Freedom Line Blog

First, President Obama “invited” Republicans to view the Democrats unveil yet another version of ObamaCare (live on television, to make up for all those previously broken promises of an open process).  That little trap is scheduled for next week.

Now, House Republicans want Democrats to debate unemployment on live television.  That is scheduled for…never, we think.

There is, of course, considerable evidence that nothing is real that doesn’t appear on television.  But if all this talking is only about political oneupsmanship, as it surely seems, we would modestly suggest that pistols at dawn make better television (commercial proceeds going to reduce the deficit), with much greater personal and public consequence.

CBS News’ Political Hotsheet reports that “Miss Me Yet?” merchandise, based on the Minnesota billboard featuring a smiling, waving George W. Bush is hot.  That is not surprising, given the publicity that the billboard has gotten, largely because it was the subject of mystery and not the typical multiple press releases.

What did surprise us was the note at the end of the piece (from U.S. News and World Report reporting earlier this month) that the Obama Store in Washington’s Union Station has closed.

Polls are just polls, but merchandise sales?  That’s humiliating.  (Wasn’t Larry Summers in charge of merchandise?)

What if you can’t beat nobody even after one of your greatest achievements is the war in Iraq?

The Associated Press reports:

ALBANY, N.Y. (AP) — The New York Senate has passed a resolution opposing trials of terrorists being held in New York City.

The resolution passed Tuesday urges President Barack Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder to move trials of those linked to the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks back to the military tribunal system.

President Obama and Attorney General Holder are reportedly considering alternative venues for Khalid Sheikh Mohammed’s trial.  But both still believe it best to try the 9-11 mastermind in a civilian court.  They may be the only two people left in America who feel that way.

That’s the question Congressman Darrell  Issa (R-CA) is hoping to get answered with regard to President Obama’s promise, made during a speech before a joint session of Congress last September, to consider medical malpractice reform as a means of lowering U.S. health care costs.

During his nationally-televised September speech, Obama said:

Now, finally, many in this chamber – particularly on the Republican side of the aisle – have long insisted that reforming our medical malpractice laws can help bring down the cost of health care. … Now, I don’t believe malpractice reform is a silver bullet, but I’ve talked to enough doctors to know that defensive medicine may be contributing to unnecessary costs. So I’m proposing that we move forward on a range of ideas about how to put patient safety first and let doctors focus on practicing medicine. I know that the Bush Administration considered authorizing demonstration projects in individual states to test these ideas. I think it’s a good idea, and I’m directing my Secretary of Health and Human Services to move forward on this initiative today.”

However, according to a House Oversight and Government Reform Committee report on the benefits of capping non-economic damages and passing other tort reform measures released last week, it appears the President wasn’t being sincere when he made that directive.  The report, on page 4, reads:

Committee staff inquired of HHS whether they had an updated figure [on how much the federal government spends annually for malpractice coverage and the costs of defensive medicine], but staff was told by personnel of the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation that the report in question involved medical litigation which ‘is not a priority for this Administration.’”  

“The first question I have for President Obama is if he still stands by his call for tort reform or was he just lying to Congress when he directed Secretary [Kathleen] Sebelius to pursue an initiative addressing the costs of defensive medicine,” Issa, who is the ranking Republican on the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, said in a statement released Monday. 

With all due respect Congressman, do you even have to ask?  The President’s commitment to meaningful tort reform is about as sincere as his commitment to bipartisanship.  Both are simply “not a priority for this Administration.”

It is now clear to all but the mentally challenged (you won’t read no retard talk here), that President Obama’s plan for a televised health care summit has zero to do with listening to Republican ideas, but everything to do with trotting out the snake oil bill yet again to demonstrate to five-and-a-half liberals who care deeply that the vast Republican minority is obstructionist.

Based on enough polling numbers to make up the deficit, it is also clear that Americans who vote (not those who are voted for or increasingly against) would like to send that bill on the last American flight to space.

Given a White House that has mastered no known public relations discipline, including the sort of fundamental “know your audience” one, we’d be betting that there is going to be a mudslide off the summit right back into the President’s lap.  That is, of course, unless some as yet unidentified White House smart person gets it canceled on the basis that George W. Bush didn’t do one and everything the White House is in trouble on must be based on what George W. Bush did.  (Should Bush be prosecuted for getting an illegal third term by proxy?)

We further suspect that the primary reaction of the summit’s television audience (see Americans above), complete with a Frank Luntz focus group to prove it, will be, “Didn’t we tell you morons to focus on jobs and the economy, not producing an SNL skit?”

At a Democratic National Committee fundraiser late last week, speaking about his stalled health care “reform,” President Obama said, “…if Congress decides we’re not going to do it, even after all the facts are laid out, all the options are clear, then the American people can make a judgment as to whether this Congress has done the right for them or not.  And that’s how democracy works.  There will be elections coming up, and they’ll be able to make a determination and register their concerns.”

Translation:  My term’s not up until 2012.  Yours are up, oh goodness, this year.  Rahm, how many people can we throw under one bus?  Need to make sure we have enough.

Virginia is now one of many states pushing through a legislative response to complete federal control of health care.  Today, 23 Virginia Senators voted to exempt the Commonwealth from ObamaCare’s individual health insurance mandate.  Five Democrats joined all 18 Republicans to enact the measure in the Democratic-controlled Senate.

If President Obama’s health care bill does come back to life in the U.S. Congress, it appears that more states will follow Virginia’s lead to fight ObamaCare locally.

Today, the White House officially released its Budget for Fiscal Year 2011.  It is $3.8 trillion and consumes four large volumes.  What does it say about fiscal responsibility when your budget is thousands of pages and costs $236?

After a $1.4 trillion deficit in 2009, the White House projects a larger $1.56 trillion gap in this fiscal year.  To “trim” the massive sinkhole of red ink, the Administration proposes raising income taxes (though President Obama bragged about his tax record during his State of the Union Address) and energy taxes to reach a “manageable” $1.27 trillion shortfall next year.

Click here for the Office of Management and Budget website to review the budget, historical tables and analytical perspectives.

Today, President Obama sparred with Republicans at a GOP retreat in Baltimore.  The debate lasted about an hour, and covered taxes, spending, health care and federal debt, among other issues.

It’s good to see the U.S. following the British tradition of the Prime Minister’s Questions.

Before the debate, Republicans were treated to a second lecture by the President.  With two lectures in one week, the GOP must feel so fortunate.

If you weren’t glued to C-SPAN this afternoon, here is the full exchange.

That’s the word from the New York Times.  If the grassroots outrage didn’t sway the White House, the objections of Mayor Michael Bloomberg and fellow Democrats appear to be enough for the White House to at least consider moving the terrorist trials.

Even liberal Democrat Chuck Schumer from New York has gently nudged President Obama away from the New York City location.  Schumer recommended to the Administration that they “find suitable alternatives” and that “concerns about costs, logistics and security” might force the trials out of New York.

Since costs could balloon to more than $1 billion for civilian trials in New York, the President is rightly balking from his initial decision.  Let’s hope his newfound ambivalence leads him to the correct decision.

HT: Americans for Prosperity

The recent weeks haven’t been kind to President Obama.   Support continues to drop for his health care bill, his poll numbers are falling and his filibuster-proof majority has been lost.

Well, last night, President Obama took out some of his frustration by criticizing the Supreme Court in front of a national audience.  As the President, he has the power to trounce on judicial independence, but his display last night was historic.

According to the Legal Times, only once has a President publicly criticized the Supreme Court during a State of the Union address.   Not surprisingly, it was President Franklin Roosevelt in 1937, and even FDR didn’t call for Congress to overturn the Court (thought the justices would eventually start to capitulate shortly after the address).

Here is FDR’s attempt at judicial intimidation:

The Judicial branch also is asked by the people to do its part in making democracy successful. We do not ask the Courts to call non-existent powers into being, but we have a right to expect that conceded powers or those legitimately implied shall be made effective instruments for the common good. The process of our democracy must not be imperiled by the denial of essential powers of free government.

Here is President Obama’s criticism:

Last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests — including foreign corporations — to spend without limit in our elections. Well I don’t think American elections should be bankrolled by America’s most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities. They should be decided by the American people, and that’s why I’m urging Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to right this wrong.

As Justice Alito gestured during the remarks, the Court did not reverse “a century of law” in its Citizens United decision.  Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce was decided in 1990, not 1910.  Linda Greenhouse over at the New York Times calls out the President on this as well.

As a former constitutional law professor, President Obama should either fire his speechwriters or hit the books.

The Center for Individual Freedom will be tweeting live during tonight’s State of the Union Address and subsequent Republican response.

President Obama’s address begins around 9:00 p.m. (EST) tonight.

You can follow CFIF on Twitter by clicking here.

That appears to be James Carville’s new strategy amidst the Democratic bloodbath last week.  Writing in the Financial Times, Carville argues that Democrats need to end their circular firing squad and start blaming the real culprit behind recent failings … George W. Bush, of course.

President Obama has had more than a year to “fix” the nation, but his attempts at restoring economic growth were littered with the tired and failed ideas of yet another government stimulus plan.  His spending schemes and continued bailouts have only exacerbated the unemployment rate, while still spending more than any president in history, including George W. Bush.

What George W. Bush has to do with an election in the most liberal state in the nation is unexplained by Mr. Carville’s article.  President Bush’s economic policies did contribute to the deficit and to the unemployment rate but they didn’t make Martha Coakley take a vacation during her campaign or make President Obama ignore the race until it was too late.

For Mr. Carville, President Bush is a convenient boogeyman, but not an explanation for electoral disaster in the Bay State.

On January 20, 2009, Barack Obama took the oath of office to become our nation’s 44th president. One year later, CFIF’s Renee Giachino discusses the President’s record thus far and his empty promises of “hope and change.”

If there were any lingering questions about this Administration’s stance on free speech, all doubt was removed last night when the White House issued this response:

“With its ruling today, the Supreme Court has given a green light to a new stampede of special interest money in our politics. It is a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and the other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans.”

Right.  When did censorship become as popular as organic foods in this country?  Mr. President, you also failed to mention that this decision will be a huge boon for unions, major contributors to your campaign and the Democratic Party.  Citizens United is a victory for both the left and the right, a victory for anyone who is opposed to jailing someone over broadcasting a political position.

This Administration claims to be “liberal,” yet it also took the position that banning books that contained one line of advocacy was a felony.  What would have happened if McCain-Feingold were around in the 18th Century when the Federalist Papers were being printed with small business paper?  Locking people up for political speech is as American as burning books or jailing political enemies.  Why stop now, Mr. President?

The end of the world is still far off in the distance.  As former Federal Election Commission Chairman Bradley A. Smith mentioned today, 28 states already allow corporate and “special interest” spending.  States like Oregon, Virginia and Utah are hardly known as bastions for corrupt political activity, even though they allow corporations to take a stance when issues are debated in the public circle.

Harsh critics of Free Speech claim that because corporations don’t vote that they shouldn’t be afforded basic First Amendment protections.  So, if the First Amendment doesn’t apply to corporations, perhaps they shouldn’t pay taxes?

The Supreme Court has already held that the Constitution, in most parts, applies to corporate entities.  Is the First Amendment inapplicable when the actor grows richer?  What about the Takings Clause in the Fifth Amendment?  Should corporations and other for-profit entities be denied due process of the law simply because they don’t vote?  I’m sure politicians would approve of that but thankfully they haven’t overturned the Fifth Amendment … yet.

Lacking voting rights is an argument for this decision, not against it.  Corporations and non-profits lack the right to vote and can’t even contribute directly to political parties unless they choose to form expensive political action committees (PAC).  Independent expenditures are one of the few ways businesses can influence legislation that has a direct impact on their existence.

Let’s also remember that 99% of corporations in the U.S. aren’t rich or powerful.  The language in McCain-Feingold was woefully overbroad and applied to every entity from General Electric to your local florist.

Americans should be rejoicing because the Administration and most politicians hate this decision.  That’s wonderful. Anything that upsets career politicians is normally good for the rest of the country.   Then again, Congress should be happy; their enemies are no longer hidden behind the veil of those evil 527 groups.

With the blackballing of Fox News, his appointment of Justice Sotomayor, who voted against free speech, and his response to Citizens United, President Obama has made clear what many suspected years ago.  The President is not a fan of free speech, that is unless he’s breaking campaign promises and drowning out his opponent with over $700 million in union-funded spending.  As much as his speech might have been repulsive to some, President Obama had every right to spend money spreading his views.

Maybe it’s not free speech to which the President is opposed; maybe it’s just a little healthy competition.

To give President Obama some credit, he knows how to get Congress in line.  Or,  perhaps Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid know how to crack the whip on their members.

According to Congressional Quarterly, Congress voted with the President 96.7% of the time in which he had a clearly stated position.  This broke the 44-year old mark set by President Lyndon Johnson, according to the study.  Oddly, President Johnson also had a miserable fiscal record.

Of course, many Democrats who voted with President Obama in the past will attempt to run as far away from the President as possible when pitching their “achievements” to voters.   Luckily, Congress can’t hide from its voting record.  From cap-and-trade, to tax hikes, to pork-barrel stimulus spending, this Congress has been far worse than the previous band of tax-and-spend acolytes.

Luckily, voters will have a chance to voice their disapproval on November 2.

You know he must have really been in the wrong. The headline: “Obama Reneges on Health Care Transparency.”

This is hardly breaking news, but now that the national media has latched onto the story and White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs has spent the past few days parrying verbal barbs from the press, maybe President Obama and Congress will listen and actually open the doors for the American people to see what’s really going on during those backroom deals.

Mr. President, the ball is now in your court.

HT: Max Pappas

The arrival of 2010 ushers in yet another federal election.  This year, every seat in the House of Representatives and one-third of the Senate is up for grabs.

A new study from the polling firm Public Opinion Strategies demonstrates that President Obama’s approval rating could determine the fate of his strong Democratic majorities in Congress.

Public Opinion studied midterm election results and presidential job approval numbers from 1962 to 2006.  The results aren’t too surprising, but they are nevertheless discouraging for the current party in power.

Even a strong approval mark of 60% has only historically garnered the president’s party one seat in the House.  For example, President Ronald Reagan had a 63% approval rating in 1986, but Republicans still managed to lose five seats in Congress that year.

An average approval rating of 50% to 59% historically results in an average loss of 12 seats.  President Obama’s current approval rating is 50%.

If his approval rating dips below 50%, he may be welcoming Speaker John Boehner in 2011.  When the president’s approval rating falls below the Mendoza Line (50%) for politicians, his party loses an average of 41 seats, or one more than Republicans currently need to take back the lower chamber.

Generally, a president’s popularity and tenure in Congress are inexorably linked.  When November arrives, President Obama will learn that lesson anew.

Stay tuned for more coverage by CFIF on the 2010 elections.