The Obama administration: who’s weeping now?
Simon Heffer remarks on the apparent fracture of the Obama in-crowd, and sees it as a sign that things are going very badly indeed for the administration:
The descent of Barack Obama’s regime, characterised now by factionalism in the Democratic Party and talk of his being set to emulate Jimmy Carter as a one-term president, has been swift and precipitate. It was just 16 months ago that weeping men and women celebrated his victory over John McCain in the American presidential election. If they weep now, a year and six weeks into his rule, it is for different reasons.
I have noticed that the post-2008-election British press has seemed quicker to notice Obama’s flaws and to call him on them. Perhaps distance yields perspective. I have also noticed that the British press—even the leftist Guardian—has been relatively fair in covering Climategate, perhaps because Britain was the epicenter.
Our press, on the other hand, has been asleep at the switch on a huge scientific debacle, so much so that the vast majority of Americans have probably never even heard of it. Most of my friends certainly have not; I drew unanimous blank stares when I mentioned it the other day to a group of them.
This, again, is by design of the MSM. If a climate science falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound?
What is the motivation of the press 🙂
kidding…
The British press has better reporting. They also have a tradition of “open partisanship”, if you will. The Guardian is clearly liberal, where the Telegraph is equally clearly conservative.
The American press tries to don a mantle of non-partisanship, by which they appear hypocritical when they express the true feelings of the editorial board. As individuals, American reporters and editors are ideologically aligned with the Democrat Party.
Growing up in Chicago I knew that the Tribune was the Republican paper. Radio station WCFL would conclude each hour with the words, “The voice of labor.” The press was more honest in those days.
The phony non-partisanship, the aloof tone of expertise, and personal bias that pervades the newsrooms incline the press to provide cover for an administration with whom they identify.
The British press sees itself, correctly, as the institution holding the government accountable regardless of party.
“Asleep at the switch” is far too charitable. It implies that the American press simply failed to notice Climategate and report it.
No, they are wide awake and know exactly what is happening. And they have chosen to suppress the story for as long as they can.
The Brits also noticed the diplomatic slights by this administration, which perked up their ears a bit. Most of Western Europe was also enthralled by the idea that the US had elected a blackish man for that alone, and had less investment in the success of his ideas.
It’s not an either-or on Obamalove between the US and Europe, but the different tendencies are there.
Our press, on the other hand, has been asleep at the switch…This, again, is by design of the MSM…
Big difference between sleeping and doing something intentionally.
think our “press” is not even worthy of that name anymore. They are not anything like we were always led to believe a “press” was.
They are the propaganda division of liberalism, or really the propaganda division of marxism.
The Democrat party is the political division. The federal employees, and natinalized industries are the economic divisions.
America is almost nearly the ‘former America”. The Marxists are definitley runnig things. For now we can truly say America is a Marxist Nation. But it is still early enough for us to throw off this rule. The cadre has notyet cemented its control.
You’ll know when they do. It will be when other parties are effectively outlawed or so marginalized that it looks like an ‘everyone would vote our [marxist] way anyway!’; and when elections are either cancelled or mean no effective change in policy or process.
This is just the beginning of rearranging ‘the deck chairs upon the Titanic’…it’s going to get much, much worse for the Democrats and most especially for this administration.
In 2010, we are going to witness the greatest political reversal of a dominant parties political fortunes in history. Incompetence, an obsession with finally achieving the liberal agenda and a quite breathtaking political ‘tonal’ deafness among the Democrat’s leadership makes it inevitable.
“If you lose Massachusetts and that’s not a wake-up call,” said … Evan Bayh of Indiana, “there’s no hope of waking up.”
I was tempted to write something short and crass, like:
“Well, its their party and they can cry if they want to.”
But, unfortunately, the country is also saddled with this administration for 3 more years. *sigh*
I think there’s a lot of self-censorship in coverage of controversial subjects based on fear of being tarred as a partisan hack by one side or the other. Journalists may avoid taking a serious look at something like Climategate, for example, not because the story wouldn’t fit within their own ideological worldview, but rather because they don’t want to be accused by true ideologues as someone who is hackishly, cravenly, or stupidly advancing the “denialist” agenda.
The internet has accomplished a lot of good, but for better or worse it has made the “public square” something of a minefield. Naturally, we want media types to be “accountable” for what they do, but we seem to have achieved a sort of hyper-accountability these days wherein not just reporters but anyone in the public eye can be ripped to shreds by hundreds or thousands of bloggers simply for appearing to come down on one side or the other of a controversial issue.
It’s terrific that the internet has created such a vibrant public discourse, but there are downsides that shouldn’t be ignored. One of them is the risk that career-minded journalists will not “go wherever the story takes them,” regardless of their own political or ideological preferences; but will avoid wading into controversial stories until others have stuck their necks out and made it “safe” to do so. I think we saw evidence of this phenomenon in Climategate, in the John Edwards story, and in coverage of Obama’s disasterous first year in office.
One might point out, of course, that in each of the stories I just mentioned, any self-censorship on the part of the press just so happened to benefit a liberal/Dem person or interest group, and therefore is simply evidence of liberal bias. That may be true, but ISTM that, in each case, once the story started to get widespread mainstream coverage, the press didn’t go particularly easy on the liberal/Dem subjects of the stories.
To be clear, I’m not saying that ideological bias is never a factor. I just think the absence of aggressive reporting on certain stories may not be due to an ideological bias at all but rather fear that, in taking the lead on a particular story, a reporter may end up being branded as a stooge or partisan for whichever side the story seems to benefit.
We’re about to find out if a Democratic Congressman accusing the administration of forcing him to resign by utilizing a made up charge makes a sound in the MSM world.
Who am I kidding? Massa is going to be deep sixed in MSM land.
Bush was badgered by the press and their Democratic allies into saying the 16 words should have never made the State of the Union. The 16 words were true.
The MSM just spent the last eight years ruffling the feathers of those in power. Now they’re busy ruffling the feathers of the opposition. It’s not the institution, it’s the idealogy.
Bill West said, “The British press sees itself, correctly, as the institution holding the government accountable regardless of party.”
Bill West, it sounds as if you think the British press has done a better job than has ours of living up to this goal (it certainly wouldn’t take much!) If that’s true, do you happen to know whether the British press is in as bad shape as ours is, with increasing losses every quarter for most newspapers and circulation numbers in free fall? The old media in this country frequently cites the rise of the Internet as a big reason for its decline, but I’ve been wondering for quite some time whether lost credibility isn’t as big or a bigger reason. If British papers haven’t lost as much in the credibility department, it would be interesting to know whether they’re also losing readership as fast as our press is.
Then there is this from the American Thinker (linking a WaPo op-ed) on Obama’s lack of friends/confidants among foreign leaders.
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/03/one_year_in_and_obama_doesnt_h.html
I hope Massa keeps an eye on those tricky aspirin bottles.
“I’m not saying that ideological bias is never a factor. I just think the absence of aggressive reporting on certain stories may not be due to an ideological bias at all but rather fear that, in taking the lead on a particular story, a reporter may end up being branded as a stooge or partisan for whichever side the story seems to benefit.”
That may well be true of a very few journalists.
Ten years ago Conrad, I would have fully agreed it to be true of most journalists and, the majority of the public still believe, or at least want it to be the case. I too thought that the majority of mainstream journalists were fair-minded. Such is however,far from the truth of the matter.
‘Agenda’ journalism is now and has been for decades (at least since Reagan and arguably since Vietnam).
Many journalists, perhaps the majority, don’t even believe objective journalism to be possible because they’ve been taught that objective reality is an illusion. That, whatever the effort made to be evenhanded, a subjective point of view will prevail.
Academia has, since the 50’s, been ‘teaching’ by greater and greater percentages of the faculty, secular relativism and the nihilism of post modernism, which deny the very concept of an objective reality.
Thus, ‘journalists’ now ‘report’ to the greatest degree possible only those parts of the news that support their agenda.
I think the press is chocked full of leftist ideologues. And not only do they pursue an agenda, they actually believe the agenda can mold reality.
Well no. Climate Change as a valid scientific theory is going down whether the press reports it or not.
Goeffrey Britain wrote:‘Agenda’ journalism is now and has been for decades (at least since Reagan and arguably since Vietnam).
It sounds like you were too young (or unborn) to remember the Viet-Nam war and the role TV played. I can assure you there was nothing unbiased about TV coverage of the war. In fact the I think the MSM media is far less biased today than they were in Viet-Nam.
I like to think this is because FOX News is ready to call the MSM on their lies and evasions.
Bob from Virginia,
I’m 61 years of age and I served in the US Navy through two tours of Vietnam, 69-73. But I totally believed Cronkite when he intoned “And that’s the way it is”… I believed that all journalists tried to emulate the Edward R. Murrow myth.
Believing the media’s portrayal of Goldwater as a right-wing extremist. Believing that Reagan was an idiot completely out of his depth, ala Sarah Palin. Believing that Bush senior probably meant well but was an ineffective President.
Just as with neo-neocon I was raised liberal/independent and fully accepted it, believing conservatives to be either selfish or ignorant.
I believed that right up until just before Clinton, getting all my news and opinion through the mainstream media and NPR.
Then I discovered Rush Limbaugh and Denis Prager and conservative talk radio. And very gradually they began to open my eyes. Because I was always a Jack Kennedy, Scoop Jackson, Moynahan liberal… believing that there is an objective reality and that facts are what matter. I always understood the truism that “the road to hell is paved with good intentions”.
So I, very reluctantly voted for Perot. Then I reluctantly voted for Bush but it was 9/11 that truly completed my journey.
Just as with neo, I had found myself slowly but surely leaving the fold. 9/11 led me to independently arrive at becoming that dread thing: another neocon.
“If a climate science falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound?”
Who knows, but it’s vibrations have rocked Al Gore’s world 🙂
Its pretty clear to me that Obama has a plan to tack very hard to the center after the health care bill is passed….
Once passed, the health care bill will be on autopilot, and Barack can say, were past all that. Lets work on jobs and killing terrorists and energy issues. He may even give lots of talk on nuclear power.
But all of that only matters if health care passes. He has no interest in the center unless the left has been baked into the cake. A lot of the current talk about his administration may be just setup for that center tack after the passing of health care.
If health care never passes, then the articles are more real.
James
“If a climate science falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound?”
If a tree falls in the forest and there’s no one there to count the rings, will some people just make up a number that fits their agenda?
Ans.: Yup.
“They are the propaganda division of liberalism, or really Marxism.”
Since you brought up the Left, and we’re talking about a science scandal, I’d like to characterize American journalists as resembling the commie stooges who supported Lysenko.
Sundog, Mike Mc.: well, I said “asleep at the switch”—“by design.” Not by accident. But perhaps that’s a mixed metaphor.
I’m no fan of Obama’s politics, but I have begun to feel sorry for the man. He is ill-equipped psychologically to deal with the political and emotional beating he is about to take. He has no father, no mother, no genuine self-esteem and likely a victim of abuse as a child (re-read his poem Pop). Trouble ahead.
they were given the formula (they were told) for utopia. the walls are crashing down, and such is utopian for whom? when what was sound becomes unsound, who benifits in opportunities?
> talk of his being set to emulate Jimmy Carter as a one-term president.
I am of the firm opinion that he will do Carter and every other former PotUS one better, and be the first standing PotUS to not even receive his party’s renomination.
I say this not because I believe it a certainty, but because it IS a certainty, and I believe he’s too much of a narcissist to actually grasp that he’ll fail to get it, and thus do a Johnson and not seek the nomination at all.
> Most of Western Europe was also enthralled by the idea that the US had elected a blackish man for that alone, and had less investment in the success of his ideas.
That’s because thanks to the Euromedia coverage, their (Euros) perception of the USA was pretty much 100% KKK-driven South, in all the 50 states. That that attitude towards blacks had (mostly) gone by the wayside even in the South some 30-40 years ago is their media’s version of “Climategate”.
They suppressed it as much as possible, because it let the Eurointelligentsia feel better about how much more effective a nation the USA was than all of them, financially and technically.
> Journalists may avoid taking a serious look at something like Climategate, for example, not because the story wouldn’t fit within their own ideological worldview, but rather because they don’t want to be accused by true ideologues as someone who is hackishly, cravenly, or stupidly advancing the “denialist” agenda.
Yeah, Conrad!
Yeah! Yeah!!
That’s the ticket!!
Neo:
Repeating a theme that appeared previously in these comments, I have to disagree with you: the MSM is not asleep at the switch, they have taken the conscious decision to lie (by omission or commission) for Obama and his administration. It is not enough to stop believing this one-term president; we need to stop all support for the traditional media. Don’t listen, don’t watch, don’t read, tell their sponsors you will not buy their products as long as they support NBC/CBS/ABC/NYT/WP, etc.
> Its pretty clear to me that Obama has a plan to tack very hard to the center after the health care bill is passed….
James, you are an incredibly naive man.
You believe that they care one whit about getting re-elected? They know that ain’t happening. They will try and push through as many transformative elements of their ultra-Left agenda as they can get away with, knowing that they will not get a serious majority like this again for a generation.
The only hope of the American people is that there are enough Dems who want to keep their jobs that they won’t ignore the clear message that Brown sent to them.
No ifs, no ands, no buts about any of that.
Yesterday the Chicago Tribune had two articles implying that Man-made Global Warming is stilll a possibility. What are they thinking? Don’t they want to have any credibility at all?
I wish they could still have some Republican spirit, but no, they have joined the lemmings in running off the cliff of “Progressivism.”
Ironic, isn’t it, that they are STILL reactionaries–which was their original reputation.
USA Says:
March 8th, 2010 at 9:59 pm
I don’t feel the least bit sorry for him. He, along with his sycophants and fellow travelers, are destroying my country. That is unforgivable.
F: to repeat myself (did you see my comment at 9:16 PM?)—I said the press was asleep at the switch by design (see the last paragraph of the post). It seems I didn’t make my self clear, but what I meant was they were seeming to be asleep at the switch but it was a planned and strategic ignoring of the story.
Obloodyhell Says:
“I say this not because I believe it a certainty, but because it IS a certainty, and I believe he’s too much of a narcissist to actually grasp that he’ll fail to get it, and thus do a Johnson and not seek the nomination at all.”
I still know a lot of lefties who can’t understand why we don’t like the guy… ie, we must be crazy partisans and Rush-bot wingnuts…
But, they’re the partisans IMO. It’s not the republicans and libertarians who have problems with him. The independents have seen which way is up too….
Obama-blomov isn’t a figure of pity. He’ll never feel the stings of criticism: his narcissism is impervious to them. Whatever damage he does to our dear nation he will relish; he’ll regard his detractors as kulaks to be swept aside.
I detest him and his thug henchmen.
“”I still know a lot of lefties who can’t understand why we don’t like the guy(Obama)””
Thomas
I’m dumbfounded by anyone who could like the guy. Do these people watch Leave it to Beaver reruns and assume Eddie Haskel is the real upstanding hero in the story? 🙂
Lying through omission. Agreed.
SteveH: I’m dumbfounded by anyone who could like the guy. Do these people watch Leave it to Beaver reruns and assume Eddie Haskel is the real upstanding hero in the story?
He wasn’t? After all, he became a cop in real life. 🙂
Come to think of it, there was a certain parallel between ∅bama as an adolescent and the Eddie Haskel character.
Compare this to a passage fromDreams From My Father
Both Eddie Haskell and ∅bama presented a mask to adults that would hide their real selves from adults, in order to get approval from adults.
@ Obloodyhell:
You may be right about Obama’s not getting renominated, but it would not actually be the first time that happened to a sitting POTUS. Franklin Pierce and Chester Arthur, for certain, lost out on renomination bids. John Tyler probably also belongs in this category: his renomination was essentially an impossibility because he had become persona non grata to both the Whigs and the Democrats. Ulysses Grant actively encouraged unsuccessful efforts within the GOP to have him renominated for a third term. Then you have LBJ, and perhaps others, whose questionable renomination prospects likely contributed to a decision not to seek a second term.
As to the media covering Democratic scandals, yes they do – once a certain threshhold has been reached (a rather high one compared to Republican scandals, sure). Some of them are fairly honest people who do not see the extent of their bias and want to be fair, others want in so they can spin the scandal in the proper way, others are narcissists who don’t care about ideology so long as they get the byline.
As to Obama tacking to the center to get re-elected if he can only get health care on autopilot, I had not considered that. That is what happened with Clinton, even when he could no longer run, because he needed the approval – he had lived that way all his life and had no ability to change. I see Obama as a different style of narcissist, and so less likely to move in that direction. I’ll hedge my bets by saying what is most likely is that he will appear to tack to the center in order to get re-elected.
A few nights ago I watched Diane Sawyer talking to another reporter about Obama’s latest health care strategy.
The reporter stated that (and I’m paraphrasing) Obama planned to channel Tea Party anger towards the CEOs of insurance companies, to sway public opinion towards favoring the passage of the health care plan.
Does this administration think we’re all just a bunch of ill-informed angry rubes, that they can manipulate that transparently?
Sadly, I think this is what the Obama administration truly believes.
Two years ago, people fell for this kind of political sleight-of-hand, but is the country still that gullible?
As much as I hope Obama is a one termer, I think it’s too soon to know.
During Reagan’s first term, Federal Reserve Chairman Volcker jacked up interest rates to double digit rates to break the back of Carter’s inflation. That led to a horrible recession that in many ways was worse than what we’ve just experienced. Reagan was very unpopular. Then, after inflation started to subside and Volcker started lowering interest rates, by ’82 we started one of the longest economic expansions with sustained prospertiy ever. Many millions of new jobs were created over the remainder of the decade.
The current recession began in December 2007. Most economists believe the NBER will mark the end of the recession sometime last fall. However, the inventory liquidation cycle was ongoing through February. I’ve heard some company management say on recent conference calls that while order books are ramping, they have missed sales opportunities because they didn’t have the inventory. That means the inventory rebuild cycle is about to start accelerating. And given how deep the inventory reductions were (undoubtedly fueled in part by the uncertain policy coming from Washington), it could be a pretty sharp increase which will put people back to work. The $64, 000 question is once inventories are replenished, will end user demand pick up to make it a sustainable, enduring expansion.
Whether it is sustainable or not, the economy will look strong for at least the next 6 months as inventories levels are rebuilt. That will take alot of the pressure off Obama and the Democrats in November.
In response to Obloodyhell
I’m not sure naive I am. My reasoning goes like this:
The structural changes in the economy due to the medical bill will be immense. The result would be a much more socialist economy down the road, with lots of opportunity to push for more socialism when inevitable “problems” come up due to the health care bill.
I know this, and Obama knows this (and you too I guess). So once it passes – let it ride out. No need to push the envelope further to the left. The only job really left to do is to hold on to power enough to block any efforts to repeal it. The bill will take on a life of its own that guarantees a socialist future. That means tack to the center until the elections.
If I’m wrong, its probably because Obama believes in his own ideas even more than I think he does. In that case, he thinks that the public will love the health care bill and will vote him and his friends back in for giving it to us. If he believes that, then he’ll keep pushing left for even more “successes” that the public will be happy with.
I guess that could be true. I’ve overestimated Obama’s political cunning before, maybe I’m doing it again.
James
So, Massa trades one dead fish for a spawn of satan. Is anyone going to keep score?
Steve G: well, fish spawn.
neo-
So apparently does Satan.
Now, who goes first, Emanuel or Axelrod?
The descent of Barack Obama’s regime, characterised now by factionalism in the Democratic Party …
Sadly, I don’t see the Democrat factionalism as so serious that they will allow Obamacare to die. And I don’t think the Massa resignation has to do with any kind of ideological rift within the Dems — I suspect Massa is resigning in order to keep an investigation(and subsequent report) from seeing the light of day. Notice he’s taking a parting shot, not at Obama, but at Rahm Emanuel, whom he apparently dislikes.
I think the Dems will pass Obamacare. Stupak is making conciliatory noises as of late. In the months after we need to look for what kind of goodies Stupak receives.
Megan McArdle, who voted for Obama because she feared McCain would declare war on Iran, knowing that Obama’s economic tendencies would be disastrous and realizing now that Obamacare would be ruinous, has been putting all her faith on the hope that the Stupak anti-abortion contingent would resolutely stick to their guns and sink Obamacare. Megan thought that the Stupaks would never, never, ever vote for any bill that was soft on the abortion issue. Ah, the fanciful rationalizations of well-intentioned liberals who don’t know they are liberals …
Another well-meaning liberal — Mickey Kaus — believes that yes, Obamacare as written would be bad, but that after the American public suffered under it for awhile that the public would demand and receive corrections to Obamacare which would morph the Obamacare system into a wonderful thing — into just what Kaus believes the nation needs. Mickey has declared his intention to run for U.S. Senator. He has as much chance of winning a Senate seat as I have of turning into a pumpkin.
And I wonder whether the GOP would have the guts to repeal Obamacare IF, and this is a BIG if, the GOP were to win majorities in both houses of Congress in the up-coming mid-terms. Obama would surely veto a repeal and I doubt whether the GOP would have the numbers to overturn a veto. If I had to place a bet in Vegas I would have to put my money on Obamacare passing and staying and it being a major step into the Europeanization of the American economy.
grackle: anyone who thinks Stupak isn’t capable of compromising and voting “yes” if offered the right deal hasn’t been paying attention. I am very concerned that he and the others will do just that.
As for repeal, I have written about this before (I’m in too much of a hurry to find the link, but I believe I have two posts that mention it at least). I believe that, if Republicans run on this issue, they will be energized to do something. And I believe that they may be able to get around the veto problem by not funding some of the related budget needs; they doesn’t take passing a bill over an override. Then in 2012, if there is a Republican president and the Republicans retain control of Congress, it could be repealed.
I don’t quite understand this fatalism about “if this passes, it can never be repealed.” I’m not really talking about you; I’ve seen it on many blogs and many comments. Maybe people just want to give us a sense of urgency to stop it NOW. That would be best, for sure.
The comments to that Telegraph article are worth reading. They show the commonality of the sentiments expressed here.
To reach this level of unpopularity on so many different fronts so early in an administration is, to the best of my knowledge, unheard of. Can anyone cite something comparable?
anyone who thinks Stupak isn’t capable of compromising and voting “yes” if offered the right deal hasn’t been paying attention. I am very concerned that he and the others will do just that.
Indeed. I’m nervous too about depending on these Democrats not to make a deal.
OTOH, given the steady drop in the polls for Obama and healtchare, it’s clear that Pelosi has a much more difficult task this time around than last November.
OTOH, given the stakes of Obama’s presidency and the healthcare as the great Democratic Grail, it’s clear that this will be a no-holds barred push to pass the Senate bill in the House.
OTOH, given that the House has good reason not to trust that there will be successful reconciliation in the Senate, Dem representatives know that they are on their own and face terrible wrath in November if they vote yes on Obamacare.
From what I read, it’s a complex situation with too many moving parts for anyone to call this.
I don’t quite understand this fatalism about “if this passes, it can never be repealed.”
I don’t either. It will be a right mess to be sure, but what can be done can be undone with work.
One thing to keep in mind — Western governments are running out, as Thatcher noted, of “other people’s money to spend.”
By the end of this decade, probably sooner, the US and Europe are going to have to drastically cut back entitlements no matter what was passed or promised because we just won’t have the money.
I don’t quite understand this fatalism about “if this passes, it can never be repealed.”
Neo, maybe I’m in an unrealistically pessimistic mode these days. Not too long ago I too was thinking that whatever can be passed can be repealed — as I’ve expressed in past comments. But doubts have begun to plague me.
One thing that bothers me about the situation is that I don’t recall any other major entitlement that’s ever been done away with. Folks generally seem to take to a new entitlement quickly and get downright grumpy when someone merely suggests putting a cap on the entitlement or modifying the entitlement downward even slightly – not to mention doing away with it altogether. They are not rioting in Greece for less entitlements.
And here in the US no one in politics even has the guts to stop extending unemployment benefits, although most folks would take a lesser job at lesser pay if they knew the benefit would definitely be over after a certain time period. It seems to be really difficult to get out from behind that old green apple unemployment benefit once you get used to being there, n’est-ce pas? But I hope you are right and I am wrong.
grackle: I am fairly pessimistic as well. I think it will be very difficult to repeal. But I do not think it will be impossible. This bill has characteristics (such as its extreme unpopularity) that no other entitlement bill has ever had. And if people are elected on a pledge to repeal (or unfund) it, that would be something relatively new as well.
One thing to keep in mind – Western governments are running out, as Thatcher noted, of “other people’s money to spend.”
By the end of this decade, probably sooner, the US and Europe are going to have to drastically cut back entitlements no matter what was passed or promised because we just won’t have the money. I think this is the most likely scenario, and I do not think the Trunks will have the courage to change anything.
Hillary has announced that the administration will support the UN Small Arms Treaty. The EPA intends to regulate carbon, no new energy, new business taxes, and so on and on. These things all remove power from the people and give it to the ‘elite.’ The system is unraveling. I think we need to think about what that is going to look like.
grackle: I am fairly pessimistic as well. I think it will be very difficult to repeal. But I do not think it will be impossible. This bill has characteristics (such as its extreme unpopularity) that no other entitlement bill has ever had. And if people are elected on a pledge to repeal (or unfund) it, that would be something relatively new as well.
Neo, when you use the word “impossible,” I have to concede. But I think there is a green apple in your argument behind which your point is hiding — the importance you assign to Obamacare’s unpopularity. If the Democrats are willing to pass Obamacare despite its unpopularity surely they would be willing to prevent the overruling of a Presidential veto of future legislation to repeal, modify or de-fund it.
There are some things that could change this dynamic:
After November the Democrats could be left with less than a third of the seats in both Houses which would allow the GOP to overrule a veto. I think such a huge GOP landslide to be unlikely. Obamacare is unpopular but not THAT unpopular.
Obama could change his attitude after November and become amenable to signing legislation that repeals or that is designed to modify or de-fund Obamacare. This unlikely scenario presupposes that the GOP gains a majority in both Houses come November.
Let us hope that Obamacare is never passed.
grackle: my hope is that is never passes, as well.
But even if it does and if it couldn’t be repealed in early 2011 because of a veto, I can see ways it might be defunded, and certainly ways it could be repealed in 2012 if a Republican president is elected and Congress is Republican as well.
That said, you can see that it would not be easy. A host of things would have to come into place. But backlash against the passage of such an unpopular bill in this particular strong-arm manner would be part of the reason such things might actually come into place.