Monthly Archives: August 2009
Am I supposed to be sad at Ted Kennedy’s passing? He had a family, so that’s sad, but what has he done that’s worth all this fanfare? Is it the fact he’s been in the freaking Congress all his life? I’m for term limits personally. I don’t care if he reached across the aisle to come up with No Child Left Behind or any other botched legislation. What about the alcoholism, Chappaquiddick and Mary Jo Kopechne? Can someone on CNN please say something that makes a little freaking sense- stop glamorizing everything you shameless pricks! It’s all a bit too familiar isn’t it? Weren’t we all just forced to live through this kind of thing with Michael Jackson? What a brilliant star, performer and… child molester. Damn I feeling cynical right now, must be the carbs talking. My apologies.
By FOUAD AJAMI
So we are to have a French health-care system without a French tradition of political protest. It is odd that American liberalism, in a veritable state of insurrection during the Bush presidency, now seeks political quiescence. These “townhallers” who have come forth to challenge ObamaCare have been labeled “evil-mongers” (Harry Reid), “un-American” (Nancy Pelosi), agitators and rowdies and worse.
A political class, and a media elite, that glamorized the protest against the Iraq war, that branded the Bush presidency as a reign of usurpation, now wishes to be done with the tumult of political debate. President Barack Obama himself, the community organizer par excellence, is full of lament that the “loudest voices” are running away with the national debate. Liberalism in righteous opposition, liberalism in power: The rules have changed.
It was true to script, and to necessity, that Mr. Obama would try to push through his sweeping program—the change in the health-care system, a huge budget deficit, the stimulus package, the takeover of the automotive industry—in record time. He and his handlers must have feared that the spell would soon be broken, that the coalition that carried Mr. Obama to power was destined to come apart, that a country anxious and frightened in the fall of 2008 could recover its poise and self-confidence. Historically, this republic, unlike the Old World and the command economies of the Third World, had trusted the society rather than the state. In a perilous moment, that balance had shifted, and Mr. Obama was the beneficiary of that shift.
So our new president wanted a fundamental overhaul of the health-care system—17% of our GDP—without a serious debate, and without “loud voices.” It is akin to government by emergency decrees. How dare those townhallers (the voters) heckle Arlen Specter! Americans eager to rein in this runaway populism were now guilty of lèse-majesté by talking back to the political class.
We were led to this summer of discontent by the very nature of the coalition that brought Mr. Obama, and the political class around him, to power, and by the circumstances of his victory. The man was elected amid economic distress. Faith in the country’s institutions, perhaps in the free-enterprise system itself, had given way. Mr. Obama had ridden that distress. His politics of charisma was reminiscent of the Third World. A leader steps forth, better yet someone with no discernible trail, someone hard to pin down to a specific political program, and the crowd could read into him what it wished, what it needed.
The leader would be different things to different people. The Obama coalition was the coming together of disparate groups: the white professional liberals seeking absolution for the country in the election of an African-American man, the opponents of the Iraq war who grew more strident as the project in Iraq was taking root, the African-American community that had been invested in the Clintons and then came around out of an understandable pride in one of its own.
The last segment of the electorate to flock to the Obama banners were the blue-collar workers who delivered him Ohio, Pennsylvania and Indiana. He was not their man. They fully knew that he didn’t share their culture. They were, by his portrait, clinging to their guns and religion, but the promise of economic help, and of protectionism, carried the day with them.
The Obama devotees were the victims of their own belief in political magic. The devotees could not make up their minds. In a newly minted U.S. senator from Illinois, they saw the embodiment of Abraham Lincoln, Franklin Delano Roosevelt and John F. Kennedy. Like Lincoln, Mr. Obama was tall and thin and from Illinois, and the historic campaign was launched out of Springfield. The oath of office was taken on the Lincoln Bible. Like FDR, he had a huge economic challenge, and he better get it done, repair and streamline the economy in his “first hundred days.” Like JFK, he was young and stylish, with a young family.
All this hero-worship before Mr. Obama met his first test of leadership. In reality, he was who he was, a Chicago politician who had done well by his opposition to the Iraq war. He had run a skillful campaign, and had met a Clinton machine that had run out of tricks and a McCain campaign that never understood the nature of the contest of 2008.
He was no FDR, and besides the history of the depression—the real history—bears little resemblance to the received narrative of the nation instantly rescued, in the course of 100 days or 200 days, by an interventionist state. The economic distress had been so deep and relentless that FDR began his second term, in 1937, with the economy still in the grip of recession.
Nor was JFK about style. He had known military service and combat, and familial loss; he had run in 1960 as a hawk committed to the nation’s victory in the Cold War. He and his rival, Richard Nixon, shared a fundamental outlook on American power and its burdens.
Now that realism about Mr. Obama has begun to sink in, these iconic figures of history had best be left alone. They can’t rescue the Obama presidency. Their magic can’t be his. Mr. Obama isn’t Lincoln with a BlackBerry. Those great personages are made by history, in the course of history, and not by the spinners or the smitten talking heads.
In one of the revealing moments of the presidential campaign, Mr. Obama rightly observed that the Reagan presidency was a transformational presidency in a way Clinton’s wasn’t. And by that Reagan precedent, that Reagan standard, the faults of the Obama presidency are laid bare. Ronald Reagan, it should be recalled, had been swept into office by a wave of dissatisfaction with Jimmy Carter and his failures. At the core of the Reagan mission was the recovery of the nation’s esteem and self-regard. Reagan was an optimist. He was Hollywood glamour to be sure, but he was also Peoria, Ill. His faith in the country was boundless, and when he said it was “morning in America” he meant it; he believed in America’s miracle and had seen it in his own life, in his rise from a child of the Depression to the summit of political power.
The failure of the Carter years was, in Reagan’s view, the failure of the man at the helm and the policies he had pursued at home and abroad. At no time had Ronald Reagan believed that the American covenant had failed, that America should apologize for itself in the world beyond its shores. There was no narcissism in Reagan. It was stirring that the man who headed into the sunset of his life would bid his country farewell by reminding it that its best days were yet to come.
In contrast, there is joylessness in Mr. Obama. He is a scold, the “Yes we can!” mantra is shallow, and at any rate, it is about the coming to power of a man, and a political class, invested in its own sense of smarts and wisdom, and its right to alter the social contract of the land. In this view, the country had lost its way and the new leader and the political class arrayed around him will bring it back to the right path.
Thus the moment of crisis would become an opportunity to push through a political economy of redistribution and a foreign policy of American penance. The independent voters were the first to break ranks. They hadn’t underwritten this fundamental change in the American polity when they cast their votes for Mr. Obama.
American democracy has never been democracy by plebiscite, a process by which a leader is anointed, then the populace steps out of the way, and the anointed one puts his political program in place. In the American tradition, the “mandate of heaven” is gained and lost every day and people talk back to their leaders. They are not held in thrall by them. The leaders are not infallible or a breed apart. That way is the Third World way, the way it plays out in Arab and Latin American politics.
Those protesters in those town-hall meetings have served notice that Mr. Obama’s charismatic moment has passed. Once again, the belief in that American exception that set this nation apart from other lands is re-emerging. Health care is the tip of the iceberg. Beneath it is an unease with the way the verdict of the 2008 election was read by those who prevailed. It shall be seen whether the man swept into office in the moment of national panic will adjust to the nation’s recovery of its self-confidence.
The mayor of a New Jersey town where Libyan leader Muammar al-Qaddafi plans to stay when he addresses the U.N. General Assembly next month says the “terrorist” should reconsider.
“As a Jew, I’m embarrassed and mortified to host him,” Englewood Mayor Michael Wildes told FOXNews.com. “I’m really upset that a financier of terrorism is coming to our shores. This is not acceptable and we need to make sure he does not come. This man embraced a convicted terrorist and is, at his core, a financier of terrorism himself.”
Qaddafi stoked international ire last week when he oversaw Libya’s hero’s welcome for Adbel Baset al-Megrahi, the lone man convicted in the 1988 bombing of Pan American Flight 103, which killed 270 people. Al-Megrahi, who is dying of cancer, was freed from a Scottish jail and returned to Libya on compassionate grounds.
The bombing over Lockerbie, Scotland, is thought to be the work of Libyan intelligence and killed all 259 people aboard the flight, including 33 from New Jersey.
“This is an affront to the 33 families who live in New Jersey and lost their relatives because of him when they blew up Pan Am 103,” Wildes continued. “You can’t buy that back. You can’t give them their lives and memories back.”
Wildes said police costs to provide security for Qaddafi at a Libyan-owned estate on Palisade Avenue would total at least $20,000 per day. And the Libyans “haven’t paid a nickel in property taxes in over 30 years,” Wildes said.
U.S. Rep Steve Rothman, whose district includes Englewood, said city officials learned 26 years ago that the Libyan Mission to the United Nations had purchased the estate. Rothman said local officials hammered out a deal with the U.S. State Department limiting its use to recreational activities by the ambassador and his family. Qaddafi was expressly forbidden to live there, Rothman said.
State Department officials told FOXNews.com no decision had been made on the issue as of early Tuesday.
“I would urge any — any foreign leader to be sensitive to the concerns of victims of the most horrific terrorist attack before September 11th affecting American citizens,” Ian Kelly told reporters Monday. “No decision has been made about where anybody’s going to pitch a tent.”
Meanwhile, other residents in the upscale community of 28,000 residents say Qaddafi, who has ruled Libya since 1969, is persona non grata.
“This is what happens when you have the path of appeasement,” said Susan Cohen, of Cape May Court House, N.J. “He’s getting everything he wants, and I guess that includes a trip to the state of New Jersey, which certainly doesn’t need this.”
Cohen’s daughter Theodora, who was 20, died in the 1988 bombing.
“It’s very peaceful here and we’d like to keep it that way, but what can we do if the government lets him in,” said Bennie Wong, 58, who lives near the estate.
Another nearby resident, Dr. Joel Kopelman, 58, said he didn’t want Qaddafi living in the town if the leader sees al-Megrahi as a hero.
Nicole DiCocco, a spokeswoman the Libyan Emassby in Washington, D.C., confirmed that the Libyan government owned the property but said it hasn’t been decided if Qaddafi will stay there.
Wildes, for his part, said he plans on continuing to work with State Department officials to block the stay, which could last up to two weeks, he said.
“He has no business staying in my city even for a night,” Wildes said. “People are mortified this is happening. They’re offended, and frankly speaking, I don’t blame them.”
Let’s forget about the fact that a system like this costs an unbelievable amount of money to sustain, money we don’t have. What about the quality of patient care? With all the news we read about other nations who have universal healthcare, why would we even consider it a viable option?
The Office of National Statistics revealing that more than 30,000 people have died in England and Wales from hospital infections in just five years. Translated proportionately into American demographics, that would be 150,000 fatalities. Not the best advertisement for socialized health care.
We don’t even have to look around the word to find examples of this at work. Look at the Massachusetts and Oregon healthcare plans. These sovereign states have the right to experiment with both socially and economically. The results of these experiments can then be looked to in order to discern whether or not these same experiments should be adopted by other states. They have failed (much like Medacare, Medacaid and Social Security have failed). Looking at these failed experiments, both at home and worldwide I’ll ask my question again. Why?? The answer is simple. This was never about healthcare, it’s not about helping people, it’s not about the poor. This is about the federal government expanding the power they have over our lives. Plain and simple. Clip those strings- I don’t believe they can run our lives better than we can.
Is anyone else as confused as I am over this new turn in the healthcare debate? First Obama said he wasn’t goining to sign any legislation that didn’t include a “public option” and now it’s not the most important part of the bill and people are losing site of the rest of the bill. In fact, the public option is just a sliver of the bill, perhaps much like “end of life counseling” is only a sliver.
So now we’ve moved on (maybe) to the coop option. What does that even mean? I get my milk from a coop; it’s the last place I would think about getting my healthcare plan. Edmund Haislmaier blogged on The Foundry…
So again, whether Sebelius misspoke or the media “missheard” the truth is, we’re not out of this thing yet. The devil, as they say, is in the details and we have to remember that there are still several things wrong with the bill as it currently stands. “The individual and employer mandates, the expansion and federalization of Medicaid, the creation of a new health czar, not to mention the trillion dollar cost of the new plan, are all still intact. If, as Sebelius insists, the White House wants health reform to increase “choice and competition” than there are a number of conservative alternatives in the House and Senate that do just that by pursuing health reform through a “patient-centered” approach.” (The Foundry)
If by health care “co-op,” Congress means allowing private associations to collectively buy health insurance for their members or operate a health insurance exchange, or allowing people to buy health insurance from a non-profit, member-owned private insurer, then those would be positive, pro-consumer developments.
However, simply slapping the word “cooperative” onto a new “insurer,” but then specifying that the government — not the policyholders — picks the board of directors (as Sen. Schumer wants), or that taxpayers will subsidize it, or that it has to pay doctors and hospitals at Medicare rates, would just be an exercise in trying to disguise a “public plan.”
So in short, nothing has really changed and as Rush says, “it’s not the time to get giddy.”