Obama Can’t Win Healthcare Test

U.S. Supreme Court building.

U.S. Supreme Court building.

Note: This blog was originally written at the time of oral arguments before the Supreme Court in March. It’s still timely. 

Today the U.S. Supreme Court takes up legal arguments for and against the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare. The plaintiffs are 25 Attorney’s General, including Washington State gubernatorial candidate Rob McKenna.

Rob McKenna

Washington Attorney General Rob McKenna

The defendants, technically, are the U.S. Government. For an unprecedented three days lawyers for either side will try to convince the nine justices of the Robert’s Court that Obamacare should continue to be the law of the land, which it is currently; or that several aspects of the 27-hundred page law are un-Constitutional and ought to be overturned and disallowed.

By the time The Court hears the arguments and issues their decision it will be Summer, probably June. At that time we almost certainly will have chosen a Republican Presidential candidate and it almost certainly will be Mitt Romney. And the Presidential, Senate and Congressional election campaigns will be gearing up for the fall vote. And while the Court’s ruling on the Patients Protection and Affordable Care Act will have serious legal, judicial, legislative, and personal impacts all across this country; another aspect of impact that is undeniable is the political impact. And the good news on that front is Republicans can’t lose. The GOP will get a huge boost this Summer no matter if the Court rules for or against Obamacare.

If you are one of the 70% of Americans who don’t like Obamacare and feel it should be struck down or repealed how are you going to feel about The Court telling you, “tough”. You are going to feel angry and you are going to feel charged up. With an affirmative vote from the court upholding Obamacare the last, best hope of actually removing this albatross from around the necks of the American people and American business will be to win the November elections for Congress and The White House. Failure to do either will undoubtedly mean Obamacare will NEVER be repealed. Even winning the White House and retaining the House of Representatives will not be enough for the GOP, because the Senate has proven to be a place where good ideas go to die. Filibustering is used as a method to block legislation far more than was intended by James Madison and the other authors of our Constitution when they penned it for consideration 225 years ago. So winning in November becomes an all-or-nothing proposition.

Sarah Palin at the Americans for Prosperity-ru...

Sarah Palin at the Americans for Prosperity-run Wisconsin 2011 Tax Day Tea Party Rally.

As was demonstrated by the Tea Party movement in 2010 Americans will respond when pushed to the brink. If Obamacare is upheld, the Democrats will face a desperate GOP that can’t help but win.

If, as I expect, the Supreme Court strikes down Obamacare, saying the Individual Mandate represents an extreme over-reach by Congress, an example of government tyranny our Founding Fathers fought to get rid of, then you will have a President facing re-election with egg all over his face. More significantly you will have a President asking to be re-elected after having accomplished near nothing in his four plus years in office. (That fact remains true even if Obamacare is upheld since the bill was not written by Obama or any of his administration).

Barack Obama signing the Patient Protection an...

Barack Obama signing the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act at the White House Español: Barack Obama firmando la Ley de Protección al Paciente y Cuidado de Salud Asequible en la Casa Blanca (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

A President Obama with no healthcare legislation to hang his hat on has only a weak economy, high unemployment, high gas prices, a more dangerous world, and an ardent promise to raise taxes in which to campaign-on. That is a formula for disaster from a Democrats standpoint.

And do you think Mitt Romney might benefit from having the Obamacare discussion removed from the table? Since much of Obamacare was written, based on the Health Care Law in Massachusetts which Mitt Romney signed into law Romney is likely to dance a jig when the John Robert’s led Supreme Court returns their ruling. He won’t have to continually defend a law that’s very unpopular, or be faced with the comparisons with a law that no longer exists. Instead he can do the right thing and campaign on really fixing the healthcare system in this country.

I can’t imagine how President Obama successfully campaigns in the fall. As expected I believe he will only have negative, slime to throw at Mitt Romney. He won’t be able to run a positive campaign. This is another reason Romney is the best candidate for the GOP. He has led such a squeaky clean life his worst foibles aren’t all that bad. In fact, his worst foibles amount to not always being Conservative enough. And President Obama can’t win that argument either.

Thanks for visiting. Comments are welcome.

Please Share this blog if you find it interesting.

Related articles

March 26, 2012
Categories: National Politics . Tags: , , , , , , , . Author: Michael Schuett . Comments: 1 Comment

The Conservative Purity Test.

“When a guys on the ground and another is dancing around the ring with his hands in the air, the guy dancing is the winner.” -Unknown

Like most people I like to win. Which is why I have always been troubled by the Conservative Purity Test so many who vote Republican feel they must apply to their candidates. It’s a scenario I call the “Take my ball and go home” method of choosing our leaders.

Rush Limbaugh - Caricature

Rush Limbaugh is a very vocal enthusiast of this flawed manner of leadership. The mega-popular radio host is almost as tough on Republicans that fail his Conservative purity test as he is on Democrats.  And he is tough on Democrats. (BTW – Side note- Why is it that Democrats don’t recognize that Bill Maher and Rush Limbaugh are in the exact same business? Entertainment? Hello!) He says too many Republicans “settle” for what he terms “moderates” because we’ve been told we have no other choice. He says nominating a “true” Conservative is the only way to win. Limbaugh is not the only one who feels this way. It gives me no joy in saying that these people are idiots. By Limbaugh’s standards the only true Conservative nominated by Republicans in the past 30 years is Ronald Reagan in 1984 when he was re-elected President. No one since has passed the Conservative purity test.

This Purity Test has the following requirements of the candidates:

1. Be Pro-Life; NO EXCEPTIONS!

2. Never once raise taxes, ever.

3. Be anti-Gay marriage.

4. Never make a deal with any Democrat at any time.

5. Be a devout Christian (Mormons not included).

6. Don’t be a flip-flopper; never change your mind at any time in your life.

There are probably a few others that I’m forgetting. But these six are the hard-core rock solid minimum requirements necessary to pass the Conservative Purity Test.

Česky: Oficiální portrét amerického prezidenta...

I got news for you Conservative ideologues…Ronald Reagan would not have passed this test. And more significantly neither would ANY of the current GOP Presidential candidates. Mitt Romneyis a flip-flopper.

November 8: Republicans gain control of Congre...

Newt Gingrichembraced health care mandatory requirements AND endorsed Cap & Trade.

, U.S. Senator from Pennsylvania.

Rick Santorum has voted in favor of tax hikes. Ron Paul is an idiot (while true…more significant than he’s an idiot is the fact that he’s irrelevant).

The nominee of the Republican party will be Mitt Romney. Simple math tells us this. So I felt it was time to get something straight about our next President, whom I have chosen to support. He is a panderer. The more politically damaging term “flip-flopper” may apply to Romney but I choose to look at the simple fact that he is pandering to his electorate for votes. SHOCKING! No politician has ever done that before have they? Obviously I jest.

Congressman Poe and Governor Mitt Romney

What ought to concern those considering voting for Romney, especially as it applies to the Conservative Purity Test, is who or what is the TRUE Romney? Is it the Massachusetts’ Governor who had previously taken positions that were not purely Pro-Life and passed a health care law that include a form of the individual mandate? Or is it the rock-hard Conservative who now professes an entirely Pro-Life stance and claims he would repeal Obamacare? Who is he specifically? Well, I tend to believe he’s a lot like Bill Clinton only Conservative. Bill Clinton never seemed to have a conviction that couldn’t be swayed by the latest opinion poll.

Still, giving Romney the benefit of the doubt and keeping my eye on the ball…I want to win…I just have to employ a little common sense. What’s more likely that this life long Mormon with a family heritage that goes back to the beginning of the LDS Church is really a liberal rejecting nearly all the tenets of this church;OR that while serving as a Republican Governor in the most Liberal state in the Union and dealing with a legislature that was 70% Democrat he had to bend or twist or possibly ignore the Conservative Purity Test in order to…1. Get elected…and 2. Govern effectively? Isn’t it obvious? Say what you will about the LDS Church but their dogma is most definitely Conservative.

Come November I want to be dancing around the ring with my hands in the air. And since neither Gingrich or Santorum pass the stupid Conservative Purity Test either; and since Romney will be the GOP Presidential candidate I strongly suggest the “my-way-or-the-highway” Conservatives realize that the ultimate Championship Belt isn’t found in the nominating process. The hands are raised and the champion’s belt is rewarded in November. So come on board. And lets win.

Thanks for visiting. Comments are welcome.

Related articles

March 19, 2012
Categories: National Politics . Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , . Author: Michael Schuett . Comments: Comments Off on The Conservative Purity Test.

Economic Smackdown: Paul Ryan vs. Barack Obama

Today we offer a video showing with graphics and fair commentary the true battle going on in Washington D.C. between the Kensian Economic theorists and smart people.

Thanks for visiting. Comments are welcome.

Related articles

March 16, 2012
Categories: National Politics . Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , . Author: Michael Schuett . Comments: Comments Off on Economic Smackdown: Paul Ryan vs. Barack Obama

Another Kid is Shot and our 2nd Amendment Cringes

handgun

In the Seattle area three kids have been shot by handguns in the past three weeks. According to The Seattle Times the third happened at a gas station near the Tacoma Mall. A man with a license for carrying a concealed weapon placed the gun underneath the driver’s seat as he exited the car to fill the gas tank. A three-year old in the car got the gun and fatally shot himself in the head.

This kind of tragedy is avoidable if only people exercise a little more common sense when it comes to the ownership of handguns. Don’t. Don’t own them. Far more people are shot with guns they or their family members own than by the strangers with guns. If you want to dramatically increase the likelihood that you or a member of your family is shot, own a handgun.

Where I put my foot down is on government getting involved and telling us we may not own guns. The government is not needed in this discussion. Just common sense. The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads: “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” 

The Founding Fathers thought so much of this Right that they placed it second on their list of the first ten amendments, commonly known as The Bill of Rights. But a key aspect of the amendment is frequently ignored by 2nd Amendment advocates, “A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free state…”.  Remove that phrase and the amendment takes on more meaning. It does not say “We shall have the right to keep and bear arms in order to kill our fellow man”

World Peace

. So some regulation of firearms can and should be exercised. To say there should be none is to argue that anybody can own, build, and possess a nuclear weapon; for what is that if not a more extreme form of “arms”.

Still I oppose government banning or severely restricting handguns. But there are lots of things we as people have a right to do that common sense dictates we avoid. I always tell my kids to look both ways  and make eye contact with drivers before crossing the street, even at a cross walk. Entering an unregulated cross walk in heavy traffic may be your right. But you’ll be dead.

I’m a gun owner. Rifles and shotguns, for hunting. I have been since I was twelve years old and my Grandpa gave me a .22 rifle as a Christmas present. He had made an annual gesture of giving guns to the boys in my family for a couple of years. So in a very real sense guns are a tradition in my family.

The author with his shotgun

But for reasons I’ve already explained I have never and would never own a handgun. The only time I would ever own a handgun is if I lived on my own. Then I can be sure to never angrily use it or accidentally use it against a person in my family; and I would be sure to not have it used against me either angrily or accidentally. It’s all well and good to claim I would never use my gun in anger. But I’m sure there are many, many murders behind bars who said or thought the same thing.

Three children shot and severely injured, or killed in only three weeks in the Seattle area is too much. It’s too painful. How much do you really need your gun. Does it really protect you? Or does it just excite you? Perhaps the more important question should be, does having it increase your chance of being shot or of someone you care about being shot, or does it increase your chance of you or someone else you love ending up dead? I’ll answer the obvious question: own a handgun and dramatically increase your chances of a quick, tragic death.

Thanks for visiting. Comments are welcome.

If you like this blog or find it interesting please do the author the honor of sharing it. TY.

Related articles

March 15, 2012
Categories: National Politics, Uncategorized, Washington State . Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , . Author: Michael Schuett . Comments: 1 Comment

Republicans are Stepping into Obama’s Bear Trap!

George Stephanopoulos

George Stephanopoulos

When George Stephanopoulos quizzically asked Mitt Romney whether state’s could ban contraception during an ABC News televised Republican Presidential Debate in January we were witnessing the first bear trap laid in the woods by the Obama administration in their hopes of having GOP Presidential candidates decisively put their foot in it. On that night Romney didn’t, in spite of Stephanopoulos’s dogged effort to get him to do so. He was clearly stunned by the question and saw no relevance in it.

Mitt Romney at one of his presidential campaig...

GOP front-runner Mitt Romney

He adeptly avoided committing himself to a dangerous anti-contraception, anti-woman position from which Obama would string him from a tree like a hunting prize.

Unfortunately since that time Republicans have repeatedly put their foot squarely in the steel jaws of Obama’s Machiavellian plot. Once again Obama has proven himself to be one of the most thoroughly cut-throat politicians ever to occupy the White House. Chicago trained him well.

Shortly after Stephanopoulos’ covert opening volley, Obama announced the H-H-S plan to have church owned organizations, specifically the Catholic church,

St. Peter's Basilica at Early Morning

St. Peter's Basilica

supply contraception and the morning-after pill to their workers free of charge. AND THEN he quickly amended the policy to make it so the church’s insurance company’s paid for the contraception. In doing so Obama revealed his political motivation. He wanted to introduce the more extreme position as a track official would want to fire his starting gun to signal that runners should begin running. He wanted the debate, the fight. Again, he put politics ahead of country, dividing our country and creating controversy where none existed. He tailored his argument, and coached his Democratic minions to make the argument about a woman’s right to have contraception.

Should the Catholic church have contraception prohibited from the insurance coverage of all its employees in their churches, hospitals, colleges and universities no woman would be denied contraception. Those church employees could still get contraception on their own; they could still buy their own private insurance policies; they could choose to work for some company or organization that has beliefs and policies in line with their values and that does provide contraception coverage; and as shocking as this suggestion may be they could choose to refrain from sex until such time as they are ready to have a child. (I’m not advocating any of these options. I’m just correctly pointing out that choices do exist. The fact that the choices for the individual may be less desirable than being given something for free is immaterial.)

U.S. Senate Republicans introduced a bill that would exempt churches AND private businesses from providing contraception or other medical procedures in their employees insurance coverage if the leader or leaders of the business have a religious or moral objection. The measure was narrowly defeated 51-49; for which I am grateful. The legislation was a tremendous over-reach by Republicans too distracted by a big steel clamp around their ankles. A trap engraved with Barrack Obama‘s signature.

English: Conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh

Conservative radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh was also encumbered by the bear trap when he referred to a Georgetown University Law Student as a “slut” and a “prostitute”. The woman’s testimony before a Democratic Senate panel advocating free contraception WAS laughable. But in trying to laugh and make others laugh Limbaugh went too far and too crude, as he so often does. And he again turned the discussion back to a woman’s right to birth control rather than religious freedom.

It’s all so pathetic. I hope Romney continues to avoid the subject.

Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012

And all other Republicans should wise up and refuse to discuss the matter further. The media is Obama’s tool to manipulate and Republicans can’t win for losing. Any discussion of the matter will be turned by Democrats AND by the media into a false debate over birth control an argument Republicans will always lose. Let the Catholic church defend itself. It can. And it will. The Catholic church is the largest church in America and the richest church in the world. They are more than capable of winning a judicial fight over Obama’s CLEAR violation of the Bill of Right’s 1st Amendment.

Obama didn’t want a 1st Amendment fight. He wants to win an election. He can’t win talking about the economy or his record. So he divided the country and changed the subject. He laid a trap. Republicans stepped in it. And what’s really scary is that it won’t be Obama’s last trap. Let’s hope Republicans avoid the clumsiness they’ve displayed around this one.

Thanks for visiting. Comments are welcome.

March 4, 2012
Categories: National Politics . Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Author: Michael Schuett . Comments: 1 Comment

« Previous Page — Previous page Next page — Next Page »