What is Budget Reconciliation?

The latest buzz in the protracted healthcare debate is over Senator Charles Schumer's suggestion that Senate Democrats may seek to pass ObamaCare via the "budget reconciliation" procedure.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

The obvious problem is that Schumer's plan is fundamentally dishonest. According to the Rules of the House of Representatives:

Created in a budget resolution in 1974 as part of the congressional budget process, the reconciliation process is utilized when Congress issues directives to legislate policy changes in mandatory spending (entitlements) or revenue programs (tax laws) to achieve the goals in spending and revenue contemplated by the budget resolution. First used in1980 this process was used at the end of a fiscal year to enact legislation to fine tune revenue and spending levels through legislation that could not be filibustered in the Senate. The policy changes brought about by this part of the budget process have served as constraints on the levels of mandatory spending and federal tax revenues which also has served since 1981 as a vehicle for deficit reduction.

And here's Wikipedia's entry:

A reconciliation instruction is a provision in a budget resolution directing one or more committees to submit legislation changing existing law in order to bring spending, revenues, or the debt-limit into conformity with the budget resolution.

Democrats would be violating existing congressional norms and formal procedures in seeking an end-run around the filibuster. And it turns out that Senate Dems have encouragement from the White House:

The president and his advisers have started devising a strategy to pass a measure by relying only on the Democratic majority in each house of Congress, said the person, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

Progressives will argue that resort to "reconciliation" is a common legislative practice; that Senate Republicans used the procedure when they held the majority. For example:

For more detailed information on how exactly the reconciliation process works, see this diary on Congress Matters. This is the same procedure that was used by Senate Republicans under President Bush to pass his first round of tax cuts. It’s been used over 20 times in the past 35 years, by both parties.

Well, if that's the central example of GOP use of reconciliation, the Republicans were within proper procedure in promoting the passage of tax legislation through reconciliation. It would have to be a new twist in lobbying for ObamaCare for Dems to call the legislation an "entitlement" or a "revenue program." The administration's healthcare reform would be a major new social policy expansion - and it would be a "discretionary" appropriation, not a fixed-outlay entitlement. And it's certainly not a matter of routine budgetary appropriations. Thus, it's sneaky and underhanded for leftists - such as Senator Schumer above, but also blogger Steve Benen - to disguise reconciliation for ObamaCare as possible as a normal legislative alternative. As Benen wrote the other day:

Republicans and political reporters are describing reconciliation as the "nuclear option" as a way to make it seem as if reconciliation is some kind of outrageous abuse of the legislative process. It's meant to remind political observers of the time Republicans planned to eliminate judicial filibusters through an outrageous abuse of the legislative process.

They're actually opposites. When Senate Republicans crafted the real "nuclear option" in 2005, the idea was to change the rules in the middle of the game. The Senate can change its rules with 67 votes, but Trent Lott & Co. thought they'd try it with 51 votes. Senate Dems, at the time, threatened all-out political war over this, which is why Lott referred to his underhanded scheme as the "nuclear option."

Reconciliation, in contrast, is part of the existing Senate rules. No one's talking about changing anything -- just following the process that's already in place.

Except, those "existing Senate rules" authorize reconciliation for entitlements or tax-budgeting items, of which ObamaCare is neither.

More at Memeorandum.

**********

UPDATE: From reader Dave, in the comments:

Dr. Douglas, not to defend Up-Chuck Schumer here in any way, as I find him nearly as despicable as Ted Kennedy, but I think a pretty good argument could be made that ObamaCare is, in fact, an entitlement, right along the lines of Social (In)Security.

Absolutely. ObamaCare will indeed end up as the mother of all entitlements, if fully implemented as the full-blown socialized medical scheme the radical lefitsts want. The issue here is the sales pitch. Obama and the Democrats have not sold ObamaCare as a federal entitlment, because everyone knows we need to cut entitlement spending, which is strangling American solvency and indebting future generations. Leftists can't cram down another "entitlement" on the American public, and hence they can't use the "reconciliation" process unless they say they will.

Jasmine Fiore Manhunt: Ryan Jenkins Found Dead in Canada Hotel Room

Being a local story, I followed the news of Jasmine Fiore with a little more interest than usual. I had just come home from dropping off my new course syllabi at the copy center at my school. Flipping on the TV, I caught the local ABC News report on the disovery of Jasmine Fiore's body in a garbage dumpster in Buena Park. (See, "Body Found in Suitcase is Missing Model.") As they often do, the newscasters showed a map of the area, and the approximate location of the apartment complex where the body was found. I had stopped for gas at an Arco station right near there on the way home, so it made the story even that much more compelling.

The story garned international news coverage with its celebrity/gossip tie-ins. And now that suspected killer Ryan Jenkins' body has been found, we can expect a good day's worth of news coverage through the early-week media cycle. Here's the local news video from KABC-TV Los Angeles, "Ryan Jenkins Found Dead in Canada":

TMZ posted the story late last night, "Ryan Jenkins Dead -- Hangs Himself." Also, from KTLA-TV Los Angeles, "Police: Model Murder Suspect Hanged Himself." Plus, from CNN, "Suspect in Model's Murder Found Dead in Canada."

Related: In a development perfectly "shaped" for the forensic skills of breast-expert Robert Stacy McCain, Jasmine Fiore's body was identified by her implants. A couple of related articles here. See, "Killer Removed Jasmine Fiore's Teeth, Fingers, Before Stuffing Her in a Suitcase," and "Murdered Model Identified by Breast Implants."

British Quangos to Ban 'Everyday Racist and Sexist Language'

Via Blazing Cat Fur, check out this piece from the Times of London, "Quangos Blackball ... Oops, Sorry ... Veto ‘Racist’ Everyday Phrases":

It could be construed as a black day for the English language — but not if you work in the public sector.

Dozens of quangos and taxpayer-funded organisations have ordered a purge of common words and phrases so as not to cause offence.

Among the everyday sayings that have been quietly dropped in a bid to stamp out racism and sexism are “whiter than white”, “gentleman’s agreement”, “black mark” and “right-hand man”.

The Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission has advised staff to replace the phrase “black day” with “miserable day”, according to documents released under freedom of information rules.

It points out that certain words carry with them a “hierarchical valuation of skin colour”. The commission even urges employees to be mindful of the term “ethnic minority” because it can imply “something smaller and less important”.

The National Gallery in London believes that the phrase “gentleman’s agreement” is potentially offensive to women and suggests that staff should replace it with “unwritten agreement” or “an agreement based on trust” instead. The term “right-hand man” is also considered taboo by the gallery, with “second in command” being deemed more suitable.

Many institutions have urged their workforce to be mindful of “gender bias” in language. The Learning and Skills Council wants staff to “perfect” their brief rather than “master” it, while the Newcastle University has singled out the phrase “master bedroom” as being problematic.

Advice issued by the South West Regional Development Agency states: “Terms such as ‘black sheep of the family’, ‘black looks’ and ‘black mark’ have no direct link to skin colour but potentially serve to reinforce a negative view of all things black. Equally, certain terms imply a negative image of ‘black’ by reinforcing the positive aspects of white.

“For example, in the context of being above suspicion, the phrase ‘whiter than white’ is often used. Purer than pure or cleaner than clean are alternatives which do not infer that anything other than white should be regarded with suspicion.”

More at the link.

By the way, this story reminds me of back in 1990, when I was joined the College Democrats' club at Fresno State. The group had a huge wooden booth out on the university quad area, and it had to be taken off campus during the summer. A local union electrician agreed to store it for us, so we had to dismantle the monster (partially at least) to be able to move it. I was working with one of the women from the club, trying to pry off some of the interior baseboard. While she was pulling up and twisting I said, "You just have to manhandle that thing." She stopped right there, gave me a look, and said, "manhandle it"? I immediately realized I was insufficiently trained in the politically correct doctrines of feminism. I apologized and quickly took the hammer from her hand before she cracked my cranium with it real good!

(P.S. "Quangos" are "quasi-autonomous non-governmental organizations," a bureaucratic term for non-profit public-sector agencies. Check out more good stuff at Blazing Cat Fur, in any case.)

Already Losing the Argument: Leftists Denounce Town Hall Citizens as 'Angry White Racists'

Recall that Democrats are losing the healthcare debate so badly that the some folks are seriously questioning President Obama electoral viability.

And what's the response among Democratic leftists and the mass media? Dig in further in demonizing concerned citizens as "Functionally Retarded Adults" and "hypocritical nihilists." Janeane Garofalo's at it again, for example. She attacked the "teabaggers" once more in a performance at D.C.'s 9:30 Club on Friday night:

Do you remember tea baggers?" Garofalo said. "It was just so much easier when we could just call them racists. I just don't know why we can't call them racists, or functionally retarded adults" ...

"The functionally retarded adults, the racists - with their cries of, ‘I want my country back,'" she said. "You know what they're really saying is, ‘I want my white guy back.' They apparently had no problem at all for the last eight years of habeas corpus being suspended, the Constitution being [expletive] on, illegal surveillance, lied to on a war or two, two stolen elections - yes, the John Kerry one was stolen too. That's not tin-foil hat time. That's just..."

Also, Kevin Drum attacked town hall protesters as "nihilists and hypocrities":

Both parties have their extreme wings, but the GOP's is not only way deeper into crazy land ("death panels" for them vs a public option for the most liberal Dems), but it's virtually all they have left. Michele Bachman is pretty much the modal Republican now, not just a fringe nutball. Conversely, Dennis Kucinich, who's far to the left but perfectly sane and coherent, barely gets the time of day from the mainstream core of the Democratic Party.

I don't actually mind if most or all Republicans vote against healthcare reform. They're Republicans! They're opposed to expanded government programs and private sector regulation and new entitlements. But the death panels and the home nursing inanity and the "healthcare racism" and the town hall screeching and all the rest are the mark of a party that's gone completely off the rails. They're doomed until they figure out a way to extricate themselves from the Beck/Limbaugh/Fox News axis of hysteria.

Right.

Drum really ought to check public opinion polls once in a while. Currenty, just one fourth of the American public "strongly approves" of President Obama, and a majority of 51 percent disapproves of the president's performance:

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Sunday [August 23, 2009] shows that 27% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Forty-one percent (41%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -14. These figures mark the lowest Approval Index rating yet recorded for this President.

Then we have the mainstream press, which is totally in the tank for socialized medicine. The Los Angeles Times has practically become a PR firm for ObamaCare. And yesterday's fawning story of radical Congresswoman Maxine Waters was over the top. And just this morning, the San Jose Mercury News pumps up the "angry white nihilist" line. See, "White Anger Fueling Health Care Debate":

Ex-Marine Jack Burke went toe-to-toe with his congresswoman at a street fair in San Carlos last week, convinced President Barack Obama's health care reform would mean politicians, not doctors, would make his medical decisions.

It wasn't just health care making him angry, Burke said a few moments later. It was Obama's plan to limit global warming; it was the auto industry and all the other bailouts; AND it was health care. The retiree said it all felt so wrong, so contrary to how he was raised.

"I just feel the government is intruding in our lives," Burke said.

With the civic dialogue aflame with phrases like "death panels" and "the blood of tyrants," conversations with voters like Burke suggest more is brewing in the nation's troubled soul than a debate over the mechanics of health care reform. Many say the tempest over health care has its origin in the new administration's breathtaking pace of change and in the long-term social and demographic trends that helped put the nation's first African-American president in the White House.

But there is also a powerful social catalyst: The recession has savaged whites and middle-aged men to a degree unseen in most people's lifetimes. And that has helped make many in those groups desperately, angrily anxious about change.

So I guess that's a nice way for the paper to say town hall protesters "just want their white guy back."

In any case, you've got to love Larry the Homeless Guy up top, protesting yesterday at Senator Lisa Murkowski's office in Anchorage. The picture's from Liberty Belle's report:

It was a very calm group with few outbursts. Lucky me, I got to sit right in front of the most rude people there. Big surprise: lefties. When someone mentioned the drift towards socialism this country is experiencing, they booed loudly and yelled unintelligible things. When another woman expressed her concern about the illegal immigration problem, the woman behind me screamed, "RACIST!!" At first I thought she was joking, but no, she was dead serious.

Democrats have now invented the "Obama racism corollary" to Godwin's Law (to paraphrase the Economist, leftists have already lost the debate if they're reduced to attacking town hall citizens as "racist").

See also, the Juneau Empire, "More Than 700 Attend Murkowski Town Hall."

Recess Rally at Representative Jerry McNerney's Office

From PipeLine News, "Hundreds Turn Out For Pleasanton, CA Tea Party Protest Of Jerry McNerney":

Even temperatures approaching the century mark failed to dampen the spirit of a large and rambunctious crowd of anti-Obamacare protesters as they gathered outside the district office of Jerry McNerney [D, CA 11] this afternoon.

Though Pleasanton is the focal point of McNerney's district, he is nowhere to be seen, steadfastly refusing to meet his angry constituents face to face. When his office staff was questioned regarding why he was hiding from the people who elected him, they asked that our cameras be removed.

This is the Democrat approach to Constitutional rights, they have and deserve them...you don't.

The participants in the event gave many reasons for being there.

Jane from Contra Costa County said, "What brought me out here today, and what has brought me out here on many Friday nights, is out of control spending and the growth of government...I don't want the government involved in my health any more than it already is."

Dwayne came to the rally because, "I'm going to voice my opinion against what' s going on with the healthcare issue and the administration in general, and I think that what they're doing, by cramming healthcare down our throats; it's a, unconstitutional and b, immoral."

Lori offered her reason for attendance, "I decided to take a stand against what's going on in Washington. I realized that I never fought for my country, I reaped all the benefits of years of others fighting for my country, so this is my way of fighting for my country."

More at the link.

Plus, the Contra Costa Times, "Health Care Reform Opponents Rally Outside McNerney's Office."

Conservatives Adopt 'Rules for Radicals'

From the New York Times, "Know Thine Enemy":

Saul Alinsky, the Chicago activist and writer whose street-smart tactics influenced generations of community organizers, most famously the current president, could not have been more clear about which side he was on. In his 1971 text, “Rules for Radicals,” Mr. Alinsky, who died in 1972, explains his purpose: “What follows is for those who want to change the world from what it is to what they believe it should be. ‘The Prince’ was written by Machiavelli for the Haves on how to hold power. ‘Rules for Radicals’ is written for the Have-Nots on how to take it away.”

It is an irony of the current skirmishing about health care that those who could be considered Mr. Alinsky’s sworn enemies — the groups, many industry sponsored, who are trying to shout down Congressional town hall meetings — have taken a page (chapters, really) from his handbook on community organizing. In an article in The Financial Times last week, Dick Armey, the former Republican House majority leader, now an organizer against the Democrats’ proposals on health care, offered his opinion: “What I think of Alinsky is that he was very good at what he did but what he did was not good.”

The disruption of the town hall meetings has many Alinsky trademarks: using spectacle to make up for lack of numbers; targeting an individual to make a large point; and trying to use ridicule to persuade the undecided. Here are excerpts from “Rules for Radicals.”

(I like this one)

Find a single person to focus your energies on:

It should be borne in mind that the target is always trying to shift responsibility to get out of being the target. There is a constant squirming and moving and strategy — purposeful, and malicious at times, other times just for straight self-survival — on the part of the designated target. The forces of change must keep this in mind and pin that target down securely.

Maxine Waters on ObamaCare Protests: 'I Sent Them a Message ... Don't Try That With Maxine Waters'

If there's a single member of the House Democratic caucus who personifies the official leftist thug political identity, Representative Maxine Waters should be at the top of the list.

Well it turns out that Waters held an ObamaCare town hall today at L.A.'s Southwest College. The Los Angeles Times reports approvingly on Waters' public option absolutism, "Rep. Maxine Waters a Hard-Liner for Public Healthcare Option." But the story at the local Daily Breeze really captures the parochial nature of congressional politics, and also Waters' authoritarian style:

In a departure from what has become a familiar scene in the national debate over health care, nobody clashed at a town hall meeting hosted by South Bay Democrat Rep. Maxine Waters on Saturday.

Instead, the more than 400 people who attended the event at Los Angeles Southwest College near Inglewood applauded, chanted and gave standing ovations during Waters' presentation, which lasted far longer than the two hours it was scheduled for.

"The health care system is broken and it's got to be fixed," she said. "It's not simply about the 47 million people who are uninsured, it's about people who can afford health care, who are paying premiums every month but finding that their premium costs keep increasing. God forbid you have a catastrophe."

In good spirits, Waters said she had a theory why the tense atmosphere of other meetings was absent from Saturday's event.

"I sent them a message," she said to cheers. "Don't try that with Maxine Waters."

Other politicians have faced angry questioners when they hosted similar events in recent weeks. And protesters have used the events as opportunities to criticize not only health care reform, but other policies of President Barack Obama.

But Waters' audience was on her side. They carried signs saying "Who would Jesus not insure?" and "Stand together." Many of the cars in the parking lot had Obama bumper stickers.

The only time they booed was when Waters mentioned Sarah Palin, the former Alaska governor, who helped popularize the idea that "death panels" would decide end-of-life issues for seniors.

Be sure to check the photo slide-show at the article. Waters' constituency is likely a prototypical "public option" demographic - low SES and radicalized by hard-left ideologies (for some evidence of the latter point, see this report from the event, "Maxine Water's Town Hall").

Fortunately, this report by Alberto Vargas cuts through some of the inbred ideological isolation: "Rep. Maxine Waters calls opposing senators, 'Neanderthals' ":

In an effort to make president Obama look like a saintly victim of injuctice, Rep. Maxine Waters threw some political jabs on Saturday.

"Yes, we know that you are a nice man, that you want to work with the opposite side of the aisle. But there comes a time when you need to drop that and move forward," Waters said. "We're saying to you, Mr. President, 'Be tough. Use everything that you've got. Do what you have to do. And we have your back.' "

Yes, Rep. Waters, Obama's a very moderate politician. He reflects the wishes of the majority of Americans, right? Is this the bologna you'd like people to consume? It ain't working. Americans aren't dumb. The townhall meetings have been a clear indicator that people have had enough.

Resorting to the only tactic that those on the left resort to when losing a battle, Rep. Waters goes on to say about the senators not going along with Obama's plans, "Not only are we going to do everything we can to organize and put pressure on the senators -- some of whom are Neanderthals..."

What a civil way to engage in discourse Mrs. Waters. Congratulations! You're really going to win support for your cause like this. Can you imagine if a conservative, or independent spoke like this? The media would be all over it. Where's the media now? Neandethals?

Well, of course Maxine Waters isn't about "engaging in discourse" and "winning support." She's an elected thug, and she's perfectly happy to mouth tough-talk, since she's not likely to face an electoral challenge anytime soon. Earlier Waters slipped in admitting during a congressional hearing that she'd "socialize" the oil industry. To that, Urban Grounds responded with a post asking, "What Else Would Maxine Waters Nationalize?" Ahh, health care might be a safe bet ...

Recess Rally in Orlando, Florida

From Rachel Pereira, "Thousands of people turned out for the tea party":

Plus, Rachel's sign:

Check the post for shots of Rachel with Hulk Hogan.

Hat Tip: Glenn Reynolds.

Conservatives for Patients' Rights Will Hammer Obama During Martha's Vinyard Vacation

From the Washington Post, "Critical Ads To Follow Obama on Vacation" (via Memeorandum):

Seeking to ensure that President Obama has a less-than-restful vacation, a group opposed to the White House's health-care proposals is launching an ad campaign this week that will run locally during his stay at Martha's Vineyard, Mass.

Conservatives for Patients' Rights says it plans to run a spot titled "Surf's Up" in the Martha's Vineyard and Boston areas that implores the president to drop his pursuit of a public health insurance option. The ad is the latest salvo in a multimillion-dollar message war over the fate of health reform that has shown no sign of abating, even during the normally quiet final weeks of summer.

"The beach is nice this time of year," the ad's narrator begins. "But while President Obama vacations, concerns mount about his health-care plan. Why? Because his public-option health plan could lead to government-run health care, higher taxes on everything from paychecks to soda, and add a trillion to the deficit. Mr. President, when you go back to D.C., drop your government-run public-option plan. Let's get on with real reform to lower costs and protect patients' rights."

The group said it has laid out "more than $150,000" for the ad campaign, a relatively small amount given that more than $60 million has been spent on health-care ads this year, according to the Campaign Media Analysis Group. But CPR hopes to make its dollars count by putting the ad on the air in front of Obama, his staff and the traveling White House press corps. The group made a point of buying time during next week's series between the Boston Red Sox and the Chicago White Sox, Obama's favorite baseball team.

"While President Obama is vacationing in the surf at Martha's Vineyard, Americans are growing increasingly anxious that the public option will raise costs, not lower them," said Rick Scott, a former hospital chief executive who chairs CPR. "He should drop the public-option plan and go back to the drawing board."

On Wednesday, Scott sent out an internal memo, published on WhoRunsGov.com (a Washington Post Co. Web site), warning that "the public option isn't dead yet" and pledging to keep up the pressure on Obama with a "Martha's Vineyard ad strategy."

The White House is trying to deligitimize Rick Scott, who left the Hospital Corporation of America under a cloud. (Mother Jones ran a big expose on Scott in July, "Public Option Enemy No. 1.") And actually, the administration's pushback against Scott and CPR might well have been effective, were it not for the fact that Barack Obama himslef has brought to Washington arguably the most corrupt administation in presidential history.

More at the Astute Bloggers, "SURF'S UP, BUT OBAMACARE IS DOWN."

Tom Daschle: Inside Democratic 'Resource' to the Health Industry

In Culture of Corruption, Michelle Malkin discusses the breathtaking ethical lapses of former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle. The scope of Daschle's Democratic cronyism, influence peddling, and sleazeball inside politics is truly astounding, and the hits keep coming.

It turns out that despite his withdrawal as HHS Sectretary nominee, Daschle in fact remains one of President Obama's closest policy advisors on health policy. And unsurprisingly, Dashle's lobbying ties to industry power players are as great as ever. From the New York Times, "Daschle Has the Ear of the White House and the Health Industry":

Six months have passed since the morning when Tom Daschle, the former Senate Democratic leader, under fire for not paying certain taxes, called President Obama in his study off the Oval Office to withdraw his nomination as health secretary and reform czar.

But these days it often seems as if Mr. Daschle never left the picture. With unrivaled ties on both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue, he talks constantly with top White House advisers, many of whom previously worked for him.

He still speaks frequently to the president, who met with him as recently as Friday morning in the Oval Office. And he remains a highly paid policy adviser to hospital, drug, pharmaceutical and other health care industry clients of Alston & Bird, the law and lobbying firm.

Now the White House and Senate Democratic leaders appear to be moving toward a blueprint for overhauling the health system, centered on nonprofit insurance cooperatives, that Mr. Daschle began promoting two months ago as a politically feasible alternative to a more muscular government-run insurance plan.

It is an idea that happens to dovetail with the interests of many Alston & Bird clients, like the insurance giant UnitedHealth and the Tennessee Hospital Association. And it is drawing angry cries of accommodation from more liberal House Democrats bent on including a public insurance plan.

Friends and associates of Mr. Daschle say the interests of Alston & Bird’s clients have no influence on his views. They say he sees no conflict in advising private clients on the one hand and advising the White House on the other, because he offers the same assessment to everyone: Though he has often said that he favors a government-run insurance option, the Senate will not pass it.

“The message I deliver to labor unions and business leaders is the same one I share with doctors, hospitals and insurance companies,” Mr. Daschle wrote in a brief e-mailed statement. “I do not tailor my views to any specific group or client.”

Mr. Daschle is not registered as a lobbyist and recently told U.S. News and World Report that he preferred to describe himself as a “resource” to those in government and industry.

“I’d like to be a resource to my former colleagues, to the extent that I can, to the administration, to the stakeholders and to people interested in just kind of knowing how this is all going to play out,” he said. “I am most comfortable with the word resource.”

A "resource," eh?

This is what Michelle says about Daschle in her book:

The Daschle nomination was a Shrek-sized stink bomb from start to finish. The limousine liberal's tax evasions were the least of his problems. Tom Daschle is the personification of all that Obama professed to detest during his campaign of Hope and Change - a consummate Beltway insider who parlayed his public service (where he earned a $158,000 yearly salary) into a $5.2 million personal fortune as one of Washington's biggest influence peddlers along with his lobbyist wife.

That's a some "resource" Daschle's providing for the Democratic Beltway establishment. Typical, in any case, and one of the reasons that ObamaCare is dragging this administration down faster than you can say ethical impropriety.

Don't miss Michelle's book, Culture of Corruption: Obama and His Team of Tax Cheats, Crooks, and Cronies.

Wally Herger Town Hall: The 'Atmosphere of a Revival'

Wally Herger, who represents California's District 2 in the House, held an energetic town hall rally last Tuesday. Here's the local report from Redding, "Health Care Rally Draws Huge Crowd":

North state congressman Wally Herger enjoyed home-court advantage at an enthusiastic and sometimes emotional town hall meeting on health care Tuesday night in the Simpson University gymnasium.

Amid signs like "Keep Barackracy out of our Health Care System" and "Palin is right the bill is evil," Herger, R-Chico, addressed an overflowing crowd of 2,100 people inside the stuffy gym. The air conditioning wasn't working.

At times, the night took on the atmosphere of a revival as Herger worked the crowd into a frenzy, throwing out such names as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Congressman Barney Frank.

"I'm opposing a public plan with everything I have," Herger said to an ear-splitting standing ovation.

Bert Stead, 67, of Redding warned Herger that his work won't stop with his "no" vote on President Barack Obama's plan for health care reform.

"I'm a proud right-wing terrorist," Stead said to a raucous cheer. "We don't want government running our business."

There's more at the link.

From the sound of things, the Herger town hall was far more civil and engaging than most of the Democratic town halls we've seen (with folks like Barney Frank and Claire McCaskill upbraiding their very own constituents). But Amanda Terkel, at Think Progress, has apparently gone hysterical over a quote from another report at the Mt. Shasta News, "Congressman Herger Calls Obama Plan 'Threat to Democracy'":

Republican Congressman Wally Herger held a health care town hall meeting Aug. 18 at Simpson University in Redding, where a partisan crowd of over 2,000 people loudly cheered Herger’s position that a public option was “unacceptable.”Although Herger called several times for the audience to “respect each other’s opinions,” those opposed to president Obama’s health care were greeted with cheers while the few in favor were interrupted with catcalls.Herger did not hold back on his opinion of the health care plan and the administration’s appointment of “czars” to head various departments and task forces. “Our democracy has never been threatened as much as it is today,” Herger said to a loud standing ovation ....

After denouncing the Obama plan to wild cheering, Herger offered a few solutions of his own including opening up competition among private health care companies by forcing companies to sell policies nationwide rather than just within individual states, tort reform to bring down malpractice costs and “risk pools like automobile companies” for those with preexisting conditions who Herger conceded are unable to get coverage [emphasis added].

Check the video at top. Herger clearly enjoys getting out there on the hustings with his constituents, and the crowd didn't hold back their exhortations at Herger's rallying cries. While the reports indicate at least one scuffle broke out, Herger shows, ideally, what a town hall rally should be all about. Members of Congress are supposed to represent the interests of the people back home. Of course, when Democratic Members of Congress dismiss the interests of their voters, as has been true so often of late, they court the kind of anger we've been seeing for weeks.

And then for Amanda Terkel to rip one line out of a clearly raucous rally, and then to impugn one gentleman attending, who announced he was proud to be a "right wing terrorist," indicates a complete and utter desperation. Folks on the right have eagerly mocked the DHS report on the alleged threat from "single issue voters" worried about immigration and other policies. And while leftists continue to demonize regular citizens, the administration is now facing the complete repudiation in both policy and public opinion.

It must be hard for Democrats to brought down that low. But it must be especially painful considering that leftists brought much of this on themselves.

9-12 National Tea Party March on Washington

Actually, I'll be attending 9-12 West, the West Coast Tea Party on 9/12/2009, at the Los Angeles Federal Building on Wilshire. More information here.

SWAC Girl has some information on the Tea Party March on Washington. See, "Taxpayer Protest ... Sept. 12 March on Washington, D.C." The website is here, "09.12.09 March on Washington: The Tea Party Movement Goes to Capitol Hill. Plus, here's a Video Reminder from “Thomas Paine”:

Related: "From Tea Parties to The 912 Project, Americans Are Challenging The Government."

Recess Rally in Tampa Bay, Florida

From Carolyn Tackett, "Recess Rally In Front of Rep. Kathy Castor's Office":

About two dozen people showed in front of Rep. Kathy Castor's office today in Tampa to protest against government intrusion in to health care. The group was cheered on by passing motorists who honked horns, gave the "thumbs up" and several rolled down their windows and yelled "keep up the good work" and other words of encouragement.

More at the link.

Plus, from the Tampa Tribune, "Citizens Protest Health Care Reform in Tampa." More town hall coverage at Instapundit and Memeorandum.

Recess Rally in Birmingham, Michigan

From the Blog Prof, "Report From The Birmingham, MI Tea Party Protest - August 22, 2009":

If you notice the signs, they are all home made. No professional looking signs like what the SEIU and ACORN bring to their events. Note that a large number of the protesters were seniors. So much for the AstroTurf accusations hurled by the left. Here are some choice signs:

Lots of video at the link (via Memeorandum). Plus, check A Conservative Teacher, "My Report from the Birmingham Healthcare Rally."

And, the Detroit News, "Health Care Debate Rages On at Birmingham Rallies."

Tony Blair Denies Libyan Claims of Lockerbie Deal

From CNN, "Blair Denies Libyan Claims of Lockerbie Deal":

Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair said Saturday that no deals were made with Libya while he was in power to arrange the Lockerbie bomber's release, a move that has caused outrage in the United States.

In an exclusive interview with CNN, Blair denied claims -- made Friday by the son of Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi -- that he raised the case of Abdelbeset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi every time he visited Libya as prime minister.

"Let me make one thing absolutely clear. The Libyans, of course, were raising the case for Megrahi all the way along, not just with me but with everybody. It was a major national concern for them," Blair said. "But as I used to say to them, I don't have the power to release Mr. Megrahi." Blair, who stepped down as PM in 2007, was interviewed Saturday by CNN's John Vause in Guiyang, China.

The Libyan leader's son, Saif al-Islam Gadhafi, made his comments in an interview with Libyan channel Al Mutawassit, Agence France-Presse (AFP) reported. The interview was conducted Thursday while he flew with al Megrahi from Scotland to Libya after the convicted bomber's release from prison.

"The release that has taken place is a decision by the Scottish executive, which has taken place on compassionate grounds," Blair said. "Those compassionate grounds didn't even exist a few years back.

"So yes, of course it's absolutely right the Libyans were always raising this issue, but we made it clear that the only way this could be dealt with was through the proper procedures."

Al Megrahi had been serving a life sentence for the 1988 bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, in which 270 people -- including 189 Americans -- were killed. Scottish Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill freed al Megrahi after doctors concluded he has terminal prostate cancer and has three months to live.

I want to trust Tony Blair, but either he's uniformed or not telling the whole story, sorry to say. The release of al Megrahi is a gross injustice of world historical importance. I can't imagine this episode helps the cause of peace or amity among nations, and it certainly tells the victims' families that Scottish government cares more about compassion toward the world's heinous killers than the loved ones of those who slept well knowing the murderers were behind bars.

Related, from CBS News, "UK Deflects Lockerbie Backlash to Scotland":

Britain on Saturday rejected any suggestion that it had struck a deal with Libya to free the Lockerbie bomber - questions that arose when Moammar Gadhafi publicly thanked British officials as he embraced the man convicted of killing 270 people in the 1988 airline bombing.

Gadhafi praised Prime Minister Gordon Brown and members of the royal family by name for what he described as influencing the decision to let the terminally ill Abdel Baset al-Megrahi return home to die. Thousands greeted al-Megrahi at the airport as he arrived in Tripoli after being freed Thursday from a Scottish prison.

But British officials insisted they did not tell Scottish justice officials what to do - and in any case, they could not, because the decision was not theirs' to make.

See also, Gateway Pundit, "Libyan Leader Gaddafi Praises Brown for Lockerbie Terrorist's Release," and Atlas Shrugs, "An Obama US Presidency: A Hero's Welcome for Muslim Lockerbie Bomber Received in Tripoli."

Plus, Jihad Watch, "Questions About Energy Deals Surround Release of Lockerbie Bomber."

Recess Rally at Senator Claire McCaskill's Office

Josh Schroeder provides these pictures from the Recess Rally at Claire McCaskill's office":

Also, check Gateway Pundit, "HUNDREDS RALLY AGAINST OBAMACARE At McCaskill's Missouri Office."

And from Michelle Malkin, "Don’t tone it down ... Crank it up."

Will Democrats Get Slaughtered In 2010?

The Rhetorican says it might be "Contract With America II."

But I love the title at Clusterstock, "Will Democrats Get Slaughtered In 2010?":

If Republicans make a comeback by the 2010 midterm elections, it will be one of the most amazing acts of political judo ever, seeing as they've done nothing substantive and have no leadership, and since a few months ago, there was talk about a permanent Republican minority.

Well, the buzz is over Charlie Cook, at Cook Political Report, who suggested that the GOP could pick up enough seats in for a majority in 2010: "Special Update from the Cook Political Report":

For those of you not addicted to the 1:00pm EDT daily release of Gallup’s three-night moving average tracking poll, President Obama’s job approval rating in both their August 16-18 and August 17-19 averages was just 51 percent, the lowest level of his presidency. The latter sampling showed his disapproval up to 42 percent, matching his all-time low hit in the August 15-17 tracking poll. The 51% job approval rating is identical to two other polls released in recent days conducted by NBC News and the Pew Research Center. Today’s regression-based trend estimate computed by our friends at Pollster.com from all major national surveys show an approval rating of 50.7 percent and disapproval of 43.7 percent.

These data confirm anecdotal evidence, and our own view, that the situation this summer has slipped completely out of control for President Obama and Congressional Democrats. Today, The Cook Political Report’s Congressional election model, based on individual races, is pointing toward a net Democratic loss of between six and 12 seats, but our sense, factoring in macro-political dynamics is that this is far too low.

Many veteran Congressional election watchers, including Democratic ones, report an eerie sense of déjà vu, with a consensus forming that the chances of Democratic losses going higher than 20 seats is just as good as the chances of Democratic losses going lower than 20 seats. A new Gallup poll that shows Congress’ job disapproval at 70 percent among independents should provide little solace to Democrats. In the same poll, Congressional approval among independents is at 22 percent, with 31 percent approving overall, and 62 percent disapproving.

Also, check Cook's discussion on Hardball’s Chris Matthews:

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

One Term? White House Anticipating Tough Reelection in 2012

Well, that's the takeaway from Press Spokesman Robert Gibbs' statement that President Obama is "quite comfortable" with living and making decisions in this house for "four years."

That's bull, of course. All presidents look for reelection. Even Lyndon Johnson, at the height of the Vietnam War, sought a second term until his poor showing in the 1968 New Hampshire primary.

What Gibbs is admitting - and it's kind of surprising to me, actually - is that the White House is doubting the president's staying power in public opinion; and Gibbs' comment is a fearful acknowledgment that not only are things going poorly politically, but that healthcare reform may well be the administration's Waterloo.

For some related commentary, check out Fred Barnes' piece, "Death of a Salesman: The More Obama Talks About Health Care, The Lower His Approval Rating Goes":

Between July 20 and July 30, President Obama was a busy man, barely out of the public eye while campaigning furiously for his health care initiative. He did four town hall events, spoke at two hospitals, delivered a radio address, was interviewed on two network TV news shows, and held a prime time press conference--all devoted to promoting his health care plan. On this issue as on no other, Obama personally took his case to the people.

Something else occurred during that time frame. The president's job approval rating fell 9 points, from 61 percent to 52 percent in the Gallup Poll. This was an unusually precipitous decline from which Obama hasn't recovered. In mid-August, after more weeks of barnstorming for his health care program, his approval rating remained in the low 50s. Only Bill Clinton among recent presidents had a lower approval after seven months in office.

For Obama, there's still worse news. Not only has he lost ground, but public support for his health care proposal has collapsed to the point that a majority of Americans prefer no reform at all to his plan. And the more he stumps for it, the less support it attracts. Rather than a peripheral phenomenon, the noisy opposition in congressional town hall meetings turns out to be a reflection of the deep national suspicion of Obamacare.

Two conclusions are inescapable. The first is that Obama is not Mr. Persuasive, a compelling orator like FDR, swaying public opinion with his words. Quite the contrary, he has failed to sustain public backing for his economic stimulus package, his decision to shut down Guantánamo, his proposed spending, the takeover of General Motors, bailouts in general, and now health care reform.

Health care is the big one for Obama, his signature program, the one that's most far-reaching and politically important. It's the real test of Obama. If he can't persuade the country to back it--and so far he's failed miserably--then he's not the spellbinding speaker or the master politician he's been cracked up to be. Yet the media won't acknowledge his failures. In the Washington Post on August 15, reporter Michael D. Shear wrote that Obama's "popularity and powers of persuasion may well make him the reform effort's most effective spokesman." If Shear is correct, then Obamacare is dead.

There's a corollary. The impulse at the White House to rely on Obama as salesman-in-chief, to put him on the road, is surely mistaken. For him, the bully pulpit has limited utility. In fact, presidential scholar George C. Edwards III argued in his book On Deaf Ears: The Limits of the Bully Pulpit that presidential speechmaking no longer moves public sentiment.

The second conclusion to draw is that Obama has been dragged down by his health care policy. The more he's identified himself with it, the less the public likes him. There's nothing irrational about this. Why should people without a partisan allegiance to Obama hang with him when they dislike his signature policy? There's no good reason.

Besides, it shows the public is paying serious attention to a national issue. This doesn't happen often. Democrats and Obamaphiles may not like the drift of the debate over health care, but it was Obama who prompted it. Now it's exposed his lack of persuasiveness.

Related: The Politico, "A Blue Dog's Lament: 'People Are Scared'" (via Memeorandum).

Nationwide Recess Rally: Anti-ObamaCare Protests Around the Country Today

A couple of great articles:

From The Hill, "Health Protesters Plan Saturday Rallies Outside Offices," and Fox News, " 'Tea Party' Organizers Plan Anti-'Obamacare' Rallies Across the Country."

Here's this, from the text of The Hill piece:

Many of the organizers of the anti-tax Tea Party protests are collaborating Saturday for a Nationwide Recess Rally to protest "socialized, government-controlled healthcare" outside members' district offices.

Backed by right-of-center bloggers and conservative groups, the effort calls for demonstrations at noon in each time zone at more than 1,000 congressional offices across the country.

"These events will represent a strong statement that we’ve been pushed to the edge and simply cannot be pushed any further," the nationwide organizers state on the Recess Rally website. "It is at this time that we will also hand deliver a coalition letter to every single congressional office in the country."

Protests are planned outside offices of both Democrats and Republicans, ranging from House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-Va.) to House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D-Mass.), who famously answered a town hall protester's comment Tuesday about "Nazi policy" with "On what planet do you spend most of your time?"

Jim Hoft, who blogs at Gateway Pundit and has been covering many of the protest events in the St. Louis area, told The Hill that the demonstrations are being planned by activists on the local level.

Hoft, who will be outside Democratic Sen. Claire McCaskill's (Mo.) office for the rally on Saturday, said he believes the protest efforts at town halls throughout recess have been making a difference.

"That's why we want to keep the momentum going," Hoft said. "This isn't about politics — some people say it would be a big defeat for Obama and the Democrats, but that isn't what's important to us in St. Louis.

"We want to defeat this legislation because we believe it's bad for America," Hoft said.

Hoft said more than 2,000 protesters are expected at the Missouri locations. Word about the events has spread through blogs, talk radio and some local news outlets.

Hoft brushed aside the characterization of the demonstrations as a right-wing event. "We're seeing in the polls most of America is against this piece of legislation today," he said. "The people out there who are passionate would include the right."

"If you look at many, if not most, of the state pages on the website - there are no rallies listed so it's hard to comment on something that doesn't appear in many places to be happening," Democratic National Committee spokeswoman Brandi Hoffine told The Hill. "Of course - this would match the trend we've seen over the last two weeks where the supporters of reform are outnumbering the protesters at town halls across the country. The opposition made a splash at a handful of town halls in the first few days of the recess, but after its tactics -- including hanging members in effigy and the use of Nazi symbolism -- backfired we've seen the opposition recede and supporters of health insurance reform emerge."

Gateway Pundit's report is here, "The Hill Reports on the 1,000 Rallies Planned For Tomorrow ...Update: DNC Slanders Town Hall Protesters!" But check out this, from the Fox report:

If Democratic lawmakers thought all the furor over President Obama's health care plan expressed this month at town hall meetings was dying down, they might be in for a surprise Saturday.

That's when citizens are planning anti-"Obamacare" rallies across the country Saturday in all 435 congressional districts.

And their message is clear: We will not stand for socialized, government-controlled health care.

The same groups who made the "tax tea parties" possible in April are behind this weekend's movement. American Liberty Alliance, FreedomWorks and Americans for Prosperity are working with The Sam Adams Alliance, among others, to stage the rallies.

They come as town hall clashes between Democratic lawmakers and protesters of Obama's health care plan have captured national attention. Some Democrats have dismissed those protesters as "mobs" organized by special interests. But many protesters have said they attended the town halls out of genuine concern.

Now they can express their concerns at Saturday's rallies.

"Obviously the idea behind this was to have a unified day for those concerned about government-controlled health care to talk outside their representatives' offices," said Paul Miller, spokesman for The Sam Adams Alliance, a Chicago-based political organization which is one of several groups promoting the event through new media.

They're not kidding about the "new media." See, CNN, "Liberal Bloggers Admit Conservatives Have Upper Hand on Twitter."

See also, USA Today, "Town Hall Meetings Stir More Conservatives to Action."

Image Credit: Nationwide Rally Against Socialized Medicine.

Related: Legal Insurrection, "Throw Out the Democratic Health Care Sponge."

How Left-Elitists See Town Hall Citizens: 'Ill-Informed, Know Nothings Holding the Country Hostage With Total Irrationality'

Here's Ed Morrissey, writing during last year's election, on the long tradition of elite snobbery on the Democratic-left:

Elitism is a sense that the hoi polloi are simply incapable of governing themselves, let alone a nation, and that a small group of “experts” have to take control of everything they do. That goes far beyond mere matters of state. Elitists see people getting more obese and believe that government has to intervene to remove food choices from individuals, as one rather timely example, as in New York City. They believe that removing personal choices will keep people from making bad decisions, because they — in all their wisdom — will make the right choices for them.

This describes perfectly the policy direction of the Democratic Party ... That’s why the charge of elitism sticks so well to Democratic candidates in national elections. Their humble origins are immaterial to the concept of elitism. Candidates who want to grow the federal government in order to increase its nanny-state power are by definition elitists, because they believe individuals cannot make choices for themselves.

Well, we've been noticing the left's ubiquitous snobbery during the debates over health policy and the town hall meetings. Digby really captures it in her attempted takedown of Rush Limbaugh as a "gasbag":

If you wonder why people are so unbelievably misinformed in this country here's one good place to look ...

People listen to this kind of drivel all day long on talk radio and Fox News. Why should anyone be surprised that they think the government is going to be sending Death Agents to nursing homes to kill old people? ... They are being indoctrinated in idiocy by radical demagogues and for some reason everybody persists in thinking there is no harm in it.

These fatuous gasbags empower the teabaggers and swift boaters and I think we can see the result --- ill-informed, know nothings holding the country hostage with total irrationality.

Plus, here's Steve Benen on Representative Barney Frank's obnoxious response to a kooky LaRouche-Democrat attending his town hall:

There was no defensiveness, and no anger, just someone who knows what he's talking about making someone who doesn't look like a fool.

Matt Yglesias raised a terrific point: "Voters don't have a great deal of knowledge about the issues, or a great deal of interest in acquiring knowledge about the issues. But they are human beings, equipped with our species' excellent ability to read the emotional states of other human beings. If they see a politician acting defensive about his 'side' in an argument, they conclude that this critics are probably on to something. If they see a politicians acting outraged and hitting back fearlessly, they're likely to conclude that he has nothing to apologize for."

Quite right. A low-information voter, with only a passing familiarity with current events, might catch an exchange like this one. Which of the two people in this clip -- the crazy person or Barney Frank -- comes across as credible?

I realize that Frank has the benefit of serving in a safe Democratic seat, in a highly-educated area. Vulnerable Democratic lawmakers may not feel comfortable openly ridiculing random lunatics who ask stupid questions like Frank did.

But the point is, reform advocates can show this kind of confidence and certainty that nonsensical beliefs are nonsensical beliefs.

It's not so much that the woman at the video was a lunatic or not (the fact that LaRouche voters are Democrats doesn't seem to bother leftists searching for something, anything, to help rescue Obama's falling fortures on socialized medicine). No, it's the totally condescending approach Democratic-lefitsts take to those of differing opinions. Benen's citing Matthew Yglesias, who I unveiled a couple of weeks ago as a "true revolutionary socialist expropriator."

Given the nature and stakes of the debate, I don't expect to convince my political opponents that they're elitist in the mold of Vladimir Lenin. Having said that, folks should at least keep an open mind in reading John Goodman's essay on the everyday citizens participating in the recent ObamaCare demonstrations, "Explaining the Town-Hall Protests":

These are a very diverse group of people. Some of them are part of a 40,000-person network of former Obama supporters who are experiencing buyer's remorse. Others are part of various disease networks, including patients concerned about the future of cancer care. There are networks of senior citizens worried about cuts in Medicare and the possible closing of their private Medicare insurance plans. There are Christian conservatives worried about taxpayer-funded abortions and subsidies for euthanasia. And there are an enormous number of people who are simply concerned about their health care.

For the most part, these individuals are not funded or organized by anybody. They really are grass roots. Sure, there may be a few top-down "astroturf" groups and some special-interest groups that are secretly gleeful. But there is no way the kind of spontaneous outpouring we've witnessed could be bought or organized by anyone.

Why are they so angry? The reasons are manifold, but the single biggest reason is the arrogance of our elected officials in Washington. Think about it. For the past seven months a small group of politicians has been meeting behind-closed-doors with powerful special interests to decide whether you will be able to keep your current insurance, where you will be directed to get new insurance and at what price, what fines you and your employer will have to pay if you don't conform, and how they're going to get your doctor to change the way he or she practices medicine. In the process, they never asked you what you thought about anything. If you are not mad about this, odds are you don't understand the situation.

Remember, according to a Fox News poll conducted last month, 84% of Americans rate the quality of their insurance as "excellent" or "good." When they voted for Mr. Obama for president, they thought "universal care" meant helping some unfortunate Americans obtain insurance they cannot otherwise afford. Not once did candidate Obama say he was going to make changes that affected them and their health care. In fact, he promised the opposite.

Read the whole thing at the link.

And if leftists still aren't convinced, I'll simply recommend that folks read some of the latest polling results, for example, "Faith in Obama Drops As Reform Fears Rise: Health-Care Effort Is Major Factor, Poll Finds." And it's not a bunch of "ill-informed, know-nothing" Limbaugh ditto-heads either. See Greg Sargent, "Major Factor In Obama’s WaPo Poll Slide: Drop Among Dems, Liberals." (Via Memeorandum.)

Obama the Anti-Bush: Er, How's That Working Out For You?

I'm having fun today picking on the airheads at Firedoglake, so let's continue with Eli's post, "The Anti-Bush, Or Bush Lite?"

Almost three years ago, way before Barack Obama was even the Democratic nominee, Michael Tomasky wrote a column titled "Obama the anti-Bush," presciently predicting that Obama's bipartisany oppositeness to The Worst President Ever would be a huge asset should he run for president. A year later, Paul Krugman even more presciently referenced that same column while exhorting Democrats to be more like Bush ...

I guess Krugman warned Dems not to play nice and succumb to the false allure of "bipartisanship' ... they should, in a word, be "Bush-like."

So how's that working out for you guys? Not so great, eh?

Here's Eli:

Obama has shown little fire and little urgency, standing on the sidelines while Blue Dogs and Republicans stall Dawn Johnsen and whittle his campaign initiatives down to nubs. On healthcare, his support for the public option is fickle and unconvincing: He says he wants the public option, he prefers the public option, yet he was perfectly fine with letting Max Baucus stall it so that the teaturfers could turn Democratic town halls into armed madhouses. He made it very clear that he's willing to jettison the public option to pass something he can call healthcare reform, and backtracked (slightly) only when the Progressive Caucus refused to roll over as planned ...

President Obama took office at a moment of great risk and great opportunity, with the winds of recession and broken government in his face, and popular support and huge congressional majorities at his back. The situation was tailor-made for a president who is the Anti-Bush on policy and Bush Lite on politics, who would battle to roll back everything Bush did wrong. What we got was President Broder, who values bipartisanship above all else, and still believes that the party that drove America off a cliff is worth listening to. How's that working out for us?

Not so great, it turns out. Responding to Krugman's latest whiney essay this morning, the New York Times has published some letters to the editor, "Unease About Obama, From Liberals":

To the Editor:

Re “Obama’s Trust Problem” (column, Aug. 21):

Thank you, Paul Krugman, for so perfectly expressing the feelings of this progressive. I defended Barack Obama, despite his relative inexperience, during the primaries because I believed that his open style of governance was the best route to sound policy. I didn’t expect that this approach would result in the almost complete abandonment of core commitments, whether it was about torture, habeas corpus or health care.

Sadly, I am becoming edgy about how deeply he holds those commitments. While I won’t switch sides, in 2012 I will be far less willing to devote time and money to the Obama campaign than in 2008. I don’t think I will be alone in this resistance. At a minimum, I will be looking for a display of personal integrity and respect for all the progressives who were his deepest and most loyal supporters. It is indeed time for change.

Martha Holstein
Chicago, Aug. 21, 2009

*****

To the Editor:

Difficult times require strong leaders willing to act with courage and conviction — in short, to lead.

Barack Obama the candidate was charismatic, intoxicating and destined. President Obama has been cautious, compromising, even pusillanimous.

Presidential elections test likeability. Presidencies test leadership. We shall see.

Robert Ouriel
Los Angeles, Aug. 21, 2009

There are three more letters at the link.

See also, Greg Sargent, "Major Factor In Obama’s WaPo Poll Slide: Drop Among Dems, Liberals," and Glenn Greenwald, "Has Obama Lost the Trust of Progressives, as Krugman Says?" (Via Memeorandum.)

And to answer Greenwald: That's a big, duh, at this point ...

Image Credit: TrogloPundit.