Pinheads and Patriots (4 page)

Also, Mr. Reagan believed, like his acolytes today (e.g., Dick Cheney), that the United States has an obligation to lead the world toward more freedom. In the eyes of conservatives, we are not one nation among many—we are the righteous world leader.

But as President Obama implied in that April press conference, being a superpower means we get dragged into everybody else's problems. That can be very painful, as we found out in Vietnam and Iraq. Some conservatives, like Pat Buchanan, believe it is insane to be the world's beat cop.

Today in America, progressives are center stage, and they tend to focus on “social justice,” not international justice. The massive domestic spending embraced by the Obama administration in pursuit of helping less affluent Americans has created fear in the financial community. Like ultraliberal California, the USA could go bankrupt if entitlement spending continues to expand. And the folks sense it.

It would be easy to write that Ronald Reagan was a Patriot and Barack Obama is a Pinhead. That, however, would be a pure ideolog
ical opinion because the data is not yet complete. President Obama's mandate for progressive change is not going well, but as history demonstrates, things can change fast.

So let's say something more nuanced: both Obama and Reagan can be considered Patriots for their public service alone. Also, President Reagan's
accomplishments
put him firmly in Patriot territory, while President Obama's achievements, so far, cannot be defined. It's simply too early in his term. But, no question, Mr. Obama has already entered the land of the Pinhead on a few occasions, and the health care deal is a huge gamble with the country's future. Patriotic Americans have a right to be extremely skeptical about the President's overall vision for America. That being said, true Patriots are always fair-minded and should give the President a case-by-case hearing. When things don't add up, like the exploding budget deficit, let him know it. That's what the Tea Party movement is all about.

But when Americans see the President's policy of attacking the al-Qaeda leadership with drone-driven missiles working very well, we should also acknowledge that.

It is true, however, that there comes a time when an overall assessment has to be made of a leader. That day of reckoning may spell very bad news for Barack Obama. Because so many of his policies have been Far Left leaning, he is close to the point of no return unless the economy begins to soar.

Because America remains a Center-Right country, I will make this prediction: if President Obama does not move rightward toward the center, there will be trouble ahead for him on a number of fronts. We are living in a dangerous time. Outwitting our enemies will take strength and smarts. President Obama is smart, but is he tough enough to defeat evil? Will the Chicago community organizer be able to set aside his liberal inclinations and do what is necessary both to protect America and also put it back on solid financial footing? These are the vital questions.

Historically, liberal policies have not led to financial discipline
nor have they instilled fear in belligerent tyrants. I guess there is always a first time, but you might be a Pinhead to bet on it. Come back to the traditional center way of governing, Mr. President, or risk being a one-term guy. Already, some are saying that the Democratic Party is self-destructing, even as it should be enjoying the apex of its power.
New York Times
columnist David Brooks put it this way:

Although Mr. Brooks is a moderate (conservative by the über-liberal
Times
standards), he is obviously chiding the Democratic congressional leadership for being too liberal and out of touch with the folks. The American people, however, are not likely to make a distinction between the White House and Congress. The huge debt run-up, the health care fiasco, and the dubious war on terror strategy are happening on Obama's watch. He will be held responsible if things go south, no matter how much of the chaos was caused by the
fools on Capitol Hill. If the President does not want to be infected by the Pinhead contagion that is now rampant in Washington, he must begin to take a few non–Far Left positions on vital issues. If he doesn't, the strong current of voter disenchantment will eventually send him floating off into the sunset.

Just ask Jimmy Carter.

THE STORM CLOUD HOVERING
over President Obama in late 2009 was nothing compared to what arrived early the next year. The pounding he took on Tuesday, January 19, 2010, should have given him brain freeze. On that blustery day in Massachusetts, some of the most liberal voters in the country elected a Republican to replace the late Edward Kennedy in the Senate. It was absolutely astonishing.

You know the story. Democrat Martha Coakley was ahead by 30 points in the polls after she won the primary. But as events unfolded in the autumn of '09, things began to totter, and four days before the vote, Ms. Coakley found herself behind in a Suffolk University poll. By the way, the extremely liberal
Boston Globe
ignored the stunning poll upon its release. And the
Globe
wonders why it's going bankrupt.

With Coakley's support cracking, a dramatic call was made
to the bullpen. Look up in the sky—it's a bird, it's a plane, it's AIR FORCE ONE! Two days before the vote, the Eagle had landed in Boston; President Obama had arrived to save Martha Coakley.

Only he didn't.

Republican state senator Scott Brown defeated Coakley by 100,000 votes. For the first time in almost fifty years, Massachusetts had elected a GOPer to the Senate. And not just any Republican. Brown said flat out that he would try to block ObamaCare if elected, and that he would oppose almost all the President's big-spending policies. In other words, Brown didn't run against Ms. Coakley; he ran against Obama.

Hot off the presses! Senator-elect Scott Brown (R-MA) holds up a
Boston Herald
newspaper announcing his historic victory in Massachusetts.
Associated Press/AP
Photographed by Elise Amendola, File

Days after the shocking vote,
Time
magazine put Barack Obama on its cover with the headline:
NOW WHAT?

Good question.

Some partisan Pinheads on cable TV attacked Scott Brown by
calling him vile names and smearing those who voted for him even though many of them had supported Barack Obama for President just a few months prior. The reaction to Brown's victory by some on the Far Left was downright ugly. It makes one wonder whether these people are simply damaged emotionally. The voters of Massachusetts were clearly sending a message to the rest of the country. By insulting that message, the radical Left just made more enemies, as if they don't already have enough. We're not talking about shooting yourself in the foot here, radical Left people; we're talking about blowing your brains out.

But let's return to the real world and leave Far Left loon land behind. What
exactly
was the Bay State message, anyway?

Actually, it was quite Patriotic in the great tradition of Massachusetts. I believe that most Americans, including many liberals, do not trust the federal government. I mean, we have to put up with it because that's our system, but do you really think the giant, chaotic apparatus in Washington can bring success and happiness to your life? Anyone who believes that should travel to Havana, Cuba, and take a look around.

No, most Americans want to pursue happiness without Uncle Sam making things more difficult for them. And in the beginning of 2010, that was exactly what the federal government was doing: making things worse for hardworking Americans. Only Far Left, Kool-Aid-drinking Pinheads failed to notice.

MEDIC ALERT

The economy was the best example. With unemployment at 10 percent and workers insecure almost everywhere, the folks were in no mood for the vast expansion of the federal government. To be fair, the bad economy was not Barack Obama's fault, and not even Moses could have healed the economic breach in a year. But the President
insisted on spending incredible amounts of taxpayer money to prop up failing companies and state governments and had little to show for it. The voters in Massachusetts clearly noticed.

Then there was federal health care reform, or ObamaCare. As we discussed, Yale PhD candidates had troubling figuring it out. Every time Nancy Pelosi wailed about a “public option,” folks began swearing under their breath. “What the deuce is a public option? What are you talking about, lady?” The health care debate was so strident and complicated that it simply wore many Americans out.

A SAFE ASSUMPTION

By the time the underwear terrorist appeared on Christmas Day (just a few weeks before the vote in Massachusetts), it appears that the folks had had enough. When the Obama administration announced that the jihadist loon they had apprehended would be allowed to lawyer up in Michigan, the swearing became audible. Once again, a foreign terrorist trying to kill American civilians had been granted the full rights of an American citizen, rather than being handed over to military authorities and “debriefed” by them without Mr. Miranda in the room. Polls showed most Americans thought the move by Attorney General Eric Holder was incredibly dumb.

An interesting footnote: while some pundits attributed Brown's victory primarily to the economy and health care, his campaign's internal polling showed that many who voted for him did so because they objected to Obama's somewhat “soft” approach to the war on terror.

And that perception worsened when the President's top security guys told a congressional committee they had not even been
consulted
about interrogating the underwear bomber. If
that
story had broken before the Brown-Coakley vote, old Scott might have won by a half million votes.

So the handwriting was incredibly clear one year into President Obama's term:
THINGS WERE NOT GOING WELL
! The committed left-wing press, however, remained in denial.

The
Boston Globe
editorialized: “Brown's strong win does not negate the resounding mandate that President Obama and the Democrats received in 2008.”

Are you kidding me? The President directly appealed to the voters of Massachusetts to reinforce his “mandate,” and they answered, absolutely not. Paging the
Boston Globe
editorial team. Does the word
Pinheads
mean anything to you?

The
Washington Post
was almost as bad. It editorialized, “We don't believe that Tuesday's defeat means Mr. Obama should back away from his goal of expanding access to health care while controlling health care costs.”

The day after that editorial, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi told the nation she did not have the votes to pass ObamaCare “at this time.” But as it turned out, a combination of big-money deals to various states and the President's high-profile determination reversed the course of mandated national health care.

So it is still an open question as to whether or not the concerns that drove the Massachusetts stunner will spread nationwide, causing Democrats to replace the Republicans as the party of no (as in “No, we are not going to vote for you”). We'll see.

History, of course, has a way of intruding on pundits like me; events can overtake analysis, making us look like Pinheads. But I will speak my piece on this anyway: Barack Obama is a gambler. He took a big chance with health care reform and didn't fold 'em when Kenny Rogers might have. His grit in sticking with something he believes in is admirable. Nevertheless, I continue to believe that ObamaCare will not serve the country well. Why? Because the massive health care entitlement is far too expensive and confusing. In the interest of Patriotism, let me elaborate on some of the solutions I suggested earlier to solve this incredible mess.

The federal government should have passed tort reform so that doctors and other medical personnel could protect themselves against frivolous lawsuits generated by greedy lawyers who know how to game the system. In Great Britain, if a judge deems that a lawsuit has little or no merit, the guy who sues pays all costs.

The feds should also allow all health insurance companies to compete nationwide. This free-market approach would undercut pricing and possibly introduce more options to the people.

On the other hand, I do believe the feds should impose standards of behavior on health insurance companies and fine the hell out of them when they fail to pay a legitimate claim or throw a client off the rolls because he or she gets hurt or becomes sick. Therefore, I have no problem with that part of the ObamaCare legislation.

The overall law, however, chills me, and I am not alone. Creating another monstrous bureaucracy that will spend—and possibly misuse—trillions of dollars is not in the best interest of the nation. If we go under financially, every American will pay a huge price. And there is no cure for national bankruptcy.

WHAT'S MINE IS YOURS

The final word on national health care reform is that, even if the law turns out to be a disaster, our legislative system worked. The debate was brutal. Both sides slugged it out for months while the nation watched and gathered information. Because the Democrats controlled Congress, ObamaCare finally squeaked through, but it was straight-razor close, and there were more than a few nicks when the shave was done. All in all, it was a good fight. There were Patriots and Pinheads galore, of course. Depending on your point of view, you can tag them. But I like the fact that Americans know the issues and now understand the stark differences between liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans. There is no fog anymore.
President Obama wants the feds to impose “social justice.” He wants Washington to amass as much power as it can, so states that do not embrace the entitlement culture will be forced to do so by the federal government.

That's what Barack Obama's true mission is. He wants to level the playing field and narrow the gap between the affluent and those who don't have much. Is the President a Pinhead because of his belief system? No! He sincerely believes America should be a nation that provides for those who do not have. I won't designate someone a Pinhead for well-thought-out, sincerely held beliefs, even if I think they are misguided.

But Mr. Obama
is
a Pinhead when you think about the way in which he attained power. During his presidential campaign, he ran as a moderate, a man who wanted to change the country for the better but in a pragmatic, nonideological way. Well, that posture has turned out to be a ruse. Barack Obama is the most liberal President I've seen in my lifetime. In fact, he may well be the most left-wing chief executive in American history. That doesn't make him an eternal Pinhead, but it does cast doubt on his honesty. Few understood the extent of his liberalism when they voted for him. Now we know.