http://www.mlgoodell.webs.com

President Barack Obama and the Democrat Congressional Leadership are making two distinct gambles in their decision to cram “health care reform” down the American people’s throats. The first is that Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi will be able to muster enough votes to gain passage.

Given the fact that her caucus seems to be in the middle of insurrection right now, as evidenced first by their successfully forcing Charles “Sticky Fingers” Rangel to step down from the Chair of the House Ways and Means Committee, and second, by rejecting her designated replacement Pete Stark, it is doubtful she can find enough Democrat Representatives willing to commit political suicide.

Losing the first gamble might obviate the second, though that is not certain. The second gamble is that the American people are too stupid to remember this outrage for eight months. Actually, this might not be a gamble, but an honest assessment of the Administration’s view of the American people. Actually, the worst aspects of either of the legislative behemoths masquerading as reform are a reflection of their belief that we are not capable of making important health care decisions for ourselves.

If the House passes the Senate bill, the American people will not forget. This anger is not a flash in the pan, and it isn’t directed exclusively at the health care bills. It is anger at the rampant expansion of the federal government, accompanied by near-criminal disregard for the economic future of the United States. The anger is born primarily of fear, fear of the future, and a horrifying sense that our children and grandchildren will be made destitute by this feckless Administration.

One can only hope that there are enough Representatives with sufficient common sense to kill this bill. If  there are, Obama’s presidency will be in ruins, his hopes of transforming the United States into a worker’s paradise irrevocably shattered. The hopes shared by many Americans for genuine health care reform will be dashed, again, by the left’s tragic overreach.

This is the last chant of a desperate majority, that if this bill is not passed, there will be no health care reform. Yet this doesn’t have to be the case. If Republicans can unite behind a practical approach to incremental health care reform, it is possible they can attract enough moderate Democrat support to force even a resentful, vengeful Pelosi to allow it to proceed.

Here is a simple approach to health care reform which is based on that favorite liberal trope, fairness. It can pay for itself and greatly reduce the cost of health insurance, while extending access to those currently unable to afford it.

It really is quite simple. The first step, in the name of fairness, is to treat employer provided health insurance as taxable income. This is a necessary reform because today there are two kinds of American with insurance, those who receive tax-free benefits, and individuals who are forced to pay for their insurance with dollars which have already been taxed.

Treating medical benefits as taxable income is only the first step. The second is to provide employees with the option of continuing to receive the benefits their employer provides or to receive the value of those benefits in cash. The third step is to allow taxpayers to deduct 80% of all medical expenses.

Many people will seek individual coverage, especially if individuals are allowed to form one giant group, which should result in greater competition, and lower insurance premiums. By allowing a one year window in which insurance companies are required to accept new customers regardless of pre-existing conditions, no currently insured American will face the loss of insurance coverage.

Finally, this proposal will generate additional revenues, which will allow for subsidized access to medical insurance for those currently frozen out of the market. These subsidies can be provided on a sliding, means-tested scale which mandates how much individuals and families should be required to pay for their coverage, based on income and family size. This is no different than the scales used in higher education financial aid offices to determine how much a student’s parents should be expected to pay for university costs.

This simple proposal will result in more equitable taxation, will provide greater freedom and portability of medical insurance, will help drive down the cost of insurance, and will increase access to insurance for those unable to afford it today.

This is just an outline. I’ll leave it to the wonks to work out the details, but I challenge anyone to tell me why this won’t work and shouldn’t be implemented in place of the disastrous new entitlement with which Democrats are currently trying to shoot themselves in the head.

http://www.mlgoodell.webs.com

A wise man once said a writer’s greatness is determined by his neologisms. In my illustrious career I have coined only one new word, as opposed to countless malapropisms. That word, a splendidly facile combination of self-effacing and self-deprecating, is self-defecating. Many people, upon first confronting the word in use, assume what we body linguists tend to describe as “a squirmy, icky posture.”

I suppose it is easy to understand their reaction, given its evocation of certain bodily functions, yet I maintain the term’s legitimacy, and am undeterred in my belief that it will soon sweep the word.

This tortured introduction serves only to support my claim that as a self-defecating individual I do not resent the media’s failure to give me due credit as the architect of the Republican triumph during yesterday’s epic Health Care Reform Summit. Yet the fact remains, the GOP escaped the ambush because they followed my instructions.

You no doubt recall my recent essay, “Heading for an Ambush?” I advised Republicans to stress that they do not support the mammoth bills already passed by the House and Senate, “and should emphasize that the majority of Americans support their position. They should say this, not once, but constantly. “

The Republicans did this.

I also wrote, “Beyond blanket opposition to the existing bills, Republicans should reiterate their, and the public’s opposition to any wholesale make over, or takeover, of the medical industry.”

Check.

How about “They should delineate their proposed reforms. They should fill the airwaves with their proposals, not just describing them, but offering detailed explanations of what they entail, and what benefits will accrue to the public.”

Done.

I don’t need credit. I’m happy to have been of service, though, honestly, how hard is it to say “Thank you?” Eric Cantor? Paul Ryan? Mitch McConnell? C’mon guys, credit where credit’s due.

Oh well. No doubt the acclamation will come later, once they are apprised of my neologistic prowess. In the meantime, a brief recap of the Shootout at the No Way Corral. President Barack Obama (D-Chi) kicked off the summit with his now rather shopworn bipartisan imposture, larded with a mendacious and condescending assurance to the Republicans that he really is interested in any ideas they may have.

This was, of course, the key to his strategy, to expose the opposition as shallow, recalcitrant, utterly devoid of useful ideas. However, the GOP refused to fall into that trap. They took him at his word, and offered idea after idea, explaining and justifying them, and whenever the President or his legislative henchpeople (another neologism!) claimed the idea was in their bill, they respectfully said, “No, it isn’t.”

It wasn’t supposed to play like this, and it didn’t take long for the President to change his tack from “Give me your ideas,” to “Let’s find things we can agree on.” There were in fact many goals held in common. Where the sides differed was how they could best be achieved. For the Republicans, it was simple. They can’t be achieved in the existing bill.

Obama’s scorn was palpable when Paul Ryan hoisted the mammoth bill on his desk. “Don’t tell me,” he sneered. “That’s the bill, right?” He dismissed Ryan’s ploy as mere stagecraft, as trickery not in the spirit of the summit. He repeatedly cut off Ryan, Cantor and any other Republican who attempted to read from the bill, suggesting the content was irrelevant. Yet it was entirely relevant.

It is the bill, the devil in the unspoken details, that is the point. It is why the Republicans, and most of America, are opposed to it. The Republicans reiterated their assertion that the bill was the problem, that it needs to be scrapped, that we need to start over with something manageable.

At the end of the day the positions were made indelibly clear. Republicans want to give the American people more choices, more freedom, and the mechanism to drive down the cost of health care. Democrats don’t trust the American people to make their own decisions. The summit concluded with Obama calling for the Democrats to go it alone, and to face the consequences next November. “That’s what elections are for,” he said.

Now Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi are engaged in their own game of chicken, each calling for the other to go first. Both have serious doubts about their ability to muster even a simple majority in their respective houses.

One has to ask why Obama is so eager to drive his party over this electoral cliff. Why is he so intent on authoring the greatest political collapse in the history of Congress? Is it his arrogant belief that he knows better than the American people what is good for him? Is it a fit of pique at the Democrats’ failure to come up with a workable bill? Or is he perhaps in thrall to a vision of 72 legislative virgins waiting at his beck and call?

http://www.mlgoodell.webs.com

The most difficult thing about arguing with liberals is their more, shall we say, nuanced view of the world. For liberals, how they feel about an issue is the only thing that matters. To them, words are simply tools to help them win their case. They don’t have any specific meaning in and of themselves. Words, then, are like facts, malleable, fungible, and not subject to rules of reason or logic.

Take for example the furor which arose back in 2004 when “60 Minutes” revealed documents which proved George W. Bush had lied about his National Guard experience. It didn’t take long for intrepid bloggers to prove the documents were fakes. Undeterred, liberals argued the legitimacy of the documents was immaterial, because they “knew” they were true.

Or take Anthropomorphic Global Warming (AGW). For years liberals relied on the myth of “settled science” to bludgeon skeptics into submission. Skeptical scientists confronted the choice of going with the flow, or facing professional ruin by asking questions. Then last fall thousands of emails were released showing that the leading AGW advocates manufactured research, falsified data, and actively suppressed all dissenting views.

When confronted with documented evidence of Global Warmingist perfidy, liberals replied that the science didn’t matter. Everybody still knows it is true. One of the last people still wholeheartedly embracing the myth of AGW is President Barack Obama (D-Chi), who in his State of the Union address last month repeated the shibboleth of settled science when he said “there are those who disagree with the overwhelming scientific evidence on climate change.”

Obviously, Obama wasn’t paying attention. But then again, not paying attention is the hallmark of liberal disputation. The liberal will make a statement, such as “We can’t afford to fight two wars at the same time.” If you point out that we’re only fighting one war, that the war in Iraq is over, that we won, that having troops stationed in the country doesn’t mean we are at war, or we would still be at war with Germany and Japan,” the more enlightened liberal will say, “Well, it was a war of choice. Iraq didn’t have any weapons of mass destruction.” The less enlightened, which is to say more common liberal will chant, “Bush lied, people died.”

The fact that you refuted the assertion underlying the liberal’s original argument is immaterial. He or she will simply bring up a new argument, flinging around more convenient facts and chameleon words. If you disprove the subsequent statement, or point out that the statements have no bearing on the original argument, the liberal will shift ground again. This merry go round will continue until the rational party throws up his hands in frustration and says, “I can’t argue with you.”

At this point the liberal will smirk and say, “That’s because you’re wrong,” thereby winning another argument.

Obama is the poster child of rhetorical contortionists. He won election by posing as a centrist, his mendacity abetted by media minions quick to shut down anyone who questioned their candidate’s ideological pedigree. The past year has seen the steady unraveling of the Emperor’s New Clothes, which culminated with yesterday’s unveiling of Obama’s new health care proposal. Combining the worst of both existing bills, increasing expenses and taxes, and establishing an entirely new regulatory agency, this pastiche of bad ideas came just three days before the much ballyhooed “health care summit,” during which Obama promised to finally listen to Republicans’ ideas.

That the subject was closed before it was opened was immaterial, because Obama didn’t mean it anyway. He had no interest in bipartisanship, rather he sought to give the impression of bipartisanship. Or rather, the impression of seeking bipartisanship. That his new proposal gave the lie to his posturing was immaterial, because he wasn’t paying attention. Those were merely words he spoke, and words have no meaning.

Take another example. Just one day after releasing his new $3.8 trillion budget proposal, featuring an unconscionable, fiscally insane, economy-busting $1.6 trillion deficit, Obama chided the American people that “we have to learn to live within our means.” Those were just words to him. Epic, beggaring deficits? That was so yesterday.

Within days of announcing a commission to help us figure out how to eliminate these irresponsible deficits, as if they simply appeared and weren’t the result of his own policy decisions, the President introduced a new health care proposal destined to dramatically increase already impossibly bloated deficits. The Obama administration looks like nothing more than the glutton in Monty Python’s “The Meaning of Life.”

http://www.mlgoodell.webs.com

The worst thing about CBC not covering the Olympics is we have to watch them on NBC. According to  NBC, there is more to the Winter Olympics than pairs figure skating. For instance, there's women's figure skating, men's figure skating, and lots of interesting stories about American figure skaters. Also, this year, for the first time ever, Americans learned there is something called Nordic Combined. Amazing what a silver medal will do for coverage.

Among other things we are learning this year is Bob Costas does a really awful Bob Costas impersonation. Last night, however, we learned a fascinating fact about Canadians. Bob welcomed Mary Carillo into his studio. Carillo used to make one's skin crawl while doing tennis commentary. Tragically, she has expanded her brief to include the Olympics. Sitting there sporting a Nancy Pelosi Page Boy haircut, which in itself was enough to make one look for an open window in a tall building, during an introduction to a special report on, you guessed it, polar bears, (apparently they were running the zamboni over at the figure skating rink), she announced, "As everybody knows, 90% of Canadians live between their border and ours."

After pondering the import of that statement, which suddenly assumed a greater urgency than my previous speculation whether Mary or Bob had undergone more facelifts, I concluded she must mean the other 10% of Canadians are expats. While it’s entirely possible they are all part of Celine Dion’s posse, it’s still hard to figure out what that has to do with polar bears. By the way, if you missed Carillo’s report, polar bears are cute, cuddly little creatures, but you don’t want to get too close to them. Sort of like Johnny Weir, when you come to think of it.

Weir, in case you missed the wall-to-wall buildup, is America’s hope for a Men’s Figure Skating medal. Weir designs his own costumes, and “pushes the envelope,” as they say in euphemistic circles. You might think of him as Lambert on skates.

In other Olympic news, there are a lot of people from a lot of weird little countries, competing in events in which Americans don’t do very well. If you look closely, you might catch a glimpse of them in brief little montages the folks at NBC like to run just before another of the innumerable commercial breaks. It’s enough to make you nostalgic for Howard Cosell.

http://www.mlgoodell.webs.com

For a candidate who was elected by running against “politics as usual,” Barack Obama (D-Chi) has proven to be a quick study. His much ballyhooed health care reform summit is just the latest example of no holds barred political maneuvering. Following on the specious pleas for bipartisanship with which he leavened his State of the Union address, Obama’s offer to consider Republicans’ ideas on health care reform has all the earmarks of an ambush waiting to happen.

If he were sincere in his desire to craft a mutually acceptable bill, he would scrap the unwieldy, overwhelmingly despised leviathans pushed through Congress, and promise to start afresh. Instead, he designated those bills as the starting point, placing Republicans in a no-win situation.

The smart move would be to say “Thanks, but no thanks” to the President’s offer. It is impossible to make an unworkable bill better by adding to it, which means even if the Democrats agree to include such cherished conservative ideas as tort reform, insurance portability and the ability to purchase out-of-state policies, Republicans would still be obligated to vote against it.

For one thing, any provisions for limiting malpractice pay outs, or tightening standards under which malpractice suits could be brought would be so full of loopholes and convoluted qualifiers as to render them unenforceable. This in inevitable as the Democrats are no more likely to alienate trial lawyers than they are union leaders or the Hollywood establishment.

Since the existing bills place all private insurance policies under the control of the Health Care Secretary who alone has the authority to determine what each insurer must cover, this will result in uniform national standards, thereby rendering the ability to purchase out-of-state policies moot. There is no advantage for a New Yorker to buy a policy from Kentucky if that policy is identical to those in New York. Therefore, this conservative goal is the one most likely to be accepted.

Since boycotting the summit would give the Democrats a much-needed weapon to use against the resurgent Republicans in the 2010 midterm elections, it is a nonstarter. Republicans have to show up, and they have to hope for the best.

Yet they don’t need to walk into the ambush blindly. There are steps they can and should take, starting today. The most important measure is to ramp up criticism of the existing bills. They should stress that the bills are unworkable, unreadable, and contain items the consequences of which are unknown and unknowable. One example of the sort of unforeseen consequences the bills contain is the state of men’s athletic programs in America’s colleges and universities.

When Congress passed the Education Amendments to the Civil Rights Act in 1972, there was no reference to athletics in Title IX, yet that provision was interpreted to prevent schools from allowing more males than females to participate in intermural athletics. Since more males than females are interested in sports, Title IX as interpreted has forced universities to scrub programs in tennis, wrestling and track and field. Again, this was not the original intent of the legislation, nor was it anticipated in any fashion. Yet this is the result.

The existing bills contain more than 2,000 pages promising similar, and equally unforeseen, consequences. The bills were assembled piecemeal in order to induce certain individual Congressmen and women to come on board. They aren’t coherent works, and cutting and pasting them will make them even worse.

Republicans have to stress that they will not support such legislative travesties, and should emphasize that the majority of Americans support their position. They should say this, not once, but constantly. This should be their mantra heading into the summit. They should further remind the President and his legislative henchmen that the public’s opposition, far from being the result of a failure to properly explain the measures, has increased each time Obama talked about them.

Beyond blanket opposition to the existing bills, Republicans should reiterate their, and the public’s opposition to any wholesale make over, or takeover, of the medical industry. They should delineate their proposed reforms. They should fill the airwaves with their proposals, not just describing them, but offering detailed explanations of what they entail, and what benefits will accrue to the public.

They need to go into the summit with the burden of change resting squarely on the shoulders of the architects of this legislative fiasco. Democrats need to be forced into a corner where they have to explain why they don’t want to include Republican proposals. They are the ones who have to explain why they won’t work. If they can do so, they might  win. If they can’t, the Republicans will escape the ambush, and possibly even turn the tables. They can and must demonstrate that they are the party of ideas when it comes to health care reform.

There is much to be said for being the “Party of No” when the American people abhor the policies being opposed, but there is even greater merit in being the party that gives voters what they want and need.

http://www.mlgoodell.webs.com

Not long ago I wrote a piece called “Hope for Change.” Based on his (eventual) reaction to the Undy Bomber, I thought it was possible that President Barack Obama (D-Chi) might have the potential to learn on the job. He might understand that his lofty objectives were not capable of standing up to the realities of the world. Many readers wrote to chide me for my optimism. After watching last night’s State of the Union address, I have to admit, they were right, I was wrong.

Perhaps the most interesting thing about Obama’s address was the interplay behind him. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-SF) reprised her  role as Veronica, the Star Struck Cheerleader, popping up and down in gleeful applause. Next to her sat Vice President Joe Biden (D-Scranton), nodding sagely at the President’s gems. He kept it up with such metronomic consistency that at least one viewer wondered if it was Joe Biden Bobblehead night at the Capitol.

Occasionally Biden would get so caught up in his mission to provide the imprimatur of gravitas to his protege’s pronouncements that he would forget to spring enthusiastically to his feet. It was then that Pelosi would pause in her own leaping routines to lean over and remind the Veep of his duty. And then he would dutifully rise to join the cascading Hosannas.

Another highlight was Obama’s unexpected levity. For instance, after a good twenty minutes of reciting expensive new programs, sorry, investments in middle class American families, he shifted gears to speak sternly about deficits and the debt. Not unlike Inspector Renaud, he professed himself “Shocked, shocked to find we’re spending our grandchildren into fiscal slavery.”

That is why he is going to freeze Federal spending. Well, not everywhere in the budget. Actually, not even in half the budget. Okay, he’s going to freeze about 25% of the budget. And here he displayed his heretofore hidden comedic talent. He paused just long enough, and–wait for it–added, “starting next year.”

The Republican side of the hall erupted in spontaneous laughter. It didn’t last long, as they all quickly realized how indecorous it sounded, to be laughing at the President. Some might even see it as a show of disrespect. Then again, they could be forgiven their lapse in judgement, having sat through what was already the most partisan State of the Union address this observer had ever seen.

At one point Obama called out the Republicans for not applauding after his fanciful litany of tax breaks. “I thought I would have gotten some applause out of them,” he remarked. In fact, he should have been grateful nobody cried, “You lie, sir.”

Later in the speech, addressing that increasingly common question, “How’s that whole hope and change thing working out for you?” Obama fell back on his default position, that of campaigning against George W. Bush. He recited the litany of woes his administration confronted upon assuming office. He embellished the list, and went on so long that I felt like the little old lady in “Blazing Saddles.” I wanted to cry out, “Won’t somebody help that poor man?”

Then, upon finishing his jeremiad, Obama glanced at the Republicans, and smirked. I have  watched every one of Bush and Bill Clinton’s State of the Union addresses, that would be sixteen in all, and I have never seen the President smirk at the opposition. It gave the lie to his bi- or post-partisan protestations, and added gall to his frequent reiterations of that standard throughout the speech.

Space doesn’t permit any discussion of the foreign policy components of the speech. Then again, Obama only devoted seven minutes, out of more than 70, to the subject. Vice President Cheney was right. Our President is trying to pretend we are not at war.

After a remarkably unsuccessful first year, many observers were waiting for his “pivot,” when Obama would prove himself the pragmatist they thought he was. He did pivot, all right. He attempted to recast himself as the candidate for hope and change. His first term is more than 25% completed now, and serious observers can be forgiven for wondering when Obama is going to stop running for President.

http://www.mlgoodell.webs.com

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s fondness for archaic racial terms has helped make John Heileman and Mark Halperin’s book, “Game Change,” a runaway best seller. Ostensibly a behind-the-scenes account of the 2008 Presidential campaign, the book reads like a novel, and manages to hold the reader’s interest to the very end, despite the fact that the ending was not in question.

The authors stated in their introduction that they were aiming for “the ground that lies between history and journalism.” If that ground is a pastiche of rumor and gossip, they have succeeded.

 Heileman, national political correspondent and columnist for “New York” magazine, and Halperin, an editor and senior political analyst for “Time” magazine, relied on “deep background” interviews with junior and senior campaign staff and some of the candidates themselves to unleash the most dismaying bout of bloodletting and score-settling since the Rwanda genocide.

Sifting through this stack of soiled laundry and titillation, it was hard to escape the conclusion that by raising their sights from trivial politicians to really important Reality TV stars and sports celebrities, the authors  might be able to land gigs reporting for “The National Enquirer” or even TMZ.com.

While Reid’s plantation patter led the daily news feeds, it didn’t begin to convey the scope and significance of the book’s revelations. From Elizabeth Edwards ripping her blouse off in an airport departure lounge and screaming, “Look at me!” to Sarah Palin rocking back and forth in a catatonic state while surrounded by heaps of clothing and half-eaten pizzas, the authors seemed to have as their goal the utter denigration of every public figure, save one.

Barack Obama came through nearly unscathed, though, in the interest of balance the authors were obligated to note that even he was flawed. At times he had a tendency to defer to his advisors, even when he knew a better way to do things. Plus, he smokes.

If occasionally Obama unleashed a curse word or two, that’s okay. That’s how political leaders convey their gritty connection with the world. In fact, with the exception of Palin, it seems no national figure is capable of expressing the simplest emotion without larding it with a slew of F-bombs. Nobody could top  John McCain, though. He once proved himself to be a potty-mouth Titan by unleashing a string of ten consecutive epithets, reducing his wife, Cindy, to tears. The authors did a nice job of using capital letters and punctuation to capture the eloquent modulation of McCain’s curses.

Somewhere deep inside this supermarket checkout counter work lies the kernel of relevance. The 2008 Presidential election did represent a game change. It was the first time the national media, on a wholesale basis, abdicated their responsibility to inform the public. Though rarely impartial, they had never before so blatantly chosen sides, going so far as to suppress information which reflected badly on their chosen candidate.

While not completely ignoring it, allowing Hillary Clinton and McCain to complain about the unlevel playing field, the authors, as two of the leading figures in the relevant media, declined to discuss this most significant element of change.

The book is highly readable, especially for those who like their revenge served hot and slimy, but it is a far cry from what has passed for political analysis in the past. Its only true historical value may lie in its depiction of a nation which has forgotten how to govern itself.

http://www.mlgoodell.webs.com

In a stunning setback for those planning to impose European-style Social Democracy on the American people, Scott Brown was elected to fill the US Senate seat vacated by the late Ted Kennedy. Brown became the first Massachusetts Republican to be elected Senator since 1972.

Election coverage was spirited and entertaining, especially on MSNBC, where its stable of impartial analysts devoted hours of inquiry and angst to the question, What Went Wrong? There were many theories bandied about, including Martha Coakley was a horrible campaigner, the national Democrat Party leadership let Coakley down, people were upset at the slow pace of health care reform, the economy, stupid, Obama hasn’t been liberal enough, and of course, George W. Bush.

No one was more petty and childish than Keith Olberman, the former sportscaster. After Coakley’s gracious concession speech, Olberman cut away from Brown’s speech to deliver a tirade so filled with invective as to make his usual tantrums models of decorum. Falling back on the shopworn sporting adage, “Show me a good loser, and I’ll show you a loser,” Olberman transformed it into a new one, “Show me a potty-mouthed, spittle-spraying MSNBC commentator, and I’ll show you a loser.”

The upshot of Brown’s election is that the government takeover of American health care is dead in the water. Oh, all the Democrat leaders mouthed the party line last night. They discussed options, ranging from delaying Brown’s certification, to a legislative stratagem called reconciliation, to having the House of Representatives pass the Senate version of the bill with the promise of amending the legislation after Obama signs it.

These were all reflective of a 1/18 mentality, the thinking of a bygone era. Because on 1/19, the world, at least that little bit of it inside the Washington Beltway, changed forever. According to Charles Krauthammer, passing the new bill before Brown is seated would cause insurrection.

Asking the House to pass the Senate bill is a nonstarter in the post 1/19 world. Recall that the original bill passed by the slimmest of margins, 220-215, with a number of Democrats voting in opposition, and another bloc supporting it only under House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s lash. After witnessing Massachusetts, one of the bluest of blue states, elect a Republican solely on the basis of his opposition to the bill, at least 64 Democrat Representatives are asking themselves what chance they will have in Missouri, Arizona or Nevada if they defy their constituents’ wishes.

Add to this reluctance Pelosi’s suddenly precarious position at the top. Her aggressive, partisan, ruthless leadership has helped bring Democrats to the precipice. She can no longer wield her power as effectively, because that power is waning, increasingly likely to slip from her grasp in 2010.

In some ways the death of Obamacare weakens Republicans’ hand. If the bill dies, they can no longer run on the “Repeal the Bill” platform. Absent this highly effective marketing tool, they may go back to being the damaged product they remain. Make no mistake, Brown’s election was not a vote for Republicans, it was a vote against European-style Social Democracy. Until the GOP manages to rid itself of its reputation as power-greedy, big-government-friendly, and cynical, it still has the potential to fumble away the gift leftist Democrats have given it.

The temptation to gloat is enormous, but it is exactly the wrong thing to do. The right thing is to show true leadership, and a statesmanlike willingness to elevate policy over politics. Starting now, a delegation of Republicans should approach the Obama administration with an offer to sit down and negotiate a truly bipartisan, incremental approach to resolving some of the serious health care issues many Americans face.

The first point of agreement is that every American should have access to affordable, quality health care, but not every American should be forced to have it. The second point should be that Americans want and need more options, not fewer. Most Americans want to make up their own minds, not have the Federal government tell them what to do.

If the two parties can agree on tort reform, increasing competition among insurers and expanding the pool of doctors and other health care professionals, then they can begin to explore incremental needs-based health insurance subsidies.

The outreach should be made quietly at first, and only if they are rebuffed should Republicans come forward with their plan. If they make the effort and fail, then the game is still afoot, but it is important for Republicans to stand for something positive. Not being Democrats is an effective short term play, but Republicans should not forget that just 14 months ago, being Republican was the kiss of death.

http://www.mlgoodell.webs.com

President Barack Obama (D-Chi) went up to Massachusetts this past weekend on the most unlikely of tasks, to rally the base, to salvage a Senate seat that as recently as ten days ago was a lock for the Democrat party. Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley was on cruise control, tomorrow’s special election to fill the seat long held by the late Ted Kennedy all but a formality.

Then Scott Brown, Coakley’s virtually unknown opponent, began running on one issue, and one issue only, that he will stop Obamacare. He promised to uphold the Republican filibuster, and send health care reform “back to the drawing board.” The state’s Republican minority responded first, followed by Independents, who outnumber both Democrats and Republicans in the state. Finally, even some Democrats have started jumping ship as Coakley, and national Democrats, recognizing the crisis, have skewed to the left to activate “the base.”

One would think that enjoying success in Massachusetts by running against Obamacare should mark the death knell of the legislation. Unfortunately, that isn’t the case. Democrats are already exploring options to negate Brown’s likely victory. The first involves certifying the election. Word is out that it will take at least two weeks to do so, allowing Democrats enough time to force the legislation down an unhappy nation’s gullet.

Certification would take at least two weeks in the event of a clear victory. For a Republican to win an election in Massachusetts is comparable to the rule involving Heavyweight Boxing Championships. The challenger has to knock out the champ. He can’t win on points. For Brown to win cleanly, he will need at least a ten percentage point advantage, and that is highly unlikely. Anything closer, and there will be a recount. It is at that point that Democrats can start unearthing uncounted ballots. It seems that every good liberal in the United States has been issued a box of ballots, which sit in their garages until they are needed.

Even if Brown wins the election and is certified in a timely manner, the Democrats still have options. There are various legislative ruses they can pull to ensure that Brown’s vote is inconsequential. Failing this, they can always start bribing certain Republicans. Bribery has definitely paid off big with wavering Democrats.

How Democrat leadership can even contemplate going ahead with this fiasco of a “reform” defies belief. Perhaps it is time for Obama to step forward and provide us with some straight talk, with an honest assessment of his position on the matter. This doesn’t mean he needs to sell the plan to the American people. He has been doing that with a frenzy for the past six months, and every time he tries, more people rise up in opposition, and his once lustrous approval ratings have steadily fallen.

Instead, what Obama needs to say is, “The American people have spoken loud and clear, and understand this, I have heard you. I understand that you do not want the US government to takeover the provision of medical care in this country. I understand that you don’t trust the ability of government to do this job, that you believe health care will become more expensive, and less efficient. Let me be clear, I have heard your concerns about skyrocketing deficits which will impoverish your children and your children’s children. I have heard this, but I don’t care.

“I realize you are opposed to this program, that you think it will fail disastrously, but I don’t care. The fact is, I am smarter than you, and I know what is good for you, even if you don’t. There are times when humility and the willingness to listen to those with whom we agree is timely and proper. For me, those times are when I am facing our nation’s enemies. But when it comes the American people, it is time for you to shut up and take it. This is for your own good.”

http://www.mlgoodell.webs.com

There is an Irish legend about something called “The Kennedy Seat.” According to the legend, whoever fulfills the quest to attain this seat will be granted a mythical power called “The Sixtieth Vote.” Two people have accomplished the set of tasks necessary to attaining the seat, but only one will be able to claim it. The final task remaining is contest called “The Vote,” which will take place next Tuesday in the mist-shrouded kingdom known as Massachusetts.

Amazingly, one of the two remaining contestants, a knight named Scott Brown, from the Republican tribe, has sworn to forgo the power of The Sixtieth Vote should he complete the quest. For the other contestant, the Princess Martha Coakley, The Sixtieth Vote is crucial to the survival of her tribe. Known as the Democrats, Coakley’s tribe has long been ascendant in the kingdom of Massachusetts, and in recent years has gobbled up vast amounts of territory which had been ruled by the Republican tribe.

According to legend, the great Irish Wizard Joseph once bestowed the seat upon the Kennedy clan, long one of the most powerful clans within the Democrat tribe. Until recently, a man named Teddy sat upon the seat. He was one of the last members of the clan capable of wielding the power and influence necessary to occupy the seat, and in his waning years was hailed by many in his tribe as one of the greatest in his clan.

Today, a new day has dawned, and some oracles predict that the seat will pass from the Democrats’ hand. Mr. Brown has gone so far as to rename the Kennedy Seat. He calls it the People’s Seat. As the day of the crucial vote approaches, many Democrat tribal leaders tremble in fear as they contemplate the loss of the Kennedy Seat and the power of The Sixtieth Vote.

Democrat warriors from throughout the land, led by a former chief, Bill Clinton, have descended upon the kingdom to lend their aid to Coakley in her final quest. The Democrats have seen their once vast power steadily weakened by a series of plagues called Cap and Trade, Stimulus, Bailout and Gitmo. Damaging though they were, none could compare with the power and devastation wrought by the most recent plague to descend upon them, Health Care Reform.

Health Care Reform was unleashed upon the unsuspecting Democrats by a fierce Dragon Lady called The Pelosi. Covered by giant scales and capable of immolating opponents with her fiery breath, The Pelosi drove hundreds of terrified tribal elders to do her bidding. Aided by an aging Knight called Reid, she forced the Democrats leaders to kneel in obedience to Health Care Reform.

Throughout the land, villagers who once believed Health Care Reform was a Holy Grail promising long life, prosperity and good crops, soon recognized it as a form of slavery. Though Republican tribal leaders remained cowering in caves and hovels following their disastrous defeat at Obamatide, the villagers rose up in protest. The Democrat tribal leaders responded by hurling their mercenary warriors, the ACORNS, the SEIUs, and the MSNBCers at them. Though out manned and over matched, the villagers relied upon the mystical power of The Web, and The Fox, to repel the invaders.

From the mists of obscurity Brown, the courageous knight, emerged to lead the Republican tribe to unforeseen gains in the kingdom of Massachusetts. While at this point it is difficult to say whether Brown will be able to withstand the concerted assaults by The Pelosi, Reid, Coakley and Clinton, his valiant effort has given new hope to Republican villagers throughout the land, and has struck terror into the heart of Democrat elders.

http://www.mlgoodell.webs.com

There’s a new romantic comedy out today, called “Leap Year.” Starring Amy Adams, Adam Scott and Matthew Goode, it tells the story of a woman who flies to Ireland hoping to convince her boyfriend to marry her, only to fall in love with a pub owner instead.

I haven’t seen the film, so I can’t say if it’s worth seeing. Though I read a review today, by Tom Long, of the “Detroit News,” I can’t say if it’s worth seeing. I can tell you that Long thinks it is full of cliches, it doesn’t break any new ground, and though the three actors “conspire to elevate the script at least a teensy bit,” it’s still awful.

When he first started writing movie reviews, Long projected a sort of “Every Man” persona. He reacted to celluloid efforts as a common man, and as a result, the reader went away with a good idea of what the movie was about, and armed with the information necessary to making a decision whether to watch it or not. Over the years, however, Long has begun worshiping at the altar of cinematic sophistication. Today, as a result, he’s just another cookie-cutter movie critic.

Critics are all cut from the same cloth. They know more than you do, they know what’s good for you, and they aren’t afraid to tell you what it is. Sort of like Democrats assembling a “health care reform” bill. One thing movie critics share is an abhorrence for romantic comedies. Romantic comedies aren’t serious films. They are brain candy, nothing more than, dare we say the word? Entertainment.

As such they are relegated to a special level of cinematic hell. They aren’t worthy of serious comment, nor should moviegoers, those poor benighted souls incapable of thinking for themselves, waste their time and money seeing them. The only problem with that dismissive view is that romantic comedies don’t claim to be serious films. They are blatantly, and unabashedly produced to provide nothing more than entertainment.

When reviewing romantic comedies, film critics don’t need to dwell on the script, or the plot, or how realistic the movie is. The only thing they need to address is chemistry. How do the characters interact? Does the viewer care whether the girl gets the guy or the guy gets the girl? That’s all that matters in romantic comedies.

And that just drives film sophisticates crazy. A prime example of the absurdity critics bring to romantic comedies, when they deign to discuss them at all, was a comment by one of the “New York Times” film critics, in a review of “Maid in Manhattan,” a bowl of soft-serve goo, built around a simplistic plot and designed to make people, generally couples, leave the theater feeling good about themselves.

In the film Jennifer Lopez played a hotel maid who fell in love with Ralph Fiennes, who was, I believe, a politician. The Times reviewer noted that the film makers missed the opportunity to explore the pressures and hardships faced by an Hispanic single mother living in New York. Uh, no, the film makers didn’t miss that opportunity. That opportunity never came up. They were making a romantic comedy.

This is not to say there is no place in the world for serious cinema. Of course there is. Just as there is a place for thrillers, horror films, family films, and, unfortunately, gross-out adolescent male comedies. But for some reason, film critics seem to be offended by a simple, formulaic, entertaining romantic comedy. They seem to feel that, in order to garner their respect, a film must be transgressive, or subversive to established and generally accepted norms and standards

www.mlgoodell.webs.com

Now that the world’s elected leaders are about to descend on the Global Warmingist Conclave in Copenhagen, true believers enjoy renewed hopes that something can be done to save the planet. If so, the elected leaders will have achieved something beyond the reach of the more than 492,674 leading authorities on Climate Change already present. And not a moment too soon.

As a direct result of the impassioned speeches, furious debates and tens of millions of pages of reports circulated and discussed, carbon dioxide has gone from 383 parts per million (ppm) to more than 497, just in the two weeks the Conclave has run. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, carbon dioxide is one of the most toxic poisons on earth. This manmade pollutant is so lethal that life itself is dependent upon it.

Now that the world’s elected leaders have arrived to take charge, we can be confident that the carbon dioxide crisis will be solved. However, the world still faces enormous threats. Not least among other known sources of global warming is cigarette smoke. Though smoking has been around ever since the first Big Tobacco executive forced the first eight-year-old to light up, the problem has grown dramatically worse due to laws banning indoor smoke. Because smokers are now relegated to the open air, their smoke goes directly into the atmosphere without first being filtered by HVAC systems and the lungs of hapless bartenders and waitresses.

Methane is also a threat to the world’s survival. Though constituting only 1745 parts per billion (ppb), its Global Warming Potential (GWP) is 25 times greater than carbon dioxide. Add to this that methane’s percentage of the earth’s atmosphere has increased 149% since 1750, compared to an increase of only 38% for carbon dioxide, and it is clear that methane is a growing menace.

Thirty-seven percent of yearly methane emissions come from livestock, including a shocking 16% from cows alone. For this reason, and for this reason only, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) is encouraging people to stop eating meat. No doubt it is a noble and sacred cause, but it really doesn’t address the issue. Even if people stop eating meat, or even especially if people stop eating meat, the livestock will still exist. Cows and sheep will continue to belch and fart and heat up the earth. One solution would be to slaughter all livestock, which would result in a short-lived buyer’s market for leather jackets and wool sweaters, but the problem with this is the carcasses would decay, releasing carbon into the atmosphere.

The only solution to this crisis is to load the earth’s livestock onto rocket ships, and send them into space. Of course, the carbon signature of each rocket launch is huge, in some cases, depending on the size of the rocket, exceeding even the carbon footprint of the jet-setting Al Gore and Bill McKibben combined.

However, this is where the green technology revolution can come into play. By devoting Stimulus dollars to solar research, it will be possible to develop solar powered rocket engines. Then we can rid the earth of methane-spewing scourges in an earth-friendly manner. As an added benefit, by launching one Global Warming Denier, cigarette smoker and Tea Bagger for each animal, not only can we eliminate stumbling blocks to genuine reform, but the human population will be greatly reduced. This, too will benefit the earth, allowing us to adopt a more sustainable lifestyle. After all, as McKibben likes to say, “Not everyone can move to Middlebury.”

www.mlgoodell.webs.com

Last weekend I attended a funeral. It was my second in a month, both times to mourn someone who had gone too soon. Afterwards, at the wake, I saw a former friend. We used to enjoy time spent in each other’s company, and would spend it with our spouses at the symphony, or cooking gourmet dinners for each other. Good food, good wine, and good conversation, though whenever we drifted near politics his wife would cry, “Stop!”

Obviously, she knew him better than I did, because once my essays began appearing in print, including on these pages, he told me, coldly, that unless I recanted my views, he wanted nothing further to do with me.

There it was, a friendship lying in tatters on the floor between us. Worse than the loss of a friend, I thought, was the realization that our friendship had been a lie. I have plenty of friends with whom I differ politically. With some of them I enjoy long, often spirited debates on the issues. The arguments are based on mutual respect born of friendship. With others, we realize the shoals of dispute might breach the hull of our craft, so we avoid it. There is so much more to life than politics.

Though I had promised myself I never would, as his was the transgression, so must reconciliation come from him, I approached my former friend at the wake. I told him this business of seeing friends pass too soon was growing old fast. “Is there any way we can forget the past and enjoy each other’s company again?”

“I hope so,” he replied, but stifled the hug of reconciliation I offered with the qualifying inquiry, “Have you changed your views?”

I asked him if it was possible to leave politics aside, and just appreciate the things we had in common. His reply was essentially, “If you don’t like my  President, I can’t be your friend.”

Much has been made of the partisanship which has divided our nation. A curious concern as partisanship has been the essence of our political history. The free and frank exchange of competing outlooks is what makes this nation so strong. Rather than partisanship, it is incivility, as epitomized by my former friend, that has caused such a painful societal rift.

Whether it is a Congressman calling the President a liar or the Speaker of the House describing those who disagree with her view of health care as “un-American,” it is the recourse to invective that wounds, that tears the fabric of human interaction. We as Americans have so much more in common than in opposition, but somewhere along the line the idea of conciliation  mutated into the concept of capitulation.

As we enter into the holiday season, it would do us well to remember the words from the Christmas Story, “Peace on earth, good will toward men.” Those words should apply to everyone, to men and women, to believers and unbelievers, to Democrats and Republicans, liberals and conservatives, even to Spartans and Wolverines. Life is too short to hold grudges and inflate differences. Life is meant to be celebrated, not to be ripped apart through mutual disdain.

The following is an actual transcript of a fictional cable news program which should probably be censored, just on general principle.

HARDCASE: Good evening. I’m Chris Hardcase, and you’re watching Curveball. Tonight’s show is a big one. This is probably the most important week in the brief tenure of President Obama (Hardcase’s leg begins twitching uncontrollably). The Health Care Reform Bill was introduced on the Senate floor yesterday. Tonight the President will deliver a major address at West Point, where sources say he will announce a surge in troops to Afghanistan. Plus controversy continues to swirl around Michaele and Tareq Salahi, the couple who allegedly crashed a White House dinner. So, we have a lot on our plate tonight, which is why we are devoting the entire hour to Tiger Woods. Why did he crash? Where was he going? What club did Elin use? Can we blame Bush for this? Joining me in the studio tonight to examine this issue are–(Holding his hand to his earpiece). Wait, there’s breaking news. We now switch live to Kim Collagen, reporting from the Treasury Building. Kim?

COLLAGEN: Chris, I’m standing in front of the US Treasury Building–

HARDCASE: The Treasury Building? What is it?

COLLAGEN: It’s that big square building behind me. The one with the columns?

HARDCASE: Uh, yes, go ahead, Kim.

COLLAGEN: Chris, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner has just announced that he has solved the problem with the deficit.

HARDCASE: Well, that’s fantastic, Kim. So we have a balanced budget now? What did Geithner do, pay his back taxes?

COLLAGEN: Not exactly, Chris. Apparently Treasury has redefined the problem. From now on, instead of talking about deficits, which, according to my sources, arise when expenses exceed revenues, they are going to refer to a disbursement surplus. Geithner says that surplus sounds a lot better than deficit, which should reassure the investment community, as well as the Chinese.

HARDCASE: That’s brilliant. How did he come up with that idea?

COLLAGEN: We understand that the idea didn’t actually come from the Treasury. According to sources, Jane Neapolitan over at Homeland Security gave them the idea when she started referring to terrorist acts as man-caused disasters. Geithner says that sort of rhetorical prestidigitation opened up a world of opportunity.

HARDCASE: Kim, do you actually know what rhetorical prestidigitation means?

COLLAGEN: Uh, no, Chris, I don’t. I just read whatever crosses my TelePrompter. Did I pronounce it okay?

HARDCASE: Yes, you did fine, Kim. But now, back to the issues. With me in the studio tonight are Johnny Shankman, a golf analyst for, uh, NBC, or is it CBS? We also have Athena Wingwin, from Nike, one of Tiger’s biggest sponsors, and Tom Hooker from the National Association of Retailers. Let’s start with Johnny. Why did Tiger crash? Where was he going? What club did Elin use? Can we blame Bush for this?

SHANKMAN: Those are good questions, Chris. Look, any way you slice this, it doesn’t look good for Tiger. I mean, up to this point, his image was pristine. He could get trapped by the bogey man of bad publicity. If I were to hazard a guess, I would say Tiger was definitely the driver of the car. But that doesn’t mean we can’t iron out the problem. A fair way for him to deal with this would be  to simply say, “Gimme a break.” This bad publicity could be the thin end of the wedge.

HARDCASE: Thin end of the wedge? I don’t get it.

SHANKMAN: Well, it’s obvious. This is the first chip in his armor. I mean, up until now Tiger was a clean as an Eagle Scout. This is not the time to be puttering around with excuses. Okay, I understand he’s not feeling up to par, but he needs to get out front on this.

HARDCASE: Good analysis, Johnny. Athena, anything to add?

WINGWIN: Well, Chris, we at Nike are 100% behind Tiger. We are confident that this will blow over. But I do agree with Johnny that whatever stance Tiger takes, he should address it honestly. The last thing we want is for him to lie. Plus, there’s still a lot we don’t understand.

HARDCASE: How so?

WINGWIN: Well, initial reports said he was unconscious. Isn’t it possible he had a stroke?

HOOKER: A stroke? That’s ridiculous, Athena. How can you say he had a stroke? There’s a very simple, and logical explanation for this.

HARDCASE: A simple explanation, Tom? You mean it really is Bush’s fault?

HOOKER: I’m afraid not, Chris. If you look at the timing of the accident, everything comes clear. When did the accident occur? 2:25 a.m., on the day after Thanksgiving. It’s obvious. I think he was trying to get to Best Buy before it opened. He wanted to get a crack at one of those $300 flat screen TVs.

HARDCASE: Well, we’re out of time. But join us tomorrow when Al Gore and Vann Jones join us to discuss Climategate: Is It Just a Lot of Hot Air?
www.mlgoodell.webs.com

www.mlgoodell.webs.com

Reports are circulating that President Barack Obama (D-Chi) has decided to approve the deployment of an additional 34,000 troops in Afghanistan. Though on the face of it this is a refreshing show of strength and character by the Nobel Peace Prize winner, I would like to be the first to announce that the surge is not working. In fact, I will go so far as to declare it is a failure.

You may recall that this was the uniform response of the loyal opposition to the troop surge in Iraq. Everyone from Nancy Pelosi to Harry Reid was quick to call that surge a failure, before the troops were even in place. Our current Secretary of State went so far as to call Gen. David Petraeus a liar when he gave a detailed briefing of how the surge was working.

So even though the first troops aren’t scheduled to arrive in country before next March, it isn’t too early to call it a failure. The timing is instructive. Eight months after Gen. Stanley McChrystal stated the urgent need for quick action, the first troops will begin to arrive. The deployment is scheduled to take nine months.

However, beginning in June, well before the bulk of the troops are in place, the administration will explore “off ramps,” studying benchmarks which will determine whether to halt deployments, adopt a more limited strategy, or “begin looking very quickly at exiting.” In other words, at the same stage of deployment which led Obama himself to declare the Iraqi surge a failure, he and his advisors will try to determine whether the Afghan surge is successful.

This is actually a brilliant strategy. It will mollify the antiwar left, revitalizing the base in time for the 2010 elections. It will enable Obama to appear tough, willing to make the tough decisions. It will show him to have a realistic view of the world, and of the use of American power. It will also allow him to finesse the hawkish words he employed back when he was using  Afghanistan as a Bush-battering cudgel. He will be able to take ownership of the war, and end it.

By next June, having reviewed the situation on the ground and finding it still flawed, he can strike a statesmanlike pose and announce “Despite the deployment of additional troops, the situation in Afghanistan has continued to deteriorate. I cannot in good faith continue to risk the lives of the men and women of the Armed Forces in pursuit of a failed policy.”

It will be especially gratifying for him to add, “There was a time when this strategy could have succeeded. That time was 2003. Our failure to do the right thing then means that doing it now is the wrong thing. Therefore I am ordering the immediate withdrawal of all US forces from Afghanistan.”

He might, for good measure, consider quoting that great statesman John Kerry, “How can you ask a soldier to be the last man to die for a mistake?”

For all those reasons, I am happy to get out in front on this one. Again, the surge isn’t working.