America, You Asked For It!

Political News and Commentary from the Right

The Only Way to Beat Obamanism: Elect More Republicans

by Michael Medved at

For those Americans who want to fight back against the menacing expansion of government and the insanely irresponsible spending of the Obama administration, there is only one way to succeed: electing more Republicans to high office.

If the public fails to elect GOP candidates for the Senate, the House, governorships, state legislatures and, ultimately, the presidency there is simply no way to derail the leftist agenda that menaces liberty and prosperity.

Many sincere patriots will object to this formulation, insisting that we must elect more conservatives, not just more Republicans.

The question then becomes, if the needed conservative candidates arent running as Republicans, what party would they represent? If theyre conservative Democrats (a designation that increasingly seems like a contradiction in terms) their election to the House and Senate would return Pelosi and Reid to power along with their ultra-liberal, Democratic committee chairs like Rangel, Conyers, Frank, Dodd, Leahy, Kerry, Waxman, and so forth. President Obamas ability to bully Blue Dog Democrats to do his bidding shows that empowering even those Democrats who describe themselves as independent minded only serves to strengthen the hand of the reigning leftists in the nations capital. Does the fact that Democratic Senator David Casey of Pennsylvania happens to be pro-life make him any less a reliable cog in the Obama machine as it lurches through record deficits and the relentless growth of government?

Of course, some purists insist that true conservatives will never identify as either Republicans or Democrats and will instead win office as independents or representatives of fringe parties (say the Libertarians, or the Constitution Party). This supposition ignores the consistent record of failure for third and fourth and fifth party candidates at every level for more than 200 years of American history. Occasionally, quirky free spirits will win governorships as independents (like Angus King of Maine, or Lowell Weicker of Connecticut, or the notorious Jesse Ventura of Minnesota) but these exceedingly rare victories never bring political realignment or the emergence of a new party infrastructure (Maine, Connecticut and Minnesota have long-ago returned to Democratic or Republican rule, demonstrating that their third-party flirtations represented flukes, not breakthroughs). In Congress and the Senate, the only independents in recent decades have been representatives from New England (Bernie Sanders of Vermont, Joe Lieberman of Connecticut) who end up caucusing with the Democrats in any event.

Even if some miracle occurred and some new party elected five, ten or even twenty members of the House and Senate (a virtual impossibility), what difference would it make if the Democrats maintain their majorities?


October 7, 2009 Posted by | Election 2010 | , , , , , , | Leave a comment

How To Answer Obama’s Plea on Health Care

by Michael Medved at

What is the President likely to say in his big speech to Congress on health care and how should Republicans respond to him?

First, its easy to anticipate the theme and tone of President Obamas remarks. He will call for a new spirit of unity and bipartisanship (just as he did in the campaign) and lament the bitterness and divisions roiling the nation when all agree on general goals for health care reform: insuring the uninsured, while making insurance more secure and affordable for those who already have it. He will stigmatize the enemies of reform as political hacks or special interests, and call upon the people to rise above the fear-mongers and demagogues and to embrace reform with hope and confidence. Hell certainly invoke the memory of his fallen friend, the Lion of the Senate, Ted Kennedy, and call for all Americans to go forward in his spirit. Senator Kennedy combined visionary idealism with practical ability to work across the aisle and to make deals in the public interest. The President might even paraphrase the late Senators brother, President Kennedy, suggesting that we should never compromise out of fear, but we should never fear to compromise. In any event, for those with the stomach to watch it, the speech will surely spend lots of time talking about bridging gaps and joining hands and singing kum-ba-ya, even while the President knows theres no chance Republicans will feel swayed by his words. Thats not the point of his address, of course. The point is to make those Republicans look bad when they refuse to bridge gaps and join hands and sing kum-ba-ya.


September 9, 2009 Posted by | Health Care | , , , , | 1 Comment