Bill Keller's First Op-Ed: Fill[ing] In the Blanks

Bill Keller (long an unhinged liberal) was the Executive Editor of The New York Times from 2003 until just recently. As he gradually descended into complete liberal psychosis -- beyond even the Times’ fairly lenient stance towards such behavior -- the powers-that-be at The Gray Lady finally did what was right, and he was effectively fired as Executive Editor. (Note that this version of events is based on what I've heard and read, and is contrary to the official story that portrayed the move as Keller’s “stepping down”). Naturally, though – and in true Times’ fashion – he was then awarded for his delusions by being given one of the coveted slots on the paper’s op-ed page! 

His inaugural effort in this new capacity was today, and he penned a column entitled Fill In the Blanks. I found it so wrong-headed and objectionable that I felt compelled to submit a comment. To my slight surprise, my comment was posted, and I thought I would share it with any readers who may still remain following my extended absence from the blogosphere! I'd advise reading Keller's piece first (you can find it here), and then if you're interested, here is my response, which can also be found here on the Times' website. (My comment is posted under the username tbv1977):

It boggles the mind, Mr. Keller, that you (and President Obama) would continue to blame George W. Bush for the problems Obama faces as president and we face as a country. Let's not forget that he sought this job, and did so with a full understanding of the so-called "mess" that Bush had left for him. What's the statute of limitations on blaming one's predecessor? If Obama is reelected will he blame his own first term failings if conditions fail to improve in a second Obama term?

I'm also amazed by your selective memory in blaming Republican resistance for Obama's ineffectiveness. It seems you conveniently forget that Obama had significant majorities in the House and Senate for the first two years of his presidency. A president's political capital is never higher than early in his term, and when that capital is coupled with the large congressional majorities he enjoyed for two years, there is literally no one else to blame but Obama and Democrats for not accomplishing more than they did. Sure, they passed healthcare reform and they passed the stimulus, but no one can blame Bush or Republicans for the fact that healthcare reform was (and is) unpopular with most Americans, or for the fact that the stimulus simply did not work (and arguably made matters worse). Republicans didn't "succeed" in "turning 'stimulus' into an expletive" -- the abject failure of the stimulus itself accomplished that. Likewise, the GOP didn't enjoy a victory in "portraying 'Obamacare' as socialized medicine" -- the view of many Americans that Obamacare effectively *is* socialized medicine can take that credit. 

The reality is that apparently you, your wife and your daughters were -- like millions of other Americans -- seduced and duped by the rhetorical magic of Candidate Obama. What has become clear to most Americans by now is that when the teleprompter and grand backdrops are stripped away, the [president] has no clothes. Obama and those who elected him are the only ones to blame for that.

So, readers, what do you think?

Let's Kick Off the 2012 Campaign, Shall We?

Greetings to any "Bragging Writes" readers who are still out there (or who have continued to check here for new posts).  I appreciate your loyalty!

A few things have been going on in my life over the last year or two, most notably that my wife and I welcomed our first baby this past summer.  It's been an extraordinary, wonderful, and rewarding time in our lives.  (It's been a challenging and exhausting one, too)!  Long story short: there's been no time for me to blog, and further -- and quite frankly -- the issues and people dominating the political headlines since the election of President Obama haven't been compelling enough to inspire me to take to the keyboard!  With my son now just over 6 months old (and finally sleeping consistently!), and with the political news again capturing my attention, I thought it might be time to try and resuscitate "Bragging Writes".  Besides, with 2011's arrival comes the "officially unofficial" beginning of the 2012 presidential campaign.  I know that's crazily premature, but it's the reality in today's political world.  And premature or not, nothing gets my blood pumping (and thus my fingers typing) more than a presidential campaign!

So with all of that said, today I'm going to "borrow" from one of my former professors at the University of Virginia, the esteemed Dr. Larry Sabato, Professor of Politics at U.Va., director of The U.Va. Center for Politics, best-selling author, and eerily accurate prognosticator of elections.  In this morning's "Crystal Ball" piece, Sabato gets the ball rolling by handicapping the potential contenders for the Republican Nomination in 2012. 

You can read the entire piece here, and below is the graphic which gives you the short and sweet version:



So take a look, give it a read, and we'll circle back here in a week or so to discuss in a bit more detail.  My thanks to Dr. Sabato for the analysis, the above graphic, and most of all, for serving as a catalyst for my return to blogging!

Hope & Change ???

Hey, look on the bright side, folks! It could be worse! Am I right, or am I right?



Meanwhile, Joe "It's a Big F#cking Deal" Biden was on a roll of his own... In a fundraising email, Biden warned recipients that the GOP will be unleashing a "blitzkrieg" of attacks against Democrats this Fall. Nice.

Hope and change...

Wake Me Up When There's An Election...Oh, Wait...

Hello to any "readers" of Bragging Writes who may still be out there. My sincere apologies for the complete and total lack of blogging for the last, well, let's not quantify it...let's just say it's been awhile!

So where have I been? Well...in a nutshell, it's really quite simple: when push comes to shove, this is a hobby and not a job, and so my job and any job-related activities must come first. But that's only part of the story. I must also admit that I seem to have misplaced my "muse". Or maybe I've realized that my muse only comes out during election years! Put differently, I find myself most inspired to write in the midst of the part of politics that I have always found most interesting -- the "horse race". Elections.

On that note, you may have heard there are a few elections today that have garnered some pretty significant national attention. In Virginia, the Gubernatorial Election has Republican Bob McDonnell facing off against Democrat Creigh Deeds. In New Jersey, incumbent Democratic Governor Jon Corzine is up against Republican Chris Christie. And last but not least, in (way) upstate New York, near the Canadian Border, there is a race for the House of Representatives (New York 23) that now pits Conservative Party candidate -- note: not Republican Party candidate -- Doug Hoffman against Democrat Bill Owens. (The Republican candidate, Dede Scozzafava, dropped out of the race this past weekend and subsequently endorsed the Democrat).

These three races, all quite different in many ways, also have several very interesting things in common:

• All three are states (or districts, in the case of NY-23) carried by President Obama just a year ago;
• All three are races in which President Obama and/or his White House have had significant involvement;
• All three races -- as of this writing at 6:15pm Tuesday evening -- will, in my opinion, likely be won by the Republican (or, in NY-23, Conservative) candidate.

Last year, Obama won Virginia by a margin of 53% to 46% of the vote over John McCain. The latest RealClearPolitics Average (an average of all recent polling, a.k.a. "RCP Average") has Republican McDonnell ahead of Democrat Deeds 54% to 41%. Last year, Obama won New Jersey by a margin of 57% to 42% of the vote over John McCain. The latest RCP Average has Republican Christie ahead of Democrat (and incumbent) Corzine 43% to 42%. Last year, Obama carried New York's 23rd Congressional District by a margin of 52% to 47% of the vote over John McCain. The latest poll for this race (there is no RCP Average) has Conservative Hoffman ahead of Democrat Owens 41% to 36%. The race in Virginia is a foregone conclusion -- McDonnell will win that one handily. The polls in New Jersey have fluctuated wildly over the last few weeks, and most consider this race to be extremely tight. I happen to believe, however, that Christie will win by 3 to 5 points tonight. As for NY-23, this race is just a gigantic mess. The original Republican candidate, Scozzafava, never enjoyed the backing of all national Republicans, and ultimately some notable GOP figures including Fred Thompson, Tim Pawlenty, and yes, Sarah Palin, threw their support behind Hoffman over Scozzafava. Either way, though, it looks as though Hoffman will win tonight, and while he may not be an official Republican, his victory would be a loss for the Democrats.

It's very important to note the involvement of the President and the White House in each of these races as well. Rather than try to analyze that myself, I'll leave it to a professional. John Fund of The Wall Street Journal summed it up nicely today when he wrote the following:

"It can't be said that President Obama hasn't gone all-out for Democratic candidates in the three marquee off-year elections that will be decided today.

In Virginia, Mr. Obama appeared twice for Democratic nominee Creigh Deeds. The visits only stopped a few weeks ago after Mr. Deeds began dropping in the polls, when unnamed White House aides then contributed to a front-page Washington Post story that effectively had Team Obama washing its hands of any responsibility for his likely loss.

In the wild upstate New York special election for a House seat, the White House has been deeply involved from the start. It effectively created the vacancy by enticing GOP incumbent John McHugh to become Secretary of the Army. It also helped recruit Democrat Bill Owens, a wealthy trial lawyer, and President Obama held a fundraiser in New York for him. Just yesterday the White House dispatched Vice President Joe Biden to the district to drive up turnout and lambaste Republicans as intolerant. White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel also played an instrumental role over the weekend in convincing Dede Scozzafava, the now-withdrawn GOP nominee in the race, to endorse Mr. Owens rather than Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman.

But it's in New Jersey's governor's race that the White House footprint has been most visible and heavy. Last August, Team Obama was so worried that incumbent Governor Jon Corzine was trailing in the polls that it effectively ordered him to install top Obama political pollster Joel Benenson to mange strategy for the campaign. White House officials David Axelrod and Patrick Gaspard traveled to New Jersey to deliver the message in person to Mr. Corzine. Politico.com, citing three Corzine aides, reports that at one point the New Jersey governor even 'began to suspect that the White House was considering pushing him to step aside for another candidate -- a tactic the White House unsuccessfully tried against another northeastern Democrat in similar trouble -- New York Gov. David Paterson.'

That didn't happen, but with Mr. Benenson installed in the campaign, the White House jumped into the race with both feet. President Obama has been to New Jersey three times to rally Democrats. Sunday's visit lasted an entire day, a sharp contrast to the in-and-out stump campaigning most presidents do on behalf of candidates.

The fact is, President Obama has poured a lot more time and energy into these races than incumbent presidents usually do. At least some of his prestige and clout are on the line tonight along with the fate of his party's nominees."

And so the narrative is apparently written, right? Any Republican win tonight is a sign of trouble for Obama and the Democrats, and a Republican sweep would be a (politically) seismic event signaling a direct repudiation of Obama and the Democrats and the potential beginning of a Republican comeback, right? Well, maybe. You see, this is where I differ with many other Republicans and even with the way the headlines have already begun to be crafted by the media. Because again, as I write, I think we are looking at a Republican sweep tonight -- (assuming Hoffman is a de facto Republican in NY-23). And while I think this is certainly significant and while it would have been thought improbable six months ago and impossible twelve months ago, I don't believe the GOP should pop the champagne just yet.

In short, I think this is likely more of a rejection of Obama and Congressional Democrats than it is a sign of renewed confidence in or newfound affection for Republicans. Should my prediction hold true, I do think Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid ought to be concerned. I do not, however, think that Republicans should begin licking their chops and dreaming of regaining majorities in the House and Senate next year on the way to taking back the White House in 2012.

Obama, Pelosi and Reid should be worried because of the real concerns that many of the same independent voters who put Obama in the White House now have about him and his Capital Hill cohorts -- the same independents who will likely tip these three elections away from Democrats tonight. Obama needs them to pass healthcare, and he needs them for electoral purposes both in the midterm elections next year and his own reelection in 2012. So while this should be something that raises the stress level in the West Wing, let's not go overboard. Three elections in an off-year do not signify a catastrophe for Obama and his party by any means, but they do likely signify the need to recalibrate a bit in order to prevent further political erosion.

As for the GOP, the Republican "brand" is so very damaged -- rightfully so, some might argue, (this writer being one of them, at least on certain issues) -- that three elections in an off-year will be only the first step in a long process of recovery and rebuilding. Would a "sweep" tonight be a feather in the GOP's cap? Sure. Would it energize a Republican base still licking their (largely self-inflicted) wounds from 2008? You bet. But if Republicans try to make too much out of what happens tonight, they risk returning immediately to the cocky and tone-deaf politics that brought the party to its knees a year ago. So as a Republican, my advice to the GOP tonight is the same advice a good football coach gives his players about how to behave after scoring a touchdown. Do you spike the ball and start dancing around like a maniac? Absolutely not. You calmly hand the referee the ball, return to the field, and get back to work. "Act like you've been there before", the coach says. Bingo. Republicans tonight should "act like [they've] been there before". If they do, perhaps it will indeed be the first of many steps required to actually get them back there again.

A 'Healthy' Debate

Tonight, President Obama will hold his fourth primetime press conference since taking office in January. Obama's primary topic for tonight will be the hotly debated issue of health care reform. With polls showing the public's approval of Obama's handling of the health care issue slipping, he undoubtedly realizes that his chances of signing meaningful reform into law are diminishing daily.

The House revealed its version of a health care reform bill last week, and the bill's unveiling was met with almost instantaneous controversy. Obama did not seem worried, though, and forcefully reiterated his intention of passing a health care reform bill before Congress' August recess, telling reporters:

"We are going to get this done...Don't bet against us...We are going to make this happen."

I don't know anyone who would argue that the country's current health care system is good. Indeed, there are unquestionably problems with the status quo, not the least of which being the number of uninsured Americans. So the debate, it seems to me, does not hinge on the issue of whether or not improvement is needed, but rather on how that improvement should be made.

The sweeping changes proposed by the House (and supported by Obama) would, according to the Associated Press:

"...require everyone to have health insurance and make employers provide it or pay a penalty; subsidize the poor to help them buy care; and create a new public insurance plan modeled after Medicare to compete with private insurance companies."

While the merits of these proposed changes are debatable, what is not debatable is that health care comprises one-sixth of our entire economy, and that changes like those in the current House bill will literally affect every single American. Making any fundamental change to a system that holds such economic significance and that will be felt by every person is no small task. Making the sorts of changes that Obama is asking for will be an extraordinarily complex task. The logistics of implementing such a change are not only maddeningly complicated, they are also very expensive.

The president was dealt a blow last week when the head of the Congressional Budget Office, Doug Elmendorf, testified before the Senate Budget Committee. From The Washington Post:

Congress's chief budget analyst delivered a devastating assessment yesterday of the health-care proposals drafted by congressional Democrats, fueling an insurrection among fiscal conservatives in the House and pushing negotiators in the Senate to redouble efforts to draw up a new plan that more effectively restrains federal spending.

Under questioning by members of the Senate Budget Committee, Douglas Elmendorf, director of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, said bills crafted by House leaders and the Senate health committee do not propose "the sort of fundamental changes" necessary to rein in the skyrocketing cost of government health programs, particularly Medicare. On the contrary, Elmendorf said, the measures would pile on an expensive new program to cover the uninsured.

Though President Obama and Democratic leaders have repeatedly pledged to alter the soaring trajectory -- or cost curve -- of federal health spending, the proposals so far would not meet that goal, Elmendorf said, noting, "The curve is being raised." His remarks suggested that rather than averting a looming fiscal crisis, the measures could make the nation's bleak budget outlook even worse.

By no means do I pretend to be an expert on health care or health care reform. Further, I would in no way classify myself as one who is diametrically opposed to making necessary changes to a system that is not working properly. That said, there are a few areas where I differ with the President and with the Democrats in Congress. The following is a sample of some of the questions and areas of concern I have:

1. Why is President Obama in such a hurry to "get this done" before Congress' August recess? It seems to me that if such significant changes are going to be made to such a vital aspect of our country and her people, they should be done with extreme caution and only after careful deliberation. Rarely (if ever) is there an effective "quick fix" to a big problem, and I see no reason why this is an exception. Obama's arbitrary deadline seems based more on politics than on ensuring that whatever reform he signs into law has been thoroughly evaluated and considered -- not only by the members of Congress who will vote on it, but by the American people who will be affected by it.
2. When has the government ever really "fixed" anything? Does the government truly "run" anything well? Many opponents of the current proposal use the DMV as an example of what we can expect out of government-run health care, and while I think that's an extreme comparison, the underlying point has some validity. Do we want to entrust our health care to the federal government? Think about that for a bit, and I suspect you might have some concerns.
3. Is raising taxes and spending -- undeniably required for this to be enacted -- the wisest course of action given the fact that we are already in a recession and already facing the largest deficits in U.S. history? It's not just Republicans who express concerns about the fiscal implications of the current proposal, but also the so-called "Blue Dog Democrats", a group of roughly 50 Democrats in the House of Representatives who pride themselves on their fiscal conservatism. Even some Democratic Governors have expressed concerns, with Tennessee Governor Phil Bredesen referring to the House bill as "the mother of all unfunded mandates".

Yesterday, President Obama accused those who oppose his health care reform proposal of playing politics. While that may be true, it seems to me that it is Obama himself who is playing politics, and he is doing so with an issue that is too serious and far-reaching for the "same old Washington politics" that Candidate Obama promised to end. The president realizes that his political capital is diminishing, and with it, the political "window" for pushing the kind of reform he wants through Congress is slowly closing. And while I agree reform of some kind is needed, I do not necessarily agree that the current proposal is the right answer, and I vehemently disagree with the politically-calculated rush that President Obama has placed on the reform process.

I think it would be beneficial for every American to tune in to the president's press conference tonight (8:00pm Eastern). If the press are appropriately inquisitive -- not always the case when they question Obama -- we could all learn a lot about what may be in store for us in the near future, and how, precisely, it will all be paid for.