We wrote that Pres BO's speech was very partisan.
We did not like the tone.
We don't think that we are engaging in "bickering" because we have doubts about a president intent on having the government take over 16% of the GDP.
"Bickering"?
We see it as an honest difference of opinion.
We are very happy to read this from Jay Cost and watch this video from Senator Graham:
"The President had to give yesterday's speech for a simple, straightforward reason: his party is divided on a few key issues, above all the public option.
This is what forced the delay through August, at which point the opposition was able to seize the microphone from government leaders and drive their poll numbers down.
To ameliorate this dilemma, the President chose to give last night's speech.
In it, he:
(1) Focused on items that unite the Democrats.
(2) Blasted Republicans while praising bipartisanship.
(3) Indulged in rhetorical flights of fancy that have become his stock in trade.
Each of these items contributed some aspect to the ostensible goal of rallying the Democrats and Democratic-leaning Independents.
It probably did that, at least to an extent.
However, it failed to address the reason for their doldrums.
Democrats need rallying because of internal divisions over actual policy disagreements.
President Obama did not deal with those divisions.
When you strip away the setting, the soaring rhetoric, the poetic cadences, and all the rest, you're left with the criticism that both Hillary Clinton and John McCain leveled at him through all of last year:
he voted present."
Pres BO punted by refusing to deal with the obvious question:
How much is this going to cost?
We don't know!
Check out this video from Sen Graham:
P.S. Let's check some of the columns in today's newspapers:
Matt Welch:
"Again last night, Obama invoked the boogeyman of "special interests" who "lie" in order "to keep things exactly the way they are," despite the fact that the special interests in this case are lining up to support the president, and that the critics of his plan tend to bemoan, not defend, the status quo."
David Brooks:
"First, Obama rested the credibility of his presidency on what you might call the Dime Standard. He was flexible about many things, but not this:
“I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits — either now or in the future. Period.”
This sound bite kills the House health care bill.
That bill would add $220 billion (that’s 2.2 trillion dimes) to the deficit over the first 10 years and another $1 trillion (10 trillion dimes) to the deficit over the next 10 years."
Ceci Connolly:
"One day after President Obama pitched his plan for comprehensive health-care reform to a joint session of Congress, administration officials struggled Thursday to detail how he would achieve his goal of extending coverage to tens of millions of uninsured Americans without increasing the deficit."
Fred Barnes:
"Obama didn't come close to offering a persuasive explanation of how he'd pay for ObamaCare. And that remains his biggest problem.
He promises much, much more in guaranteed health benefits and says it will cost less."
Bloomberg:
"So far, White House officials have offered few details on how they intend to pay for the plan. Instead, they’ve deferred to Congress on the issue, saying they’ll consider all options."
Let's leave the best for last!
Larry Kudlow:
"The day after President Obama's impassioned speech for big-government health care, Wall Street bet heavily that the so-called government-insurance option he supports is dead."
No comments:
Post a Comment