Welcome Instapundit Readers!!

PatriotPartner has been trying to call Sen. Kay Hagan’s office today to express outrage over the radical “green jobs czar”, Van Jones.

However, while most of us are still working today — it appears our Senator from North Carolina has vanished.  All of her phone numbers are going unanswered, and the voicemail is full.  That says to me: “I don’t want to hear from my constituents.”

Congress has been out for a month and the President has been on vaca for 2 weeks.  The rest of America (well, those of us who still have jobs) are working our asses off.

Can’t we expect the same (or better) of our elected officials.

Don’t believe me?  Call Senator Hagan’s offices and see for yourself:

SENATOR KAY HAGAN

DC OFFICE: 202-224-6342

GREENSBORO, NC OFFICE: 336-333-5311

RALEIGH, NC OFFICE: 919-856-4630

Can someone please find my Senator? I hope she isn’t in Argentina.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

UPDATE (from Dan): Seems my Senator, Ma’am Barbara Boxer, is also on the missing persons list, though they do answer the phone at her LA office.

UPDATE (from JohnAGJ): My Senators in Virginia at least have been found. Jim Webb (D) refuses to hold town hall meetings, believing them to be unnecessary, while Mark Warner (D) seems to be trying to please everybody: giving Democrat talking points on the one hand, while claiming to oppose the House bill with the other.

Dan Riehl offers an interesting insight into the hullabaloo over the President’s address to schoolchildren and I highly recommend you read the whole thing.  Noting that it is “a fascinating time to be both a close observer of politics and politically involved, he concludes with an observation that helps explain a number of recent phenomena:

People are watching in ways they might not have been for years. I doubt very much if they are going to like what they see, no matter what the short-term results happen to be.

Could it be the President proposing vast increases in the size and scope of the federal government that accounts for their greater interest in politics–and their discontent with the state of things?

Anyway, Dan has written an interesting post and I encourage you to read it and ponder his ideas and use the comments section either here or there to address the question I pose in the title to this post.

(H/t Glenn).

In an ideal world, we should not rush to criticize the head of state of a country asking to address the nation’s schoolchildren.  So, to a certain extent, I agree with the folks as Founding Bloggers who offered that they saw

. . . nothing wrong with a presidential address to students. Context is everything though, and the Department of Education’s suggested activities and exercises provide an abundant supply of context.

But, when you look at the initial talking points offered by the Administration, you see a highly troubling context. And the changes they offer make the initial intent more manifest–to enlist children in promoting the president’s agenda

The White House has re-written its activist talking points for teachers/administrators disseminated by the US Department of Education and removed the language about “helping the president.”

Until the public outcry, we saw the President of the United States using his office to enlist American schoolchildren in helping him.

Still, even with the more “anodyne” talking points, this represents using school time for a project of questionable academic merit.  Following this controversy online while staying at my brother’s house, I have gotten an earful from my sister-in-law (who is also mother to a smart young blogger):

If you want children to watch this, encourage them to do this at home where they can watch with their parents.  And if there’s any issue of discussion, do it at home.  But, don’t take up academic time . . . . Too much of our education is taken up with social causes.  We need to educate our children.

She distinguishes the President’s planned talk next week from 9/11 when she thought it appropriate to take time out from class for students to watch TV news coverage given that “we were all so shocked.”  This, however, is “not an issue of singular national importance.” (more…)

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

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)

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).

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.”

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…)

Just another reminder about brunch this Saturday, September 5, in Denver, most likely downtown.   E-mail me for details as I expect to fix a location by tomorrow (Thursday morning).

While a supermajority of Republican voters still may think the GOP is out of touch, the Pew Research Center finds that independent voters are increasingly inclined to opt for Republican congressional candidates:

. . . independent voters who express an unfavorable view of Congress, say they would back the GOP candidate over the Democrat by a whopping 51% to 31% margin, while the smaller proportion of independent voters who have a positive view of Congress say they intend to vote for the Democrat, by 55% to 29%. 

Now, that may seem to favor the Democrats; a higher percentage of those having a favorable image of Congress prefer the Democrats than of those having an unfavorable view of Congress preferring the GOP.  Only problem is that “smaller proportion” is shrinking rapidly:  only 37% have a favorable opinion of Congress, down “13 points since April . . one of their lowest points in more than two decades of Pew Research Center surveys.”

If Republicans can show that they have solutions to today’s problems, they should be able to tap into the growing discontent with a spendthrift Congress and make some real gains next fall.

Jus’ wonderin’ as a “former Communist” in the Obama White House described Republicans as such back in February.

RELATED:  Obama’s Team Crosses the Rhetorical Line.

USUALLY PRESIDENTS ARE PAST THE 8-MONTH MARK BEFORE THEY HIT THIS STAGE: Obama’s Political Operation Escalates Attack On Media.

Unfortunately, I fear we’re going to be treated subjected to some very public makeup sex.

UPDATE:  This really does sound like a lovers’ quarrel.  Blogging law professor William Jacobson observes, “The complaint now is not that the media is not too critical of Obama, but that it is not sufficiently supportive.”

Note:  tweaked the post to eliminate a passive.

Roger Clegg (via Glenn) offered a slightly different take on the New York Times article I considered in my previous post.  While, like me, Clegg finds the “renewed emphasis on ['disparate impact'] lawsuits . . .  disturbing but, again, not surprising,” he found the policy was nothing new: 

. . . the issues raised by the Obama administration’s civil-rights policies will be important, but they will not be surprising or even new. Here, as elsewhere, it’s just the usual liberal nonsense, warmed over and worse.

Emphasis added.  The usual liberal nonsense heated up with a extensive infusion of cash from a Democratic Congress eager to dole out dollars to favored interest groups.

Clegg’s words that Obama’s polices at Justice are little more than the “usual liberal nonsense warmed over” made me wonder yet again why so many on the left wax lyrical about Barack Obama.  While kayaking with my family, I met a nice liberal woman from LA who was shocked (**shocked**) to learn that I did not think very highly of the President.

What, I continue to ask, justifies their enthusiasm for this man offering warmed over liberal policies?

He’s no new kind of politician, just a hard-core leftist* of the old school, with increased eloquence and a more powerful presence.

As per my last post, as I read the New York Times yesterday, I caught something which gets at the essence of conservative and liberal (using those terms in their contemporary, not classical context) attitudes toward discrimination:

. . . the Obama administration is planning a major revival of high-impact civil rights enforcement against policies, in areas ranging from housing to hiring, where statistics show that minorities fare disproportionately poorly. President George W. Bush’s appointees had discouraged such tactics, preferring to focus on individual cases in which there is evidence of intentional discrimination.

Emphasis added.

Regardless of what one feels about the state adjudicating discrimination in the private sector, if the government is going to get involved, shouldn’t it limit that involvement to sanctioning (or otherwise punishing) those who single out individuals from protected classes?

The contemporary conservative wants to want evidence of bias before pursuing a case of discrimination, the liberal proceeds when he finds inequality of results.  Now you see why I bristle at gay activists demanding equality, particularly when they claim their goal is “full equality” (whatever that is).  As the Times article shows, under a liberal (in the contemporary context) Administration, we’re not talking about equal rights, but about equal outcomes.

And that means less freedom and increased government intervention in the decisions of private associations and enterprises.

There are days when I really miss reading a “dead-tree” newspaper, sipping coffee as I read the news.  Yesterday, after an early morning hike with my Dad and his friends to celebrate his birthday, I did just that, alternating between the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times.

The former had a number of interesting columns and informative articles, notably Gerald Seib’s piece on how the President has hurt himself by his “Hands Off Strategy“* on health care and a news article on the increasingly vocal opposition to the Democrats’ proposed health-care overhaul.

That latter had two paragraphs which get at the nub of the grassroots opposition to the President’s various policies through out the year:

Recent town-hall uproars weren’t just about health care. They were also eruptions of concern that the government is taking on too much at once. 

. . . .

Mr. Obama also inherited a large budget deficit and expanded it further with economic-stimulus spending.

There’s more to the article than that–and I highly recommend you read the whole thing.  Like AP reporter Erica Werner,  WSJ reporters Janet Adamy  and Jonathan Weisman do take the time to understand the legitimate concerns of these outspoken opponents of big government rather than dismiss them as corporate and/or right-wing astroturfing.

The long and the short of it is:  Americans don’t like big government.

* (more…)

. . . with a special address just to them on September 8 and provided guidelines on how teachers should discuss his remarks with students?

Blogger Jim Hoft calls this “unprecedented.”  It sounds like he’s right, but is he?  Are you aware of any of his predecessors delivering a national address to our nation’s schoolchildren?  Did, say, Franklin Delano Roosevelt take to the radio to remind them of the importance of the war effort and the sacrifices their parents, uncles and older brothers must make?  And how they could help out at home?

Considering the questions the White House has provided, blogging law professor William A. Jacobson contends that the Administration has the “whole line of reasoning and questioning . . . backwards. It may have become lost in the mania, but HE [Obama] works for US, not the other way around.”

Read Jacobson’s post, ponder his question and wonder whether it’s appropriate for an American President to deliver such an address.

FROM THE COMMENTS:  Skip answers my question:  

His own secretary of ed says: ‘This is the first time an American president has spoken directly to the nation’s school children about persisting and succeeding in school.“

Emphasis added.  I wonder how the media would have reacted if the incumbent’s predecessor tried to pull this off.

UPDATE:  Jim Geraghty weighs in:

Perhaps this will be a completely innocuous, standard-issue “education is important, study hard, and you can achieve all your dreams” that the President usually gives to one classroom around this time of year. If so, there’s not too much need for hullabaloo. And besides, it’s not like Obama’s the first national leader to think of addressing all the country’s children at once; the idea has been around since 1984.

UP-UPDATE: In her syndicated column, Michelle Malkin details how teachers’ unions and other Obama allies have used the classroom to promote liberal policies:

The activist tradition of government schools using students as junior lobbyists cannot be ignored. Zealous teacher’s unions have enlisted captive schoolchildren as letter-writers in their campaigns for higher education spending. Out-of-control activists have enlisted their secondary-school charges in pro-illegal immigration protests, gay marriage ceremonies, environmental propaganda stunts, and anti-war events.

As per the gay marriage ceremonies mentioned above, the problem was not the ceremony, but that the teacher took her class there.  It would be just as problematic if a straight teacher took her class to her traditional wedding.

UP-UP-UPDATE:  Apparently, this type of address is not entirely unprecedented.  My brother alerts me to this in at the end of a front page story in September 3rd’s Denver Post:

In 1991, President George H.W. Bush addressed the nation’s students, urging them to study hard, avoid drugs and turn in troublemakers. In his speech, he told students to ignore peers “who think it’s not cool to be smart.”

And Democrats responded then by criticizing him for spending Department of Education money on a broadcast they claimed was political advertising used to counter claims that he was ignoring domestic issues.

Charles Rangel, Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, is not the only congressional Democrat with ethics issues.  Indeed, the list of corrupt Democrats in 2009 rivals that of corrupt Republicans three years previously when the-then minority party ousted the then-majority on the basis of the Republicans’ (supposed) “culture of corruption.”

Upon her party’s winning the 2006 elections, the then-soon-to-be Speaker of the House promised to lead “the most honest, most open and most ethical Congress in history.”  Shortly after taking the gavel, she seems to have forgotten that vow.

Now, she has a chance to show that she meant what she said–that things really have changed in Washington since Democrats too over.  As each new day seems to bring with it new revelations about Rangel’s misdeeds, Pelosi would do well to force Rangel to step aside as Ways and Means chairman pending the results of an ethics committee investigation.

This is her test–and that of her party–to see if they intend to crack down on the questionable ethics their fellow Democrats.  And if she refuses to demand that her New York colleague step aside, then other leading Democrats should step up to the plate and demand his dismissal.

FROM THE COMMENTS:  Sean A links a New York Post article:

Even as he fends off accusations about his own failure to pay taxes and fully disclose his financial dealings, Rep. Charles Rangel had quietly slipped into the health-care bill broad new provisions cracking down on taxpayers in proceedings with the IRS, The Post has learned.

Ethically challenged and a hypocrite?!?!?

UPDATE:  Looks like Speaker Pelosi is failing the test:

THE HILL: Pelosi will let Rangel hold post despite latest allegations. “Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) will let Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.) keep his chairmanship despite his failing to report hundreds of thousands of dollars in assets on federal disclosure forms, according to Democratic aides.” Of course she will. This makes him vulnerable, and thus easier to control.

I read two posts yesterday which reminded me of a notion I’d been pondering for some time.  Here’s the idea in a nutshell:  While the Democrats continue to lose favor with the American people as they propose increased government spending and regulation as the solution to every problem, the GOP (while taking some important strides in the right direction) has not yet presented itself as a viable alternative.

Given Democratic control of Congress and the White House, Republicans still have time to come up with solutions.  After all, Republican Congressmen and congressional candidates did not sign the Contract with America until September 27, 1994, just six weeks before the fall elections which would return control of Congress to the GOP for the first time in forty years.

In the first post, Jim Geraghty reflected on the decline on Obama’s fortunes, but cautioned that this may not be a boon for the opposing party:

On Election Day 2008, many Americans didn’t like where they were. Nearly a year later, they still don’t like where they are; they feel like they’re stuck with the same problems or that they’re worsening. But they’re not convinced that the Republicans have the solutions. For the Right, the job is barely halfway done.

Emphasis added.

The second had a more peevish tone, almost like that of a child upset that he didn’t get an engraved invitation to a public forum advertised on the Internet (and in the local paper).  Bruce Bartlett, who makes some good points about the GOP going off track during the George W. Bush years, repeats a lot of nonsense about the state of the party, suggesting he gets his news from left-wing blogs and a hostile media:

I think the Republican Party is in the same boat the Democrats were in in the early eighties — dominated by extremists unable to see how badly their party was alienating moderates and independents. . . . I will know that the party is on the path to recovery when someone in a position of influence reaches out to former Republicans like me. We are the most likely group among independents to vote Republican. But I see no effort to do so. All I see is pandering to the party’s crazies like the birthers .

(H/t: Instapundit.)

Pandering to the birthers?  Huh?  Who?  Where?  Didn’t the GOP caucus in the House vote overwhelmingly (with no opposition) vote in favor of a bill recognizing Hawai’i as the President’s birth place? (more…)

I have lost count of the number of friends and acquaintances who work in the private sector who have told metheir employer has either cut their pay or frozen their salaries to avoid laying off (them and/or)  their co-workers.

And now, the President, is asking “federal workers to sacrifice” by cutting their pay increase by 0.4 percent:

Citing the current economic recession — and the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks eight years ago — President Obama says he will use emergency powers to cut the programmed across-the-board January increase in federal employees’ pay from 2.4 percent to 2.0 percent, according to a letter he sent to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., on Monday.

It seems that Glenn Reynolds’ friends recount similar experiences to those of mine as he, who tipped me off to this story, opines:

Given that lots of people in the private sector — and even in state and municipal goverments — are facing no raise at all, or actual pay cuts, I don’t think this will impress many folks out there.

I agree.

The president would really show he wants to get a handle on the growth of the size of the federal government if he froze the salaries of federal workers.  Public employee unions might grouse, but the American people would cheer.

FROM THE COMMENTS:  SoCalRobert links an indispensable post on the rapid increase in federal workers’ salaries on the blog of the Cato Institute.  Read it and try not to lose your cool.  Seems we could almost erase the federal deficit just by bringing salaries of federal workers in line with those of their counterparts in the private sector.

Perhaps Barack Obama’s biggest failure as President was (as I have argued before) the same as George H.W. Bush’s:  he misread his mandate.  The incumbent accelerated his fall from grace by so quickly reversing course on so many of the campaign promises he made which helped secure his support among moderate voters.

And there’s something else.

He assumed that by the combination of his personality and the crisis of the times, he could shift the national mood in the direction of his long-held far left beliefs.

Pointing out that Obama won because he won independents by a margin 12 points larger than that John Kerry enjoyed in 2004, Steve Chapman writes that in the election last fall (as in 1952) while Americans “weren’t inviting a radical turnabout — just some modest improvements in the status quo,”

. . . the 44th president apparently thought he had a mandate for the expansion of federal power and responsibility, which he has used on everything from bailing out automakers to showering the economy with stimulus dollars to trying to overhaul health insurance. He and his allies have therefore been surprised to face a surge of angry opposition, including some based on wild flights of paranoia.

What they forgot is that the surest way to mobilize American political opposition, irrational as well as rational, is to enlarge the government’s role in our lives.

(H/t:  Jennifer Rubin.)

And poll after poll after poll after poll shows that more Americans prefer private sector solutions to public ones.  Despite the president’s evident charm and presence, he has not been able to cause them to change their minds.  Indeed, if anything, he has helped intensify the level of opposition to government solutions, reinforcing our commitment to freedom.