C'est le change, Obama-style

Today's lead editorial in the Wall Street Journal caught my eye this morning, reminding me of a famous French proverb that should be kept close at hand over the next four years: "Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose". Translated: "The more things change, the more they stay the same." It sure didn't take long for Barack Obama to answer one of the compelling questions that I repeatedly raised during his campaign: will he be the "post-partisan" candidate that he promised to be? Or will he be the highly partisan politician he proved himself to be in the United States Senate?

The answer to this has come early in week #2 of his term, when he decided to ram the economic stimulus through the House of Representatives on purely partisan lines -- bowing to Nancy Pelosi in the process. As the Journal reports:

Barack Obama promised to end the "politics of division," unite Washington's factions and overcome partisanship. And what do you know -- so far he has: The President's stimulus plan generated bipartisan House opposition, with every Republican and 11 Democrats voting against it on Wednesday. It passed 244-188. The political class is feigning shock that Mr. Obama's stylistic olive branches to the GOP -- cocktail hour at the White House, cutting a line item for shrubbery on the National Mall -- failed to peel off even a single vote across the aisle. The chatter is that Republicans were taking a great political risk to oppose a President with 70%-plus approval ratings on his first piece of legislation. But the real risk here is to Mr. Obama, and it isn't from Republicans. It's from his fellow Democrats. Given the miserable economy and the Beltway's neo-Keynesian policy consensus, a true compromise would have gathered overwhelming support. But rather than use Mr. Obama's political capital to craft such a deal, the White House abdicated to Speaker Nancy Pelosi. House Democrats proceeded to ignore all GOP suggestions as they wrote the bill, shedding tax cuts while piling on spending for every imaginable interest group. The bipartisan opposition reflects how much the Pelosi bill became a vehicle for partisan social policy rather than economic stimulus.

Genuine bipartisanship means compromises on policy, not photo-ops and hand shakes. The last two Democratic Presidents, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, also came to power with big Democratic majorities in Congress, veered far to the left on policy, and quickly came undone. To adapt White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel's now famous line, a 70% approval rating is a terrible thing to waste on the ideas of Henry Waxman and Pete Stark.

One of my biggest fears about Barack Obama was that he would not be strong enough to stand up to the far-left partisans of his own party, and would be bullied into following the ideologues into a standard liberal abyss -- filled with the kind of redistributive social policies that brought us the Great Society and other expansive social progams. Given the unprecedented recent expansion of the government into our economy, with tax payers spending trillions on bail-outs and flame-outs, the hope was the Obama would be able to put pragmatism over politics on managing the public's interest. So much for "hope" and "change".

Of course, "change" was always an ill-defined bromide, capable of allowing the Obama campaign to create a narrative that had almost nothing of substance underneath it. It was the perfect vessel for this candidate, who gave people hope without telling them what specifically he was going to do to make such lofty ideas and goals a reality. And now we know that for all the rhetoric, the reality is something we've seen before: old style partisan politics with big government aspirations.

Change we can believe in, mon ami.

A Limbaugh listener fires back

Editor: A day after Rep. Phil Gingrey, R-GA, took Obama's bait and went after radio host Rush Limbaugh this week, he ate his words. The damage was done, however. Americans saw Republicans and conservatives sniping at each other when we should be focused on stopping the Democrats' runaway train of statism. Here is the story on Gingrey's initial, soon-retracted criticism of Rush. And below is an open letter from our regular contributor Red at Heart, a grandmother in Colorado Springs, taking him to task. Dear Congressman Gingrey:

As one of the 20 million-plus listeners of the Rush Limbaugh radio program, I am writing to comment about your remarks made with respect to Mr. Limbaugh.

First of all, the listening audience of Rush is a highly ignored constituency in this country. We lined up in support of G.W. Bush, and stood by while the Left vilified a decent man. We did not always agree with him, especially the fact that he forgot his veto pen when he moved into the Oval Office. We have not taken to the streets to protest Mr. Obama's election or the voter fraud that may have well put him in office. We have stood by silently and watched the most expensive inauguration in American history take place while the rest of the country strains under a recessive period, and not one Congressman spoke out against the waste. We stood by silently while the minister giving his benediction made comments meant to further divide our country along racial lines, and not one member of Congress spoke out to rebuke it. We watched folks in office, like you, sit idly by during the campaign and not make noise about questionable campaign contributions, voter registration irregularities, questionable associations with persons that normally would not fit our template of what we want to see in our president, or the fact that Mr. Obama was never pressed to release typical and expected documents prior to the election. We did not hear one Congressman in front of a national TV microphone exposing Obama's votes in Illinois on late term abortion. Many of his supporters in Nov. did not even know his position on abortion. Why? Because elected officials that have a duty to tell the truth failed to do so. We do not have the microphone on the floor of the House or Senate. We send people there to do that job for us. When we see failure to speak out on our behalf, we turn to other sources with the courage, leadership and voice to do it for us.

The 20 million-plus Americans that follow and support Rush Limbaugh are tired of weak politicians that bow at the feet of the media. We are tired of the media and pundits setting our policy in this country and we are tired of having no place to go for truth and a refresher course in common sense, ethics, and adherence to the Constitution. Our moral fabric of this country is shredding, politicians such as Pelosi and Reid, rule the day without regard. Had it not been for Mr. Limbaugh and others like him, Pelosi's plan to stimulate the economy by abortion and birth control would have gone unnoticed. It was only after the 'right wing extremists' on talk radio fired up the base that it became a well known issue and was quickly extinguished. Moderate and centrist Republicans are losing elections to right-leaning Democrats. The writing is in the wall, yet the realization of what we need to do to win elections goes by the wayside.

As a physician, the Republicans in this country would like to see you and others with the expertise and knowledge to start talking about healthcare reform and how it should be shaped around conservative values and the free market. There is work to be done to speak in a clear and loud voice. Pandering and trying to 'get along' with those that have no tolerance for the other side of the aisle has lost us elections and majorities in '06 and '08. If we don’t have leadership to stand up and take these issues on, we lose again in '10 and '12. There is a critical poverty in this country when it comes to lack of truth and getting information out to the public.

Please refrain from attacking private citizens. Yes, the average person does not know what your job is like or what you must do in order to get through the day as a U.S. Congressman. We do, however, understand that we are sick and tired with weakness, giving in to policies that continue to weaken and diminish our economy and our standing in the world. We are tired of the media and foreign campaign donations shaping our policy, driving our elections and determining our course. Your comments about Rush Limbaugh have given fuel to the Democrat fire to get him off the air. Free speech will die in this country, thanks to bias, lies and fear.

Just as Mr. Obama is making a media blitz to try and convince the country that he truly wishes a bipartisan approach to his stimulus, he is also slyly setting the stage for removing dissenting voices such as Mr. Limbaugh from public airwaves. The stimulus bill could have already been voted on and passed due to Democrat majority. Mr. Obama plans to hang any failure it may have around the necks of Republicans that vote with him.

Sometimes being on the outside and looking in provides us with a clear picture. We watch what happens day to day in Washington. We see political posturing, gross over-spending, waste and negligence. We have a voice or two in this great nation that have a platform to speak out against this, and the Washington mindset is to silence those voices.

Why do we not hear politicians speaking out against other dissenting voices such as Keith Olbermann, Chris Matthews, John Stewart, Barbara Walters, Andrea Mitchell, Bill Mayer and a host of others that hate Republicans, despise conservatism and will go to any lengths to push their liberal agenda? Why are you, and others in Congress, that are getting a bit uncomfortable with Rush Limbaugh's comments, also framing your discussion around boisterous, outspoken rhetoric coming from the other side?

We have a local talk show here in Colorado Springs and day after day, average citizens call in to say, "I want my country back." If Rush Limbaugh did not have a message that speaks to the heart and minds of millions upon millions of Americans, the market would not be there for him to speak. Let freedom ring, please.

Nevadans, please fire Harry Reid

Once again, Sen. Harry Reid has overreached his elected authority and exposed his lack of moral authority in the Roland Burris issue. The people of Nevada could do a great service to our country in making sure that Harry Reid is defeated in 2010. He reportedly is concerned already about holding his seat and has begun interviewing campaign managers, while vacationing in Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands recently, met with important campaign finance sources. Reid was quick to race to microphones declaring that Burris would not be seated in the Senate despite being legally appointed by Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich. Yesterday he commented that the Senate chooses who is seated and who is not. This morning Reid reportedly said he'd seat Burris if he promises not to run for reelection. Dick Durbin and Barack Obama have shown the same disrespect, yet today have completed flip-flopped on the issue in hopes this latest Democrat saga quickly goes away.

In the past few weeks, the Democrats from the top leadership down, thought they would quickly destroy Gov. Blago in order to ensure there were no dots connected between him and the incoming president. Why did they cave in the last several hours? They don't want to be accused of participating in a race matter, and they want to pacify Blago because they fear there is damaging info yet to come as that investigation moves forward.

Time for Nevada to assist Harry Reid in finding other work.

Paul Weyrich, Genius of the Right

Paul Weyrich, conservative organizer par excellence, died today at his home in Washington DC after a long and painful illness which he bore with heroic good cheer. He was just 66. A tribute is here. History will recognize him as a giant of the American right. The vaunted successes of the Democracy Alliance for liberal goals in recent elections are really just a mirror of the way Weyrich's visionary institution-building and networking since the early 1970s set the stage for Reagan's presidency in 1980 and Gingrich's takeover of Congress in 1994.

Paul helped found both the Heritage Foundation and the Free Congress Foundation. He pioneered the weekly center-right coalition gatherings that continue to wield vast influence in the form of Grover Norquist's Wednesday Meeting. He was among the earliest players in conservatism's move into cable television, demonstrating the potential for what is now Fox News Channel.

We could not have created the Independence Institute in 1985 as a force in Colorado policy and politics, simultaneous with similar state startups in Illinois, Washington, and South Carolina, without the national template for think tanks that Paul Weyrich and Edwin Feulner -- financially backed by Joe Coors -- provided a decade earlier at Heritage and Free Congress.

So it can be said that State Policy Network, now encompassing free-market institutes in some 45 states, also owes its existence to Weyrich's genius, drive, and hard work. Conservatives in the Colorado General Assembly, as in state legislatures across the country, also benefit from his legacy as one of the founders of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC). The Republican Study Committee of Colorado, a legislators caucus, imitates yet another brainchild of his, the House Republican Study Committee in DC.

I was honored to know Paul as a friend for many years. He was a mentor to me as to countless others. As a devoted follower of Jesus Christ, he anticipated celebration with the angels when death finally came. I trust that's what this faithful servant is experiencing right now -- an early Christmas in heaven. But we on earth will sorely miss him.

Why bail out DNC & RNC donors?

Some of the biggest donors to both the Democratic and Republican national conventions are now among the companies getting or asking for federal bailouts, according to a report last week from the Campaign Finance Institute. The only thing that shocked me about the story was that there has been no outrage at all, from anyone. If this happened on a local level here in Colorado, someone would write an amendment to stop it from happening in the future. If this happened at your city’s level of government, someone would be speaking out at city council meetings and getting recall efforts started.

But on the national level, if people even saw the story, they rolled their eyes and just moved on. Why? Why aren’t we more outraged?

The fact that companies that are so perilously close to bankruptcy that they must ask the federal government for a loan, gave thousands of dollars to both political parties only four months ago, is an abomination. But the fact that we have collectively had little to no reaction is the bigger problem.

After a long campaign that was marked by hope, change and mavericks, you’d think that we’d be more upset. Is it that we think that it’s okay? Or is it that we think we can’t do anything about it?

I’m honestly wondering what is behind our collective non-reaction.

I don’t blame a conspiracy by the government, or the media or big corporations. Why would anyone bother to invent a conspiracy when the plain truth doesn’t seem to bother anyone?

Seriously, more Americans have an opinion about what kind of dog the Obama’s should get, or on college football adopting a playoff system than they do about where billions of bailout dollars are going. Do we care that companies who are asking for billions of our tax dollars had enough money to contribute to both national conventions four months ago?

I’m not trying to go out on a wacky limb here. I’m not about to leave the comfort of my laptop and start raving against the government on some street corner. I just honestly want to know if somebody out there thinks that this blatant abuse of influence is wrong.

So let me ask you, blogger to reader, are you angry about this? Are you looking for your torch and pitchfork and getting ready to riot, or do you think the Obamas should go ahead and adopt a Labradoodle?