Print This E-mail This

ShareThis

Comments (0)

 

Rich Lowry, NY Post.com

 

For Democrats willing to see what's before their eyes, the nightmare came into sharper focus over the last week. Another 1994 might be in the offing.

 

How does Obama recover? With the canary bedraggled and lifeless in the coal mine in January, he has ample notice of the danger. But he seems willing to do everything -- reconstitute his political team from 2008, adopt fighting rhetoric, vilify the banks -- except move to the center.

 

On health care, the ox is in the ditch, as LBJ might say. There's no good, easy way to revive the current bill and Republicans savor every day Democrats will spend trying to do it.

 

The GOP doesn't mind being called "the party of 'no' " -- in fact, it relishes the label, given the unpopularity of Obama's domestic policies. But that can't be its entire message: The party will need to sketch out a lowest-common-denominator affirmative agenda, in the spirit of 1994's "Contract with America."

 

The importance of the "Contract" can be exaggerated: It wasn't a detailed governing document. Instead, it promised simply to bring 10 popular initiatives to a vote. But it gave Republicans a dimension beyond mere anti-Clintonism.

 

Scott Brown and Bob McDonnell in Virginia proved such terrific candidates because they opposed Obama policies while cultivating an unthreatening, solution-oriented tone. They point the way for Republicans nationally.

 

For Republicans hoping for a repeat of their 1994 triumph, at this early juncture it's so far, so good -- and Thank you, President Obama. Read article.

Barry Rubin, Gloria-Center.org

 

We must now face an extremely unpleasant truth: Even giving the Obama administration every possible break regarding its Iran policy, it is now clear that the U.S. government isn’t going to take strong action on the nuclear weapons issue.

 

Note that I didn’t even say “effective” action, that is, measures that would force Iran to back down. I'm neither advocating nor do I think there was ever any possibility that the United States, even under Obama's predecessor, might take military action.

 

I’m saying that they aren’t even going to make a good show of trying seriously to do anything at all.

 

Some say that the administration has secretly or implicitly accepted the idea that Iran will get nuclear weapons and is now seeking some longer-term containment policy. I doubt that has happened. They are just not even this close to reality.

 

From their behavior they still seem to expect, incredibly, that some kind of deal is possible with Tehran despite everything that has happened. Then, too, they may hope that the opposition--unaided by America--will overthrow the Iranian government and thus solve the problem for them. And they are too fixated on short-term games about seeking consensus among other powers, two of which--China and Russia--are clearly not going to agree to anything serious. This fact was clear many months ago but the administration still doesn’t recognize it.

 

Not only is the Obama administration failing the test, but it is doing so in a way that seems to maximize the loss of U.S. credibility in the region and the world. Read article.

 

Ron Ewart, NMJ.us

 

For 233 years politicians and lawyers have been adding law, after law, after law to the 17 pages contained in the Supreme Law of the Land, our Constitution. On top of the legislation are the millions of court decisions adding to or modifying existing law. On top of the federal law are all the laws that are passed by state and local legislatures. On top of federal, state and local law, come the "rules" that are promulgated by the ever-growing fourth branch of government, the bureaucracies. It isn't negligence or ineptness, it is just plain insane. It is a spider gone mad and spinning a web from which there is no escape, even for the spider.

 

Essentially, each new law requires new administration and enforcement. Government employment continuously grows, exponentially. By just sheer numbers, the more laws that are written, the less likely the entire population will even know about the laws, or understand them, or know of their consequences or penalties for violation, much less be in compliance with them. The consequence of too many laws is that huge segments of the public are totally unaware of the laws existence. And yet, under the law, ignorance of the law is not a defense. Then, when the hapless individual comes face-to-face with the law, it results in anger and frustration for that individual and a spiraling degradation of freedom and liberty for all of us. Sometimes it can lead to huge fines and extended incarceration.

 

Many laws are written at the insistence of lobbying or special interest groups with very narrow and purposely hidden agendas. The public never has an opportunity for real input and society as a whole is not benefited. Partisan politics often compromises a new law into meaningless, often conflicting legislation, leaving loopholes over which lawyers can argue over for decades. The House version of the Health Care bill was over 2,000 pages containing thousands of references to other laws. The Senate version is a little smaller but just as complex. The "Crap" and Trade bill is also over 1,500 pages and contains more references...more restrictions...more regulations which can only lead to less freedom and less liberty.

 

Each new bill out of the U. S. Congress, all state legislatures and all local governments are so complex that conflict in either the new law or other existing laws, is virtually assured. Why are they complex? Because lawyers write them and lawyers get paid very well for interpreting the laws they write and "fixing" the conflicts. Further, they are purposely complex to keep a naive' public from knowing what's in them, much less taking the time to read them.

 

America's salvation as a free country rests not in complexity, but in simplicity and fewer laws. Yes, a complex society needs laws to maintain "reasonable" societal order. But as laws increase, after a certain point, order begins to breakdown under its own weight of the people trying to comply with often conflicting and confusing codes, ordinances, regulations and acts. As the IRS code has increased over the years because Congress plays "social" games with it, general compliance of the code has decreased. As a result there is a growing shadow commerce from which no revenue to the government is realized. Some people are so frustrated they just never file a return, risking fines and jail times.

 

And worse, the more laws there are, the more opportunities for emotionally and financially draining lawsuits between aggrieved parties, egged on by lawyers who make their living off of human weaknesses and interpreting laws that no one else can understand. Read article.

 

Jules Crittenden.com

 

We’re all Brown now. Here’s the latest Brownist, Obama, retooling his SOTU and cleverly bringing back his 2008 team to help him run against himself. ABC:

 

On the eve of President Obama’s State of the Union address and the end of his first year in office, Republican Scott Brown’s astonishing win in the Massachusetts special Senate race not only reset politics in that state, but reset politics for the entire nation.

 

“The entire political community was caught a little bit unawares on that one,” White House senior adviser David Axelrod said today on ABC’s “This Week” of Brown’s win.

 

After Brown’s upset win ended the 60-seat majority in the Senate that Democrats needed in order to push through health care reform without a Republican vote, the White House is adjusting its political operation by bringing in Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign manager David Plouffe. The move comes ahead of mid-term elections in the House and Senate this November, where Republicans hope to capitalize on the momentum of Brown’s win and pick up more seats, which could further endanger the president’s agenda.

 

White House advisers played down Plouffe’s hire, denying an association with Brown’s win.

 

Bridge for sale!

 

Also back were themes from Obama’s presidential campaign.

 

“This president’s never going to stop fighting to create jobs, to raise incomes, and to push back on the special interests’ dominance in Washington and this withering partisanship that keeps us from solving problems,” Axelrod said. Read article.

 

Sonic Charmer, rwcg.wordpress.com

 

I suppose it’s only natural that we’re starting to see a few public changes of heart, come-to-Jesus moments, regarding President Obama coming from the left part of the spectrum. Theatrical statements of disapproval, of regret, of disappointment, of how he has “let them down” in this or that regard. Call it strategic distance-putting, call it sincere, call it what you will – but inevitably stuff like this does seem to happen anytime a formerly-beloved public figure dips in the polls. Here’s a typical example from Mort Zuckerman (“He’s Done Everything Wrong”).

 

I am certainly not a fan of President Obama (and indeed have become a bit less of one over the past year). But I do find myself wondering: what on earth are these lefties talking about? There is nothing that President Obama has done that wasn’t completely and entirely predictable. Exactly what is he doing that wasn’t expected of him? Packing his administration with no-private-experience ideologues? Expected. Antagonizing Wall Street and playing the populist? Expected. Trying to shove through a monstrous, opaque, intrusive ‘healthcare’ bill? Totally expected.

 

On all these things and more, I think President Obama, and his supporters, could just respond just by saying: “Um, we’re doing exactly what we wanted to do, and planned to do, and said we would do, and then you voted us into office by a landslide. So what the heck is the problem?” And you know what? They’d have a freaking point. Read article.

 

Don Surber, Blogs.DailyMail.com

 

Having seen the American people rising from the sneers of “teabaggers” last week by voting out Obamacare by turning over the “Kennedy seat” to a Republican last week, David Axelrod and company are wetting their short pants.

 

It really is wee-wee time at the White House.

 

Rather than cut bait on Obamacare, they are doubling down.

 

We had President Obama’s pathetic “I will fight for you” speech in which he promised to fight those powerful forces in Washington who control Congress and the White House. I suppose Custer at Little Big Horn could have put on a headdress in the middle of the fight.

 

Now, Axelrod is sounding tough, the Wall Street Journal reported.

 

“People are working harder,” Axelrod said on ABC’s “This Week,” referring to the economy. “If they have a job, they’re working harder for less. They’re falling behind. That’s been true for a decade. They look at a wave of irresponsibility from Wall Street to Washington that led to that. And those were the frustrations that got the president elected in the first place, and they were reflected again on Tuesday.”

 

And whose fault is that? Read article.

 

Burt Prelutsky, Patriot Post.us

 

Winston Churchill, who made a better case for alcohol consumption than all the beer commercials ever produced, is well known for having observed that democracy is the worst form of government…except for all the others. But, in a less avuncular state of mind, he also pointed out that “The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.”

 

Even Alexis de Tocqueville would have a tough time arguing with that bit of cynical truth. It is especially true of liberals, a group numbering in the millions, who are of the opinion that their compassionate intentions out-weigh logic, honesty and principles.

 

That is why politicians on the Left don’t have to worry about telling lies, acknowledging their mistakes or even making sense. So long as they claim that their malicious mischief is motivated by genuine concern for the poor, the ignorant and the allegedly oppressed, their liberal flocks will pay homage to their efforts and applaud their fabrications.

 

The easiest way to comprehend liberalism is to think of it, not even as a religion, but as a cult. Many people, after all, have converted from one religion to another or simply dropped religion altogether, but it’s not quite so simple to abandon a cult. Read article.