"To 'call a spade a spade' is to speak honestly and directly about a topic, specifically topics that others may avoid speaking about due to their sensitivity or embarrassing nature....
"It is evident that the word spade refers to the instrument used to move earth, a very common tool....
"The phrase predates the use of the word 'spade' as an ethnic slur against African-Americans, which was not recorded until 1928; however, in contemporary U.S. society, the idiom is often avoided due to potential confusion with the slur."
The price of naivety can be catastrophic. For example, the Twin Towers would be standing today if the significance of persons wanting to learn how to fly a plane, but not how to take off or land, had been appreciated.
In "The Republican Retreat on Health Care" (June 2, 2010) (http://article.nationalreview.com/435339/the-republican-retreat-on-health-care/the-editors), the editors at National Review Online lambasted Republicans for "[f]ailing to put advocates of Obamacare on the defensive" and lamented that "[i]t arguably contributed to the Republicans’ loss of a special election in Pennsylvania. If their lassitude continues, Republicans will blow many more opportunities in the months to come."
Alas, even the NRO editors are focusing on a big tree instead of the forest...and American cannot afford for Republicans to blow the opportunity presented by the 2010 election.
Perennial Socialist Party presidential candidate Norman Thomas was right: "The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism, but under the name of liberalism they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program until one day America will be a socialist nation without ever knowing how it happened."
ACORN founder Wade Rathke and President Obama understood that and acted accordingly.
Is it sheer coincidence that President Obama's second Supreme Court nominee, Solicitor General Elena Kagan's 130-page Princeton senior thesis was on socialism in her native New York City and in it she called "U.S socialism's demise" a "critical problem" and thanked her brother Marc, "whose involvement in radical causes led [her] to explore the history of American radicalism in the hope of clarifying [her] own political ideas”?
The NRO editors rightly see Obamacare as a political opportunity.
"Every week brings fresh bad news about Obamacare. Many companies are considering dropping their health coverage as a result of the incentives the law creates. Small businesses are reporting that the law’s tax credits are encouraging them not to make new hires. Most people with preexisting conditions, who were supposed to be the chief beneficiaries of the law, will be left out from its high-risk pools: There are 4 million of them, but enough funding for only 200,000. The Department of Health and Human Services is already behind schedule in implementing the law. And the director of the Congressional Budget Office, appointed by Democrats, denies that the law will reduce the pressure of health spending on the budget.
"Republicans ought to be seizing on each revelation to press the case for repealing Obamacare. It is, after all, the worst law the Democrats have enacted on Obama’s watch; and it is also the GOP’s best issue in this year’s elections. Instead Republicans have largely allowed the Democrats to switch the subject from their unpopular health-care legislation to financial regulation, oil spills, and immigration. They have been reacting to the news instead of trying to make it."
All true...and when Republican Kentucky senatorial candidate Rand Paul was asked about his views on the Civil Rights Acts of the 1960's, he should have replied that he had been nominated to go to the Senate to repeal that massive stealth socialist wealth redistribution plan known as Obamacare, not the civil rights laws. But Obamacare is a symptom of the socialist disease infecting the American body politic and identifying the disease is critical to curing it.
The editors rightly blasted Republicans for political ineptitude.
"The most important step Republicans could take to promote repeal would be to launch a campaign to pressure House Democrats who voted against Obamacare to co-sponsor legislation to repeal it. On this crucial issue, though, House Republicans have whiffed. Some Republican congressmen are worried about being seen as having no health-care solutions of their own, and so the leadership has gotten behind a bill that both repeals Obamacare and replaces it with various conservative reforms.
"We would, of course, be delighted to see such a bill enacted. But the principal effect of including conservative alternatives will be to make it easier for Democrats not to sign on to the bill. It thus sets back the biggest conservative health-care reform of all: the repeal of Obamacare. And it does so for no good reason. For one thing, all the House Republicans are already on record supporting conservative health solutions; there is no need for this piece of legislation to include them. For another, the number of incumbent Republican congressmen at risk of losing to a Democratic challenger this year is vanishingly small. The number of Republican congressmen at risk of losing their seats because they are not sufficiently vocal about their favored health reforms is zero. Is it really beyond the wit of House Republicans to say that they favor first repealing Obamacare and then enacting constructive legislation?"
Do Republicans have the wit (and nerve) to put Obamacare in context as a critical step on the Far Left's path to a socialized America and to expose President Obama as the stealth socialist instrument that he is?
"What is most worrisome about the party’s tactical mistake is the loss of nerve that explains it. That loss of nerve is apparent in the party’s other silences.
"Most Americans believe that government should not fund abortion, and liberals’ insistence to the contrary nearly sank Obamacare. Republican congressman Roy Blunt, running for the Senate in Missouri, says he will fight to apply the Hyde amendment’s restrictions on abortion funding to Obamacare. Where are the rest of the Republicans?
"Elena Kagan, Obama’s Supreme Court nominee, was solicitor general during the legislative debate over Obamacare. Her office may have been consulted about the legal issues it poses. Shouldn’t Republicans be asking about her role, if only to begin making the case that a Justice Kagan would have to recuse herself?
Obama has nominated Donald Berwick, a man who describes his attachment to the British single-payer model of rationing health care in nearly erotic terms, to head the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. A few Republicans have, to their credit, objected — but not enough. A White House spokesman says that the opponents see the nomination as an 'excuse to re-fight health care.' Who needs an excuse? Excessive government control of health care, the basic issue in the Obamacare fight, is the basic issue in this fight as well — if, that is, Republicans are prepared to put up a fight."
Republicans (and the NTO editors) need the nerve to put Obamacare in its socialist context and to explain the Team Obama gulled America in 2008!
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.