who claim their opponents' tactics are based largely on fear-mongering seem to do plenty to whip up fear themselves.
#3
Krugman didn't smell a rat and check it himself
notice that most smelly animals/individuals adapt to their own smell and rarely notice it unless particularly pungent....which doesn't let this weasel off here, I guess
Posted by: Frank G ||
03/23/2010 19:10 Comments ||
Top||
Well, they finally did it. Despite more than a year of steadily rising public opposition, manifested in opinion polls and in protest rallies across the country, President Obama, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi finally rammed through Obamacare late Sunday when House Democrats gave the bill their imprimatur.
The House vote isn't the end of the national debate on this issue, however, as the Senate still must accept the House changes in the Senate Obamacare bill. Senate Republicans argue that the House reconciliation bill that makes significant changes in the Senate bill violates the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, maintaining that it should be ruled out of order by the Senate parliamentarian for consideration in the upper chamber. That in turn would mean the only bill the president could legally sign would be the original Senate bill, with its massive funding of abortion and the infamous deals used to buy senators' votes, including the Cornhusker Kickback. At that point, a constitutional crisis of historic magnitude seems inevitable.
Here's why: Never before in American history has a measure of such importance been imposed on the country by the majority party over the unanimous opposition of the minority. Democrats have continually sought to create a halo effect for Obamacare by associating it with Social Security and Medicare. But the reality is that both of those landmark programs were approved with strong bipartisan support in both the Senate and House. The Senate vote on Social Security in 1935 was 77-6, with 64 Democrats being joined by 14 Republicans. In the House, the 373 votes for Social Security included 77 Republicans. When Medicare passed in 1965, the 68-21 Senate vote included 13 Republicans, while 65 Republicans were among the 313 affirmative House votes. Such bipartisan consensus was what the Founders sought with the Constitution. But Democrats made a mockery of bipartisanship by shoving Obamacare down the throats of Republican lawmakers and snubbing the popular majority that opposed it. The Democrats have undercut the credibility of the law they created.
A fast-track challenge to Obamacare's constitutionality will likely reach the Supreme Court in coming months. The justices will have multiple issues to consider, including the unprecedented federal mandate that all individuals buy approved health insurance, the undeniable inequity of the many corrupt bargains used to buy votes for the measure, and the banana republic parliamentary tactics used by the Democratic congressional leadership. Whatever the high court's decision, it won't be nearly as unpleasant as the verdict many Democrats will hear from their constituents in November.
Posted by: Fred ||
03/23/2010 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
But now Barry has six months to campaign about what a great deal this is. That's why he had to pass it quickly, so he'd have more time for damage control.
Obama was going to sign "the bill" today. I wonder what's in it?
Posted by: Bobby ||
03/23/2010 6:34 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Now, we can find out.
Posted by: Eric Jablow ||
03/23/2010 7:49 Comments ||
Top||
Millions of white men who voted for Barack Obama are walking away from the Democratic Party, and it appears increasingly likely that they'll take the election in November with them. Their departure could well lead to a GOP landslide on a scale not seen since 1994.
For more than three decades before the 2008 election, no Democratic president had won a majority of the electorate. In part, that was because of low support -- never more than 38% -- among white male voters. Things changed with Obama, who not only won a majority of all people voting but also pulled in 41% of white male voters. Suddenly, there were millions more white men voting the Democratic ticket.
Polling suggests that the shift was not because of Obama but rather because of the financial meltdown that preceded the election. It was only after the economic collapse that Obama's white male support climbed above the 38% ceiling. It was also at that point that Obama first sustained a clear majority among all registered voters, according to the Gallup tracking poll.
It looked for a moment as though Democrats had finally reached the men of Bruce Springsteen's music, bringing them around to the progressive values Springsteen himself has long endorsed. But liberal analysts failed to understand that these new Democrats were still firmly rooted in American moderation.
Pollsters regularly ask voters whether they would rather see a Democrat or Republican win their district. By February, support for Democrats among white people (male and female) was three points lower than in February 1994, the year of the last Republican landslide.
Today, among whites, only 35% of men and 43% of women say they will back Democrats in the fall election. Women's preferences have remained steady since July 2009. But over that same period, white men's support for a Democratic Congress has fallen eight points, according to Gallup.
White men have moved away from Obama as well. The same proportion of white women approve of him -- 46%, according to Gallup -- as voted for him in 2008. But only 38% of white men approve of the president, which means that millions of white men who voted for Obama have now lost faith in him.
The migration of white men from the Democratic Party was evident in the election of Republican Scott Brown in Massachusetts. His opponent won 52% of white women. But white men favored Brown by a 60%-to-38% margin, according to Fabrizio, McLaughlin & Associates polling. Once again, Democrats could not win enough other votes to compensate for the white male gap.
It's no accident that the flight of white males from the Democratic Party has come as the government has assumed a bigger role, including in banking and healthcare. Among whites, 71% of men and 56% of women favor a smaller government with fewer services over a larger government with more services, according to ABC/Washington Post polling.
Obama's brand of liberalism is exactly the sort likely to drive such voters away. More like LBJ's than FDR's, Obama-style liberalism favors benefits over relief, a safety net over direct job programs, healthcare and environmental reform over financial reform and a stimulus package that has focused more on social service jobs -- healthcare work, teaching and the like -- rather than the areas where a majority of job losses occurred: construction, manufacturing and related sectors.
This recession remains disproportionately a "he-cession." Men account for at least 7 of 10 workers who lost jobs, according to the latest Bureau of Labor Statistics data. Blue-collar men have suffered 57% of the job losses. And blue-collar white men, who make up only 11% of the workforce, constitute 36% of those who have lost jobs. In total, nearly half of the recession's casualties are white men, having held 46% of all jobs lost.
In 1994, liberals tried to explain their thinning ranks by casting aspersions on the white men who were fleeing, and the media took up the cry. The term "angry white male" or "angry white men" was mentioned 37 times in English-language news media contained in the Nexis database between 1980 and the 1994 election. In the following year, the phrases appear 2,306 times.
Tarnishing their opponents as merely "angry" was poor politics for the Democrats. Liberals know what it's like to have their views -- most recently on the war in Iraq or George W. Bush -- caricatured as merely irrational anger. Most voters vote their interests. And many white men by the 1980s had decided the Democrats were no longer interested in them.
Posted by: Fred ||
03/23/2010 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I could only hope that more of the ladies were even half as astute and bright as our excellent Rantburg Ladies. As for the guys that voted for wonder boy - what did you expect this empty sack was gonna do? You didn't even read his back story and you voted for him. Now you're all shocked that this guy didn't deliver for you. McCain sucked but Obama was a disaster in the making, didn't take some PHD to see this one coming from a mile away.
#2
Millions of white men who voted for Barack Obama are walking away from the Democratic Party
Lads, before you "walk away." Having now gained something of an awareness of the true nature of the entitlement culture, please pull up your trousers, fix your belt, straighten your baseball cap, and lose the rap ipod and gang hand gestures.
It's rare, but every now and then Hollywood gets it right.
The 'mancession' is real.
Let's just hope that this time around white guys aren't content to simply get representation back, that they also have the sense to exact maximum retribution. It's not enough to say you won. We need to finish off the beast.
Posted by: no mo uro ||
03/23/2010 6:12 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Barak Obama is a maladjusted only child born and raised by a America-hating Jezebel and a succession of step fathers. He is no different than the millions of man-children coming up these days, white and black.
But for the complicity of our American media with a political party in ignoring the obvious shortcomings of this man and the collective insanity of its talking heads, Obama would be turned out before his third term, fat and happy off his US senatorial retirement.
#5
#4 Barak Obama is a maladjusted only child born and raised by a America-hating Jezebel and a succession of step fathers. He is no different than the millions of man-children coming up these days, white and black. Badanov
All true, unless you're speaking globally, you've left the lamb out of the lamb stew. That being Barry's rather unique Kenyan-Islamo heritige. Apples, they never fall too far you know.
#1
1. Let's put aside Palestinian issue which even the past year shows has little chance of a breakthrough.
2. Instead, better to focus on the supremely dangerous Iranian nuclear buildup.
3. It's too late for resolutions, agreements, or sanctions to deal with that buildup.
4. The only decision left is whether or not to take out the nuclear infrastructure.
5. American forces have the greatest capabilities and should undertake this operation.
6. If they don't, Israeli forces should do the job.
7. That will be difficult; the IDF intelligence, planes, and payloads may not be adequate.
8. Therefore, only Israel's submarine-based nuclear weapons can assure operational success.
9. No one wants that, so better the U.S. government take action.
Faced with such logic, I hope Obama would put aside the Palestinian issue, at least temporarily.
#2
Netanyahu knows Obumble is a wuss and basically told him to go shove it. When you're a wuss people walk all over you. you think he would have defied GW
Give Me Liberty Or Give Me Death
Patrick Henry, March 23, 1775.
No man thinks more highly than I do of the patriotism, as well as abilities, of the very worthy gentlemen who have just addressed the House. But different men often see the same subject in different lights; and, therefore, I hope it will not be thought disrespectful to those gentlemen if, entertaining as I do opinions of a character very opposite to theirs, I shall speak forth my sentiments freely and without reserve. This is no time for ceremony.
The questing before the House is one of awful moment to this country. For my own part, I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery; and in proportion to the magnitude of the subject ought to be the freedom of the debate. It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at truth, and fulfill the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country.
Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the Majesty of Heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings.
Mr. President, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it.
I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past. And judging by the past, I wish to know what there has been in the conduct of the British ministry for the last ten years to justify those hopes with which gentlemen have been pleased to solace themselves and the House. Is it that insidious smile with which our petition has been lately received?
Trust it not, sir; it will prove a snare to your feet. Suffer not yourselves to be betrayed with a kiss. Ask yourselves how this gracious reception of our petition comports with those warlike preparations which cover our waters and darken our land. Are fleets and armies necessary to a work of love and reconciliation? Have we shown ourselves so unwilling to be reconciled that force must be called in to win back our love? Let us not deceive ourselves, sir.
These are the implements of war and subjugation; the last arguments to which kings resort. I ask gentlemen, sir, what means this martial array, if its purpose be not to force us to submission? Can gentlemen assign any other possible motive for it? Has Great Britain any enemy, in this quarter of the world, to call for all this accumulation of navies and armies? No, sir, she has none.
They are meant for us: they can be meant for no other. They are sent over to bind and rivet upon us those chains which the British ministry have been so long forging. And what have we to oppose to them? Shall we try argument? Sir, we have been trying that for the last ten years.
Have we anything new to offer upon the subject? Nothing. We have held the subject up in every light of which it is capable; but it has been all in vain. Shall we resort to entreaty and humble supplication? What terms shall we find which have not been already exhausted? Let us not, I beseech you, sir, deceive ourselves.
Sir, we have done everything that could be done to avert the storm which is now coming on. We have petitioned; we have remonstrated; we have supplicated; we have prostrated ourselves before the throne, and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the ministry and Parliament.
Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with contempt, from the foot of the throne! In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation.
There is no longer any room for hope. If we wish to be free— if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending—if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained—we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight! An appeal to arms and to the God of hosts is all that is left us!
They tell us, sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot?
Sir, we are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us.
Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us. The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest.
There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable—and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come.
It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace— but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms!
Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!
#5
If the one doesn't work the other one's likely.
Posted by: Fred ||
03/23/2010 19:52 Comments ||
Top||
#6
@P2K...can you elaborate please? Are you referring to the States various law suits and the murmurings about calling a constitutional convention?
Posted by: Secret Asian Man ||
03/23/2010 22:01 Comments ||
Top||
#7
...referring to people organizing of which the tea parties are but one aspect. Instead of letters and post riders we witness the employment of this means, among others, of communication to inform one another of the actions of the self styled professional governing caste by side stepping the regime's control of tradition venues of social communications.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
