New polls: "Obamacare" is not inevitable!

We should all hope and pray that Karl Rove is right in his opinion piece today in the Wall Street Journal ("Obama Care in Trouble"). Rove argues that both the polls and the political calendar are working against Obama's attempt to socialize health care in this country: On Monday, the Washington Post/ABC poll reported that 49% of Americans approve of his handling of health care while 44% disapprove. What many people missed is that those who strongly disapprove of the president’s approach on health care now outnumber those who strongly approve by 33% to 25%. That presages further decline. Already, 49% of independents disapprove of the president’s approach, up from 30% in April, a staggering shift in 11 weeks.

As I have written previously ("Are American voters finally catching on"?), this echoes general polling that shows independents and conservative Democrats -- the key swing vote that elected Obama in the first place -- turning away from Obama as well.

According to Rove, Obama's support is crumbling because of a flood of bad news about Mr. Obama’s health-care proposals.

One batch of such news came from a July 17 study by the Lewin Group that was commissioned by the Heritage Foundation. It projects that if the House bill becomes law, 83.4 million people—nearly half of those with private coverage—will lose private insurance as employers drop their plans. Mr. Obama’s promise that you can keep your plan is being left on the cutting room floor with nary a peep from the president.

Not a surprise, of course, since Obama's true goal is to provide an American version of Britain's National Health Service. Nevermind, of course, that the NHS led to substandard care, rationing and long waits for basic procedures. In the true hubris that only an American president can muster, Obama thinks "we can do it better". That same kind of thinking, by the way, has led us to ignore the disaster that befell the Japanese economy in the 1990s when it undertook government stimulus to right its massive recession -- more than 15 years of stagnation and anemic growth. But nevermind. The left has its ideological orthodoxy and let's not get bogged down in details or facts.

We should be thankful that at least somebody in Washington has the courage to tell the truth, even if he was called on the carpet afterward by the President for deigning to provide an honest evaluation of Obama's plan. Douglas Elmendorf, the Director of the Congressional Budget Office, testified last week that

"...the White House’s health-care proposals would not “reduce the trajectory of federal health spending by a significant amount.” This shattered the central claim Mr. Obama has been making: that his health-care plan controls costs. In a July 17 letter, Mr. Elmendorf added that the House’s health-care bill would result in a “net increase in the federal budget deficit of $239 billion” over 10 years. That’s likely a low-ball estimate because it assumes that Congress will increase taxes by $583 billion over the next decade."

Ahh, but of course -- new taxes. In the end, this is the heart of the Obama mission -- to tax the productive into submission so that the poor (Democrat voters, all) will have their free lunch. This is no surprise (or shouldn't be, anyhow), since Obama told "Joe the Plumber" that his ultimate goal is to "spread the wealth around". He wasn't lying about that, my friends.

I do sense that a tide is turning. Yesterday I attended a meeting of the local GOP club here in Colorado. It was a packed house on a Wednesday afternoon, and the energy in the room was palpable. Several of those who were there were Democrats who apparently have seen and heard enough of Obama, and who are now committed to seeing the defeat of his big government plans.

It's encouraging. But we must keep up the pressure. Show up at meetings. Go to protests. Write and/or call your Representatives. The time to fight is now -- before its too late.

Are voters finally turning against the Obama power grab?

We all know that common sense is in short supply these days. I blame in large part the insidious cancer of political correctness -- a scourge that seems to make it impossible for people to speak (and act) in pursuit of the truth anymore. Its a shame, but the combination of political correctness, the liberal media and the over-active tort bar has made wimps of almost everyone in any position of power -- from local school boards to town councils. And, of course, this goes double for those in Washington DC -- who will always put politics and their insatiable thirst for power above doing the right thing for the American people. Fortunately, it appears that the American people may be catching on. As Michael Barone reports, recent polls seem to show that the public is starting to wake up to the big government power grab going on with Obama and his minions:

Last month's Washington Post-ABC poll reported that Americans favor smaller government with fewer services to larger government with more services by a 54 percent to 41 percent margin -- a slight uptick since 2004. The percentage of independents favoring small government rose to 61 percent from 52 percent in 2008. The June NBC-Wall Street Journal poll reported that, even amid recession, 58 percent worry more about keeping the budget deficit down versus 35 percent worried more about boosting the economy. A similar question in the June CBS-New York Times poll showed a 52 percent to 41 percent split.

Other polls show a resistance to specific Democratic proposals. Pollster Whit Ayres reports that 58 percent of voters agree that reforming health care, while important, should be done without raising taxes or increasing the deficit. Pollster Scott Rasmussen reports that 56 percent of Americans are unwilling to pay more in taxes or utility rates to generate cleaner energy and fight global warming.

This is consistent with the most recent Rasmussen poll that shows Obama's approval rating now hovering just above 50% -- in fact, below the percentage of vote he got in the 2008 election. Polls now consistently show that Obama and the Democrats are starting to steadily lose support among the all-important Independent swing voters -- the very same voters who were the difference in the 2008 election. As Ben Smith at Politico notes:

In a potentially alarming trend for the White House, independent voters are deserting President Barack Obama nationally and especially in key swing states, recent polls suggest.

“This is a huge sea change that is playing itself out in American politics,” said Democratic pollster Doug Schoen. “Independents who had become effectively operational Democrats in 2006 and 2008 are now up for grabs and are trending Republican.

“They’re saying, ‘Costing too much, no results, see the downside, not sure of the upside,’” he said.

Predictably, of course, the White House is dismissing any shift in independent support as inconsequential -- the typical hubris of a party that thinks it won a realigning election in 2008.

I have consistently argued that Obama ignores these kinds of polls at his own peril -- for the 2008 election did not reflect a fundamental shift in the American polity from a center-right to center-left orientation.

Increasingly it seems now that people are starting to wake up to the fact that the power grab going on in Washington has come without much thought -- and without any debate. This is an argument that the Republicans seem to be effectively making now, and it is resonating with Independents. Take a look at this very powerful video that Republican Senatorial Committee put out: here

This video -- as well as others up on Youtube and now circulating the net are starting to make A pretty strong case that I think many voters will respond to. The fact is that the Obama Administration has made an unprecedented grab for power in the form of big government programs with almost no debate -- spending trillions of tax payer dollars far into the future, and committing America to a future of higher taxes, onerous environmental regulation with no purpose, and ultimately to sub-standard government-run health care.

Any American without an ideological stick to beat knows there is no common sense in what is going on in Washington. My guess is that this will become crystal clear in 2010, and a huge backlash is coming.

Open season on conservatives

Jonah Goldberg points out how the left is stringing together two disconnected acts, the killing of abortionist George Tiller and the Holocaust museum shooting, to paint conservatives in dangerous light. Here's the link.The crux of the argument should be no surprise to anyone who reads the mainstream media -- namely, that angry right-wingers are taking their guns and going hunting for women, minorities, disabled people and anyone else who stands for "truth, justice and the (progressive) American way". Such broad, general linkages are in themselves offensive, of course -- but that doesn't get in the way of what Goldberg rightly calls "the whole point of these exercises (which) is to paint the Right as an undifferentiated blob of evil."

An equally interesting aspect of Goldberg's argument is the link he sees to a particularly virulent strain of anti-Semitism on the left. The left seems to think that U.S. foreign policy is in the clutches of the Jews -- a grip that liberal commentators link clearly to Bush-style neoconservatism:

After all, for years, mainstream liberalism and other outposts of paranoid Bush hatred have portrayed neoconservatives - usually code for conservative Jews and other supporters of Israel - as an alien, pernicious cabal. "They have penetrated the culture at nearly every level from the halls of academia to the halls of the Pentagon," observed the New York Times. "They've accumulated the wherewithal financially [and] professionally to broadcast what they think over the airwaves to the masses or over cocktails to those at the highest levels of government."

NBC's Chris Matthews routinely used the word "neocon" as if it was code for "traitor." He asked one guest whether White House neocons are "loyal to the Kristol neoconservative movement, or to the president." Von Brunn may have wondered the same thing, which is why he reportedly had the offices of Bill Kristol's Weekly Standard on his hit list.

Unhinged Bush-hater Andrew Sullivan insists that "The closer you examine it, the clearer it is that neoconservatism, in large part, is simply about enabling the most irredentist elements in Israel and sustaining a permanent war against anyone or any country who disagrees with the Israeli right." Leading liberal intellectual Michael Lind warned about the alarming fact that "the foreign policy of the world's only global power is being made by a small clique" of neoconservative plotters.

Even with Bush out of the picture, some see the problem emerging again. Just this week, Jeremiah Wright, the president's longtime mentor and pastor, whined that "Them Jews aren't going to let him talk to me."

It is easy to see why I and others see Obama as a less-than-stalwart friend of Israel. The sentiment Goldberg outlines -- a view that has been echoed by prominent academics John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt in their book "The Israeli Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy" seems consistent with Obama's recent pressure on Israel to roll-back West Bank settlements and pursue a "two state" solution with the Palestinians -- not to mention his desire to engage in high-level diplomacy with the greatest existential threat to Israel -- the Islamic Republic of Iran His recent speech in Cairo to the "Muslim world" also carried a theme that was critical of Israel's efforts at self-defense -- a message that wasn't lost on the Israelis. Taken together, it is clear that the Obama administration sees the stalwart support of Israel -- a bedrock of U.S. Foreign Policy since the state of Israel was formed in 1947 -- as a something that is consistent with Bush Administration Middle East policy that it is trying to distance itself from.

At the root of all this, of course, is an effort to de-legitimize conservatism by linking it to radical movements that the left can easily define as "evil". It allows commentators in the mainstream media to demonize conservatives as being on the fringe, and thus makes it acceptable to make disparaging remarks against them. When Carrie Prejean, the former Miss California, had the guts to give her opinion on gay marriage, the left wing media pounced, calling her all kinds of names in a bevy of personal attacks. Such is also the case with Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh and others. If you can successfully paint those who hold conservative views as worthy of scorn, it is open season. Is this is the post-partisan, hope-filled change that Obama has promised?

Donald Douglas, who I have linked to frequently, has an important take on this -- and it is worth reading. He calls it nothing short of a "civil war" -- traditional values versus a "postmodernism" that has moral relativism as its foundation:

As regular readers well know, it's my personal belief that radical left-wing ideology is the greatest threat to the country today. Leftist radicalism and demonology is manifested not just in the corrosive political discourse of the online fever swamps, but on television with the likes of David Letterman and Keith Olbermann. Most importantly, radical postmodernism has reached the apex of power, with President Barack Obama's post-structural presidency. In general, the present danger from the left isn't the potential for violence or rebellion, it's the slow erosion of right and wrong in politics, and the steady weakening of America's exceptionalism and moral resolve in the face of domestic and international crises. The United States will be just another nation, if the leftists have their way. Excellence will be prohibited. Everyone will be "equal." No foreign nations will threaten us, and in time the U.S. will go the way of all other great hegemonic powers.

This is perfectly said -- and a wake up call to those who see the United States as a good and decent country where the tradition of hard work, individual liberty and political and religious freedom make it the envy of the world. Those values are under attack now from all quarters, and we ignore it at our peril.

From Europe, hope for conservatism

The left in this country has made much of the big electoral victories that the Democrats won in 2006 and 2008 -- and for good reason.  Not since 1977, when Jimmy Carter swept to victory along with huge Democrat majorities in the House and Senate, has there been such lopsided partisan rule in this country. With Al Franken seemingly a lock to win the Minnesota Senate seat, the Democrats are on the verge of a 60 vote "supra majority" that is virtually filibuster proof. The immediate future seems to all be swinging the left's way, and all the things that come with it are now a foregone conclusion: major health care reform, tax increases, deficit spending and a spate of intensive, restrictive environmental regulation. But will it last? As we know, Jimmy Carter's 1977 victory gave way in just four years to the Reagan Revolution -- and though Barack Obama is much more politically sophisticated than was Carter, a former Georgia peanut farmer who was poorly schooled in the ways of Washington, there are many similarities thus far between the two presidencies. Carter took over after a period of eight years of Republican rule and in the wake of an unpopular war and scandal; his campaign was based on a promise to "change" Washington -- to clean up government and restore the nation's image in the world. The economy he inherited was suffering from high unemployment and high inflation -- and Carter's typical "tax and spend" policies made both worse. He oversaw the expansion of government with the creation of the Departments of Energy and Education, instituted price controls and rationing on energy, oversaw the bailout of a Detroit automaker (Chrysler) and pursued Middle East Peace by promoting the cause of the Arab states over those of Israel.

Sound familiar?

But it is not a lost cause, for as Carter gave way to Reagan, Obama's left-wing policies and programs may lead to a new conservative revolution.  In fact, there are now signs from Europe that the purported "death of conservatism" has been greatly exaggerated. As the BBC reports tonight, in European Parliament elections this weekend it appears that Center-right parties have made major gains: "Centre-right parties have done well in elections to the European Parliament at the expense of the left. Far-right and anti-immigrant parties also made gains, as turnout figures plunged to between 43 and 44%.

The UK Labour Party, Germany's Social Democrats and France's Socialist Party were heading for historic defeats.

• French President Nicolas Sarkozy's UMP trounced socialist opponents, while greens from the Europe-Ecologie party also made gains
• German Chancellor Angela Merkel's governing centre-right grouping lost ground but finished ahead of its rivals. The Social Democrats, Ms Merkel's partners in the grand coalition, saw their worst election showing since World War II
• In Italy, Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi's centre-right coalition is ahead of the socialist opposition, with 36% of the vote
• In the UK, the governing Labour Party is expecting a serious defeat, gaining its lower share of the vote for a century
• Spain's governing Socialists were slightly behind the opposition Popular Party, according to partial results
• Poland's governing centre-right Civic Platform has gained ground at the expense of the Eurosceptic Law and Justice Party
• Early results show Portugal's ruling Socialists dropped a massive 18 percentage points, losing out mainly to Greens and far-left parties

It is no surprise, of course, that the UK Labour party under the inept leadership of Gordon Browne is in trouble, but the general performance of Center-right parties elsewhere shows that the leftward swing of Europe is now at a low-ebb. The victories in recent years of Sarkozy in France, Berlusconi in Italy and Merkel in Germany has put Center-right leadership in power in the three largest European states; should David Cameron of the Conservative party in the UK sweep to power in the next general election sometime in 2010, it will be a clean sweep. Granted, conservatism in Europe is of a different sort than that in the U.S., operating as it does within an extensive social democratic framework. But the fact remains that Europe is showing a fatigue with the kind of leftist socialism that has been in vogue there over the past decade.

Will the same thing happen here? Will America reject the big government policies of Obama, Pelosi and Reid in 2010 and 2012? Or will it take longer for the fatigue associated with big government, over-reguation and high taxation to set in?

My guess is that it will. Whatever Obama's personal popularity, the fact remains that America is essentially still a center-right country that generally dislikes both big government and high taxes. It won't be long until the honeymoon associated with the economic crisis of 2008-09 to run its course; Obama will soon own the deficit spending we are embarking on, and when Americans get a taste of Canada-style health care (and taxes), it won't be pretty.

It took Carter to give us Reagan. Obama will give us another historic opportunity to move the nation back toward individual liberty and economic freedom.

Judicial impartiality and the Constitution

With President Barack Obama’s nomination of federal judge Sonia Sotomayor to replace retiring Supreme Court Justice David Souter, the nation is in a debate about both the qualifications of the nominee and the proper criteria for selection. That the nation is divided over both obligates us to clarify their relationship to each other. Judge Sotomayor, whose Puerto Rican descent should not matter but it does because the President and she have that said it matters, is undergoing the by-now familiar microscopic examination that has attended these nominations since Judge Robert Bork was savaged by Senate Democrats in 1986. On paper the lady who has made much of her ethnicity is qualified, and she will be confirmed because her party has the votes.

I oppose this nomination for the simple reason that Judge Sotomayor does not understand, if she does not actively oppose, the United States Constitution as it was understood by its framers and ratifiers. But it is more important to set forth the grounds upon which this decision should be made than to emphasize the reasons why she should be rejected.

Both liberals and conservatives have a legitimate point about the requirements of constitutional jurisprudence but both have a blind spot. Liberals make much of the fact that the judges will inevitably bring to the table certain predispositions and preconceptions which will shape their decisions. This can hardly be doubted, but the question is whether the judges’ "baggage" will keep them from performing their duties well.

For if those predispositions and preconceptions are inconsistent with the character of the Constitution, not to mention the political philosophy which informs it in the Declaration of Independence, they carry no weight and should be disregarded. Hence, what race or gender one belongs to is irrelevant.

Conservatives contend that judges should not legislate from the bench but apply the Constitution and laws to the case before them. Their logic is unassailable but they are too prone to give bad laws the benefit of the doubt when they may in fact be unconstitutional. After all, most conservatives believe that Roe v. Wade (1973) was wrongly decided and even unconstitutional.

If this criticism seems unfair, consider the oft-repeated conservative criticism of "activist" judges who, pretty much as conservatives claim, go well beyond the role of judge and make up constitutional law that has no warrant in either the language of the Constitution or the judicial precedents relevant to a case. Is a judge who upholds the Constitution by striking down a state or federal statue in conflict with it a "passivist" judge?

Liberals criticize conservatives on the grounds that judges of their political philosophy are no less activist than liberals when it comes to their constitutional priorities. I grant the criticism, at least to this extent, that defense of the Constitution demands more of judges than simply applying the laws to a case.

However, judging is fundamentally different from legislating, as the former deals with specific cases and the latter devises general rules. We don’t want a Congress to decide who has violated its laws or to affix penalties for doing so. But we want all our public officials to abide by the Constitution because it is the supreme law and because it embodies justice.

The Constitution requires judges to be neutral between the parties in the cases which they decide, but it is not neutral about the requirements of justice. Its conception of justice entails "secur[ing] the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity." The document empowers the federal and state governments to rule but also limits their powers in numerous ways. Beyond these limitations, ours is a republican constitution, that establishes rule by the people through their chosen representatives on behalf of purposes which their constitution spells out.

Our quarrel with judicial activism should be focused on a judge’s predilection to corrupt our Constitution with doctrines calculated to "transform" it from a guarantee of equal rights for all to a device for empowering government officials to favor allegedly underprivileged groups at the expense of everyone else. It is no accident that President Obama nominated a Latina woman with a class-based notion of justice, for such is what both of them want.

Our Constitution should be protected from the efforts of anyone to subvert it for unjust ends. The judges’ impartiality is in the service not of a neutral constitution but one which favors equal justice over class rule.