Gay Patriot Header Image

Astroturfing Facebook for Obamacare

Earlier today, just before heading out for a hike with my brother and sister-in-law in Boulder, I caught the same Facebook “status” from a number of my left-leaning friends:

No one should die because they cannot afford health care, and no one should go broke because they get sick. If you agree, please post this as your status for the rest of the day.

Wonder who’s been pressing them to do that.

So, I responded to a few, saying something like that’s why the President should drop his big-government approach and pursue free-market alternatives.  Then, I hacked out a quick “status” post of my own:

B. Daniel Blatt believes it’s time to abandon Obamacare and press for free-market health care reforms like those John Mackey has proposed.

I encourage you all to respond similarly, to let your liberal friends know that we on the right do favor reform, just not the statist solutions proposed by the President.

UPDATE:  At 7:48 PM mountain time, 18 of my Facebook “friends” posted the “spam” quoted above (or something nearly identical) as their status update.

UP-UPDATE:  By midnight Mountain Time, even more friends have posted said “spam” while some of my conservative and libertarian friends have added a new “status update”:

No one should sacrifice their liberty and tithe the fruits of their labor to see the government fail at something a private charity would succeed at

August 2009: The Month The Obama House Of Cards Toppled

Sorry for my absence from the blog.  I blame my real job and a nasty sinus infection that just won’t go away.

Anyway, I was just weeding through a ton of GayPatriot email and found this devastating summary by Dick Morris of President Obama’s current political situation.  I usually give Dick Morris just about grain of salt, so it was the Zogby poll numbers that really caught my eye.  (That would be the traditionally Democrat-leaning Zogby poll)

  • People under 30 — long a key element of his support — give him no better than break-even ratings, with 41 percent approving and 41 percent disapproving of the job he’s doing, according to Zogby.
  • Only 75 percent of Democrats, who formerly have supported Obama strongly, now approve of his performance in office. Zogby reports that this represents a slide of more than 10 points over the summer.
  • Even among blacks, only 74 percent approve of the job he’s doing (also a drop of more than 10 points).
  • Hispanics, who voted for him by a margin of more than 40 points, now break even (36-36) when rating his performance.
  • Independents, the key swing group in our politics, now deliver a sharply negative 37-50 verdict on Obama’s job performance. The elderly also give him negative ratings by 42-51.

Whoa.  Obama’s popularity crash is truly breathtaking and something I never thought I would see so soon.  Morris points out, rightly, that this leaves Obama with few good options on healthcare reform.

He obviously can’t get 60 votes in the Senate for his health-care proposals in their current form. No Republican will support them, and moderate Democrats aren’t likely to vote with him.

If he tries to pass it with 50 votes, using so-called reconciliation procedures, he may also fail — because he’d also lose the votes of less-moderate Democrats who’d quail at using parliamentary tricks to pass such a radical, unpopular program.

If Obama waters down his proposals to attract moderate support, he’d lose votes on the left — perhaps more than he’d gain, at this point.

Yet the longer he takes to resolve this political problem, the more his ratings will slip — diminishing his power to achieve anything. No president with support in the 30s would be able to push through a program like his health-care agenda.

Healthcare reform has become a death spiral that looks like a bottomless pit for Obama and fellow Democrats. Morris points out that Clinton recovered by tacking to the right. I was always amazed how Clinton had an epiphany and discovered his interest a balanced budget in 1995; following the GOP takeover of Congress in 1994, of course.

But what is Obama to do when clearly he has only radical leftist bones in  his body?

What to do, Chairman Obama?  What to do?   Ah, I know…. talk to the chillllllllllldren.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

On health care, White House wooed special interests, bypassed people

In another excellent article on the health care debate, the Wall Street Journal’s Jonathan Weisman and Janet Adamy, together with Neil King get at the essence how, in the Journal’s words, Obama’s Health-Care Push Went Astray  (Via Instapundit).

In brief, the Administration went after the groups Obama decried in the campaign–and whom he (and his allies) continue to attack on the stump–insurance companies and “special interests” and bypassed a direct appeal to the people*:

They expended great effort to line up the support of health-care insurers, pharmaceutical makers and care providers, believing that by keeping them around the table, they could win over Republicans and stop the kind of industry-led attacks that helped sink the Clinton plan. But this strategy left out the wooing of public opinion, which was being affected by broader events, including the economic crisis and anger over bank bailouts. . . . 

The president’s focus on wooing groups often brought fewer benefits than he expected. The seniors’ lobby AARP backed him, but that prompted loud complaints from AARP members worried about Medicare cuts. 

And this focus on “wooing groups” also helps expose the hypocrisy at the heart of the Obama Administration, so well documented in Michelle Malkin’s best-selling book.

*No wonder the President is making a new speech to Congress (to be telecast to the nation).

Why the Left Can’t Let Go of W

Ok, now to address the point I had meant to address in my previous post.  Many on the left can’t let go of their hatred of the immediate past president of the United States because trashing him has been their ticket to electoral success in the two most recent national elections (2006 and 2008).

To be sure, there’s more to it than that, but that gets at the nub of their obsession; trashing W is fare easier than having to defend their own ideas or addressing the arguments of those opposed to them.

In commenting on a Gallup poll showing the Democratic advantage in party affiliation shrinking rapidly, Jim Geraghty finds a “Strange Resurgence of the Bush-Free GOP“:

What happened? Well, the utopia of hope and change did not take hold immediately, and hopes for a moderate course have been dashed. But also worth noting is how dramatically the political landscape has changed since George W. Bush rode off into the sunset. Perhaps while he was front and center, and the dominant voice of the GOP, many Americans tired of Iraq, tired of his Texas twang, tired of everything they had seen and heard for the past eight years; they would hear nothing else from the GOP, and could overlook a multitude of flaws in the Democratic-party option.

With W out of office, people are paying attention to the policies of the one-time opposition, that is, the current governing party.  

And there’s another reason for the Republican resurgence that Gergahty left out. In  the post I was looking for while crafting my last post, written the day after last fall’s election, I pointed out that with Bush gone, the party of small government was no longer defined by incumbent Republican presidents pushing big government:

It had been tough to be conservative during the first (and only) term of the first President Bush as it has during the second term of the second.  Each man was the titular head of the supposedly conservative party, but neither governed, at least on domestic issues, as a conservative.

Neither held the line on domestic spending.  Both increased the size and scope of the federal government.

Democrats need W in order to demonize the opposition.  Note, how often they bring up his spending record whenever we criticize Obama’s.  They don’t want the GOP to be seen as the party of small government.

For, as recent polls indicate, that Reaganite idea continues to resonate.

UPDATE:  Byron York confirms my thesis:   “But Gallup also points out that the Democratic rise of 2008-2009 had much more to do with George W. Bush than with anything the Democrats themselves were doing.

Some on the Left Can’t Let Go of W

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 2:57 am - September 3, 2009.
Filed under: Blogging,Bush-hatred,Hysteria on the Left

Seems a post I penned shortly after last fall’s election was most prescient; I asked then if Obama’s victory would mean an end to Bush-hatred:

When I see the gloaters, many of whom said some of the most vicious things about George W. Bush, members of his Administration and his supporters these past eight years, I wonder if they’ll let up on their hatred now that their guy has won. Or, will they continue to spout bile against their political adversaries and blame Bush for our nation’s problems when their team will be responsible for addressing them?

Even with Democrats’ victories, they haven’t let up with their hatred.  Obama and his team continue to blame Bush (and his team) for our nation’s problems.  His supporters continue to smear Bush, needing, it seems, to bring up their aversion to this good man even if he is not the subject of the conversation.

Just today, while checking my e-mail (and the web) after a day spent with my Dad, driving across the Rocky Mountain State, dining with a reader and relaxing with my brother, I caught this comment to a friend’s Facebook post on a documentary he had seen on the blacklisted Hollywood screenwriter Dalton Trumbo:

Frankly, I thought the way Bush-Cheney trampled over the Constitution, the bill of rights, free speech, the press and human rights over the past eight years, we made that period look like Shangri La.

Could he identify one filmmaker prosecuted or blacklisted for spouting anti-Bush views during these last “difficult” eight years?  Indeed, could he name any journalist/blogger/Democrat or anyone else who badmouthed the then-incumbent President of the United States and was punished for the opprobrium he offered?  

Why did this man feel so compelled to trash Bush in responding to a post which had nothing to do with that good man, but flawed President.

And I wonder why I chose to respond instead of just laughing at his obsession.

(Note on the crafting of this post:   (more…)