Blog @ MoreWhat.com

Yes, it’s early yet. But you can always count on an abundance of opinion, speculation and concern when it comes to judicial nominations especially for SCOTUS. This time out is no exception. So where are we at rignt now? Who knows?

Here’s a recap of recent predictions or at least a not so short list with some, shall we say, historical notes.

It appears the replacement for Justice John Paul Stevens may come from a list of ten candidates.

elena kagan
merrick b garland
diane wood (of chicago)
sidney thomas
janet napolitano
martha minow
elizabeth warren
leah ward sears
jennifer granholm
hillary clinton (now, reportedly, off the list)

Ah, the speculation….

…since Justice John Paul Stevens announced his retirement from the court, speculation has centered on three contenders from the last round, including Solicitor General Elena Kagan, U.S. Appeals Court Judge Merrick B. Garland of Washington, D.C., and U.S. Appeals Court Judge Diane Wood of Chicago.

Let’s start with Wiki on Elena Kagan.

Kagen ‘is the Solicitor General of the United States. She is the first woman to hold that office, having been nominated by President Barack Obama on January 26, 2009, and confirmed by the U.S. Senate on March 19, 2009. Kagan was formerly dean of Harvard Law School and Charles Hamilton Houston Professor of Law at Harvard University. She was previously a professor of law at the University of Chicago Law School. She served as Associate White House Counsel under President Bill Clinton.’

Imagine that. Clinton and Chicago in her history.

How about Merrick B Garland being on the ’short list’? The Wiki data will be skipped. Why? Clinton and Chicago in this potential nominee’s resume’ as well.

Diane Wood is another Chicago connection. Go figure, the University of Chicago is in her resume’. At least she was born in New Jersey rather than Illinois. But this one also is a Clinton nominee from 1995. And these three figure as top nominees to replace Stevens. BTW, you might want to check Wiki for Wood’s ‘noteworthy rulings.’ There is more than one of interest.

As for the remainder of this list, a humble opinion from this blog author. Judge Sidney Thomas is another Clinton nominee from 1995. This criteria for Steven’s replacement is laughable. Can Obama not draw on something other than political considerations? Oh, excuse me, we’re talking about a community organizer here.

Martha Minow gets no pan on this blog…. yet. A brief review of the Wiki data suggests this potential nominee may not have the typical resume’ of other Chicago or Clinton tainted cnadidates. Nonetheless there is reason to be concerned. A later post will be needed to expand on this list member.

Leah Ward Sears presents another unknown quantity and her ‘decisions’ may provide some troubling analysis. Like Minow, another post will be required to explore this candidate.

Hillary Clinton appears to have been dropped from the list if she in fact was ever on it. As for Granholm, Napolitano and Warren only the last name presents an interesting choice. Some information related to Elizabeth Warren is promising. But then, if she is on the Obama ’short list’ one has to be suspicious. But there are acceptable choices in Obama’s list. Given you cannot expect the Messiah to nominate a conservative.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

BTW, here’s an interesting opinion from the WaPo report…..

When the openings on the court come in consecutive years, said David Yalof, a political scientist at the University of Connecticut, the nominee is almost always drawn from the previous pool.

Especially when the president otherwise has a full agenda, they’re going to rely on the research done the previous year, for better or worse,” Yalof said.

WH Press Secretary Robert Gibbs has taken plenty of criticism. Whether you view him as incompetent or an astute barrier between the press and the Obama administration his performance could fairly be described as less than stellar. How does that play with WH plans for his career suggested in a WaPo article?

Robert Gibbs does not seem particularly attached to his office.

Is his post as Press guru simply a waypoint for a larger mission?

Robert Gibbs ‘is considered, along with Obama’s presidential campaign manager, David Plouffe, a top candidate to take the place of senior strategist David Axelrod when the Washington-weary keeper of the Obama message leaves to focus on the 2012 reelection. That isn’t happening anytime soon, which means Gibbs is stuck on double duty.

AS 2012 approaches Axelrod will focus on re-election while Plouffe gets top strategist and Gibbs gets what, exactly? Like you would want to accept the take of a failed communications director.

“Robert is far more of a strategist and plays more of a strategic role than people realize,” said Anita Dunn, the Obama administration’s former communications director. “He is one of the very few people who can sit in on anything he wants to sit in on.”

And it is always a waste of time to accept information from an undisclosed source without the stones to go on record to protect against looking the fool later.

“The idea of Gibbs taking on a senior adviser role was under discussion as a possible arrangement even before the current arrangement,” said one Democratic official with knowledge of staffing decisions during the transition, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss private conversations.

And it gets better. In the quote below it would be more fun to know why the pair left the Kerry campaign ‘abruptly.’

“He’s definitely got the chops for a broader political portfolio,” said Jim Jordan, the Democratic operative who brought Gibbs onto the 2004 Kerry campaign, before they both left abruptly. “He understands campaigns and Washington and the way that politics and policy and communications mesh.”

Number one, if you’re such a hot strategic commodity why would you be burdened and embarrassed by a stint as a press secretary? And why would you be referred to as a ‘confidant’ to a US President when two others are in line for the top strategy posts? Is this just a not so subtle attempt to repair Gibbs’ sad history to date?

Number two, Barack Obama is not a stranger to throwing people under the bus. His approval ratings continue to slide. More and more Americans are expressing their displeasure and disappointment with Obama and the liberal majority in Congress. If Axelrod is point for 2012 and Plouffe is his replacement what does that forecast for Gibbs? When it all collapses he will be turned out as the failure’s scapegoat. Or just one of many who will see the underside of the bus.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Here’s a headline that might get your attention.

Calif. to investigate group behind Palin speech

Specifically, California Attorney General, former Governor and current candidate for Governor (among other titles held) Jerry Brown is the point man on this.

California Attorney General Jerry Brown said Tuesday his office had launched an investigation into the finances of a state university foundation and the alleged dumping of documents related to Sarah Palin’s upcoming speech at the school.

And you gotta love a Joe Biden-like quote from one of Linda Ronstadt’s former boyfriends.

“This is not about Sarah Palin,” Brown said in a prepared statement. “The issues are public disclosure and financial accountability in organizations embedded in state-run universities.”

If this is not about Sarah Palin or partisan politics someone should explain the following:

The WaPo piece indicates the Stanislaus Foundation and a spokesman for Palin did not ‘immediately’ respond to inquiries. Does that mean they responded later? And why is there no mention of any inquiry into actions of the two students involved in the story?

Does this sound suspicious to you?

“I was informed that there was suspicious activity taking place at the administration building, which I found very alarming,” said 23-year-old Ashli Briggs, a junior at the school.

Along with other students including Ashley Lewis documents were retrieved from ‘trash bins’ near the CSU administration building. Who informed the students?

State Sen. Leland Yee, D-San Francisco, who has been seeking details of Palin’s compensation package for several weeks, released copies of the paperwork earlier in the day.

Does anyone else wonder if CA State Senator Leland Yee was the one who informed students to seek out the docs since he was unsuccessful in getting them? That would easily explain why the students handed them over to AG Brown.

And when it comes right down to it, who the hell cares what anyone receives as compensation for speaking engagements? Well known individuals who attract large audiences can command lucrative payment and perks for their ability to do so. What’s the big surprise? Why do you suppose they are often referred to as rock stars? It’s a big payday.

Wow, liberals are upset that Sarah Palin is to speak at a ’state run’ campus in California? So they seek to expose her contract for the event and cover their intent by saying it is a financial disclosure issue with a school foundation?

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

….’Obama would not have been elected.’

That’s right, Dana !! (Milbank at WaPo). And if you’re wondering what this is about the press is all wee weed up about being shunned by their Messiah.  What a surprise.  That they are all wee weed up AND that Obama is throwing them under the bus.

From Limbaugh to the blogosphere to the general public Dana Milbank’s WaPo piece is generating discussion.  Here’s some background.

Obama’s disregard for media reaches new heights at nuclear summit
By Dana Milbank
Wednesday, April 14, 2010

In the middle of it all was Obama — occupant of an office once informally known as “leader of the free world” — putting on a clinic for some of the world’s greatest dictators in how to circumvent a free press.

The excerpt above (liberally borrowed) links to Milbank’s first item.  Then comes the follow up with link focusing on what is regarded here as the central point from those commenting.

More than 1,300 comments have been filed at the hour this is written. Many of them complain that if the press had been doing its job Obama would not have been elected.

You, the MSM, bought into your own liberal mindset and helped anoint Barack Obama as the Messiah.  Now you are shocked as he throws you under the bus. Morons.

One related piece at Maggie’s Notebook points to other selective media decisions by the Obama adminstration.  It demonstrates who gets to play and who doesn’t.

Why is this such a mystery to members of the MSM?

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

crossposted at Maggie’s Notebook

The following story is the result of an initial look at some of the 2010 elections.

So a young man earns a bachelor’s degree from a university. Sometime thereafter he adds a masters in business administration as well as a law degree. After working in at least one administrative position he becomes the CEO of a firm with annual losses of $50 million. During his tenure at the helm the company realizes profits of $240 million. An impressive accomplishment no matter how you measure it.

This man later enters politics and runs for governor. He narrowly defeats the incumbent. It is said he refuses to enact an income or sales tax in his state. He cuts spending while maintaining ‘essential’ services. He is given credit for expanding access to healthcare, creating jobs, growing the state’s reserve funds as well as economic development and reducing crime.

In subsequent re-election bids this governor dramatically overwhelmed his opponents by margins of 3 to 1 and has enjoyed tremendous approval ratings for some time. In addition this governor’s state is reported to have won awards as the most livable state and the safest.

Does this sound like a conservative to you? On the downside this governor did not veto a bill allowing homosexual marriage even though it is reported he is personally opposed. He also is engaged in a regional global warming agenda and complying with the renewable energy act that may be ill=advised regardless of any good intentions.

If you haven’t guessed already this governor is a Democrat. Needless to say he endorsed Barack Obama for president. The humorous part, if there is one, his wife endorsed Hillary Clinton. And as you might expect as a pediatrician his wife is reported to be active in child obesity causes. So there is plenty of liberal philosophy lurking in the background yet this governor has some history not characteristic of liberals or Democrats, if there is a difference.

So what’s the point of all this? It should be no surprise to anyone that the 2010 elections have been characterized as the potential big comeback for conservatives. The GOP fancies themselves as the big winners given public anger at incumbents and in particular the Democratic party majority. It is not uncommon for the majority party to suffer losses in midterm elections. But what does the GOP offer to the growing trend of conservatism in the US?

Using the story provided here as an example it demonstrates what may be all too common in upcoming elections. In the story presented here, Governor John Lynch of New Hampshire may only be vulnerable this November based on polling data. Rasmussen Reports indicates Lynch has slipped from 50% in March to 47% now. His challengers at this point are in the mid 30’s in voter share. One conservative activist competing against Lynch for governor has a compelling bio and professional history. The others, one Democrat, one Republican are by no means political heavyweights either.

It would not necessarily be going out on a limb to suggest a victory for Lynch at this early stage of the game. The minority party, in many cases around the country including the US Congress, may not present strong conservative candidates in 2010. Like it or not those challenging liberal incumbents need a compelling resume’ to compete. After all, election outcomes are unfortunately driven by politics and that requires more than good intentions.

How many contests will the GOP concede for lack of a competitive conservative candidate or the willingness to spend what’s necessary to win?

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

This video report is not breaking news in the usual sense. The tax on indoor tanning salons as a result of Obamacare has been a known quantity for weeks. Other reports on this story are widely available. What is ‘breaking’ about this story is the effect on American business. It is breaking them. And this story is just the beginning.

The decision to bypass this story for a post on this blog was maintained until today. Here’s the reason why. For this blog author tanning salons are viewed as a peculiar entity. No participants here. Not a fan. Don’t use them or run one. But that is exactly the point. That Obama is targeting specific businesses to pay a huge price for his entitlement should be a wake up call.

Your business will be next. What? You thought they would stop with tanning salons? That is why it matters even if you have no personal interest in what a business offers as a product or service. All taxpayers will pay for this. Which means about 47% of the US population will not. And the liberals expect us to believe this is not redistribution of wealth or socialism.

You don’t have to be wealthy to have wealth or have someone redistribute it for you. If you are an employee or run your own business and are surviving or getting along under current circumstances you have wealth. That is if you consider what your situation would be without it. If you understand that you should understand Obamacare will not help you. It will not even help those who are struggling right now. Because just like the other entitlements you cannot simply have something without paying for it. Someone will have to pay for it. And the costs will exceed our ability to pay. Guess what that means?

Obamacare is still a liberal dream as it cannot be accomplished in a practical manner. This story about tanning salons and a 10% tax because of Obamacare demonstrates what is wrong. Obamacare does not solve healthcare problems. It creates more of them. Targeting taxpayers to pay for the healthcare of others as a grand plan to fix healthcare is no different than the impractical entitlements of social security, medicare and medicaid.

In the early years there were perhaps 30 or 40 workers paying in that covered each social security recipient. It would not be a surprise if that ratio has declined to one to one. But it is certainly less than 30:1 and as the CBO reminds us the trust funds are accounting mechanisms and nothing more. The money to pay the entitlements has to come from increased taxes and borrowed money.

Obamacare is the same kind of fraud only on a much larger scale. And some of the first casualties will be the jobs Obama claimed would be coming. The tanning salons are in the first wave of many to come.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Could you equate slow economic growth to zero economic growth? Sure you could. Much of that which affects performance is influenced by perception. If you are optimistic there may be a greater chance for success. Conversely, if you are pessimistic the odds may favor failure. Even athletes contend visualizing the next contest in advance improves their chances to win.

With all the reports about the questionable ethics of those elected, appointed or nominated to the Obama Administration it is not difficult to be suspicious of information from the government. This is nothing new. Reasonable people may be skeptical of government and it may be prudent to do so. And it is likely the sentiment varies from time to time depending on what is known about public officials.

That is what gives rise to the question alluded to earlier in this post. The slow economic growth indicated by more than one source could actually be zero growth. After all, zero growth is obviously slow if not absent. But for the ethically challenged among us it could be argued the analysis is honest.

Be that as it may how do they expect anyone to believe ‘overall prices were unchanged’? Or is that just political-speak for nothing much happened? Prices change all the time and mostly go up. So these reports may be crafted not to cause more pessimism in a situation sensitive to the psychology of perception.

After the conclusion of this phase of healthcare legislation the Democrats still appear clueless on jobs. The same group of reports indicate another week of lower unemployment numbers relying on those who filed for benefits. Even though nearly a half million people signed up for UI compensation officials focus on that being 5000 less than the time before.

Obama and friends continuously pointed to a figure of 32 million uninsured when pushing their health agenda. That was reduced from 45 million when they were called out for inflating the numbers. Yet they seem disinterested in similar numbers suggested as the state of those unemployed or under-employed in the US.

Did they ever suggest all this talk and analysis may involve the same group of people? In other words, if the unemployed had jobs and those not wanting health insurance were removed from their math is there really a problem with uninsured?

These questions are not sophisticated. All that is being suggested here is that citizens continue to compel their elected representatives to come clean. And it helps if the citizens asking the questions are being honest about the issues as well. Staged Q&A from less than honest officials and citizens alike is counterproductive. All this should red flag much of what happens in the public sector. You cannot be too diligent in search of the truth.

Put another way, challenge your reps to prove what they say.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

President Obama added insult to injury by adding education spending to the massive spending already in the Democrats’ healthcare agenda. In 1965 President Johnson signed the Higher Education Act as part of his failed ‘great society’ agenda. You can learn something about the folly of nanny state agendas from Johnson’s speech on that occasion.

In a very few moments, I will put my signature on the Higher Education Act of 1965. The President’s signature upon this legislation passed by this Congress will swing open a new door for the young people of America. For them, and for this entire land of ours, it is the most important door that will ever open–the door to education.

And this legislation is the key which unlocks it.

It always starts the same way. Someone in a leadership capacity in government suggests that what they propose will solve the problem. Whether a problem exists or not, they claim their idea will solve it. You can count on it costing something and that taxpayers will have to pay for it. But there is no such certainty about solving a problem, real or imagined.

Right after stating his legislation opens the door to education the rhetorical retreat begins.

To thousands of young men and women, this act means the path of knowledge is open to all that have the determination to walk it.

It means a way to deeper personal fulfillment, greater personal productivity, and increased personal reward. This bill, which I will make law, is an incentive to stay in school.

Although more than a million people were to benefit from this bill Johnson chose to limit the number to ‘thousands’ understanding and acting on this liberal ‘incentive’ to ’stay in school’. As if no beneift otherwise comes from being educated.

And liberals never stop with one legislative item on an issue.

This bill is only one of more than two dozen education measures enacted by the first session of the 89th Congress. And history will forever record that this session-the first session of the 89th Congress–did more for the wonderful cause of education in America than all the previous 176 regular sessions of Congress did, put together.

I doubt that any future Congress will ever erect a prouder monument for future generations.

Yup, now as it was before there is little risk in suggesting what history will say or how future POLS will be viewed. But the rhetoric is typical for selling flawed ideas. And yet President Johnson let the cat outta the bag on just how flawed this legisiation was.

This bill, which we will shortly make into law, will provide scholarships and loans and work opportunities to 1 million of that 1.3 million that did not get to go on to college. And when you, the first year, with the first bill, take care of 1 million of that 1.3 million through this legislation, we are hopeful that the State and the local governments, and the local employers and the local loan funds, can somehow take care of the other 300,000.

Not only one large bill for education spending but many more as expressed by Johnson. And an admission that it will not solve the problem after suggesting it will solve the problem. That anyone would honestly believe government can solve problems after reading this should challenge even the weakest minds

A subsequent post will address the problem with the Department of Education and why calls to eliminate it make sense. If you are a liberal addicted to nanny state agendas paid for by others you will not understand it. But try anyhow.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

sources and resources:

http://www.lbjlib.utexas.edu/Johnson/lbjforkids/edu_whca370-text.shtm
http://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/history/index.html
http://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/history/edhistory.xls
http://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/history/edhistory.pdf

Most of the headlines in the MSM related to the most recent unemployment data promote the jobs created nonsense. Here’s what the report actually describes:

In March, nonfarm payroll employment rose by 162,000. Job growth continued in temporary help services and in health care. Federal government employment increased due to the hiring of temporary workers for Census 2010. Job losses continued in financial activities and in information.

Employment in federal government was up over the month, reflecting the hiring of 48,000 temporary workers for the decennial census.

And here is more of the less encouraging information in the report.

The number of long-term unemployed (those jobless for 27 weeks and over) in creased by 414,000 over the month to 6.5 million. In March, 44.1 percent of unemployed persons were jobless for 27 weeks or more.

The number of persons working part time for economic reasons (sometimes referred to as involuntary part-time workers) increased to 9.1 million in March. These individuals were working part time because their hours had been cut back or because they were unable to find a full-time job.

About 2.3 million persons were marginally attached to the labor force in March, compared with 2.1 million a year earlier. (The data are not seasonally adjusted.) These individuals were not in the labor force, wanted and were available for work, and had looked for a job sometime in the prior 12 months. They were not counted as unemployed because they had not searched for work in the 4 weeks pre ceding the survey.

sources:
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.toc.htm

Why don’t we all just simply admit the economy is not doing so well.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Will the Democratic party’s effort to force their agenda on the American people receive help from the short term memory of those same Americans? Part of all political strategies rely on that simple fact. The fact that most Americans can only focus on critical issues for a limited time. And most politicians can leverage that fact to their benefit.

The townhall meetings and Tea Party gatherings over the last year support poll numbers like those expressed by David Broder at WaPo on April Fools Day 2010.

Today, most opinion polls agree that fewer than 20 percent of voters approve of the job Congress is doing. Despite passage of a health-reform bill that will surely win a place in the history books along with economic stimulus and education aid measures that are large by any measurement, the prestige of the legislative branch has sunk to a historic low.

Most Americans also oppose Obamacare. And while many favor reform to solve their own problems with healthcare more believe Obamacare will raise taxes, cost too much and do little for them personally. Yet the Democrats pushed their plan through Congress and President Obama gladly signed it.

That President Obama feels the need to be in campaign mode to convince the public his reform is worthy confirms that everyone views it as flawed. If there are any benefits to the legislation little will be distributed before 2014. But the downside of attempting to pay for it will start right now.

The events surrounding Democrats’ healthcare reform becoming law against overwhelming opposition suggests this will be the standard for advancing the liberal agenda as long as they are in the majority. It should give everyone a clue on what will happen from this point forward.

If other agenda items of the Democratic party are as unpopular as their version of healthcare reform you can count on the same method for passage being employed. They will force their agenda on all Americans until they are removed from office. And you thought it was nonsense to suggest Obama and his crew, including Dems in Congress, are socialists.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

This brief post is dedicated to all those convinced Obamacare and the remainder of the Democrats’ liberal agenda is good for America. It should also include those positioning themselves to take advantage of what they can from legislation they opposed. Most of those individuals would be politicians, lobbyists and their clients.

Ordinarily such strategies might be deemed reasonable. But under current circumstances strategies to make the most of a bad situation were in effect a dishonest concession. Had lobbyists and other special interests spent their money on forceful opposition there would be no need to pursue selective treatment outside the national interest.

There comes a time when individuals who happen to be American citizens must put country ahead of self. Allowing dangerous agendas to advance does not serve the country or the individual. And no argument to justify self-interest trumps the obligation to protect our nation.

The effect of the liberal agenda on the national debt, deficits as well as the economy in general is equal to the risk presented by any enemy foreign or domestic. Fortunately there is still time to correct the situation. But that may not always be the case.

So, once again, here’s to the fools on April 1, 2010. Those who support the liberal agenda for any reason.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

If anyone cares to offer a compelling argument to explain the results of the following roll call vote it would be appreciated. The only condition for the argument is that it does not offer political strategy as an excuse.

While the GOP would like to be viewed as the loyal opposition to the Democratic party’s far left agenda some Republicans defy explanation for their voting choices. The roll call vote presented here deals with earmarks. Senator DeMint offered an amendment described as an earmark moratorium for fiscal years 2010 and 2011. More than a dozen members of the GOP voted to table the amendment along with the Democrats. One Democrat, Russ Feingold from Wisconsin voted ‘no’ with most Republicans. But that may be due simply to political considerations in a re-election year.

That DeMint’s amendment clearly limited the earmark moratorium to 2010 and 11 should have made it easy for anyone to support it given current economic conditions. If you cannot support what may amount to nothing more than a symbolic gesture of disapproval for wasteful government spending how serious can you be about reducing the national debt and deficits? Earmarks are reported to account for ‘only’ a tiny amount of government spending. But eight or nine billion dollars per year is real money to most people. Money that could be used to solve real problems that get postponed due to lack of funding. How’s that for twisted logic?

It is understood POLS regularly tout their ability to direct federal taxpayer dollars to their respective states. You can visit many websites of Congressional members of either party listing all the, let’s face it, PORK, they provide their constituents. But isn’t it really a select number of constituents? Isn’t this simply more election campaigning and vote buying sponsored by the American taxpayer?

This sort of thing needs to stop. It may explain in part the popularity of what some call the Tea Party Nation. The GOP and even the Democratic party should adopt measures like the one Senator DeMint introduced mentioned earlier. It is just common sense. And it would go along way to convince the public that politicians are actually serious about controlled spending, deficit reduction and retiring the national debt.

And it could all be done without the political risk of attacking the real problem. Entitlements like the latest healthcare legislation or the majority of the annual budget that is, go figure, entitlements.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Less than two weeks ago the news was dominated with stories surrounding the contentious health reform debate. Opposition to President Obama’s obsession with his top agenda item in Congress mirrored that of the voting public.

The U.S. Congress appears headed for a final battle over health-care reform legislation in the next several days, and the political stakes for President Barack Obama, his Democratic allies and opposition Republicans are enormous.

Health-care reform has been President Barack Obama’s top domestic priority, and the president is making an energetic final push for support, including a recent visit to Ohio.

‘An energetic final push for support’ keeping President Obama in campaign mode since taking office was necessary as most Americans oppose the plan.

Public support for the Democratic health-care plan has eroded during the past several months, and Mr. Obama must now rely on Democrats alone to get the legislation through Congress.

There never was strong support for Obamacare as demonstrated by public opinion polls and the need for Democratic party leadership to strong arm their membership, buy votes with special deals at taxpayer expense as well as abusing their majority status in Congress to force a simple majority vote on the measure that would otherwise require 60 votes in the Senate.

Democrats including President Obama could not muster 60 votes of support in the Senate nor more than 40 percent in public opinion polls. Even without the ever-present political considerations politicians evaluate common sense opposition from the voting public demonstrates healthcare legislation forced through Congress by the Democrats is seriously flawed. And that Democrats have nothing but contempt for those who oppose their questionable agenda. That includes about sixty percent of the American public.

Health Care Bill Still Under 40% Approval

The polls above are from last week. You can click on the link to read more.

Perhaps the sixty percent opposed can send the Democrats home in November 2010 and retire the one in the White House in 2012.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

A column by Dana Milbank at WaPo may be representative of the liberal view on healthcare reform and the associated politics in Washington DC. And right out of the gate Milbank is wrong. In the first paragraph he tries to be cute and references a Kenny Rogers song suggesting the GOP should ‘know when to fold’em’. And two more errors are offered in the next paragraph. One, that healthcare reform is a done deal. And two, bad behavior and death threats ‘no doubt’ were caused by actions of Republicans.

On the topic of folding Milbank should be more concerned about the financial strain another huge entitlement will place on our nation. He should also point out that politics, majority party politics is responsible for the selfish choice to place a favorite liberal agenda item, healthcare ‘reform’, ahead of attending to jobs and the economy.

Perhaps Milbank’s real meaning for his ‘folding’ advice was requesting that the loyal opposition simply roll over and play dead. There are those of us who would prefer they did not. Bad enough that GOP errors caused them to lose the majority in 2006 that led to the leadership mess we’re in now. But the best way to fix that is learn from your mistakes, retake the majority and correct what damage the liberals cause.

To suggest that healthcare reform is a done deal is for Milbank to concede his lack of understanding. Beyond the fact that 37 states have initiated legal moves to opt out of Obamacare and talk about repealing the new legislation there is an underlying problem Milbank ignores.

There are no done deals in politics. Obamacare is no exception. Most new legislation alters older legislation and the party battles, wins and losses, perpetuate the process. And if Milbank thinks other liberals are content to stop meddling in healthcare after the bill is signed by the President, he knows nothing.

‘No doubt’ Milbank would prefer you had ‘no doubt’ about who or what is behind threatening behavior directed at politicians. But it is prudent and sensible to withhold judgment until there is something other than guesswork or personal opinions available like evidence. Or we can fan the flames like Milbank and point fingers and hurl accusations. Or just hurl.

For Milbank to jest about viagra for pedophiles misses the point which is government failures in managing programs produce outrageous outcomes. Milbank mentioning Lindsey Graham or John McCain as sensible voices in the GOP confirms they’re RINOs. Thanks for making one point conservatives can agree upon.

There is much about Milbank’s column that is foolish. Not the least of which is getting it wrong on why the GOP won’t fold’em.

The GOP used the majority party’s choice of reconciliation to send Obamacare back to the House allowing liberals one more chance to do what’s right and kill the bill. They also used amendments they knew would be rejected as nearly all have been to date in order to provide a record of many items that are in Obamacare and wrong. And to have those who support Obamacare go on record as promoting and accepting bad legislation.

There may be those who believe the GOP needs to use the record of these proceedings to challenge Democrats in November. It may be necessary to inform those not paying attention. I for one do not require it for opposing those who supported Obamacare. And Milbank does not need it to vote for liberals. No doubt.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

In Hypothetical 2012 Matchup, Obama in Statistical Dead Heat Against 2 Republicans: Nobody and Anybody

Let’s not get all excited about current news reports featuring ACORN. The organization now famous for registering cartoon characters and dead people to vote is bleeding profusely but not entirely dead yet. And with a community organizer-in-chief occupying the White House ACORN’S chances for revival are better than they should be.

Most of the 20 chapters of the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, which endorsed President Barack Obama during his 2008 campaign, have disbanded on their own and reorganized under new names, a source within the group said.

Funding dried up after a widely disseminated YouTube video last September that showed ACORN workers giving advice on how to flout the law to two conservative activists who posed as a pimp and a prostitute. A separate embezzlement scandal also damaged the group’s credibility.

Someone like George Soros or any number of other liberal sugar daddies could come to ACORN’s rescue, new names or not. It is to the benefit of all who support honest participation in public affairs and respect for the rule of law to be vigilant against the return of these ‘community organizers.’ Which is nothing more than code for a special interest scam willing to use any means to perpetrate their fraud.

Focus should not only be placed on ACORN. All one needs to do to find other sources like ACORN can be accomplished by reviewing non-profits, ‘volunteer’ or ‘charitable’ groups in their own locations. College and university campuses are a typical site for these groups. Even local chamber of commerce chapters have produced programs of a questionable nature.

Obviously not all groups described above are dishonest. But hiding among them as well as some in plain sight are groups with similar objectives to ACORN. And the methods to achieve those objectives are as suspect.

Don’t believe this? Look around.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com