Bernie Goldberg goes off on Frank Rick, the NY Times and liberal hypocrisy right here. Don’t miss it.
A poll just released today by Mason-Dixon shows that, at least in Florida, the recently-passed health care bill remains unpopular, despite efforts by Obama to sell the bill:
Florida voters have turned sharply against President Barack Obama, Democratic Sen. Bill Nelson and a sweeping health-reform law they helped push through Congress, according to a Mason-Dixon poll released Saturday.
The statewide poll of 625 registered voters found that Obama’s favorable ratings have plunged to 37 percent from 50 percent when he was elected in 2008.
Nelson’s favorable ratings dropped even more dramatically, to 36 percent from 54 percent when he was re-elected in 2006.
The health-care bill passed by Congress and signed by Obama was supported by only 34 percent of Floridians in the poll and opposed by 54 percent. The bill was especially unpopular among senior citizens, a big voting bloc in Florida.
Those on the left who respond to conservatives’ worries of advancing socialism in modern-day American with “you like your Medicare and Social Security, don’t you?” should read this piece by John Stossel. It’s not something we don’t already know, but it lays out the huge trouble the sacred and beloved institutions of Medicare and Social Security are in.
(Economist Veronique) De Rugy asks: Why can’t people take care of their own retirement by investing the money government now takes? Had we done this all along, the looming problem would have been averted. Instead, “We’re about to witness the biggest, most massive transfer of wealth from the relatively young and poor people of society to the relatively old and wealthy people in society.”
My support for George W. Bush’s failed attempt to create individual investment accounts from a fraction of payments to Social Security, however imperfect the proposal may have been, was based on the principle De Rugy states above.
Tomorrow’s march in Miami organized by Gloria Estefan in solidarity with the Damas de Blanco is a prime example of people overcoming their differences to unite for a common and righteous cause. Many Cuban exiles have taken issue with Mrs. Estefan for her professional relationship with pro-Che people such as Carlos Santana and for a perceived less-than-staunch stance against injustice and human rights abuses in Cuba.
Well…may this event put to rest any doubts as to where Gloria Estefan’s heart is.
As the Miami Herald article at the end of Jorge Costales’ post notes, rival leaders from the Cuban exile community such as Jorge Mas Santos and Ninoska Perez Castellón have come together in support of this event. As it should be. Whatever differences Mas Santos and Perez Castellón may have pale in comparison with their desire for human rights and eventual freedom in Cuba.
As it should be.
As I mentioned in the post below, several of the individual items in the ObamaCare bill were ones that were either introduced by or approved by members of the GOP (for example, the ability to keep your child in your plan until age 26). What this says is that, taking reform step-by-responsible-step and not in one big bureaucratic and expensive lump, the majority of Americans could have embraced the process, and Barack Obama would truly look like he’s working for the people.
In conversations over the past few months with some of my friends and colleagues on the right, one thing we would have been OK with (if not totally 100% in favor of ) would have been a health insurance mandate. Putting potential legalities of this aside for a second, the only way a mandate would make sense is under these two conditions: 1) Open up insurance across state lines; and 2) make everyone pay at least something for ER procedures even if they don’t have insurance. If not, then no deal. The latter would at least begin to address the problem of the uninsured using ERs and taxpayers footing the bill. The former would ensure that insurance premiums not skyrocket.
I present this as a hypothetical example of what I feel would have been an honest and sincere attempt by the administration if they would have listened to the concerns of the American people and really sat down with Republicans to iron this out. Unfortunately, the Obama administration has illustrated a lack of interest in real bipartisanship and concern for the opinions of the American people. Anything else is just wishful thinking.
Why? And why like this?
Why did we have to pass a monstrosity of a bill, one that the CBO projected back in November would still leave over 24 million people uninsured in nine years?
Why, instead of identifying several bipartisan steps that could have been introduced incrementally to improve the health insurance situation (indeed, the bill voted on last night has several GOP-introduced measures), did our Congress decide to shove the entire thing down our collective throats? In a time of huge deficits, growing the government just makes it worse.
Why did “pro-life” Democrats like Bart Stupak need an (false) assurance by the president that an executive order would take care of any federal funding for abortion issues? Because the original bill never assured that, and Stupak and Co. were suckered. Big time.
Well, I believe it’s because to Obama and leading Democrats, it’s not really about improving access to health care. It’s not about assuring that no federal funds go to abortion. It’s about using their possession of executive and legislative power to implement the first big step in their far-left agenda on this country. Bigger government and redistribution.
In light of every poll indicating for months that Americans are against the bill, in light of the deficit we’re facing and the prospects of the bill making things worse rather than better (as subsequent CBO scores indicate), that’s the only answer I can come up with.
Pure, unadulterated arrogance and lack of real concern for the American people. That’s the Obama way, exemplified so well by our very own Alcee Hastings’ “there are no rules here, we make them up” remark. Pro-ObamaCare folks can spin it all they want, but I’m not buying it, and neither will most Americans.
So, if the U.S. is not allowed to fly the Stars and Stripes at our main installation in Haiti (while countries such as France can and do) in order to not give the impression that we’re an “occupying force”, what’s the next step the Obama administration may be willing to take?
Strip the U.S. flag off the shoulders of our soldiers?
Of course not. I mean, who would think of doing that, right?
Well, if the reason we can’t fly our flag along with those of other countries in Haiti is to not give a false impression of being an occupier (unlike authentic boot-stompers such as France), then what, in theory, gives the biggest impression of an occupying force: a piece of colored cloth on a pole; or a U.S. flag embroidered on the uniform shoulder of a person wearing large boots and a big gun?
Yes, I know (at least I hope I know) that it’s not the intent of the Obama administration to strip the flag off the shoulders off our soldiers. But if symbolism is important (and there’s little doubt that the Obama administration thinks it is), then why not fly the flag as well? At least as a sign of support for a country in dire need of it. Anyone on the ground who questions or doesn’t understand why the flag should fly can be appropriately briefed and sent politely on their way.
Unfortunately, this not-so-minor detail gives those who think Obama is ashamed of his country yet more proof.