Quote of The Day

"The president is comfortable with a technocratic approach because he is an imperious, arrogant, know-it-all left wing technocrat who leaves the details to his congressional Democratic allies, like Congressman Dave Obey with the stimulus bill," Rove adds. "He is content to check the box on his list of achievements and tour the country with his teleprompter giving speeches."

Karl Rove

Adam Weinstein Accuses Rick Perry of Playing the "Military Respect Card"

It didn't take long for the Rick Perry attacks to begin.  Less than 24 hours, really.

A quick perusal through Memeorandum shows:

Michelle Goldberg at The Daily Beast is drumming up paranoia about Perry and Bachmann's Christian beliefs:

We have not seen this sort of thing at the highest levels of the Republican Party before. Those of us who wrote about the Christian fundamentalist influence on the Bush administration were alarmed that one of his advisers, Marvin Olasky, was associated with Christian Reconstructionism. It seemed unthinkable, at the time, that an American president was taking advice from even a single person whose ideas were so inimical to democracy. Few of us imagined that someone who actually championed such ideas would have a shot at the White House. It turns out we weren’t paranoid enough. If Bush eroded the separation of church and state, the GOP is now poised to nominate someone who will mount an all-out assault on it. We need to take their beliefs seriously, because they certainly do.

Really, I thought we quit worrying about a president's religious beliefs when America elected a Catholic.

Matthew Yglesias has sifted through Rick Perry's Fed Up to find "The Ten Strangest Ideas" in the book.  He primarily knocks Perry's belief in states' rights, which I don't find strange at all.

Even Karl Rove seems to suggest that Perry isn't electable in the general election.  Does he think Palin is?

Paul Krugman attacks Perry's record of job growth in Texas.  Because Obama's is so much better?

And then via my Twitter feed, here comes Adam Weinstein at Mother Jones supposedly "fact checking" Perry's statement yesterday that suggested the military has little respect for Obama.  Perry said in Waterloo last night:

"One of the reasons that I'm running for president is I want to make sure that every young man and woman who puts on the uniform of the United States respects highly the president of the United States."

He got a lot of applause for that line, by the way.

Weinstein whines:

The obvious implication is that America's roughly 3 million active-duty and reserve soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines don't respect President Barack Obama—whose administration drew down their numbers in Iraq and Afghanistan, revamped the Department of Veterans Affairs, increased Pentagon funding, and oversaw the operation that killed Osama bin Laden. Is Perry for real?

He's for real, Mr. Weinstein.

Weinstein claims that 37% of service members polled by Gallup approved of Obama.  In Weinstein's world, this is apparently a positive approval rating.  It's okay, you see, because at one time George W. Bush "the exact same approval numbers"!  Eureka!

Only 42% in the Gallup poll approved for the 18 to 29 age group.  By the time you get to the 40 to 49 age group, 37% approved and 51% disapproved.  Gallup points out:

Americans who currently serve or previously served in the U.S. military are less likely to approve of the job President Obama is doing than are those who have not served in the military, by about 10 percentage points. This approval gap occurs across age groups.

And of course, the problem with that whole polling of the military thing is that it's racist or something:

(It's also worth noting that, despite major gains by women and minorities in recent years, the military is overwhelmingly white, male, and Protestant, a demographic that never polls well for Obama.)

Weinstein's pitiful excuse that Perry is just beating up on Obama is weak:

But Perry's "respect" jibe isn't about the facts: It's about painting a beleaguered president as effeminate and indecisive.

Poor "beleaguered" and "embattled" Obama.  It's good that he has the media to take up for him.  Maybe he can gain a second wind while hanging out with the millionaires and billlionaires at Martha's Vineyard this month.  Nothing like a nice corporate jet, waygu beef, golfing vacation hob nobbing with the wealthy and getting away from the little people to re-energize yourself.

Weinstein suggests Obama campaign on his national security achievements.  No, I'm not making that up.

By all means, I think he should.  Let's throw Joe Biden in the argument, too, who put the finger on Seal Team Six.

If we're "fact checking" Perry's statement, I think Mr. Weinstein stands corrected and Perry is correct.  There's not a high level of respect for Obama among the military as a rule.

Let's do some unscientific polling here.  Are you military?  Ex-military?  Retired?  What do you think?

Today's Must Reads on Obamacare

Karl Rove's WSJ column this week is a friendly reminder of all that is wrong with Obamacare:

*  Consider "700,000 seniors whose private Medicare Advantage insurance policy was not renewed last year because her insurance provider quit the business."

*  There will be more nonrenewals in 2011. This year's funding cuts to Medicare Advantage will be $2 billion; next year's will be $6 billion. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) estimate that half of those with Medicare Advantage policies—seven million seniors—will lose their coverage eventually. And 60% the doctors surveyed by the nonprofit Physicians Foundation said health-care reform would "compel them to close or significantly restrict" the number of patients in their practices, especially those on Medicare or Medicaid.

*  Providers such as Guardian Life and the Principal Financial Group are dropping their health-insurance businesses.

*  Last week Richard Foster, CMS's chief actuary, confirmed to Congress that ObamaCare's Medicare cuts couldn't be used to reduce both Medicare's unfunded liability and to pay for ObamaCare's expense.

And that's just for starters.

Meanwhile, the Democrats are in total denial, dismissing the court's decision on the unconstitutionality of Obamacare this week and continuing to insist that he nation loves Obamacare and is against repeal.  Total denial.

Read Rove's column and don't miss Peter Ferrara's piece in today's American Spectator, "The Legal Furture of Obamacare."

Must reads!

Obamacare Topics Bubbling Forth

Obamacare topics are bubbling to the surface of my reading pile today.

First, in the Louisiana Senate today, HB 1474 is coming to a vote before the Senate Health and Welfare Committee.  HB 1474 challenges the Obamacare mandate; it was passed in the House by a 59-15 vote and now goes before the Senate committee at noon today. The bill aims to protect the rights of patients to pay directly for their medical services rather than be forced into the mandate.

Since it's Louisiana, and since it's politics, something has to muddy the waters and that was accomplished by Rep. Fred Mills (D) who added an amendment that would bar the state from paying for hospital care of anyone who refuses the federal mandate.  No Charity Hospital for you, if you refuse Obamacare!

Mills explained his amendment:

"If you want this freedom, then you're on your own. ... You want your freedom? Don't come to Charity Hospital" for treatment.

Health Secretary Alan Levine goes to the Louisiana Senate today to explain the cost of Obamacare on the state to the Health and Welfare Committee.  According to NOLA, "he is expected to raise the state's price tag well above the $337 million to $536 million figure cited in [the Kaiser Foundation report].

Meanwhile, according to the latest CNN poll, 56% of Americans still oppose Obamacare.

And in other Obamacare news, NRO has an editorial today against Obama's Medicare Czar, Dr. Donald Berwick.  I've written about Berwick and his controversial views here, here, and here.  NRO opposes the appointment of Berwick:

It is to this crucial position that the administration has now nominated Dr. Berwick, a Massachusetts physician and an unabashed believer in centralized governmental power over the health sector. He has spoken and written in glowing terms about the British National Health Service (NHS), mainly because the NHS has a command-and-control structure in which the nation’s physicians and hospitals have little choice but to fall in line with the government’s orders. He boasts of the political power and cost control such a system provides, but papers over the deteriorating capital structure, rationing, and widespread quality problems that predictably follow when impersonal bureaucratic structures call all of shots. He affirms that a system for health-care financing “must — must! — redistribute wealth.” 

Remember, this is the man who said, "Less discretion for doctors would improve public safety!"

Karl Rove, in today's Wall Street Journal, outlines some of the rising costs of health care that are to come under Obamacare:

*  Americans would pay $120 billion in fines for not having adequate insurance coverage and that 14 million people would lose their coverage as rising costs led companies to dump it.

*  Sick people would face "high drug and device prices" and everyone would pay higher premiums.

*  The new health legislation would cost $115 billion more than estimated when it was enacted.

*  October will see the first round of Medicare cuts. Many seniors will lose their Medicare Advantage  coverage or at least some of their benefits under this program.

*  Drug and medical device companies are already making provisions for the new taxes that kick in next year. This means less investment in plants and equipment and smaller R&D budgets. Big layoffs, especially in the pharmaceutical industry, will result as companies confront this expensive new reality.

*  88% of companies plan to pass on increased health-care benefit costs to employees, 74% plan to reduce benefits, and up to 12% will drop all coverage for employees.

*  43% of employers that now provide retiree medical benefits are likely to reduce or eliminate them thanks to the new health legislation.

There's more at the link.

Add to all that the Daily Caller's report yesterday that the HHS has already missed four deadlines in implementing Obamacare and you have a glimpse of the future.  Who really believed the government could run this program efficiently in the first place?

Republicans have a golden opportunity in the upcoming elections to use Obamacare to leverage themselves back into office.  The bill remains unpopular, gets worse by the day, and Republicans seem to be blowing the chance to capitalize on that.

NRO had an editorial to this effect yesterday here.

Republicans ought to be seizing on each revelation to press the case for repealing Obamacare. It is, after all, the worst law the Democrats have enacted on Obama’s watch; and it is also the GOP’s best issue in this year’s elections. Instead Republicans have largely allowed the Democrats to switch the subject from their unpopular health-care legislation to financial regulation, oil spills, and immigration. They have been reacting to the news instead of trying to make it.

Republicans need to do a better job capitalizing on this. Rove cites a  Rasmussen poll from last month that reports 56% of Americans support repeal; 39% do not.

Don't let the Obamacare debate fall off the radar.  While we're worried about the Gulf, about Israel, and about the border (among myriad other issues), Obamacare remains a critical issue.

Rove Writes a Check for Rubio

Well this is interesting...via Memeorandum, MSNBC reports:

"While Crist has financially overwhelmed Rubio to date, there are many Republicans -- particularly those in Flordia that are close to former GOP Gov. Jeb Bush -- who have publicly become more comfortable airing their skepticism about Crist in public. One of those Republicans with close ties to the Bush family, Karl Rove, has signaled his preference with his wallet. Rove confirms to NBC News that he has contributed a $1000 to Rubio's campaign, the donation will be made public when Rubio files his next FEC report (due Oct. 15). "

Will an endorsement from Rove help Rubio's momentum? We shall see. Some see Rove's endorsement as a vicarious endorsement from Jeb Bush who hasn't come out for anyone. Jeb is walking the tightrope not wanting to alienate either of them. Jeb has the same problem that the NRSC has in that Crist is "the favorite" so let's just go with him - never mind what he stands for. Rove's endorsement, or support, could be a silent nod from Jeb, at least, that's the way Ben Smith at Politico is reading it.

The Tampa Bay Buzz at the St. Pete Times is reporting that Rubio has earned over $600,000 this quarter which is enough to keep him going.

(Cross posted at Not One Red Cent!)

Obama's Summer Reading

Barack Obama is not a fast reader. NTTAWWT.

Remember this discussion in December which stemmed from Karl Rove's column about his reading contest with Bush? And Salon suggested that Obama would be "one of the most literary presidents in recent memory." Not unless he picks up on his summer reading!

Obama reported in April that he was reading "Netherland". So far, he still is.

CNN figures this puts the "most literary president" ever on a 10 book a year pace.

Slow news day?

Rove, Jacobson and Nancy

Karl Rove and Professor Jacobson appear to be on the same wavelength.

Rove writes, "It is clear that after the 9/11 attacks Mrs. Pelosi was briefed on enhanced interrogation techniques and the valuable information they produced. She not only agreed with what was being done, she apparently pressed the CIA to do more.

"But when political winds shifted, Mrs. Pelosi seems to have decided to use enhanced interrogation as an issue to attack Republicans. It is disgraceful that Democrats who discovered their outrage years after the fact are now braying for disbarment of the government lawyers who justified EITs and the prosecution of Bush administration officials who authorized them. Mrs. Pelosi is hip-deep in dangerous waters, and they are rapidly rising."

and Jacobson: "What will Democrats do if they find that other Democrats were morally if not legally culpable in waterboarding? Do the Democrats have an exit strategy?

"Here's my prediction of what will happen if Democrats push the investigation to the bitter end causing damage to national security, a political death match with the CIA, and Democrat-on-Democrat finger pointing:

Stenny Hoyer, Speaker; Jane Harman, Majority Leader; Nancy Pelosi, Chair of the House sub-committee on fresh water fisheries; Republicans, unexpected gains in 2010 mid-term elections.

"The Democrats wished hard for an investigation into waterboarding and other interrogation methods. They may have wished too hard, because they are about to get what they wished for, with no way out."

It seems Nancy Pelosi is in a mess! Be sure to read Jacobson's entire post - he's brilliant.

Karl Rove is Creepy?

Har! Meghan McCain is creeped out because Karl Rove is following her on Twitter!

"Karl Rove follows me on Twitter. That’s creepy. I joined Twitter a few months ago; so far, it has been a liberating way to transition from political to personal blogging. It’s allowed me to share the less-serious aspects and humorously uncensored moments of my life. But there’s also been a downside: I am now being followed by Karl Rove, and my local sheriff, and God knows how many other political pundits. We need to take Twitter back from the creepy people."

She says she finds Karl's tweets "boring."

She DOES realize, doesn't she, that she has over 24,000 followers? And that Karl Rove follows lots of folks, myself included.

Meghan says Karl's tweets are "boring." Here are some of her more recent revelations:

"Now more important things, my sister went shopping for her prom dress yesterday! I can't believe it! I'm rooting for the pink or turquoise."

"So excited I don't have to work today! Yeah for Sunday!"

"Listening to Lady Gaga, drinking gallons of diet coke and trying to calm down and get this speech down cold."

Now, I'm not bashing Meghan; I follow her, too. I guess I'm creepy.

Final Reflections on the Nation's Tea Parties

In the aftermath of yesterday's Tea Parties we can look with a new perspective over what it all meant.

The media coverage was as expected: CNN was nasty, FOX was favorable, as a rule. There were exceptions in all cases. There were a couple of pieces that I found interesting this morning, though. One was Ross Douthat who points out that in some regard the protests were slightly hypocritical in that nobody went to the streets to protest rising spending while Bush was in office. There is a tiny bit of merit in this stance except that while Bush was in office he was fighting two wars, among other things; and in truth, as Douthat also points out, many protesters were angry at the TARP bailout from the beginning. We know Bush did it. We aren't happy about that. We never called Bush a Messiah who could do no wrong. Still aren't.

Douthat misses a point, however, when he says "Obama is a very popular President, at the moment, his unpopularity among Republicans notwithstanding, and it's awfully hard to see the Tea Parties doing much to change that reality in the short run." While this is true, the protests were not simply about Obama. However much he likes for things to be all about him, these were not. The protest I attended had plenty of angry signs pointed at Senator Mary Landrieu, for example. People are angry at their own representatives who have not voted in a fiscally responsible way.

But to his credit, Douthat recognizes that people may have a cause to be alarmed:

"So if you're inclined to sneer and giggle at the Tea Parties, keep in mind that just because a group of protesters looks ragged, resentful, and naive, that doesn't necessarily mean they're wrong to be alarmed":


Writing for the Wall Street Journal this morning, Karl Rove's assessment of the Tea Parties is that "Americans are reacting to runaway government spending that they were not told about before last year's election, and which Americans are growing to resent." Obama ran as a moderate but this is not "moderate" spending that he is proposing. Punk'd!

Rove rightly points out "In 2008, voters were less worried about taxes than they had been in previous elections. Why? Because the 15 years between President Bill Clinton's 1993 tax hike and Barack Obama's increase in cigarette taxes in February was the longest stretch in U.S. history without a federal tax increase. President George W. Bush's tax cuts also cut 13 million people on the lower-end of the income scale from the income tax rolls -- people who don't pay taxes aren't worried about the tax burden.

"So far, Mr. Obama has decided to let the Bush tax cuts expire in 2011 and avoid forcing Democrats to take a tough vote. But the tea parties reveal how hard it will be for the president to hide the Democrats' tax-and-spend tendencies from voters.

"Mr. Obama plans to boost federal spending 25% while nearly tripling the national debt over 10 years. Americans know that this kind of spending will have economic consequences, including new taxes being imposed by the new progressives."

Matt Miller, writing for The Daily Beast earlier this month, brought up Obama's dodge of a question by Chip Reid of CBS during the March 24 prime time press conference. Reid asked

“At both of your town-hall meetings in California last week, you said, quote, ‘I didn't run for president to pass on our problems to the next generation.’ But under your budget, the debt will increase $7 trillion over the next ten years. The Congressional Budget Office says $9.3 trillion. ... Isn't that kind of debt exactly what you were talking about when you said ‘passing on our problems to the next generation?’”

Obama dodged the question, blamed Bush and talked about projected economic growth. Miller contends that "Obama and his advisers expect to limit such debt via broader tax increases, presumably in a second term. As every honest observer knows ... once this recession is past, taxes will go up in the years ahead no matter who is in power."

The fact is that taxes will have to go up to pay for the programs Obama wants to put in place. And the "wealthy" can't pay for it all.

It will come down to all of us.

So back to the Tea Parties - what we have to remember is that Tea Party protests won't change what is coming; there is a rough road ahead. We can express our outrage and the march toward socialism, we can express our outrage at excessive and wasteful spending, we can express outrage over income redistribution and whatever else injustice floats your boat. But nothing will change unless we remember that when election time comes.

I'll leave it with a quote from Robert Stacy McCain from his own Tea Party adventure yesterday:

[You might be a right wing extremist if]. . . you believe the only reason you have First Amendment Rights is because of your Second Amendment rights.

Related Post: Shreveport/Bossier Tea Party