Damned If You Do...

With the health care reform bill back in Congress's hands, people are speculating whether it will pass or fail. At this point, it may not matter because it doesn't end well for the Left in either case.

If the reform bill passes... Democrats will own it, lock, stock, and barrel. Although this sounds like a good thing, it's actually not because the kind of health care "reform" being proposed has already been tried. And it's failed. For a President who needs a boost in the job performance area, Obama can't afford to fail, not even after winning an important vote on reform.

Furthermore, the length of time necessary to pass the health care reform bill has had a toll on the Left. Ideological rifts have been formed that have the potential of hamstringing President Obama's agenda worse than anything the Republicans could do, real or imagined. With enough progressive Representatives and Senators voting against a more moderate approach to any issue, the Republicans wouldn't need a majority to block the Obama agenda. That doesn't bode well for Obama or the Democrats in the short or the long term.

Also, an unintended consequence will occur: higher unemployment. How many doctors, nurses, and other medical professionals will be willing to stay in their practice if the reform bill passes? Some will quit or retire because they oppose the "reform," while others will be forced out of practice. In either case, there will be more unemployed Americans at a time when the economy is tanking. That, in turn, will drive Obama's numbers down further as more and more Americans see that he doesn't have any answers on how to fix the economy.

Finally, if the reform bill passes, insurance companies will be demonized for their efforts. Sure, they helped to write the current "reform" bill on the table, but the Left has no loyalty to anyone but the cause. Insurance companies will continue to be made villains by the Left, and their reward for helping pass the reform bill will be an enraged populous screaming for their heads.

If the reform bill doesn't pass... it will be a major blow to the Obama Administration and the Congressional Democrats. They've spent a lot of political capital on this agenda item, and failure will mean they lose all of it in the early part of an election year. And it wasn't like they couldn't have pushed this if they really wanted to, either. This was a collective failure of leadership on the part of Obama, Pelosi, and Reid.

A failure to pass the reform bill will also benefit Republicans and conservative Democrats because it becomes harder and harder for the Democrats to paint the GOP as the "Party of No" if members of their own party break ranks with Pelosi and Reid. Of course, this will also further widen the gap between the conservative Democrats and the Leftist Democrats, which also helps the Republicans. Strategically, Republicans and conservatives are in a very good position right now.

Insurance companies will still get blamed if the bill fails, but they might be tempted to look elsewhere for candidates to support. You know, candidates who don't get bought and then turn on you. That's going to leave the DNC a bit more strapped for cash during an election year, something that should be giving them nightmares.

Finally, if the current reform bill doesn't pass, maybe we can finally go back to the drawing board and fix what is really wrong with the American health care system instead of putting Band Aids on a broken leg. If you're going to reform health care, then do it, but don't jerk us around with pie-in-the-sky promises with no grounds in reality.

In other words, the Dems are damned if they do...and damned if they don't.

Quick Hits

I know I haven't been doing my blogging duty lately, but here goes....

- Chair of the House Ways and Means Committee Charlie Rangel is temporarily stepping aside as chair while the House Ethics Committee looks into charges lodged against the 20-term Representative. First off, I'm going to wait for the investigation to complete before I start calling for his impeachment, mainly because his ilk rarely affords the same consideration to Republicans who get in trouble, legal or otherwise. When a Republican gets in trouble, the Left resorts to the "severity of the charges" line to try to shame the Republican into resigning. No such calls from me on this one. Let Rangel deal with the Ethics Committee. Second, Rangel is a 20-term Representative...and Harlem is still like Beirut with more McDonalds franchises? Folks, at some point, you're going to have to let him go because he's not doing anything for Harlem.

- Rangel isn't the only Democrat involved in a scandal, though. More and more Democrats are finding themselves in legal or moral trouble these days, and it reminds me of 2006 when Nancy Pelosi and her cohorts were talking about the Republican "culture of corruption." Well, that perfect scandal storm has swung its way back around and is hitting the party in power. That's the funny thing about politics. No matter what, the pendulum always swings back the other way and will probably whack somebody upside the head.

- With Sarah Palin talking to Mark Burnett about a reality show, I think it's safe to say she's officially jumped the shark.

- Mitt Romney is starting to fire up his Presidential aspirations by attacking the President. It's all well and good, except when you consider his health care reform proposal in Massachusetts isn't too far removed from Obamacare. To the Republicans reading this, are you sure this is a guy you want running the country?

- Speaking of Obamacare, have you noticed that most of the talk surrounding it has been focused on the Senate? Talk of the "nuclear option" and reconciliation has dominated the coverage with only an occasional story coming out of the House talking about how the House will pass health care reform. I'm of a different opinion. I think the reason there isn't much coverage about the impending House vote is because Obamacare isn't going to pass the House in its current form. There are too many differences between the House and Senate versions that will kill it in one house or the other, but I'm leaning towards it being the House that sends Odumbacare to pasture because of how close the first vote on it was. Three votes in the other direction and we wouldn't be having this conversation right now, and I don't think Pelosi or the Obama White House has the political capital left to ensure victory.

- President Obama has been talking up his stimulus package as a measure that saved us from the brink of economic ruin. Obama has set up the seemingly irrefutable argument since no one can say what would have happened if the stimulus package hadn't been passed. However, it's in that uncertainty that an argument can be made that the stimulus package had no impact on the economy. All it takes is someone smart enough to make that argument...oh wait. Someone smart enough just did.

Finally...

- John McCain's campaign fired back at challenger J. D. Hayworth's latest ad with McCain in face paint. McCain's campaign manager demanded Hayworth apologize for possibly offending Native Americans because of the face paint. Of course, it might actually be a valid criticism...if it wasn't a play on the popular movie "Avatar." Even I knew that, and I've never seen "Avatar." Then again, when you're as out of touch as McCain is, it's not surprising that he'd pick staff equally as clueless.

Quick Hits

Yeah, I know I just did one of these, but a few things have happened since the last one, so...

- Congratulations to the New Orleans Saints for winning the Super Bowl this year. The Saints and the Indianapolis Colts are both great teams, but for the Saints to win it all is a great testament to not just the team's athletic prowess, but to their commitment to the city. Now, I want to see the city match the Saints' commitment by getting committed to improving their conditions.

- In an op-ed piece in USA Today, Assistant to the President and Deputy National Security Advisor for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism John Brennan wrote, "Politically motivated criticism and unfounded fear-mongering only serve the goals of al-Qaeda." Hmmm...when the Bush Administration said the same thing, didn't the Left scream about dissent being patriotic?

- More fallout from Climategate has the eco-Left digging in and going on the offensive. Instead of defending their misdeeds (which are indefensible, given the depths they've sunk to in order to keep up the myth that AGW is settled science), they've decided to attack those who are raising legitimate doubts. So much for the science being on their side...

- Meghan McCain has announced that she's a progressive Republican. I know. I was shocked, too. Anyway, it explains a lot about her advice for Republicans on how to win the youth vote in upcoming elections. What it explains: she is the last person the GOP needs to consult for advice on winning elections. Her father's approach has been tried and it has failed in two straight elections. Putting a new face on a failed strategy doesn't make it any better.

- Sarah Palin has caught a lot of heat from Leftists for notes she wrote on her hand prior to a speech she gave recently. As a public speaker, I understand the importance of notes to delivering a good speech, so I don't criticize Palin too much for it. Notecards would have been better, but sometimes you have to go with what you have handy, if you'll pardon the pun. Having said that, seeing how sparse her notes were makes me think the Left's criticism of Palin in this case is much ado about nothing. Seriously, you're getting on Palin's case for a few words written on her hand? If that doesn't scream "Palin owns us," I don't know what does.

- A new billboard of George W. Bush and the slogan "Miss Me Yet?" appeared near Wyoming, Minnesota, recently. It even got the attention of National Public Radio, who initiated an investigation into whether it was real and who put it up. Wow. With all of the stuff that could and really should be investigated (you know, like ACORN and government fraud under the guise of "stimulus money"?), it's nice to see NPR take the lead on something so insignificant. Then again, if the media did their jobs, we might not have had Obama in the White House...

And finally...

- A strip club in Ohio hosted an event called Lap Dances for Haiti. Now if you'll excuse me, I have to book a flight to Ohio to support this good cause because, dang it, I CARE!

Quick Hits

I figure there's been a few things in the news that I haven't talked about yet, so let me rectify that.

- President Barack Obama promised that he would enact a spending freeze effective with the 2011 budget that would keep spending at the 2010 budget levels for 3 years. Maybe he slept in when this was covered at Harvard Law, but there’s this thing called the separation of powers that prevents one branch of the government from intruding too much on another. And according to Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, federal spending falls under the duties of…the Legislative Branch. Funny that a Constitutional law professor missed that part of the Constitution, huh?

- Nancy Pelosi stated that she would do everything in her power to get the health care reform bill passed. Considering she essentially passed the House version of this bill by 3 votes the first time around, and there’s still a matter of reconciliation to address, I’m not sure she should be so confident of the outcome because conditions have changed since December. Failure by the Congressional Democrats to see this will result in the health care reform bill being watered down or defeated outright.

- Newly elected Massachusetts Senator Scott Brown was sworn in yesterday after a longer-than-necessary delay. When similar situation occurred in NY-23, the Democrat was sworn in immediately to vote for the health care reform bill in the House. Wouldn’t have anything to do with Brown being a Republican, would it?

- Senator Al Franken lambasted the Obama Administration for a lack of leadership on the health care reform bill. He cited how they failed to give Senate Democrats direction on how to proceed. Although I agree with Franken, I have to question the reason for his objection. After all, doesn’t he work for the people, not the White House?

- A recent report regarding the whereabouts of the funds from the Pork-A-Palooza bill shows that money was sent to Congressional districts…that don’t exist. Maybe that’s why the Obama Administration has taken the position that only some of the money is being misspent: because compared to the funds going to districts that don’t exist, the money being misspent is a drop in the bucket.

- In response to the recent controversy surrounding a pro-life television ad airing during the Super Bowl, “The View” co-host Joy Behar said that it was just as likely that Florida quarterback Tim Teboe could have been born a "pedophile rapist." Yeah, it’s possible that Teboe could have wound up as someone far less savory than what he has become. You know, like an unfunny talk show hack stinking up the airwaves on two different TV shows?

And finally...

- With the Super Bowl this Sunday, I’m torn as to who to root for. On the one hand, the Indianapolis Colts have proven to be an exceptional team on the field. Then again, the New Orleans Saints have proven to be an exceptional team off the field. Regardless of the score, I’m going to be happy for both teams because they’ve shown that they can do things right where it counts.

The War Against Glenn Beck

Arianna Huffington seems to have it in for Glenn Beck, if her recent comments about Beck are any indication. Huffington's point is that Beck is dangerous for America because he "incites violence." (Of course, she can't seem to point to any real evidence of Beck-inspired violence, nor has she attempted to explain away Beck's comments advocating non-violent protests, but I'm sure she'll address that any day now.)

The fact that Huffington's comments are echoed by a number of Leftists isn't surprising. The fact that Huffington's comments are so at odds with reality isn't surprising, either. What is surprising is how ineffectual such comments have been. Most people who watch or listen to Beck are the type who pay little attention to the Huffington crowd, and those who may be lukewarm towards Beck, but are aware of the facts, may not agree with Huffington's assertions. That leaves those who are predisposed to agree with Huffington, and that group is pretty small, comparatively speaking.

At the heart of Huffington's anti-Beck comments is an attempt to marginalize Beck using the classic Saul Alinsky method. Beck has been open with his flaws, which the Left has taken to paint him as a drunk, drug abuser, divorced, college dropout and, thus, not a credible source of information. Others have taken it a step further, accusing Beck of rape, tax evasion, and murder using facts even more tenuous than Huffington's. Why is the Left spending so much time, money, and energy to simultaneously dismiss and slander Glenn Beck?

Because he's effective.

The Left operates on a principle of keeping people ignorant and, thus, easily controllable. As much as the Left says that's Beck's shtick, Beck and his staff do their homework before they go public with anything. His recent documentary about the rise of progressivism was well-received by many people, except for the Left in academia who claimed Beck was factually inaccurate. Beck did clarify one of his statements and apologized for it, but as yet the people accusing him of being factually inaccurate have been at a loss for words when asked to show what Beck got wrong. But it's not about Beck being wrong; it's about Beck being right.

What makes Beck so effective is that he's really not driven by the same two-party fervor as other talk radio show hosts. He is concerned about finding the truth, no matter whose ox gets gored in the process. On the other hand, Huffington and her ilk have a purely ideological purpose for trying to destroy Glenn Beck: to preserve the Leftist status quo. To them, it's a battle for survival against the biggest threat they've ever experienced. To Beck, it's a battle for the survival of the country he loves.

I'm not usually a betting man, but in this case, I'll go all in for Beck winning this one.

Bipartisanship, Chicago Style

President Barack Obama was invited to a Republican function yesterday where he took questions from Republicans in an attempt to reach out to them. This was all a part of the Administration's attempt to make the President appear less partisan and more willing to work with the GOP in the aftermath of the Scott Brown victory in Massachusetts. And what did he do?

Gave lip service to the Republicans about being more bipartisan while attacking them for blocking his agenda.

Okay, I'm willing to believe Obama may be serious about working with Republicans in the future, but this isn't the way to forge a new relationship. The question I have is whether it was a serious attempt, given the past year. From the beginning of his Administration, Obama said he wanted to reach across the aisle to fix the problems of this country. When given chances to do that, he hasn't. What he has done, though is used Republicans as scapegoats for everything that's wrong with the country right now. Granted, this isn't unexpected, but it is rather troubling for someone who ran on being a uniter to be do divisive.

The Republicans bear some responsibility for this, too. Congressional Republicans have dug in and tried doing as much as they could to delay or derail the President's agenda, such as it was. Yet, they didn't have the numbers to do much derailing. Although they may not have been the most willing to work with the President, I can't think of a time when Obama reached out to Republicans in a meaningful way. What he has done is rubbed the Republicans' noses in his victory whenever possible. Remember the "I won" comment after an early meeting with Congressional leaders?

I think Obama's trying to play both sides of the political spectrum with this new approach. He needs to keep his left flank happy by attacking Republicans while at least sounding like he's trying to work with Republicans to appease his right flank and the Independents who voted for him. After a year of playing to his left flank, though, his strategy to move towards the center may not work because it isn't credible. It looks like an act of political expediency more than principle.

My only piece of advice to the President on this is if he's really holding out an olive branch to the Republicans as a sign he wants to work with them, he'd better not be hiding the hatchet he used to cut down that branch behind his back.

The Real Fluke

In the aftermath of Scott Brown's stunning victory to win the Massachusetts Senate seat held by the late Ted Kennedy, Leftists and the media have been trying to figure out a way to minimize the impact of said victory. One of the most popular is that Brown's victory was a fluke, that he merely tapped into the country's anger against Barack Obama and/or the Democrats. I'm sure they're sincere in their beliefs (or at least as sincere as Leftists can be), but they're missing the point. Conservatives and Republicans, too, aren't looking at the big picture. Yes, dear readers, the Brown victory was not a fluke victory by any stretch of the imagination.

Go back a few months to New York-23, and you'll see the real fluke. In that race, an established Democrat with the backing of a Republican (who, surprise surprise, was being backed by a different arm of the same Leftist political enterprise, ACORN) barely beat a member of the Conservative Party. For those of you unfamiliar with the facts in this case, the Conservative Party is a separate party in New York State from the Republican Party. In other words, they're a third party. When you consider a third party candidate with less time in the race than the other two candidates almost knocked off the Democrat in an election season where public discontent against government was already high, it's clear that the Democrats were lucky to come away with that victory.

Of course, at the time, the media and the Left were crowing about "taking the seat away from the GOP, who held it since the Civil War." (Of course, that's not true, as NY-23 was represented by a Democrat way back in 1993, but let's not get into those details here.) They were so psyched about their win that they overlooked a good chunk of the whole picture, and that cost them in Massachusetts.

Now that the Left is in full excuse mode, it's unlikely they will look at Brown's victory as anything but a hiccup, a once-in-a-lifetime thing. The problem is that it's not.

It's a sign of things to come.