LorieByrd.com

Will GOP Wave Be Good for Obama?

From Jennifer Rubin:

If he intends to base his last two years on vilifying Republicans, he may succeed — in solidifying the not-Obama, center-right coalition.

Bill Clinton ran circles around the GOP Congress following the 1994 midterm debacle because he was more amiable, flexible, and adroit than his opponents. Whatever his faults, Clinton didn’t hate our guts. He loved being president, and he loved being praised by his fellow citizens. Obama suffers us — first in silence and now in public. And flexibility has really not been his strong suit. In short, Democrats long for a repeat of post-1994, but they lack the Bill Clinton part of the equation. (Frankly, they also lack the Newt Gingrich villain figure. Whatever their shortcomings, the current GOP leadership generally avoids personal displays of grandiosity and lacks a compulsion to say whatever ludicrously daft thought pops into their heads.)

So for those Democrats licking their chops at the prospect of an Obama-GOP face-off, they might want to reconsider. Isn’t it just as likely Obama will make the Republicans look better than the other way around? He’s sure done that during the midterm campaign.

Read it all.

 

On Obama's Iraq Speech

Jim Hoft's headline says it best: Pathetic Cut-&-Runner Takes Credit For Victory. 

There are times I think Obama has to "get it" by now.  He has to realize that the ony way he is going to save his miserable political future is to find some humility and admit that his policies have failed.  He has to realize that it would go a long way to restoring some confidence in him and would help his approval ratings if he would just admit that the economy is in the crapper and it is largely due to the failure of the policies he has enacted.  Maybe he will admit it is at least partially due to those policies?  Or maybe that at the very least, his policies have not improved things as he promised? 

Anyone waiting to see that side of Obama -- the side that would make him appear honest and human and in touch with reality -- might just be waiting forever.  More proof was there last night that, as John McCain put it, such behavior is just not in his DNA.  By failing to credit George Bush with success in Iraq, or to acknowledge his own vote against the surge which achieved such success, he just showed me he is still just about as arrogant, dishonest and insecure as a politician could be.  (And yes, a person can be arrogant and insecure at the same time.)  

It was not a huge surprise that he would not admit he was wrong about Iraq.  Jim Hanson described what the consequences of Obama's preferred course of action in Iraq would have been:

He should man up and admit that he was wrong about every single thing he said about the Iraq War while he was in the Senate and he should thank President Bush for being resolute enough to ignore him, Hillary, Reid, Pelosi and the rest of the cut and run chorus. If we had followed the advice of then Sen. Obama, we would have lost the war and al Qaeda and the Iranians would be carving it up between them.

Will Obama's arrogance and unwillingness to admit the reality everyone else (except evidently MSNBC talk show hosts) can see with their own two eyes, be his undoing? I think maybe it already has been.

God Bless General Petraeus

Much of my early blogging was about the war in Iraq -- the war itself, the media coverage of the war and the treatment of our troops.  Listening to the words of Senator Barack Obama talking at General Petraeus in flashbacks today was almost unbearable.  It is hard to reconcile that the man who ignored, downplayed and outright denied the successes our troops were achieving is now their commander-in-chief. Senator Obama spoke about what a failure the surge was when there was evidence it was succeeding.  He continued to deny that success until the point that to do so would have made him a laughing stock.

I read that the people at MoveOn,org who had created the General Betray Us ads have now quietly scrubbed them from the site.  Wow.  What courage.  I can't say anything else about that right now because I might have to get really ugly about.  Instead go read something I wrote a few years ago about the Petraeus Effect.  I feel pretty much the same way today as I did when I wrote that

God bless General Petraeus. I can't imagine any reason to want to walk into the situation he is now in, but it is no doubt his love for country and for his brothers in arms.  Please say a prayer for him.  He is going to need all of them he can get.

Update:  More from Greyhawk.

Must See Video

If you've been to a tea party you already know there are Independent tea partiers, and Democrat tea partiers, and yes, even black tea partiers (despite what you might have heard).  People like Keith Olbermann, Jeanine Garofalo, Rachel Maddow, Chris Matthews, are saying tea partiers are all white racists.  They are obviously woefully ignorant of the facts, explaining the black Americans in attendance at the tea parties by calling them names like Uncle Tom.  They need to watch this video. 

Teaching Your Children About ObamaCare

Blogger Bookworm has already experienced ObamaCare indoctrination through her middle school age child. 

My daughter’s history teacher, when pressed by her students about Sunday’s health care vote, couldn’t keep her mouth shut.  (Keeping her mouth shut would have involved saying, “This is a history class, not a politics class.  You should ask your parents these questions.”)  Instead, she blithely opined that “all civilized societies have universal health care.”

Fortunately, despite years in the public school system, my daughter is still amenable to logic.  In the face of her teacher’s certitude, I challenged my daughter with a few facts and asked a few questions.

Follow the link to read the conversation Bookworm had with her daughter.  More from Kim Priestap.

Health Care Vote Today

Michelle Malkin has a good rundown of today's schedule including the estimated timing of the GOP's Motion to Recommit. Sister Toldjah has more commentary. According to all the reports I am seeing, the Democrats have the votes they need. If they don't then they are going to look especially foolish since they have led everyone in the press to believe they do. Of course that was the strategy though -- create the illusion, then the reality will follow. Of course that reality required more than an illusion. Lots of threats, arm twisting and pay offs were necessary. The Chicago Way.

If the bill does pass expect the media to declare it the fix all for all that has ailed Obama and the Democrats in Congress. Expect their rehabilitation efforts to have some effect, which may or may not be short lived. The media will not remind voters of all that made Obamacare unpopular, and many of the negative ramifications of the policies will not be felt for a while, but candidates will be reminding voters -- from now til November.

Could This Be the Best Way to Kill Obamacare?

It is being reported that President Obama will refuse to campaign for those voting "no" on Obamacare. This might just be the best strategy possible -- for those wanting to kill Obamacare. Okay, maybe not really. It sounds like he is refusing the fund raising kind of visits that make lots of dough for the candidate, but don't necessarily result in pictures of the candidate with the president. When I saw this headline on Drudge though, "Obama refuses to campaign for Dems voting NO on health care," my first thought was that if Republicans could convince Democrats that a "Yes" vote would result in a high profile presidential visit to their district we might be able to kill this thing in a hurry. Just putting it out there.

You Know the Democrats Are in Trouble...

CNN's angry old man Jack Cafferty is not exactly a fan of Republicans. In the past he has been pretty openly hostile to them. Imagine my surprise (does anyone say that anymore?) when I saw this video clip via Anchoress:

For those who missed it, and for me who just wants to see it in print, here is that last line:

Here's hoping the voters remember some of this crap when the midterm elections roll around later this year.

He is, in effect, telling viewers to return the Congress to Republicans in November. Well, he doesn't go that far. But at the very least he is telling them they should feel really crappy about themselves when they vote for Democrats this time around.

If Obama and the Democrats in Congress have lost Jack Cafferty they are in worse shape than I thought. Lack of transparency and broken promises on health care are the reason for this comment from Cafferty, but there are many other issues out there that do not help Democrats -- "shocking" lapses in security, record high deficit spending, record high unemployment, etc. There is other stuff out there too, like that global warming crisis that made so much money for people like Al Gore and scared your kids half to death. Not even considering those Climategate memos, it is pretty darn cold outside and this winter may be the coldest in 25 years.

I don't know how much difference Cafferty's comments will make except to those who spend a lot of time in airports and other places people are held captive to CNN, but it certainly can't be a good thing for any Democrats on the ballot in November. If Democrats were smart they would start distancing themselves from some of these unpopular policies and would work to deliver on some of those campaign promises. My guess is they will stick to their old playbooks though and blame Bush, who is no longer in office, and Republicans, who have been in the minority since 2007. That has worked for them in the past, but this time around people are paying closer attention.

Update: The following comment was made to this (crossposted at Wizbang):

And who really cares 'how' Obama and Congress go about doing things? What matters is the 'what' they do, the content and substance of the laws they pass and not whether the text of the bill has been posted online.

Here is my response: Who cares "how"? Well, a bunch of those insignificant little voters in flyover country do. You know, the ones who are not career politicians, the ones who pick up the tab. I can only hope that is the arrogant stance Democrats take from now 'til November. Using that logic it wouldn't matter which politicians sold their votes to the highest bidder, as long as the policy outcome was okay.

But that's the problem with the commenter's argument. Voters are not okay with the policies being enacted. These policies are pretty darned unpopular and are only becoming more so. That is one of the reasons people are as upset about the "how" as they are -- because they are not happy with the result of all that backroom dealing in the middle of the night.

Besides, Obama told them it was important to have the negotiations and debate open and aired on C-Span. Blame him if people seem overly interested in the "how." His promises of open government helped get him elected.

Unemployment and Presdential Priorities

My most recent columns at American Issues Project address the record high unemployment rates and the priority the President has assigned to that and other issues.  Check them out at AIP:

Unemployment Rate May Determine 2010 Outcome

Presidential Priority Problems

New Column - Presidential Priority Problems

Post at American Issue Project:

If there is anyone still scratching their head trying to understand why so many Americans are fed up with their government and are even marching on Washington, they should consider for a minute where the average American sees their government putting its time and resources.  There are serious concerns about government overstepping and out-of-control spending, to be sure, but many of the problems people have with the government today are simply a matter of priorities.

The big legislation making news right now is that on the issue of health care.  Most of those, on the right and the left, can agree that improvements can stand to be made to the health care system in America.  There are serious issues over affordability of health insurance and treatment for many Americans.  Unfortunately opposing sides can’t seem to agree on the best solution. 

Beyond the merits of any particular type of action on health care, though, is whether this issue is the one of highest priority today.  Americans are seeing the highest unemployment rates they have seen in decades.  They are hearing pleas from our military in Afghanistan for more troops lest we risk losing the war there.  They are seeing madmen around the world with nukes making noise on the world stage.  Many people would rate those as higher priorities right now than the issue of health care.

Health care is at least a serious issue though.  It is one that hits Americans not only in their pocketbooks, but affects their quality of life.  The same cannot be said for some of the other issues consuming the White House lately.

A couple of weeks ago the big news was the all out effort the President made to bring the 2016 Olympic Games to Chicago.  In mid-September the President held an event on the White House lawn to rally support for the Chicago games, and then he and the First Lady even flew to Copenhagen to make personal pitches in front of the International Olympics Committee.  That effort was unsuccessful, but at least it was limited in time and resources.  A new effort the White House has undertaken could last his entire term in office.

The White House communications director Anita Dunn’s declaration of war on Fox News could last for years and take up much more time and energy than the quick trip to Copenhagen.  Dunn said that “Fox News often operates as either the research arm or the communications arm of the Republican party.” Dunn said the White House was going to treat Fox News “the way we would treat an opponent.”   When I look at the way the White House has treated some of the country’s enemies lately I am not sure whether that is a good or a bad thing.

The amount of time and attention the war against Fox News is receiving is not limited to the communications director.  Dunn said when the President goes on Fox he realizes it is “not a news organization at this point, he is going on to debate the opposition.”  But when the President recently blitzed the Sunday morning shows, he pointedly skipped Fox. 

Chris Wallace, host of Fox News Sunday, talked to Bill O’Reilly about the snub.  Wallace said “there's kind of childishness or pettiness about it,” and “they are the biggest bunch of crybabies I have dealt with in my 30 years in Washington.”

The President has personally made comments about not only the Fox News Channel, but about individual Fox personalities like Sean Hannity. When people see the President’s attention directed at a feud with a cable news channel, and even individual political commentators, it is no wonder so many people are asking if the President’s priorities are in order.