The TOXIC Mud Pit

Why, indeed:

Every political community includes some members who insist that their side has all the answers and that their adversaries are idiots. But American liberals, to a degree far surpassing conservatives, appear committed to the proposition that their views are correct, self-evident, and based on fact and reason, while conservative positions are not just wrong but illegitimate, ideological and unworthy of serious consideration…

It’s an odd time for liberals to feel smug. But even with Democratic fortunes on the wane, leading liberals insist that they have almost nothing to learn from conservatives. Many Democrats describe their troubles simply as a PR challenge, a combination of conservative misinformation — as when Obama charges that critics of health-care reform are peddling fake fears of a “Bolshevik plot” — and the country’s failure to grasp great liberal accomplishments. “We were so busy just getting stuff done . . . that I think we lost some of that sense of speaking directly to the American people about what their core values are,” the president told ABC’s George Stephanopoulos in a recent interview. The benighted public is either uncomprehending or deliberately misinformed (by conservatives).

The whole thing is well worth your time. This phenomenon is quite prevalent within the “local” blogosphere, I’ve noticed, especially on certain sites, but you can certainly see it on a national level. For example (as the column notes), Democrats and those on the Left have convinced themselves that healthcare reform has lost support because, by golly, the American people aren’t sophisticated enough to “get” their high-minded legislation. They’ve used too many big words when talking about it, and of course the White House bully pulpit plus a mostly sympathetic media are no match for those evil “special interests” who wave shiny things and distract us all from the goodness that is ObamaCare. They’re just really bad at splainin’ stuff, you understand. And libs always know best.

Consider, too, the uproar over the pro-life Super Bowl ad slated to air later today, featuring Tim Tebow’s mom discussing the CHOICE she made to have her son. The National Organization for Women declared the ad, which no one has yet seen, “extraordinarily offensive and demeaning.” Really? Saith Sally Jenkins of The Washington Post:

I’m pro-choice, and Tebow clearly is not. But based on what I’ve heard in the past week, I’ll take his side against the group-think, elitism and condescension of the “National Organization of Fewer and Fewer Women All The Time.” For one thing, Tebow seems smarter than they do…

Pam Tebow and her son feel good enough about that choice to want to tell people about it. Only, NOW says they shouldn’t be allowed to. Apparently NOW feels this commercial is an inappropriate message for America to see for 30 seconds, but women in bikinis selling beer is the right one. I would like to meet the genius at NOW who made that decision. On second thought, no, I wouldn’t.

And the debate over global warming, too. Nevermind that organizations and agencies promoting “climate change” have been caught including false and misleading data, or cherry picking the most convenient to their agenda, to support their claims. We are to just accept their findings regardless…and rub our faces with asbestos, natch.

Should you knuckledragging simpletons need this post explained to you gooder, I haz pictures I can drawz fer u.

UPDATE: Below the fold, you’ll find one of the Tebow ads running during the Super Browl pregame show. Please observe an official strong content warning for, um, the offensive and demeaning ‘celebrate family, celebrate life’ message. The horror- Read the rest of this entry »

… and was shocked to learn that it is snowing in Virginia!

Dude thinks he’s hanging out at the frat house instead of giving a weather report, I guess:

Yikes:

Brown got over-excited and particularly creepy when he declared his daughters “available” during an improvised portion of his victory speech tonight. It was awkward – and it wasn’t immediately cleaned up…

After Beck played more of the clip, making his own commentary throughout (including a reference to the infamous Cosmo spread), he took the whole thing to the next level. “I want a chastity belt on this man,” he said, while his producer tried to justify Brown’s comments. “I want his every move watched in Washington. I don’t trust this guy…This one could end with a dead intern. I’m just saying, it could end with a dead intern.”

Go here to view the part of the speech Beck is referencing. I’ve seen it a few times, and it doesn’t come across as creepy to me. But, Beck completely jumps the shark on this one with his asinine commentary. I saw a Dad ribbing his daughters- yes, they were embarrassed, but that’s what Dad’s do. I remember several instances where my father embarrassed my sister…granted, it wasn’t in front of hundreds of people and TV cameras, but it was still just good-natured silliness.

You know who else thought that? Ayla Brown, his 21-year old daughter:

“That is incredible. It just surprises me that people can be so negative,” Ayla said. “I feel as though all fathers across the nation can relate to having daughters and having these conversations…That’s our dad. There’s nothing creepy about it at all.”

The joking around apparently runs in the family. Beck needs to get back on his meds, bottom line. The rodeo clown garbage got old a long time ago. Mark Levin, it seems, tends to agree.

The White House is signaling that it’s full speed ahead on getting a bill to the President’s desk, but after Tuesday night that will be much easier said than done. With Scott Brown promising to be the 41st vote against ObamaCare and the threat of a filibuster in the Senate fully restored, just how do they expect to do that? Here are the options I’ve seen tossed around:

1 ) Ram it through the Senate before Brown is seated- Not going to happen, even if House and Senate Dems agreed on a compromise bill and could get it together quickly for both chambers to sign off on. Democrats Jim Webb and Claire McCaskill, as well as Barney Frank, have already thrown cold water on that idea, too, and the optics of shoving something through before Brown can cast his vote would be so poor they wouldn’t dare try.

2 ) Force the House to accept the Senate bill without changes, so that can go straight to the President’s desk- Extremely unlikely. The Senate version has no public option and includes taxes on so-called ‘Cadillac’ health plans that unions vociferously oppose, bitter pills House liberals will find hard to swallow. Pelosi herself said the Senate bill needs changes. Also, the Senate bill is less restrictive on the abortion issue, which House Blue Dog Democrats are sure to find objectionable. The first “reform” package only passed the House by a handful of votes, and they’re already assured of losing one of them. If House liberals cave, fine…but there isn’t a lot of incentive for them to go along with the Senate.

3 ) Use reconciliation- In order to bypass the filibuster in the Senate, Democrats could employ a special budgetary process where parts of ObamaCare can be passed with only a simple majority. But, this procedure is limited to only items pertaining to budgetary issues, which leaves out such things as the insurance mandate, state-level insurance exchanges, and ending the pre-existing condition limitation on issuing insurance. So, there’s not a whole lot that could get through, plus the optics would once again be pretty bad (though Republicans used it under Bush).

4 ) Break up the bill and pass the smaller pieces- It’s been said that there’s bipartisan agreement on some 80% of ObamaCare, so this avenue makes a lot of sense. Democrats would get some of what they want and force Republicans to vote against individual bills which, by themselves, would probably command popular support (ex. ending the pre-exisiting condition limitation). If they decide something is better than nothing, I think this route is a strong possibility.

5 ) Go to conference, decide on a compromise bill, and force the Senate GOP to use the filibuster- By doing so Democrats can go into the midterms saying they tried, but Republicans killed it. Since the bill as is remains unpopular that’s very risky, b/c many will applaud the GOP while the Democrats-even with hefty majorities-will be seen as weak and unable to get anything done. I believe they’d rather have something to hang their hat on, so I doubt they try this.

6 ) Go to conference, decide on a compromise bill, and buy off a few Senate GOPers- Every Senate Republican voted against the reform package, but it’s not out of the question that Collins, Snowe, or Voinovich (who’s retiring) could possibly be swayed to support the final version.

7 ) Start over by pushing a much smaller bill that includes things Republicans want- Take some of the more popular things from ObamaCare, add portability and/or competition across state lines, and maybe you get enough Republicans to push something through. Progressives will howl as it will be, from their perspective, watered-down reform (if they even called it that at all), but its something that they can all say they came together to accomplish. Hard to say if either side is open to this now.

8 ) Drop it altogether- There’s no way they spend months focusing on health care reform and not do something. Sure, they could pivot to jobs and Wall Street reform while blaming the GOP for obstructing action on health care, but I think they’ve gone too far to throw in the towel. Democrats feel that Clinton lost Congress in 1994 because his own push for health care reform failed, so again I believe they want at least something for Obama to sign.

It’ll be interesting to see the approach they take. If anyone has their own thoughts about what they should do or what they expect to happen, feel free to share.

Wow. Obama won the state by 26 points. Ted Kennedy, liberal icon, held that seat for over 40 years. No Republican had been elected to the Senate from MA since 1972. Democrats outnumber Republicans 3-1 there. And yet, the newest Senator from the Commonwealth is GOPer Scott Brown. Gone is the Democrat supermajority in the Senate, and very possibly ObamaCare.

The recriminations began in earnest well before the polls closed, as Democrats assembled in their circular firing squad. I’m not sure if this will lead to other Democrats jumping ship on Obama’s agenda, or more early retirements, but this is a pretty big deal. I can’t imagine how the vote isn’t a referendum on what is happening in Washington, DC.. Martha Coakley was a poor candidate and ran a bad campaign, but this is Massachusetts. I know Democrats will be inclined to minimize it, as I would in similar circumstances, but if people were pleased with the direction the country was going in there’s no way she doesn’t win in a walk. Am I wrong? Maybe this man is right?

Update- Senator Jim Webb:

In many ways the campaign in Massachusetts became a referendum not only on health care reform but also on the openness and integrity of our government process. It is vital that we restore the respect of the American people in our system of government and in our leaders. To that end, I believe it would only be fair and prudent that we suspend further votes on health care legislation until Senator-elect Brown is seated.

Raising the white flag on ObamaCare? He’s likely not the only one.

And before I forget, here is Jon Stewart commenting on the Massachusetts race Monday night. Stick with it, as he is none too pleased:

Via The Corner, Democrat Chris Van Hollen discussing the potential loss of Ted Kennedy’s Senate seat and others this November:

“Why would you hand the keys to the car back to the same guys whose policies drove the economy into the ditch and then walked away from the scene of the accident?” Van Hollen said.

Hey, at least he used ditch instead of lake, right?

Ahem. Anyway, all eyes are on Massachusetts today, and don’t think Democrats aren’t keenly aware of what it will mean should Scott Brown do the unthinkable. To wit, “We are in deep s— if we lose on Tuesday.”

I leave you with the immortal words of our modern-day Murrow, Keith Olbermann. How reckless and how sad, indeed:

Need a good reason to take in the liberal viewpoint? Not only is the different perspective interesting, it’s often also good for some lolz. Take Krugman’s latest, for example:

The Obama administration’s troubles are the result not of excessive ambition, but of policy and political misjudgments. The stimulus was too small; policy toward the banks wasn’t tough enough; and Mr. Obama didn’t do what Ronald Reagan, who also faced a poor economy early in his administration, did — namely, shelter himself from criticism with a narrative that placed the blame on previous administrations.

What is this man smoking? It’s been ‘blame Bush’ at every turn. In fact, the Associated Press was just remarking on that very thing earlier this month. According to their “analysis”:

He says “the buck stops with me,” but nearly a year into office, President Barack Obama is still blaming a lot of the nation’s troubles — the economy, terrorism, health care — on George W. Bush.

Over and over, Obama keeps reminding Americans of the mess he inherited and all he’s doing to fix it. A sharper, give-me-some-credit tone has emerged in his language as he bemoans people’s fleeting memory about what life was like way back in 2008, particularly on the economy.

Every administration plays the blame game…I have no real problem with it. However, voters eventually tune that out and start to clamor for results; regardless of the spin, double digit unemployment with the stimulus-when the admin said it’d top out at 8% without it-tends to hurt your credibility. That is Obama’s real problem now, not that he didn’t blaming Bush enough. Disappointment begets apathy, and the more the latter grew the harder it was for Obama to play the Bush card. It’s not about what the last guy did or didn’t do…it becomes a question of what have you done for me lately?

How many recounts will it take for Martha Coakley to win? Leave your best guess in the comments.

It’s comforting to know the Dem play book hasn’t changed.

"If you think there’s magic out there and things can be turned around overnight, then you would vote for someone who could promise you that, like Scott Brown," Kennedy said. "If you don’t, if you know that it takes eight years for George Bush and his cronies to put our country into this hole … then you know we have a lot of digging to do, but some work needs to be done and this president’s in the process of doing it and we need to get Marcia Coakley to help him to do that.

(Curiously, Kennedy mentioned Coakley repeatedly during his remarks to reporters, each time referring to her as "Marcia," not "Martha." )"

AND I’LL HANG AROUND AS LONG AS YOU WILL LET ME

I guess we’ll know how long that will be come Tuesday.

Video warning: Contains the D word after the 4 minute mark.