Blog @ MoreWhat.com

An exclusive interview and/or ‘townhall’ on ABC with a title featuring the cute phrase ‘prescription for America’ are just two items which indicate this contrived media event. With that introduction out of the way President Barack Hussein Obama wasted what began as one of the more compelling attempts in his brief tenure as Commander-in-Chief of the United States even with the scripted, tightly managed public relations and political promotion that was broadcast.

If memory serves the last question from the hand-picked audience came from someone who once ran Medicare or HHS or something related to the program’s topic. The question described a set of revenues and expenses that left a bit of a hole and asked the President how that would be resolved. Obama quickly moved his response from what should have been a direct answer to campaign rhetoric. The woman asking the question should have used the reply from the character ‘Danny’ in a West Wing episode, ‘ I’m sure that was the answer to someone’s question Mr President but it wasn’t the answer to mine.’

The content of the program was not all bad. Obama’s reply on what he termed ‘end of life’ care was not really on point to the part of the discussion in which he used it but it had some items relevant to the general topic. There were a few other instances where the President made some lucid points. However, the bulk of the program crafted a display of information that may be characterized as common knowledge or obvious truths used to put the public’s mind at ease. But an equally and poorly crafted attempt to use rhetoric and generalizations as a detailed explanation of the issue of healthcare reform was a major insult and waste of time. The advertisers should ask for a refund and the public should hold both ABC and the White House accountable for this sham performance.

Another example of misleading information is Mr Obama’s repetitive mention of people being allowed to keep the coverage they have assuming they like it. Sure, great selling point Mr Obama, the problem is that any current or future ‘plan’ may not be offered. Terms of any government healthcare reform may adversely affect the private sector to a point where private health insurance as we know it will no longer exist. There is a feature in worse case scenarios whereby the private sector would cease doing business in health related insurance. Then the scary public option that is being avoided in all these discussions would be the only plan.

The real point is this is not unlike any other political debate. There are many players in this game. From politicians to corporations to the medical community and the public at large. Everyone has a stake in it and everyone will be playing from their own personal opinion. That is the problem. A critical part of the debate that is not available is a detailed and specific proposal with all the necessary information. Until that is produced it is fair to believe the government entities involved in this healthcare scam are trying to sell you something that doesn’t exist yet.

You should also remember that even if the day comes when the information is available and the unlikely outcome that we all sign on to a ‘program’ or proposal offered it will be subject to constant change in future years and what you agree to may never see the light of day for more than its initial appearance. That is why like it or not the free market idea of healthcare is superior to government programs. What we need to do is repair the system we have not invent an entirely new one ultimately controlled by government beauracrats.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

The five quoted items below adequately summarize the healthcare reform fiasco currently being played out in Washington DC. Proponents including President Barack Obama claim all manner of benefit from their proposal while the GOP and some Democrats take a more realistic approach understanding any gains will be smothered in excessive costs, massive deficits and unmanageable beauracracy.

Obama is trying a hands off approach probably in an attempt to avoid political damage to himself and saving the out he can blame Congress when it doesn’t work out. Dems are stumbling around to recover from the CBO report on current details which are limited and the fear of experiencing the fate of Clintons’ failure of the nineties just before the 2010 elections.

The proposal would create a new government plan to help cover the uninsured — a move backed by President Barack Obama but resisted by Republicans and some centrist Democrats who fear it will overwhelm private insurers and require vast amounts of public funding.

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama is seeing the downside of his light touch on revamping the nation’s health care system.

Congressional Democrats are off to a halting start, blindsided by a high cost estimate and divided over how to proceed. The confusion has emboldened Republican critics of the administration’s approach to its top domestic priority.

Obama has given Congress leeway, trying to avoid the heavy-handed approach that helped doom a similar effort by President Bill Clinton in 1993. Obama recently told a Wisconsin crowd that he would not run roughshod over lawmakers with a “my way or the highway” approach.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democrat lawmakers on Friday proposed guaranteeing health coverage for nearly every American, despite mounting concerns the cost of doing so could torpedo the Obama administration’s healthcare reform effort.

One modest development is being overstated by Obama and Baucus. A small concession by Big Pharma to contribute $80 billion over ten years to shore up the gap coverage on Medicare Rx drugs only amounts to a few percentage points of their annual sales. It is intended to cover half of the doughnut hole. Guess who will cover the other half? That’s right, you will in the form of higher taxes. And over the ten years the Big Pharma contribution will be repaid to them in higher prices, more sales from government mandates and a growing number of retirees or those otherwise eligible for Medicare.

WASHINGTON (AP) — The pharmaceutical industry agreed Saturday to spend $80 billion over the next decade improving drug benefits for seniors on Medicare and defraying the cost of President Barack Obama’s health care legislation, capping secretive negotiations involving key lawmakers and the White House.

“This new coverage means affordable prices on prescription drugs when Medicare benefits don’t cover the cost of prescriptions,” Sen. Max Baucus, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, said in a statement announcing the accord.

As suggested above, no, it does not. It’s a PR move to sell the idea of government healthcare not a real cost control.

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama praised the agreement has been reached between Senator Max Baucus and the nation’s pharmaceutical companies intended to reduce costs of prescription drugs for millions of America’s seniors.

“The agreement by pharmaceutical companies to contribute to the health reform effort comes on the heels of the landmark pledge many health industry leaders made to me last month, when they offered to do their part to reduce health spending $2 trillion over the next decade,” Obama said. “We are at a turning point in America’s journey toward health care reform.”

Healthcare accounts for two trillion dollars of what Americans spend every year. To reduce costs by that amount over ten years is a 10% reduction. Hardly large enough to be noticed by itself. If four or five such reductions could be realized you might be talking about substantial improvements. As it stands now this is just another PR move to sell the legislation and more government control over your money and health choices.

“The existence of this gap in coverage has been a continuing injustice that has placed a great burden on many seniors,” Obama said in a statement. Medicare coverage does not apply to payments between $2,700 and $6,154.

Using the numbers in the quote above provides a difference of $3454 and demonstrates the cost to Medicare recipients when they are in the gap. If the drug company contribution discussed above covers half or $1727 then that is how much tax revenue will have to increase for each recipient on Medicare.or eight billion dollars per year to match the drug company contribution as described by Baucus and Obama.

The eight billion per year offered by the drug companies and the other half coming from tax dollars equals $16 billion dollars. If you divide that number by the gap coverage cost borne by recipients to date of $3454 it equals about 4.6 million. How does that square with the number of Medicare recipients and their shortfall on paying for Rx drugs? In other words, does the 4.6 million represent how many recipients will face the maximum gap they have to pay on their own? Probably not but it seems fair to conclude that $16 billion is what they have determined is what in total would be paid by Medicare recipients to cover gap expenses. Who knows how they arrived at that number? But one might expect they have records on all recipients and how much their share of gap coverage was paid in past years.

Then again it is government and mysteries abound.

Below is some information on Big Pharma annual sales used to determine how much their $80 billion, ten year contribution represents as a burden to their bottom line. After that is a little trivia on the revolving door in Washington as relates to politicians and the drug lobby.

Using the information displayed below you can round it up to the nearest hundred billion and call US Big Pharma sales $300 billion per year. A recent and quiet negotiation between Big Pharma reps and Senator Max Baucus is reported as an agreement with the pharmaceutical industry to provide $8 billion per year to pay for half of the prescription drug gap coverage for seniors on Medicare.over the next ten years.

NORWALK, CT, March 19, 2009 – IMS Health (NYSE: RX), the world’s leading provider of market intelligence to the pharmaceutical and healthcare industries, today reported annual U.S. prescription sales growth of 1.3 percent in 2008, to $291 billion. Dispensed prescription volume in the U.S. grew at a 0.9 percent pace.

Factors influencing the market’s slower growth in 2008 included higher demand for less-expensive generic drugs, lower new product sales, and reduced consumer demand due to the economic turndown.

The Democrat controlled Congress and the White House claim they want healthcare reform to be bipartisan. As this blog has stated many times before the only value of the word ‘bipartisan’ in US politics is when both major parties expect nothing but downside from their activities. When they are both likely to take a hit from the stupidity they propose the word ‘bipartisan’ features prominently in their statements. Big Pharma’s lobbying history is a good example of bipartisanship.

An excerpt on the situation almost ten years ago emphasizes the long history of pharmaceutical politics in Washington and both major parties. About the current lobbyists at the time…..

In addition, six worked for the Bush I administration; five worked for former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.); four worked for former Senate Judiciary Chairman Orrin Hatch (R-Utah); five worked for current Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee Chairman Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.); four worked for former Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.); and three worked for current Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.).

If you watch a video at Cspan on Kennedy’s healthcare legislation markup and reference the excerpt above from early in the last decade this all begins to make more sense. While Gingrich and Lott are no longer players in the congressional sense, Kennedy, Baucus and Hatch figure prominently in the current discussion. And lobbyists in the ‘revolving door’ have been associated with them at least as long as eight to ten years ago. Do you understand now that the bipartisan healthcare push in Washington will do you no good?

The excerpt offered above is from Public Citizen. It is as noted earlier from a report that goes back to 1999-2000. Even then of the 625 Big Pharma lobbyists over half were former Congressman, Senators or others who worked in the federal government before becoming reps for the pharmaceutical industry. If you have any belief that healthcare reform in Washington is somehow a departure from typical arrangements made in the smoke filled rooms of the past you are gravely mistaken.

Any way you slice it government-sponsored healthcare has mostly downside if not all downside. It forces the public to pay more with less choice and little if any control over outcomes related to their own healthcare. Just like other major programs like Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid it is unsustainable without a crippling effect on all measures of economic health. From national debt to government deficits to percent of GDP to percent of personal income the cost of government programs are inherently inefficient, ineffective and unaffordable. This laughable announcement that an eighty billion dollar contribution from Big Pharma and vague cost reduction pledges from the medical community are somehow monumental in nature or some sort of long term solution demonstrates the folly of government healthcare reform.

All it does it enable politicians to have more control over your life with your money.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

crossposted to:
Maggie’s Notebook
Conservative Thoughts

What IS the story so far with so-called healthcare reform being concocted by politicians in Washington DC? This post is intended to shed a little light on that. Recent polls reported in the news this week suggest most Americans support healthcare reform in Washington. But it also says that a majority of Americans are wary of the government meddling in these matters and that most are very satisfied or somewhat satisfied with their current healthcare arrangements. Those opinions seem to be at odds with each other. On the Sunday morning talk shows for example, George Will and others on ABC’s This Week were saying the public is largely in the dark about what is being proposed and may withdraw their support once Congress actually discloses the details on their proposal.

Last week Congress was involved with markup of the legislation and boasted they had dispensed with many amendments proposed and either passed or rejected them. Later it was reported they might spend the rest of the coming week finishing the markup. In the meantime the CBO scoring was released on the draft proposal of the bill with some startling conclusions as reported here and elsewhere earlier. Many thought the 1 to 1.6 trillion dollar price tag was excessive. Even more disturbing was the projection that about 50 million ‘non elderly’ individuals would be uninsured at the start of 2010 and 54 million would be at the end while a gain of insured would only increase by 10 million. So much for covering 95% of the population with this bill. But there are other significant obstacles with this government program as there are with many of them.

A transcript of the unveiling of this so-called healthcare reform provided the following statement from the Democrats involved. ‘President Obama’s asked us to draft the reform bill that will control cost, guarantee choice, and ensure quality and affordable health care coverage for all Americans.’ Since individuals would be required to obtain coverage or face a penalty the ‘guarantee choice’ element already seems in doubt. As for controlling costs, the CBO scoring, even with an incomplete proposal and certain caveats on the estimates, currently forecasts ‘On a preliminary basis, CBO and the JCT staff estimate that the major provisions in title I of the Affordable Health Choices Act affecting health insurance coverage would result in a net increase in federal deficits of about $1.0 trillion for fiscal years 2010 through 2019′ That doesn’t bode well for government meddling in healthcare. And the Americans polled by WSJ/NBC and NYT/CBS stated they were more concerned about deficits and government spending than boosting the economy or bailouts. That is why this blog suggests the polling result suggesting most Americans support government healthcare will not maintain that attitude once they understand what is being proposed.

Another note on guaranteeing choice is provided by the CBO report. This healthcare act would ‘Delegate authority to a Medical Advisory Council to establish minimum requirements for covered health benefits and to determine the level of coverage that individuals would need to obtain in order to qualify as having insurance.’ There’s another choice in selecting coverage that won’t be guaranteed. You have to have coverage to avoid a penalty and the government will tell you what the definition of coverage is.

And on the other side of the equation is at least one obstacle the insurers face. You may not feel that is your concern but essentially we’re all in this together if it is run by the government so yes, it is something that should concern you. ‘Require insurers to maintain a minimum level of medical claims paid relative to premium revenues (otherwise known as a “medical loss ratio”), or to repay certain amounts to policyholders; the HHS Secretary would have the authority to set the minimum medical loss ratio.’ Is it not enough that the government has spent your and your descendants money on bailouts, pork barrel spending and buying into private sector companies but now they will put you in debt for another trillion per year and tell the insurance companies how much they have to lose in a free market as well as what defines insurance coverage and quality care for you and your family?

If you are among the reported ‘most Americans’ who support government healthcare do you still feel that way after reading this post? This has just been a taste of what you can expect from Washington on healthcare reform and more will be posted here in the days ahead. You might want to express your concern to your elected representatives on this issue. Or you can just pay your share of a trillion per year and pass the rest on to your future generations as a little present. BTW, as legislation usually works the estimates are often a conservative forecast and changes will drive up costs even more.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Two press releases provided in their entirety make this a rather long post. Along with the releases is a link to the PDF file for the CBO (Congressional Budget Office) estimate on the relevant government sponsored health care proposal. The two press releases feature Senator Kennedy’s call for health care reform and House Minority Leader Boehner’s expression that the proposal is flawed. So often the left side of politics offers an expression that is directly challenged by the right side of politics. Frequently this ritual is followed by the respective party’s followers adhering to the sentiment expressed by their party’s leadership. In this case it is extremely difficult to come to any other conclusion than the CBO confirms the GOP opposition to this health care proposal with sound reasoning. It’s a loser.

Here is Senator Kennedy’s relevant press release. Understand his call for health care reform points to the proposal appraised by the CBO.

HELP DEMOCRATS CALL FOR URGENT HEALTH CARE REFORM
June 16, 2009

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

WASHINGTON, DC— Senior Democrats on the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee held a press conference today to discuss The Affordable Health Choices Act and the urgent need for health reform that reduces costs, protects choice and guarantees quality, affordable health care for all Americans. Nurses, medical students, and individuals with first-hand experience joined them in support of reforming our broken health care system.

Tomorrow at 10:00am, the HELP Committee will begin to mark-up The Affordable Health Choices Act in the Dirksen Senate Office Building, Room 106. The Committee will reconvene Wednesday afternoon at 2:30 in the Russell Caucus Room (SR325). The mark-up is tentatively scheduled to convene each weekday in the Russell Caucus Room until Friday, June 26. It is open to the press and public unless otherwise noted.

“For the health of our economy and the health of our families, health care reform cannot wait, must not wait, and will not wait. We have to get it done, now,” said Senator Dodd. “We owe the working families of this country legislation that cuts costs, protects choice, and ensures affordable, high-quality care. And we intend to deliver.”

“This bill is our opportunity to recreate America as a genuine wellness society – a society that is focused on prevention, good nutrition, fitness, and public health,” Senator Harkin said. “This will save lives. And, as President Obama said yesterday to the AMA, it will also save money. I am genuinely excited about the prevention and wellness elements in the draft bill, heartened by the bipartisan support for this approach and optimistic that we can mark up a bill that is good for the American people and for the fiscal health of government, corporate, and personal budgets.”

“All across America, families are being crushed by rising health care costs. All across America, good-guy businesses are fighting to provide health insurance to their employees, but being crippled by the costs,” Senator Mikulski said. “I’m here today, with my Senate Democratic colleagues to say, the time for health care reform is now. We can’t afford to wait another day. The bill we’ve introduced will lower the high costs of health care, protect people’s choice of doctors, hospitals, and health plans, and ensure all Americans have access to quality, affordable care.”

“More than 45 million Americans lack health insurance, and another 25 million have insurance that doesn’t meet their needs. We now have an historic opportunity to fix our nation’s broken health care system and ensure that all Americans have access to affordable and quality health care,” Senator Bingaman said.

“We have been talking about reforming our health care system for too long—it’s time to act. And I am very excited that we have an historic opportunity right now to reform the system to not just help people when they are sick, but actively focus on keeping people healthy,” Senator Murray said. “A lot of work has gone into putting this bill together, and I believe it is a strong step forward toward ensuring all Americans can see a doctor when they need one and our long term economic strength is not held captive by the skyrocketing cost of care.”

###

Here is the relevant press release from House Minority Leader Boehner:

Nonpartisan Analysis: Healthcare Plan Costs $1 Trillion, Leaves 36 Million Uninsured & Forces 23 Million Out of Their Current Plans

Jun 16, 2009

Washington -

Yesterday’s nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report on a Democratic health care “reform” bill has sent shockwaves through Washington – and middle-class families, small businesses, and all taxpayers are right to take notice. Here’s what CBO has uncovered:

* The Democratic plan will cost taxpayers at least $1 trillion;
* The legislation will leave at least 36 million Americans uninsured; and
* The proposal will force at least 23 million Americans to give up the health coverage they currently enjoy.

This is reform?

House Republicans are working on a better solution to ensure that every American has access to affordable health care. To that end, tomorrow, the House GOP’s Health Care Reform Solutions Group will outline a common-sense plan to reduce costs, expand access, and increase the quality of care in a way that Americans can afford. The GOP plan will:

* Expand access to affordable, quality care regardless of pre-existing conditions;
* Protect Americans from being forced into a government-run plan, making certain that medical decisions are made by patients and their doctors, not Washington bureaucrats; and
* Let Americans who like their health coverage keep it, while giving Americans the freedom to choose the plan that best meets their needs.

With the Democratic and GOP plans now coming into clearer focus, middle-class families and small businesses across the country are beginning to ask: is a $1 trillion government takeover of health care really worth it if it leaves at least 36 million Americans uninsured and forces at least 23 million Americans off their current plans? Or, is the better solution a proposal that will expand access to affordable care while protecting Americans’ relationships with their doctors? That choice will become increasingly evident in the weeks to come, as Democrats in charge of Washington continue pushing their costly plan onto Americans who just don’t support it.

And here is the link to the CBO (PDF) file describing the effects of the current proposal.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/103xx/doc10310/06-15-HealthChoicesAct.pdf

The point being made here is that at least in this case the GOP response to the Dems’ current health care proposal is valid and supported by the data as analyzed by the Congressional Budget Office. You would do well do express your displeasure to your elected representatives. There is little confidence on this blog that you will actually do so. Surprise everyone. Show some outrage. Take your elected rep to the political woodshed. The 2010 elections are not far off. They may listen to you if you get their attention. Stay silent and accept your fate.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

FDR signed his Social Security Act in 1935. In 1939 he made the following statements in a message to Congress.

The health of the people is a public concern; ill health is a major cause of suffering, economic loss, and dependency; good health is essential to the security and progress of the Nation.

Health needs were studied by the Committee on Economic Security which I appointed in 1934 and certain basic steps were taken by the Congress in the Social Security Act. It was recognized at that time that a comprehensive health program was required as an essential link in our national defenses against individual and social insecurity. Further study, however, seemed necessary at that time to determine ways and means of providing this protection most effectively.

Apparently FDR, the Congress, the federal government, etc.,etc., decided the time had come to provide government health care for the nation. FDR had a commission which recommended a grant program between the federal government and states to provide health care services. But Medicare and Medicaid were not established until 1965 under LBJ’s Great Society agenda. Let’s see, in the thirties a Democratic President determined we needed government provided health care. But nothing happened until the sixties. In the sixties, LBJ must have determined he solved the problem with Medicare and Medicaid. But in the nineties a third Democratic party President determined we still did not have a government provided health care program and had his wife spearhead his agenda on health care. That would be the Clintons. Nothing happened.

Now, a fourth Democratic party President, Barack Obama, has determined that we absolutely, positively need to provide government health care for everyone.

FDR established Social Security as we know it today. It is by most appraisals a system that cannot survive indefinitely. Medicare and Medicaid are similar in nature and feasibility. They probably cannot survive indefinitely either. Government funded, aka, taxpayer funded health care is not an effective means for solving health care issues. Yet in the thirties, sixties, nineties and now the new millennium we are regularly pitched that government health care is absolutely necessary. And none of the programs implemented to date have been effective. They are all fatally flawed. And yet again we are being expected to believe the government can solve the problem.

If after eighty years of fantasy that the government can, with taxpayer dollars, provide all the health care necessary for the nation in a cost effective and efficient manner has not been shown to be exactly that, a fantasy, then the American public deserves exactly what it gets from government funded health care…….nothing. Nothing but an ever increasing expense for ever diminishing results.

You are once again urged to contact your elected representative and reject the eighty year old fantasy that the government can provide health care for everyone. Hell, they cannot even get it done for those who are on the public health care dime now.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

As early as June 8, 2009 a formal restart of the shamnesty movement will occur in the Obama White House. At least one report confirms what most of us already knew. Shamnesty will once again be the top issue in Washington later in 2009. But you had better get your opposition strategy activated long before then as it may only be a matter of 60 liberal votes along with any mindless RINOs that decides the issue if pressure is not applied starting now. 2010 is not far off and we all know politicians like only one thing better than getting elected. That is getting re-elected. And a vote for shamnesty is just one more reason to throw the bums out.

Immigration reform could emerge again in the fall
By Steve Stoddard and J. Taylor Rushing
Posted: 05/25/09 09:31 AM [ET]

Senate Democrats may be close to 60 votes on a measure that would represent the first step towards immigration reform under President Obama.

The Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors (DREAM) Act is a concept dear to Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin’s (D-Ill.) heart, and while health care reform may get this summer’s headlines in Washington, the DREAM Act may be a sleeper.

The Dream Act has been around for a while and like the shamnesty defeat in the summer of 2007 it has been shot down once. Together with yes votes on bailouts any member of Congress voting for shamnesty risks defeat in 2010 unless they are secure in a liberal saturated district willing to open all borders and ignore the rule of law.

All the Dream Act does is give illegals one more reason to violate the law and enter this country without lawfully engaging the process. Rather than offer an unnecessary carrot to break the law, Congress should encourage and assist the executive branch or law enforcement with the stick they need to eliminate illegal immigration. This is not a call to abolish immigration but illegal immigration. There is a big difference. But liberals for open borders and unregulated immigration prefer to label those opposed to illegal immigration as xenophobic. Yes, there is no shortage of liberal labels to muddy the water on issues.

So far it is no surprise that Arlen Specter, RINO extraordinaire and now GOP defector, will support whatever the Democrats propose. Other notable RINO looking Senators are Lugar, Lott and Wicker.

It will be tougher this time than the last to defeat shamnesty. But that is not reason for concern but increased effort and attitude.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

If you recall use of the phrase ‘Manchurian candidate’ in current American politics you may be old enough to remember watching the 1962 film. But you may be a little foggy on the details after many years if you actually went to a theatre to view it in the sixties.

That was the initial reason for this post along with its current use in politics and the search began. After one pass in the Google main search engine page the phrase was entered in the news search. The first result featured an LA Times review of the movie apparently being shown at a local venue. The paper mentions Richard Condon as author of the book by of course the same name and its 1959 debut. Since the phrase is getting some attention it seems only fair to give credit to the book’s author.

It was no big surprise that the second result put the phrase into current political context. An excerpt from a HuffPo item titled ‘Irresponsible Vitriol in the Media’ from April 1, 2009 indicates Bloomberg ‘asserting’ Obama is ‘giving us a war on business’ and ‘legislat[ing] like a Manchurian Candidate.’

That led to actually clicking on a result that read like a common liberal rant expressing discontent with ‘deranged comments on their blogs’ and ‘Manchurian candidate.’

TPM
my TPM BLOG
March 25, 2009, 2:46PM
acanuck

Jokes about Obama’s “dependence” on his teleprompter have been all over the right-wing media and blogosphere for months: Fox, Politico, Townhall, Drudge and now AP … the list is shockingly long. Google “obama teleprompter” and make your own. There’s even a link to yet another bogus teleprompter story on the TPM main page today.

Two things to be said about the item above. The minor distraction of referring to someone’s actions as ’stupider’ rather than ‘more stupid’ as a superior grammatical choice albeit no improvement in style. And including Politico in a set of sources described as right wing media and blogosphere. Fox, Townhall and Drudge could be rated as probably, certainly and perhaps, respectively and respectfully. But AP and Politico being right wing?

The TPM blog item led to the following.

Teleprompter Vs. No Teleprompter: Letterman Takes On Obama Critics (VIDEO)
Huffington Post - Alex Leo
March 24, 2009 11:13 AM

Critics say Obama relies too heavily on his teleprompter. As Politico notes:

“Obama’s reliance on the teleprompter is unusual — not only because he is famous for his oratory, but because no other president has used one so consistently and at so many events, large and small.”

They make an interesting point, why would a president want to be prepared and careful about what he says? The guy who had the job for the last eight years didn’t need no stinkin’ teleprompter!

This HuffPo piece offers a video along with their apparent agreement with the other item suggesting disdain over Politico. The video uses David Letterman and one of his comedy vids to support their argument to accept Obama’s dependence on a teleprompter as a good thing.

Nothing against Letterman but is that really the source you want to select to make a serious point? BTW, the vid is funny as it presents a ’serious’ Obama speaking in front of the camera versus a speaking gaffe by former President George W Bush. It’s also funny, but not in the humorous meaning, they don’t present a serious vid of Bush giving a prepared speech versus a speaking gaffe by Obama like dissin’ special olympics on a late night talk show when he was not likely using his favorite teleprompter. (and to liberals who will contest this, yes, Bush 43 gave plenty of serious speeches without gaffes)

Another contrast to offer is George Bush (43) even made self-deprecating remarks about his lack of public speaking prowess while the media, politicians and other observers have elevated Obama’s communication skills to the level of JFK. CBS News has a headline ‘Obama’s oratory grabbing the spotlight.’ The LA Times has ‘the power of Obama’s oratory.’ Two examples of the abundance of media love for everything Obama. So the left should understand if you are going to make a claim there will be challenges. You could equate Obama oratory by teleprompter to athletes using performance enhancing drugs to artificially improve their results.

This post was initially intended to present various arguments for the media being left wing or right wing and examples of how some draw their conclusions. While a bit of that was suggested the rest must wait for another post as the Obama yeah and Bush naw items along with silly responses to Manchurian candidates and teleprompters dominated this ’search’ journey.

But perhaps the central point to a left/right media analysis is suggested in results from a search engine inquiry using each of the following: ‘left wing politico’ and ‘right wing politico.’ On just one pass there are plenty of results to lean toward a conclusion that regardless of the political stripe of readers their reaction to whether a source is left or right is influenced by whether they agree or disagree with the source.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Could the famous woman say ‘you know’ any more than this in one media moment? So now there are stories about her working for the NY school system without being subjected to disclosing her assets as others are required to do. Of course there are those who hold the opinion she is not qualified for filling the vacant Senate seat left by HRC. It is just one more fiasco in the Demoratic party majority’s attempt to be leaders. Not to mention this is also another bump in PE Obama’s voyage to inauguration. The list goes on…..

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

With the President-elect’s choices to fill vacancies for a new administration heavy on former Clinton cronies and the often heard criticism of this being a third Clinton term the ‘change’ mantra of the Dems or ‘change you can believe in’ slogan from the Obama campaign suggest that all you can do is invoke the other Dems mantra….. hope. Not an impressive beginning for the next Presidential Administration but those who support the next President urge withholding criticism until he has had a chance to lead.

If not from the Clinton clan the choices for vacancies in the coming Obama Administration seem to focus on Illinois or Chicago politics. President-elect Barack Obama announced Arne Duncan, the head of the Chicago school system, as education secretary Tuesday and declared that failing to improve classroom instruction is “morally unacceptable for our children.” Relying on Illinois for filling vacancies may be a little risky. One example would be from the press announcement linked just above. A reporter was ‘cutoff’ when inquiring about Rahm Emanuel being on a federal wiretap discussing the Senate vacancy with the Blagojevich camp. All just mentioned are tied to Illinois and Chicago politics. It has been suggested that Blagojevich is not stepping down in hopes of negotiating deals for himself and his wife without which he might use whatever he has to damage Obama or Mayor Daley.

The only change seen so far appears to be 60 or so members of the freshman class for the 111th Congress. Al Franken is still engaged in the recount fight with Norm Coleman in Minnesota. The process, at the outset anyway, was grindingly slow. In the first two hours, the board had ruled on 46 votes challenged by Franken. Of those, the board awarded 26 votes to Coleman, 7 to Franken and 13 to the pile for ballots where intend couldn’t be determined or were disqualified because of marks that might identify the voter.

And Caroline Kennedy has decided to follow in the family tradition seeking to fill the US Senate vacancy left by Hillary Clinton in NY. And of course there is the vacancy in an Illinois seat for the US Senate that surrounds the soap opera that is Governor Blagojevich. The controversy for Kennedy lies in the fact that she emphatically endorsed Obama early in the campaign and now wants Hillary Clinton’s Senate seat. On top of that there are those who publicly question her credentials for being a senator. One quote addressing her name recognition suggested J Lo has name recognition too. She has taken a different path in her life to this point than many in her famous family and that fact was even complimented on this blog in the past. Now that the family’s political prominence may be fading is that the driving force behind her decision?

Then there is the real Democratic party situation which is ‘no change’. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi is still, well, Nancy Pelosi. Quick to make statements and predictions as in her forecast that Congress will pass a $600 billion stimulus package early next year but says hopes of accomplishing anything yet this year is fading. For Nancy, that certainly is not new. Continue to predict what will happen and when it does not blame the opposition party. In other words, we did nothing again this time but just wait until next time. Ya, whatever. And BTW Nancy, where is all the money coming from anyway? What happens when it runs out? Are you just going to start printing more?

More of no change from the Dems finds Dianne Feinstein as head of the Senate Intelligence Committee and John Kerry to head the foreign relations committee. Nothing new there and nothing to get excited about unless you are interested in worrying about what will go wrong next. Feinstein’s questionable conflicts of interest with her husband engaged in the defense business and her post on MILCON, the military construction appropriations subcommittee, never saw the light of day even though she resigned that post when allegations surfaced and claims to be an ethics reformer with earmarks transparency legislation. And John Kerry fancies himself some kind of major player in politics. He has seen his share of controversy but that does not necessarily translate into a stellar resume’. Failed attempts at a White House bid and running errands for the Dems elite does not propel a career. It would appear the committee assignment is a consolation prize for not getting Secretary of State after doing the party’s bidding.

The final note in this post on recent news features more irony from the Dems. It would be humorous if not so pathetic. The very people responsible for promoting policies that ignited the subprime mortgage mess are now complaining that the White House has not done enough to relieve homeowners in or near foreclosure.

“Absolutely nothing has been done to respect that part of the legislation,” Pelosi, a California Democrat, told reporters as she discussed the House’s agenda in coming weeks.

She and Frank have talked about “legislation that insists that the provisions of the (TARP) law be honored, before we release any more funds,” Pelosi said.

Legislation demanding more foreclosure mitigation will be ready within the next couple of weeks, said Steven Adamske, an aide to Frank, the Massachusetts Democrat who chairs the House Financial Services Committee.

Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd said last month he was willing to legislate if the financial sector failed to do more to curb foreclosures, restrain executive pay and modify mortgages to help struggling homeowners.

The GOP has made some progress in returning to conservative principles including fiscal restraint by opposing more bailout programs but the effort is not entirely convincing. The White House seems content to negotiate a legacy by spending us into oblivion and the Dems are right behind them with a $600 billion stimulus package with no end in sight.

It might be fair to say that leaders in both the public and private sectors have lost their collective minds except for the fact these sort of dealings are not new. It is just the small matter of the numbers being used do not fit any reasonable equation. The math is not working. Politics and business as usual have run into a severe problem with reality. How large a burden is the American taxpayer expected to bear. It is understood that the small percentage of wealthy taxpayers at the top pay the majority of taxes in this country. But that is small consolation to the unemployed or those whose own budgets are strained to the breaking point even while employed. Not that we don’t all share in the problems currently faced. But those in a position to affect the most change toward solutions seem to be slightly out of touch with reality. Unless the only reality is to use their influence for their own gain and the rest be damned.

Merry Christmas

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

After the publishing of the press release recounting the announcement of an economic team and corresponding speech by President-elect Obama on Monday November 24, 2008, a follow-up post is required. As with any speech from a radical new leader the injection of a little fear is a good way to get people’s attention.

‘if we do not act swiftly and boldly, most experts now believe that we could lose millions of jobs next year.’

After a relatively vague fear tactic short on reasons why a severe job loss may happen beyond the understanding that the economy is declining comes the equally vague list of solutions to the vague fear tactic predicting impending doom.

‘move forward in a new direction to create new jobs, reform our financial system’

Even John McCain began using the liberal phrase from the 2006 midterms, ‘new direction’, and it made no more sense when he did it. Hope, change, new direction, they’re all rather useless beyond speech fodder for the feeble-minded.

‘We know this won’t be easy, and it won’t happen overnight’

The little quote above is another speech requirement to give advance notice of a solutions failure. That is so it can be brought up later when the providers of the solution that didn’t work regroup to try again.

Below is the first really scary part of the speech. It is a description of the members of the economic team in Obama’s words. The key is the ‘bold new ideas.’ Yes, the word will be used now. Socialism is a bold new idea in a democratic republic. That is because it does not belong. Taking one step further in the quote below one could interpret, as it may be intended, that if main street or the ordinary citizens, workers, working class or proletariat suffer, the aristocrats or wealthy class or upper class featured here as ‘wall street’ cannot thrive. Sure, you could assume he means wall street should not succeed at the expense of main street. But that is not what he said. And one can just as easily understand his words to mean his earlier talking points where the redistribution of wealth is a good thing.

‘a depth of experience and a wealth of bold new ideas — and most of all, who share my fundamental belief that we cannot have a thriving Wall Street while Main Street suffers’

Whether Mr Geithner knows it or not he may be getting setup to take the heat. Later in the speech Obama indicates the team will present recommendations on ‘the plan’ to those in Washington, etc. That may indicate the economic plan is already assembled and the ‘team’ is merely who will get the credit for it if it fails and a pat on the back from the President-elect if it succeeds as they just helped him implement ‘his’ plan. Why do you suppose he says they share his vision or their ideas compliment his ‘core’ values or visa versa?

On Geithner….
‘He will start his first day on the job with a unique insight into the failures of today’s markets — and a clear vision of the steps we must take to revive them.’

Below is a little reminder of the sitting down with no preconditions with any leader of any country and caving or appeasing to push the Obama agenda. It is no different than listening to the United Nations press statements and we know how their agendas work out.

‘we will need to reach out to countries around the world to craft a global response’

on Larry Summers…..
‘He also championed a range of measures — from tax credits to enhanced lending programs to consumer financial protections — that greatly benefited middle income families.’

Larry Summers has actually received compliment from others in the public sphere on both sides of partisan politics. But the troubling mention of tax credits and ‘enhanced lending programs’ smells like promoting social policy that got us in the subprime mess in the first place. You know, the Community Reinvestment Act in the Carter years, followed by Fannie and Freddie and Franklin Raines, Chris Dodd, Rahm Emanuel, Barney Frank, community organizing, Valerie Jarrett and a host of other accomplices including Tony Rezko that are featured in the Obama rise to power.

But the primary indicator of Obama’s agenda was glimpsed by the following excerpt from this speech.

‘As a thought leader, Larry has urged us to confront the problems of income inequality and the middle class squeeze, consistently arguing that the key to a strong economy is a strong and growing middle class. This idea is the core of my own economic philosophy and will be the foundation for all of my economic policies.’

Did Larry really urge the President-elect to tinker with the social experiment of income inequality or class struggle or other socialist or Marxist doctrine? This is where Barack Obama can be blunt since he already won the election and may believe one term as a socialist President is adequate to shape this country into his own little kingdom. If he has enough accomplices he may just pull it off. That is what should worry you.

The New Deal is alive and well in the Obama Administration. What twists will be added along those lines based on his statements about Christina Romer?

‘perhaps best known for her work on America’s recovery from the Great Depression and the robust economic expansion that followed.’

Yes, let’s see if we can destroy all the mechanisms in place to restore strength to the economy and return to soup kitchens and the government running everything. Then as they don’t tell you in the speech we can enter another wartime economy like WWII and by much pain and suffering embark on a post war economic boom which by the way featured the baby boom who is now retiring and you know the rest of the story.

‘Finally, we know that rebuilding our economy will require action on a wide array of policy matters — from education and health care to energy and Social Security. Without sound policies in these areas, we can neither enjoy sustained economic growth nor realize our full potential as a people.’

In the quote above, more spending targets are featured along with the rhetorical reference to his socialist agenda and reaching THAT full potential.

‘So I am pleased that Melody Barnes, one of the most respected policy experts in America, will be serving as Director of my Domestic Policy Council’…..

Together with health care lobbyist consultant Tom Daschle, Barnes will tweak the Obama health care issue for all of us. Barack Obama is connecting it with the agenda on economics. And her other social programs will be born from the following description of her work.

‘As Executive Vice President for Policy at the Center for American Progress, Melody directed a network of policy experts dedicated to finding solutions for struggling middle class families. She also served as Chief Counsel to the great Senator Ted Kennedy on the Senate Judiciary Committee, working on issues ranging from crime to immigration to bankruptcy, and fighting tirelessly to protect civil rights, women’s rights and religious freedom. ‘

It may sound good to some but one must translate the rhetoric in terms of how it will be used later. When complaints roll in that the Obama agenda does not reflect campaign pledges besides the tired old excuse that things have changed (part of the change mantra) the Obama Administration will remind us all that this was laid out when the economic team was announced and we weren’t paying attention.

Here’s another scary insight from Barack Obama on Melody Barnes and his domestic (socialist) policy.

‘ Melody’s brilliant legal mind — and her long experience working to secure the liberties on which this nation was founded and secure opportunity for those left behind — make her a perfect fit for DPC Director.’

The quote below is a reminder that socialism is not all upside for those in the worker class supporting such notions. The belt tightening for families and businesses will result from the government interfering in just about everything.

‘the turmoil on Wall Street means a new round of belt-tightening for families and businesses on Main Street’

The quote below is another out for Obama so he can continue on certain items and if they fail use the same argument from the campaign that all the bad was caused by President Bush. If anyone in Congress from the GOP opposes him they will receive blame for failures too. But there is nothing new in that.

‘And my Administration will honor the public commitments made by the current Administration to address this crisis.’

An entire paragraph is cited to indicate what is in store for this country when the ‘new direction’ Obama agenda really gets moving

‘Further, beyond any immediate actions we may take, we need a recovery plan for both Wall Street and Main Street — a plan that stabilizes our financial system and gets credit flowing again, while at the same time addressing our growing foreclosure crisis, helping our struggling auto industry, and creating and saving 2.5 million jobs — jobs rebuilding our crumbling roads and bridges, modernizing our schools, and creating the clean energy infrastructure of the twenty-first century. Because at this moment, we must both restore confidence in our markets — and restore the confidence of middle-class families, who find themselves working harder, earning less, and falling further and further behind.’

Not in sequential order but the first reaction points to the overuse of the terms middle-class and families ‘finding themselves’….’falling further and further behind’. During the Clinton Administration, Mr Clinton had stated that incomes were decreasing in value for average Americans for a long time. The Obama characterization suggests this is something new as if to blame it on President Bush. While it still remains does not mean it started recently.

It is too lengthy a task for one post to detail all the spending, policy and legislative plans indicated by the Obama speech paragraph quoted above. It should be sufficient to say each issue included in that paragraph represents a combination of proposals or initiatives that based on other parts of the speech need no development but are already available to be viewed as new ideas from the most recent hires to the Obama team. This has been the announcement of socialism to come and the smoke screen to allow the uninformed to sign on to the audacity of hope and mantra of change with yes we can as the collective acceptance witnessed in the election of this mystery man as the next American President.

In the remaining parts of the speech Mr Obama again forgets his expression that we have one president at a time by having this team ‘consult’ with everyone in Washington and saying he will be briefed daily and tell us all what is being done in the next few weeks and months on his agenda before inauguration. Maybe a little premature for his role as President. Adding that Americans cannot wait and hope for solutions contradicts that liberal mainstay slogan of hope and change.

When he says ‘to scour our federal budget, line-by-line, and make meaningful cuts and sacrifices as well — something I’ll be discussing further tomorrow’ you can be confident his spending ideas will replace those already on the books. While cutting spending is a good idea, merely replacing one spending item with an equal sized substitute changes nothing in the equation. But it means where Obama wants to spend will replace where others want to spend. That is no guarantee of an improvement contrary to the belief of some. More money remaining with the taxpayer for them to use as they see fit is a better idea.

Could it be that in closing the speech his opinion of setting aside partisan politics and working together and planning to do so as President really means others have to concede and submit to his wishes? If you think this is being unfair and is not giving Barack Obama a chance to be President consider this. The closer the President-elect gets to inauguration the more hints, clues and parts of his agenda are featured in his words. They are becoming less vague and more specific. And with each new item exposed by the one some refer to as the Messiah another tidbit of socialism is supported.

The overuse of middle-class can easily sound like historic speeches and doctrine of others when they used working class, under-class or even proletariat. Wall Street can be replaced with aristocrat or the wealth-class or upper-class. Don’t so easily dismiss the criticism of others raising the issue of class warfare. A plan for both Wall Street and Main Street can as easily mean two plans as one. With the bailouts by taxpayer money of private sector entities directed by the public sector the notion of government run businesses is a socialist idea not far from the actions of this republic’s democratic leaders’ actions.

The jury may still be out but the evidence is piling up suggesting what may be feared in an Obama Administration will come true. If being fair requires ignoring the scrutiny required and expressing disfavor of the plans a newly elected President puts forward then being unfair is the appropriate action to take. It is often said the people get the government they deserve. For those who did not vote for this President-elect is the responsibility to hold him accountable for doing what is right for the nation in order to get a government we deserve. The manner in which this nation has survived as a republic through good and bad must be preserved. If a president intends to do something that would not preserve, protect and defend the Constitution it would be a violation of the oath of office. To radically change this democracy would violate that oath. Especially if that radical change included socialism or Marxism. Not a stretch for the uber liberal in this country.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Try as it will the NYT fish wrap continues to bias its reporting in support of Obama but cannot do it effectively as even the Obama camp lowers expectations. With taxpayer interest groups favoring McCain over Obama and Joe Biden lowering the $250K target for those getting tax breaks to $150K and now the NYT lowering the threshhold to $100K the house of cards of Obama on taxes is simply a joke.

Calling the analysis of tax plans ‘independent’ does not make it so. The Tax Policy Center, The Urban Institute as well as the Brookings Institution are not necessarily non-partisan and independent.

When the abstract alone of the candidate tax plans describes them as poor or poorly targeted a closer look would be needed to find support for the NYT claim that Obama’s plan is better for anyone. In the excerpt below one caveat comes from the NYT’s own description that ‘Mr Obama would GENERALLY cut taxes more’ and leaves one with the feeling someone is splitting hairs on this appraisal. And where does the so-called independent analysis state those under $250K would not see a tax increase? And this doesn’t even come close to explaining where Obama gets the money to pay for his trillion dollar spending proposal. Gouging the small group of wealthy citizens who pay the lion’s share of taxes in this country won’t cover it.

Already stated, the most important feature of the Obama tax cutting claim is two-fold. The campaign started with a $250K threshhold, lowered it to $150K and their biggest media friend only allows a $100k threshhold to promote the plan. Secondly, for Obama to have any chance at an agenda if elected he has to contend with Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and company. Without their support he doesn’t stand a chance and may not even care if his campaign promises are torpedoed by other Democrats. It would let him off the hook. He could simply say, gee, I tried but Harry and Nancy wouldn’t let me. Just like Kennedy told Hillary she couldn’t play, he was choosing Obama along with the remainder of the DNC elite and the main stream media.

This is another reason to vote for McCain/Palin

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

For Incomes Below $100,000, a Better Tax Break in Obama’s Plan
By STEVEN GREENHOUSE
Published: October 30, 2008

Independent analyses of the presidential candidates’ tax proposals show that those who make less than $250,000 a year would not see their taxes raised under Senator Barack Obama’s plans. Further, Mr. Obama would generally cut taxes more than Senator John McCain would for households with incomes less than $100,000 a year.

There will be a few posts on the speeches given at the Democratic Party Convention in Denver this year. Starting with remarks prepared for delivery by Caroline Kennedy. As I watched the events of November 1963 in which it has been echoed many times that we all remember where we were that day, being a child myself, the images of Caroline and John John are vividly stored in my memory. As I remember the title, ‘Johnny We Hardly Knew Ye’, it makes me think of the loss of my own father some years before 1963 as I did not know my father well either.

With the passing of John Jr I had some time to return to the thoughts generated by all those memories. There was much more and I always felt one family should not be burdened with so much grief. The contrast between Camelot and the tragic events over many years had me thinking that I hoped that little girl I saw on the television had a good and private life if that was her plan. And only now has she emerged on the public stage.

While this may be a critical review of her prepared remarks, I certainly intend no harm or unfair criticism of Caroline Kennedy Schlossberg.

The comparison of Barack Obama to John F Kennedy and her statement that there is a shared commitment between them on ‘the timeless American ideals of justice and fairness, service and sacrifice, faith and family’ falls flat on this blog. The most obvious parallel between JFK and the Presidential candidates of 2008 is the military service of the former President and Senator John McCain. JFK’s famous heroism of PT109 fame and John McCain’s service in the Viet Nam War and being subjected to the fate of a POW for six years as well as the comparative family histories of service to country are stunning. Barack Obama does not share in this dedication to service and sacrifice.

While some may be troubled by repeated mention of a connection between Barack Obama and Bill Ayers the facts speak for themselves. And ideals of justice and fairness suggest that Obama admit the relationship exists and also that it was an absolutely extreme error in judgment when the standard should be to avoid even the appearance of impropriety if seeking public office. The same can be said about a shady real estate deal with convicted felon Rezko. Are the Dems so lame they could not vet ‘the Chosen One’ and reject his candidacy on those facts alone? It’s like Clinton all over again with Whitewater and all the other ‘gates’. Will more similar acts follow if this man makes it to the White House?

If this is how it works what else is out there we cannot see? For that matter, it is not like Ted Kennedy is without baggage either. The Dems cry foul about President Bush and the GOP in general. They are not perfect either but to hold your political opponents to a higher standard than yourselves seems to be the left’s SOP. Ethics violations and worse are in evidence on both sides of the aisle but to lift Barack Obama toward sainthood during a political campaign is more than a bit much.

Caroline, my apologies if this post that you will likely never read offends you. That was not my intent. But if you agree to enter the fray don’t be surprised if your clothes get muddied. Barack Obama is not the person you describe. Be careful what you drink. The Kook-Aid is not recommended.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

For weeks now and to the opening of the Dems convention the talk has been ‘party unity’. With groups like PUMA and the modified words of the acronym, party unity my ass, does it seem unity is not a guarantee? Obama having to appease the Clinton clan speaks volumes of how little unity there is. The same two who pounded each other in the primaries are now making nice for the cameras. For Clinton to say we WERE NOT all on the same side but we ARE now is ridiculous. Obama is trying to save his campaign with this dribble and Clinton is trying to keep her options open four years in the future. For Clinton, the odd thing is four years only works if Obama loses in November. Otherwise it is possible, but unlikely, that she would have to wait for two terms of Obama and perhaps one of Biden. Appeasement for Obama no matter how dispicable may win him a shot at, in his words, ‘that White House’. As another report suggests, this convention is all about selling the Obama brand. For Obama the key phrase should be let’s put some lipstick on this pig. Hire a few used car salesman for the hard sell. But then there is no need, they already have Obama and perhaps half of the Dems have begun drinking the Kook Aid.

Posted at 6:43 PM ET, 08/25/2008

Democrats Stress Unity as Convention Opens

By Shailagh Murray
Washington Post Staff Writer

DENVER, Colo. - The Democratic National Convention opened this afternoon with a call to order from party chairman Howard Dean and a pledge of unity by formal rivals Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton.

It’s madness. Its madness I tell ya. A view from the PBS coverage tonite included a woman listening after Carter spoke via whatever and Obama’s half-sister was speaking. She was already teary-eyed. Then there was one who looked stunned or confused or just plain not happy. One could guess the first already drank some Kook-Aid and the other hand not. Apparently one Obama supporter and one for Clinton. Two different kinds of Kook-Aid are being offered.

Democrats Kick Off Convention Madness

Kennedy Tribute and Michelle Obama To Headline Denver Extravaganza
By JENNIFER PARKER and NITYA VENKATARAMAN
DENVER, Aug. 25, 2008

A presidential ticket now in hand, exuberant Democrats flooded downtown Denver today for the official start of their 2008 nominating convention, hoping to heal rifts from a bruising primary season and begin their fight to the November election with renewed focus.

Here it is again. ‘Healing rifts’ of a ‘bruising primary season’. Gee Wally, imagine that, the piece above suggests that this week the Dems are concerned that the roll call vote Clinton brokered with Obama might disrupt their HOPE for party unity. Are these people for real or what?

While observing some of the coverage by PBS of the Dems convention this evening some points are reinforced. To go further than David Brooks opinion of Pelosi’s speech that she basically said Obama is a Democrat and that is good so vote for a Democrat, she mentioned again that nagging failed agenda of a New Direction for America which they may have unveiled for the 2006 midterms and nothing has happened since. She also credited Obama with the toughest ethics legislation in decades, another falsehood. Then Jimmy Carter helped them point to their manufactured victims. Then his half-sister said Barack helped her follow her dreams and would do the same for you. If that is the case, why couldn’t she follow her dreams independently? Did she need Barack to do that? Here we go again. The Dems can do nothing but repeat their tired old mantra of hope and change. Because that is all they have to offer. Hope and change that never provides solutions. They were victorious in the 2006 elections and nothing has come of it yet. Now they want you to give them the White House and nothing would come of that except extending the political future of do nothings.

But hey, how about that party unity?

August 25, 2008

Clinton and New York Democrats Stress Unity

By Jeremy W. Peters

At a meeting of the New York delegation here, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton implored the state’s Democrats to work as hard to elect Senator Barack Obama as they worked for her.

We were not all on the same side as Democrats, but we are now,’’ Senator Clinton said.

In her 9-minute speech, Mrs. Clinton used the word unity at least a half dozen times.

Let there be no mistake about it. We are united. We are united for change. We are, after all, Democrats. So it may take a while, but we’re not the fall in line party, she said.

All over the press lately is the chant of party unity or the concern over it from the obviously left leaning MSM. They were pounded about it so much since Obama entered the campaign, you may occasionally find a piece that is not flattering to Obama. But that is just a little misdirection provided by the MSM to dissuade you from noticing their bias. Listen to Hillary. We are united. Is it her Democratic party ‘hope’ that if you throw enough of it at the wall some will stick? Or is she just playing a role to look like the good soldier while behind the scenes she is working deals for herself? Maybe she wants to deflect suggestions of guilt when the rabid Clintonistas disrupt the convention. If the party goes back on the floor vote arrangement Denver will need those 1500 police and then some.

Republicans Want Hillary Backers to Switch Sides. Will they?
by Heather Nauert
Monday, August 25, 2008

Republicans have identified an opening and hope to bring a new group of women to the polls in November. They are going after disaffected female voters who backed Hillary Clinton during the primary and at a minimum wanted her as Barack Obama’s running mate. Now that Obama’s picked Joe Biden, where will these Democrats go?

In Debra Bartoshevich’s case, she’s going for McCain. Bartoshevich was a Clinton delegate from Wisconsin who was replaced after she came out in support of the Arizona senator. She is appearing in a new McCain television ad that the campaign says is running in key states.

Don’t be shocked if a high percentage of independents and even Democrats vote for John McCain. Obama should lose much of the women’s vote without Clinton and the ad from McCain on the story above may begin to convince more women that the GOP is a better choice for them. It is for most people. It is just a simple matter of them not figuring that out yet. GOP perfect? Not even close. But they are far and away better than the left choice. As it works out on two acounts, they are the right choice.

Poll gives Democrats reasons for hope, concern

By Paul Steinhauser
CNN Deputy Political Director

DENVER, Colorado (CNN) — A new national poll has a mixed message for Democrats as their national convention gets under way Monday in Denver.

A CNN/Opinion Research Corp. survey out Monday shows that President Bush’s approval rating remains extremely low, at 30 percent, which would appear to benefit the Democrats.

But the poll suggests that the public is not convinced that Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona, would follow Bush’s policies if elected. So Bush’s unpopularity may not rub off on the presumptive Republican nominee.

The public may be more intelligent than the credit some give. Understanding the fallacy in the Dems only argument against McCain can provide some optimism that the entire nation is not drinking the Dems Kook Aid. But the funny thing here is the Dems believing some of their own propaganda….’reasons for hope’. You know, like the fact they are always waiting for some Messiah to lead them out of the wilderness. Along comes Barack Obama. Go figure. They took the bait.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

postscript: Just as this post was being finished Ted Kennedy was shown on PBS giving his speech. It would appear Senator Kennedy is in charge of distributing the Kook-Aid. And based on the post-speech commentary by Shields and Brooks, Obama is real tight with Kennedy. Sounds eerily familiar, right John Kerry?

Mob scene at the Mint

Trackposted to Rosemary’s Thoughts, , Right Truth, DragonLady’s World, Shadowscope, The Pink Flamingo, , , Cao’s Blog, Dumb Ox Daily News, Democrat=Socialist, and Right Voices, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe

John Edwards caved to the Democratic party elite in 2004 to become number two on a failed ticket. Now John Kerry did the party’s bidding again by endorsing Barack Obama. Essentially the same story was posted here yesterday and things haven’t changed. Reports are out today that the D for ‘duh’ party may have soured on the Clintons. What was the first clue? Iowa was the proof for the Dems elite. If HRC could not sweep through the first two contests, Obama would get the nod from the party.

Perhaps Edwards feels used after the 04 race. He has no one but himself to blame. He caved to party politics and got what he deserved. Or was he silly enough to think that number two on a Kerry ticket guaranteed him the spot in four or eight years? Doesn’t matter. He was working Iowa since 04 and only took 2nd cuz Obama was in the race. And 2nd was virtually a tie with Clinton so he really got nothing from Iowa.

Dan Balz’s Take
John Edwards: Spoiler, Surrogate or Surprise?
“I want to be absolutely clear to all of you who have been devoted to this cause,” he told supporters in New Hampshire last Tuesday night, “and I want to be clear to the 99 percent of Americans who have not yet had the chance to have their voices heard, that I am in this race to the convention, that I intend to be the nominee of my party.”

crossposted at:
Maggie’s Notebook | Conservative Blog
Faultline USA
Conservative Thoughts

The ink is barely dry on Biden and Dodd dropping out of the 2008 race and you know that Senator John Kerry’s endorsement of Barack Obama was planned with the Senate candidate from Illinois. Is this a slick move to woo undecided voters, the 2008 version of the 2004 anointing of the Dems party elite and do Biden, Dodd and Kerry stand to profit politically and otherwise by winning cabinet posts if Obama would be successful?

Below are reports from Kerry’s 2004 cabinet plans and strategy as well as a post from Michelle Malkin on the topic. The only part of this campaign strategy that is compelling points to the possibility that the Democratic party elite is shunning Hillary Rodham Clinton and her former President husband Bill. When Katie Couric interviewed HRC this week to help her continue to market the tears thing and further the network’s desire for another Clinton White House she noted the house they were at as Hillary’s home in NY. With some reports suggesting Bill has tried to sabotage Hillary’s campaign and the living arrangements being what they are, how does anyone consider them married other than technically? Excuse the spontaneous thought please. Can’t help but wonder about these things and worse, why so many choose to ignore all of what is wrong with the Clinton clan.

One last note, that may explain why John Edwards is still in the race. He sold out to the Dems party elite by caving to their anointing of John Kerry in 04. So he may only be in it to get the nod for VP on HRC’s ticket if she would end up with the nomination. Any way you slice it, with the Dems you get the same old c__p. And they want you to believe they are change agents. Maybe quick change artists but not change agents.

It would appear the Dems party elite does not believe Clinton can be the GOP. It is also quite possible that the cold, calculating queen of cringe cannot be trusted to attend to party business. So the party is grooming the ‘naive and irresponsible’ other rookie Senator to do the party bidding.

Kerry Exploring Cabinet Options

By Jim VandeHei
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, October 22, 2004; Page A23

If he wins the White House, John F. Kerry will immediately confront a difficult, divisive and deeply personal decision: which close friend will he have to stiff for secretary of state?

Kerry, who would name a national security team a few weeks after the election, is said by campaign sources to be under a fair amount of pressure to pick Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.) or Richard Holbrooke to help repair global alliances and attract new allies to assist in Iraq. Both men are seasoned diplomats, ambitious and close friends and political advisers to Kerry. And both clearly want the job.

Next: Kerry’s key Cabinet choices

By Peter Grier | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

But picking through advisers and matching them up with possible Cabinet roles reveals a lot about candidates themselves. A US administration is a joint effort, after all. Undecided voters might find it easier to make up their minds if they consider what personalities a challenger would install in office for the next four years.

A relative unknown to much of the voting public, Mr. Kerry might particularly benefit from helping this process along.

Michelle Malkin » John Kerry tries to make himself relevant; “Let …

I fear Kerry might be selected to fill a cabinet post if one of the Dims is elected. Hope I am wrong, but could you imagine him as SecDef or Homeland …

And who could forget Bill Richardson, his withdrawal and resume’ items in the Clinton cabinet. If you read the 911 Commission report that the Dems love to mention, you can relive the 911 mistakes of Bill and Hillary as well as Mr Richardson in failing to eliminate Al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden. Maybe Richardson gets his pick if either Obama or Clinton make it to the White House. Certainly buying off Vilsack earlier in the campaign ensures a post election job for him too. These people are more like job service than public service. So where are the change agents? Don’t kid yourself this is business as usual in Washington. But the Dems take it to a whole new level. And if you add Pelosi and Reid to the equation as well as Boxer and Feinstein and their money connections and Clinton’s criminal campaign contributors, this country could be in a world of hurt come 2009.