With Daschle out, Obama should make Romney the healthcare-reform czar

Picture the scene: a dignified Ted Kennedy stands beside President Barack Obama on a brisk, late winter day in the Rose Garden.

Mr. Obama laments the events that caused him to withdraw the nomination of his anointed healthcare-reform czar, former Senate majority leader Tom Daschle, as Health and Human Services Secretary. Reaching back to the lofty rhetoric of his campaign, he implores his audience to look past his own lapse in judgment and seize the opportunity to implement sweeping national reform that puts health insurance within reach for the millions already uninsured – and the millions more whose coverage is jeopardized by the nation's economic crisis.

Then Senator Kennedy ambles to the microphone. He thanks Obama for his attention to what has been a more than 40-year personal crusade. He reemphasizes that now is the time to rise above partisan politics and address this central policy issue of our time.

"I've seen such an approach work," Kennedy declares, "in my own home state, where in just two years we've seen 500,000 people who were uninsured gain access to quality healthcare as a result of an agreement among Republicans, Democrats, hospitals, insurers, and the voters. They came together because they understood this issue was too important to remain bogged down in politics any longer. Now I am here to introduce my partner in that process; a man whose life experience spans the heights of the public, private and nonprofit sectors; a man whose commitment to the goal of seeing every American receive quality, affordable healthcare is every bit as strong as my own; the man who I believe can work with the president, the Congress and the entire healthcare system to reach this goal; my friend, my former governor, Mitt Romney."

As I said, I will give him credit, and even in finding a lot of his positions odious, he did something that many thought impossible, and that was making NYC a governable and SAFE city. My family fled NYC in the ‘70s along with a million other people when the worst Mayor in city history, indeed, one of the worst Mayors in U.S. history, John Lindsay, a liberal Republican that was so far to the left he made Giuliani look like Jesse Helms, inflicted massive damage to the city, told untold numbers to get on welfare, and the crime rate exploded beyond all comprehension, and a total breakdown in the social order. Lindsay during his term became a Democrat.

By the early ‘90s, NYC elected David Dinkins, the second worst Mayor in the modern era, and Dinkins allowed the murder rate to skyrocket to atmospheric proportions, well in excess of two THOUSAND per year. The city was dangerous as hell, worse than anything going on in a lot of war-torn regions, a total cesspool and quagmire, people were fleeing the city, and businesses, too.

Rudy first ran against Dinkins in ‘89 and lost. But Dinkins was so horrible that Rudy beat him in a rematch. He proceeded to cut the murder and overall crime rate in one of the most dramatic fashions ever seen. He reduced it to below 1960s levels (I think at one point, the murder rate on Manhattan Island alone dropped into the 100 range, which meant here in my hometown of Nashville, OUR murder rate was over three TIMES that of Manhattan’s, with a third the population).

For all his other problems, it would be a grave injustice not to give the man credit for that. He did that under his leadership. It’s just that I wish he could match that achievement in being right on the other issues, but sadly, he isn’t.

****My family fled NYC in the ‘70s along with a million other people when the worst Mayor in city history, indeed, one of the worst Mayors in U.S. history, John Lindsay, a liberal Republican that was so far to the left he made Giuliani look like Jesse Helms, inflicted massive damage to the city, told untold numbers to get on welfare, and the crime rate exploded beyond all comprehension, and a total breakdown in the social order. Lindsay during his term became a Democrat.****

Your family experience describes to a “T” why the suburbs of the West Coast, Midwest, and Northeast trended strongly GOP in the 1980s. During the 60’s and 70’s, the cities became RAT holes. Whites fled the cities for the comfort of the suburbs. Their bad experience in the cities caused them to be wary of the Dems, so they voted for Republicans. Today, the cities are more manageable and livable. As a result, people are having positive experiences with urban life. As a result, the city dwellers are keeping their Dem voting habits where ever they go.

Well, the suburbs had been going GOP for a long time before that, for that matter. Astonishingly, a lot of those GOP-heavy suburbs, especially in the northeast, midwest and west coast, have all had a particularly nasty swing to the left. A lot of those “spoiled rotten” kids raised in relative privilege now vote as if they were raised in the barrio or ‘hood.

Alas, the section of Nashville my parents moved to when we fled NYC was a fairly decent semi-rural area that over 35 years became middle class suburban and more lower end today and Whites have fled, displaced by Blacks and illegals (with Blacks even leaving and being replaced more by the latter). Now our section of town is synonomous with crime and illegals. What’s really funny is that our section of town voted in the last Mayoral election for the more Conservative of two candidates (who had multi-racial support) while the rich (and ostensibly “Republican” areas) voted for the moonbat liberal (who won).

Astonishingly, a lot of those GOP-heavy suburbs, especially in the northeast, midwest and west coast, have all had a particularly nasty swing to the left. A lot of those “spoiled rotten” kids raised in relative privilege now vote as if they were raised in the barrio or ‘hood.

Yeah, I mean, demographically, they haven't changed that much, but their voting patterns have so radically changed, you wonder what happened. Decades ago, these places would rather jump off a cliff than vote identically to the cities just across the county lines from them.

I was looking at Massachusetts, for example, still one of the Whitest states in the country. In 1980, you had about 1.1 million people there voting for Reagan when he won a plurality. In 2008, McCain also got that same 1.1 million. But the difference here is that Carter got also around 1.1 million but the False Messiah got 1.9 million. It's like our numbers stayed absolutely static while theirs doubled.

Pennsylvania is another. Reagan got 2.3 million in '80, McCain got 2.7 million. Carter got 1.9 million, the False One got 3.3 million. In 1980, Carter carried just 10 counties, 7 of which were in the SW part of the state. The False Messiah got just 18 counties (but enough for a win), and he carried virtually every county in the Philadelphia Metro Area (in '80, Carter won ONLY Philly itself). But McCain won 6 of the 10 counties Carter won 28 years later, all in the declining SW (where only Pittsburgh's Allegheny & Johnstown's Cambria - which only barely went Dem by just 456 votes !).

I worry, too, about the potential trend even in the South of rich/upper middle class suburbs towards the Dems. It hasn't happened yet, but I start seeing alarming incidents like our own Mayoral race. The lone district in my county that sends a Republican to the legislature (the wealthiest in the county) is the one that went heavily for the moonbat lib. Williamson County, the wealthiest county in the state, and heavily GOP, would likely be the first to start showing signs of a potential flip, though aside from the bizarre 2006 Gubernatorial race when EVERY county went for the Dem incumbent (the GOP nominee was a State Senator from Williamson, and he didn't even carry his own county, the worst showing for a GOP Gubernatorial candidate in ages).

Another example, however, was that in the late '60s-early '70s, Georgia sent two Republicans to Congress, one from adjacent Atlanta districts. The city of Atlanta itself, in fact, and DeKalb County. Today, those districts are moonbat Democrat and Black (DeKalb being Cynthia McKinney's turf). But the flip of those was more racial as opposed to Whites themselves ideologically realigning. However, Barone made a comment about the DeKalb based seat at the time that they simply had a habit of voting against the tide of the rest of the state. Then, they were trending to the GOP, opposed to the heavily Dem rest of the state. Now that Georgia is GOP, they vote opposite today.

I worry, too, about the potential trend even in the South of rich/upper middle class suburbs towards the Dems.

It's already beginning to happen, at least a little bit. Take Texas. John Culberson in TX-7 has began to run into strong challenges, getting 59% in 2006 and 56% in 2008, even though he's one of the most conservative members of the Texas delegation; he represents northwest Harris County, which is very affluent, and used to be George H.W. Bush's old House seat. Same thing may be happening to seats held by Michael McCaul (54% in 2008) and Kenny Merchant (56% in 2008), though McCaul's problem is that he's got some of Austin in his district. Even Pete Sessions' district is, you'd have to admit, not as solid as most of the other GOP seats.

Plus you've got areas of Florida like that, though a lot of them are transplants and not native. Still, the Orlando metro area took a wild swing away from the rock-ribbed GOP lean it once held, even though, as I look at the stats, Orange County is still 69% white and Osceola County is 77% white, plus I'm sure not all the Hispanics there are Democrat. Also, Sarasota County's taken a jog to the left, even though we still managed to hold that House seat in 2006, but it was the other counties in the district that had to vote GOP for us to keep it. Maybe Pinnelas County is another example. Plus the Gold Coast is more Democrat than it used to be; Bush 41 actually carried Broward and Palm Beach County in 1988.

I know there's no Democrat trend in the affluent Louisiana suburbs. Jefferson Parish (my home) actually increased the Republican vote from 61% in 04 to 63% in 08, and St. Tammany north of N.O. went up a point. The swing was even bigger in the Baton Rouge suburbs.

Obama wouldn't offer it and Mitt wouldn't take it. IOW, it's a slow news day for the pundits so they made up something to write about.

As for Romney's plan in Mass....

Mitt gave his State constituents a market based, private sector plan with the advisement of conservative think tanks like the Heritage Foundation [i.e. Margaret Thatcher’s only conservative organization in the United States], the Club for Growth, Mass Citizens for Taxation limitation, etc. You can also opt out by showing you have enough cash to self insure for all the conservatives in the state.

When Chrissy Matthews asked Romney why he wasn't planning to use his Health Care plan in Mass. for the National government Romney gave him a lesson in Federalism. Saying each state can do what it wants. If Texas wants one plan and California another they can do what they want but that citizens should be able to buy across State lines. Interestingly Chrissy seemed to have no idea what Federalism is. Mass. citizens wanted a health care plan and Romney gave them one that follows many conservative principles.

The down trend in the suburbs is largely due to perceived incompetence of Bush regarding Katrina and Iraqi. For now, People don’t trust the Republicans to deal with serious problems. Its going to take a major screw up by the Messiah for things to start swinging our way again. We’ll know the answer that in the next 6 months. Despite the gloom and doom the Messiah is preaching, many Dem supporters think the economy will rebound in the fall. That is why the Messiah wants the stimulus to be passed quickly. So he can take credit for the economic rebound. OTOH, if the economy worsens, then the Messiah lose credibility.

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.