there's a big problem: as Obama "fights" for Obamacare, he exposes "the real Obama," disillusioning more and more Americans by displaying both his radicalism and his lack of executive experience and creating more and more interest in his past, especially his radical connections.
Shrill Eleanor Clift, Obama shill, called upon her hero to transform himself in a Newsweek article titled "Time to Get in the Ring: Though Obama's natural instinct is toward compromise, now's the time to fight on health-care reform."
Clift's article predictably began by bashing Republicans for opposing Obamacare (essentially socialized medicine, not immediately, but as soon as possible): "They've managed to hold together in the House and Senate with no real leadership and no real message except to block Obama."
But since Democrats hold 3/5ths of the United States Senate seats and a substantial majority in the House of Representatives, Clift had to explain why Obamacare has not been adopted and she did so very revealingly, by bashing Congressional Democrats representing "swing districts" for not rubberstamping Obamacare: "Despite all the advantages Democrats enjoyed at the start of this year, the responsibility of being in the majority and actually legislating is causing fissures between the party's dominant wing of progressives and the much smaller group of conservative, self-described blue dogs from the swing districts that gave Democrats control of the House."
What Clift implicitly acknowledged, probably inadvertently, is that America is still a center-right country and what appeals to Far Left Democrats (called
"progressives" by Clift) about Obamacare care repulses most Americans.
Who are those "blue dog Democrats" supposed to represent, President Obama and Speaker Pelosi or their constituents?
Those constituents think they are to be represented, and rightly so.
President Obama's idea of bipartisan is Republicans embracing wealth redistribution, socialism, a public option ultimately leading to a single payer plan and government control of health care, and no tort reform.
Even Clift realizes that President Obama's hope for such 'bipartisanship" is futile. so she blames
"Republican recalcitrance" and pushes President Obama to do whatever it takes to impose Obamacare: "President Obama has pushed his bipartisan shtik about as far as it will go, and if Republican recalcitrance means the Democrats have to go it alone on health care, Obama should embrace the new reality and cry all the way to the signing ceremony."
Clift calls Republican support for health-care reform "a lost cause," claiming that only "the two women senators from Maine" are "moderate" Republicans with whom President Obama can "partner."
But the truth is that Obamacare is a radical attempt to transform America to suit the Far Left and perpetuate its current political power and, on that, most Americans now are sour.
Clift: "Obama campaigned on his fabled ability to bring people together. Voters loved the idea of everybody getting along in Washington, but seven months into the Obama presidency, we know it's a mirage."
As Obama's Presidency proceeds, Obama is losing the benefit of the doubt and his "fabled ability to bring people together" is proving to be "a mirage too."
Clearly upset with President Obama as well as Republicans, Clift whined: "The White House needs to find ways to leverage the huge tactical and strategic advantages Democrats had coming out of the 2008 election to advance legislation in Congress. Instead, Obama has played the same old inside game of currying favor with power brokers on Capitol Hill who for the most part, like Senate Finance chair Max Baucus of Montana, represent sparsely populated rural states and respond more to their corporate benefactors than to White House pressure."
But America is a republic, not a dictatorship, and POTUS is chief executive and commander-in-chief, not a dictator.
The Constitution provides for checks and balances, not presidential control.
Clift badly misdescribes why President Obama won.
Clift: "Obama won the election because his campaign had a great ground game and they had him, a super communicator who made the media swoon."
No. Obama won because he opted out of public financing of his presidential campaign, the financial crisis traceable to ACORN et al. worked for instead of against him, the liberal media establishment (including Clift) effectively sold him to a majority of the voters and the truth about his and his presidential campaign's ties to ACORN and SEIU were ignored, concealed or minimized.
Obamacare is failing on the merits, but Clift refuses to find fault with Obamacare itself, so she blames Team Obama for sudden ineptitude.
Clift: "In the White House, the once crack team was slow to organize while opponents of health-care reform ran roughshod over the message and dominated the debate. All the White House has to counter the opposition is Obama, and he's not enough. The magic has waned. People don't line up for miles to see him the way they did in the campaign. And judging by the anxiety showing up in the polls, voters don't trust Obama enough on health-care reform to set aside their historic distrust of government."
Most Americans want freedom, not socialism and government controlled (and rationed) health care!
More and more Americans are realizing that Obama was not the "moderate" they expected, in large part due to his radical approach to transforming the world's best health care system.
Clift: "Opponents of reform won the first part of summer. Now it's up to Obama to regain the momentum."
Like change, reform is a word.
Like change, reform can be good or bad.
Americans know Obamacare is reform, but they realize it's bad reform.
Clift admits that she considers Republicans and opponents of Obamacare
Clift: "The last months have punctured the idea that Obama can forge working relationships with the enemy. What the people who voted for him are looking for now are passion and a willingness to fight for what he believes in, not a carefully calibrated compromise that is better for insurance providers than it is for patients and consumers."
Translation: It's now or never for socializing America!
So much for that "fable" about Obama bringing people together"!
But Clift wants readers to believe that Obama is genuine, not a slick pol who conned enough voters to win.
Clift: "Obama's message of conciliation worked perfectly in the '08 campaign in part because it's an authentic reflection of his personality. Axelrod harbored doubts about whether Obama's aversion to confrontation when it becomes nasty and personal would hamper him as a candidate. 'When it comes to taking a punch, I don't know whether you're Muhammad Ali or Floyd Patterson,' Axelrod wrote to Obama in a November 2006 memo.... Now Obama supporters are wondering about their man. If they're to see what he's made of, Obama has to first get in the ring. Forget the niceties, it's time to fight."
BUT...there's a big problem: as Obama "fights" for Obamacare, he exposes "the real Obama," disillusioning more and more Americans by displaying both his radicalism and his lack of executive experience and creating more and more interest in his past, especially his radical connections.
So, sure, OBAMA SHOULD FIGHT!
On that, Clift and I agree (albeit obviously for different reasons).
Michael J. Gaynor has been practicing law in New York since 1973. A former partner at Fulton, Duncombe & Rowe and Gaynor & Bass, he is a solo practitioner admitted to practice in New York state and federal courts and an Association of the Bar of the City of New York member.
Gaynor graduated magna cum laude, with Honors in Social Science, from Hofstra University's New College, and received his J.D. degree from St. John's Law School, where he won the American Jurisprudence Award in Evidence and served as an editor of the Law Review and the St. Thomas More Institute for Legal Research. He wrote on the Pentagon Papers case for the Review and obscenity law for The Catholic Lawyer and edited the Law Review's commentary on significant developments in New York law.
The day after graduating, Gaynor joined the Fulton firm, where he focused on litigation and corporate law. In 1997 Gaynor and Emily Bass formed Gaynor & Bass and then conducted a general legal practice, emphasizing litigation, and represented corporations, individuals and a New York City labor union. Notably, Gaynor & Bass prevailed in the Second Circuit in a seminal copyright infringement case, Tasini v. New York Times, against newspaper and magazine publishers and Lexis-Nexis. The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed, 7 to 2, holding that the copyrights of freelance writers had been infringed when their work was put online without permission or compensation.
Gaynor currently contributes regularly to www.MichNews.com, www.RenewAmerica.com, www.WebCommentary.com, www.PostChronicle.com and www.therealitycheck.org and has contributed to many other websites. He has written extensively on political and religious issues, notably the Terry Schiavo case, the Duke "no rape" case, ACORN and canon law, and appeared as a guest on television and radio. He was acknowledged in Until Proven Innocent, by Stuart Taylor and KC Johnson, and Culture of Corruption, by Michelle Malkin. He appeared on "Your World With Cavuto" to promote an eBay boycott that he initiated and "The World Over With Raymond Arroyo" (EWTN) to discuss the legal implications of the Schiavo case. On October 22, 2008, Gaynor was the first to report that The New York Times had killed an Obama/ACORN expose on which a Times reporter had been working with ACORN whistleblower Anita MonCrief.