Bipartisan? Obama's guns are pointed at America!
I can hardly wait for this health care debacle to be voted in. Then I won’t have to worry about keeping myself healthy. Hussein’s medical board or death squad, whatever you wish to call it, will decide what I need or don’t need. Being 78 and on medicare, I won’t be making many trips to doctors offices. Isn’t it nice that doctors won’t have to prescribe? Just send your medical profile to the death squad and ask them if it’s time you should go. Thank God that medical board won’t be able to send me to the same place George Soros is going, as well as half of Wall Street and three quarters of our politicians – especially those voting in this monstrosity of a bill to screw the American people. Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi… I hear your names being called immediately after Barney Frank and Charlie Rangel.
This health care bill is the most unpopular of any bill ever enacted in Congress and the voice of the American people is not only not heard – it’s DISREGARDED! More crooks and bribery have been uncovered during this proceeding than ever before. Mary Landrieu, Ben Nelson, Chris Dodd, Kent Conrad, Max Baucus, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Barney Frank, and the Democrat list goes on – these thugs are marching to a different drummer than the American citizens. I guess deadbeats have their own beats to march to. This bill’s negotiations have been as transparent as a painted-over window; as bipartisan as a Hatfield and McCoy homecoming.
I am praying that Scott Brown will be elected and a possibility that the Democrats won’t have a filibuster-proof majority to cram in bills that the majority of people don’t want. Another bit of skulduggery just happened. The unions got a pass on taxes for Cadillac health care plans. But other citizens will not get this pass. Academia rules in the Hussein administration and somehow they think that inequality makes equality. So much for the minds of academia. Notice how the Hussein administration is composed of academia. All other Presidents had a majority, in their administration, of business managers who know how the economy works. Words written by someone else and read off of a teleprompter by a talented speaker do not make an inept policy work.
See attached:
Obama’s rapturous style versus tea party substance
By:
Senior Political Analyst
January 13, 2010
Taxpayers rally at a “tea party” April 15, 2009 in Winchester, Virginia. (Examiner photo/Byron York) In his New York Times column last week, David Brooks contrasted “the educated class,” which supports Barack Obama and his liberal worldview, with the tea party movement, “a large, fractious confederation of Americans who are defined by what they are against, … the concentrated power of the educated class.”
Many conservatives read Brooks as putting down the tea partiers. I think he was indicating distaste for both sides. “I’m not a fan” of the tea party movement, he wrote, but he also noted, “Every single idea associated with the educated class has grown more unpopular over the year.”
Still, it sounds like Brooks was indulging the conceit of so many liberals that they are, well, simply smarter than conservatives.
But when you look back over the surges of enthusiasm in the politics of the last two years, you see something like this: The Obama enthusiasts who dominated so much of the 2008 campaign cycle were motivated by style. The tea party protesters who dominated so much of 2009 were motivated by substance.
Remember those rapturous crowds that swooned at Barack Obama’s rhetoric. “We are the change we are seeking,” he proclaimed. “We will be able to look back and tell our children,” that “this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal.”
A lot of style there, but not very much substance. A Brookings Institution scholar who produced nothing more than that would soon be looking for a new job.
In retrospect, the Obama enthusiasts seem to have been motivated by a yearning for a rapturous, nuanced leader. Send that terrible tyrant with his tortured sentences and moral certitude back to Texas and install The One in the White House, and all would be well.
The Obama enthusiasts have achieved that goal, and perhaps it’s not surprising that, as polls show, they’re not much engaged in the details of the health care bills or cap-and-trade legislation or looming tax increases and the like. They, or at least most of them, were never much interested in those things anyway.
In contrast, the tea party protesters, many of them as fractious and loudmouthed as David Brooks thinks, are interested in substantive political issues. They decry the dangers of expanding the national debt, increasing government spending, and putting government in command of the health care sector.
Their concerns have basis in fact. The national debt is on a trajectory to double as a percentage of the economy over 10 years, and the Democrats’ health care bills threaten to bend the cost curve up. Higher taxes could choke off economic recovery and keep unemployment up near double-digit rates for years.
Last year’s stimulus bill surreptitiously raised the budget baseline for many domestic spending programs and sent money to state and local governments — a payoff to the public employee unions who spent more than $100 million to elect Democrats in 2008.
Agree with the tea party folk or not, these are substantive public policy issues of fundamental importance.
Or look at other issues on which Brooks notes, correctly, that Americans have been moving away from positions “associated with the educated class.”
The educated class thinks that gun control can reduce crime. But over the last 15 years, crime rates have plummeted thanks to Giuliani-type police tactics and while 40 states have laws permitting law-abiding citizens to get licenses to carry concealed weapons.
“The educated class believes in global warming,” Brooks notes. But ordinary Americans have been noticing that temperatures have not been rising in the last decade as climate scientists’ models predicted, and they may have noticed those Climategate e-mails that show how climate scientists have been jiggering the statistics and suppressing opposing views.
On these issues the educated class is faith-based and the ordinary Americans who increasingly reject their views are fact-based, just as the Obama enthusiasts are motivated by style and the tea partiers by substance.
As the educated class bitterly clings to its contempt for the increasing numbers not enlightened enough to share its views, other Americans have noticed, even in the liberal heartland of Massachusetts, where Republican Scott Brown seems on the brink of an upset victory in the special Senate election next Tuesday. That would have reverberations for the educated class an awful lot like that tea party back in 1773.
See this other attached item:
Noemie Emery: Obama’s education of little use to his presidency
By:
Examiner Columnist
January 13, 2010David Brooks notes that in the last year, something dire has happened: The public has turned decisively against the “educated classes” and all of their works. At the same time, it has also moved against Barack Obama, who began his term with approval ratings that bumped up against 70, and have now sunk to the high to mid-40s, with “strongly disapprove” ratings that rival those of George W. Bush at his worst.
It has also moved strongly against his — and the educated classes’ — ideas. It is more pro-life, more anti-climate change, more free market, less statist, more inclined to favor “harsh” measures against terrorism suspects, more in favor of “waterboarding” the terrorist caught in the brief-bombing effort, more opposed to the closing of Guantanamo Bay.
While the liberal Left controls the White House along with both houses of Congress, the country it governs has moved to the Right. These phenomena are all interrelated: The country is moving Right in reaction to Obama’s theories of governance, and Obama and the educated class are one and the same.
He epitomizes that class and was sold by that class to the country, which purchased the product and has come to regret it. It now wants its money returned.
In a sense, Obama has never been more than his education (Columbia, Harvard), which for some people was more than enough. When Brooks met Obama in 2005, the new senator had no experience and no accomplishments, but he was perfectly briefed in the requisite talking points.
“As they chewed over the finer points of Edmund Burke, it didn’t take long for the two men to click,” Gabriel Sherman wrote in the New Republic. On the basis of this, Brooks decided Obama was “dazzling,” would one day become “a very good president” and should run for that office as quickly as possible. He compared him to Burke in his subtle complexity.
“Run, Barack, Run,” he wrote a year later, on the grounds that crisis required his talents. “I divide people into people who talk like us and who don’t talk like us,” he admitted to Sherman. He then paid Obama the ultimate compliment, by saying he could write for the New Republic himself.
He was hardly alone. People in newsrooms all over the country decided that someone who talked the way they did was the cure for what ailed the country, and are stunned to find out it is not.
His cosmopolitan cool hasn’t defanged the terrorists, who still want to kill us, disarmed North Korea or derailed Iran’s bomb. His knowledge of Burke hasn’t united the country, which is now more divided and angry than ever.
Obama, Brooks concedes, has “recoiled” the country, but seems at a loss to say why.
Could it be that The One has misjudged both the times and the country?; that he made a strategic mistake in pushing for health care (and a tactical one in trusting the Congress)?; that he created a nightmare for most in his party, who face epic losses this year? Heaven forfend.
To acknowledge this is to indict their own judgment, to face the fact they themselves may be less than insightful, that “talking like us” means next to nothing, and that writing for magazines doesn’t equip one for greatness, or leadership. In fact, it only equips one to write for more magazines.
And what does this say? That our “educated class” is educated beyond its intelligence, and mistakes mastery of its patois and attitude for wisdom and competence.
It is full of itself, and values too highly its skill sets, which are entertaining, but not on the optimum level of consequence. On this optimum level are resolution, moral clarity, and an ability to understand and connect with a great many people, things for which the chattering class is not known. This class fooled itself, and much of the country, for which the country will not soon forgive it.
Obama is president, but he isn’t a good one, and he has long ceased to dazzle. He and the educated classes rose (briefly) together, and his failures and fall are their own.
Hussein, his administration, and the Democratic Congress (made up of academia) hate the people of the tea parties, but I would say any member of the tea party has more common sense than any five academia. Senator Schumer calls Scott Brown a “tea bagger”, in the usual Democratic way of putting people down. Looking at the record of Martha Coakley, she is definitely not a tea bagger, but shows how she has no concern about child molestation. Schumer should be careful. There could be some tea party people in New York. Martha Coakley is some smart lady. She has figured out before anyone else that there are no al-Qaeda remaining in Afghanistan!
