13 December 2009

The Hardest Choice Since Sophie's

Orrin raises the possibility that we can defeat health care reform, or defeat President Obama, but not both. This is similar to the idea that attempting health care reform saved Clinton's presidency by electing a Republican House and making him into a caretaker President. Of course, with Clinton we defeated healthcare reform but were stuck with the President for two terms.

With Obama, it's a harder choice. Clinton, at least, was relatively innocuous on foreign affairs and even, with NAFTA, the ICC and Kyoto, good for the country. I really don't want healthcare reform, which if passed will torture us for generations, but Obama (Nobel speech excepted) can't be trusted with foreign affairs. What do we do?


erp said...

No disrespect to Orrin, but there are many other choices. One such very doable choice is:

1. Defeat the takeover of health care insurance;
2. Discredit and expose Obama and his henchmen;
3. Defeat every other overreach until the next election in November;
4. Elect non-RINO Republicans, conservative Independents and/or Democrats;
5. Retake congress and reverse some of the measures already passed into law;
6. Restore senate advise and consent for presidential appointments, get rid of the "czars" and regain control of the public sector unions;
7. Elect a president in '12 who reflects our values.

We need a fresh new face. I hope to God there's one out there willing and able to do the job.

PJ said...

Take the bird in the hand, and worry about the birds in the bush later.

Susan's Husband said...

OJ is also assuming, against all evidence that I can see, that Obama would adopt a more centrist policy mix if health care nationalization was defeated. This ignores not only Obama's entire history, but also the fact that it is the Democratic Party in Congress, not Obama, who is driving this train wreck. Even if Obama changes, what difference will that make?

Anonymous said...

The health-care destruction bill is the near enemy. It must be met first. Losing that battle would be catastrophic.

As for O's foreign policy fecklessness, the tragic fact is the the left has completely destroyed the ability of the US to take on the threats that need to be addressed. Sure, O won't do anything about Iran, but the CIA plus the MSM cowed even W into not doing anything about them, so no other GOP president will be able to either. Until we are hit again, that won't change, which is a truly horrific realization.

erp said...

If Bush had a willing congress, neither the CIA nor the media would have stopped him.

Anonymous said...

erp: Congress can't prevent the president from ordering airstrikes. I think Pres. Bush held off because he thought the reaction from the Dems & the MSM (especially after that ridiculous 2007 NIE) would have been so extreme (since they don't care about national security at all, it must be said) that it would have made it very difficult for McCain (who we always knew would be the nominee) to get elected. Recall that Maverick was leading in the polls until the economy was imploded last fall, even with his awful campaign.

erp said...

David, a president can call airstrikes, but as we saw in Vietnam, congress can withhold money and tear the country apart. There would be nothing the Dems would have liked more than for Bush to preside over another American defeat.

Yes, McCain might have won had the leftwing money boys, i.e. Soros, et al. not made a run on the banks forcing Bush to step in to stop it. He might have even contained it had McCain not made the ridiculous mad dash to Washington which made him look even more foolish and when he made no attempt to stop his people from dumping on Palin, it was over.

Do you think McCain would have made a president than Obama? I'm not so sure. Obama is a mental lightweight, but I think McCain is even more so.

Anyway, Ace is saying that Reid bought off Lieberman (not a surprise), so the national disgrace/farce insurance fraud looks like a go.

jim hamlen said...

Obama is nothing like Clinton. He has none of the wink-wink charm, and he does not have the political slipperiness, either. His first instincts are harder, ruder, and much more brittle than Clinton's.

And Obama's affirmative action raison d'etre will work against him in 2012 - absent a dramatic economic surge, there are millions of people who will not vote for him a second time. How many millions? If it's 10 or 12, he is in big trouble. And the further he moves into ridicule territory, that number only grows. Clinton could laugh at some of his troubles, and it insulated him against the crazier opposition. Obama doesn't do that. He stumbles around and says things that only confirm what the wahoos were saying in 2008 about him. And his relentless attacks on George Bush don't help him at all - it makes everyone (except the moonbat Left) think that he is ducking the job, which again confirms the image he gave during his Rick Warren interview.

The policy stuff will take care of itself if the GOP retakes the House. The notion of governance by the 'czars' will end immediately, and the abuses of the system and the suppression of the IGs will be investigated. The firing of Gerald Walpin alone (if properly addressed) will put Obama in a very bad spot. Ditto for the clouds surrounding Eric Holder. The arrogance of the Left will bring it down, if enough sunlight is applied.

Events overseas are not going to help Obama, either. Clinton had a time of relative peace and quiet, and the terrible things that did happen (Rwanda, the Balkans, etc.) were not directly pointed at the US. Obama has to face Iran, NK, Russia, China, Venezuela, and Syria. Plus, he has the upward creepig price of oil to deal with. All of these items run counter to his view of the world, or are beyond his "instincts" to address properly.