Democrats' Healthcare Talks Break-Down in Anger

As reported in The Hill this afternoon, yet more high-drama as the White House tries to shove unwanted semi-nationalized health care down our throats with ludicrous haste... before Obama's public support completely evaporates. But it's difficult to obtain victory at your Waterloo in the midst of a (justified) mutiny.

Moderate-conservative Blue Dog Democrats angrily stormed out of a meeting today with Henry Waxman (D-Cal), as the House healthcare negotiations dissolved in acrimony. And from the looks of it, Team Obama and their congressional allies aren't treating these Democrats any better than they do the GOP... pretending to consider their concerns with farcical "negotiations" ... and even lying to them in an attempt to ram-through Obamacare before it's too late.

The Democrats claimed that Rep. Waxman had been negotiating in bad faith over a number of provisions that the Blue Dogs demanded be changed in the stalled healthcare bill- while the 'Dogs were trying to save the Democratic Party from itself.

“I’ve been lied to,” Blue Dog Coalition Co-Chairman Charlie Melancon (D-La.) said on Friday. “We have not had legitimate negotiations."

“Mr. Waxman has decided to sever discussions with the Blue Dogs who are trying to make this bill work for America,” Melancon said.

Although those Blue Dogs were supposed to be headed back into another meeting of the Energy and Commerce Democrats, their anger was visible.

If the two sides cannot reach an agreement, the only hope for passage of the bill in the House will be to go straight to the floor, an option leaders shied away from endorsing but said was an option.

But the Blue Dogs issued dire warnings to leaders contemplating that approach.

"Waxman simply does not have votes in committee and process should not be bypassed to bring the bill straight to floor,” Rep. Mike Ross (D-Ark.), the lead Blue Dog negotiator, said on Friday. “We are trying to save this bill and trying to save this party.”

Melancon said there would be 40-45 “solid no” votes from the 52-strong Blue Dogs, among other problems throughout the caucus. And Melancon said there are more Democrats who will vote against the bill.

“If they try to bring it to the floor, I think they’ll find out they have more problems than the Blue Dogs.”

What Can We Gain From Russia, Anyway?

In the 1980's, Reagan actually toyed with the Russians in talks at Geneva and Reykjavik. The Kremlin at the time badly needed a deal to save the entire communist economic system -Gorbachev's #1 objective- and this had to include the cancellation of the US missile defense program, a technology the Soviets lacked the resources to compete with.

But Reagan knew it, and wasn't really interested in helping them save their dictatorship, nor in giving up his SDI plans- the aim was nothing less than freedom and democracy for Russia and all of eastern Europe, not just Glastnost and Perestoika. So The Gipper waited until 1987 -a full two years after his first Swiss summit with Gorbachev- before signing the INF treaty.

Today we have Barack Obama -who's in need of a foreign-policy victory- openly pandering for a missile deal as the START treaty expires... it's hard to imagine him bringing home anything of value from Russia now. Sadly for us, it appears that Obama's poker skills are in the same league with his bowling and girly-style baseball throw. And Russia recieved much of what it wants before Obama even landed, so how would anybody expect Barack to gain any advantage? Meanwhile, the Kremlin has failed even to comply with the terms of the truce signed with Georgia last year- continuing to do pretty much as it pleases.

At this summit in Moscow, Obama is to announce the restoration of bilateral military relations with Russia, as well as of the NATO-Russian Council. And to please the Kremlin, Obama has now put on hold plans for the deployment of American missile defenses on Polish and Czech soil. In a letter to Medvedev earlier this year, Mr. Obama floated the idea of cancelling those deals entirely if Russia can prod Iran to give up its nuclear ambitions. The Russian's response was dismiss this out of hand, but they now know the installations are negotiable.

When a superpower like the United States faces the world with an insecure foreign-policy posture, you can really get taken to the cleaners in trying to convince certain people to like you. The Kremlin leaders Obama is rushing-into-the-arms-of now are in reality zero-sum, mostly ex-KGB thugs who are out to settle a few scores with the west; this crew can smell weakness, and will be taking advantage of any on the US side to the fullest. Wouldn't it be fascinating to read the Russian intelligence files on Barack and Hill's personality flaws... and how best to exploit them?

And as to set the tone, as Obama landed in Moscow thousands of Russian troops were involved in the biggest war games in the south Caucasus since the end of the Cold War... menacing the small, independent nation of Georgia yet again. President Saakashvili remains a thorn-in-the side survivor, resistant to Russian hegemony in what the Kremlin sees as its near abroad. A pro-Kremlin regime in Georgia would give Moscow the control it desires over energy routes through the Caucasus... and influence over independent-minded Azerbaijan and Armenia, too. But as Barack smiles and glad-hands Kremlin leaders, it's like the brutal war in Georgia never happened. The Russians have paid no real price whatsoever for their expansionist adventure there- and therefore would do the same thing again in a minute.

It's hard to imagine just what Barack Obama expects to gain for America by rushing over to Moscow like this- as with Iran, he's allying the US with unsavory, anti-democratic regimes for little benefit, while abandoning those who aspire to traditional American ideals of free elections, free press, free enterprise, and rule of law in Russia and the CIS.

And he might be betting on the wrong horse yet again- the evolving reality in Russia today is that Vladimir Putin is on the political ropes-

As reported in American Thinker:

A few weeks ago, a massive protest by unpaid aluminum industry workers in the town of Pikalyovo, outside of St. Petersburg, snarled traffic for more than a hundred miles on a major interstate roadway. Putin was forced to make an emergency visit to the town and put up significant government funds to assure payment of wages.

Nearly a quarter of Russia's population lives in "monotowns" like Pikalyovo, which depend entirely on a single industry for subsistence. Russia can't afford this kind of largesse everywhere, and economists were openly worrying whether the gesture in Pikalyovo could place the country on the road to ruin.

Putin's assumed plans of cruising right back into the presidency in a couple years are suddenly looking shaky; the collapse of the Russian stock market and the ruble have dented support, and it's not possible to blame it all on Medvedev- everyone knows where the real power lies. Like Gorbachev, Putin needs an arms deal to save his economic model -a brand of dictatorial crony capitalism- so Barack Obama would be well-advised to not let him have it.

The new missile deals Obama has made a priority seem to be of little value to US interests- few expect Russia to ever seriously face off with the US or NATO, let-alone with nuclear weapons. But any substantial nuclear arms deal with Moscow certainly frees them up to focus on far more useful endeavors, such as modernized conventional forces that could wipe the floor with Georgia, Ukraine, Belarus, or Poland. More special forces and US-type weapons, communications, transport, and training is something Putin could actually put to good use... unlike 2000 ICBMs sitting in silohs.

Russia has little to offer the United States in any negotiations- and they have almost no influence on America's foreign policy. It would be difficult for the US to purchase gas without the necessary LNG infrastructure in place. Russia's state-dominated oil industry is a chronic underacheiver, and government property grabs discourage western oil tech firms from providing the needed development. Add to that the Kremlin's use of energy as a diplomatic truncheon and oil deals simply look better elsewhere. Moscow's industrial backwardness and continuing Wild East legal environment brought them a pitiful $36B in trade with the United States last year- much of that likely Stolichnaya, not notoriously shoddy Russian manufactured goods.

However, there are few things we would value coming from Russia- like maybe a halt to their calculated and opportunistic attacks upon US power and influence, i.e.- bad mouthing the dollar/calling for a world currency, selling high-tech weapons and nuclear know-how to our enemies/terrorist sponsors such Tehran, Damascus, Caracas, and Pyongyang, as well as nabbing that US/Kyrgizstan air base from right under Obama's nose... just to make a point. But it's difficult to address these issues when Obama appears to not be interested in any such unpleasantries while chatting with Vlad and Dmitri.

The prototypical narcissist Obama is primarily after power and fame- and at any cost. In practice this means looking for a headline weapons-control deal that props-up his man of peace schtick while allowing him to eliminate F-22 production, cancel needed missile defense programs, and perhaps even cut military aid for traditional American allies, and all in order to fund his expensive domestic programs and entrench the Democratic party politically.

Obama long-ago bet his whole foreign policy platform on appeasement and legitimizing dubious regimes, and has nowhere else to run... it's hard for him to now support America's traditional freedom agenda when he's already on the record abandoning it. Thus his kid-gloves treatment re. issues like Russia's bullying of Georgia and Obama's shameful acquiescence to the brutality deployed in Tehran last month.

We have a president who's more focused on his personal and far-left domestic political agendas than on what's in the long-term, common-sense strategic interest of the United States- at best, a warped world view. Today's Russia is nothing to be afraid of, either- really just a Saudi Arabia with trees. Russia is a deeply dysfunctional society who's industry, political culture, and rule-of-law all remain seriously underdeveloped. They've got oil, though- and pride themselves in punching-above-their-weight. What our president doesn't seem to realize is that the Russians are -as is so often their practice- bluffing... as they are dealing from a position of comprehensive weakness.

But the cynical Kremlin surely doesn't take Obama seriously at all, instead they purely see an opportunity for comprehensive strategic and diplomatic gains at America's and NATO's expense. The reality is that Russia has nothing to offer the US- so as Barack heads over there to flatter them and give away our strategic advantage, perhaps we should ask for what?

And the worst is yet to come. In 1978 Jimmy Carter met with Soviet Premier Brezhnev, extending his hand in friendship much as Obama is doing in Russia today. After seeing what kind of a zero they were dealing with firsthand, the Soviet Union promptly invaded Afghanistan- in direct violation of promises made to Carter in Moscow six months earlier.

It is hard to imagine today's Kremlin being cowed or intimidated after meeting with a smiley plastic mannequin like Obama, putting his arm around them and schmoozing all the time- they know he's not going to do anything.

Next year it's Yes We Can invade Ukraine... and what are you going to do about it?

UPDATE: Obama reaches all-time low of -3% differential rating in Rasmussen's latest -here-

Clintons Plotting Their Comeback on Obamamania's Ashes?

While many Obama supporters where still delirious in the fresh afterglow of Barack Obama's "historic" election victory, a strange thing happened last December- he appointed his critical, often hostile, and recently defeated primary opponent Hillary Clinton to the head the State Department.

Was it based upon her qualifications?

What qualifications?- Clinton had no foreign policy experience to speak of. Other presidents lacking diplomantic exposure have brought someone who has such a background to the State Department--- but he didn't feel the need, for some reason. Perhaps the most unsettling concern is that Hillary's judgement is warped by her blinding ambition to gain power and control- causing her to be manipulative in her dealings with others.

So maybe it was their friendship? Deep interpersonal respect? LOL, not exactly...

In addition to other puzzling cabinet choices that starkly contrasted Obama's Hope-n-Change theme -old-guard party aparatchiks like Joe Biden and other primary challengers like Bill Richardson- the only explanation would be fulfilling political deals that got him elected... as well as the calculated co-opting of Democratic rivals that could pose a challenge in 2012 when The One's numbers are in the toilet. When you're talking about a guy like Obama who had all three other Democratic Party challengers thrown off the ballot in his very first Illinois State Senate race... a man who displays a history of shocking and ruthless political opportunism... the deduction seems obvious.

The appointment of Hillary to State was likely a political bargain struck at the convention- Obama wasn't about to let qualifications or ethical considerations get in the way of such a win-win deal. And Barack takes care of Barack- so given the opportunity, it was a priority to control and contain Hillary, Richardson... even Biden. And if he hadn't suffered a most inopportune bimbo-eruption, elaborately-coiffed leftist Ken-doll John Edwards would have been appointed to a substantial position in the Obama Administration too... he was certainly angling for it.

But the Clintons were -and still are- the #1 potential Democratic threat to an Obama-world future. Obama knows his radical domestic transformation foisted upon an economically shellshocked American public in a desperate "do something" mood all but ensures that his popularity won't remain stable for long... particularly when the print-money spending creates 1970's style stagflation with continued unemployment. Obama's plan is to ram his entire liberal domestic program down our throats as quickly and quietly as possible- while putting a lid on other potential power centers like the Clinton machine and keeping the GOP back on their heels with the help of his MSM allies.

However, the Voice in my Head blog reports that in the wake of the mild rift between Biden/Hillary and Obama re. support of Iran's demonstrators, it now appears as though Hillary and perhaps some of the old guard are hedging their bets... so as to stake a claim on told ya so credits when Obama goes into his inevitable political tailspin:

Last week, the New York Times dropped this tibit about the Obama administration's response to the protests in Iran:

Even while supporting the president’s approach, senior members of the administration, including Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, would like to strike a stronger tone in support of the protesters, administration officials said.

To that point, criticism of President Obama was mostly confined to Republicans and conservative leaning blogs. And while that story raised more than a few eyebrows, it was quickly dismissed by the White House.

However, since that time President Obama has begun to move away from his early hesitation in speaking out against the thuggish regime and for the protesters as reportedly advocated by both Biden and Clinton.

But even with this new approach, new evidence has emerged that Biden and Clinton may have themselves moved further toward the view that Obama is simply not up to the task.

So with Obama's poll numbers now slipping - the negatives are dragging him down- the Clintons' timing here in bringing-in such a loyal Clintonite Rottweiler like Sidney Blumenthal (who coined the phrase "vast, right-wing conspiracy") as consultant to Hillary is... let's just say they know what they're doing (as noted by Dan Riehl). And a betting man would keep an eye on them, for Clinton will be pro-actively planning her future with or without Obama- she's a canary in the coal mine that indicates top-level Democrats'/Clintonites' confidence in his leadership.

It shouldn't surprise anyone then if Hillary Clinton were to do a Bobby Kennedy, should it? RFK was Johnson's Attorney General -inherited from JFK- and when President Johnson's popularity started to slip, Kennedy turned on him and ran for President against him in the 1968 primaries. Anyone telling you today that the Democrats wouldn't run a serious primary challenge against Obama in 2012 -which I have heard and read often- plainly doesn't know what they are talking about.

Some time in the next 2 years, Clinton would simply resign as Secretary of State -saying that she can no longer support Obama, of course- and then run for President in 2012, perhaps presenting herself as the best (moderate) hope against Sarah Palin's appeal as a potential first female president.

You can never really count the Clintons out... and they've almost certainly schemed and brewed up a post-Obama "plan B" as The One employs politically high-risk policies at home and abroad... why wouldn't they? There's no real loyalty there, everybody knows that.

And although they are careful to say the right things these days, the pramatic, insatiably power-hungry Clintons must have all the bases covered, and are surely watching his ill-advised programs unfold like a gift from heaven as they wait for the exact right moment to expoit his mistakes. It would be hard to imagine Bill-n-Hill not holding a grudge too, desirous of revenge after the denial of a presidency they thought they owned, and of course all the things that were said by both sides in the primaries.

Hillary ain't going down with the USS Obamanation, bet on it- serving Chairman O to the bitter end is not the way the Clintons plan to end their legacy. And as for other Democrats who were caught surprised by the meteoric rise of Obama, then just went with the flow-- there's a lot of shallow support out there that could evaporate as quickly as it appeared. The arrogant serial-opportunist Obama seems destined to offend much of the party's old guard, as well as anyone else that he used to get elected... but now no longer finds useful.

The way he's burning through the unprecedented goodwill he's enjoyed is beyond me- a compulsive narcissistic personality disorder, coupled to a megalomaniac's warped sense of self-awareness has become the only apparent explanation. That, and he's incredibly spoiled after having the rails lubricated by a crooked Chicago Machine and adoring DNC for years... Obama simply doesn't seem to realize how quickly it can all disappear- he obviously believes his own mythical narrative... ala Elvis.

But Barack Obama's personality flaws and misguided decision-making are the kinds of things that political opponents tend to take notice -and full advantage- of.

You can be sure that the Clintons have- and are planning accordingly.

Shameless Opportunist Obama Mangles Jack Kemp's Legacy

President Obama said in a statement regarding the passing of Jack Kemp that he remembers the NFL quarterback-turned-politician as someone who held strong beliefs and who learned valuable lessons on the football field.  Obama went-on to say, incredibly, that Kemp "understood that divisions involving race and class stood in the way of the country's common goals".

I don't know about you, but I sure don't recall Jack Kemp talking much about these things very often- nor framing his views in racial terms as Obama so often does.  Kemp was among the most ambitious promoters of free-market capitalism and trickle-down economic theory in the 80s,  along with Ronald Reagan and Art Laffer... and he was interested in introducing such ideas to those who some other conservatives wouldn't bother trying to convince... such as urban poor.  Kemp felt that an opportunity society was best for all, including in the inner-city where voters were used by politicians and had their hope and ambition squelched by the addictive dependency spawned by welfare provisions of liberal Great Society programs introduced in the 60s.  


Kemp's reaching out to the urban poor was to introduce his conservative-opportunity agenda to a new audience... and nothing like Obama's entitlement-based race-baiting.  But that didn't stop the President from twisting facts to make it appear that this true conservative was far more "reasonable" and moderate than today's "right wing" GOP.   Pure propaganda to divide Republicans... and built on a complete distortion of what Kemp stood for.  Is there any circumstance where this President would find it inappropriate to play the race card?   After this spectacle, it's hard to imagine one... nor any event that doesn't somehow relate to how Barack is here to save us all.  Johnny Cochran would be proud of him though, no doubt (must have watched the trial).  But for the rest of us to have to listen to such calculating and divisive  drivel at a moment like this- it's appalling.

Jack Kemp was a sincere and truthful genuine patriot who stood for proven, pragmatic economic solutions and an opportunity society based on personal freedom and initiative.  The truth is that Kemp's values and beliefs had precious little in common with the far-left agenda Obama's trying to foist upon us today.  And when you break all your promises, lie habitually, refuse to answer legitimate questions, and flip-flop like a beached flounder... who gave you the right to comment or interpret Jack Kemp's legacy, Mr President... and in a way that conveniently serves your own political purposes?  

Of course, Obama left out most of what else Jack Kemp stood for, too... like that liberal economic policies of taxing and spending stand in the way of the nation's prosperity. And perhaps the President noticed that Kemp, like most Republicans, looked at Americans as Americans--- and not members of a racial or class group to be exploited for political gain by pitting them against each other.

Anyone who's ever heard him speak can tell you that the centerpiece of Kemp's platform was a flat income tax... a far cry from Obama's soak-the-rich tax hikes and redistributionist/anti-free-market/big government blitzkreig.  Jack Kemp was a supply-side economics advocate, and unabashed capitalist... period.  Of course, Obama didn't mention any of this... his own manufactured reality (that he wishes to download into your noggin) is far more useful to him than the truth... per usual.

Obama could care less about Jack Kemp's legacy... actually, he despises every policy that was dear to him.  The serial-opportunist Obama should be ashamed of himself for twisting Kemp's words... but of course, he's not.  Narcissists are often callous... even ruthless.  He'll sleep fine, as he likely thinks this kind of stuff is real clever and slick... maybe even share a chuckle or two over it with head partisan-weasel Emanuel.  

Kemp was a great man and a proud American who respected and clearly loved what made this country the most successful in history... not a vengeful Marxist out to turn it all upside-down while presenting himself as a some sort of savior from America's "mistakes of the past".  

Based on his record and words, Kemp would have been strongly opposed to almost the entire Obama agenda- the spending, centralization of power, race/class rabble rousing, and statist-socialist fantasy world he'd like to bring to us all.  Obama has no business twisting Kemp's memory to hector the GOP and legitimize his strange, angry, race-based "issues"... but he did it anyway.

Shame on you, Barack Obama-

And God Bless You, Jack- we're going to miss the real you.