I have been thinking about this idea for some time. I would be curious about what your thoughts might be on this subject. Please think about it and comment.

I was once a Democrat. I must say that the thing that drove me from the party was when McGovern declared that he would go to Hanoi on his knees if necessary to gain peace with the communists. That was the last straw. Later, the collapse of the party into rank liberalism confirmed the validity of my decision to leave. There must be millions of citizens in this country who have experienced the same thing, although the catalyst for their move might have been different. The Democrat party has become an “outlaw” in our republic. Their policies and philosophy are antithetical to what the founders of this nation had in mind when the constitution was ratified. They use whatever deceit is necessary to achieve their goals. They place jurists in positions of authority who give lip service to the clear written words of the founding documents, while at the same time they are reading their own subjective feelings and beliefs into their decisions. They give every indication through massive, expensive boondoggles like national health care and climate change bills that they have no respect for our personal liberty and freedom. The Democrat party is now controlled by a leftist fringe that, with respect to the Constitution, is American in name only.

It seems that the most effective current rhetorical mode of gaining political advantage is an appeal for change. Obama used this to good effect last year and he continues to attempt to invoke that tactic in the health care debate by deceptively invoking the charge that those who are opposed to his program want the status quo, not change. Another mode of attack is the “Take back”.   That would be to take back the country or take back the reins of power, as if those in power were there illegitimately. That tactic has been very effective in the recent tea party movement and, of course, was effective during the last national election. 

Is it time to take back the Democrat party? Is it time for change in the Democrat party? There is already a thorn in the side of that party represented by the group known as the “Blue Dogs”. I don’t know if the “Blue Dogs” are truly fiscally and socially conservative as they claim to be, but some no doubt are. The success of the “Blue Dogs” suggests that the Democrat Party is very vulnerable right now to a conservative revolution from within its ranks. 

I believe that it is time to take back the Democrat party from its liberal wing. It’s time for a return to the ideals of the type of Democrats personified by Truman, JFK, and Scoop Jackson. I am not endorsing everything these guys stood for, but their policies are light years away from what we face now with the likes of Obama, Reid, Pelosi, Frank, and Baucus. The knee jerk socialist anti-defense, high tax Democrat Party of today bears no resemblance to the party of history. Granted, the socialist overreach of FDR with Social Security and Truman with the takeover of the steel industry reveals a dangerous socialist tendency, but historically the party has never been characterized by the all out crass socialist agenda that we see today. The high tax anti-growth agenda of the majority in Congress has now sparked a grass roots movement that reaches across many demographic lines and is in the process of gutting a vital constituency of the Democrats: senior citizens. The removal of 500 billion dollars from Medicare is more than even a yellow dog democrat can take. Obama has now attempted to bribe seniors with a $250 government check to keep them on his side of the political ledger.  In those states where voters can cross party lines to vote in primaries, the Democrats could be particularly vulnerable.  Rush Limbaugh’s “Operation Chaos” last year showed that crossovers can be a very effective strategy. I believe that it might be time to recruit conservatives to run against democrats in the democrat primaries. It seems that whenever an “independent “runs, it is as a Republican or Libertarian. The Democrats get a free ride to the general election. We should be challenging Democrats in their own primaries with independent, conservative, fiscally responsible non politician candidates in the mode of conservative democrats of the past and blue dogs of the present time. It’s time to flush as many liberals and bogus blue dogs out of the Democrat party as possible.

This tactic could have beneficial effects right now as listed in #4 above. Simply by announcing that an exploratory committee has been formed to decide whether to run might drive current “Blue Dogs” to stand by the promises they made when running last year for Congress. It could drive a stake into the heart of the ill-advised Obama Care program and the Cap and Trade boondoggle. It might cause current conservative Democrats to make true bipartisan coalitions with Republicans to advance a healthcare reform bill that doesn’t take a wrecking ball to our current system.

Perhaps this is just a pipe dream, but I suspect that the comments to this post will be interesting. 

Our President is like a kid who's been caught with his hand in the cookie jar.  The lies come out of his mouth faster than he can talk.  He can lie numerous times in a single sentence.  George Washington was known for speaking the truth.  Obama is the Anti-Washington if ever there was one.  After his oblique reference to Sarah Palin and his explicit use of the word "liar" directed toward her, I see no need to mince words with this President.  Here's just one small section of his boring 800th health care speech, this one was last night to Congress.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: "Everyone in this room knows what will happen if we do nothing. Our deficit will grow. More families will go bankrupt. More businesses will close. More Americans will lose their coverage when they are sick and need it most. And more will die as a result. We know these things to be true."

As a result the scheme is causing a “national crisis” in patient care, the letter states. It has been signed palliative care experts including Professor Peter Millard, Emeritus Professor of Geriatrics, University of London, Dr Peter Hargreaves, a consultant in Palliative Medicine at St Luke’s cancer centre in Guildford, and four others.

“Forecasting death is an inexact science,"they say. Patients are being diagnosed as being close to death “without regard to the fact that the diagnosis could be wrong.

Today I received a letter from AARP looking for a new member.  I typed up the letter below and put it into the post-paid envelope.  It will go out tomorrow at their expense.  I recommend this to you if you receive a missive from them.  If you don't want to write a letter, just send back an empty envelope or cut their letter in two and return it.  That should increase their expenses at no cost to you. 

August 26, 2009

Dear AARP:

I will not join your organization because of your support of the Obama health care plan. I know that you claim to not be in support of any particular legislation, but your actions speak louder than your words. You have become a pawn of the Democrat Party instead of a voice for your members.

I recently attended a town hall meeting here in St. Louis with Representative Russ Carnahan. The subject of the meeting was senior services and aging. The first speaker, who was a local leader of AARP, gave an in-your-face diatribe in favor of Obama health care reform. It was not only off the subject of the meeting, it was a provocative presentation that incited the crowd to jeer and cheer and disrupt the gathering. This type of representation by your employees gives credence to the fact that your organization is not impartial in this debate. You are, in fact, hip deep in the court of the Democrat Party and a partner in the attempt to foist politician-run health care on the American people. You should be ashamed of your constant regurgitation of the talking points of the Democrats. Supporting a plan that will cut $500 billion from Medicare over the next decade is a despicable thing for an organization that claims to be an advocate for senior citizens.

I received the following comment on my previous post from drpete and have tried to respond below. 

Thursday, August, 13, 2009 9:29 AM drpete writes:

I am over 65 and have as primary

an employer-provided medical insurance. Medicare (Part A) is automatically my secondary. I'll not sign up for Medicare Parts B or D until I lose my current primary.

It is my belief that your question, Stefano, while cute, isn't germane. Gray Ghost's question is spot on. Also, why is it that retired and no-longer-working federal legislators have their own medical insurance program rather than Medicare?

Dear drpete:

 

Thanks for the comment.  Answering it has required further study on my part and I hope you'll comment again if you see anything out of line below.

 

The cute question that I think you're referring to is whether our Congressmen and Senators over age 65 have chosen the Medicare option available to them on the roster of insurance choices.  I know that they have the choice of private or Medicare after age 65, according to Spector's office and Bond's office, both of which I called.  We keep hearing from Democrats how wonderful the public option is under the House proposal and how Medicare is a model for that wonderful option.  My question isn't meant to be cute, but rather to ascertain, through the choice of Democrat members of Congress, where their true beliefs lie when they have a clear choice of  a provider between a public or private insurance option.  I don't believe that  legislators have to pay a portion of the premium, so the taxpayers must pay for it; therefore, the cost of either public or private is a pure choice of competing qualities.  If the majority of them have chosen the private option for their primary coverage leaving Mecicare as a backup, it undercuts their claims of the high quality of Medicare coverage which is a public option. 

 Stefano

 

 I attended the Claire McCaskill, Hillsboro, Missouri town hall yesterday where the merits of politician-run health care were discussed.  Although the citizens were loud at times, I thought they were pretty respectful.  It reminded me of British Parliament on C-Span when the Prime Minister is questioned by members of Parliament.  There's lots of yelling and mocking and the Prime Minister doesn't seem to mind.  He gives it as well as he takes it.  Tony Blair was particularly good in this forum.  Our Democrat politicians need to grow a thicker skin.  Some are such wussies that they are cancelling scheduled meetings.
 
It was interesting that yesterday Pres.Obama, Sen.Cardin of Maryland and Sen. McCaskill all used Medicare as proof that government can run a program well.  At least 2 of them also used the UPS, FEDEX, USPS argument.  This is the argument that claims that private companies can compete with money losing U.S. Treasury backed government enterprises.   McCaskill, in at least two of her most recent meetings, has also used a deceptive technique to attempt to sway people.  She asks anyone on Medicare to raise their hand.  Then she asks everyone who wants to give up their Medicare to raise their hand.  Then she says "you see, all of these people love their government run Medicare."  What she neglects to say is that there are no primary health insurance policies for folks over 65 other than Medicare.  Just check esurance.com and you'll see that if you're over 65, you're stuck with Medicare.  In that sector of the health system (age 65+), the public option has driven the free market out of existence.  That's something that they claim won't happen with the public option in the proposed government takeover.  That claim is just more deceptive nonsense.
 
I checked with MO Senator Kit Bond's office yesterday and found that Medicare is an option in the Congressional health program for those over 65. It is part of the roster of HMO's and insurance companies they can choose from.  I would love to know how many Congressmen and Senators over 65 have chosen the Medicare option.  My guess is that there are very few which would give evidence to the assertion that Democrat Congressmen don't really believe in the public option when they make the choice for themselves.  Let me suggest that if you have a Senator or Congressperson over 65, ask that person if he/she optioned into Medicare for their health insurance choice.  Leave a  comment identifying that politician.  That could make for an interesting post.

An independent study conducted by HSI Network, LLC shows that the House and Senate politician-run health care bills will cost far more than even the Congressional Budget Office has estimated.  HSI Network, LLC has consulted with politicians from both sides of the aisle.  The CBO does not have current models to compute expenses based on innovations in the health care industry that have occurred in recent years.  This has resulted in a downward biased estimate of projected expenses.  The Executive branch under President Obama says that the plans will be revenue neutral.  Who do you believe? 

The Impact of the 2009 Access to Quality Affordable Health Care for All Act - House Bill 

 http://www.hsinetwork.com/HSI_Report_on_HR-TRICOM_07-22-2009.pdf

   The Impact of the 2009 Affordable Health Choices Act - Senate Kennedy Plan

http://www.hsinetwork.com/HSI_Report_on_Kennedy_06-13-2009.pdf

video -first decade cost  

 http://video.foxbusiness.com/6286007/?category_id=8e68cac0753d4e8bd71174d41c674e48f15e1331

video - out year costs  

This is an interesting statistic from Rasmussen polling.  If true, does it demonstrate that Obama is dead wrong when he says that the U.S. is not a Christian nation?  

   I sent an email to the authors of the Wash Post article.  Mr. Cho answered with this:

"Hi Joe, two committees on capitol hill are looking into this. We'll be writing about this again soon."

---

April 6, 2009

Dear Secretary Geithner:

I am writing to express my deep concern over recent reports that the Treasury Department may be attempting to circumvent statutory restrictions on executive pay at companies receiving federal bailout funds.

According to an article that appeared in the Washinglon Post on April 4,2009,the Treasury Department “is engineering its new bailout initiatives in a way that it believes will allow firms benefiting from the programs to avoid restrictions imposed by Congress, including limits on lavish executive pay . . . .” Allegedly, Treasury has set up special entities to serve as middlemen, which would receive federal bailout funds and then channel the money to corporate recipients, thereby avoiding restrictions on executive pay and requirements that the U.S. obtain an ownership interest in the bailout firms.