Corie Whalen

I, like many of my other fellow policy wonks, have been following the procedural aspects of this health care debate for quite some time now. The days following the recent 1 AM cloture vote, however, have been the most intense.

After a great deal of analysis yesterday, and some discussions with Red State’s Erick Erickson – the only person I know who follows all of this more than I do, I’ve decided that our literal last hope is to make sure Bart Stupak’s (D-Michigan) bark is as big as his bite. Now, of course, I’m not necessarily thinking that it WILL be (Ben Nelson showed us that most politicians have their price), but it’s a small ray of hope, and the area we need to focus our attention on.

Anyone who knows me will attest to the fact that I have libertarian sentiments, and think voting based on social issues when it comes to federal policy is a bad idea, because it’s, A: not the federal government’s business and should be dealt with on as local of a level as possible, and B: completely pales in comparison to economic issues in my humble opinion.

However, that always fun debate aside, at this point, from a procedural perspective, the abortion issue happens to be the best possible saving grace for those looking to defeat this piece of tyrannical legislation. Luckily, it’s not a futile aspect of the abortion debate either – the point at issue is whether abortion should be funded by the federal government, which, quite predictably, I happen to be very much against.

So without further adieu, here’s the situation we’re in:

(more…)

Can you actually believe that this language is part of the health care bill? Every American, regardless of their ideology, should be horrified:

“It shall not be in order in the Senate or the House of Representatives to consider any bill, resolution, amendment, or conference report that would repeal or otherwise change this subsection”

Say goodbye to our Constitutional Republic, folks. This is an action that King George III would be proud of. Harry Reid, and anyone supporting this bill, including Republicans Kay Bailey Hutchinson, Olympia Snowe & Susan Collins, who, in choosing to end debate at points are complicit (and Snowe especially for voting it out of committee). Then, of course, we have to include the President of the United States in the list too. Each and every one of them are elitist, authoritarian and anti-American.

Mitch McConnell and the rest of the GOP also have blood on their hands for refusing to put out all the stops in fighting this. I could go on, but Erick Erickson of Red State does a superb job of explaining how McConnell and Alexander screwed the American people by rolling over and allowing this, for fear of being degraded by their Establishment buddies in the Beltway.

Regardless of any feelings I may have on the issue substantively, from a purely political standpoint, I sort of love watching President Obama escalate wars. Remember in 2007 during the primaries when the MoveOn.org folks were shaking with pleasure over the thought of The One? Conservatives (from the anti-war contingent up through neoconservatives) can’t stand the President for their own respective reasons. Now, he’s alienating his base even further, while, for a host of other reasons, still managing to piss everyone else off. Why bring terrorists to New York City and try them in our courts with American constitutional rights while simaltaneously escalating foreign wars that you PROMISED as a candidate you’d end immediately upon being elected?

The major contradictions will end in EVERYONE disliking him – which is why, even if it’s all a bit tragic, I think it’s somewhat, in an ironic and pathetic kind of way, entertaining to watch. It’s almost like some sort of old school literary classic – you know, the kind you read in English class your senior year of high school, with the charasmatic tragic hero. The man of the hour has risen to great heights, he’s in the spotlight – but is just a bit too naive; slightly too egotistical; and while he’s valiantly attempting to balance the world on his shoulders, he, in an utmost dramatic fashion, comes crashing down; his previously unsubstantiated but rhetorically appealing status of grandeur with him.

Barack Obama might just be Icarus.

I’d say that my high school English teachers would be proud of me for that analogy – but then again, they were complicit members of the Massachusetts Teacher’s Union, so I have a hard time believing they’d appreciate it from a political perspective.

The ultimate moral of the story? Go big or go home, Mr. President. Pick your principles and stand with your base. All of this indecisive, contradictory nonsense will get you nowhere. Which leads me to the question, who is Obama’s Karl Rove? I’m sure there are many people who fit the bill; David Axelrod, Rahm Emmanuel – and hosts of others. Frankly, however, whoever’s advising him is a moron. At least Karl had the sense to tow a specific philosophical line and stick to it. Even if one disagrees with a certain intellectual approach to a situation, you can at least respect a man who has a certain set of values and stays true to them. What Obama is currently doing reveals him for what he is – an empty political hack with a few decent rhetorical tricks up his sleeve.

I don’t know about you, but I think the honeymoon is over.