Birthing a distraction

Barack Obama should release his birth certificate. But while he continues to hold out, the Birthers need to give it up.

I have watched with some perplexity as some continue to be fixated on this birth certificate "issue." It has been clanging around in the ether for so long now that I can't even recall verbatim all of the quotes that I have heard from various reliable sources that apply to this discussion.

I do remember the first serious column I read on Obama's birth certificate, by Ron Kessler of Newsmax. Newsmax is a conservative magazine with street cred and if you want to read his column "Obama Was Born In the United States", you can do so here. The element of this exposure that I find most noteworthy is that Philip Berg, the lawyer who initially brought the birth certificate lawsuit to court, is a certifiable wingnut who also believes that Bush and Cheney knew about and even orchestrated the events of 9/11 in advance of their occurrence.

Bill O'Reilly talked about the Birthers last week; his position is that they have a right to say what they want and focus on what they feel is worth their time, but that it is a closed issue. The Factor investigated it all at some point last year and found nothing worth pursuing.

I wish I had been jotting down notes back in January when I was in Louisville and caught Michael Medved's radio show for a few minutes. Medved did a masterful job of tracing the thread of all that would have had to take place, for no reason at that time, for Obama's mother to have gone to Kenya as a poor and very pregnant young woman just to give birth to her son. For what reason? So that he wouldn't be born in the United States? If so, why? This is how conspiracy theories collapse under their own weight.

Erick Erickson, who runs one of the best political blogs at www.redstate.com, very accurately labels this whole argument as a distraction. His thesis is that Obama may very well have a paper birth certificate, but that he is pursuing a dual strategy by toying with those who are obsessed with this issue and then hoping to brand all conservatives as angry maniacs that have their priorities out of sync.

Here is my final point: Even if Obama's birth certificate weren't legit, what happens at that time? Impeachment? That would never fly in this House of Representatives. It would be far more effective for all truly engaged citizens to zero in on Obama's policy failures, as well as weighing in with constitutional ideas for the future, rather than pursuing a goal that is ultimately hopeless. This is another Vince Foster smoking gun, to coin a Clinton-era incident; if any proof ever emerges, it will show that the Birthers had embarked on an ill-fated quest all along.

Economics ignoramuses

Our esteemed Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, has come out swinging again, blasting the insurance companies as "villains." Reuters reported on Thursday that Pelosi had accused the insurance companies of conspiring to kill Obamacare (oh, if only) and in the process, uttered the following:

"Of course they've been immoral all along in how they have treated the people that they insure...They are the villains. They have been part of the problem in a major way. They are doing everything in their power to stop a public option from happening."

It has been a decade or so since I first heard Rush Limbaugh use the phrase "a glittering jewel of colossal ignorance" to describe Rosie O'Donnell. I fell in love with the term immediately, and would like to fondly extend it at this time to San Francisco's own Nancy Pelosi.

I would like to, but I would be doing her a kindness in labeling her rhetoric as the offshoot of a mere lack of adequate knowledge. Pelosi knows full well what she is doing in falling back on the tried and true tactic of blaming the rich or vilifying "big business" for the results of her own failed pet projects.

Private insurance companies offer the best possible protection against catastrophe of which a consumer can avail himself. Like any business, they have to earn a profit to stay afloat. This is done by bringing enough people into the insurance pool who fear the results of being caught in a disastrous circumstance that those who actually encounter such a dilemma have enough dollars to avoid being soaked.

Thomas Sowell, with the pungently common sense that is his trademark, raised some very salient questions in a column last week that counter Pelosi's reckless charges:

With both common sense and economic analysis saying that Obama cannot expand government medical care without expanding the already runaway federal deficit, it is quite a trick to get the public to believe otherwise — a big challenge requiring big distractions...

Insurance companies are [a] distraction and a scapegoat because they do not insure "pre-existing conditions." Stop and think about it: If you could wait until you got sick to take out health insurance, why would you buy that insurance while you are well?
You could avoid paying all those premiums and then — after you got sick — take out health insurance and let the premiums paid by other people pay for your medical treatment.
That is not "bringing down the cost of health care." It is sticking somebody else with paying those costs. So is taxing "the rich." So is passing on those costs to your children and grandchildren through government deficit spending.

More and more people are catching onto this, which is exactly why Obamacare is tanking in the polls, even as a health care bill was passed in a House committee on a 30-28 party-line vote late last night.

Contemplate a few possibilities with me:

1. It is more than likely that a politician who constantly claims to speak for "the American people" cares very little about what the American people actually think about a given subject, but is desperate to hold onto his power base, which is sustained by the Washington gravy trough.

2. That same politician has usually never met a payroll and signed paychecks every two weeks for any employees, while trying to decide what kind of health insurance plan they can afford.

3. Trial lawyers, which form a huge component of the Democratic party base, have exacerbated health care costs for decades now by continuous malpractice suits. Some of these are valid, but many of them are frivolous and, as a result, have driven up malpractice insurance premiums. I wouldn't hold my breath expecting tort reform any time soon out of these Congress, though or even entertained as a quasi-serious notion.

4. Could it be that that "filthy rich businessman" may actually be a person who compensates his employees well, is a contributing member of his community and actually has incorporated some economic principles into his business dealings that work in the real world where the requirement not to deficit spend has to actually be met? Not to mention demand for a product that people want to buy and on which they are willing to spend hard-earned dollars?

The time has come to begin to examine preconceived templates. Yet, in spite of the lack of evidence, we embrace the dictates of a biased media and phony politicians, rather than doing the hard work of understanding the economic principles that actually keep the world functioning.

Who are the players?

Regardless of which side you are on or in which direction you feel the country is moving, I don't know how anyone could plausibly deny that the last 6 months have been eventful. I believe the country has changed, perhaps irreversibly; from my point of view, I just hope that it, in fact, is not permanent.

At the end of President Obama's first 6 months, whose influence can we clearly see has been exerted? Whose platform has increased? Who has dominated the discussion?

From a legislative and public image perspective, President Obama has successfully become the face of the way business is done in Washington in the 21st century. This is not shocking, on the one hand; he is ostensibly the world's most powerful man, after all. Yet, from another angle, it bears further examination.

This administration has not been without its gaffes. I should probably watch MSNBC more so that I can find out what is being said about Press Secretary Robert Gibbs by his fans. He seems laughable to me, and I don't mean that in a partisan way; Mike McCurry, for instance, was a fantastic Press Secretary and we know who his boss was. Scott McClellan, on the other hand, made me cringe long before he went native. So hopefully, I've established my bona fides, but not enough for some, I'm sure...Back to Gibbs; on Fox News Sunday this last week, he couldn't repeat enough times that the President had chosen his words poorly in the Gates-gate incident.

Quick, who is the Secretary of State???

Now that you've paused to remember, where on earth is she? How many of you watched her appearance on "Meet the Press" last Sunday? (I meant to; I really did, but I had to slice potatoes or something.) Did you know she just went overseas again for another trip? What happened while she was there? Most of you really don't know the answers to these questions. Think about past Secretaries of State, even recent ones like Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice, let alone Ronald Reagan's (George Shultz) or George Bush I's (James A. Baker III) and the profile they maintained, the news coverage they generated.

Now...who is the Secretary of the Treasury? How about the National Security Advisor? Is the attorney general a man or a woman? What have they been up to lately?

At breakfast with a friend yesterday, we were discussing this very thing. Obama's favorables have been very high until recently; they are now taking a dip, which caused us to consider what team Obama has backing him that are producing policies and driving the agenda, who also have a game plan for obstacles that are thrown in the way and for unseen emergencies that may arise. Our conclusion was that it all begins and ends with Barack Obama. This is good for him if trends move his way with little fluctuation because he gets the glory. If, however, ominous portents continue to emerge, the glossy image is going to cave and it will be come painfully obvious that there is nothing of substance behind the Wizard's curtain.

I dare not leave out Nancy Pelosi when discussing influence in Washington. She forced a stimulus bill through, as well as a Cap & Trade fiasco and is still asserting that the votes are there to pass Health Care. So she has to be credited for getting out there and racking up accomplishments even if I don't support them.

Bill O'Reilly also brought up a valid point last night on the "Factor." Rahm Emanuel is a manifest power in the White House. While not a name that non-political junkies would recognize, his fingerprints are everywhere. He is probably as powerful a Chief of Staff and enforcer as Karl Rove ever was (Rove, in theory, was just a Deputy CoS).

But there you have it. Obama, Pelosi, Emanuel (Rahm, not Jesus; see the Gospel of Matthew 1:23, if you don't get that).

As an admittedly impartial commentator, the remarkable fact to me is the unified stance and, as a result, the enhanced profile that conservatives and some professional Republicans have largely maintained in opposing the President. Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck have ratings that are going through the roof. Jim DeMint, the Senator from South Carolina who holds a 100% rating from the American Conservative Union, is attracting the spotlight for his soft-spoken, but highly vocal opposition to Obama's programs. Sarah Palin, even while resigning from the Governorship in Alaska, has never received more attention from both her supporters and detractors. Minority Leader John Boehner has been resolute in leading the movement for truth in the House on health care, cap and trade and TARP II. And a good number of Republican footsoldiers in the House are out in the media on a regular basis sounding the socialist alarm, from Paul Ryan of Wisconsin to Eric Cantor of Virginia to Mike Pence of Indiana. Now we just need some legislative victories in 2010 to top it all off, as well as more Senators to assist Jim DeMint in his crusade for liberty. Senate Conservatives Fund, anyone?

UPDATE: Obama's Waterloo

President Obama has manifested very deft political skills once again. Minutes ago, he went to the press room of the White House and spoke to the media. Evidently, he has been on the phone with both Sergeant Crowley (the police officer in question) and Professor Gates. Obama's statement just now was that his opinion was still that Crowley had probably overreacted, but that unfortunately, Gates had overreacted, as well. And to the extent that he, President Obama, had misspoken in characterizing the situation as he did, he regretted that.

He did not apologize but he projected empathy for both sides, in contrast to his gut reaction on Wednesday.

I find that I fear this President's initiatives more and more and that his policies are more extreme than I thought they were. But this shows that his instincts in regards to at least the appearance of personal skills are more highly attuned than the last two Presidents' were. Both Bush 43 and Clinton tended to dig in their heels when uncomfortable situations arose. Obama finds ways to neutralize the issue quickly in a way that will satisfy the broad middle.

I think it is safe to say that the danger of permanent infliction of harm to his reputation has passed, at least stemming from this particular incident. However, the pundits will probably continue to vocally ponder the story for the next week or so and we can expect to hear it subjected to further commentary on the Sunday shows. This is as it should be. The President's initial wording on Wednesday was insulting and unfair, but he did pivot well to cover his tracks today.

Obama's Waterloo

We know the health care bill has been shelved for the time being. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid announced today that it is on hold until fall. This means we get a brief reprieve, but must stay vigilant.

It is too early to tell, but universal health care may not be the biggest of Obama's worries. I only tuned in for the last half of his press conference last night and completely missed the question and Obama's answer about the Henry Louis Gates, Jr. arrest. I was in session all day today with my friends at the Hoosier Congressional Policy Leadership Institute (today's theme was Health Care; fortuitous, indeed?), so heard zero news. Tonight, at my weekly book study on The 5,000 Year Leap, the guys in my discussion group asked about it, and that was my introduction to the incident.

In one word, describing the police department's actions as "stupid," the President has poured salt into the gaping gash of racial tension in the United States. Barack Obama, who was supposed to be the great transcendent figure that would help us move beyond race, took sides in a conflict in which he was not in full possession of the facts.

I wrote all of the above before going to the Reuters recounting of the Gates incident. Reuters is far from a conservative news organization, yet here is how their reporter filed the story:

President Barack Obama plunged his presidency into a charged racial debate and set off a firestorm in one of America's most liberal bastions by siding with a black Harvard scholar who accuses police of racism.

Saying he was unaware of "all the facts" but that police in Cambridge, Massachusetts, "acted stupidly" in their arrest of Henry Louis Gates, Obama whipped up emotions on both sides of an issue that threatens to open old wounds in America.

Need I say more?

President Obama has blundered, big time. Watch his ratings and observe where this story goes over the next week. He is already losing independents. This type of blatantly biased analysis is not what they seek from their commander-in-chief.

New health care developments

I'm watching a replay right now on C-Span of a joint presser that Senators Kent Conrad of North Dakota and Max Baucus of Montana, both Democrats, held earlier today. (There may have been other Senators participating as well; I tuned in about 10 minutes ago.) Conrad just said that he never did believe that a bill would get through in time for the August recess. And Baucus, who spoke prior to Conrad, had very high words of praise for Doug Elmendorf, the Congressional Budget Office chairman who has come under such fire for insisting that the Obama health care plan is demonstratively unaffordable.

Baucus did spin a little when describing the White House's hardball tactics towards Elmendorf; Baucus opined that Elmendorf hadn't been mistreated, but even with that aside, it is still clear that something is afoot. There is a huge crack in the shield of mystique around this President.

The Congressional Budget Office is one of those agencies that is regarded as independent, yet the Obama White House is playing politics with the numbers that the CBO has run and the ensuing figures that have been produced. Harry Reid snidely asserted that Elmendorf "ought to think about running for office." (Oh, the Freudian layers we could deduce from that.)

I saw probably the last half hour tonight of Obama's own press conference. Bill O'Reilly characterized the press as "docile." I differed with that assessment; I felt the President was actually quite defensive and that the press was very forthright in their questioning.

There are no transcripts up yet that I can find of the questions that the reporters asked, but it was around the third to last question that I noted. It was posed by a female reporter who asked the President if he felt there was anything to the allegations that transparency had been lacking in his White House, specifically surrounding who exactly all the President's appointees are. (I presume she meant the czars.) Obama's reply was very testy, something about "Your cameras have been here all along; you've seen who has been present." Classy.

It is becomingly increasingly apparent, if it ever was not, that this White House has no qualms whatsoever about viscerally personal kneecaps when they feel threatened. The heroic Senator from South Carolina, Jim DeMint, has dared to step out and say things about this President's agenda that are perceived as just not collegial enough. His statement earlier this week about universal health care was as follows: "If President Obama does not pass universal health care, this will be his Waterloo. It will break him."

The shoe fit...and the President is hitting back, claiming that DeMint has never done anything to reform health care. DeMint has counterpunched and has an ad that is going up nationwide later this week that, I believe, will reference all of the health care reform bills he has sponsored (of course, the reform is not governmental in its origin, so it isn't legitimate according to the Left).

So clearly, the Saul Alinsky-style tactics are in full swing again, as President Obama seeks to marginalize yet another opponent through smears and innuendo. Let us hope that this particular attempt works as well as the attack on Rush Limbaugh for daring to state that he hoped that the President fails.

Health Care Reform Deja Vu

You probably don't have to be much younger than I am (I turned 34 in May) not to remember Hillarycare at all. Universal health care coverage was one of the key planks that candidate Bill Clinton promised when he ran for President in 1992. Clinton became a much more moderate President in the final 6 years of his 2 terms because of having to work with Newt Gingrich and a GOP Congress. Many of us forget, and again, some of us weren't old enough to remember how much he tried to overreach in his first 2 years. (He almost looks conservative when you compare Clinton's spending levels to those of George W. Bush, not to mention the present administration.)

Clinton appointed his wife, who of course was unelected by the American people, to oversee the whole health care process. She did so in a very secretive way, refusing to release the names of the people who were on the task force considering various health care proposals. Ira Magaziner was a pseudo-intellectual type who worked with Hillary on this particular effort, but his was about the only name that was released to the public. As the details of the bill trickled out, protests began to stir in the country at large, as well as on Capitol Hill, but the Clintons refused to budge or entertain any dissent whatsoever.

Because of their unyielding stance and the perception that they had something to hide, not to mention the fact that the bill itself was monstrously huge and stuffed with pork, ultimately Hillarycare went down in glorious flames.

Fast forward 16 years. A friend who works in Congressman Steve Buyer's office e-mailed me a copy of the government flow chart that will become reality if universal health care passes under President Obama's strident championship. Her admonition? "Read it and weep." She wasn't kidding much. I had seen John Boehner put up the same chart on TV a few days ago, but hadn't really tuned in. This labyrinthine maze of who reports to whom and which organizations receive funding from which endowments and which official OK's which appropriation, etc., etc. is mentally exhausting at just a cursory glance.

This may be intentional for a number of reasons, but it may also be inevitable. Universal health care will mean yet another expansion of government, and of course, all of the czarships that have been created within the last few months have to make sure they protect their turf, not to mention all of the cabinet agencies and undersecretaries and deputy assistants who have to offer their input...it is mind-boggling.

Support for this effort is sinking, which is heartening. People realize we are out of money. The President even admits it and says health care provision must not broaden the deficit. How can it NOT? Yet President Obama declares that we have "talked this problem to death" and the time for action has come. Yet, this obfuscates the fact that we have no assurance that the current plan being considered in Congress will cover all of the uninsured. We do know that it will change the health care system of the United States forever and create yet another massive bureaucracy.

For this reason alone, it must be opposed. But, one must also ask what role we should play as custodians of our own health? More on that tomorrow.