Ed Morrissey Asks The Right Question
“Is she ever again going to be north of 50 percent favorable?”
Ed Morrissey of Hot Air asked the above question at the end of a critique of the “news” that former Alaska governor Sarah Palin blacked out Senator John McCain’s (R-AZ) name out of an old campaign hat she wore. *Rolls eyes* Obviously, this isn’t news, and Morrissey makes that clear. (He also pokes fun at himself for using Palin’s name to bring extra viewership, something he critiqued the “Today” show for.)
Morrissey’s question is very important. Sarah Palin is incredibly unpopular among many demographics of Americans, yet many of her supporters think she is the greatest thing since Ronald Reagan and believe she is the answer to President Obama in 2012. Unfortunately, they are incorrect, and the more quickly Palin’s supporters realize this and stop protecting her from every sling and arrow, the more quickly we can move onto better candidates such as Governors Romney and Pawlenty, Representative Mike Pence (R-IN) and pretty much anyone else.
When Democrats and liberals of many affiliations and political backgrounds want Palin to win the nomination- including a number of Democratic and liberal friends and acquaintances- there’s something very bad going on. Either they are all wrong- doubtful, since my friends and acquaintances are politically experienced, intelligent guys (yes, by coincidence they are all guys)- or Palin’s supporters are throwing the party, and by association the country, to President Obama in 2012. Again, abandon ship, Palinites, or the country will be harmed for a long, long time.
The Best Of Both Worlds
Hey, CPAC organizers, here’s an idea- let’s stick to our principles and get good public relations at the same time! Let’s start with not allowing the John Birch Society to co-sponsor the 2010 CPAC. Then, let’s fully support the inclusion of GOProud as a c0-sponsor.
Here’s what this will do:
1. It will show that the largest, most popular gathering of American conservatives does not support the kind of extremism our movement has been accused of over the past several years and particularly in the last year.
2. It will show that the largest, most popular gathering of American conservatives?is inclusive towards?organizations that share stances on tax policy; a belief in?limited government and free markets; and?standing up against those foreign enemies that commit atrocious human rights violations. Since GOProud is a conservative gay organization, it will also show that the conservative movement values what Ed Morrissey so aptly said we should: “…a governing coalition based on fundamental conservative principles or a mission of absolute purity on the Right.”
Morrissey concluded his analysis better than I can, so I’ll steal what he wrote: “If we want to win control of the House in 2010, we need to focus on key principles that address the nation?s crises and the main points of disillusion with Democrats.
That should set our focus on those points on which Democrats overreached ? namely, spending, government intrusion, spiraling deficits, and fiscal insanity.? We need to show that we can, if trusted with power again, govern properly and responsibly, and even more that we understand that the priorities are the fiscal issues and not the social issues that divide more than they unite.
GOProud?s priorities are fundamentally in line with that effort.? We should not allow a purity campaign to push away natural allies on the fiscal crisis that grips our country, and the opportunity we have to correct it in 2010.”
Pro-Life IS Pro Health Care Reform
A few months ago, I wrote on Townsend?s Newsweek opinion supporting abortion and other non-Catholic beliefs. Now, she?s at it again, this time saying that the American bishops are ignoring health care over what she makes clear are minor concerns over abortion.
I don?t understand pro-choice Catholics. The Church has been against abortion since time unknown, and these Catholics want it to compromise? Why not join the Church in helping the poor, the homeless, orphans, preventing unwanted pregnancies in the first place?and couples with marital problems? By helping the Church do these things, Townsend would take away much of the ?need? for abortions, as poorer, single woman who become ?unintentionally pregnant? tend to have a higher number of abortions than married, affluent women.
Townsend clearly doesn?t understand the Church?s view on abortion, as is made clear when she writes the following:
Why is it that the bishops are more concerned with restricting millions of American women from making health care decisions that are best for them and their families than they are with ensuring that millions of Americans ? women, men, children, immigrants, the poor, the middle class ? get much-needed health insurance?
As a Catholic, I dare say it?s because the Conference of Catholic Bishops has lost its way. For example, in Missouri, the Catholic Conference issued an e-mail alert urging ?those who are opposed to health care reform but are also pro-life? to ?stay focused on the abortion issue and get the Stupak-like amendment adopted in the Senate.?
Really? As Catholics, are we so laser focused on the issue of abortion that we are willing to join tea partiers and the like to bring down the health care reform bill? And at the enormous expense of millions of Americans who suffer every day because they can?t afford to get checkups, because they must choose bankruptcy in order to save the life of their loved one?
There are at least three major flaws with Townsend?s statements above. First, pro-life stances?are pro-healthcare reform. After all, the Church believes abortion is murder, and if health care reform is to be about improving life, health, happiness etc., than the Church?s position is 100% pro-health care reform.
Secondly, note what the Church did and did not do in the Missouri example Townsend uses. First, it asked people against the current health care reform efforts to support getting a pro-life amendment in. Essentially, the Church was asking its more conservative members to support saving the lives of unborn children by helping to?pass health care reform, despite those members? opposition to the latter. Secondly, the Church did not say- again, according to the limited information Townsend provides- that it wanted health care reform to fail. Instead, it specifically said it wanted the amendment included to pass health care reform.
Thirdly, the Church will never support abortion policies within our lifetimes. However, since it is clearly willing to give its substantial endorsement to a Senate bill that includes pro-life policies, perhaps Townsend could open her eyes to this fact and realize that by compromising on abortion, Democrats would already likely have a bill nearing completion in the Senate. As much as I dislike giving advice to Democrats, in this case it seems to be a no-brainer. Pass a pro-life amendment, you likely pass health care reform.
Unfortunately, it seems that Democrats didn?t get the memo. The Nelson/Hatch amendment mirroring the House Stupak amendment was tabled- essentially killed- yesterday. Also unfortunately, AllahPundit thinks Nelson left himself some wiggle room on filibustering a final Senate bill if it does not include the amendment. Let?s hope not, for the sake of millions of helpless unborn children who are currently at risk from this bill. Let?s contact the offices of Senators Nelson, Casey, Conrad, Pryor, Dorgan and Bayh, the six Democrats who voted for the amendment, and make certain they kill any bill that does not get the support of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.
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.
Health Insurance Profits Not Up To Par
On Sunday, HotAir.com linked to an Associated Press article that explains how low the insurance industry’s profit margins are. According to AP, the industry averages just over two percent of revenues; meanwhile, according to Ed Morrisey on HotAir on October 10, the trial lawyer industry averages 14%. Not to defend the insurance industry- they are pro-business but certainly not pro-free market, and manipulate government regulations and programs in their favor far too often- but HotAir points out very well that claims about profit-gouging by the insurance industry is certainly not the case and a lie by Democrats who claim they are doing so.
A caveat: an acquaintance recently pointed out that “profit” is relative- for example, if an insurance company can be based in Alexandria, VA and pay eight thousand dollars per month for rent and be perfectly functional and profitable, but moves to downtown DC for $26,000 per month in order to decrease “profit” by $216,000 per year with not an equivalent increase in business,?year-end “profit” may not tell the?whole story of how well the company performs.
Unfortunately for Democrats, this does not change the fact that the insurance industry has less profit than a whole host of selected businesses- AP highlights the following: “The latest annual profit margins of a selection of products, services and industries: Tupperware Brands, 7.5 percent; Yahoo, 5.9 percent; Hershey, 6.1 percent; Clorox, 8.7 percent; Molson Coors Brewing, 8.1 percent; construction and farm machinery, 5 percent; Yum Brands (think KFC, Pizza Hut, Taco Bell), 8.5 percent.”?This reminds me of 2006- back when “Big Oil” was the bogeyman the government was targeting-?when I saw numbers showing Coca-Cola averaged 22% profit compared to Exxon Mobil’s nine percent (the numbers for Exxon Mobil were for the last quarter in 2005, when the company made what was to that date the greatest profit ever for a company, nine billion dollars). Do I hear a Democrat for windfall taxes on Coke?
We’re All Racists Now…
Apparently we’re all racists now. Jimmy Carter told me so.
I’m from Dixie. The land of labels. The area of the country were if anyone has a problem with anything that anyone else of the opposite skin color does it’s always attributed solely to racism. The accusation usual comes from Liberals. It’s frustrating. It’s equally as frustrating to listen to Carter proclaim his excitement of the South’s progress in race relations like he is sitting on some cloud as a deity encouraging his Southern brothers toward some goal that he had already achieved ages ago.
Jimmy Carter, please go away. You aren’t President, you aren’t anything. You have failed so many times I cannot even think of a time you succeeded other than somehow tricking the country into voting for you. Oh, and congrats on that Nobel Prize for keeping North Korea free of nuclear weapons. As a Georgian, if I could kick you out of my state I would. You bring the Empire State of the South nothing but shame.
I was happy to see Robert Gibbs shoot down Carter’s assessment. It may be the first truthful and logical thing I’ve ever heard the man say.
When Maureen Dowd wrote her hate column to Joe Wilson last week she went after his affiliation with the Sons of the Confederacy. Anyone reading this without knowledge of what the SCV is would immediately associate this with some sort of secessionist or racist organization, which is what I’m guessing since it was in the New York Times. The more accurately named Sons of Confederate Veterans is a veterans organization. How dare he be apart of a veterans organization!
SCV was formed in union with the Grand Army of the Republic, which is the veterans organization of Northern soldiers during the Civil War. These groups M.O. is to research and preserve the history of the war, establish battle sight memorials, and help individuals locate information on relatives that fought in the war. The SCV has received commendation from both Republican President George Bush (Bush, George W. “Letter of Commendation.” Confederate Veteran, June, 1996: p.6.) and from Democratic President Bill Clinton (Clinton, Bill. “Letter of June 21, 1994, from Bill Clinton.” UDC Magazine, Sept. 1994: p. 9.). But how dare you be a member Joe Wilson! That makes you a racist!
It must be noted that Obamacare will cover illegal immigrants. Ed Morrissey covered this on HotAir.com when the neutral Congressional Research Office announced this a few weeks ago. I was told recently by a blue crusader that Joe Wilson was a racist because he yelled, “You lie” after Obama mentioned illegals. That somehow because Obama was lying about coverage of illegal immigrants, and Wilson called him on it means that Wilson is a racist because the lie he uncovered pertained to illegal immigrants. Seriously? Informal fallacy perhaps?
Does anyone realize what’s going on here?
That’s right Admiral, it’s a trap. Democrats want us to be having this conversation. They want us to be stirred up and talking about race relations, and our thoughts on the black president. Which is completely ironic in itself considering the fact that WE HAVE A BLACK PRESIDENT! White people had to vote for him too.
But the whole point of all of this is that we are now not talking about what we should be talking about: the health care and cap and trade bills. There is recent precedence for this if you don’t believe me. Remember how concerned we all were for the well fair of the voter in Iran? Then Michael Jackson died. Iran what? Sad but true.
What’s also sad but true is that race relations in this country may have just been set back 20 years. And at the fault of the liberals stirring up the controversy. Ironically the Democrats always proclaim to be the ones promoting minorities. But Robert Byrd is running around unafflicted by his own party for his massive involvement in the KKK. And it’s the Democrats that block conservative efforts to move minorities out of inner city schools to provide them a better education. It’s almost as if the liberals don’t want to see minorities succeed, be well educated, and find successful jobs or become business owners. I wonder why? Ask Herman Cain.
But I digress. Focus people, focus! Let’s get back to the real issue before those in power in DC try to play some sleight of hand while they have us busy with our heads in the clouds over an issue that’s not really an issue.
-nick
thelobbyist Featured on HotAir.com
HotAir.com has linked to yesterday’s piece by Tom Qualtere on Michael Moore here on thelobbyist. I just wanted to take a minute to congratulate Tom on some really great work and getting featured on Michelle Malkins fantastic site.
You can see Tom’s piece featured on HotAir.com’s front page here under “Headlines”.
And you can find the original piece posted yesterday here.
Thanks for the link Michelle, and keep up the great work Tom!
-nick
The Moore You Know About Obama…
In politics, knowing what your opposition thinks and says about you and your team is critical. But listening to what they?re saying about their own side can sometimes be even more telling.
In the latest issue of Rolling Stone, Michael Moore insists that Barack Obama?s ambitions are much farther left than he lets on. Thus, the President has been deliberately lying to us about everything from health care reform to the war on terror. But contrary to the Bush years, when perceived presidential deceit evoked liberal rage and a film to go with it, Moore adoringly approves of what he now sees as a necessary ?rope-a-dope strategy? to advance his side?s cause.
The interview, part of a larger round table discussion also including Paul Krugman and David Gergen, asks the ?three leading political observers? to analyze and discuss the first six months of the Obama presidency. The most startling perspective Moore provides is in regard to the current health care debate:
I take all of the things that make me nervous about the decisions that Obama has made, and I look and them through that lens ? that it?s some kind of master plan. It?s like his continued support of a government-run option for health care. If a true public option is enacted ? and Obama knows this ? it will eventually bring about a single-payer system, because the profit-making insurance companies won?t be able to compete with a government plan and make the profits they want to make. At some point most of them will probably have to bow out of the business.
Moore?s frankness even earns praise from the far more temperate David Gergen:
I?m glad to have someone of Michael Moore?s honesty say that the public option on health care is, in fact, designed to be a pathway to a single-payer system. Because the Democrats have essentially said, ?That?s not true.?
Moore?s view of Obama on Iraq is similar. While the Fahrenheit 9/11 director demands ?more than a truth commission ? a serious criminal investigation? into the Bush administration?s supposed ?lying to convince Congress to back an invasion of another country that did nothing to us,? he also tells the magazine:
Look, this guy [Barack Obama] is a very good basketball player ? he fakes right and goes left. He says he?s going to keep 50,000 troops in Iraq. But I would be shocked if, three years from now, there are 50,000 troops in Iraq. He says these things to keep the wolves away from the door, and it works. The other side seems to buy it. That?s why I admire his craftiness here.
?Same with Afghanistan,? he claims. While adding, ?I don?t think there was a reason for the war? because ?the Taliban are not an invading force ? they are citizens of Afghanistan? and therefore ?it is up to the citizens of Afghanistan whether they want to be oppressed,? he makes clear:
When [Obama] said he was going to send in 20,000 new troops, I thought, ?He?s again trying to create this illusion so that the opposition will be kept at bay.?
(Think about it: When the far left thought ?Bush lied??about WMDs, remember??they cried for impeachment. But for Obama, it?s just matter of admirably creating crafty illusions in order to trick his pesky opposition into silence and submission. Consider it liberalism by any means necessary.)
The way Moore sees it, even when it comes to serious national security issues like prosecuting terrorists at Guantanamo Bay, ?I think he gets the opposition to shut up by telling them what they want to hear.? Indefinite detention? ??Indefinitely? for Obama,? he says, ?might mean ?two more months.??
Overall score from Moore?
I would give him an A if my theory about the rope-a-dope strategy he has employed turns out to be right. If I?m wrong about that, then I?ll have to mark it down to a C-minus. Right now, I?m going to give him the benefit of the doubt.
Eventually, Gergen confronts the filmmaker about the openness of his ?fakes right, moves left? rhetoric and asks, ?Isn?t that the same critique the Republicans have been making about the president for some time?? Moore bluntly responds:
Yeah, and nobody will listen to them! I feel sorry for them. They think they know what he?s doing and they try to point it out, but Obama just acts all innocent and says, ?No, I?m not doing that.? I probably shouldn?t be saying this, but I?m counting on the fact that Republicans won?t be reading this in Rolling Stone.
Team America?s ?giant socialist weasel? counted wrong.
Back in 2004, the idea that ?Bush lied? begat plenty of fits, a film, and much more from the far left. But that, of course, was when a Republican was president. Five years later, half-truths and deceit from a liberal Democratic president are not only commendable, it seems, but absolutely vital. Apparently Barack Obama?s real plans are just that unpalatable for the public to swallow.
___________________
Tom Qualtere?currently serves as research assistant to the president of The Heritage Foundation in Washington, D.C. This column among many others can also be found at NewMajority.com.
