The Real Fight is between the Private Sector and the Public Sector.


Another insightful article by the WSJ’s Dan Henninger: The Blue Dogs’ Final Dilemma

American politics has arrived at a crossroads.

This struggle over health-care legislation isn’t just another battle between the Democratic and Republican parties. It’s about which force is going to take the United States forward for the next generation: the public sector or the private sector. If by now you haven’t figured out which sector you are in, then you’re a Blue Dog Democrat.

That is the struggle our country is in. If Obama, Pelosi, Reid, Waxman, Rangel, Al Gore, etc. get their way, finally, we’re going to lose the very system that has made America great – The Free Market, Private Sector.

This just as few European countries are beginning to see that it’s the free enterprise system that works.

The Blue Dogs and other moderates have been sliding to this final dilemma for years. The issue is not whether one is for or against “government.” The issue is: Do they work for us, or do we work for them?

Mr. Obama has defined the stakes succinctly. The centerpiece of his health-care proposal is the Public Option.

He said yesterday, “Nobody is talking about some government takeover of health care” and to disagree is “scaring everybody.” He is underselling the power of his own idea. That public option is potent competition, a winner-sweep-the-table proposition between the public sector and the private sector.

This from a man who has been “scaring” every citizen with gloom & doom if the Congress doesn’t pass everything that he, and Liberals have been fighting to achieve for decades: more control over our lives, in every facet of our lives. And if he gets his way, the public sector controlling our health care, he will have succeeded in making more than 50% of the population dependent on the public sector.

Washington and the states are now fighting each other to drain revenue out of the same private sector. Back in March, New York’s legislature, amid a deep recession, enacted its own income tax surcharge. These governments are becoming like people from dying planets in “Star Trek,” foraging the galaxy for new sources of whatever life force keeps them alive. A surtax is the ultimate act of public-sector panic.

One thing that drives Liberals nuts is the profit factor. That has been a very dirty word for Liberals. Somehow businesses making (excessive) profits must mean that somehow they took advantage of someone. That it’s zero sum game. If someone made a profit, it must have meant that someone else receives less than their “fair share.” People who truly believe in the public sector do not understand economics, and do not understand that it is incentives that drive people to succeed. Take that away, put bureaucrats in charge, and there is no incentive to deliver the best product.

This is all many people in the most dynamic corners of the private sector talk about now. Their beef is not with recession but the feeling that this presidency and Congress have no interest in them. If we get another jobless recovery, we’ll need the job-creating impulses of these people. The do-good but not-for-profit mentality of the current government looks either hostile to or oblivious of these private-sector fast runners.

As Henninger succinctly points out, this recent economic event may have brought the country to the point where it needs to decide if it’s the private sector that can create more wealth, or the public sector that will “equalize” everyone.

For centrists in both parties the moment has come to decide which side of the public-private divide they want the U.S. and its future workers to be on. Trying to live in both has brought us, inevitably, to that decision.



Cheney Lost to Bush by David Brooks


Cheney Lost to Bush By DAVID BROOKS

I always enjoy reading articles where I gain new insight.

While I only agree with David Brooks 50% of the time, I always read his columns. Assuming that he has his facts right, he makes the case that there was a very serious & strong disagreement between George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. Then he goes into how close Obama and GWB are pretty much on the same page.

President Obama and Dick Cheney conspired on Thursday to propagate a myth. The myth is that we lived through an eight-year period of Bush-Cheney anti-terror policy and now we have entered a very different period called the Obama-Biden anti-terror policy. As both Obama and Cheney understand, this is a completely bogus distortion of history.

Brooks posits that what most people think of as the Bush-Cheney era lasted only about 3 years. By 2005, the Bush-Rice-Hadley era had begun, and they were trying to close Gitmo.

Throughout the second Bush term, officials were trying to close Guantánamo, pleading with foreign governments to take some prisoners, begging senators to allow the transfer of prisoners onto American soil.

Then it gets more interesting, leaving the conventional wisdom (or lack thereof) behind. It’s really Bush who halted waterboarding, in opposition to what Cheney wanted.

Cheney and Obama might pretend otherwise, but it wasn’t the Obama administration that halted the practice of waterboarding. It was a succession of C.I.A. directors starting in March 2003, even before a devastating report by the C.I.A. inspector general in 2004.

Cheney, who sincerely believes he was right then, (and is right now), is now attacking the Bush administration, as well as the Obama administration – that is now adopting the same policies as Bush.

But then Brooks points out that Obama is correcting what GWB failed at – explaining his anti-terror policy in a way that people would understand.

The inauguration of Barack Obama has simply not marked a dramatic shift in the substance of American anti-terror policy. It has marked a shift in the public credibility of that policy.

Brooks defends Obama saying he has embraced almost all the strategies of the Bush years. He shows how in most cases, the Obama policy represents a continuation of or a gradual evolution from the final Bush policy.

He then quotes Jack Goldsmith, of The New Republic, describing what has been my biggest disappointment with GWB since 2003.

What Obama gets, and what President Bush never got, is that other people’s opinions matter. Goldsmith puts it well: “The main difference between the Obama and Bush administrations concerns not the substance of terrorism policy, but rather its packaging.   The Bush administration shot itself in the foot time and time again, to the detriment of the legitimacy and efficacy of its policies, by indifference to process and presentation. The Obama administration, by contrast, is intensely focused on these issues.”

I believe that if George Bush had explained day after day, week after week, month after month (albeit through the MSM filter that was determined to defeat him), things would have turned out much differently.

The very first day that Ted Kennedy accused GWB of “lying us into a war” and “misleading us,” and all the other Democrat lies that continued there after, Bush should have defended his actions and gone on offense. Or, at least on defence. But neither happened. And once the MSM picked up the narrative it was the beginning of the end of support for GWB’s terror policy which increased exponentially.

But now:

Obama has taken many of the same policies Bush ended up with, and he has made them credible to the country and the world.

Brooks, who has been quite enamored with Obama for some time, still makes a good case that I can agree with, on this subject. It’s the last sentence that I don’t buy, but that’s because of other factors.

Do I wish he had been more gracious with and honest about the Bush administration officials whose policies he is benefiting from? Yes. But the bottom line is that Obama has taken a series of moderate and time-tested policy compromises. He has preserved and reformed them intelligently. He has fit them into a persuasive framework. By doing that, he has not made us less safe. He has made us more secure.

Cross posted at: http://www.tomllewis.com/ & http://www.thenextright.com/

Category: , ,

NY20 Campaign


Promoted from Diaries – Soren Dayton.

As Jim Tedisco’s Finance Chairman I was in close proximity to some of the decisions that were made in the NY20 campaign.

I’ve known Jim for well over a decade and was very pleased when he asked me to help him raise money for his campaign. I assumed, and was correct; that it would be relatively easy to get donors to give to his campaign since everyone who knew him assumed he would win. I certainly did. We raised over $1.5 million in eight weeks (more details on that in a later post). The Republican candidate in the 2008 race had only brought in $1.1 million in 16 months.

Here was a well-liked state legislator, who became the Minority Leader of the New York State Assembly. He earned some national attention in successfully challenging Governor Spitzer when he tried to float giving drivers licenses to illegal aliens, which had garnered him support as a strong leader. We all thought: how could he possibly lose to someone who hadn’t done a thing in the district and who had zero name recognition?

Because I consider him a friend, and have been friends with some members of his campaign staff, I don’t want to delve into who did what and point fingers. What I do want to write about, briefly, is my opinion of the two main reasons why he was defeated.

1) He should have come out against the Stimulus bill on day one. I had a few discussions with the campaign “leaders” to find out why he didn’t do this. The answer seemed to revolve around the polling that showed a 48-48 split. As the 20th CD has been trending more and more Democrat every year since Bush won in 2004 I understood their thinking. But personally, as a conservative, I wanted him to come out against it, and plainly say that the $787 billion wasn’t really a Stimulus bill, it was a big spending bill. WHICH IS WHAT IT IS.

2) He should have had his TV ads peppered with at least 50% positive ads. Jim had a great story to tell, as was shown by the overwhelming victory he had in Saratoga County (almost 1/3 of the district) where everyone knew him.

Had he come out strongly against the Stimulus he would have been carrying the torch for most republicans and every conservative thinker in the country. It would have been the same message that propelled thousands of people to the Tea Parties. It would have defined him as the fighter that I have known him to be.

Once he took that middle road, taking no position, his opponent was able to define him as a “typical politician.”  Lesson learned: Sometimes you have to ignore the campaign professionals and act on principle.

It’s sad for many of us in the 20th district and sad for Jim who put his life into the race 100%.

I still believe that conservative ideas will win out in America, over time, because they are the best ideas to elevate the whole country.

(This item has been cross posted on TheNextRight)