|
SOTU speeches are worthless
By George Will: Real Clear Politics
We could take one small step toward restoring institutional equilibrium by thinking as Jefferson did about State of the Union addresses. Justice Antonin Scalia has stopped going to them because justices "sit there like bumps on a log" in the midst of the partisan posturing -- the political pep rally that Roberts described. Sis boom bah humbug.
Next year, Roberts and the rest of the justices should stay away from the president's address. So should the uniformed military, who are out of place in a setting of competitive political grandstanding. For that matter, the 535 legislators should boycott these undignified events. They would, if there were that many congressional grown-ups averse to being props in the childishness of popping up from their seats to cheer, or remaining sullenly seated in semi-pouts, as the politics of the moment dictates.
In the unlikely event that Obama or any other loquacious modern president has any thoughts about the State of the Union that he does not pour forth in the torrential course of his relentless rhetoric, he can mail those thoughts to Congress. The Postal Service needs the business.
|
In Praise of the Rotation of Power
By Charles Krauthammer: Real Clear Politics
As the Afghanistan War intensifies -- Marja, soon Kandahar, and the steady arrival of 30,000 new American troops -- it has come to be seen as Obama's war.
Not so. It's become America's war. When the former opposition party -- habitually anti-war for the last four decades -- adopts, reaffirms and escalates a war begun by the habitually hawkish other party, partisanship falls away, and the war becomes nationalized.
And legitimized. Do you think if John McCain, let alone George W. Bush, were president, we would not see growing demonstrations protesting our continued presence in Iraq and the escalation of Afghanistan? That we wouldn't see a serious push in Congress to cut off funds?
|
Dose of Disdain From Dr. Obama
By George Will: Real Clear Politics
There are legislative miles to go before the government will be emancipated from its health care myopia, but it is not too soon for a summing up. Whether all or nothing of the legislation becomes law, Barack Obama has refuted critics who call him a radical. He has shown himself to be a timid progressive.
His timidity was displayed when he flinched from fighting for the boldness the nation needs -- a transition from the irrationality of employer-provided health insurance. His progressivism is an attitude of genteel regret about the persistence of politics...
|
No way out for Dems
By Michael Barone: New York Post
There's a lively debate going on about whether Demo crats would be better off passing or not passing a health-care bill.
Some liberals claim that Democrats would be better off passing a bill, any bill, even if it's unpopular with the general electorate. The idea is to energize the Democratic base, which is demoralized by the prospects of failure. Polls show Democrats far less enthusiastic and far less likely to vote -- passing a law might change that.
Others, mostly conservatives but also some liberals speaking privately, figure that Democrats would be better off letting the issue drop. Back in January, President Obama said he would emphasize "jobs, jobs, jobs," now a higher priority for voters than health care. By November, these folks hope voters will have forgotten about health care and may be impressed by Democratic economic policies.
I think both sides are wrong. They both assume that there exists some optimum course that will produce happy results. But sometimes in politics no course leads to success. Disaster lies ahead whatever you do...
|
Obama's Health Cost Illusion
By The Wall Street Journal: The Wall Street Journal
The main White House argument for health-care reform goes something like this: If we spend now on a hugely expensive new insurance program for the middle class, we can save later by reducing overall U.S. health spending. This "tastes great, less filling" theory could stand some scrutiny, not least because it is being used to rush through the greatest social spending program in American history.
What if this particular theory turns out to be a political illusion? What if the speculative cost savings never report for duty, while the federal balance sheet is still swamped with new social obligations that will be impossible to repeal? The only possible outcome will be the nationalization of U.S. health markets, which will mean that almost all care will be rationed by politics...
|
An American Obsession with Freedom
By Tony Blankley: Real Clear Politics
The Obama administration and the Democrats crossed a line and touched a nerve in America's body politic. We sense our fundamental freedom endangered. And the response will be as remorseless as was our revolution against the British. Against all odds, the intrusion on those things around which our "liberty inheres" will be driven from our political midst. (It is not Waterloo, but Yorktown, that is likely to be the terminal point.)
The first hard step in that defense will be the election in November. The second, even harder step will be the rollback of already enacted debt and damage to our freedom. Defining the extent and detail of the rollback must be the agenda for the government's loyal opposition in this year's election. And the things to which we are loyal are our Constitution, our founding principles and the good institutions and social contrivances brought into being by those principles over our providential history.
|
Dems Cling to Human Kiddie Shields
By Michelle Malkin: The Patriot Post
Have you noticed something about the audiences that President Obama has cherry-picked to cheer his government health care takeover roadshow? They're getting younger and younger.
On Wednesday, Obama brings the traveling campaign to St. Charles High School in St. Louis, Mo., for a closed-door, invitation-only speech. If he doesn't end the endless "No More Time For Talk" talks soon, he'll be peddling Democratic reconciliation tactics on "Dora the Explorer" and "SpongeBob SquarePants."
But desperate times call for demagogic measures. True to form, the Obama White House is wielding the human kiddie shield as its last-stand defense for Demcare.
|
Stimulus or sedative?
By Thomas Sowell: Real Clear Politics
Abraham Lincoln once asked an audience how many legs a dog has, if you called the tail a leg? When the audience said "five," Lincoln corrected them, saying that the answer was four. "The fact that you call a tail a leg does not make it a leg."
That same principle applies today. The fact that politicians call something a "stimulus" does not make it a stimulus. The fact that they call something a "jobs bill" does not mean there will be more jobs...
|
So much for draining the swamp
By Cal Thomas: The Washington Examiner
Before Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., became speaker of the House, she promised during the Bush administration that if voters allowed Democrats to regain a congressional majority Democrats would establish "the most ethical Congress in history." Pelosi pledged to "drain the swamp" of corruption in Washington.
Not only has the swamp not been drained, Democrats have begun treating it as a hot tub. The party is a long way from achieving anything close to ethical purity. But then, so are Republicans...
|
The end of the road for Barack Obama?
By Simon Heffer: Telegraph.co.uk
It is a universal political truth that administrations do not begin to fragment when things are going well: it only happens when they go badly, and those who think they know better begin to attack those who manifestly do not. The descent of Barack Obama's regime, characterised now by factionalism in the Democratic Party and talk of his being set to emulate Jimmy Carter as a one-term president, has been swift and precipitate. It was just 16 months ago that weeping men and women celebrated his victory over John McCain in the American presidential election. If they weep now, a year and six weeks into his rule, it is for different reasons...
|
|
|
|
 |
|
I [talked with House Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman] yesterday. I said, 'You keep saying you want to keep current law. I gave him the language [that describes current law]. He said 'But we want to pay for abortions.' I said, 'Mr Chairman, we don't do that now, we aren't going to start.' He said 'But we think we should.'
