Sep 06

Get ready. Congress comes back into session after Labor Day, and the Fall campaign for mid-term elections is about to get noisy.

But people are sharper this time around. Soft slogans that worked in ‘08 have turned into blame in 2010, and blame doesn’t work as well as politicians think. Remember the promise of accountability?

The Barack Obama that most Hoosiers remember voting for can still be found on YouTube. He stands before a cheering Elkhart high school gymnasium in August 2008, tireless, aspirational, promising a new America of jobs and hope. “We can choose another future,” says the newcomer with the funny name. “So I ask you to join me.”

Today that view of Obama is harder to find in Indiana.

How times have changed.

In a recent television ad, an unflattering photo of Obama and Pelosi flashes while [Democratic Congressman Joe] Donnelly condemns “the Washington crowd.” This is basically a Democratic campaign slogan now: Don’t blame me for Obama and Pelosi. “I’m not one of them,” Donnelly told me when I caught up with him. “I’m one of us.”

This shift in perception — from Obama as political savior to Obama as creature of Washington — can be seen elsewhere. When Obama arrived in office in January ‘09, his Gallup approval rating stood at 68%, a high for a newly elected leader not seen since John Kennedy in 1961. Today Obama’s job approval has been hovering in the mid-40s, which means that at least 1 in 4 Americans has changed his or her mind. The plunge has been particularly dramatic among independents, whites and those under age 30. With midterm elections just nine weeks off, instead of the generational transformation some Democrats predicted after 2008, the President’s party teeters on the brink of a broad setback in November, including the possible loss of both houses of Congress. By a 10-point margin, people say they will vote for Republicans over Democrats in Congress, the largest such gap ever recorded by Gallup.

This is more than the usual behavior of a disgruntled electorate. The precipitous fall from favor of a president elected on symbol over substance has even been acknowledged by the White House.

In more confiding moments, aides admit that the peak of Obama’s popularity may have been inflated, a fleeting result of elation at the prospect of change and national pride in electing the first African-American President. As one White House aide puts it, “It was sort of fake.”

Sort of? Small comfort there.

But while these explanations may be valid, they are also incomplete. A sense of disappointment, bordering on betrayal, has been growing across the country, especially in moderate states like Indiana, where people now openly say they didn’t quite understand the President they voted for in 2008. The fear most often expressed is that Obama is taking the country somewhere they don’t want to go. “We bought what he said. He offered a lot of hope,” says Fred Ferlic, an Obama voter and orthopedic surgeon in South Bend who has since soured on his choice. Ferlic talks about the messy compromises in health care reform, his sense of an inhospitable business climate and the growth of government spending under Obama. “He’s trying to Europeanize us, and the Europeans are going the other way,” continues Ferlic, a former Democratic campaign donor who plans to vote Republican this year. “The entire American spirit is being broken.”

Time for truth? Why wasn’t this magazine asking the hard questions in the presidential campaign that would have helped voters clarify what the candidates stood for and what qualified them for the most powerful job in the world? Where were the leaders, in media and government, before now? In fact, where’s the leadership now?

At an event the other day in Chicago, a man confided to me that he was a lifelong liberal Democrat, proudly and ecstatically caught up in the Grant Park frenzy when Obama delivered his victory speech in ‘08, convinced that he would usher in a new era of utopia. And now, he said with great disappointment, some sadness and definite remorse, he knew it was all an illusion. “I would never vote for him now,” he admitted, and I knew this was difficult for the man to admit. “In fact, right now, I don’t care what party the candidates belong to, I’m just looking for good leaders.”

Amen, brother.

Tagged with:
Jul 28

Everyone does it, no one benefits from it, and it particularly demeans the office of the presidency. But the president is resorting to it with greater frequency these days.

Just a sampling of headlines, and for each one there were plenty of others not captured here.

President Obama Blasts GOP During Speech.

Obama Accuses GOP of “Lack of Faith in the American People”.

Obama Criticizes Republicans on economy.

Obama Slams GOP for Opposing DISCLOSE Act.

Obama chides Republicans on campaign finance.

And that’s just a sampling. Why this sudden assault on Republicans?

Here’s my guess. Barack Obama was brought up in his early formative years in the Saul Alinsky school of community organizing, putting to great effect Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals. One of those rules was to pick a target, freeze it, personalize it and polarize it. Obama has used this strategy unlike any president of memory. He has ‘named the enemy’ throughout his presidency and attacked Republicans, Sarah Palin in particular (though why the president would take on a former small-town mayor and state governor who ran for vice-president, and lost, is both questionable and telling), Fox News, the Cambridge Mass. police force, the Supreme Court (in an unprecedented criticism of that body during a State of the Union address), Arizona lawmakers, and now the Republicans again.

The attack is timed to the November mid-term elections. If the other party can be diminished, maybe they can be defeated, or at least their victories can be minimized.

This is unpresidential. Sympathizers and staffers of George W. Bush asked him why he wouldn’t go before the public and the press to confront his attackers, and he contended it was beneath the office of the presidency. Period. No more would be said. Let history judge, for better or for worse.

The president is supposed to be the leader and the servant of all the people of the republic. This one is engaging in the partisan political sniping he promised to end when he ran for office, he is not attending to the will of the people, and his poll results show that.

For the Americans struggling with issues either being unaddressed or unresolved – or even threatened – by government, the promises of the 2008 elections have faded and become the brunt of jokes. They are looking for leaders who will inspire and elevate and ennoble, and be accountable for the results. And consequential election are under 100 days away.

Every election cycle, candidates promise to end ‘politics as usual’. All we’ve seen is a shifting definition of ‘usual.’ We want change alright. And hope is building as the election gets closer.

Tagged with:
Jul 06

Besides all the other problems that have either been known or come to light about Obamacare that call for reforming this version of reform, (Heritage has been there from the beginning, has the experts and done the work…) two fundamental moral ones loom large. Heard anything about it lately?

Since you’re here, chances are you have. But those poor souls fed only by ‘mainstream media’ aren’t so informed.

Let’s review, starting with the issue of taxpayer funding of abortion that remains embedded in ‘healthcare reform’ in spite of verbal promises and claims to the contrary, by the people who brought us this law. Though virtually none of them read the 2,409 pages of it to know what’s actually in it.

So about abortion and the bill

[U.S. House Minority Leader John] Boehner criticized the Executive Order that President Obama signed to assuage pro-life Democrats that the Hyde amendment would be upheld in the new legislation – but that analysts say only reiterated what was already stated in the bill.

The GOP leader expressed frustration that the Obama Administration had yet to “[lift] a finger to enforce the president’s executive order on abortion,” as reported by The Hill. He said that, when asked about the implementation of the order, Health and Human Services secretary Kathleen Sebelius said the administration was “working on it.”

Boehner said that he would call on House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to put legislation codifying Hyde amendment restrictions on abortion funding to an immediate vote.

We’ll keep an eye on that.

Now how does abortion funding fit into the current legislation?

When the health care reform debates were in full swing last November, Boehner decried the “monthly abortion premium” to be demanded of all customers of the government-run plan as dictated by the current version of the bill. Boehner also pointed out, as verified by NRLC analysts, that the bill forced at least one insurance plan offered in each regional insurance exchange to offer abortion and gave the Secretary of Health and Human Services the power to mandate that abortion be considered part of the essential benefits package of a government-run plan.

Later, Boehner excoriated the amended Senate version of the bill for maintaining the “monthly abortion fee,” and posted the NRLC’s detailed breakdown of the bill’s manifold abortion flaws.

Here’s NRLC’s detailed explanation, a rare and explicit analysis for everyone who asks ‘where is abortion in the bill…?’

The other big moral issue is conscience protection, and lack thereof in the law as passed.

Why is the conscience issue so neglected? One possible reason is that conscience violations are less tangible than the destruction of a living human being. Furthermore, the area of conscience protection has many moving parts, which can be hard to monitor. Conscience protection laws can shield both the religious and moral objector or just the former; they might cover many different forms of involvement (providing, referring, etc.) in one or more services (abortion, euthanasia, birth control, etc.); they could cover one or more sets of actors in the healthcare field (individual providers, hospitals, insurance companies, etc.) against discrimination by one or more authorities (government entities, employers, health plans, etc.). There are also various theological and philosophical grounds for different conscience claims…Finally, there is the seemingly insoluble dilemma posed when the demand for legal conscience protection is characterized as a contest between “your right to refuse” and “my right to have.”

The healthcare law known as Obamacare

…contains an extraordinary array of new mandates affecting every player in American healthcare—governments, insurance exchanges and insurance plans, hospitals and clinics, doctors and employers, and every single healthcare consumer. Some new mandates include language (“essential health benefits,” “preventive services”) which regulatory agencies and judges might easily construe to include medical services objectionable to a wide swath of individuals and institutions.

It’s a Pandora’s box, not to be cliche.

Many institutions in need of conscience exemptions provide a level of healthcare characterized by a commitment to treating the whole person, body, mind, and spirit. They take quite seriously their professions’ demands in the way of training, judgment and integrity…For these reasons, such institutions should be protected for what they are; our social world would be worse off without them.

For policy wonks, and everyone who sincerely wants resources and answers to respond to critics who claim this bill holds no moral threats (and I get plenty of questions from such good people seeking information)….read Helen Alvare’s article there on Public Discourse thoroughly, check out the links throughout the piece, and the ones linked above. We need to be informed about this, and remedies underway to resolve the moral threats that do exist in this legislation.

Currently, a bill cosponsored by Republican Joseph Pitts and Democrat Dan Lipinski (H.R. 5111) contains a variety of conscience protections which would repair many of [the healthcare law's] most serious flaws. It merits considerable attention in the public square…

Especially now, with a looming mid-term election that could significantly change the landscape of Washington and its designs on our health and care.

Tagged with:
preload preload preload