Worst. Advice. Ever.
Seriously. I hear this all the time, and it is nonsense. It gives credence to opposition propaganda spin.
It is bad advice because it conflates the job of legislators with the party’s job of building the party and attracting new voters. And that’s true for both parties. The GOP is supposedly the ideological opposite of the Democrats. That would tell most voters that the GOP most likely to oppose what the Democrats propose in the legislative process.
Guess what – that makes them the party of “no”. That’s their job, if they believe in the ideological principles which supposedly undergird their party. As I recall it, the Democrats had absolutely no problem being the party of “no” when they were in the minority. In fact, they reveled in it. And look where they are now.
He told the group that Republicans are often “too nostalgic” and that the party needs to be more “forward looking” in order to regain national success. Bush reminded the audience that voter demographics are changing and called for the party to become more “youthful” and to abandon their image as “the old white guy party.” “Tone matters,” Bush said, “in twenty or so years our country will have a minority majority.”
But this doesn’t necessarily mean that the party must move towards the center. When asked by a student if the party platform needed to become more moderate on social issues, Bush replied, “no.” Rather, he stressed that Republicans “need to apply conservative principles to 21st century problems.”
What Bush describes here is the job of the party, not its legislative representatives. Their job is to represent their constituency and to oppose legislation that isn’t in keeping with the desires of their constituency and ideology. That means, when Democrats are in power, saying “no” a lot.
On the other hand, where is the GOP’s plan to become more ‘youthful’? Where is it’s media campaign to change the “tone”?
Where is the plan to “apply conservative principles to 21st century problems?” Or, more succinctly, why hasn’t the party produced these plans in anticipation of the fight for Congressional seats in 2010?
As far as I can tell, the party is AWOL in all those areas.
In the meantime, the GOP legislators, for the most part, are doing precisely the job they should be doing – if the GOP actually believes in the principles they espouse – and that is being the party of “no”. And if they want to build any credibility at all, they must continue to be the party of “no” (just as the Democrats would be if the positions were reversed). Abandoning that would be the worst mistake they could make.
I think Toby Harnden of the UK’s Telegraph describes pretty well what most of us have observed and concluded about President Obama:
Perhaps we should not be surprised that the land of the permanent campaign has produced a president like Barack Obama. During his White House bid, Mr Obama’s staff argued that his masterful oversight of the machinery that ultimately got him elected was his highest achievement.
In many respects this was true, though Mr Obama was more chairman than CEO. Even Republican political operatives acknowledge that the Obama ’08 campaign was a thing of beauty.
Essentially, however, Mr Obama won because of his persona – post-racial, healing, cool, articulate and inspirational. In a sense, therefore, his greatest achievement in life is being Barack Obama. Or the campaign version, at least.
Therein lies the problem. While campaigning could centre around soaring rhetoric, governing is altogether messier. It involves tough, unpopular choices and cutting deals with opponents. It requires doing things rather than talking about them, let alone just being.
Mr Obama is showing little appetite for this. Instead of being the commander-in-chief, he is the campaigner-in-chief.
I think this is best reflected in a number that’s been circulating recently – Obama has done 2 to 3 times more political fundraisers at this point in his presidency than did either GW Bush or Bill Clinton. While they were apparently concentrating more on the job at hand Obama seems unable, or unwilling, to drop the campaign mode and step into the governing role.
Consequently Afghanistan strategy is adrift, health care reform is leaderless and Obama flits around doing fundraisers and campaign-style townhalls.
Now, he is stumping for Democratic candidates in states he won last year but which are now in danger. Last Wednesday in Hackensack, Mr Obama took to the stage to proclaim: “Your voice can change the world. Your voice can elect Jon Corzine, governor once again of New Jersey.” Change the world? Mr Corzine is a former Goldman Sachs executive whose political career was launched when he spent $57 million of his own money on a Senate seat in 2000.
The rally was an attempted 2008 reprise. There was the spontaneous (or not) cry of “I love you!” bashfully acknowledged by Mr Obama with a “I love you back.”
There were the Obama-led chants of “Fired up! Ready to go!” and the ubiquitous “Yes We Can” signs.
And as he always does, Mr Obama blamed every economic woe on the Bush years, conveniently forgetting that Republicans are no longer in office and it’s been his mess for nine months now.
The “blame Bush” card, just like the race card, is wearing very thin. It is also worth remembering that the budgets that were passed by Congress during the last two years as well as the initial 700 billion bailout package appropriated by that same Democratic Congress all had Mr. Obama’s stamp of approval by way of his vote for each of them.
But, going back to the subject, it seems like every time it gets a little hot in Washington DC, Obama’s answer is to leave and rally somewhere as if doing so will somehow improve the other situation.
And then, in what one can only describe as a fit of stupidity that compounds the problem of perception, the White House picks a fight with a news organization with which it has issues. It ends up rallying the other news organizations to the side of the one it’s picking on and ends up looking both petty and vindictive.
Finally, it appears even the comedians have had enough:
“President Obama agreed to commit an additional 40,000 troops to help fight Fox News,” quipped NBC’s Jay Leno. “Senior White House adviser David Axelrod told reporters that Fox News is just pushing a point of view. Well, yes, but at least they’ve got a point of view.”
Losing the comedians is usually an indicator of a loss public support. And all of them are now taking pot-shots, even the odius Bill Maher.
Mr Obama was elected on a promise of being post-partisan to Washington and transforming the country. Thus far, he has won the support of only a single Republican for his health-care plan and has shown himself to be as aggressive a Democratic partisan in office as anyone in the fabled Clinton war room.
Beyond the grand announcements, fine speeches and his eager acceptance of the Nobel Peace Prize, Mr Obama has yet to achieve anything of substance. It is time for the campaign to end.
But it won’t. It can’t. And there is a very simple reason for that – Mr. Obama has never done anything of substance, nor has he ever run anything of substance. He simply isn’t equipped with the experience and know-how necessary to do that. He’s never been a leader, had to be a leader and doesn’t know how to lead.
He knows how to campaign. It’s that at which he is good. Campaigning is all “grand announcements” and “fine speeches” in which the campaigner never has to put up or shut up. Now that he finds himself in this rather awkward position of actually having to deliver on his “grand announcements” and “fine speeches”, he reverts to that he knows best. And that means a perpetual campaign.
The next step in enviro-whackiness? Sweden’s on it:
New labels listing the carbon dioxide emissions associated with the production of foods, from whole wheat pasta to fast food burgers, are appearing on some grocery items and restaurant menus around the country.
People who live to eat might dismiss this as silly. But changing one’s diet can be as effective in reducing emissions of climate-changing gases as changing the car one drives or doing away with the clothes dryer, scientific experts say.
Yes friends – emission labels, not nutrition labels. Eat unhealthy if it helps save the planet – that’s you role in life. Apparently, however, it is all still a little confusing:
Shopping for oatmeal, Helena Bergstrom, 37, admitted that she was flummoxed by the label on the blue box reading, “Climate declared: .87 kg CO2 per kg of product.”
“Right now, I don’t know what this means,” said Ms. Bergstrom, a pharmaceutical company employee.
It means that right now someone has a “bright” idea that is voluntary. But given Europe’s proclivity for nanny-state control of the lives of its citizens, one has to wonder how long it will remain voluntary or before foods with high emissions are slapped with a carbon tax.
Kristian Eriksson, 26, an information technology specialist, looked embarrassed when asked about the burger he was eating at an outdoor table.
“You feel guilty picking red meat,” he said.
Only if you buy into the swill known as AGW, Kristian – only if you buy into it.
UPDATE: Fran Smith finds some problems with the labeling:
But the Swedish food police admit that they are some problems in balancing healthy eating with low-carbon-footprint eating. And it doesn’t always work. Their guidelines that form the basis for the labels tell people to eat carrots instead of tomatoes, and not to eat many bananas. Have they not read or heard about the antioxidant properties of tomatoes? There are also a lot of questions about their methods of measuring climate-friendly production. In their view how the production contributes to the landscape is a big plus
And there’s the implied “buy local” side of it all:
[L]ocally grown, Swedish stuff produces lower emissions. Guidelines don’t state it but it’s implied: Imports are bad because of emissions from transportation — whether truck or ship or plane.
For instance, a New Zealand apple has a CO2 equivalent of 4 while a Swedish apple only rates a 1. So not only will those buying into this nonsense feel guilty eating a burger, they’ll feel guilty eating an apple if it’s not a Swedish apple.
UPDATE II: Ryan Young notes:
This new religion is a piece of work. It comes complete with a deity (Gaia), clergy (activists), indulgences (carbon credits), and now, dietary restrictions.
Health care reform?
Or, perhaps, economic recovery and jobs?
On Thursday, Obama’s economic adviser Christina Romer told Congress the administration agrees with other analysts that the economy will grow in the third quarter, and beyond. Even so, she said, “unemployment is likely to remain at its severely elevated level,” and noted expectations that few jobs will be added through the third quarter of 2010.
And what happens during the 4th quarter of 2010?
So why are Democrats fiddling with health care reform and cap-and-trade instead of the economy and jobs?
All I can figure is the radical element in control of the leadership in Congress right now sees the small window they have to push this garbage through as more important than putting policies in place which would enable economic recovery and create jobs.
Politically its a mixed bag for Democrats – push the extremist agenda through but at the cost of seats and possibly a majority in the midterm elections. Apparently they (the liberal Democrats, certainly not the more conservative Democrats who’re actually the one’s who might lose their seats) think enacting the legislation is worth the cost of 2010. And then, they might just be arrogant enough to think they can pull both off.
It floors me when people who have an inkling of how markets work warn what will happen if pay restrictions are imposed on some of the companies in an industry, but not all, and those warnings are disregarded. And no, I’m not campaigning for all companies to come under the “pay czar’s” control. Instead, what is clear is the “pay czar’s” unilateral pay cuts are now hurting the very companies you and I (and our grandchildren’s grandchildren) unwillingly bailed out. And while I mostly agree with MichaelW’s thoughts on the subject, I also understand that the way it is being done does not help make their profitability (that’s how they’re going to pay back the bailout money) better. In fact, it stands a much better chance of hurting profitability:
Many executives were driven away by the uncertainty of working for companies closely overseen by Washington, opting instead for firms not under the microscope, including competitors that have already returned the bailout funds to the government, according to executives and supervisors at the companies.
“There’s no question people have left because of uncertainty of our ability to pay,” said an executive at one of the affected firms. “It’s a highly competitive market out there.”
It would be a bit like the government getting its hands on an NFL franchise for whatever reason that was failing. After “saving” it with your tax dollars, the powers to be decide that one of the things they need to do is severely limit the salary of players, because, you know, in relation to Joe Six-Pack, what the players make is obscene. So they unilaterally put salary caps on what players can make that are well below industry standards.
Any guess what happens when free agency rolls around? Any idea of how many drafted players are going to say “no” and remain unsigned when their salary demands aren’t met? Why?
To quote the executive, “It’s a highly competitive market out there”, and there are teams more than willing to pay the price for that talent. Why? Because the talent has proven themselves or have tremendous potential (as in the case of high draft choices).
So if it is blindingly obvious what would happen with an NFL franchise if the same thing was done there, how do these people who are doing a very populist political thing endemic to identity politics, think what they’re doing will be the exception?
They’re unilaterally limiting the talent pool in financial institutions we’ve paid to bail out which puts in jeopardy the ability of those companies to pay back the bailout money.
That doesn’t hit me as very bright. But then, a lot of things that have been done recently fall into that category, don’t they?
I continue to watch this incredibly dumb public fight the White House has picked with a news organization and cannot fathom why they continue it. At least not a rational reason. I can come up with all sorts of irrational reasons. For an election campaign organization that was touted as being so media savvy, while watching this debacle continue to develop you have to wonder where all the savvy types went.
And some of the media seems to have had a “there but for the grace of God go I” moment. Jake Tapper exemplifies that:
Jake Tapper, ABC News: It hasn’t escaped our notice that in the last few weeks the White House has decided to declare war on one of our sister organizations saying it’s not a news organization and tell the rest of the news media to not treat them like a news organization. Can you explain why it’s appropriate for the White House to say one of them is not a news organization and the rest of the media should not treat them like one.
White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs: We render opinion based on some their coverage and the fairness of that coverage.
Tapper: That’s a pretty sweeping declaration that they’re not a news organization. How are they different from, say another, say ABC, MSNBC, Univision?
Gibbs: You and I should watch sometime around 9 o’clock tonight or five this afternoon.
Tapper: I’m not talking about their opinion programs. Or issues you have with certain reports. I’m talking about saying that thousands of individuals who work for a media organization do not work for a news organization. Why is that appropriate for the White House to say?
Gibbs: That is our opinion.
When you’re reduced to “that’s our opinion” as a defense of your actions, you’ve got nothing. When you have representatives of competing news organizations referring to FOX as a “sister organization”, you’ve lost the battle.
However the White House doesn’t seem to understand that, and continues to arrogantly push this fight they picked. Other that with the extreme left, which has always hated FOX, the White House is the completely unsympathetic actor in this little charade. Here you have the Press Secretary for the President of the United States trying to dictate what constitutes “fairness” of coverage. It is pure arrogance trying to trade on waning popularity and it isn’t working. More overreach by this administration – picking fights that aren’t necessary whichmake them look petty and small and which they will, in the end, lose.
Not too bright.
Final as in the last thing I’m thinking about when I go to bed. I’ve been toying with the idea of doing a bit of a brain dump at the end of the day, instead of writing about the hottest topic du jour, so consider this a flagship post (N.B. even though my not-so-well-thought-out-or-composed trial balloon was pretty much a flop).
I have very mixed feelings about the announcement from the Pay Czar today that 7 of the firms receiving TARP money would have their salaries dictated to them, resulting in as much as a 90% pay cut (although I’ve also heard 90% was the average).
On the one hand, I figure if you dance with the devil, then you can’t complain when he calls the tune. And since in my estimation these firms should have been allowed to fail in the first place, I’m not exactly shedding any tears over their lost compensation. If they wanted to have control over their businesses, then they shouldn’t haven’t gotten involved with the government in the first place. Whatever Paulson said in that room that fateful day, the decision-makers still had a choice. That they chose poorly is really not my problem, and I don’t feel one bit sorry for them.
Yet, I have no way of knowing if any of those salaries being cut would be going to mismanagers or saviors of the bailed-out firm. Clearly if these firms are going to survive (and the taxpayers are going to have any chance of getting their money back), then we would want the smartest, most industrious, and capable workers in there plugging away, whether it’s in the mail room or the board room. But how is that supposed to happen if these people aren’t getting paid their market rate? Why wouldn’t they go somewhere else, or start their own private companies?
More importantly, what sort of precedent does this set? I understand that the Pay Czar’s actions are legitimized by Congress in the statute setting up the TARP program, but what constitutional authority ever gave any of them the right to dictate pay? The Commerce Clause? The General Welfare Clause to which Congress is now hitching its hopes on forcing people to buy health insurance? The answer to that question only raises much deeper and frankly hair-raising questions.
If Congress can constitutionally give the Executive Branch the power to dictate the pay of those who receive federal funds, what else can it do to those being subsidized? If the federal government is picking up the tab for any portion of your health insurance or health care, for example, what limits can it place on the way you live your life? Can it force you not to smoke? Not to drink? Maybe you won’t be allowed to go skiing or rollerblading without a special permit. Would motorcycle riding still be allowed? How about eating fatty foods of any sort? What happens to student loan recipients? Will their classes be decided for them? Their future employment?
Scoff if you must, but if the government can dictate what your intellectual and physical efforts are worth, then why can’t it also dictate what your actual life is worth? And don’t be confused into thinking that decisions concerning how much the government will pay for your health care, or what you will do to earn a living, are anything but a determination of how much your life is worth.
Like I said above, I’m ambivalent about the Pay Czar actions. While I’m not crying over some Wall Street fat cats having the their lucre cut off, I am worried about the seeming ease with which Americans are taking this news and their apparent lack of interest in what it could mean for them (and me!). Governments are dangerous, no matter what goodies you think you might personally get from them. A government that exercises control over any of our lives with fanfare from the constituents, or worse, with their apathy, is by far the most dangerous. Which government and which polity do we have now?[ad#Banner]
There’s been an upgrade to the TinyMCE Comments plugin that allows commenters to use the WYSIWYG interface for creating comments, instead of a plain old text box. Works fine for me, but some of you are using off-brand, suck browsers like Opera or whatnot on your home-built Linux systems, so try it out and see if it works. If it doesn’t, let me know, so I can either unplug the plug-in, or tell you you to use a decent browser like Firefox.
Although Obamacare is still pretty unfavorable to most Americans (and getting worse?), for some reason a nebulous “public option” continues to poll rather well. Jay Cost takes a look at the polling data and offers a reasonable suggestion for the disparity:
How can we reconcile these gloomy numbers with the sunny results on the public option?
It might be due to the public’s lack of information. I’m sure that the average polling respondent is paying some attention to the health care debate, but she is paying much less attention than political junkies. This will limit the amount of information she actually has in her mental filing cabinet. So, the crucial question is: even if she has absorbed some pro- and anti-reform arguments, does she have enough information to relate them to specific reform proposals? Color me skeptical on that one. I think your average respondent – even with some general opinions on reform – will have a hard time using those broad considerations to evaluate items like the individual mandate, guaranteed issue, community rating, and…wait for it!…the public option.
So, asking about specific proposals might be taking the conversation too far into the woods for the average respondent – and she is going to have a hard time recalling a relevant piece of information upon which to base a response. Instead, she might use the question itself as a basis for her answer. It follows that the information or perspective given in the question could make her more or less partial to the proposal under consideration.
I made a similar argument back in August when dissecting a report alleging that there is 80% support for the public option. Among other problems with supposed poll, it was not at all clear that respondents even new what was meant by “public option”:
If in fact the question was worded as described by Singer, then the inclusion of the phrase “if they can’t afford private plans offered to them” alters the results dramatically. Although some have suggested that this is the reason we need health care insurance reform so desperately, it completely ignores the fact that those who can’t afford health insurance are generally covered by Medicaid, SCHIP and other federal and state programs. So when respondents are asked whether such people should be covered, how do we know they aren’t thinking about those federal and state programs already in existence and not the public option as proposed by Obama and Congress? In short, we don’t. To be fair, the question allegedly refers to “starting a new” program, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that people understood the question to be asking about ObamaCare’s public option.
Indeed, according to PSB, “only 37 percent define ‘public option’ correctly” and “about one-fourth of those polled believe the ‘public option’ is a national health care system, similar to the one in Great Britain.” Of course, how to “correctly” define the public option is not revealed, but suffice it to say that the survey’s respondents did not reveal they had a concise grasp upon what a public option actually means.
The fact is that most people have better things to do with their lives than become expert in the sausage-making going on in D.C. That they are rationally ignorant (and, thanks to the MSM, often completely misinformed) of the details regarding the public option should come as no surprise.
But Cost digs much deeper and finds that the wording of the survey questions makes a dramatic difference. He points out that most of the recent polling uses “feel-good-phraseology” that tends to diminish the concept of government control and assume the idea that the public option would “compete” with private insurers:
If the theory that question wording is playing a role is correct, then altering the wording should induce a change in the results. So, what happens when information less partial to the Democratic side is introduced? To start answering this question, let’s consider the Gallup results, which are decidedly less bullish on the public option:
Like ABC News/WaPo, Gallup uses the Democratic buzzword “compete.” However, Gallup also uses a Republican buzzword: “government-run.” This is opposed to the weaker formulation – “government administered” – offered by CBS News/New York Times and CNN. With this more balanced choice of words, Gallup finds a roughly even split. I would not call this definitive evidence, but it suggests that we might be on the right track.
More damning is the result of a Rasmussen poll where the wording is less “feel-good” and the public option question is followed up with this one:
Suppose that the creation of a government-sponsored non-profit health insurance option encouraged companies to drop private health insurance coverage for their workers. Workers would then be covered by the government option. Would you favor or oppose the creation of a government-sponsored non-profit health insurance option if it encouraged companies to drop private health insurance coverage for their workers?
What happens when this Republican argument is substituted for the Democratic argument? Support for the public option plummets dramatically. Nearly 3/5ths of all respondents voiced opposition to the public option when it was phrased in this way.
Additionally, Rasmussen asked whether respondents thought the public option would save taxpayers money (they didn’t), whether they thought it would offer better health insurance than private insurance (again, no), and whether people preferred to have a public option or a guarantee that nobody will lose their current coverage (the guarantee won in a landslide).
As Cost admits, none of this means that people are necessarily against the public option, just that their opinions are highly influenced by the way questions are asked, stemming from the fact that they are relatively uninformed about the topic. However, Cost’s theory would explain why there is such incongruity between the public’s distaste for the ObamaCare plans floating around Congress and their seeming desire for a public option. Interestingly enough, it also explains why “Medicare for all” is the new rallying cry coming from Washington.[ad#Banner]
The Copenhagen summit is in December and yesterday UN climate chief Yvo de Boer said he didn’t expect a binding agreement to come out of the meeting, dashing the hopes of environmental extremists that the nations of the world would agree to binding reductions of so-called greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Today India, apparently speaking for, or speaking with the approval of, the world’s developing nations (of which China considers itself one):
Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh said Thursday that the world’s poor nations will not sacrifice their development in negotiations for a new climate change deal.
The issue of how to share the burden of fighting global warming has divided the developing and industrialized worlds as they prepare to negotiate a replacement to the 1997 Kyoto Protocol at a December summit in Copenhagen.
“Developing countries cannot and will not compromise on development,” Singh told an international conference on technology and climate change.
Naturally he threw a little diplospeak out there to soften the refusal to play the game:
However, even poorer countries need to “do our bit to keep our emissions footprint within levels that are sustainable and equitable,” he said.
Riiiight. And that means they’ll decide what constitutes “sustainable and equitable” as it applies to their economy, not the targets some world body wants to put on them. Both India and China, two of the largest emitters of GHGs in the world have repeatedly said no to binding reductions and international monitoring. But they’re up for a little friendly looting:
Developing countries want financial aid for their climate change efforts, and Singh said wealthy nations have an obligation to ensure they get access to new, clean technology that will cut emissions and increase energy efficiency.
“We need technology solutions that are appropriate, affordable and effective,” he said.
I certainly don’t blame them a bit for refusing to hurt themselves economically in the name of specious “science” (thankfully, Americans are beginning to figure out the scam). And the fact they won’t do so should confirm to even the most fanatic global warmist that attempts to cut GHGs will indeed cause major economic distress. Additionally, as pointed out here and elsewhere, cap-and-trade attempts in Europe and elsewhere have been a disaster with no net reduction in such emissions observed.
I look for Copenhagen to be a bust and am quite happy about that, frankly. The US will show up empty handed with nothing but promises (Waxman-Markey thankfully not having passed yet), the UN will play the international “Chicken Little”, 3rd world “developing” countries will have their hands out as usual and industrialized nations won’t be able to agree on much of anything.