"I'm Not Saying, I'm Just Saying"

More on the politics of the day (especially since lousy Kansas destroyed my bracket).  I know the GOP and Tea Partiers and rubbing their hands together getting ready for a huge gain in one or both chambers of our fair Congress.  But, 8 months is a long time.  Look at recent history, for example.  Don't forget, McCain was polling great against both potential Democratic presidential nominees, Obama and Clinton, in late March and early April of 2008 in key batteground states.  Let me be clear, I think the Dems will lose seats in the House for sure and maybe even the Senate.  However, it may not be as bad for Dems and good for GOP'ers.   

Things can and will change.  Voters attention will shift away from health insurance reform by Nov. 2010, trust me.  Surely Glenn Beck will come up with another political crisis at which he can point his fanatical Tea Party followers by Nov. 2010.  And don't forget that Tea Party candidates may run and split the GOP votes in some midterm elections.  Look at what happened in the upstate New York special election in 2008, a Dem won a seat that been held by the GOP since Reconstruction.  Financial regulation reform is the next political fight to be had and it should be a doozy.  Who knows what will be at the top of voters' lists as THE important issue when Nov. 2010 rolls around.  Memories fade.  It's only March 2010 not November 2010.  8 months till the midterm elections is a long, long, long time, especially in politics.  To quote a good friend of mine, "I'm not saying, I'm just saying."

Who Said Change Was Going To Be Easy

Health insurance reform passed.  At least some form of it.  Here's a decent synopsis of what's in the bill.  It's not what ultra-liberals wanted, a single-payer, run by the government, health insurance option available to all people regardless of income level.  It's definitely not what conservatives wanted, which was to maintain the status quo in which 30+ million Americans were without healthcare. 

Remember, conservatives have been against every major piece of progressive, "liberal" legislation in the last one hundred years including, but, not limited to, labor laws (including mandatory maximum work weeks, establishment of a minimum wage and every increase since then for example), social security, disability, medicare, medicaid.  I'm sure there's more but, that's all that I can think of off the top of my head.  Tea partiers must be besides themselves.  And will Limbaugh really leave the country now?

Obama ran on change and this legislation is certainly that.  Health insurance legislation was one the cornerstones of Obama's change platform.  The Dems won the presidency and both chambers of Congress on the coattails of Obama's pledge of change.  And when a party wins both the presidency and the Congress you get change.  And then you get a political backlash against that change.  It almost happens like clockwork, especially in a president's first term.  In fact only 3 presidents since Reconstruction have netted seats in midterm elections (FDR-first midterm gain, Clinton-second midterm gain and W.-first midterm gain; I attritbute W.'s midterm success in 2002 to the goodwill directed towards him and the GOP in the aftermath of 9/11, but, that's just my take).  Let's see what happens next.  Maybe the Dems lose the House or Senate in the midterm elections.  I certainly doubt they lose both.  Dodd's financial reform bill just flew through the Senate committee and is headed to the Senate floor for debate.  More change on the way?  Who could possibly be against financial rules changes in the wake of "too big to fail?"

But, as usual, I digress.  So there will be changes in health insurance but not as much as some wanted and way more than others desired.  That compromises were made should surprise no one.  Don't forget some of the definitions of compromise: 1. To arrive at a settlement by making concessions; 2. To reduce the quality, value, or degree of something.

Fcuk Fox News

Fox New cut off the question and answer between the President Obama and the Republican House Caucus' retreat.

They just decided to cut it off. In the middle of the day. There was nothing else going on. How are the a new station again? My brain now hurts when "Fox" and "news" is used in the same sentence. As far as I'm concerned Fox is good for Sunday night animated comedies (see Simpsons, Family Guy).

How does the magical, weird, purple sky colored world of TV math work in the magical, weird world of Fox? I have an idea. As follows:

Homer Simpson (is greater than) > Bill O'Reilly
Marge Simpson (is greater than) > Glenn Beck
Bart Simpson is > Sean Hannity
Lisa Simpson > Great Van Sustreren
Maggie Simpson > Rupert Murdoch's soul

Just my thoughts.
                            

State of the Union Reaction Then Obama Schools GOP'ers at Their Own Retreat

First Jon Stewart's take on the State of the Union:

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Speech Therapy
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Health Care Crisis

Then, Obama shows up at the House GOPers' annual retreat with the press corps in tow. And the GOPers agreed to let him do a Q&A with the cameras rolling:


This should be an annual event. The sitting president should go to the other party's House caucus' annual retreat and do a Q&A. But, given how the above exchange went over I doubt the GOPers will let Obama come over to their winter retreat again next year. Here's SNL's take on the Q&A:

State of the Speech

(the following was written during/after the State of the Union - text here)

Key, but not all, topics covered: recession, stimulus bill, bailout, budget, environment/green tech, jobs bill, health insurance reform, financial reform, super-majorities in the Senate, education, Supreme Court decision regarding corporate spending on campaigns, national security, the wars, veterans, loose nukes, Haiti, civil rights, don't ask don't tell.

I'll be honest, to me it seemed a bit partisan and almost too casual at the beginning. Too much joking around. Too many jabs at the GOP'ers and veiled blaming of the past administration for the mess we're in. Were the jabs and assertions regarding the past administration deserved and/or true? Yes. But, the State of the Union doesn't seem like the time or place. Maybe that's just me.

Of course during the speech I also didn't like the GOP'er's snickers and and passivity. I especially found annoying minority whip Eric Cantor smirking and shaking his head every time they showed him--it was incredibly annoying. He looked like a second grade smart-aleck in the back of the room making fun of the kid giving a speech at the front of the classroom. And GOP minority leader John Boehner was as orange-tan as ever. Boehner and Cantor next too each other looked like Tan-man & Grinnin', the boy blunder.

Towards the end of the speech the tone turned more serious. The President dished out and took some blame for where we are.

Overall impressions: Tense. But, these are tense, hyper-partisan times we live in. I've seen better and I've seen him do much better too. It seemed a little like a campaign stump speech, especially at the beginning. I want State of the Union speeches to be inspirational and forward looking. And President Obama's speech was inspirational and forward looking at times, especially towards the end.

Overall grade for the speech according to yours truly: B (maybe because I expect a lot from President Obama-of course I expect a lot out of the Congress generally and especially the Senate.)