A Message President. It's Just Not His Message.

I spoke with my first, genuine Obama remorse voter last week. When I asked her what she thought about Barack's healthcare reform plans, she shook her head and said "It's all just too much. We can't afford all of this." She said, "I voted for him because I thought it was time for a change. But what's going on now is not what he presented himself as during the election."

This woman is one of Barack's "sweet spot" swing voters. Evangelical Christian. Suburban mom. One of the "more feel than think" voters. And he's already losing her 6 months into his presidency.

Obama came into office after winning the election handily. Most of the mainstream media refrained from using the word mandate, but you did hear a bit of it. The mandate was for hope and change. The electorate had bit on his message: hook, line and sinker. And Obama opened his first term like he had a genuine mandate on the end of his line. Jerking legislation through Congress - hinted-at ideas from lightly-covered town hall campaign stops. Reeling in votes for dramatic policy changes that the media had hardly noticed.

But did the public really give his policies a mandate? Polls show that just weeks into office, people largely supported Obama much more than they supported any of his policy proposals. And that was his peak. Support has dropped off the cliff since.

This disparity seemingly makes no sense. How could the public support a man but not his policies? The only logical explanation is that their vote was sending a message. It just wasn't Barack Obama's message.

Obama, the man and what he symbolized, was the electorate's message. They still like Obama because they still like the message they sent to the world by voting for him: It's time for change. Anyone can be president. We're beyond the racism. It's that same old song: "Look at how open-minded I am. I voted for Obama." And that sentiment is still valid as long as Obama doesn't undo it pushing policy people don't like. In fact, if Obama were to accomplish nothing at all in his first term, he would probably end it with a 65% approval rating.

As Obama remorse grows (currently 63% of independent voters are against ObamaCare) the electorate has been sending another message. I wonder if they'll hear it in the White House over the braying of the mobs?

Waiting for Godot

The resignation of Sarah Palin leaves her potential for future office in question. Romney's prospects may have suffered a fatal wound due to the failure of his Massachusetts socialized medicine scheme. Jindal's first big national appearance went over like a lead balloon. Sanford self-destructed (bullet dodged there). Gingrich sold out to the "climate change" fascists. Where's that perfect ONE GREAT VOICE who will lead conservatives to victory — in 2012 to be sure — but more importantly in 2010?

The wait could be a long one. Much like the characters in Beckett's famous play, we may not have even met this great leader. And we may not even recognize him when we see him.

Conservatives struggle under a couple of competing priorities: 1) the need to win, and 2) the need to advance conservative ideology. In McCain, we thought we had #1, and were prepared to sell out #2 in order to get it. We ended up with zero. In Palin, Jindal, et al, we are pretty sure we have #2 covered, but #1 is highly suspect. To be sure, the recent tantalizing weakness of Obama is heartening, but then we thought the same thing about Clinton before he won his second election to Dole (the pre-McCain McCain).

And then there's that pesky problem bedeviling the GOP — a tendency to nominate the "next person in line." Democrats don't often do this. It's been said (by Will Rogers, most famously) that the Democratic Party is disorganized. And perhaps that's what protects it from that patrician instinct that gave us candidate Bob Dole.

But the Tea Party movement is unexpected. Something very untraditional for conservatives. The Tea Parties began as a true grass-roots movement and continues as same. Each city has a few organizers, but there is no single conservative version of NOW or ANSWER fanning the flames of the Tea Parties. They were seemingly formed from a loose group of outraged citizens tired of ceding the political discourse to politicians who ultimately let us down. And for the first time that I can remember, they are showing up in force to let politicians of both parties have a piece of their mind. At many of the early Tea Parties, organizers refused to allow politicians to even take the stage. Now that's CHANGE.

We are the ones we've been waiting for. Famous words. But unlike when Obama said it (he was being disingenuous. What he really meant was "I am the one you've been waiting for. Lucky you.") I mean it in its truest sense. If conservatism is to flourish, WE THE PEOPLE have to finally take the lead in voicing our ideology, deciding what issues we stand for, and really choosing who we allow to speak for us. The time of letting career politicians and political parties set our course has past. The search for the NEXT GREAT VOICE is over. We're not waiting any longer.

EPILOGUE: Here's Kevin Jackson's (theblacksphere.net) take on the Tea Parties, with credit due to St. Louis organizers Bill Hennessey and Dana Loesch, plus Americans for Prosperity, iheardthepeoplesay, and Americans for Fair Taxation.

McCaskill Hosts Liberal Racists

The St. Louis Tea Party organized a counter protest outside Claire McCaskill's office this week. ACORN was out in force - no doubt at some rate above minimum wage, with or without insurance benefits.

Unlike the previous week when the Tea Party held a protest outside the very same office (McCaskill's staff called the police forced the protestors across the street) the ACORN demonstrators were given full access to the front of the office and could be seen going in and out of the front door. I guess McCaskill "respects their right to free speech" more than the Tea Party's. ACORN's reception was so friendly, one was left to wonder if they were not invited by McCaskill to mitigate the damage from the previous week - and shore up her untenable position on the healthcare issue with which Missouri voters strongly disagree.

As I stood in the median with the Tea Party group, liberal protestors began yelling at a black man standing next to me for "being on the wrong side." Kevin Jackson, local author and conservative activist, was positively accosted by several women from ACORN, called an "Uncle Tom", and "token" (despite the fact that he's a leader in the local Tea Party). I was appalled. Not as much that they would have those feelings, but more so that they would feel comfortable shouting their racism out loud within ear-shot of the office of a U.S. Senator who supports them.

Mind you, there were many more white people protesting with ACORN than black - but it never occurred to me to think of them as traitors to their race. I recognize that white people have many different political views. Being a liberal is crazy no matter what color your skin is. So why can't a black man have a different political opinion than the prevailing black sentiment without being subjected to hate speech?

Read more about this on Kevin's blog: http://www.theblacksphere.net. And purchase his book The Big Black Lie

Carnahan Goes to Community College, Learns Nothing

Russ Carnahan got a schooling in representative democracy the other day at St. Louis Community College. Heckled and laughed at by spectators amused at his flat reading of Obama's talking points on how to destroy the world's finest health care system, Carnahan was ushered out of the room by his handlers, avoiding any inconvenient questions from Tea Party protesters.

A few days after his embarrassing performance, I called Carnahan's office to register my opinion on the so-called healthcare reform. My opinion was from the heart, and delivered politely to the staffer on the phone. I related how my kids have benefitted greatly from world-class care at St. Louis Children's Hospital. How we've had multiple EEGs and MRIs (our daughter has epilespy), always quickly and efficiently. We've had gotten quick relief for our son's chronic ear infections (he had ear tube surgery). And had first-class treatment at the CARES clinic after multiple trips to the ER for seizures - appreciative of not having to wait in line behind the non-emergency cases using the ER as primary care. But it's not free, and we don't expect it to be. We pay handsomely for health insurance for our three kids, and it is worth every penny. My wife and I work second jobs to help pay for it.

I related to the staffer that my brother-in-law, a Canadian, tells me stories of relatives and friends suffering under Canada's socialized medicine: a two-month wait to start radiation treatment after cancer diagnosis, 6 month wait for minor surgery, 8-month waits to see a specialist, and the generally deplorable morale of physicians and health care workers. "I don't want that for my kids", I told him. "They deserve better than lowest-common-denominator health care as long as I can afford it."

He thanked me for my opinion and hung up the phone.

And today I got this miserable form letter [emphasis mine]:

_____

Dear Mr. Roth:

Thank you for contacting me with your concerns about health care. I appreciate hearing from you, and I would like to take this opportunity to explain why I think reforming the health care system is so important.

[...]

As I was reminded once again at the St. Louis town hall meetings I held in April and this week, health care reform is one of the most pressing issues affecting Missouri families and the economy. The average Missourian spends nearly $5,500 a year on health care, and over 750,000 Missourians lack health insurance. We need to eradicate the shortfall of coverage while reducing costs and maintaining the quality of health care for those who can afford it now. If done properly, more Americans will be able to access better health care, and our economy will be more competitive.

[...]

I want to be very clear about what health care reform should and should not mean for your health care coverage. Most importantly, if you like the coverage you have now, you can keep it. I will not support measures that will force people to give up their private health insurance in favor of a government-run plan, and doctors and nurses will always make important medical decisions. In addition, I think that reforms should aim to make health insurance portable. This means that if you like the coverage you have and change jobs, you can keep your coverage. By making it easier for workers to change jobs, our economy will become more competitive. Finally, I believe that individuals with pre-existing medical conditions should be able to obtain health insurance. It is wrong to deny coverage to individuals on the basis of health conditions that they may have been unable to avoid.

[...]

Finally, I believe it is important to consider including a public health insurance option that could help jump start health care reforms to reduce costs, maintain fiscal sustainability and improve the quality of care. A self-sustaining public health insurance option will offer choice to individuals and businesses and will compete with private health insurers to drive down costs. Any proposed public health plan option will not replace the private insurance market, and you will not be required to choose it if you like the coverage you have now. Rather, it is intended to extend coverage and create better healthcare options for more Americans, especially the uninsured.

Reforming our broken health care system is essential to getting our economy back on track. Expanding access to affordable, quality health care coverage has long been an important goal, and we cannot afford to delay this effort any longer. Health care reform will strengthen the middle class, help businesses remain competitive and create 21st century jobs.

The president has asked for health care legislation to reach his desk by October. I am working with my colleagues in both parties to reach that goal. Recently, several leading members of the House introduced H.R. 3200, a comprehensive piece of health care legislation that expands health care coverage to 97% of Americans. There are also several draft bills currently being discussed in the Senate. I am thoroughly reviewing each of these proposals to determine if they meet the criteria outlined above. To read and to learn more about H.R. 3200, America's Affordable Health Choices Act, please visit the website of the House Energy and Commerce Committee

Once again, thank you for contacting my office. Please know that I will keep your views in mind as Congress continues this crucial debate, and please do not hesitate to contact me in the future on this or any other issue.

Russ Carnahan

_______

This letter was seemingly drafted in a vacuum, long before his embarrassing town hall meeting. Look, everyone knows that Carnahan's a pawn with little leverage to buck the party line. I'd like to give him the benefit of the doubt that he'll "keep [my] views in mind as Congress continues this crucial debate." And that he is actually "thoroughly reviewing each of these proposals." But then I would have thought he'd have learned something during his brief stay at the Community College. I guess not.