I've been away for a bit, but the world just kept a-spinnin'. Hence, another edition of Quick Hits.
- The media have finally found out who did the posters of President Obama as the Joker from "The Dark Knight." Yet, they couldn't have been bothered to look into Obama's connection to Tony Rezko or ACORN?
- The health care town hall meetings have proven to be more contentious than the Left anticipated, but one has to ask whether they gave any consideration to the notion that people might not like having the government take over a significant portion of the economy. Their reaction has been to attack or diminish those people who reject Obamacare, which not only angers those people, but makes them look like ham-fisted buffoons. And they're supposed to be the smart ones?
- Am I the only one who doesn't give a flying handshake about Jon and Kate Gosselin? With all the important issues out there to be discussed, should we be paying this much attention to a divorcing couple from a reality show?
- I have a suggestion for the airlines: have the people who are sitting in window seats on a flight board before people sitting in the aisle or middle seats. It would make the boarding process move a lot more quickly than it does now.
- The federal Cash for Clunkers program has run out of money, which has required Congress to request more money to keep it running. Sounds like the program has fit the definition of a clunker, but I don't think we'll be able to get $4500 for it.
- Rassmussen polls show Obama's job approval rating has been sliding and his favorability index is in negative territory. Yet, he's still on magazine covers with the frequency of a movie star going through a scandal of some sort. If there's any indication of how far out of touch the mainstream media have become, it's this.
- Remember when the Left said dissent was patriotic? Now, they're doing everything in their power to stifle dissent. Ah, to be a Leftist and not to be held to any consistent standards... (And, no, I wasn't one of the conservatives who said the Leftists who dissented to President Bush's policies were unpatriotic because they dissented.)
- The Obama Administration has shut down the email box for people to submit "misinformation" about Obama's health care reform ideas, according to Politico. Although this information can still be submitted through other means, the fact they even had this online tip line is concerning. And when you consider the Administration is alleged to have been sending out emails extolling the virtues of the Obama plan, I think we can see why there was such trepidation.
And finally...
- Say what you will about Hollywood, they can still put out a decent summer fluff film. When the temperature is on the rise (or even when it's not), take the time to head to a movie and forget your worries. Oh, and be prepared to pay through the nose for treats.
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
Wednesday, August 5, 2009
Project Much?
Michael Savage loves to say that liberalism is a mental disorder, and he's wrong. However, he is onto something in that the Left today is teeming with psychological disorders that taint its worldview. One of these disorders is called projection. For the uninitiated, projection is when someone attributes personal faults to others in an attempt to make himself or herself feel better.
Such is the case with the Left's attempts to paint anyone who disagrees with President Obama's attempt to reform health insurance as organized rabblerousers bought and paid for by special interests. They truly believe everybody aligned against Obama's health insurance bill is working for The Man. (If so, I'm making lousy money speaking out against Obamacare, but that's another story.)
The reason they feel this way is because the Left does the same thing. Remember those protesters outside AIG? Bought and paid for by our good friends at ACORN. People who picket outside of WalMarts because WalMart is non-union? Bought and paid for by labor unions. Code Pink? Brought to you by George Soros. Put simply, if there's a group of Leftists protesting anything, it's a good bet there's a Leftist paying for it to happen.
On the other hand, who's really funding the health insurance protests or the Tea Parties? They might have gotten some funds from conservative groups, but most of it was and is homegrown. And that's what scares the Left the most: that these groups harranging Democrats and Republicans who favor Obamacare are average Americans who are sick of Congress spending money we don't have on something most Americans don't need or want. It signals that the American people aren't taking Obama and Congress at their word anymore.
So what does the Left do? Instead of fixing the problems in their own midst, they assume the right does what they do and then attacks it as "dishonest" and "thuggery by special interest groups."
Yeah. Guess how much credibility I give that.
Such is the case with the Left's attempts to paint anyone who disagrees with President Obama's attempt to reform health insurance as organized rabblerousers bought and paid for by special interests. They truly believe everybody aligned against Obama's health insurance bill is working for The Man. (If so, I'm making lousy money speaking out against Obamacare, but that's another story.)
The reason they feel this way is because the Left does the same thing. Remember those protesters outside AIG? Bought and paid for by our good friends at ACORN. People who picket outside of WalMarts because WalMart is non-union? Bought and paid for by labor unions. Code Pink? Brought to you by George Soros. Put simply, if there's a group of Leftists protesting anything, it's a good bet there's a Leftist paying for it to happen.
On the other hand, who's really funding the health insurance protests or the Tea Parties? They might have gotten some funds from conservative groups, but most of it was and is homegrown. And that's what scares the Left the most: that these groups harranging Democrats and Republicans who favor Obamacare are average Americans who are sick of Congress spending money we don't have on something most Americans don't need or want. It signals that the American people aren't taking Obama and Congress at their word anymore.
So what does the Left do? Instead of fixing the problems in their own midst, they assume the right does what they do and then attacks it as "dishonest" and "thuggery by special interest groups."
Yeah. Guess how much credibility I give that.
Saturday, August 1, 2009
Harry Reid's Disinformation Campaign
On Thursday, Harry Reid came out and did something that I never thought I'd see a Democrat do: he attacked the media. In a statement, he said it was the media who set an artificial deadline of the August recess to pass President Obama's health care reform bill:
“That is a deadline that you created,” Reid told a group of about 75 reporters. “It’s not like we don’t have a product. Significant progress has been made … The mere fact that this wasn't done by last Friday or by five o’clock doesn't mean we’re not going to get a quality product." [http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/senate-dems-blame-media-for-august-health-deadline-2009-07-30.html]
When I heard that, I didn't think Reid was telling the truth. He is a Senator after all. And, sure enough, he wasn't. Turns out Reid himself was one of the many voices who either set the time frame or went along with it, as a blog post from Trish Turner at FoxNews.com points out. [http://congress.blogs.foxnews.com/2009/07/30/dear-sen-reid-the-media-didnt-do-it/]
Reid and a few Senate Democrats also took swipes as more predictable targets: the Senate Republicans for holding up a bipartisan health care reform bill, the insurance industry for dumping millions of dollars into opposition research, doctors who opposed the health care reform bill for not understanding the severity of the problems with America's health care system.
But here's the thing: it's all one big lie, perpetuated by a small lie in Reid's case. The media didn't wake up one morning and say, "Let's set up an artificial time frame for Obama's health care plan so that when they fail we have something to talk about." If anything, the media have been one of Obama's greatest tools in getting his message out, in spite of everything that's come about within the past 2 months or so where the media have pushed back on Obama. So, why did Reid come out and attack the organ that can make or break Obama's health care bill?
Politics.
Some of Reid's targets were predictable, but there's one target that is just under the surface that Reid didn't name outright, but is still a target. I think Reid did what he did as a means to blame the House Democrats and Nancy Pelosi in particular for hamstringing the health care reform bill. Although the "Blue Dog" Democrats were the prime movers behind the House bill being delayed, Reid knows there's enough criticism of Pelosi's leadership to be had. The issue became how to address it. Reid's tirade against the media provided that vehicle.
Reid had a few objectives with his press conference, but at the top of the list was to run intereference for the Obama Administration at a time when it needed help keeping the wheels on the wagon. By doing that, Reid is setting himself up as the good guy, with Pelosi being the bad guy...or gal in this case. I've said that the tension between Reid and Pelosi right now would hurt Obama in the long run because Reid and Pelosi act like a privy council from the Middle Ages. They know Obama lacks the political sophistication they've developed, so they try to guide him and shape him into the President they want him to be.
Ah, but there's a catch. Reid and Pelosi have their own agendas fused with their attempts to shape Obama's future, and those agendas put them at odds with each other. With Pelosi's failure to produce a workable health care reform bill before the August Congressional recess, Reid saw an opportunity to assert himself as Obama's "only true friend in Washington." That's where the attack on the media and his fellow Senate Democrats' attacks on doctors, the Senate Republicans, and the insurance industry come into play. By attacking those obvious targets, Reid makes himself look like a champion, while subtlely taking digs at Pelosi for her failure.
With one press conference, Harry Reid set forth a disinformation campaign that could have serious consequences down the road, especially if the House fails to pass Obama's health care reform package. But the one who stands to gain the most in either case is Reid himself. If the House passes the bill, he'll get a chance to prove his leadership. If the House fails, Reid can go back and say that it would have passed if Pelosi hadn't been so incompetent as Speaker of the House. It's a complete win-win for Reid.
And it all started with an attack on the media.
“That is a deadline that you created,” Reid told a group of about 75 reporters. “It’s not like we don’t have a product. Significant progress has been made … The mere fact that this wasn't done by last Friday or by five o’clock doesn't mean we’re not going to get a quality product." [http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/senate-dems-blame-media-for-august-health-deadline-2009-07-30.html]
When I heard that, I didn't think Reid was telling the truth. He is a Senator after all. And, sure enough, he wasn't. Turns out Reid himself was one of the many voices who either set the time frame or went along with it, as a blog post from Trish Turner at FoxNews.com points out. [http://congress.blogs.foxnews.com/2009/07/30/dear-sen-reid-the-media-didnt-do-it/]
Reid and a few Senate Democrats also took swipes as more predictable targets: the Senate Republicans for holding up a bipartisan health care reform bill, the insurance industry for dumping millions of dollars into opposition research, doctors who opposed the health care reform bill for not understanding the severity of the problems with America's health care system.
But here's the thing: it's all one big lie, perpetuated by a small lie in Reid's case. The media didn't wake up one morning and say, "Let's set up an artificial time frame for Obama's health care plan so that when they fail we have something to talk about." If anything, the media have been one of Obama's greatest tools in getting his message out, in spite of everything that's come about within the past 2 months or so where the media have pushed back on Obama. So, why did Reid come out and attack the organ that can make or break Obama's health care bill?
Politics.
Some of Reid's targets were predictable, but there's one target that is just under the surface that Reid didn't name outright, but is still a target. I think Reid did what he did as a means to blame the House Democrats and Nancy Pelosi in particular for hamstringing the health care reform bill. Although the "Blue Dog" Democrats were the prime movers behind the House bill being delayed, Reid knows there's enough criticism of Pelosi's leadership to be had. The issue became how to address it. Reid's tirade against the media provided that vehicle.
Reid had a few objectives with his press conference, but at the top of the list was to run intereference for the Obama Administration at a time when it needed help keeping the wheels on the wagon. By doing that, Reid is setting himself up as the good guy, with Pelosi being the bad guy...or gal in this case. I've said that the tension between Reid and Pelosi right now would hurt Obama in the long run because Reid and Pelosi act like a privy council from the Middle Ages. They know Obama lacks the political sophistication they've developed, so they try to guide him and shape him into the President they want him to be.
Ah, but there's a catch. Reid and Pelosi have their own agendas fused with their attempts to shape Obama's future, and those agendas put them at odds with each other. With Pelosi's failure to produce a workable health care reform bill before the August Congressional recess, Reid saw an opportunity to assert himself as Obama's "only true friend in Washington." That's where the attack on the media and his fellow Senate Democrats' attacks on doctors, the Senate Republicans, and the insurance industry come into play. By attacking those obvious targets, Reid makes himself look like a champion, while subtlely taking digs at Pelosi for her failure.
With one press conference, Harry Reid set forth a disinformation campaign that could have serious consequences down the road, especially if the House fails to pass Obama's health care reform package. But the one who stands to gain the most in either case is Reid himself. If the House passes the bill, he'll get a chance to prove his leadership. If the House fails, Reid can go back and say that it would have passed if Pelosi hadn't been so incompetent as Speaker of the House. It's a complete win-win for Reid.
And it all started with an attack on the media.
Friday, July 31, 2009
A Real "Cash for Clunkers" Program
Remember the federal government's "Cash for Clunkers" program? Ah, those were the days, back when the government had a billion dollars to hand out to people who wanted to trade in old cars to get more fuel efficient cars. And now five days later, "Cash for Clunkers" is ironically being junked, at least for now.
Aside from the lack of money, the bad planning, the people taking advantage of the system for "free" money, and, oh yeah, people using the money to buy newer, fuel-inefficient vehicles, "Cash for Clunkers" was a great idea. In fact, I'm going to use it, but in a different way.
Right now (and for quite a few years now), Congress has been a joke. Congress-critters don't seem to listen to their constituents when we ask them to consider being fiscally responsible or at least acknowledge our needs before taking lobbyist money. They simply can't do the job very well right now, at least not without a lot of work.
That's right, boys and girls. I'm starting the Cash for Congress-Clunkers program. If you're sick of politicians betraying you, I'm going to ask you to give money to people running against them. Sure, it's not the same as $4500 in cold hard (taxpayer) cash, but you'll get the satisfaction of putting someone in power that wouldn't dream of giving $4500 on a badly-run program in the first place.
And I think that's going to be worth more than anything the "Cash for Clunkers" program could ever give.
Aside from the lack of money, the bad planning, the people taking advantage of the system for "free" money, and, oh yeah, people using the money to buy newer, fuel-inefficient vehicles, "Cash for Clunkers" was a great idea. In fact, I'm going to use it, but in a different way.
Right now (and for quite a few years now), Congress has been a joke. Congress-critters don't seem to listen to their constituents when we ask them to consider being fiscally responsible or at least acknowledge our needs before taking lobbyist money. They simply can't do the job very well right now, at least not without a lot of work.
That's right, boys and girls. I'm starting the Cash for Congress-Clunkers program. If you're sick of politicians betraying you, I'm going to ask you to give money to people running against them. Sure, it's not the same as $4500 in cold hard (taxpayer) cash, but you'll get the satisfaction of putting someone in power that wouldn't dream of giving $4500 on a badly-run program in the first place.
And I think that's going to be worth more than anything the "Cash for Clunkers" program could ever give.
Thursday, July 30, 2009
A New Post by Stella Rondo
I used to work in something called Organizational Change Management which is fancy schmanzty consultant-speak for "the structured process of leading an organization through the very predictable difficulties that they'll encounter as they go through any change."
The fact is, even if it's the right idea at the right time, most change efforts eventually fail. The primary reason for this is that those leading the change don't account for and address the resistance they are inevitably going to get. It sounds so obvious and simple, and yet it's a consistently ignored factor.
So even if Obama health care bill passed, I think there's a good chance it would eventually collapse in implementation for two reasons:
First, Obama has done a poor job of the most basic step: He has not identified the correct problem - he merely identifies symptoms ("47 million without insurance"). Also, he cannot tell you in a coherent and relatively simple fashion what the solution is going to look like. He had a preconceived idea of the solution he wanted to use (government) and shaped the problem to fit his solution, not the other way around. So he is trying to implement the wrong solution on a problem that can't be defined on a population that, according to polls, increasingly does not want.
Second, Obama is trying to force a solution that goes contrary to core American culture. By culture, I don't mean Britney Spears and American Idol. (Consultant speak alert!) Culture is all the unspoken assumptions a group holds about the world and how it works, if the group has survived by conforming to those assumptions. Culture provides the unspoken context and answers for every thing we do, from "why does our group exist?" to "How will we talk to each other?" to "What happens when you make mistakes?"
We used to say,"'culture eats strategy for breakfast", and Obama does not realize what he's up against when he tries impose a change that goes contrary to it. Culture is so powerful that people will deny, minimize, ridicule, or dismiss the reality of what they see or experience if it conflicts with their core cultural assumptions. (This is why so many people cannot believe that Obama would deliberately do anything to harm the country - their cultural assumption is that all presidents love America and have her best interests at heart.)
The polls reflect these types of cultural assumptions - the public does NOT think that government is the best place to solve problems, they do NOT want larger government, they do NOT like all this spending, and they do NOT want to lose the individual freedom they have to determine their own lives. And yet that is the very type of solution Obama seems intent on implementing.
So should the bill pass, Obama is entering implementation with a poorly defined problem, a poorly defined solution, and a resistant, increasingly hostile, and impatient public whose core cultural beliefs are attacked. I would not be surprised to eventually see things like a return of Congress to the GOP, doctor strikes, public marches, computer programming snafus, "sick-outs", and computer hackings, to name just a few ways in which people could resist.
I know people voted for "change" - but here's what I came to learn about that. When people say they want change, they really want one of three things: 1) some novelty, 2) some relief, or 3) for the OTHER guy to change to their lives will go back to 'normal' without them having to expend any effort. People do NOT willingly vote to change their entire concept of self and country, which is what Obama is imposing - and why he ultimately will fail.
The fact is, even if it's the right idea at the right time, most change efforts eventually fail. The primary reason for this is that those leading the change don't account for and address the resistance they are inevitably going to get. It sounds so obvious and simple, and yet it's a consistently ignored factor.
So even if Obama health care bill passed, I think there's a good chance it would eventually collapse in implementation for two reasons:
First, Obama has done a poor job of the most basic step: He has not identified the correct problem - he merely identifies symptoms ("47 million without insurance"). Also, he cannot tell you in a coherent and relatively simple fashion what the solution is going to look like. He had a preconceived idea of the solution he wanted to use (government) and shaped the problem to fit his solution, not the other way around. So he is trying to implement the wrong solution on a problem that can't be defined on a population that, according to polls, increasingly does not want.
Second, Obama is trying to force a solution that goes contrary to core American culture. By culture, I don't mean Britney Spears and American Idol. (Consultant speak alert!) Culture is all the unspoken assumptions a group holds about the world and how it works, if the group has survived by conforming to those assumptions. Culture provides the unspoken context and answers for every thing we do, from "why does our group exist?" to "How will we talk to each other?" to "What happens when you make mistakes?"
We used to say,"'culture eats strategy for breakfast", and Obama does not realize what he's up against when he tries impose a change that goes contrary to it. Culture is so powerful that people will deny, minimize, ridicule, or dismiss the reality of what they see or experience if it conflicts with their core cultural assumptions. (This is why so many people cannot believe that Obama would deliberately do anything to harm the country - their cultural assumption is that all presidents love America and have her best interests at heart.)
The polls reflect these types of cultural assumptions - the public does NOT think that government is the best place to solve problems, they do NOT want larger government, they do NOT like all this spending, and they do NOT want to lose the individual freedom they have to determine their own lives. And yet that is the very type of solution Obama seems intent on implementing.
So should the bill pass, Obama is entering implementation with a poorly defined problem, a poorly defined solution, and a resistant, increasingly hostile, and impatient public whose core cultural beliefs are attacked. I would not be surprised to eventually see things like a return of Congress to the GOP, doctor strikes, public marches, computer programming snafus, "sick-outs", and computer hackings, to name just a few ways in which people could resist.
I know people voted for "change" - but here's what I came to learn about that. When people say they want change, they really want one of three things: 1) some novelty, 2) some relief, or 3) for the OTHER guy to change to their lives will go back to 'normal' without them having to expend any effort. People do NOT willingly vote to change their entire concept of self and country, which is what Obama is imposing - and why he ultimately will fail.
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
Obamacare Version 1
There's a lot of attention being put on President Obama's health care reform bill making its way through the House of Representatives right now. The Right wants to defeat it for any number of reasons, but there's one possibility I haven't heard too many Republicans and conservatives touch on yet.
The current bill is not the end, but a beginning.
Instead of trying for health care reform in one shot like Bill Clinton tried to do in 1993-1994, Obama seems to be taking the reform idea in a different direction. The foundation of it has been laid with the murky Obamacare bill in the House. It's so complex that no one seems to be able to understand it fully, and those who try are finding disturbing elements to it that will hamstring the country if it becomes law.
But it's not about getting a good bill on Obama's desk to sign. It's about setting the stage for full government control of the American health care system. If the Obamacare bill gets passed by the House and Senate and signed into law with the "public option" in place, it won't do anything to the system at first. People who have private insurance will continue to use it and people who need the public option will use it.
Then, when the public option starts to break down (and, rest assured, it will), the government already has a foot in the door and can ram through other legislation designed to prop up the public option at the expense of the private option. Once the public option starts showing signs of failure, Obama and/or his Congressional Democrat friends will demand that the public option be put on par with the private option, which will require two things: 1) more taxpayer money going to the flawed public option, and 2) penalties levied against private insurance to decrease their effectiveness. When this fails to get the desired results (as I'm sure it will), the process will be repeated until private insurance is either too expensive or too ineffective to compete with the public option.
Of course, the Obamacare supporters won't tell you this, either out of sheer ignorance or blatant dishonesty. They want there to be choice at the outset so that there's the illusion of choice throughout their plan until the government takes over all control of health care in America. Remember, the former Soviet Union bragged about its free elections, in spite of the fact that there were usually only two candidates running, they were both communists, and people were told who to vote for ahead of time. The Obamacare bill is set up exactly the same way: give people the notion that they can choose, but make the choice so useless as to be indistinguishable from the "choice" Leftists want you to take.
Before I let this topic go for now, let me ask you a question. Why can't Obama or his supporters give specifics as to what the Obamacare bill will do? Simple. Because it's not about the details of the plan. It's about getting something through as a launching pad for other, more devious initiatives down the road.
The current bill is not the end, but a beginning.
Instead of trying for health care reform in one shot like Bill Clinton tried to do in 1993-1994, Obama seems to be taking the reform idea in a different direction. The foundation of it has been laid with the murky Obamacare bill in the House. It's so complex that no one seems to be able to understand it fully, and those who try are finding disturbing elements to it that will hamstring the country if it becomes law.
But it's not about getting a good bill on Obama's desk to sign. It's about setting the stage for full government control of the American health care system. If the Obamacare bill gets passed by the House and Senate and signed into law with the "public option" in place, it won't do anything to the system at first. People who have private insurance will continue to use it and people who need the public option will use it.
Then, when the public option starts to break down (and, rest assured, it will), the government already has a foot in the door and can ram through other legislation designed to prop up the public option at the expense of the private option. Once the public option starts showing signs of failure, Obama and/or his Congressional Democrat friends will demand that the public option be put on par with the private option, which will require two things: 1) more taxpayer money going to the flawed public option, and 2) penalties levied against private insurance to decrease their effectiveness. When this fails to get the desired results (as I'm sure it will), the process will be repeated until private insurance is either too expensive or too ineffective to compete with the public option.
Of course, the Obamacare supporters won't tell you this, either out of sheer ignorance or blatant dishonesty. They want there to be choice at the outset so that there's the illusion of choice throughout their plan until the government takes over all control of health care in America. Remember, the former Soviet Union bragged about its free elections, in spite of the fact that there were usually only two candidates running, they were both communists, and people were told who to vote for ahead of time. The Obamacare bill is set up exactly the same way: give people the notion that they can choose, but make the choice so useless as to be indistinguishable from the "choice" Leftists want you to take.
Before I let this topic go for now, let me ask you a question. Why can't Obama or his supporters give specifics as to what the Obamacare bill will do? Simple. Because it's not about the details of the plan. It's about getting something through as a launching pad for other, more devious initiatives down the road.
When I'm Right...
Since Election 2006, I've taken what seemed to be an unusual stance. I've never bought the notion that the country is moving leftward politically, and I've maintained that belief. At the time (and even after Election 2008), Leftists said that I was desperate to spin the Republicans' defeat into a victory.
In a nutshell, I said at the time that Democrats may have won, but they had to use more conservative Democrats to win. What I've also said is that this makes the House Democrats much more divided than the Left wants us to think they are. Here's what I said in a blog post titled "Why the Dems May Be Doomed in 2008" from November 13, 2007.
The Democrats are in a state of disarray right now, and not just because of the candidates running for President. The party is splintering for a number of reasons: ending the war, impeaching President Bush and Vice President Cheney, the direction of the country and the party, and so on. And when you have people whose egos are so invested in their politics as the modern left's are, that's going to lead to lost votes.
Okay, so the Dems weren't doomed in 2008 as I said they might be, but the point is still valid. At that time, Democrats were starting to grumble about what their party leaders were doing, or not doing as the case may be.
Then, today's Drudge Report featured a story where Maxine Waters is blaming Rahm Emanuel for the "blue dog Democrats" holding up so much of President Obama's agenda. After all, it was Emanuel's strategy to run conservative Democrats in more conservative areas as a means to give the Democrats control of the House of Representatives. It worked, and then it's starting to backfire. Whether it's crap and spayed...I mean cap and trade or Obamacare, the blue dogs are starting to get some backbone and standing up to the House leadership.
And who called it back in 2006-2007?
When I'm right, I'm right.
In a nutshell, I said at the time that Democrats may have won, but they had to use more conservative Democrats to win. What I've also said is that this makes the House Democrats much more divided than the Left wants us to think they are. Here's what I said in a blog post titled "Why the Dems May Be Doomed in 2008" from November 13, 2007.
The Democrats are in a state of disarray right now, and not just because of the candidates running for President. The party is splintering for a number of reasons: ending the war, impeaching President Bush and Vice President Cheney, the direction of the country and the party, and so on. And when you have people whose egos are so invested in their politics as the modern left's are, that's going to lead to lost votes.
Okay, so the Dems weren't doomed in 2008 as I said they might be, but the point is still valid. At that time, Democrats were starting to grumble about what their party leaders were doing, or not doing as the case may be.
Then, today's Drudge Report featured a story where Maxine Waters is blaming Rahm Emanuel for the "blue dog Democrats" holding up so much of President Obama's agenda. After all, it was Emanuel's strategy to run conservative Democrats in more conservative areas as a means to give the Democrats control of the House of Representatives. It worked, and then it's starting to backfire. Whether it's crap and spayed...I mean cap and trade or Obamacare, the blue dogs are starting to get some backbone and standing up to the House leadership.
And who called it back in 2006-2007?
When I'm right, I'm right.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)