QandO

Archive for the ‘Freedom and Liberty’ Category

Jay Cost at the Real Clear Politics blog takes on the emerging liberal canard about America suddenly becoming “ungovernable”:

Recently, some analysts have suggested that the lack of major policy breakthroughs in the last year is due to the fact that America has become ungovernable. Ezra Klein argued that it was time to reform the filibuster because the government cannot function with it intact anymore. Tom Friedman suggested that America’s “political instability” was making people abroad nervous. And Michael Cohen of Newsweek blamed “obstructionist Republicans,” “spineless Democrats,” and an “incoherent public” for the problem.

Nonsense. America is not ungovernable. Her President has simply not been up to the job.

Cost goes on to lay out, in some pretty good detail why he claims Obama hasn’t been up to the job. And I think he does a pretty thorough job. Be sure to read it all.

He also mentions something in there that I think is lost on the left and sometimes the right. While for many of us, we’ve seen government grow well beyond what we find acceptable or prudent, we actually could be worse off. And one of the reasons we’re not is the inherent design of the system of government we have. The same design many on the left now find frustrating and obstructive.

Let’s acknowledge that governing the United States of America is an extremely difficult task. Intentionally so. When designing our system, the Founders were faced with a dilemma. How to empower a vigorous government without endangering liberty or true republicanism? On the one hand, George III’s government was effective at satisfying the will of the sovereign, but that will had become tyrannical. On the other hand, the Articles of Confederation acknowledged the rights of the states, but so much so that the federal government was incapable of solving basic problems.

The solution the country ultimately settled on had five important features: checks and balances so that the branches would police one another; a large republic so that majority sentiment was fleeting and not intensely felt; a Senate where the states would be equal; enumerated congressional powers to limit the scope of governmental authority; and the Bill of Rights to offer extra protection against the government.

The end result was a government that is powerful, but not infinitely so. Additionally, it is schizophrenic. It can do great things when it is of a single mind – but quite often it is not of one mind. So, to govern, our leaders need to build a broad consensus. When there is no such consensus, the most likely outcome is that the government will do nothing.

The President’s two major initiatives – cap-and-trade and health care – have failed because there was not a broad consensus to enact them. Our system is heavily biased against such proposals. That’s a good thing.

So, as Cost points out, governing America is hard. But that’s a feature not a bug. It is intentionally hard because within that system is a means for the minority to be heard. That’s a critical feature. Because of that feature, the majority isn’t able to ram through legislation that isn’t acceptable to a broad base of the voting constituency. Health care reform and cap-and-trade represent legislation that has been found wanting in that regard. So the left, who used it like a Stradivarius when they were in the minority, now want that check eliminated in the Senate (kill the filibuster) and pine for the good old days of elite rule when, they claim, ramming through major legislation was so much easier.

No real surprise there.

Which brings me to Richard Fernandez’s take on this subject. He agrees with 99% of what Cost says, but says there is 1% where he’d differ:

The Left doesn’t want to govern, it wants to rule given the chance. It is as always willing to leave its own Big Tent behind at the decisive moment. The continual calls from the Democrat Left for Obama to ‘grow a spine’ are really coded calls to say that the moment is now; that the President must ‘’seize the day, seize the hour”. It’s not as Cost imagines, a call to compromise. It’s a call to say that the time for compromise is over. They can drop the mask; they can hoist the Jolly Roger.

I think Fernandez is right. Remember “I won” soon after Obama’s assumption of power? That bit of gloating was a moment the mask dropped.

The left would much rather rule than govern. It is certainly easier. And it tends to agree more with their authoritarian bent.

Governing is a messy and hard business in which they must listen and react to constituents. It means they actually are servants to the public. On the other hand, ruling means the elite choose what the constituency should live with since it is believed by them that the elite know best what that should be. Those they represent exist only to justify the presence of their rulers. The only difference between our left wing and that which founded the USSR is ours haven’t ever had the chance to effect the change those in Soviet Russia did. To this point, our system has mostly prevented it. But redistribution of income, more government intrusiveness and more government control are certainly the obvious desired results of most of the left’s agenda.

And, much to the frustration of the left, the system is preventing it again (with the stipulation that the GOP doesn’t find a way to cave and pass the unpopular bills cited above).

I’m not sure what Barack Obama thought he’d be able to do in terms of “ruling” instead of “governing”, but I’m sure that those who supported his “hope and change” agenda weren’t looking for a ruler. However it is clear, per Cost’s article, they’ve not gotten someone who can govern either (back to the leadership problem again). And, somewhat surprisingly, Obama doesn’t seem to understand the situation he’s put himself in as he doubles down on the leftist agenda he’s allowed liberal Congressional Democrats to craft. He, like so many deluded politicians, is convinced the problem with lack of popular support for the agenda is to be found with the message’s delivery, not with the message itself.

Cost concludes with an answer that I think fairly well destroys the “ungovernable” canard:

This remains a divided country, which creates complications in a system such as ours. The President should have recognized this, and governed with a view to building a broad coalition. But he has not.

America is not ungovernable. Barack Obama has so far failed to govern it.

Here’s to further frustration to the left and their agenda by the “ungovernable” among us.

~McQ

That’s the buzz going around some liberal blogs about a Rasmussen poll which claims that a plurality of Republicans polled would rather see tax cuts and a deficit than a balanced budget and tax increases (one supposes the increases would be used to balance it.  The history of our government says otherwise).

Of course I’m of the opinion there’s a third choice.  Cut spending commensurate with the tax cuts and reduce the size of government until you’re able to balance the budget.  Then start reducing the debt.  Apparently that wasn’t one of the choices however.

On to the poll.  Here are the results with which the left has decided it can use to deride the right as lying no-good deficit lovers:

Fifty percent (50%) of conservatives are comfortable with a budget deficit if taxes are cut versus 63% of liberals who favor a balanced budget with higher taxes. But then 50% of conservative voters also think the federal budget can be balanced without a tax increase. Sixty-one percent (61%) of liberals say that’s impossible.

Ah, ha! Apparently my choice is in the mix, albeit hidden – what do you supposed those 50% who think the federal budget can be balanced without a tax increase mean?

So let’s recast the findings – 50% of “conservatives” want tax cuts and can live with deficits, 50% of “conservatives” say a blanced budget can be done with spending cuts and 61% of “liberals” believe the only way to balance the budget is to increase taxes (apparently eschewing any spending cuts).

Fair recap?

Now here’s the shocker for you (ok, sarcasm again):

Sixty-two percent (62%) of the Political Class prefer a balanced budget with higher taxes, compared to just 26% of Mainstream voters. Forty-six percent (46%) of Mainstream voters would rather see a budget deficit with tax cuts.

Those in the Political Class are twice as likely as Mainstream voters – 70% to 35% – to believe it is not possible to balance the federal budget without raising taxes.

This is a clever way Rasmussen has of letting us know what our political betters think about those questions vs. what you the mainstream voters think (Proles! When will you wise up?).

So what this portion of the poll tells us is if the “Political Class” ever actually gets serious about debt and deficit reduction, you can throw the “cut spending” mantra right out the window (along with tax cuts) and bend over while grabbing your wallet.  At the rate they’re spending right now though, “serious about the deficit” is lightyears away from being considered.  Lip service, however, will be extravagent, since it’s politically cheap.

But it is, as usual, instructive to see how out of touch the “Political Class” is with it’s voters. 

And speaking of our policial masters and referencing the story about Joe Biden below, here’s the public’s answer to Bidenomics:

Fifty-three percent (53%) of voters believe decreasing the level of government spending will help the U.S. economy. Sixty-one percent (61%) say cutting taxes will boost the economy, the highest level of support since May.

What are the administion’s plans?  Increased government spending and higher taxes, of course.  If you want to see the “deficit of trust” Obama spoke about in the SOTU, read through the entire poll results.  It tells the story of the rise of the Tea Parties with percentages.

And we’re suposed to be the ‘ungovernable’ ones?

~McQ

E.J. Dionne has apparently mistaken Joe Biden’s passion for intelligent thought.  In an interview with Biden, Dionne quotes him as saying:

“We will continue to be the most significant and dominant influence in the world as long as our economy is strong, growing and responsive to 21st-century needs. And they relate to education, they relate to energy, and they relate to health care.”

On he went: “Give me a break. So many people have bet on our demise that it absolutely drives me crazy. . . . There’s sort of an attitude that is both politically directed by our Republican friends but also believed by a fair number of people that we just can’t make this transition in the 21st century.

“I want to tell you something, because if we cede the ground to those who suggest that — I don’t mean foreigners, I mean domestic critics — that somehow, we are destined to fulfill [historian Paul] Kennedy’s prophecy that we are going to be a great nation that has failed because we lost control of our economy and overextended, then we might as well throw it in now, for God’s sake. I mean it’s ridiculous.”

“We will continue to be the most significant and dominant influence in the world as long as our economy is strong, growing and responsive to 21st-century needs. And they relate to education, they relate to energy, and they relate to health care.”

Read the highlighted paragraph carefully. What is Joe Biden equating a strong economy with? “Education, energy and health care”.

What is he really saying?

That increasing government intervention is the answer to a strong economy.  That the answer lies in education (reform), energy (cap-and-trade) and health care (reform).  IOW, unlike in any previous era, Joe Biden is claiming government is the key to building wealth and economic prosperity.  Not one mention in his clueless tirade about markets, economic freedom, entrepreneurship or business.  None.  In Joe Biden’s world, economic strength seems to depend solely on government.  The fact that the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries of United States history show him up for the windbag he is, apparently doesn’t phase him.  Or Dionne either, for that matter.  It is pure liberal economic cluelessness crossed with Joe Biden’s usual verbal flatulence.  Dionne apparently buys into it.

In fact Dionne goes on to say:

Beneath the predictable back-and-forth between Obama and his Republican adversaries over government spending lies a substantively important difference over how the United States can maintain its global leadership.

[...]

For Republicans, American power is rooted largely in military might and showing a tough and resolute face to the world. They would rely on tax cuts as the one and only spur to economic growth.

Obama, Biden and the Democrats, on the other hand, believe that American power depends ultimately on the American economy, and that government has an essential role to play in fostering the next generation of growth.

Republicans believe that “American power is rooted largely in military might?”

Really!? 

So all those charges of “friends to big business” and “the party of business” were  just so much hot air – that it’s always been about “military power” and nothing else? How purposefully tendentious does one have to be to live in Washington, cover politics for a living and write something like that? 

And then to claim that the GOP’s “one and only spur to economic growth” is the tax cut is absolutely stunning.  You have to wonder if alcohol or weed (or both) were present and in use when this was being written (and I’d have to wonder about those 3 layers of editors as well).  If they can’t use that as an excuse I’m at a loss to explain the sheer cluelessness of such a statement.

Jennifer Rubin at Commentary jumped on this as well:

Republicans don’t care about economic growth? Just military might? Hard to see where he gets that, considering that the post-Reagan conservative movement and the Republican party have been devoted to market capitalism. Indeed, the slur on Republicans has been that all they cared about was wealth creation. Oh, but they are just interested in “tax cuts.” Well, that and free trade, modest regulation, legal reform, and other conditions that spur economic growth, investment, and wealth creation.

If Dionne really believes what he wrote he has no business writing political opinion columns for anyone, much less the Washington Post.  That’s the most ill informed sentence I’ve seen in some time.  And his sentence touting Obama, Biden and the Democrat’s belief that the economy is what America’s power depends on is refuted by Biden’s own words.  Biden is saying the economy depends on government.  Therefore “America’s power” depends on government’s management of the economy – not the economy itself.  When he claims it all depends on “education, energy and health care”, he’s parroting the Democrats agenda for more government intervention, regulation and intrusion.  If you don’t believe that, Rubin provides the proof:

Dionne considers this all trivial or dim because he and liberals are convinced that government creates wealth, that public spending creates jobs, and that expansion of the public sector is the way to a brighter future. In fact, he congratulates the president for cheering on the competition in statism with other powers. In the State of the Union, Dionne recalls, the president vowed that no nation would get the jump on us when it comes to government programs. (”Meanwhile, China is not waiting to revamp its economy. Germany is not waiting. India is not waiting. These nations aren’t standing still. These nations aren’t playing for second place. They’re putting more emphasis on math and science. They’re rebuilding their infrastructure. They’re making serious investments in clean energy because they want those jobs.”)

That’s right, in the SOTU, Obama stressed precisely what Biden is saying and Dionne is parroting.  China – of all places – was first on Obama’s list of nations to apparently emulate.  And not in the sense you’d like to believe.  He didn’t say China’s entrepreneurs are turning that economy around.  He’s talking about government.  The government of  China, the government of Germany, the government of India – they are the purported engines of economic recovery and wealth creation.

Is it any surprise then to find that he, Biden and liberals like Dionne are of the opinion that more government and more government spending is the path to economic success?  A former community organizer, a professional politician and professional pundit all claiming that the laws of economics are null and void and that the path to proseperity is through bigger and more expensive government?  All we need now is Hugo Chavez to add some real intellectual economic heft to that group [/sarcasm].

All the more reason to be thankful the supermajority in the Senate will be history at 5pm today.  The “party of no” has its work cut out for it.

~McQ

In a bit of a surprising move the Virginia Senate has rejected the Obama health care insurance mandate:

Virginia’s Democratic-controlled state Senate passed measures Monday that would make it illegal to require individuals to purchase health insurance, a direct challenge to the party’s efforts in Washington to reform health care.

Let’s just say that “direct challenge” seems to be an understatement here. I was expected that the lower house, the GOP controlled House of Delegates, would pass such a bill, but not the Democratically controlled Senate:

Each of three similar bills that passed the state Senate on Monday would run counter to legislation passed by both chambers of Congress, which would require all individuals to purchase health care.

The bills were also expected to be approved by the GOP-controlled House of Delegates. Gov. Robert F. McDonnell (R) said he will review the bills but supports their intent.

What legal power this would have if such a mandate was passed by Congress is anyone’s guess, but it sure does set up an “interested party” for a law suit doesn’t it?

And, as I implied in the opening, VA isn’t the only state making such moves:

Measures prompted by the Washington debate are pending in at least 29 states, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

VA’s argument is a constitutional one – backers of the bill claim that Congress does not have the constitutional authority to require anyone buy insurance. This bill, if signed into law, puts VA in the position to challenge any such law on those grounds should Congress pass one.

And that is the fate, I believe, of any such reform that Congress tries to pass – lawsuit after lawsuit after lawsuit. And frankly I’m glad to see states trying to reassert their rights in this supposedly federal system. That is another great way to begin reigning in the national government.

Of course most of this is driven by politics and the desire of pols to keep their jobs. Any guess as to what is getting the credit?

The bills, a top priority of Virginia’s “tea party” movement, were approved 23 to 17 as five Democrats who represent swing areas of the state joined all 18 Republicans in the chamber in backing the legislation.

Yeah, baby!

For Congressional Democrats, it’s another warning shot right across the bow.  I have to wonder how many it will take to finally get their attention and have them scuttle that health care reform bill monstrosity on their own?

~McQ

During his State of the Union address, President Obama spoke of the nation suffering from a “deficit of trust” in government.

He’s right.  There is a large and growing deficit of trust in government.  That’s why health care is in trouble.

Obama’s also a big part of that reason.  He’s made some claims that a majority of Americans simply don’t think are true. For instance:

The president in the speech declared that his administration has cut taxes for 95% of Americans. He even chided Republicans for not applauding on that point. However, just 21% of voters nationwide believe that taxes have been cut for 95% of Americans. Most (53%) say it has not happened, and 26% are not sure. Other polling shows that nearly half the nation’s voters expect their own taxes to go up during the Obama years.

Despite what most politicians think, people are not idiots. They’ve watched what Washington has done in terms of spending and spending and spending, and they know someone has to pay for that. They also know the “rich” can’t possibly do that alone and that corporations really don’t pay taxes, they instead collect them. And finally, they understand when they’re being spun. While there may not be an increase in their income taxes this year, they’re seeing all sorts of proposals about new or increased taxes they’ll be paying outside of income taxes. They understand those impose a tax on them that is just as costly as an income tax in terms of their priorities vs. government’s. So the 95% rhetoric was most likely rejected by a good portion of the population as he said it, and another portion has come to realize it was just spin. Result – a deficit of trust in government. And for a good reason.

Then there’s this:

The president also asserted that “after two years of recession, the economy is growing again.” Just 35% of voters believe that statement is true, while 50% say it is false.

Governments and agencies can declare “the economy is growing again” until they turn blue, but until Joe Sixpack sees his lot improve economically, that’s just so much spin as far as he’s concerned. That’s what this number most likely reflects. While the numbers may look good at NEBR, the only number the voters care about are the one’s which directly effect his or her life – and at the moment, most of them are waving the BS flag. For them the recession isn’t over and the economy isn’t growing again until they’re materially benefiting from it. Hearing all this happy talk from government while experiencing 10% unemployment and very tough times equals a “deficit of trust”.

Obama claimed that steps taken by his team are responsible for putting two million people to work “who would otherwise be unemployed.” Just 27% of voters say that statement is true. Fifty-one percent (51%) say it’s false.

I don’t think it takes a political junkie to figure out who make up the 27% that believe this claim. This number is not only highly suspect, there have been a number of stories written about false job reports, stimulus funds to nonexistent congressional districts and zip codes that don’t exist. And we were told that “Sheriff Joe Biden” would be the one monitoring all this and ensuring the funds were spent properly to create jobs. If you can’t get the Congressional districts or zip codes right and don’t know where those funds went, why would anyone believe the job numbers that were supposedly “created or saved?” Again – a deficit in trust.

Personally I like the deficit in trust when it comes to government. That is both healthy and necessary as far as I’m concerned. The truth of anything a politician says, claims or promises should be taken with very skeptical grain of salt. While it is true that there was an era when the public was more accepting of government and considered it to be an ally and a “friend”, government has managed, over the years, to kill that perception (thank goodness). Now people are more readily seeing government for what it is – an intrusive, costly, ever expanding behemoth, bent on gathering more and more power and devouring our national wealth and liberty.

The fact that the public is waking up to this, as the numbers indicate, is a good sign, despite the fact that the statists claim that general skepticism and resistance (a hearkening back to our roots in freedom) makes us “ungovernable.” And perhaps it does. After all, “give me liberty or give me death” certainly smacks of someone who certainly was considered ungovernable by the rulers of his time.  Perhaps the “ungovernable’s” time, of necessity, has come again.

~McQ

The WSJ carries a story this morning entitled “White House Toughens Tone”. The essence of the article is the White House intends to use the State of the Union address to push an even larger agenda and isn’t about making any “abrupt policy shifts”. He will, however, be stressing jobs.

OK. So what? I think we’ve seen a year of speeches which, for the most part, pushed a nebulous agenda but then saw an ineffectual White House unable to push any of it through. What will be different with the SOTU address (other than the fact his use of his teleprompter will be in front of adults vs. sixth graders)?

The article also touts the fact that David Plouffe will be joining the staff of the White House. That is a purely political move, having little effect on policy or its accomplishment. Plouffe is a spin-meister whose preferred venue is a campaign where claims are rarely questioned. That’s not the venue he will find in the White House. And again, if nothing in terms of leadership from the White House follows the SOTU speech, the result will be much the same as it has been all year, Plouffe or no Plouffe.

“People are working harder,” White House senior adviser David Axelrod said Sunday 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” in the Massachusetts election.

All that Republican can hope for is David Axelrod and the White House keep believing this. The frustration he’s seeing from voters has little to do with Wall Street, despite the White House’s attempt to make it a populist cause. What is “frustrating” the voters is the out of control government spending and the massively increasing size of government and it’s continued intrusion into their lives. Yes, they want government focusing on the economy and jobs. But not if the “answer” is throwing more money we don’t have at it. Do what is necessary with tax cuts (such as an immediate one for payroll taxes) and rolling back some of the regulatory regime to encourage business to hire and expand. But Democrats and the White House seem oblivious to the fact that 56% of the country opposed the so-called “stimulus” and still do. So I look for Obama to promise massive spending increases to support whatever “focus” he brings to jobs in the SOTU address.

As for Republicans? Well, they have it wrong as well:

Republicans, meanwhile, said their victory in Massachusetts was spurred by opposition to the health overhaul. “The message in Massachusetts was absolutely clear,” Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky said on NBC’s “Meet The Press.” “The exit polls that I looked at said 48% of the people in Massachusetts said they voted for the new senator over health care. Only 5% mentioned any other issue. The American people had a victory in Massachusetts, and they were sending us the message ‘Stop and start over.’ ”

Certainly health care was the immediate issue that is most identified as a reason for voting for Brown, but Brown’s overall theme was less spending, less taxation and smaller government. The voter’s disapproval of health care was just part of a broader disapproval of an out of control government spending them into penury. People are finally frightened by what they see. Over the decades the increases in the size, scope and spending of government has been relatively slow and incremental. But within the last year, it has been so massive that even the most disinterested of citizens has been alarmed by it. Democrats are seeking to raise the debt ceiling by 1.9 trillion dollars – again.

This sort of spending is recognized as “out of control” by even the least informed among us. If Republicans focus only on the Brown victory being about health care, they will, as usual, have missed the real problem and the real issue. And that’s unfortunate because it is an issue that plays to their strengths much better than it does those of Democrats. Scott Brown is going to Washington DC because he’s talked about making government smaller, less intrusive and less expensive. He ran a good campaign focused on those primary core issues. It is a blueprint for the coming midterms if the Republicans are smart enough to figure that out and use those broad issues against this Congress and President. They need to get over gloating about stopping health care and make the point that it’s about stopping explosive government growth and the spending that goes with it. It’s about telling the people we can’t afford this and they’re the ones to right the ship of state and cut back on its size and expense. For once, it appears the people are ready to listen to that message. I’m not sure how many more hints they have to throw the Republican’s way before they finally figure it out.

~McQ

The Democrats and the NY Times are howling about the SCOTUS decision which effectively rendered the anti-First Amendment McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Law moot.

Essentially their argument boils down to “the public is too stupid to be able to separate the political wheat from the chaff and must be protected from political advertising by corporate entities with an agenda”.

Of course, advertising by politicians with an agenda is just peachy keen.

Reality: anyone or any group which advertised during a political campaign has an agenda.  In America, per the 1st Amendment, they have the freedom to pursue it.  Or should have that freedom, anyway.  McCain-Feingold limited or prohibited that freedom and what SCOTUS did to overturn those prohibitions is long overdue.

Judge Andrew Napalitano gives us a good rundown of the ruling:

The Supreme Court today invalidated its own 20 year old ruling on group political contributions and it also invalidated a portion of the McCain-Feingold Campaign finance law. The 20 year old ruling had prohibited all political expenditures by groups such as corporations, labor unions, and advocacy groups (like the NRA and Planned Parenthood). Ruling that all persons, individually and in groups, have the same unfettered free speech rights, the Court blasted Congress for suppression of that speech. Thus, from today forward, all groups are free to spend their own money on their own political campaigns and to mention the names of the candidates.

The Court also threw out the portion of McCain-Feingold that had permitted persons to contribute to Political Action Committees (PACs), but barred those PACs from using those funds in the sixty day period preceding an election. Since that sixty day period preceding the election is the most vital in any campaign, the Court held that the prohibition on expenditures during that time was a violation of the free speech guaranteed to all persons, individually and in groups, by the First Amendment.

Thus, as a result of the ruling today, all groups may spend their own money as they wish on their own campaigns, but they still may not–as groups–contribute directly to political campaigns. The direct political contribution prohibition in McCain-Feingold was not challenged in this case, thus its constitutionality was not an issue before the Court. Groups will thus effectively be running and financing their own campaigns for candidates on their own.

That means the FEC no longer has a say in what is or isn’t appropriate or who can or can’t run what during an election season. Apparently, according to Napalitano, one of the questions asked by Justice Scalia which elicited an answer from the FEC infuriated most of the justices:

During the course of oral argument on this case in October in the Supreme Court, one of the FEC’s lawyers replied to a question from Justice Antonin Scalia to the effect that the FEC could ban books if they were paid for by corporations, labor unions, or advocacy groups. This highly un-American statement in the Supreme Court–that the federal government can ban books–infuriated a few of the justices.

Anyone reading this want to raise their hand and back book banning?

Democrats are concentrating their ire on the fact that the court found that a corporation has the same right to express itself as an individual. It is another battle in their long war against corporate America.   It’s not an effective or particularly compelling argument.  A PAC isn’t an individual but enjoyed the same advertising rights as an individual.  Why shouldn’t a corporation enjoy them as well?   So don’t get balled up in their nonsense argument.  The fact remains that free speech doesn’t discriminate.  It means free speech for all, regardless of what group or entity represented.

This is a long overdue dismantling of a anti-liberty law.  Most people understand that fundamental truth.  And most people also understand that government should not be in the business of deciding who can or can’t speak out during a political campaign.  In fact, the fundamental purpose of the 1st Amendment was the protection of political speech.  Congress seems to have lost sight of that.

Any argument for the reinstatement of this law or any law which resembles it is an argument to limit political speech.   While you may not be happy with the fact that you’ll now see even more advertising than before, it is a fundamental victory for liberty and those that love liberty should applaud it.

~McQ

There’s a war going on within the Democratic party. And it is between the Krugman/Hamsher/Ed Schultz/Olberman wing of the extreme left and the more moderate (and politically aware) wing of the party. It’s focus is on health care. And the war was started Tuesday when Republican Scott Brown buried Democrat Martha Coakely and Teddy Kennedy’s legacy with a convincing defeat in the Massachusetts Senate special election. As I called it then, it was a game changer. The most immediate “game” it has changed is how to pass this health care monstrosity pending in Congress.

First the dawning awareness of what happened Tuesday to change the game from Lanny J. Davis (former counsel to Bill Clinton for two years):

Liberal Democrats might attempt to spin the shocking victory of Republican Scott Brown in Massachusetts by claiming that the loss was a result of a poor campaign by Martha Coakley. Would that it were so. This was a defeat not of the messenger, but of the message—and the sooner progressive Democrats face up to that fact, the better.

It’s the substance, stupid!

According to polls, fears about the Democrats’ health-care proposal played a prominent role in Mr. Brown’s victory yesterday. In the last several months, the minority congressional Republicans have dominated the message on health care—and stamped on the Democratic Party the perception that we stand for big government, higher taxes, and health insecurity when it comes to Medicare.

Perception? It’s 2000 pages of big government, higher taxes and “health insecurity” brought to you exclusively (since no Republicans have been allowed to participate) by Democrats. How is that just a perception, Mr. Davis?

But Davis is, at least, seeming to gain some insight as to what is going on. However, after saying “it’s the substance, stupid”, he claims that the reason for the public’s poor perception of the health care proposal is spin, not substance:

The Democrats have a simple message on health care that has still not really gotten through: If our bill passes, you never have to worry about getting, or losing, health insurance for the rest of your life. How is it that so few people have heard that message?

Very simply, it’s not gotten through because it’s not true. That certainly may be what Democrats hoped to accomplish, but that’s not at all what they’re crafted in this bill. So while Davis exhibits some inkling of what is going on, he’s still blinded to the reality of the true Democratic message. It is a big government, higher taxes and “health insecurity” monstrosity that the public rejects overwhelmingly.

Some Democratic Congressional types, however, are seeing the light. Here, for instance, is Senator Dianne Feinstein:

California Democrat Dianne Feinstein, for one, said the election of Republican Scott Brown in Massachusetts shows the fundamental political landscape has shifted and Democrats across the country have to take note, focusing on how to create jobs and keep people in their homes instead of trying to explain the need for sweeping social programs.

“I can tell you the situation has changed dramatically. And I think it’s a sweep across the country and I think that the (White House Economic Adviser) Larry Summers’s of the world have to see it, the administration has to see it and we have to see it. And Therefore everything is jobs and the economy and education. People are worried about education,” she said.

“You see anger. People are worried. And when they’re worried they don’t want to take on a broad new responsibility,” like health care reform, she said.

That is a politician in full survival mode sniffing the wind and determining how it is blowing. And she’d dead on right. She nails it. She’s figured it out. And that doesn’t bode well for HCR. It isn’t that the message hasn’t been presented properly like Davis claims. It is that the message has been rejected. The answer is “no”. The priorities have drastically shifted and it has taken a year for the out-of-touch Democrats to figure it out. But, as witnessed by DiFi (and Evan Bayh), some are beginning to do so.

That’s worrisome to the likes of Paul Krugman, as illustrated below, and to Joan Walsh of Salon.com:

Maybe House Democrats can pull this out, even with a gaping hole in White House leadership. Barney Frank seems to have thought better of his initial defeatism. But I have to say, I’m pretty close to giving up on Mr. Obama, who seems determined to confirm every doubt I and others ever had about whether he was ready to fight for what his supporters believed in.

Wow. If you recall, it was Ms. Walsh who claimed Republican criticism of Mr. Obama was “traitorous” and “un-American”. I’m sure since Walsh is doing it, this falls under “dissent is the highest form of patriotism” instead.  Walsh comes from the “damn the public’s wishes, full speed ahead” wing of the extreme left part of the Democratic party. She, like Krugman below (and I’d bet the words she used are really his, not hers – they’re very similar), want this travesty pushed through no matter what – precedent and rules be damned, pass the bill.

Her attitude reflects much of the netroots and a growing disillusionment with the Democrats in general, not just Obama. And it is possible that disillusionment may begin to effect the rank-and-file Dems as well. One of the things that was obvious in MA on Tuesday was the huge enthusiasm gap in the state. Congressional Democrats are well on their way to increasing that gap by their actions, or, more properly, lack of action:

So why even vote for Democrats now? Really – the Senate Democrats just made us ask ourselves that. Have a super majority is a very uncommon thing in the Senate, with the last time being in 1965. Now the Democrats are saying “well we can’t do anything unless we have a super majority again”, or in other words, “go ahead and stay home Democrats”.

This really shows that Democrats excel at one thing – being losers. We need a tidal wave of new blood in the party to push out the old farts, who are driving the Democratic party into the grave with them.

Final point – Republicans should take heart (the public’s reaction fits their ideology much better than it does the Democrat’s), but need to figure out quickly that this dissatisfaction and disillusionment doesn’t mean they are automatically validated as being the party of choice because of it. They’ve been the party of the only resort for the most part.

This is a rebellion of the independents which includes dissatisfied and disillusioned former Democrats and Republicans. Probably not the Democrats I cite above – as the writer indicates, they’ll stay home – but certainly those who would be characterized as “conservative” Dems. The movement is loosely called the “Teaparty” movement. Tuesday it elected its first major candidate. Unless the GOP realizes this and realizes it soon, they stand as good a chance as the Democrats to see incumbents go down in November. This movement is just as likely to back an independent candidate (NY 23) or an insurgent candidate (Rubio) as a party candidate.  That will become evident in the primaries.  This is no longer about party politics. This is about forcing an issue – smaller and less intrusive government, fewer taxes, more freedom.

Figure it out or join the unemployment line, Dems and GOP.

Fair warning.

~McQ

As Democrats survey the aftermath of a devastating defeat in yesterday’s Senate race in of all places, Democrat friendly Massachusetts, they have to be wondering how safe their own seats are.  Even Barbara Boxer, whose polls have shown weakness, has to be a little concerned.  If you can’t hold on to a Senate seat in a state where you outnumber the opposition 3.5 to 1, what seat is safe? Couple that with the fact that their super-majority in the Senate is gone and their legislative agenda in jeopardy, and they have a fine mess on their hands.

So that brings us to the broader implication of the Scott Brown victory yesterday. Does it mean Democrats will back off, heed the message and either kill or drastically reduce the health care bill? Or does it mean they plan on doubling down, pushing that monstrosity through as quickly as possible and hope to have the time to repair the damage before the midterms? Because that’s the choice they’re going to have to make and make soon.

If you listened to Nancy Pelosi yesterday, indications are they plan on doubling down. She’s quoted as saying that no matter what happens with Scott Brown, she plans on seeing health care passed. And, of course, Harry Reid – trailing badly in the polls in his home state – is of a similar mind.

The question is, how? There are several means of accomplishing the task. One is to pass the Senate version unchanged. That would only require a majority in the House and the bill can be sent to the President for signature. However, the Progressive caucus along the the Democratic pro-life wing aren’t at all keen on the idea and they carry enough votes to kill it.

That brings us to another method which seems to at least be the preferred method of the Olbermans, Matthews and Maddows of the world – reconciliation. It requires only simple majorities to pass legislation. But because it is aimed at budgetary legislation, it will mean a pared down health care bill that Democrats can ram through and at least have something to show for it. The question is would that be enough and, will it save them in November. The answer to both questions are probably “no”. However they may be left with little choice but to resort to this method.

And that’s because that last method is a compromise bill (what they’ve been working behind closed doors to craft) which will most likely please no one on the Democratic side (Republicans have lined up solidly against it already since they were shut out of the process) and they’re now facing a fight in the Senate they’re likely to lose (word is Joe Lieberman is again iffy on the bill).

Fun times in DC. But at least it’s a game again with the minority should be armed enough to stop the most outrageous of the liberal agenda. I’m not quit sure how the health care fiasco will play out – hopefully if not dead, it is at least a drastically reduced bill that can be repealed in the future prior to going to going into effect – but I’d say cap-and-trade is in serious trouble if not dead, and immigration reform is going to require Democrats to at least approach Republicans to pass anything meaningful.

Or to put it succinctly – the Brown win brought the blessing of divided government again. It’s by a very slim margin, but it is there again. And that is the model we should always strive to have at a federal level.

Republicans stand to pick up significant gains in November of this year. You can only hope that they’ve learned a valuable lesson from this election as well. The people want smaller and less intrusive government. They’ve once again begun turning to the Republicans to see that wish enabled. The question is will the message be heeded or will Republicans again ignore it as they did previously when in power and end up again handing it back to the Democrats?

We shall see, won’t we?

~McQ

AP has just called the Massachusetts Senate race for Republican Scott Brown (9:25 pm) who looks like he’ll end up with anywhere from a 5 to 7 point win.

Probably the most interesting thing I saw during the coverage was feedback during a Frank Lunz group on Fox (I watched MSNBC most of the night which was, well frankly, highly entertaining).  The group were predominantly Democrats who voted for Obama.  And a good majority of them claim to have voted for Brown.  When asked why they said they were against health care reform, wanted Congress to back off and they were sending a message.

What will be interesting is how all the political “experts” choose to interpret this loss and what adjustments they’ll recommend be made.  But I can tell you right now, there are a whole crap load of Democrats in marginal seats thinking “if we can’t hold Teddy Kennedy’s seat in Massachusetts, what chance have I unless I do something completely different?”

Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid wake up to a whole new world tomorrow.

More on this later.

~McQ