Posted on 12/06/2014 5:16:21 AM PST by Kaslin
At a time when Ferguson, Missouri, has been under siege, the president unilaterally brought millions of illegal immigrants "out of the shadows," the so-called Islamic State beheaded another American, an architect of Obamacare admitted the law was conceived and birthed in deception, and the secretary of defense was unceremoniously dumped, it's no wonder that a speech by Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y. -- the Tuesday before Thanksgiving -- didn't get the coverage it deserved.
But for political junkies, Schumer's speech at the National Press Club is a marvel to behold. It is at once one of the most impressive acts of political truth-telling from a major politician in our lifetimes and a sophomoric explication of political philosophy. Let's start there. "Democrats must embrace government. It's what we believe in; it's what unites our party," Schumer explained. "If we run away from government, downplay it, or act as if we are embarrassed by its role, people won't vote for our pale version of the Republican view."
Somewhere, a straw man's ears are burning. Barack Obama is the most pro-government president since FDR and Woodrow Wilson. Throughout his presidency so far, to the cheers of the news media, he has passionately made the case for the state as the cure for whatever ails us.
His greatest hits are familiar to anyone who has paid attention. From "you didn't build that" to "government is us," Obama has cast government as the engine of progress. His 2012 campaign's "Life of Julia" ad was a tech-friendly updating of Wilson's progressive vision of getting the individual to "marry his interests to the state." Obama laid out that vision in great detail in his second inaugural and countless other speeches. More important, he has pushed policies -- from Obamacare to tax hikes -- to back up his rhetoric.
In Schumer's telling, however, the Democrats must "embrace government." What movie was he watching? This is the essence of ideological liberalism: Government is always the answer. It would be fun to see Schumer as a contestant on Jeopardy responding to every category, "What is proof we need more government?"
Because liberals lack philosophical diversity on the role of government, all they have left to disagree about is tactics. And that's where Schumer's speech is a breath of fresh air. The senator has no principled objection to a government takeover of health care; what he objects to now is the timing. Back in 2009-10, he was a vocal champion of the law.
Last week, he said, "Unfortunately, Democrats blew the opportunity the American people gave them. We took their mandate and put all of our focus on the wrong problem -- health care reform."
The senator said he still favors Obamacare's goals, but "it wasn't the change we were hired to make." Voters wanted Obama and his party to fix the economy. Indeed, in a remarkable moment of honest cynicism, Schumer went into great detail lamenting how the law was designed to help mostly poor people who for the most part don't vote.
Morally, this is a fascinating admission. In Schumer's hierarchy of needs, winning elections for Democrats matters more than helping the truly needy. Call it uncompassionate liberalism.
The great irony here is that Schumer is widely seen as a blocking tackle for Hillary Clinton, whose path to the presidency depends on her ability to distance herself from the president and a politically disastrous law. The hope seems to be that Schumer's broadside against the tactical failures of the Obama administration will create space for Clinton to criticize her former boss' stewardship while still embracing the unquestioned primacy of liberal-run government over everything.
The irony is that Clinton's appeal is that she will reincarnate the alleged successes of her husband's presidency. The hitch: Bill Clinton's governing style didn't exactly jibe with the philosophy of Obama, Schumer or, for that matter, Hillary Clinton. It did, briefly, after he was elected and Hillary Clinton pushed an earlier version of Obamacare known back then as "Hillarycare."
After losing Congress in the wake of Hillarycare's wreckage, Clinton instead admitted he had moved too far left and subsequently embraced welfare reform, banking deregulation and proclaimed "the era of big government is over."
And that, for Schumer, Obama and Hillary Clinton's party, is nothing less than heresy.
There are some good points here but I have to say, if you mention Hillary’s run for president, even in passing, and fail to mention “empathy for the enemy”, you are out of touch with what is going on in the runup to the 2016 election. And I say that as a great admirer of Goldberg.
/echo
Bill Clinton might have proclaimed that “The era of Big Government is over”, but we all know he didn’t mean it. It seems like he spent most of his 2nd term trying to make Government bigger. He issued a lot of executive orders to expand Federal programs. It was also Clinton that proposed a prescription drug benefit for Medicare—something that GWB actually implemented.
Photo of a Future Commissar of the Soviet States of America
IMHO
The main problem Democrats face is Big Government is a dinosaur, its too big, slow and incompetent to do anything well.
Case in point: Obamacare.
I mean government is still stuck in the 19th Century when we live in a 21st Century decentralized world where everything is available at the touch of a button. And the Feds can’t even master the Internet.
Even if you subscribe to liberal goals, the truth is its pretty hard to sell government as the answer to everything when it doesn’t work.
And if it doesn’t work, liberalism is yesteryear’s political brand.
My bleary eyes read that last bit as " you are out of touch with what is going on in the rump to the 2016 election"
Yeah, Democrats are all for big government, except when it comes in the form of a person in a uniform who is charged with enforcing the law and keeping the peace, both at home and abroad.
Schumer is smarter than Obama. He knows that you can run the country solely for the benefit of poor people, especially minorities. At some point, you will pi$$ off the Middle class majority.
At this point, Obama doesn’t care about inflaming the majority. He is doing all he can to import the entire Third World into the US,so that the current majority becomes irrelevant irrelevant. In short, Obama has made a political calculation to throw the Middle Class under the bus. Per Schumer, I don’t think that all the Democrats are on board with that.....yet.
Yeah sure. "Opportunity for everyone"----just as long as you're not one of those stupid mental defectives taking up space in Democrat Utopia.
=====================================================
The treasure trove of "The Midterm Democrat Demolition Derby" (and down-ticket state wins) have yet to be fully- mined, but this we know:
<><> midterms were a massive and awesome rejection of liberals
<><> Democrat losses stretch from the Carolinas westward to Texas
<><> As Landrieu's loss looms, Southern Democrats control not a single governorship, US senator or legislative chamber.
<><> Of the 140 Southern States election districts---110 went Republican.
<><> the GOP's majority in the House will be so big and solid NBC's Chuck Todd says Democrats can't recapture losses until 2022.
<><> Some pundits say Republicans have a 100-year majority;
<><> When the next Senate convenes, 29 lock-stepping Democrats who voted for Obamacare will be gone.
<><> Even Arkansas and Illinois (Clinton hometowns) have Repub governors---important in a prez race since guvs control party machinery.
<><> MINN's 6th Congressional district was unprecedented---every single House and Senate district went Repub---the GOP now controls the MINN State House.
Marxism and all of its shady ancillary offshoots are pure evil and designed to subjugate free mankind. The Democrat party is a prominent example.
Just last week he said: "We had 100 times as many people move from poverty into the middle class," Billy-boy Clinton told an appreciative audience during a cocktail hour hosted by POLITICO, marking the 10th anniversary of the Clinton Presidential Center. This shows the importance of policy," he continued. "We can do this again.”
Clinton is so stupored, he plumb "forgot" MIT's Jonathan Gruber crunched those numbers for the ever-ambitious Clintons....basing the numbers on the Clintons' knee-jerk genuflection in obeisance to Abortion Worship. Read on.
=========================================
World Net Daily reported November 14, 2014
BY Jerome R. Corsi / FR Posted by Cincinatus' Wife
NEW YORK – Obamacare architect, Jonathan Gruber, (exposed for his frank admissions that passing Obama's signature legislation required lying to "stupid" Americans)......published a paper during the Clinton administration observing that legalizing abortion saved the government $14B in assistance to economically disadvantaged mothers, including African Americans.....and lowered crime.
MIT economics professor Jonathan Gruber argued in his Clinton paper that without the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, “marginal children” would have been born to many poor mothers. Gruber said statistics show these aborted children would have been 70 percent more likely to live in a single-parent family, 40 percent more likely to live in poverty, 50 percent more likely to receive welfare and 35 percent more likely to die as an infant.
Economist Steven D. Levitt and journalist Stephen J. Dubner in their bestselling 2005 book, “Freakonomics,” relied on MIT Professor Jonathan Gruber’s work to argue that legalizing abortion was responsible for an approximately 50 percent reduction of crime in major urban centers in the early 1990s. more at wnd.com
What Schumer wants to embrace: Anthony’s Weiner.
I wonder if he wrote this before that quote came out of her pie hole?
Agreed. Clinton’s “Era of Big Government is over” was a classic Gruberism. The Left is very good at providing a false narratives to throw a tarp over the void.
LIBs/DIMs lie. They all are chronic, unrepentant liars. Believe nothing they say...ever...on any subject. They are merely lieing again to set-up their next deception. Criminal psychopathic liars all.
Term Limits would clean out the DEAD WEIGHT
Bill Clinton didn’t EMBRACE anything. The Republicans had a veto-proof majority and FORCED welfare reform on Clintoon...
B. Clintoon is pragmatic, a liar and morally bankrupt.
H. Clintoon is just another tax/spend...spend/tax big government left wing nut.. She did her thesis on Saul Alinsky and believes in it... just like obama. These people are SELECTED by the left wing because they are TRUE BELIEVERS in the long term takeover and abolition of personal freedom.
H Clintoon’s book ...”it takes a village” is PURE SOCIALISM at the least or PURE COMMUNISM... Surrender your INVIDIUAL RIGHTS the STATE will care for you ...womb(if we dont abort you ) to TOMB.... just give up your personal freedom.
This is the same old car smell / LIBERAL STENCH that has been around since Karl Marx.. If anyone can any longer listen to any LIBERAL and believe them, then they are STUPID BEYOND BELIEF....
The plan is to eliminate the middle class in one massive foul swoop and not incrementally as they are now where they have a chance to vote you out of power. However, the “massive foul swoop” is coming and will occur after a massive deflation followed by the destruction of of the dollar through hyperinflation.
As I have said in a prior post, I believe Schumer sees in Obamacare reform another opportunity to shake down insurers, hospitals, medical device and drug companies, and doctors. See my tagline.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.