View the trailer
Advertisement

The Hugh Hewitt Show

Listen 24/7 Live: Mon - Fri   6 - 9 AM Eastern
Hugh Hewitt Book ClubHugh Hewitt Book Club
European Voyage Cruise 2017 Advertisement

“Just 36 Percent Of Americans Approve Of Mr. Obama’s Handling Of Health Care.” The Cost of Combining Chicago-style Politics and San Francisco-style Policies

Tuesday, January 12, 2010  |  posted by Hugh Hewitt

The CBS polling data underscores what every objective analyst knows: The voters hate Obamacare. They know it will slash Medicare benefits while jacking up taxes, and the impact to existing health insurance policies will be dire, even if delayed by a couple of years.

The president’s overall numbers are also in the tank:

With the unemployment picture unlikely to improve significantly in 2010, and Democrats finding even Massachusetts a tough political environment, House Democrats generally and some endangered Senate Democrats –even Evan Bayh in Indiana?– have to wonder whether Obamacare is worth it. The White House warns that not passing anything will be worse than passing a deeply flawed bill, but would it be?

If enough House Democrats just say no, they will force the president into convening a genuinely bipartisan effort to salvage the agreed-upon insurance reforms while dumping the radical portions of his proposals and especially the tax hikes that could not arrive at a worse time. The president will not willingly agree to such a set-back, but Democrats watching Scott Brown raise $1.3 million in one day yesterday must know what is headed at them if they persist in using Chicago-style politics to achieve San Francisco-style policies.

FYI: Brown has released a new ad that answers the negative attacks fromCoakley. Brown is demonstrating to GOP candidates across the country how to run this year, and his disciplined messaging and online presence are models to be studied. Every Republican should be trying to sign his management team asap.

Advertisement

Sheriff Michael Bouchard and The Prop 8 Trial

Monday, January 11, 2010  |  posted by Hugh Hewitt

Today’s show will feature an update from the Prop 8 trial in San Francisco courtesy of my friends at Alliance Defense Fund (see the rotating ADF button in the box to your right to connect to the ADF’s news center on the trial) and a conversation with Sheriff Michael Bouchard of Oakland County, Michigan who wants to be the next governor in the Wolverine State.

“How The GOP Lost Congress” by Clark Judge

Monday, January 11, 2010  |  posted by Hugh Hewitt

The Monday morning column from Clark Judge:

How The GOP Lost Congress
By Clark S. Judge, managing director, White House Writers Group, Inc. ( www.whwg.com <http://www.whwg.com> )

In today’s Wall Street Journal (here: http://tiny.cc/T958J <http://tiny.cc/T958J> ), I offer “10 Tips for the GOP in 2010”. Over the weekend I found an online interview that gives excellent context to criticism I offer of recent GOP congresses.

First, background.

In the article I argue that, if they are to win big in 2010, congressional Republicans must face that their actions were the reason for party’s 2006 and 2008 defeats.

Increased spending, earmarks, rising deficits between 2000 and 2006 alienated a major segment of former GOP voters. As I report, “According to one veteran of the GOP leadership speaking on background this fall, the party’s 2008 exit poll showed that these swing voters anticipated a left-leaning Obama presidency but wanted to teach the GOP a lesson.”
[# More #]
As they look to the coming mid-term elections, the damage from all the spending remains a major drag on the Republicans in Congress. According to an analysis from the Rasmussen polling organization (here: http://tinyurl.com/ydj6msd ), “75% of Republicans voters still believe Republicans in Congress have lost touch with GOP voters” with 54% believing “the average Republican congressman is more liberal than they are.”

The must listening interview is with Michigan Congressman Thaddeus McCotter, chair of the House Republican Policy Committee and one of the top four Republicans in the House. It is an edition of the online television show Uncommon Knowledge with Peter Robinson and is posted in segments at National Review On Line (here: http://tiny.cc/yAvwu <http://tiny.cc/yAvwu> ; scroll down) and without breaks on the Hoover Institution website (here: http://tiny.cc/sMJPh <http://tiny.cc/sMJPh> ). I listened to it through iTunes.

Robinson asks McCotter if sanctioning a run-up in spending by the GOP congress was the price the Bush Administration paid to get and keep Republican support for the Iraq War. McCotter gives a qualified “yes”, but adds that there was more to it than that.

He says that Congressional Republicans supported the initial moves against Iraq as essential for national security in the wake of the 9/11 attacks. The reconstruction was something else.

“There were many of us, McCotter notes, “who said you cannot have a top-down, Great Society Meets Baghdad approach out of the Green Zone to creating model democracy in Iraq.”

He adds, “Instead, what we should have been doing since 2003, and people like myself argued, was we should have been doing something like the Petraeus Plan from day one.” So holding the Bush Administration used spending to hold flattering GOP in Congress as it fumbled with the reconstruction.

But Iraq wasn’t the whole story.

The other big issue was trade. As McCotter says, “[Y]ou take free trade and you look at where a lot of our seat were lost in the Ohio River valley, in the Northeast, in the Midwest. These are not hotbeds of free trade.”

McCotter sums up, “[W]hen you talk about how the Republican Party responded to this, I think a lot of the spending also came from [the administration and GOP congressional leadership of the time saying] well, we know if we have problems over… free trade [and] the war. This [spending project] will help you in the district.”

He argues that accepting loads of projects proved the easy path for the GOP caucus, “instead of trying to be willing to go out there and differentiate yourself from a bad policy of this scale or to work internally to get that administration to change it.”

The Iraq part of McCotter’s explanation tracks with what I heard around Washington at the time, that a deal had developed between the White House and then House Speaker Dennis Haster. The president would receive blanket support for his post-invasion policies in return for no spending vetos.

It also appeared clear that the administration opened up the pork barrel to pass CAFTA, the Central American Free Trade Agreement. It was in the process of winning approval for that agreement that the administration signed off on the Bridge to Nowhere.

In the end, as McCotter suggests, the exchange of spending for blanket acceptance of key administration priorities proved a bad deal for the Congressional GOP, one from which they are still struggling to recover today.

Advertise With UsAdvertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Sierra Pacific Mortgage Advertisement
Hear what Hugh has to say about
Health Markets
Advertisement
Advertisement
Back to Top