Boston Globe: Dems Will Benefit from Obama Sell Skills in November

Boston Globe is forecasting Obamadrama in welfare will wear well with the American voter in November.  The golden tongue of disingenuousness Barack Hussein Obama will make the difference.

“DEMOCRATS WERE euphoric as President Obama signed the nation’s new health care law yesterday, and with good reason. As Vice President Joe Biden was caught whispering to his boss, “This is a big f***in deal.

Yes indeed. The United States is finally on its way to near universal health coverage. And a president whom conservative talking heads deride as in over his head and sinking fast has just secured a historic accomplishment.

When Massachusetts shocked the nation by sending Scott Brown to the US Senate, Republicans thought they had thwarted Obama’s health care hopes. Certainly it wasn’t just their 60th Senate vote that Democrats had lost. They had also surrendered control of the narrative, with unseemly legislative sausage-making obscuring the larger health-care issues.

After Brown’s victory, however, Obama, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and congressional Democrats doubled down and found a way to move forward despite the setback. But though Democrats have won the immediate legislative struggle, they haven’t yet prevailed in the larger war for national opinion. With the Tea Partiers fuming with anti-government fury, conservative state officials thumping hoary states’ rights tubs, Republican congressfolk and presidential hopefuls vowing repeal, and former GOP standard-bearer John McCain threatening an extended senatorial sulk, the public battle promises to rage on.

To win the broader victory needed to secure the law, Democrats need to wage a full-scale persuasion campaign. That means repeatedly reminding people of the protections and benefits the new law will bring them. It also means defending the law against hyperbolic attacks from those who see super-heated opposition as their path back to political power.

As Obama showed in the last few weeks, and particularly with his masterful performance at the bipartisan health-care summit, he is eminently capable of that.

His task should be made easier by the way opponents have approached health-care reform. From the start, they have thrown any stone within reach at the legislation. The sillier of the conservative TV and radio types have denounced it as a headlong plunge into socialism. Elected Republicans, meanwhile, have regularly decried it as a government takeover of health care, an unaffordable, deficit-swelling boondoggle that will propel the country down the path to ruin.

The bill isn’t any of those things. It’s liberalism, to be sure. But socialism? Only if one doesn’t know what the word signifies. The charge of a government takeover of health care would be true if the law established a single-payer system. It doesn’t. Why, it doesn’t even include the robust public option liberals had wanted.

As for cost, the Congressional Budget Office found the law will actually help reduce the 10-year deficit. And though opponents insist that’s only because costs are backloaded, the CBO says the measure would also cut the deficit significantly in its second decade, thereby giving the lie to that charge.

“Overall, for a bill that expands coverage to more than 30 million people, it is a remarkably fiscally responsible bill,’’ said James Horney, director of federal fiscal policy at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a progressive thinktank.

Don’t expect inconvenient facts to impede its opponents, however. Having once hoped to inflict a Waterloo-like low on Obama by scuttling health-care reform, they are now intent on turning his March success into November defeat.

And yet, with a specific law for Democrats to defend, that will prove harder than the GOP thinks; a critique based on caricature and scare-tactics usually grows weaker in the face of well-presented facts. Further, as soon as the corrective reconciliation legislation passes the Senate, the worst of the offputting special deals will be gone.

Meanwhile, most major pieces of the law, and particularly the protections against insurance-company abuses, poll well with the public. It’s no coincidence that Obama highlighted some of those in signing the law yesterday.

“We think we will win on the actual specifics in the bill,’’ said US Representative Edward Markey of Massachusetts. The bet here is that Markey is right — provided the president stays on the offensive as salesman-in-chief for the landmark new law.”

Comment:  I think the pundits with their friends at the Boston Globe are right.  Americans today prefer Marxism to Christianity, being diapered  to the risk of wearing pants.  Sexfun  if far more important than any interest in becoming a responsible, thinking adult.   Who wants to spend time worrying about solving problems, anyway?….Most Americans under age 50 have no awareness of a yesterday.  This truth is not new to the country.  Somewhere around 80 years ago columnist H. L. Mencken claimed, “No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people.”

Marxist health care rule is here to stay.  Good people will oppose it as they should.  But, there are countless more Americans who have been programmed already by the American government as it exists to steal, rip off from, con, extort from those who actually produce wealth, who will know more about fleecing from Obamacare than reading about it. 

The vast majority of inner city black America has lived  in a plantation culture for countless decades anyway.   One  plantation  manager, one  Democrat Party which provides goodies in exchange for the black vote.     More and more Americans seek the nanny aspects of the plantation life.   Being disingenuous is a way of life….a free expression of the culture.

Nearly 45% of the voting American public pays no  federal income tax at all.  Why will these and more people of their thinking vote for a moral and ethical America, when they can vote for Obama to rob more from the rich to expand  their right to be indolent?  

“Fear” in God is gone in America.  Women  ignore liberty in favor of security.  More men are living and acting out in an ever more  feminizing culture which disdains liberty as well as adulthood in favor of security…..the safety from the nanny government. 

Who in American teaches self reliance and responsibility these days anyway? Certainly no one in the schools!!     

I think Mass. Representative Markey is probably right.   Today  people are afraid of adulthood.

Obamacare Not Good Enough For Obama! Are You Surprised?

“No Obamacare for Obama” appeared as opinion in today’s Washington Star:

“President Obama declared that the new health care law “is going to be affecting every American family.” Except his own, of course.

The new health care law exempts the president from having to participate in it. Leadership and committee staffers in the House and Senate who wrote the bill are exempted as well. A weasel-worded definition of “staff” includes only the members’ personal staff in the new system; the committee staff that drafted the legislation opted themselves out. Because they were more familiar with the contents of the law than anyone in the country, it says a lot that they carved out their own special loophole. Anyway, the law is intended to affect “ordinary Americans,” according to Vice President Joe Biden (who – being a heartbeat away from the presidency – also is not covered), not Washington insiders.

Mr. Obama frequently tossed around the talking point that the new law gave people the same type of coverage as Congress enjoyed. In his March 20 health care pep talk to wavering Democrats on Capitol Hill, the president said one of the advantages of the health care legislation was that “people will have choice and competition just like members of Congress have choice and competition.” At yesterday’s signing ceremony, Mr. Obama said Americans will be “part of a big pool, just like federal employees are part of a big pool. They’ll have the same choice of private health insurance that members of Congress get for themselves.” But the American people will have a public pool; the executive branch and congressional staffers kept their country-club pool private.

Last year, Sen. Charles E. Grassley, Iowa Republican, spearheaded efforts to have all Americans included in the plan, but he ran into heavy opposition from unions representing federal workers – the same unions that were pro-Obamacare stalwarts. In September, the Senate approved a scaled-down amendment that covered members of Congress and their staff. When this provision later emerged from Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s office, the leadership and committee staff loophole had appeared. A move in December by Mr. Grassley and Sen. Tom Coburn, Oklahoma Republican, to close this loophole and to extend the law to senior members of the executive branch – including the president, vice president and Cabinet members – was blocked by Senate Democratic leaders.

Mr. Grassley has introduced an amendment to the Senate health care reconciliation bill that also will apply the law to the upper tier of the executive branch and all Capitol Hill staffers, but it remains to be seen whether Democrats will let this measure move forward.

The special exemptions slipped into the health care law are another example of how those statists who rule consider themselves a privileged class, imposing burdens on the country that they will not accept themselves. Candidates for office in 2010 should pledge to close these and other loopholes in the law that impose unequal burdens and create exclusive privileged classes in America. Meanwhile, we await Mr. Obama’s explanation why if his “historic” health care law is so great for America, it’s not good enough for him and his family.”

Comment:  We get to know more about our clever president with every word he promises.

Obama at Odds With Netanyahu? With Israel? Who Can Trust Obama?

The following is from an article at the New York Times by Helene Cooper:

“Mr. Netanyahu finds himself at odds with the United States and Britain partly because of the coalition he is having to manage at home. He has personally moved even farther to the right, while driving a political alliance with even more conservative elements. But some analysts say that Mr. Netanyahu has more leeway than it appears, that he could build a more centrist coalition if he chose to.

Meanwhile, both Britain and the United States have become increasingly frustrated with these Israeli political currents, with officials in both countries expressing doubts about whether such a conservative alliance could ever move forward on a peace plan.

Mr. Netanyahu’s difficult position was on display during an unusually testy visit to Washington. He and Mr. Obama did not appear side by side before reporters or even pose for cameras before their meeting.

Just hours after delivering a defiant speech in which he told a pro-Israel lobby that “Jerusalem is not a settlement; it’s our capital,” Mr. Netanyahu refused to budge on an American demand that he reverse a housing plan in the Ramat Shlomo neighborhood in East Jerusalem.

He did pledge to adhere to more rigid controls over announcements of construction in East Jerusalem, carrying from meeting to meeting here a diagram that he said laid out how much red tape Israelis must go through before they could expand housing there.

But it remained unclear whether he would even allow scheduled negotiations with the Palestinians to focus on substantive issues like borders and security, another American demand.

The impasse leaves Mr. Obama in the same position that he was in last fall, when Mr. Netanyahu defied American demands for a full freeze on settlements in the West Bank, causing the White House to set that issue aside as a first step toward restarting Middle East peace talks.

But this time, White House officials and even many Middle East analysts say that Mr. Obama, by allowing the dispute over the East Jerusalem construction to spill over publicly, has laid down a marker signaling that the United States is likely to press Israel hard on Jerusalem in future peace talks with the Palestinians. Palestinians want East Jerusalem as the capital of their eventual state.”

Comment:  Mr. Obama has contrived the present noise about Israeli settlements in Jerusalem.  Ms. Billy Clinton spent 41 minutes berating the prime minister of Israel….a fellow democrat.  What does all this mean?

Mr. Obama is no longer unknown to the American people.  We know he talks all the time, is not broadly educated, but clever,  is a foreign president unfamiliar  with or perhaps unfond of America, and he is emanately untrustworthy.  He freely and often lies.  His Obamacare legislation has been very revealing of the man’s versatility with honesty. 

He is also disingenuous, as critic Charles Krauthammer regularly describes the president.  Obama knows full well the present American economy cannot pay for Obamahealth.

Mr. Obama knows full well he is going to introduce soon, Value Added Tax on Americans doing business.   In other words Mr. Obama is about to introduce legislation to establish a federal sales tax…….a tax on whatever is purchased to keep the country from going bankrupt…..Because,as Mr. Obama knows, the country is, indeed, on its way to insolvency.

How does a leader of a fellow democracy, Israel, a nation surrounded by psychopaths devoted to its demise, trust a liar, one who happens to run  the country upon which the existence of his homeland depends.? 

How does one trust the New York Times, a newspaper noted for its sabotage.   What does Netanyahu’s coalition at home have to do with building housing for Israelis in the Israeli capital?

Marxist Fascism Alive and Well At The University of Ottawa

Mark Steyn is well known in Canada, because he knows contemporary socialist Canada well.   Anyone interested in the future of Obama America should review Mark’s experiences with the Canadian Human Rights Commission.

Canadian  goverrnments and universities look  to fascism to do their Marxist good.    Such American institutions are wont to do the same.

Ann Coulter has been banned from the University of Ottawa.   Mark Steyn writes in The National Review about this university’s  extrication of Miss Coulter from the stage of Ottawa’s campus of contemporary free speech. 

“Bienvenue au Canada   [Mark Steyn]

A couple of days ago, I mentioned François Houle, the leftist apparatchik and provost of the University of Ottawa who threatened Ann Coulter with criminal prosecution before she’d even set foot on Canadian soil.

M. Houle warned Miss Coulter not to “promote hatred“. As this young lady points out in her report from the university, the only hate-promoter here is the buffoon Houle, whose barely veiled threats led to a gang of menacing Houligans (le mot juste) getting the event closed down. Alliances between the state’s ideological commissars and street mobs are a familiar feature of certain kinds of societies, and I suppose Canada will soon get used to its membership of this unlovely club. Ann Coulter says of her experience in the Great White North:

This has never, ever, ever happened before — even at the stupidest American university… Since I’ve arrived in Canada, I’ve been denounced on the floor of Parliament — which, by the way, is on my bucket list — my posters have been banned, I’ve been accused of committing a crime in a speech that I have not yet given, I was banned by the student council. So welcome to Canada!

In one of the oldest settled democracies on the planet, freedom of speech flickers very dimly. To recap:

François Houle in his letter to Ann Coulter:

I would, however, like to inform you, or perhaps remind you, that our domestic laws, both provincial and federal, delineate freedom of expression (or “free speech”) in a manner that is somewhat different than the approach taken in the United States. I therefore encourage you to educate yourself, if need be, as to what is acceptable in Canada…

Dean Steacy, lead investigator of the Canadian “Human Rights” Commission:

Freedom of speech is an American concept, so I don’t give it any value.

Susan Cole, Canadian “feminist”, defending the mob on Fox News:

We don’t have that same political culture here in (Canada)….We don’t have a 1st Amendment, we don’t have a religion of free speech….Students sign off on all kinds of agreements as to how they’ll behave on campus, in order to respect diversity, equity, all of the values that Canadians really care about. Those are the things that drive our political culture. Not freedoms, not rugged individualism, not free speech. It’s different, and for us, it works.

Translated from the original Canadian, “diversity” means “state-mandated mob-enforced conformity”. As for whether “it works” for Canadians, ask Guy Earle. On Monday Mr Earle, a stand-up comedian of conventionally Trudeaupian views, goes on trial at the British Columbia “Human Rights” Tribunal for putting down two hecklers at his nightclub act. They were, alas for him, of the lesbian persuasion, and so he is now charged with “homophobia”. What a wretched embarrassment to a once free society.”

Comment:  You may want to reread this Mark Steyn piece and remember where and when you read it…….  It is only a matter of time when Obamacrats at our American universities will rally to protect innocent ears of our impressionables in the name of free speech, respect for diversity,  and in the holy name of equality.  It was already tried a few years ago when Ann Coulter was invited to speak at St. Thomas University here in the Twin Cities.

At that time I had never heard of Ms. Coulter, but was invited to attend her talk at St. Olaf in Northfield. 

Ms. Coulter drew quite a crowd.   The event was held in the main chapel of the college. For those leftists, especially gays and lesbians who have forgotten the meaning of the word ‘chapel’…….it refers to a room devoted to religious worship…usually a Christian worship. 

But equality had already been established at St. Olaf…..No one could tell the difference between the street vulgars and those gays and lesbians harrassing Ms. Coulter from the audience.  One might as well have been in a fox hole  fighting real enemies. 

I had questioned my friend about a burly guy standing next to the rostrum on the stage where Ms. Coulter was speaking.  He didn’t know why he was there, but joked that he looked like a body guard.

He was a body guard…..in a few minutes after the speech began, I understood why. He was to protect the speaker.

Ms. Coulter spoke about political correctness.  She was against it…..so much so she forgot to speak in the soft musical rhythms of  college  lyrics of the peace and tranquility of  Marxist political correctness. 

I hadn’t been in a college chapel for over 30 years. 

Ms. Coulter’s language was sharp, rapid, seemingly breathless and quite provocative, but quite clean.  She stirred up the crowd which turned out to be quite gay, but not  the happy kind.  Apparently the crowd, overwhelmingly antagonistic, knew more about her than I did.  They came to do the speaker some  trouble.

It had been my first return to a campus leftwing audience in over a decade.  The vulgarity of their thought and speech was  remarkably offensive,  much more than it used to be  in the past.  

Ms. Coulter used no vulgarities for she had a far superior vocabulary to draw from than did the children. at St. Olaf.   The natives didn’t like the speaker’s message.

When Pigs Gain Control Of Health “Care”

In George Orwell’s Animal Farm, humans who used to live in the warm farmhouse, eat the good farm raised food, drink and make merry, are overthrown by a band of pigs who have observed these evils of inequality.  Pigs preach “freedom for all”. 

The pigs had rallied  the sheep, goats, the bovine and less bovine among the four leggeds and the fowl, to rise against the tyranny of man.   They spoke of rights……of  the  purity of everything shared equally according to everyone’s needs.  “We are all equal!”

But, as it turns out, some are more equal than others….Little by little the pigs begin to possess more than the chickens and goats.  Eventually the chickens and goats and others are exiled from the warm house and all its comforts. But not the pigs.

 The time arrives when the pigs no longer feel comfortable with any lowlifes in their domestic midst……and, like President Obama and the modern United States Congress…..devise one set of rules of comfort and pleasures for themselves, the pigs…..and an entirely different bunch of restrictions on comforts and pleasures for the lowlifes…..those underlings too stupid to know how to get out of the rain.

The pigs of Congress have been porking their pleasures in America for a long time, but never have they been so brazen as to teleprompt the population to be so segregated into the wind and the rain of lousy health care compared to the prompt, special  and tender treatments   they have bestowed upon themselves……at population’s expense.

In a democracy especially the population gets what the population deserves.  Hail to the Chief , OINK OINK Obama, the First!

But wait…what do we see appearing on the horizon? ……… a report?   a rumbling? 

Are the goats in the rain  unhappy?

A writing in today’s Washington Examiner by Susan Ferrechio  appears:

“As the Senate grinds through 20 hours of debate on the health care reconciliation bill, Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, Tuesday night offered an amendment that would require the president, vice-president, members of Congress, political appointees and congressional staff to get their federal health benefits through the soon-to-be-created health insurance exchanges.

This group currently gets insurance through a system overseen by the Office of Management and Budget and under the health care bill signed into law today, some of the congressional staff would have to sign up for insurance through the exchanges. But some would be exempted. Politico filed a story Tuesday night pointing out that leadership and committee staff are exempt from having to use the exchanges. This has caused a bit of an uproar on Capitol Hill, with Republicans accusing top Democratic staff of writing a health care law that’s not good enough for them to participate in.

“President Obama has publicly advertised that his reforms would give members of the public the same coverage available to Members of Congress,” reads a GOP summary of the Grassley measure. “This amendment would ensure that he, his successors, and all his appointed political officials would also have the same coverage members of the public enrolled in the Exchange receive.” “

Comment:  Can’t you wait to see Obama, Pelosi, Reid, Barney, Nadler, Pat Leahy etc. standing in line at any time,  or  waiting in their Washington office seven months for the bureaucrats at the Board of Life Control to determine when they need to be croaked..dispensed with..done in..removed from the rolls of the living…..for the good of the people’s equality.