Didn’t Ya Know!? The Government SAVED Ford Motors!

Yes, from the lips of (hopefully) soon-to-be-retired Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s lips, to your ears.  Senator Reid describes how Ford Motor Company, along with Chrysler (sold off) and General Motors, was saved by our wonderful Hegelian-God state (government is from whom you gain salvation, didn’t you know?).  Unfortunately, we find it necessary to remind Senator Reid that such is not the case.  As a matter of fact, we dedicated an entire article to it when Ford first pulled themselves up by the boot-straps! 

…it seems to me that Ford isn’t the only thing “F’d On Race Day,” as it appears Senator Reid will have the same problem this November.  (And before anyone gives me a hard time for citing the Rasmussen Poll instead of the newer PPP Poll, I say it’s because PPP hasn’t be considered the most accurate pollster like Rasmussen has…)

-rj

Irreconcilable Differences-How Bad Politics Creates Bad Policy

An article published in this morning’s Wall Street Journal details the process some  house members are pursuing in order to pass the government-healthcare-industry-takeover bill proposed by the Senate.  “Under the “reconciliation” process that began yesterday afternoon, the House is supposed to approve the Senate’s Christmas Eve bill and then use “sidecar” amendments to fix the things it doesn’t like. Those amendments would then go to the Senate under rules that would let Democrats pass them while avoiding the ordinary 60-vote threshold for passing major legislation.”  As the article explains “[t]his two-votes-in-one gambit is a brazen affront to the plain language of the Constitution, which is intended to require democratic accountability. Article 1, Section 7 of the Constitution says that in order for a ‘Bill’ to ‘become a Law,’ it ‘shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate.’ … As Stanford law professor Michael McConnell pointed out in these pages yesterday, ‘The Slaughter solution attempts to allow the House to pass the Senate bill, plus a bill amending it, with a single vote. The senators would then vote only on the amendatory bill. But this means that no single bill will have passed both houses in the same form …” thereby undermining senate rules, and flying in the face of the Constitution.  Of course, for the bill to become to become law, fifty one senators would still need to vote in favor of the amendments proposed by the House, which would require some to abandon both the Constitution and their ‘core beliefs’ in exchange for the Harry and Nancy’s good graces.

What Can Brown Do For You?

It hurts, I know.  For the countless Conservatives and Tea Partiers who helped Scott Brown’s campaign make history, those who donated money from all around these United States (like the $348,000 spent by the Tea Party Express in California for a Scott Brown TV ad), those Republican operatives who boarded the buses here in DC and trekked northward into enemy territory to knock on doors: I cannot offer you and yours much comfort in my words.  Actions speak louder than words, and Conservatives, Libertarians and Tea Partiers seem to be uniting for the first time this year due to Senator Brown’s recent actions. 

It sucks; and nobody wanted to think this was going to be the case because as Glenn Beck said during his closing speech at CPAC, “it’s not enough for Republicans to just suck less than the other side.” 

What led us to this unfortunate quandary was the Senator’s recent vote against the filibuster for Senator Harry Reid’s Jobs Bill.  This will allow the Bill to reach a final vote in the Senate Wednesday.  His actions earned him praise from Maryland Democrat and Representative Steny Hoyer, which is the equivalent of Dallas Cowboys picking up L.T. and having Dan Snyder applaud the move as “great.”  It has also earned him some malicious scorn on his Facebook page and office phone lines; and a bit of criticism here at thelobbyist as well.   

Sen. Brown was probably pacing back and forth with his home state sticking to his shoes before returning to DC for votes this week.  He was probably taking a lot of information in about the problems facing Massachusetts, particularly unemployment which increased from 8.7% to 9.4% (November – December 2009), a considerable increase especially when compared to the rest of the United States.  All the while, Massachusetts’ Unemployment Insurance benefits have dipped $41.9 million into the red. 

I am not endorsing Senator Brown’s actions, nor am I even excusing them.  It is imperative that the Republican Party experience an eureka moment where they do not treat people who are for limited domestic influence by federal government as the fringe.  Can’t there be someone who can moderately explain why limited government involvement on the federal level is a good idea for the entire country?  Isn’t this where Reagan reigned supreme?  At the same time, can’t Tea Partiers, Conservatives and some Libertarians also come to accept that a Republican in Massachusetts will not be an exact replica of a Texas Republican, or a Carolina Republican? 

I am just asking for everyone to hold tight I guess.  I know we made Scott Brown into this last best hope, and I do not think that his voting in favor of this particular jobs bill shows us anything we really should not have already expected: Scott Brown is a Republican.  Not a Tea Partier, not particularly Conservative, and certainly not a libertarian.  Does this make him a RINO?  No… he is still a Republican and can still help us keep the $1 Trillion government slow-roll take-over of healthcare.  That means a lot more to me right now than the $14-40 Billion jobs bill.  Let’s not burn our bridge just yet, and keep our eyes on the prize.

-rj

Harry’s Situation…

In the episode of the FX show It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia called “The Gang Goes Jihad,” the three guys who own the Philadelphia bar come face-to-face with a man who just moved from Israel and had bought land that included a portion of their establishment.  Throughout the episode, the three characters banter over the proper use of the term Jew.  At one point they T.P. the man’s building, during which this exchange occurs:

“That jew’s in for a hell of a lot of work.”

“Wow, wow, cool it man.”

“What? What are you talking about?”

“Dude, you just dropped a hard J.”

“No man, he is of Jewish descent and that is a lot of toilet paper. That is going to take a lot of time to clean up. I was thinking bout the context the whole time.”

 

Suffice to say, I love this show.  But who needs to fork over the extra money to get FX Network when you can watch similar debates occur on the local news?  It’s one thing to have three mentally unstable friends squabble over political correctness; how about a twenty three year Senator, and current Senate Majority leader demonstrating his inability to decide whether or not to use the out-dated term negro?  In case you have been living with Patrick Star under a rock this past week, here is what Senator Reid is quoted in a new Mark Halperin book, Game Change:

            “He (Reid) was wowed by Obama’s oratorical gifts and believed that the country was ready to embrace a black presidential candidate, especially one such as Obama – a ‘light-skinned’ African American ‘with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one,’ as he later put it privately.”

 

The words could have come straight out of Archibald Bunker’s mouth.  What is it that has the country so enveloped in this demonstration of ignorance?  Ironically enough, Sen. Reid was attempting to compliment the future President of the United States.  Instead people are up in arms.  If we dissect the statement, we can see that there are distinct parts that probably incite more reaction than others.  In what context is the term Negro acceptable?  None (and the same goes for you Rush, even though you used it in a parody that ended up making fun of just this situation).  Is it true that lighter-skinned African Americans tend to be more influential, more popular, and more electable in society than those who are darker?  Sadly this seems to be the case in many situations, but I cannot pretend to be able to comment on the use of such racially charged language and how blacks feel about it truly, in their heart of hearts.  Perhaps we should look at what he meant by “Negro dialect,” what does he mean there?  Surely he demonstrated that he is out of touch with America because most people refer to ‘Ebonics’ or ‘street-talk’ when they are trying to make a similar point.  Nobody is unaware of either of these terms, and his comment just shows his ignorance to popular culture as well as manners. 

There is a lot to analyze there; but there seems to be something missing that is causing such turbulence in the souls of many Americans.  For me, it’s not what was said on the surface, as much as it is what was said without being said.  How can we use this black man to our advantage?  He is black, which is useful; he ‘is articulate,’ which is useful; he can turn his ‘blackness on and off;’ which is useful; in the end, this black man is useful and will succeed for us because he is black how we want him to be, but not black when we need him to be.  THAT my friends, is racism.  There seems to be a disconnect between people who are viewing these comments and only seeing the tip of the iceberg, and those of us who see the rest of the iceberg plummeting miles into the ocean.

This was seen on Sunday, when I watched with gaping mouth, as Liz Cheney and George Will clashed over this point.  Mr. Will seems to be looking at the comments on a surface level, Ms. Cheney on the deeper level.  In order to be completely forthcoming, I must fess up to a deep admiration to both people (and NONE of the others around the table).  I was sad to see the two fight, and sad to differ from George Will, again.  However, I think those African Americans who are tired of feeling like pawns in a political game; whether it’s an effort to win voting blocks in cities with programs that have proven to be detrimental to the black family and communities, or putting up candidates that fit a litmus test for winning and avoiding the Bradley Effect.  This is not a case of Republican versus Democrat, this is a demonstration of a disgusting ends justifies the means mentality for domestic politics, and should be condemned as such. 

-rj

A Big Yawn

So apparently Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) said yet another racial comment- after comparing Republicans opposed to Democratic health care reform to supporters of slavery- and the political world is hung up on every word. Questions like the following dominate the arena:

1. Should he resign like former Senator Trent Lott did? (No, he shouldn’t.)

2. Are Reid’s remarks similar to Lott’s? (No, they aren’t. Lott’s were insensitive to the public’s eye, but meant to compliment a public servant. Reid’s were analytical but insensitive. Reid’s were definitely about race, Lott’s probably were not.)

3. What does President Obama think? (He doesn’t care.)

4. Will this hurt Reid’s already tough re-election campaign? (Duh.)

5. What does Reverend Al Sharpton (or some other race-baiter) think? (Sharpton defended Reid.)

So, this leads me to two questions, one important and one not so much. The less important one is this: why is Sharpton now coming out against former president Bill Clinton’s remark last year that “A few years ago, this guy [then-Senator Obama] would have been getting us coffee,” when he is defending Reid?  After all, let’s say “a few years ago” was a reference to President Obama’s age, not race, and remember that sometimes “a few years ago” can mean as much as a decade, especially to older people such as Clinton and former senator Ted Kennedy (to whom Clinton made the remark). Perhaps the former president was merely remarking on the presidential candidate’s youth and inexperience? If he really wants to help black Americans, Sharpton should ignore these minor, attention-grabbing comments by public figures and concentrate on helping young blacks get a better education. Or, better yat, perhaps he could join Star Parker in helping diminish the number of black abortions.

My second question is more important, however, and more timely than the age-old complaint about Sharpton’s priorities. Namely, it is this: why are Republicans wasting their time on attacking Reid? This issue will have a minimal effect on the health care debate, it won’t help change the public’s view on the party one iota and few outside of politics remember Trent Lott’s comments. Republicans should release a statement or two, let Reid’s general election opponents use this comment and his slavery one to his or her advantage, and concentrate on the larger issues facing America and her citizens. If we are to win past November 2010, conservatives and Republicans must be viewed as the movement and party that can prioritize. The Bush years were incredibly harmful to the Republican and conservative brands, and Democrats have taken full advantage. We have to show the public that we deserve their trust yet again, and hammering Reid over a really stupid and insensitive comment won’t do it. In fact, it may very well hurt us in the long run.

Where Did The “Doc Fix” Go?

This is something I’ve wondered for a couple of months. After the Senate fiasco- at least, a fiasco for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV)- the issue has gotten relatively little press, this recent article in The Hill notwithstanding. Republicans and conservatives have not pounced on how it will raise the debt, as they did in October and November, either.

Fortunately, Charles Krauthammer hasn’t forgotten about it. You can see the video of him talking about how the “Doc Fix” will raise the debt here.

Harry Reid Needs Sleep

So this is worth only a chuckle, but apparently Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) accidentally voted against his own bill before changing his vote. It wouldn’t have made a difference, of course, but it’s still funny.

Boxer’s Opponents Scraping The Barrel

A few months ago, Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) had an ego trip with a general who called her ma’am. This caused quite a bit of hilarity among conservatives, and wincing among Democrats. Now Boxer’s primary opponent hopefuls are making the most out of it.

The arrogance of Boxer will light a bit of a fire under the seat of the tiny Republican base in California, but it won’t play out in the general election. Boxer is powerful- the current chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee- and a third-term senator. Incumbency is a huge strength in congressional elections, and Boxer isn’t going to lose to a Republican in California, especially one using an example of her arrogance as a primary weapon.

What might work, however is continuing to highlight her major support and substantial role in creating a cap-and-trade bill; highlight how the bill was pushed to next year by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), indicating both how unpopular it is and how there are no major plans to pass it (no, Democrats are not going to pass a job-killing bill in the same year as an election during a major recession); and perhaps how even President Obama has admitted electricity costs will skyrocket and how the EPA Administrator admitted earlier this year in Hill testimony that ?[she] believe[s] that essential parts of the chart are that the U.S. action alone will not impact CO2 levels.? Too, emphasize how it was liberals who created California’s economic and other messes, and how conservatives can fix them.

Don’t Panick Yet- Healthcare Reform Still Needs Senate Passage

One of my friends sent me a text early Sunday morning (1:15 a.m. EST) saying that a trillion dollar House bill had been foisted on America. While it is true that a more-than-trillion dollar bill was passed by the House of Representatives 220-215, this should not yet be a cause for panick.

No, the bill is not good news. However, as Hot Air points out, “Take heart, righties…the likelihood of 60 votes in the Senate, especially after a vote this narrow, [is] very slim indeed.” (Also, see my piece?here on how I think Reid could very well fail in his goal to pass health care reform.)?Furthermore, the upcoming Senate bill (which is still being scored by the Congressional Budget Office) is certainly going to be more moderate than the House one, given the influence of moderate Democratic senators such as Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) and Kent Conrad (D-ND) and Independent Joe Lieberman (D-CT). Democrats need 60 out of 100 votes in the Senate, not the 50%+1 (or 218) necessary in the House of Representatives, and assuming all Republicans oppose the bill, even just one of the three Senators listed above voting with Republicans to not close debate on the bill would kill it. Therefore, Senator Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) must keep the bill more moderate. (Unfortunately, of course, liberals will kill it if it’s too moderate, so he can’t make it an actual good bill, just a less-worse one.) This balance of power is what gives Americans reason to hope that this disastrous Democratic form of health care reform does not work. Allow me to briefly explain.

After spending over 14 months in D.C., both at The Heritage Foundation and in health care lobbying, I’m certainly not an expert on the political process, but I know it fairly well, and any number of things could happen that would derail health care reform. The first is getting a Senate bill passed. The second is to get the House and Senate bills to conference and make one combined bill. The third is to then vote on that combined bill in both chambers. However, a number of things along the way could derail the process. A few examples: a Senate bill could be killed in the inital chamber vote; the conference bill could be killed in either the House or the Senate (remember, many liberals are declaring they won’t vote for a bill without a public option, and some won’t vote for a bill that’s pro-life); and, lastly,?the bill could pass in its conference-created form in one chamber but?be modified slightly in the other and therefore have to be voted on again in the chamber that passed the conference bill. This latter course could make the bill unpassable, as the changes could be very minor or very large.

We should all be actively involved in contacting our representatives in Congress, becoming active through organizations such as The Heritage Foundation?or Americans for Prosperity?and generally following the debate so when voting comes around next year we know who to vote out of office. One example of a Republican who?perhaps should be?gone: Representative Joseph Cao (R-LA), who represents a Democratic district and voted in favor of the House bill.

Senator Reid Is Going To Bite The Dust- Again

You saw it here first (or second, or third (twelfth?)- the point is, you saw it here). Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) is going to lose on the public option, and it’s going to crush health care reform, his ability to effectively lead the Democratic caucus and possibly his already-tough reelection. Here’s what’s going on:

On October 21, a delayed cloture vote on the so-called “Doc Fix” failed miserably in the Senate. Watching the vote happen with trepidation, I was very pleased that the vote went against the bill, which the CBO estimated would have cost over $240 billion?for the next?ten years. The vote was 47 in favor and 51 against, something of a surprise given Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s (D-NV) expectations of a victory in the vote. As David Frum and The Heritage Foundation explained, Democrats wanted to pass the bill outside of the final health care bill because doing so would?allow the a deficit-neutral bill to pass without noting the cost of the “Doc Fix” in the final legislation.?After the vote, it became clear that the most likely method of including the “Doc Fix” in this year’s health care bill would be to put it in the final bill, adding $247 (or so) billion to the final cost of the bill (or some variation thereof).

Normally, this wouldn’t be a huge blow to Reid- after all, losses happen all the time in Congress. However, he delayed the vote at least once (it was originally supposed to be held on October 19), and by putting?up and losing out on the?cloture vote, it’s becomes clear Reid was blindsided. Embarrassingly, just before the vote, Reid blamed the AMA for misleading him, which is a very unseemly way to act as a leader.

Now Reid is claiming he has the votes to pass the public option. Or, as is also claimed, he has the votes to pass the procedural step of getting the 60 votes necessary to move it forward, before only getting the required 51 to push the final bill through. To me, this smacks of desperation, making the claim so soon after the major loss regarding the “Doc Fix,” where he also thought he had the votes. Remember, too, that numerous Democrats have claimed opposition to the public option, and so has Republican Senator Olympia Snowe (R-ME), possibly the only Republican who will support a final Democratic health reform bill.

In the end, I suspect Reid will end up looking as bad as House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) did after miscalculating the first House bailout vote last fall. Boehner barely held onto his leadership slot, but given the criticism of Reid offered by the influential Daily Kos (see here, for example) and other popular liberal voices in and out of Washington- in addition to the support for the public option by Senators such as Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) and Charles Schumer (D-NY)- I think Reid is setting himself up for a huge loss in leadership support.

In short, the public option will probably not make it into the final Senate bill, showing Reid’s inability to lead his caucus, costing him support from Senator Roland Burris’ (D-IL) and other Democrats for the final bill. This will shut down health reform, showing his caucus it may be time for “change” within the party leadership and also setting up a race in Nevada where Reid’s constituents may very well decide it’s time for “change” to come to Washington from their state.