Posted on 08/08/2009 5:45:06 AM PDT by LS
A couple of caveats: First, this is not meant to discourage. I spoke at one Tea Party, and I attended both; I contribute; I have worked for many campaigns in the last eight years; and I will continue speaking, writing, voting, and agitating to the end. But forewarned is forearmed.
Second, there are some realities: the national media will not ever, ever tell the truth about citizen protests, town meetings, or conservative gatherings. Get over it.
That said, consider this possibility---that Obama and the Dem leadership don't care how many Americans oppose this health care bill, even if they deeply oppose it. The goal here is to get a doomsday machine in place before the public can galvanize a supermajority to undo it. Obama is sometimes a fool, but I think he has read his FDR. In the 1930s, Roosevelt knew he had a limited window to lock in massive transformations of America's society and economy, and it had to be done before opposition could mobilize, and it had to be made virtually bulletproof when that opposition did coalesce.
What if Obama and Rahm have already had the following discussion with "vulnerable" Dems and "Blue Dogs"? Don't worry about the town halls. Just ignore your constituents. We know you may lose your seat over this. Relax. Heath Shuler, we have x slot ready for you in the administration, and in y years we'll back you for senator. (Fill in the name of the next Blue Dog), we yave y slot for you and we'll run you for governor in 2012. And on and on.
There is a very, very real alternative analysis of what's going on here, and so far Hannity, O'Reilly, even Rush haven't landed on it. I read an upbeat, optimistic analysis in NRO yesterday, and ran this thought by the author. He merely brought up 1994 and said that the health care bill is on the ropes. Uh, perhaps not.
One logical explanation for why our side doesn't want to seriously consider the proposition that the administration and congress don't give a fig about what even a very large majority of Americans think is that it would mean that essentially representative democracy is dead, and many don't want to go there. Or, it could just mean that they don't want to demoralize our troops. (See caveat!) NO ONE SHOULD STOP UNTIL YOU ARE IN THE GRAVE, which, with Obamacare, will be sooner rather than later.
But the fact that so many bright people have avoided this seemingly obvious explanation for what's happening tells me it's all the more real. Not to drum up the birth certificate thing again, but one reason so many on the Right don't want to deal with it is that if it's true, the constitutional ramifications are equal to those raised by the events 1877, the Johnson/Clinton impeachments, and, dare I say, secession.
Both issues are like "Cousin Eddie" of Christmas Vacation. What happens when a hillbilly relative parks his Winnebago in a neighbor's driveway and three kids and a dog jump out? You don't do anything because a) you hope they'll leave soon, b) it's a hassle to deal with it, and c) it's only three kids and a dog. But then a second Winnebago pulls up. At what point does it become such an issue that it can't be avoided? And is that point too late?
If Obama, Reid and Pelosi really don't care about the outcome of free elections, even if they are repudiated sharply (say, a loss of 30 House seats and 5 Senate seats in 2010), then what?
What if they are counting on building a "doomsday machine" that will be almost impossible to dismantle without an ideologically committed supermajority in both houses!! And what if "Amnesty" is due up next to ensure that there will be plenty of "guards" around that doomsday machine in the next election?
The townhalls, the polls, the Tea Parties all show that large, large numbers of Americans (far more than just Republicans and vastly more than just conservatives) are extremely dissatisfied with the Democrats. But Obama is in a war of attrition. He's counting on trading bodies for time---in this case, the Blue Dogs and other vulnerable Dems. The media will support him. Is he right?
HUH...1775? Explain yourself.
Look at it like this. If you try, you may fail. If you do not try, you WILL fail!
Regret to say, I have no quarrel with your line of reasoning.
Mayhap my recall is faulty, but I seem to remember Ole Bill Clinton appointing a lot of defeated Democrats to Ambassadorships and the like, after they got booted by the voters.
Even if we force them to try to use reconciliation it will be better and easier to undo next year after taking back the House. We will control the money.
You’re kind of missing the point. First, Obama doesn’t care if Shuler et. al. “find new jobs.” Second, I think he has them already taken care of. They aren’t going to be hurting.
Sent this to;
‘Flag@WhiteHouse.gov‘
Serious case of distributing misinformation!
By YOU, Mr. President,
Do you really believe the American people don’t understand your true goals and objectives?
None of the policies you’re pursuing are designed to “fix” the underlying problem.
The insurance bill is NOT about providing healthcare, it is about control.
The cap and trade bill is NOT about providing energy, it is about control.
Your tax policy is NOT about creating jobs, it is about control.
You can’t steal money from the people who create the jobs and then wonder why there are no jobs.
You destroy the profit motive and you destroy capitalism and America.
But then, THAT IS your objective.
You’ve taken all of the money managers from the corrupt agencies that created this problem and placed them in positions to instantiate your programs.
You say that you want the people that created the mess out of the way and then magnify their authority ten-fold.
You demonstrate your lack of conviction in your policies, by refusing to discuss the flaws exposed by your critics.
Instead you demonize them, because that is the tactic of extremists.
IF your ideas were solid, you could defend them in open debate.
They aren’t and you can’t!
Sincerely,
See caveat. It’s right up front.
Seems to me that when King George didn’t listen, Committees of Correspondence mobilized.
I sent a simpler message yesterday.
I think you very well could be right.
You’re right on Clinton-—but there was a huge difference (one we didn’t appreciate at the time) between Bubba and Zero: Bubba wanted to be loved and wanted to be re-elected. In the face of opposition what did he do? He “tri-angulated.” Do you see any triangulation with Zero?
I don’t doubt your thesis at all.
Thanks for illuminating some of the details. (Other aspects of this plan to rig the 2010 elections are well known.)
It looks like we might have a very brief window right after they return from recess to put a stop to it, but only those who are willing to face the dogs, fire hoses, and IRS audits.
I’ve been saying it all along. They don’t behave like people who intend to face another election.
This is the time to be thinking of ways to apply increased pressure to the media and the administration. If you want to look at a behavior model look at the race riots of the 60’s riots or DNC Chicago of 1968. There were attempts to ignore those people too. Who really cares if they love us. They know if it comes to that, they will loose badly and for a long time.
The problem for Obama is that he can no more repeal the laws of simple arithmatic, than he can repeal the law of gravity.
Imagine how he’d have to govern now, if he had a Republican house and senate. He’s got both houses of Congress, and right now, the joint looks like Animal House.
He’s had no emergencies. No natural disasters. Nothing to rally the people over, like a terrorist attack. Nothing to slow him down, other than his stupid ideas.
Once he’s lost a legislative majority (which may or may not happen) he’s got two choices: adapt or force his marxism.
One thing Americans will not put up with, is politicians peeing on their head and saying “It’s raining!”
Here’s me betting he’ll permit his massive ego to attempt the latter.
Rush is right though, that anything enacted now will take a decade or more to undo, if then.
I'm hoping that Obama/Soetoro gets hamstrung. Gridlock Is Good. The problem with "gridlock" is that it is probably the fastest way for the economy to recover at this point if tax cuts are out of the picture and Obama/Soetoro will get the credit for that.
My job has been relocated to India and I'm going to follow it. The Indians are not so stupid as to accept carbon taxes. Why are we?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.