The Dem’s Toyota Legislation

Washington DC—Health care reform is again on the congressional docket. The president is on the HCR campaign trail. But this is not how it was supposed to happen.

Recently, radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh postulated that after HCR is passed in the House and signed by Obama, the issue will be left alone as a stop-loss for the coming November election. Interesting point, but I believe Mr. Limbaugh has not taken the theory far enough.

Think back to Mr. Obama’s first act as president; he signed an order to close GITMO. That was it. Nothing more was really said about it. After which, the stimulus bill was passed, making key parts of the private sector dependent on the government. Next was the Iraq drawdown and new Afghanistan strategy. The latter played in the media as a front-page above-the-fold issue for months; meanwhile, HCR was being fashioned along with cap and trade. And now, there is news the administration is considering immigration reform and the take-over of Sallie Mae. Neither issue is getting much attention, but they are quietly being moved.

And here is where Mr. Limbaugh’s theory can be taken a step further. I submit the democrat majority and the White House embarked on a strategy since the inauguration. I would venture to call it Toyota legislation, that is, incremental legislation that is passed without much hullabaloo under the democrat majority, designed to accelerate wildly out of control of future congresses.

All of the above mentioned initiatives are part of the groundwork to put in place the transformation of America into a western European socialist democracy. And that is why HCR was supposed to pass last summer. Once the legislation is passed, like a Toyota accelerating without warning, the congress and administration could go full speed ahead and no one could stop them.


-- Owen E. Richason IV
Chief Editor, Killswitch Politick


Follow Owen…

Twitter
Facebook

Click here to subscribe
Click here to contact


Share

|

White guilt and 2012

President Obama’s approval ratings are slipping and support for his policies are likewise sliding; this has caused an early but seemingly plausible forecast for both 2010 and 2012.

Last night on The O’Reilly Factor, Dick Morris pointed out that Mr. Obama is in the same boat Bill Clinton was in his first term – tacking too far to the left after running as a center-left moderate and then staying there in hiding until the republican’s won the majority in the House in 1994. Morris also pointed out this made Bill Clinton reassess his presidency and we all know what came of it, Newt Gingrich and Tom DeLay got their agenda through the White House. Bill Clinton was now a bi-partisan, centrist president.

Fast forward to 2009, wherein President Obama finds himself in the same dilemma; just as in 1993, Congress’ approval ratings were also tanking as they are now. The momentum has shifted since 2006, and the republicans look primed to pick-up many seats, if not outright win the majority in the House.

And herein lays the road to 2012: should the republicans win control of Congress, Obama can win a second term, should the republicans not win control of Congress, Obama may still win a second term.

How so? One answer: white guilt.

Should the republicans win control of the Congress and move against Mr. Obama, come 2012, white liberals will rally to their President because of the mean, dastardly republican majority. Any problems won’t be his fault, after all he tried to fix this or that, but the right-wingers in Congress just wouldn’t let him. And let’s not forget the black and Hispanic vote; they’re well likely to share the same sympathy – not letting the first black President succeed.

Should the republicans win a Congressional majority as they did in 1994, Mr. Obama would likely have no trouble throwing his party under the bus, move to the center and ride bi-partisan popularity to reelection.

In the event that the democrats keep control of Congress that too could work in Mr. Obama’s favor. The sympathy wouldn’t be all that different – just replace a republican majority with boogie man right-wing zealots and the huge mess George W. Bush left behind.

Though the tide is definitely against Mr. Obama and his party, the tide is largely comprised of distrust and anger. As Rush Limbaugh has pointed out, that might be enough for republicans to take back the majority, but it won’t be enough to sustain them through 2012. They’ll need to keep in a leadership mode and continue to offer better ideas. But that may be all Mr. Obama needs to get enough white guilt to eek out a second term in 2012.

-- KillswitchPolitick

A Dud Debate

Last night's debate was a snoozer; period.

McCain looked as though he was just thawed out, programed with voice-recognition software and put on stage. Obama came across as arrogant at times and the majority of his remarks either made little sense or were peppered with euphemisms for "big brother government".

But niether candidate made a news-worthy gaffe or botched an answer or got in a knee-slapping zinger.

What this means is the race still remains just as it was yesterday before the debate: close.

Today's national tracking polls among likey voters are beginning to show signs of turning back to McCain, but this assertion requires another two days of the same tracking. And by that accepted standard, would effect a trend. Last night's debate will not have a full three day effect because (by comparison to the veep debate) no one watched the damn thing.

And with viewership as low as this debate garnered, the polls are highly unlikely to show significant swings. So with the polls starting to shift, and without a big bang to point to, the explanation must lie elsewhere.

Rush Limbaugh on his radio program today made a point to note that Obama has never put-up a fight in a tight race and won. "He can't close the deal" the radio talk show host observed. Even the primaries put on display the Illinois Senator's weakness: practically all media had declared Hillary down-and-out and then, like Rocky Balboa, she got up and fought back. Mrs. Clinton won state after state and put to-the-test the democrat primary system.

But as pointed out in this very blog, the fix was in from the get-go as the beltway dems, the far-left activist 527's, the DNC, democrat pundits and sympothetic media had enough of the Clinton reign.

Yet even with that massive support group Obama could not stop Hillary from capturing the most important primaries. His nomination came not of his own integrity and valition, but by the grace of the superdelegates.

So what would explain the stagnating poll numbers?

As William of Ockham would conclude, the simplest explaination tends to be the correct one. And that is: Obama is still a relative unknown and what is becoming known isn't so appealing to the man-on-the-street. And with Labor Day now five weeks behind, the voting public are paying day-to-day attention (probably because they have little choice given the onslaught of 24/7 meida and campaign politicking both by the parties).

McCain will also suffer from more media attention because of his lack of charisma and frankly, because of his age. But McCain has an advantage: he is a statesman whereas Obama is an upstart.

Moreover, though some of McCain's associates might be lobbyists, none have bombed the Pentagon, none have preached America a racist country, and probably none have been convicted of fraud, attempted bribery and money laundering charges.

Further, with negative ads characterizing Obama as a typical tax-and-spend liberal coupled with the his own gaffes, and those of his running mate, Joe Biden, the voting public are forming their opinions.

The polls are begining to reflect that as Obama's past associations, public statements and voting record become more known the harder it will be to explain away.

Poll Dancing

Yesterday morning, my wife was checking her email and was browsing through the AOL headlines. She clicked on one such headline that proclaimed a "huge lead" opened in the presidential race. Knowing my interest in such developments, she shouted out to me "Obama's got a 9-point lead."

I looked over her shoulder at the monitor and after a quick browse said, "I don't believe it; that cannot be right."

Picking up my notebook, I went to RealClearPolitics.com and there it was a ABC/WaPo poll showing a 9-point national tracking lead for Barack Obama, yet every other national tracking poll had Obama up within or just outside the margin of error. These polls seemed reasonable given the Freddie/Fannie bailout upheaval -- the democrat nominee should get a bump from the economic uncertainty.

But a lone poll showing a lead three times the typical margin of error? What gives?

So I looked into the poll, figuring the poll was taken from registered voters instead of likely voters. But it was LVs and I was even more suspicious because nothing had happened to either candidate (McCain didn't fly-off-the-handle flaring his infamous temper, Obama didn't stutter his way around a Biden-esq gaffe). In other words, there was no catalyst to justify such a huge bump.

Again the current bailout fears should rightly give Obama a small spike, but nine points?

Come to find, I was right, the poll wasn't accurate. It wasn't accurate because of its weighting sample. The sample taken was nearly 40% democrat, and under 30% republican, with the independents obviously leaning democrat. Shazam! A near ten-point national lead!

At this juncture in the presidential race, national tracking polls aren't nearly as accurate as state-by-state polls, which hold the electoral race key.

Over the next week, with what Rush Limbaugh has called "the congressional hindsight committee" will head-over-heels engage in showboating and finger-pointing. The presidential polls will dance with the ebb-and-flow set by Capitol Hill happenings. Likewise, the coming debates will lead the polls in concert with the nominee's performance.

What this suspect poll has again demonstrated is mainstream media bias and its Obama cheer leading, disguised as legitimate poll reporting.

The Devil is in the details

Many conservative and liberal talking-heads (among them Rush Limbaugh and Howard Wolfson) have said that Barack Obama needs to get specific and come-down from the lofty hope and change politicking; I even have been engaged in anecdotal conversations purporting the same.

It is understandable that many have arrived at this given Obama's sliding poll numbers and the backfire of the high-minded Berlin speech, the absence of a VP bounce and to-date a mundane convention.

But there's one problem with this idea: when it comes to experience, there's no there there.

Let me explain this the way I have in ordinary conversation: I first qualify my question with "Whether you may agree with them or not, do you give credibility to Bill Clinton when he speaks on foreign policy, economics, or American politics?" Then I continue to ask the same about Newt Gingrich. The answer is inevitably "yes".

The answer is "yes", because , they have to their credit, first-hand experience...Clinton was a professor, state attorney general, Chair of the National Governor's Association, and a two-term governor; Gingrich a history professor, congressman, Speaker of the House, and author.

Barack has an unremarkable state representative record and just half a national senatorial term, which translates into a real deficit on credibility.

Should Obama begin to espouse specifics on his policy intentions, the door to questioning his credibility deficit swings wide open into his own face.

He can't get specific because of this fact and if he does and is questioned he can only revert to relating to his time as a community organizer (which will not stand the test of reality) or that he's relying on his advisers and veep (which begs the question, why then is Obama on the top of the ticket).


Moreover, conspicuous by it's absence is any political rung climbing. That is, the run for and holding of lesser offices -- as is the recognized standard. Barack seems to be reaching too far and when one considers how he arrived at his previous office, it looks all the more like a leap of faith (hence the hope and change identity).

So the senator is left to talk high ideals and chant hope and change, sloganeer overcome, but that too makes clear that the democratic nomination when to the wrong gender.