Saturday, February 27, 2010

Transforming America: Democrat vs. Democrat


Over at National Review’s The Corner, Andy McCarthy makes the case that the Democrat leadership is not concerned about losing in November and that is why they are willing to drive off the cliff with health care reform.  McCarthy believes that we should be more concerned with undoing all the thing Obama, Reid and Pelosi will try to enact that will permanently transform America.

McCarthy has a point. Obama, Reid and Pelosi are not the least bit concerned about their re-election chances. Sure they will try their best to get another term, but they are more concerned with making America a leftwing utopia. If they succeed in that, then losing re-election would be worthwhile.  The problem for those three is that not all Democrats are thinking along those lines.

Some of these Democrats are career politicians. They love their titles, their perks and their power. They are not that wedded to ideology. Think of Bill Clinton, he abandoned his ideology for a second term.  McCarthy points out that even these non ideological types may just throw in with the leadership if their reelection prospects look dim. I think McCarthy is missing another option…spite.

Think about this, you are a career politician in love with your Washington life. Along comes Obama with his radical agenda and because you supported it you are now being shown the door. Bye-bye perks, power and prestige. The leadership cannot save you and some of them are safe for reelection. Wouldn’t you be mad as spit?  Wouldn’t you just want to stick a finger in their eyes at every possible opportunity? I think we are already seeing some of this behavior.

Yesterday, two Democrats joined Republicans in calling for Rangel to step down. Then the Democrats abandoned the that interrogation proposal and let us not forget that the Democrats are having trouble with the Senate Jobs bill. This does not sound like people doomed to their fate, and throwing in with the leadership.

In the end, I still think reconciliation will blow up in Obama, Reid and Pelosi’s faces and they will be forced to settle for the small and toothless ObamaCare 3.0.

Via: CNN

5 comments:

Chris W said...

I agree this ends badly for the progressive Democrats.

http://my-thoughts-on-freedom.blogspot.com/2010/02/democrats-on-health-care-all-in.html

The Griper said...

even a watered down version would be disastrous. that would only be a foot in the door for even more later on.
example:
look at social security and how it has grown to disastrous size over the years.

Christopher said...

Your depiction is offensive. I understand your point but none the less offensive.

Of course I defend free speech, but you call yourself a Conservative as do I define myself.

Please refrain from such vulgarity as it spits in the face of us who do and those that did defend 'Old Glory'.

Hyphenated American said...

Personally, I understand how these guys feel. Imagine yourself in their shoes - if we had 59 votes in the Senate and we were this close to privatizing Social Security and Medicare, abolishing welfare and Medicaid, drastically changing the Endangered Species Act, cutting government spending by 30% and introducting vouchers for schools. Would you pay the price of losing Congress and Senate for getting all this done?


Anyway, I have a few articles on this whole medical care stuff that could be of some moderate interest.

Canadian nipple eschews Universal Health Care

Obama answered every question with a thoughtful, comprehensive response

What should conservatives do now


President commits political suicide by jumping from the "precipice"

Angie Lee said...

It's that kind of thing that makes me wonder why a third party that brings together the best of both sides along with the middle CANNOT trump D's and R's. I keep hearing that trying would be folly but no one really says WHY, if it were to gather a larger following than the others, combined.

I know Teddy R. screwed up with his third-party run, but I don't think that would have been the case had he handled it differently. Think H. Ross Perot and how well HE did - and he managed to wake more than just a few people up along the way. The Tea Party movement has nothing to do with party, and I saw on PJTV an interview where Newt said it was truly a tri-partisanship movement. I agree with that assessment. People across the political spectrum are sick of the crap, in one way or another.

Some may say I am just delusional, but I know that I am witnessing history being created and DAMN if it ain't exciting.

PS: I don't get Christopher's comment. Exactly what is offensive in what you said, Cliff?

Related Posts with Thumbnails