President Obama met with moderate Republicans in an attempt to get support for his “big ticket” items, like health care reform:
President
Barack Obama’s first date with House Republicans didn’t end so well: He made a high-profile trip to the Capitol to ask for their help with his
economic stimulus plan, and they said no — unanimously, twice. Now
Obamais trying again — more quietly and with a smaller group of moderate Republicans who might be more willing to say yes. The goal: Try to get at least some Republicans to back big-ticket items such as Obama’s health care plan, but avoid the public spectacle of being rejected a second time around. Rather than have the president, his motorcade and his press pool trek to Capitol Hill, White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel last week invited about a dozen or so moderate House Republicans to meet with him in a small outdoor courtyard just off the West Wing. According to members who attended, Emanuel acknowledged that even
moderate Republicans might not support Obama’s health care plan in the end, but he said that the White House wanted to maintain an open dialogue throughout the process — and that some of their ideas might be included. The president stopped by for about 15 minutes. He listened to the Republicans’ ideas for overhauling the health care system and agreed to review an energy bill authored, in part, by Rep. Tim Murphy (R-Pa.). At least one Republican walked away impressed. “I believe they’re making an honest and overt effort to deal with Republicans,” said Delaware Rep. Mike Castle. “The White House is genuinely interested in resolvable issues.”
If members of the Republican Party fall for this, they deserve to be voted out of office. Barack Obama does not care about what Republicans want,especially when it comes to health care. He is not going to work with them in any meaningful way. He just wants to build his “bi-partisan” bona fides for the next election.
If Republicans refuse to vote with him, as they should–especially when it comes to this health care “reform”–he will label them as partisans willing to stall “progress” just to have another chance to say no, even after he has ignored every suggestion and idea they have offered. Republicans need to come out strong with their message to the American people and not let this become accepted as the truth. They must work to expose Obama’s liberal agenda to the public and explain to them how this will harm all Americans, not help them.
The White House is not making an honest effort to deal with Republicans and they are not genuinely interested in resolvable issues. Castle sounds like the dorky chick who gets excited because the hot guy who is so blatantly using her throws her a wink. It doesn’t mean anything. It’s all for show. He’s still just using you.
Comments (0)
Republicans look to attract the Hispanic vote:
The Republican Party has scarcely begun to repair a wound that threatens to confine it to minority status: its 2006 collapse among Hispanic voters.
Driven by some Republicans’ sharp attacks on illegal immigration and — as many Hispanics perceived it, immigrants in general — Latino voters fled the GOP en masse in the midterm elections , then turned on John McCain, as well.
He got 31 percent of the Latino vote to the 44 percent that George W. Bush took in 2004, according to exit polls. And it was enough to put much of the West and Southwest out of reach for the Republican Party, to give Florida to the Democrats and to hand Barack Obama the presidency.
Now, as Obama moves to solidify his advantage, Republican leaders are sounding the alarm on what could be the party’s most pressing national challenge.
This is how the Republican Party will misinterpret the problem and, therefore, take the wrong steps to address it. First, they will convince themselves, with a little help from the Dems and the MSM, that the only reason they lost the Hispanic vote is because of their seemingly “xenophobic,” “anti-immigrant” stance. Then, they will become more pro-open border in order to lure more Hispanics in. And, predictably, this will not have the desired result and will actually contribute to the loss of more Hispanic votes.
George W. Bush did not tap into the Hispanic base by being pro-illegal immigration, even though he was obviously very pro-illegal immigration (remember that whole “comprehensive immigration reform” thing?). It is my opinion that Bush Jr. won the Hispanic vote because of his deeply held Christian beliefs and convictions. On moral issues, Hispanic voters are more in line with the Republicans (or, at least, what the Republicans are supposed to stand for). Admittedly, I could be wrong about this. I’m just saying what I think to be the case.
It is my opinion that Republicans didn’t lose hispanics in the midterm elections or in the presidential election of 2008 because of their mischaracterized/mispercieved anti-immigration positions. I believe that as the party has fallen into the liberal trap of nominating “moderates” to be their standard bearers they have lost this key constituency because once you moderate on the issues they do agree with Republicans on (abortion, gay marriage, etc.) the difference between the two parties gets blurred, and when that happens on the issues they hold most dear, they vote based on secondary issues, like immigration, which the MSM has done an effective job of characterizing the Republican Party as generally being against.
If Republicans want to win back the Hispanic vote they need to put up social conservatives. Don’t be fooled by the other side. Legal immigrants aren’t voting on politicians based on their stance against illegal immigration, primarily. They overwhelmingly voted for Bush Jr. because he was an outspoken Christian. He had religious convictions, which he openly spoke about. They agreed with him on their major issues, which were the social issues.
Republicans will get this wrong, though. They’ll listen to the Dems and the MSM, and idiots like Meghan McCain, who keep telling them they need to moderate when it comes to social issues in order to “stay relevant.” They will continue to allow themselves to be caricatured as anti-immigrant, failing to draw the distinction between illegal and legal immigration. And, as a result, they will become more vocally open-border while falling silent on social issues and contribute more to their own defeat than any outsider ever could.
Comments (1)
Obama claims to want to search for common ground when it comes to abortion:
President Obama delved into the abortion debate in a controversial Notre Dame commencement address Sunday, calling for a search for common ground on one of the most divisive issues in American politics.
Addressing a sharply divided audience at the storied Catholic university, Obama conceded that no matter how much Americans “may want to fudge it … at some level the views of the two camps are irreconcilable.”
“Each side will continue to make its case to the public with passion and conviction,” he said. “But surely we can do so without reducing those with differing views to caricature.”
I think a common ground has been reached on abortion. Poll after poll shows that most Americans, whether they self-identify as pro-life or pro-choice, think abortion should be legal when there is a threat to the life/health of the mother, life/health of the child (think genetic disorders), or pregnancies resulting from rape or incest.
Statistically, those reasons, which most Americans agree on as acceptable (although, not desirable) cases in which abortion should be allowed, only account for approximately three percent of abortions. So, you want common ground, Mr. Obama? I’ll give it to you. Let’s outlaw abortion in all circumstances except for those listed above. And, realistically, we can take rape off the table since anyone who reports a rape is given Plan B in order to prevent a pregnancy as a result of said rape.
Now, that doesn’t necessasrily sit well with me. I mean, innocent lives will be lost, but it will not be at the ridiculous rate of over 1 million children per year. Our president is asking for a common ground and I’m just trying to give him one. Now, if we could stop children from having abortions without parental consent, and wives from murdering their husband’s children without spousal notification, that all might help to save lives, as well. I’m just saying.
Average Americans have found a common ground on this issue. It is the extremist politicians and pro-abortion groups who make it appear as though this is a polarizing issue that average Americans are deeply divided over. I don’t believe that is the case.
Let’s look at “partial-birth abortion”. For the majority of Americans there is plenty of common ground: they’re overwhelmingly against it. And, I’m sure most Americans are against leaving babies born from botched abortions to die in some empty hospital room and discarded in a trash receptacle. Unfortunately, the same can’t be said for our president.
I guess we should just all be thankful that Obama didn’t present the abortion issue as a “false choice.” And, I’m still not clear as to why a Catholic university would invite him to speak and confer upon him an honorary degree. But, what do I know? It’s a little discouraging that the second most prestigious Catholic university in the nation would put publicity over their religious principles. Who will be the commencement speaker next year, Jenna Jameson?
Comments (2)
Since she’s been all over the news with her battle with cancer, I thought it would only be appropriate to honor her on this Rule 5 Sunday.
I know, you want another one. I don’t intend to disappoint.
OK, this is the last one. Enjoy boys!
Comments (4)
Obama is moving forward with the military commissions for those being detained at Gitmo, but he’s tweaking the rules a little bit to put the Barack Obama stamp on them:
President Barack Obama unveiled a new plan Friday to try some Guantanamo Bay war-on-terror detainees before military commissions — but under different rules from previous commissions instituted under President George W. Bush.
“These reforms will begin to restore the commissions as a legitimate forum for prosecution, while bringing them in line with the rule of law,” Obama said in a prepared statement. “This is the best way to protect our country, while upholding our deeply held values.”
Civil liberties groups already angry over some of Obama’s recent moves on detainee issues — such as his reversal Wednesday on releasing detainee-abuse photos — are strongly opposed to this move as well, which they describe as “reviving” the tribunals from the Bush-era.
“These military commissions are inherently illegitimate, unconstitutional and incapable of delivering outcomes we can trust. Tweaking the rules of these failed tribunals so that they provide ‘more due process’ is absurd; there is no such thing as ‘due process light,’ ” the executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union, Anthony Romero, said in a statement Friday.
As is to be expected from President Obama, who has been more worried about winning over the Muslim world than protecting America, his tweaking of the rules all give the suspected terrorists more latitude and generally favor their eventual release.
The ACLU’s quote shows that they have it wrong, again. Not that there’s any shocker there. These people aren’t American citizens and therefore should not be afforded any constitutional guarantees. They don’t have constitutional rights, therefore their constitutional rights can’t be violated.
It would seem to me we’re moving toward treating these detainees as possible everyday criminals, rather than the probable potential terrorists that they are. In other words, we are moving toward what is commonly referred to as a September 10, 2001 frame of mind, when we didn’t know what the terrorist were capable of.
I think most of know how this is going to go. Those who don’t learn from history are destined to repeat it. And, I’m not even sure this president is aware of a lot of history, never mind capable of learning from it, so I guess as a country we are destined to repeat it.
Comments (2)
Another issue that I had yet to be inspired to write about. Nancy Pelosi and her backtracking, lying, and unrelenting re-framing of the torture issue.
I’m pretty sure they all knew what we think they knew when we think they knew it. But, realistically, who cares?
It’s so easy to judge in retrospect. We’re all against torture….now. How did we all feel on 9/11 2001 at about 10 a.m.? I have this weird inclination to believe that we would have voted and acted very differently when it comes to “enhanced interrogation techniques.”
This is all I’m asking for: some honesty. I’m not going to get into where I fall on the “torture” issue. It’s irrelevant. Polls show that the majority of Americans are either ambivalent or supportive of these so-called enhanced interrogation techniques. Why can’t our politicians just be honest with us?
I’m not trying to help the Democrats. It just seems to me, they would gain a lot more respect, and a lot more support, if they would just admit that they knew what was going on, and in light of what had happened (that being the greatest terrorist attack on American soil) they supported it. They did, or supported, what most of us would have done, or supported.
It wasn’t about agencies (or people) lying. It was about the fact that we were operating under a shield of fear. We all acted accordingly and did what we thought would best protect our country from another terrorist attack.
That’s an honest answer I can appreciate, whether I agree with water-boarding or not. Yet, all we are getting from Washington is spin, spin, spin. It’s sickening!
We are all humans and we all experienced the same feelings. We can understand why you voted for this at the time. It’s quite peculiar to claim that they explicitly mentioned how they weren’t water-boarding while explaining that they were going to use enhanced interrogation techniques. That’s just plain unbelievable.
Stop playing politics with our national security and do what is best for America. Stop being so elitist to think that most Americans won’t get it. Stop catering to other elitists. Pelosi, woman up and just tell the truth.
Comments (0)
Lost your job? Low on Viagra? Don’t have the money to fill a new prescription? Don’t worry, it’s Big Pharm to the rescue:
Pfizer Inc. is unveiling a new program Thursday that will let people who have lost their jobs and health insurance keep taking some widely prescribed Pfizer medications – including Lipitor and Viagra – for free for up to a year.
The world’s biggest drugmaker will provide more than 70 of its prescription drugs at no cost to unemployed, uninsured Americans, regardless of their prior income, who lost jobs since Jan. 1 and have been on the Pfizer drug for three months or more.
Really, Pfizer? You really think that Viagra is one of those medications that people can’t live without? What a treat for the wives! Because there’s nothing more sexy than an unemployed husband who has been lounging on the couch all day.
During these tough economic times it’s good to know that there is at least one company out there offering our men a pick-me-up.
Comments (8)
Apparently, Holder–you know, the man who called us all cowards for not openly discussing race–thinks that we’re starting to talk, but the comfort level still isn’t there:
Two months after Attorney General Eric Holder was widely criticized for his assertion that Americans are a “nation of cowards” for not openly discussing race, Holder said Wednesday he now sees some movement.
“I think there is a dialogue going on. But I’m still worried the comfort level isn’t there,” Holder told the NAACP Legal Defense Fund.
Holder told the organization’s luncheon at the National Press Club in Washington the discomfort is particularly evident on the subject of affirmative action. He said citizens are reluctant to speak out, fearing that they’ll be “seen as a racist.”
Holder said he supports affirmative action and sees it as a way “to encourage diversity where everyone wins.”
Who exactly is scared of being labeled a racist and by whom? Holder is not brave for saying that he is supportive of affirmative action. It is those of us who are against affirmative action that will be labeled a racist, and Holder would probably be one of the people to label us that.
You want to talk about race and racism in America? Affirmative action is inherently racist. They have “minority” scholarships all over the country, but just see what happens when some college kids offer a whites only scholarship in protest. Their lives were threatened by those tolerant liberals.
Holder is correct, there is no comfort level when it comes to discussing race in America because anyone who doesn’t side with the liberal orthodoxy is labeled a racist. It is assumed that America is a racist nation. Remember when Obama reminded us that he didn’t look like all of those past presidents that we see on our dollar bills? Or, falsely, claimed that Republicans and conservatives would try to defeat him by using scare tactics and pointing out his “funny” name?
If there is a level of comfort that is missing it is because that level of comfort has been stolen by the left. They think the only kind of diversity that matters is racial. Anything that is said against liberal policies is racist. Anyone who disagrees with Obama is a racist. They are always playing the race card. Talk about a chilling effect!
Holder doesn’t want to have a conversation about race in America. He wants a lecture, like the one Obama gave where he threw his grandmother under the bus while defending his racist pastor, Jeremiah Wright. Holder wants the liberals of America to keep reminding us of how this is a nation built by slaves on the racist tradition of slavery and convincing us that we are still an inherently racist nation that needs to keep atoning for this original sin.
Call me what you want. What do I care? You want to label me a racist? Sticks and stones. That’s all I can say. I don’t support affirmative action. I’ll discuss race with you anytime, just name it. And, I think diversity extends far beyond the color of a persons skin. Let the discussion begin. Just be prepared for the feedback, even if you don’t agree with it.
Comments (1)
We all know that I am a fan of smoking if for no other reason that it just may save a child’s life. Now, Troglopundit brings some more reasons to light of why picking up a ciggy might be the most patriotic thing you can do:
Being fat could be a potential lifestyle choice – and we don’t want to criticize people’s lifestyle choices, do we? Or it’s a result of victimology: genetics and/or the stress of living in this patriarchal hell of a society made me fat. Either way, the average hemp-wearing liberal is duty bound to embrace it.
But here’s the thing: we know that being overweight means consuming more energy. Because we Americans tend to be a little heavier, we use more gasoline than we otherwise would.
Plus, the overweight-ness of Americans in general is evidence of our “fried, fatty, butter-drenched and Super-sized Culture of More.” America’s all-around corruption.
So sooner or later, this has to become problematic. If smoking helps Americans lose weight and/or stay thinner, that’s a good thing.
It makes sense. Fat people use more energy, no matter how you cut it. If smoking keeps more people thinner, and if having thinner people is more environmentally responsible, then smoking is more environmentally responsible.
I think cigarettes are a diet suppressant, too. This would help fat people eat less, which would have to be a good thing, especially if they’re eating beef. Little did everyone realize that us smokers were the environmentally friendly, socially responsible, truly patriotic ones.
I think it’s time for me to go fulfill my duty as an American. Now, where did I put those Marb Reds? Anybody got a light?
Comments (1)
No not Dick Cheney and John McCain, their daughters. While Meghan McCain is fast becoming the Lefts favorite “Republican,” Liz Cheney is becoming one of mine:
Liz Cheney is picking up where her father left off when it comes to taking aim at the Obama administration, saying Tuesday the new commander-in-chief appears to be siding with terrorists.
In an interview on Fox News, the daughter of Vice President Dick Cheney sharply criticized the new administration for agreeing to release photographs depicting alleged abuses at U.S. prisons in Iraq and Afghanistan during the Bush administration.
“I think it is really appalling that the administration is taking this step,” she said in the interview. “Clearly what they are doing is releasing images that show American military men and woman in a very negative light.”
“I have heard from families of service members from families of 9/11 victims this question about when did it become so fashionable for us to side, really, with the terrorists,” she continued. “You know, President Obama has a lot of rhetoric about support for American military families, support for our men and women who are fighting for us overseas. But if he really cares about them, then he wouldn’t be making such an effort to release photos that show them in a negative light.”
Releasing these photos provides no benefit to America. They can only be used to justify and embolden our terrorist enemies. The crimes of a few will act as an indictment of the many brave military men and women that risk their lives to protect our lives and freedoms.
This is a purely political move on Obama’s part. It’s another way to embarrass the Bush Administration while reminding the people that even if he screws up, at least he’s not Bush. It’s a way of inoculating himself from criticism and dropping poll numbers. And, at the same time, it hurts our military, our country, and helps the cause of terrorism. But, what does Obama care? He has an election to win and at some point being half black isn’t going to be enough.
UPDATE: In a surprise move from Obama, he has decided to block the release of the aforementioned photos:
In a dramatic and high-profile reversal for his young administration, President Barack Obama is seeking to block the release of 44 photographs depicting abuse of detainees in U.S. military custody in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The Justice Department had already agreed to release the photos by May 28 in response to a lawsuit, but Obama is shifting course
He must be reading my blog! I changed the president’s mind! Yeah right. Sorry about that. It was my impression of Meghan McCain.
Comments (0)
« Newer Posts —
Older Posts »
