Political news and nuggets: 10-9-09

from 'round the sphere...

Democracy, shlemocracy...

Newt Gingrich points
out the undemocratic way the health care reform bill is being put
together...as in by just a few senators and their staff members.

Think about it: All of the power of the United States Senate to
transform one-sixth of our economy will be in the hands of three men
and their aides. It's government by staff, aided by lobbyists, for the
benefit of bureaucrats.

No wonder so many Democrats in Congress are so dead set against having
members read - and more importantly, allowing the American people to
read - bills before they vote on them. ...

Just 5 more days for that Specter refund

The Washington Examiner
notes that October 15th is the last day you can get a refund from Arlen
Specter if you happened to give him a campaign contribution before he
jumped ship and became a Democrat.  The Club for Growth has made the
generous effort of contacting all such Specter donors by mail (over 6,000 of them) and providing them with a form they can fill out and tell Specter they want their money back.

We're sure Specter appreciates their kind assistance.

Could Obamacare be repealed?

That's the question Stephen Spruiell is asking over at National Review Online.  He
points out that many of the "reforms" being considered under various
versions of health care reform have been tried at the state level in
places such as Kentucky and Vermont...and all with disastrous
consequences.  As in driving the costs of individual insurance through
the roof and causing the majority of insurers to leave those state
markets.  He then points out that a few states that made such mistakes,
(like Kentucky and Washington), have since repealed those "reforms". 
The question becomes, if it passes at the national level, could it be
repealed?

Time for Obama to make a decision on Afghanistan

Charles Krauthammer points out that Obama's dithering over whether to accept General McChrystal's report and go with a surge of 40,000 troops in Afghanistan just underlines the cynical nature of the Democrat's mantra of condemning the war in Iraq and lauding the war in Afghanistan as the "good war".

...championing victory in Afghanistan was a contrived and disingenuous
policy in which Democrats never seriously believed, a convenient
two-by-four with which to bash George Bush over Iraq -- while still
appearing warlike enough to fend off the soft-on-defense stereotype.
    
Brilliantly
crafted and perfectly cynical, the "Iraq War bad, Afghan War good"
posture worked. Democrats first won Congress, then the White House. But
now, unfortunately, they must govern. No more games. No more pretense.
    
So
what does their commander in chief do now with the war he once declared
had to be won but had been almost criminally under-resourced by Bush? ...

Less than two months ago -- Aug. 17 in front of an audience of veterans
-- the president declared Afghanistan to be "a war of necessity." Does
anything he says remain operative beyond the fading of the audience
applause?

Right now the answer doesn't look promising.