Bill Maher and Ridiculous Republicans

I thought some people might enjoy this video...

3 reasons why Republicans won't make a comeback in 2010

Note: I wrote this as a op-ed article in the New University. It will be published next week.

Although it seemed President Barrack Obama's honeymoon popularity would never end, his glow has finally ceased to exist. Since March, President Obama has dropped 50 percent in his approval rating--the largest drop of an American President in the history of polling. However, it is not just the President who is suffering in the polls, Congress is too. According to Quinnipiac University Poll, congressional Democrats have been declining in their approval ratings, dropping more than 13 points since May. Some major Republican leaders such as Sen. Mitchell McConnell believe that the Democrat's free fall in ratings means a shimmer of hope for Republicans in 2010. However, that notion is about as crazy as the notion of "death panels".

Yes, it is true, President Obama is far from the untouchable realm he was in during the election. Yes, it is true, Democrats have less than been effective despite a heavy majority in Congress. Yes, it is true Democratic approval ratings as a whole have dropped constantly since May. Yet, despite all of this, the Republicans won't make a comeback in 2010 due to four simple reasons.
The first is that the health care debate has overshadowed other aspects of the administration, and it has shown in the ratings. However, sooner or later the debate is going to end, and the focus will shift to other important aspects of his administration (i.e the economy, Iraq, cap and trade). So much of the media's attentions has been focus on the gruesome health care debate, nobody seems to have noticed the economy is on the road to recovery, and according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics the rate at which people are losing jobs are declining. Ultimately a huge factor in whether Democrats get re-elected is the economy, and from the looks of it, the economic trends will continue to rise in 2010.

The second reason is that, recently, the republicans have shown themselves to be still be akin to the Bush Administration. Lets face it, the Bush Administration made some pretty serious mistakes, especially on the issue of national security. The last thing republicans need is to relate their policies, in any regard, to the Bush Administration. While John McCain did an effective job of that in the campaign, the Republicans have taken a step backwards. Former Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge, a trusted republican voice on homeland security stated on the Rachel Maddow Show, he didn't regret going to war to Iraq. In fact, he failed to acknowledge there was a flaw in the policy makers who drew us into war. As Maddow correctly noted, Americans need to believe won't make the serious mistakes of the Bush/Cheney administration, and unless the republicans begin to acknowledge the mistakes, and separate themselves from it, they will not get their credibility back. This goes for all issues, national security, the economy, energy, everything.

Finally, the third and most important reason, is that republicans are operating on a unsustainable model of politics. Crazy politics. A large contributor to the democratic decline in approval ratings is how difficult the republicans have made it to get anything done. The Republicans have gone about the philosophy stop any bill at any means --including lying, and distortion. While this may have provided a favorable shift in ratings for a time being, Republicans still have not fared well in the polls against Democrats. According to a recent poll by CNN approval ratings for the GOP are at least 10 points below Democrats on almost every major issue, except terrorism.

More importantly however, the Republican mindset of block any Democratic bill at all costs, will eventually ware thin on the American public. This new mindset has forced the republican party to distance itself from moderate, intellectual, conservatism. For the sake of a few numbers in the polls, republicans as a whole have moved towards the extreme right, embracing, encouraging, and in some cases promoting the rhetoric and false claims of extreme conservative pundits such as Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and Betsy McCaughey. Even Republicans who are considered to be moderate, such as Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty have endorsed radical notions of seccession and "death panels". If a moderate, low-key, Republican is endorsing succeeding from the union because of health reform, what message is being sent to the American public about the Republican part?

While it is true these extreme notions and views may have caused a hiccup for those on the left, the extreme right still only makes up of only a small minority of the American population. The American people can only believe, and tolerate, a certain amount of far-fetched notions and radical rhetoric--a threshold the Republicans are dangerously close to.

That being said, Democrats have made some mistakes, giving an opportunity for Republicans to make ground in the polls. For that to happen, moderation and rational thought needs to return to the GOP. During the later years of the Cold War Ronald Reagan, perhaps unintentionally, started a conservative intellectual movement to bring the republican rhetoric to moderation-- that same moderation and intelligence needs to return to the Republican party if they even have a prayer making significant ground 2010. That means Sarah Palin needs to stop writing on her facebook, that means the Republican party needs to reprimand Joe Wilson instead of endorse him, that means the GOP has to know its contradictory to call Obama a Nazi and Socialist at the same time. Plain and simple, the GOP cannot continue to move in the anti-intellectual direction they are headed.

However, if things continue as they are, the Republican party will eventually lose its credibility amongst voters. Essentially, the GOP will forever become the party that cried wolf.

Speech To Congress: Standing Ovations, Moving Words, and Screaming Congressman

Yes, it seems the joint-session health care speech to congress was all it was hyped up to be. We saw a reemergence of President Obama as he was during the election, we saw Nanci Pelosi get an amazing workout standing up every other sentence, we saw angry Republicans waiving papers around angrily, we even saw the topic of tomorrows news as Congressman Joe Wilson showed some lack of class.

The speech obviously lived up to expectations in hype but did President Obama live up to expectations in his speech?

Our poll said 37 percent of you wanted him to be clear on the public option, another 37 percent said you wanted him to explain how he will pay for this plan, 11 percent of you wanted him to be emphatic and emotional about the strifes of the current system, and 14 percent of you wanted him to stress a bi-partisan effort. Lets take those one at a time:

Pubic Option: President Obama did, in fact advocate for a public option. And he did so forcefully. He explained the benefits of a public option, such as healthy competition and affordable insurance for everyone. He also dispelled any rumors that went along with it, such as a government take of health care. Obama clearly stated that the notion of the government taking over health care is not true. He made sure the public, and congress, knew that it would only be a option, he even quoted the Congressional Budget Committee in its estimate that only 5 percent of Americans would sign up. However, Obama, eased up a bit and did what I hoped he wouldn't do. He claimed the public option was not a necessity for health reform. While he was still adamant about the option he claimed that he would go for anything that brought costs down. Which is all good and well except for that fact it gives those opposed to reform leeway to move away fro a public option. Nothing really will bring down costs as well as a public option--and any leeway given to move away from a public option is will risk the vote of those on the far left.

Paying for the plan- Obama really scored well with the blue dogs and progressives by outlining how he is going to pay for the plan. When it came time to talk about costs, he cut right to the chase. The first thing he said probably was effective enough to win over a majority of Blue Dog democrats. He said, he will not add a dime to the deficit. Clear. Simple. Truth? Yes. He gave proof, finally. Obama stressed the idea there would be a provision in the bill that would cut spending if the savings anticipated from the reform did not materialize. Boom. There was the left jab. Obama again stresses the savings he will get the inefficiencies of medicare and medicaid, but this time goes on to claim that the rest of the plan will be paid for through the revenues of the drug and insurance companies who will stand to see millions of new customers. Another jab. Think its over? No. Obama is relentless. The reform will charge a fee for insurance companies most expensive policies, not only reducing costs, but providing the capital to pay for reform. There is the right hook. The Blue Dogs are staggering...they are backing down. But here comes the knockout.

Now, add it all up and the plan I'm proposing will cost around $900 billion over 10 years, less than we have spent on the Iraq and Afghanistan wars and less than the tax cuts for the wealthiest few Americans that Congress passed at the beginning of the previous administration.

Ding Ding Ding! That ladies and gentleman is knockout. The Blue Dogs doubt are conquered. So what makes this really a knockout? Because those same centrist wing Blue Dogs voted for the Iraq and Afghanistan War, and the tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans. So, they should be complaining about costs any longer.

The current system: This one is easy. Obama was tugging on heartstrings from the get go with two heart breaking stories of people who were denied insurance and suffered a high price for it. Check it out:

One man from Illinois lost his coverage in the middle of chemotherapy because his insurer found that he hadn't reported gallstones that he didn't even know about. They delayed his treatment, and he died because of it.

Another woman, from Texas, was about to get a double mastectomy when her insurance company canceled her policy because she forgot to declare a case of acne. By the time she had her insurance reinstated, her breast cancer had more than doubled in size.

That is heartbreaking, it is wrong, and no one should be treated that way in the United States of America.

As Obama delivered these heartbreaking stories, Nanci Pelosi was fighting to stay sitting in her chair. But pathos wasn't enough. Obama went on, forcefully, to describe what will happen if we will maintain the status quo--and the he wont stand for it. Case closed.

Bipartisanship: Though this definitely wasn't on my agenda, it was on some of yours, and it was on his. President Obama made huge efforts to be bi-partisan and despite the largely partisan nature of the session, most notably from the right, he earned a thumbs up from John McCain for his bi-partisan efforts. All in all, he reached over to the isle include provisions that the Republican party advocated on mal-practice issues, incorporated John McCain's idea, and even gave leeway, much to my disdain, on the public option.

All in all, it was a great speech, aside from the public option part. He may not of hit a grand slam...but at the very least its a home run with two on base.