Chicago Republicans

 

What do sports and politics have in common? Well, outbursts and spontaneous eruptions seem to be the latest. As a fan of both tennis and politics, I thought at first it was a stretch to compare the U.S Open in New York with what happens in Congress. Then Maureen Dowd and Jimmy Carter opened their mouths and have launched a despicable attack by accusing Joe Wilson of being racist, based not on fact but on what they imagined he meant to say. If that isn't disgusting I am not sure what is. But back to tennis. We saw an emotional tirade from Serena Williams that was foul mouthed and ugly, but not a complete surprise given the phenom's earlier behavior and history of outbursts. It cost her the match both emotionally and technically. But then we saw a most uncharacteristic reaction by all time great Roger Federer which was nowhere as ugly as Serena's but so unusual for the cool champion that it stood out. Normally stone faced, he argued with the umpire about a late, but accurate challenge of a critical point. Serena was appropriately fined and penalized and has since apologized. Roger continued to play and lost with the generous grace that true champions seems to possess. Both outbursts demonstrated just how stressful and demanding the sport can be, where millimeters can make the difference and one lucky break can change a whole match. I didn't realize it, but politics seems to be a game of inches as well. By all accounts, Joe Wilson acted emotionally and in the heat of the moment when he spontaneously yelled out "you lie" during President Obama's speech. He was reacting to a statement regarding the exclusion of illegal immigrants that he had spent the afternoon debating in committee, which itself had failed to settle the issue. No doubt his reaction was based in part on the frustration he had just experienced on that very point, just as tennis players sometimes explode after a series of frustrating points. He recognized the inappropriateness of his shout out and immediately apologized to the President who accepted graciously. And the House rebuked him for it anyway and technically they had that right. But now Dowd and Carter have gone one ugly step further and have attempted to justify the resolution, which went right down party lines, by playing the race card. They want to paint him as a Serena rather than a Roger. They want this to look uglier, meaner and more suspect than it really is. Anyone watching the tapes can see that Wilson had a Roger moment, not a Serena one.

 

For anyone interested in exploring further the tennis/politics analogy, I would posit that some outbursts are not always spontaneous but sometimes calculated to pump one's self up or psyche out an opponent. There are some who claimed that John McEnroe and Jimmy Connors employed some of these methods. And what about the repeated attacks and name calling of President George Bush by our congressional leaders Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi? They certainly don't appear random and they have never been forced to apologize.

Summer is over and the kids are all back in school. You would think that as a conservative who, like Rush, hopes our President's policies...don't succeed, I would have been delighted by his struggles over the last couple of months. I should have been heartened by the Democrats' failure to pass their version of healthcare reform, the strong grassroots reactions at townhalls across the country from independents, not just Republicans, the Gates/Crowley fiasco where Obama instinctively claimed that police acted "stupidly"and his failed attempt to gloss it over with beer, the outcry over cap and trade, the trillion dollar deficit and the lukewarm stimulus, the furor over his many czars culminating with the resignation of radical advisor Van Jones, and finally the innocuous back to school speech forced upon him by parents across the country outraged by the lesson plan that taught us more about group think and Alinsky methodology. I don't yet feel energized by the rapidly dropping poll numbers that only Fox News seems to report, I just feel uneasy. If this last election taught me anything, it is that this Administration will manage to do the unbelievable. I don't trust the Democratic party, run by its left wing, to let Obama fail among its constituents. They will continue to bargain ith and manipulate their moderate members in order to keep this President and his agenda as the starting point for all political discussion. I just have this feeling that Obama will get away with a lot of what he wants to do in attempting to transform our government and society. Tonight, he will use linguistics to resell his health care plan, with the overall objective being to have a government plan, whether it is called an option, a single payer system, a trigger or whatever he now calls it. Remember, a rose is a rose by any other name and the morning star and the evening star are still Venus. This summer showed me that the tactic of this Administration is not to listen to the people and to work from their concerns but to start with the most liberally ideal legislation and hope it can survive a death by a thousand public outcry cuts. Keeping the public in the dark about the text of various bills, renaming various components, pooh-poohing legitimate concerns and outright denying or lying about its contents may work over time. It takes a lot of energy to disagree and dispel something and the liberal Democrats are banking on wearing down its critics, or at least making them look like angry mobsters who only seem to cry wolf. This is the source of my discontent - can independents and conservatives maintain the momentum to keep Congress and Obama honest? With a complicit liberal media, will their outcries be heard or honestly reported? Can Republicans effectively remind the public of these failures and the reveal the smokescreens or the "man behind the curtain"?

 

The important thing is that people need to feel connected to their government and their representatives and today they do not. One thing that is clear at these townhalls is that people do not trust their government. It is up to the Republicans to translate this mistrust and disconnectedness into political action. The hurdle is that most people are focused on making a living and providing for their families rather than listening to politicians and their polls. Who can we find to connect the right dots?

Last night I attended my Congresswoman, Jan Schakowsky's, townhall meeting. The Tribune today said that the meeting was "heated" but I beg to differ. Although at times a little excitable, it was quite civil which may have been due to the smug assuredness of the many supporters that were bused in to take all the early seats and the calm collectedness of the "well-dressed angry mobsters" who managed to get there early despite being told to come later. I think my favorite staged presence were the supporters wearing white lab coats (to look like doctors) with "single payer option" buttons on the lapel where a real doctor's name would be. I only witnessed/experienced two ugly incidents, both conducted by supporters of the government option bill Jan is supporting. One lady complained about the Republicans standing in line in front of her who had saved places for each other (myself included) and the other was an otherwise attractive lady giving an opponent of the bill "the finger" repeatedly every time the woman tried to make a comment. Very grown up. Originally, upon looking over the people in line and upon entering the auditorium, I was disheartened by the inordinately high number of folks with "Reform Healthcare Now" stickers (provided to them in line by some interested party) and all of the SEIU members (in their T-shirts) carrying nicely printed, uniform signs. They clearly outnumbered the random individuals who had made their own signs, all opposed to the proposal. But kudos to Jan, who entered the hall gracefully after a glowing, fawning introduction by a Niles Township School Officer, looking poised, confident and in control. The meeting was well controlled and it became clear as it went on that many of the questions were not plants. Ms. Schakowsky actually called on real people. What the Tribune did not report was that more that half of the questioners (almost two to one) and at least half of the attendees did not support H.R. 3200. It made the following very clear: everybody, even conservatives, support some type of health insurance reform, however, most people want to fix what doesn't work, they do not want a complete overhaul of the health system, they do not want government to take over, or even participate in the arena, and they do not want all the bill's extras like granting the IRS and SSA access to individual private information. They want government to prove they can fix things by fixing Medicare/Medicaid first and by easing some of the costly regulations and restrictions on insurance companies to provide for portability and pricing flexibility for pre-existing conditions, healthy lifestyles and coverage choices. That is pretty much it.

 

What I learned is this:

1. Ms. Schakowsky can mislead with equal grace. She quickly brushed off conservative arguments against rationing and increasing the deficit by calling them myths. When asked about abortions under the bill, she pointedly said, twice, that no federal money would be used to cover abortions, not a dollar. Can we even say this is true today? What about all the current indirect means?

2. Democrats across the country have the same talking points and are using statistics to debunk the claims that we have the best system already and that looking like Canada or Europe will destroy this. Using World Health Organization rankings seems to play well, claiming that we are way down on the mortality and infant mortality lists. It doesn't take much to peel these apart and realize that these are based on factors that make us look bad, like excluding the effects of war or actual live births. Figures will lie and liars will figure...

3. Liberal Democrats from liberal districts are confident and fully intend on voting for the most extreme, dramatic legislation possible, including the public option. When asked if she had polled her district, she answered she didn't have to, she knows how the district feels generally and all her voters know how she feels. She came just short of daring people to vote her out. The liberal playbook, I predict, will be, vote for it, pass it and in time, your voters will forget or not feel the real impact until much later on, after re-election. They are willing to take that gamble.

4. Get ready for the new mascot: A woman next to me had a cute, blue Teddy bear with a sign on it that said "I Love Teddy Care". Awww. I actually hope they name HR 3200 after him since, like other events, it may sink and drown this country.

 

Today is an important test for the people of Afghanistan. It will test their fortitude and ability to stand up against Taliban thugs who threaten their lives as they cast votes in today's election. It will also test the strength of the American military and our willingness to fight for Afghans to exercise this precious right. And it will test the commitment of both countries to keeping Afghanistan free, democratic and pro-Western. It will be one of Obama's important indicators as the Commander-In-Chief, and whether he has listened to the boots on the ground rather than the anti-war rhetoric of his leftist patrons. I hope and pray it is a test that he passes and that he has guessed right. These days it is becoming clear, at least from the dramatically dropping poll numbers, that Americans don't think he is doing so well. The strong sentiment against nationalized healthcare and ambiguous insurance reform and now the lack of consumer confidence in the economy and the effect of the stimulus suggest that he has not solved the financial crisis and may not understand how to. It has certainly kept much of talk radio abuzz and has enabled conservatives to criticize this Administration quite intelligently and effectively. But do not underestimate the liberals' ability to go from defense to offense. The latest talking point, aimed at moderates and independents, is that conservatives cannot be trusted to be objective; it doesn't matter what Obama does, conservatives will attack and criticize and their blind hatred will cause them not only to miss but denounce his true successes. It falls just short of saying to "Hey, if Obama has missed on some big items, even a broken clock is right twice a day" and based on this, conservatives have to give him some credit somewhere. As a result, conservatives will have to find something nice to say just to defend their objectivity. My guess is that conservatives will be forced to concede that Obama is doing the right thing in Afghanistan, especially if the elections go well. But what if they do not? The argument will be that Obama has adopted the military's and Bush's surge strategies so his policy should be supported by conservatives. Will critical conservatives be accused of jumping on a purely "anti-Obama band wagon" that liberals will claim thwarts conservative intellectual integrity? Would liberals be brazen enough to make such an argument? And will conservatives have the courage to defend against such a claim?

 

My defense of "conservative criticism" is this: it is not just the actions and policies of this administration to which conservatives object, but the very principles upon which they are based. It is hard to commend someone who may accidently stumble onto success when the very intention of the action is objectionable. Yes, Kant still matters. There is a strong sense among conservatives that Obama's ultimate guiding principle is not what is right or right for this country but one of political expediency. Regardless of the outcome of the elections, or the short term peace brought on by a surge, there are serious doubts about his commitment to making sure Afghan is truly safer. You may ask then, why doesn't political expediency cause him to back off of unpopular healthcare reform? Possibly because conservatives are unsure or fear that another guiding principle is an egotistical goal of rewriting American history. Concerns about Obama's true motive and guiding principles are not unfounded and we should all be wary about his newest claim that government controlled health care is a "moral imperative". Does he even know what that means, and has he ever been guided by such? Again, we should always be free to question his motives and brush up on our Kantian ethics. Obama seems to forget clearly that morality arises not from mandates but the freedom to choose what is right.

Congressman Raymond Eugene Green, better known as Gene Green, represents the 29th district of Texas in the U.S. House of Representatives.  He's done so since the district was created after the 1990 census.  He lives in one of the rare liberal enclaves of the Lone Star State.  It's so liberal that our party didn't even present a candidate to oppose him in 1998, 2002 or 2004.

To his great credit, Representative Green voted in favor of the Iraq War and has steadfastly voted against any measures to provide insurgents with a timetable for our withdrawal.  In other words, he opposes telling our enemies when we plan to pack up and leave.  That's a good thing.

To his shame, however, Representative Green voted against requiring voters to present a valid ID before voting.  Clearly, ACORN members must love him.  Even in Chicago, with one of the most corrupt political systems in history, I must show my drivers license before voting.  One must ask what sense it makes to not require that you prove you're on the registered voter list before you vote.  That is not, however, the point of this blog.

We've all heard about the tactics suggested by the White House to Dems for running healthcare town hall meetings:  select smaller venues, restrict access to one doorway, have a larger than normal police presence, employ a "raffle" to decide who asks questions, limit it to a certain number of questions, etc.  While probably not in the playbook, I give kudos to Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee, another Dem from Texas for handling the situation in a unique way - take calls on your cell phone!  That's right, during a time-limited healthcare town hall meeting Representative Lee twice stepped aside to take a phone call on her cell.  She did NOT extend the duration of the town hall meeting to make up for the lost time.

I digress.  Representative Green has found another, unique method for dealing with town hall meetings.  His office announced that all those attending must present a valid photo ID or they will not be allowed in.  On the surface, this seems fine - if you're in his district you should have access over those who don't.  However, how does this jive with the notion that those showing up to vote for him don't have to prove they live in his district before voting?  His office has yet to explain this discrepancy.  I wouldn't hold my breath for an answer.

It's just one more example of getting away with being unfair because you have a D after your name.

Sources:

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=335056550700351&src=ADARTCL

www.newsbusters.org

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_Green

I have to confess, for the last two weeks I have been on a "vacation" where I have been blissfully unaware of what is going on in politics both in Washington and Chicago.  No newspapers, no radio, no television and only rare internet access.  I am amazed at how much less stress I feel not keeping track of the shenanigans of our elected representatives.  I have to believe that this is how much of the rest of the country probably lives.  And yet, in a scary way, I also am beginning to realize, as I re-enter the media world, how much goes on that I am not aware of and yet will affect me dramatically.  Yes, I am talking about this whole healthcare thing.  For once, I hope Dick Durbin is right and that nothing will be decided before the August recess.  I guess I am amazed at how quickly our President wants to get this going despite the fact that there is so much ambivalence, let alone push back from the American public.  I caught only bits and pieces of his "resell" speech and apart from trying to figure out what he was trying to say, I felt like we'd already heard his prime -time pitch before.  Is it really that hard for him to believe that Americans don't actually like what is going on?  Does he really think that Americans voted for him for his ideology and his insight into what is really good for us?  As Chicagoans, shouldn't we be frightened for the rest of the country that the key players in trying to get this healthcare nightmare passed are Rahm Emanual and David Axelrod ?  Neither of whom is known for his kindness and altruism.  In many ways I feel like Rip Van Winkle and am debating:  do I go back to sleep and hope to avoid confronting this reality or do I try to wake up and face the frightening present? 

 

One thing I have noticed is all this focus on the healthcare debate seems to have overshadowed some of the horrors happening overseas, including the kidnapping of our soldiers and the bombings in Indonesia to mention  a few.  Is there any doubt that the world seems less safe today than say, nine months ago?  Obama should relish the fact that thanks to the media and the political debate, Americans are focused on healthcare, global warming, and cap and trade rather than the rapidly destablizing world.  More than anything this tells me there is much to pay attention to in the upcoming months as gubernatorial and senate candidates emerge.  More than we realize, these folks will affect our lives, even if we are unaware of it.  It makes me think that many Americans have been blissfully sleeping while the busy political mice have been scurrying away our money, security and rights.  Rise and shine and wake up!

 

The narrow margin granted to Al Franken giving him Norm Coleman's Senate seat just reminded me of why I am frustrated with not only Democrats and their tactics to secure power, but with the Republicans' inability to secure the hearts and minds of those they represent. I have to confess that I was pretty mad about the latest revelations about Gov. Mark Sanford (R-SC). I think it was his "mea culpa" where he cried about how hard it was to break up with his mistress that did me in. All I could think of was "what a wimp", that he had a duty, not only to his wife, but to serve fully the people of South Carolina and lately the Republican Party. He failed on all three and so now I question whether he really has the capability to be a good governor and win back the trust of his constituents, let alone his family. Whether he was the right person, and clearly he wasn't, doesn't change the fact that in him was the hope of a resurgent Republican party that was focused on issues, fighting the expansion of the federal government and finally standing up to Democrat bullying. Republicans must now keep looking for the right messenger who can deliver that message. And now we are faced with a 60-seat-filibuster-proof-Democrat-controlled Senate secured by a comedian. And a mean one at that. The problem is that Franken hasn't really built anything, has never governed, legislated nor learned the art of compromise. He has spent a career observing, mocking those who do things, and tearing things down. He joins the ranks of our President in serving those for whom he has never really worked or achieved. On the Republican side, we have a governor whose ability to govern, despite a solid track record of improvement, is now clouded by personal issues, and we have Democrat representatives, bereft of business, commercial and government track records who are in office because of their personalities. My point is that neither situation is good. Is it too much to ask that those who serve in office, into whose hands we put our trust and public funds, be both likable and capable?

 

I ask this question because we are about to have "cap and trade" and national healthcare legislation shoved down our throats with many of us completely unaware of what our representatives are doing "on our behalf". Come the next election cycle, how many voters will hold these people accountable for what they are actually doing? Too often we send our representatives off to state capitals and Washington, DC and forget to keep track of them unless something scandalous happens. Unfortunately, these folks have the ability to really effect our lives, down to telling us what light bulbs we can use or what we can eat. We need to pay closer attention to the skills, experience and principles of those we are electing so that we can trust them to act on our behalf. To those in Illinois looking for a Republican gubernatorial candidate, has a candidate emerged that can demonstrate a certain level of achievement and proven success in leading who is also capable of delivering a solid principled message that articulates what he or she stands for? We need someone who not only understands the issues, how to articulate and defend them but also knows how to put them into action. This we are sorely missing.

 

I am writing this in the Richard J. Daley center waiting to see if I will be selected for a jury for the notorious Cook County Circuit Court. This gives me an opportunity to think about the latest Obama agenda item, healthcare. Especially since sitting in a large room waiting for bureaucrats to determine my fate might be like visiting the doctor under an Obama plan. And, eerily, the TV in the waiting room is tuned to the ABC channel. It is clear our President wants to focus completely on revamping the healthcare industry not just insurance. It is a shame that all that "internal"turmoil in Iran, the mere saber rattling of North Korea testing nukes and imprisoning U.S. Citizens, or the mischaracterization of terrorists being released from Gitmo to take up snorkeling in the tropics might distract us. But these are not the priorities on Mr. Obama's agenda who tells us that the real "ticking time bomb" is healthcare. He is so determined to scare us into believing that there is a crisis in healthcare rather than insurance that he has convinced ABC to broadcast infomercials selling his agenda. Our shepherd-in-chief has gotten very good at crying wolf. Much of what he and the Congressional Democrats are saying is illusory or misleading at best and outright wrong at worst. The rush is on not to fix the problems in existing systems but to write in a whole new one - with no evidence or assurances that it won't face the same shortcomings. Taxpayers need to ask three questions:

1. Is there a true crisis regarding the quality and delivery of health care? No doubt our insurance system is cumbersome, costly and flawed but people are not being turned away from our hospitals. We have the best medicine in the world and foreigners come here to get what their national systems cannot provide. There is a difference between being uninsured and not having access to care and this is what should be closely examined. Even by the Administration's own accounts, a new plan would only cover a third of those currently uninsured.

2. Isn't it cheaper and easier to examine and fix the problems of the variety of existing (private, federal employee, Medicare/Medicaid) insurance systems? Obama is trying to "sell" his plan by alleging that his plan will make private plans more "competitive" and will be "free" to become more efficient and provide better options. I find it amusing that he of all people is using national healthcare as a tutorial on free market principles. It is a simple fact that when the government enters into an industry where it is not bound by market prices and has unlimited tax funds to provide subsidies, it actually squelches competition. Just this week, here in Chicago at the AMA, Obama tried to sell his plan to the very folks who will live and work by its terms and they remain unconvinced. It did not help that Obama was unwilling to discuss one of the single most stifling costs to healthcare, medical malpractice caps and liability insurance. It will be his plan on his terms appeasing those interests that provide him support.

3. Are Congressional Democrats and this Administration the ones to rewrite healthcare? These are the folks that brought us Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac or currently oversee Medicare and Medicaid. What makes us think that government bureaucrats are good at running these things, although if a 31 year old law student can run a car company...at least Hillary had meetings and a task force. Speaking of which, I realize that having the First Lady involved can be damaging, but currently Obama's only experience with healthcare seems to be having his wife earn $300K a year for a hospital system which has yet to be an example of reform and efficiency.

Our President has made it clear that he is determined to stay on track with his ambitious domestic agenda and nothing, not even the threat of a destabled Iran, will derail him. We all saw how he crushed the fly that got in the way of his CNBC interview. Earlier today, he just announced a revamping of the finance industry, with the typical claim that it is in the direst of straits. What is next? What I don't understand is how he can cry wolf about every domestic policy and downplay the only genuine crises to which he is constitutionally obligated. I guess it's his party and gets to cry wolf when he wants to.