Posts Tagged ‘White House’

h1

Cartoon: Obama’s Job Creation

November 18, 2009

h1

White Coats In The Rose Garden

October 7, 2009

Those White Coats In The Rose Garden

IBD: 7 Oct. 2009

Politics: The administration stages a photo-op with handpicked doctors who support its health care reform. Fortunately, most doctors still believe that the first rule of medicine is to do no harm.

It would seem some doctors still make house calls. Some 150 of them made one at the White House Monday in an attempt to give a booster shot to the administration’s chaotic and stalled health care reform drive.

Rather than a grass-roots uprising of physicians, this was a classic case of AstroTurfing.

Attendance was by invitation only, and 40 of the 150 were said to be members of Doctors for America, a reincarnation of the Doctors for Obama arm of the Obama campaign that boasts of having more than 15,000 members.

The physicians were told to bring their white lab coats with them to make sure the TV cameras to capture the proper image. Those who just showed up wearing suits or dresses were provided with lab coats hastily rustled up.

White House spokesman Reid Cherlin insisted that the doctors “were not invited based on their support for a public option.” We’d like a second opinion on that. Doctors for America as an organization embraces a government-run insurance option.

“It just appears that the president of the United States, at this point, is choosing to meet only those who support his agenda,” said Dr. Margaret Flowers, a Maryland pediatrician and congressional fellow for Physicians for a National Health Program, a group not invited.

Perhaps the reason is statements such as Dr. Flowers’ that the “current health reform being written in Congress, particularly that being put together in the Senate Finance Committee (by Sen. Max Baucus), will not be universal and will not control health costs. … It will not produce a health care system that uses our health care dollars wisely.”

The fact is, most doctors are not happy with either the House bill or the Baucus bill. “This is war,” Dr. George Watson, a Kansas physician and president-elect of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, told FoxNews.com. “This is a bureaucratic boondoggle to grab control of health care. Everything that has been proposed in the 1,018-page bill will contribute to the ruination of medicine.”

Dr. Jane Orient, executive director of the AAPS, told the Washington Examiner: “Promised coverage is not the same thing as care. All you’re getting is a place in the waiting lines.”

A survey last fall of 270,000 primary care physicians by the Physicians Foundation found that if health care reform passes, 30% expect to see fewer patients, 13% will find something that does not involve patient care and 11% plan to retire altogether.

No less than the Mayo Clinic has given proposed reform two thumbs down. “The proposed legislation,” Mayo says on its policy blog, “misses the opportunity to help create higher-quality, more affordable health care for patients. In fact, it will do the opposite.”

Our own IBD/TIPP Poll found that 72% of the doctors polled disagree with the administration’s claim that the government can cover 47 million more people with better-quality care at lower cost. Two-thirds, or 65%, of more than 1,300 randomly selected doctors say they oppose the proposed government expansion plan.

Nearly half, or 45%, said they “would consider leaving their practice or taking an early retirement” if Congress passes the plan the Democratic majority and White House have in mind.

Considering that we have around 800,000 practicing physicians, that’s a lot more than belong to Doctors for Obama, er, America and more than showed up in the Rose Garden. And they will take their white lab coats with them.

h1

Republican Chrysler Dealerships Closing…

June 4, 2009

Republican Chrysler Dealerships Closing…

A New Enemies List?

IBD 29 May 2009

Politics: The government’s bailout of Chrysler was key to saving a national icon too important to be lost. Or so we were told. But it’s looking more like a way to punish political opponents.

Earlier this month, Chrysler announced it was seeking permission from bankruptcy court to kill franchise agreements with 789 of its 3,181 dealers to save costs. Dealers, many of whom ran profitable businesses, told the media that the news was devastating.

Aside from the loss of a business, many of these franchisees may have something else in common: It looks like all the dealers who are losing their Chrysler franchises, with only a single exception found so far, have links to the Republican Party.

Chrysler, an American institution, is no longer being operated as a private-sector company. It’s being run by a task force appointed by the White House. So far, the government has halved Chrysler’s ad budget and forced it into a shotgun wedding with Italian carmaker Fiat.

Has it also directed the company to end its contracts with dealers who dared give contributions to the Republican Party and its candidates? The mainstream media seem less than curious. But the new media haven’t shied away from asking the question.

“Many of the closed dealers were also major donors to Republican candidates and political action committees, a review of campaign finance data from the Federal Election Commission shows,” Kenneth Timmerman wrote at NewsMax.com.

“How do we account for the fact millions of dollars were contributed to GOP candidates by Chrysler who are being closed by the government, but only one has been found so far that is being closed that contributed to the Obama campaign in 2008?” asked Examiner.com editorial page editor Mark Tapscott.

“The initial pass at the list of shuttered dealers showed they had donated, in the aggregate, millions to Republican candidates and PACs and a total of $200 to Barack Obama,” writes blogger Doug Ross.

WorldNetDaily reviewed all 789 of the dealerships the company wants to close. It found that “owners contributed at least $450,000 to Republican presidential candidates and the GOP, while only $7,970 was donated to Sen. Hillary Clinton’s campaign and $2,200 was given to Sen. John Edwards’ campaign. Obama received a combined total of only $450 in donations.”

Has our political class grown so petty that it would use the power of government to punish the political opposition? We hope this isn’t true.

If it is, the country’s in more trouble than we thought.

h1

Video: New York – AirForce One

April 29, 2009

In New York, 9/11 Isn’t Over Yet

By INVESTOR’S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Tuesday, April 28, 2009 4:20 PM PT

Homeland Security: A White House jet buzzes lower Manhattan, bringing back memories of 9/11 and drawing an apology from President Obama. Firings are now urged, but what needs changing is attitude.

The White House and Federal Aviation Administration seemed to think it would be business as usual to fly a 747 government jetliner and an F-16 escort along the flight path of 9/11 near New York skyscrapers to update publicity file photos.

Wrong. The entire move created an unexpected panic among New Yorkers, who weren’t in on the plan until the planes whooshed by. The FAA had insisted the mission be “classified” — as if it were possible to conceal a jetliner going past skyscraper windows. So New Yorkers were left with just one conclusion when the jets roared overhead at low altitude, and they fled for their lives.

New Yorkers fled by the thousands at the sight of a low-flying presidential jet buzzing around Manhattan Monday in an image reminiscent of the 9/11 terror attack. Some citizens took cell phone photos, such as this one by Jason McLane, to record the event.

New Yorkers fled by the thousands at the sight of a low-flying presidential jet buzzing around Manhattan Monday in an image reminiscent of the 9/11 terror attack. Some citizens took cell phone photos, such as this one by Jason McLane, to record the event.

They responded the way they did because they’d been changed after the September morning that left thousands dead and their World Trade Center in ruins. The Obama administration, unfortunately, hadn’t. The prospect of triggering panic by flying jets at low altitude above skyscrapers simply didn’t exist on their radar.

Nothing showed it better than in the initial response of White House spokesman Robert Gibbs. He first dismissed a reporter’s question about the incident with no answer, but then promptly switched course once the news rolled in and the YouTubes went up about the panic the White House inflicted on victims of history’s worst terror strike.

Maybe the internal poll numbers came in, or maybe the White House switchboard was flooded. Sounding like a customer service rep, President Obama then apologized, “for any distress that flight caused.”

But it wasn’t as good as it could have been. The names of low-level officials involved got out, followed by recriminations from pundits calling for the head of Louis Caldera, the military director who’d been involved in the planning. Somehow, we doubt the criticism would have reached as low as aides if the “mistake” had been made by, say, President Bush.

Firing underlings won’t do any good, though. This is happening not because of Caldera, but because of a certain indifference at the top. Obama and his party have wrapped the war on terror around the persona of George W. Bush instead of the security of the U.S.

To them, fighting terror is fighting Bush’s war, not stopping the terrorists still trying to kill us. This wasn’t the only event that shows it.

On his first full day in office, Obama outraged 9/11 victims’ families by drafting an order to suspend war crimes trials of prisoners being held at Guantanamo Bay.

After that, he issued an order to close the Cuban prison, raising the prospects of 9/11-linked terrorists possibly walking free to do more harm.

He also ordered the release of CIA memos demonstrating tough interrogation tactics, showing that unlike the public with the airline flyover in Manhattan, terrorists had a right to know.

Now he’s opened the door to prosecutions of Bush administration officials who fought the 9/11 terrorists, as if this were a matter of law and order, and not a real war that could still hit Manhattan.

One can argue that these decisions have a political merit, but in all cases they diminish the importance of ensuring another 9/11 never happens again.

The worst act of war on American soil becomes secondary to what lawyers and special interests want, or what Europe thinks. The quest for imagery over public terror is merely icing on the cake of how many things take precedence over the tough presidential decisions needed to ensure there isn’t another attack.

Instead of Obama apologizing, firing Caldera or saying the airline photo op will never happen again, it would be more encouraging to learn that Obama is thinking about the implications of this PR fiasco and taking the war on terror as seriously as New Yorkers do.

This war requires tough decisions, like those Bush made, to dismantle terror organizations from top to bottom. Obama has criticized his predecessor for using “terrorism as a club to make the American people afraid.”

Well, as the Manhattan fiasco showed, Americans are afraid, but not because of Bush. Our new president should re-examine his attitude about 9/11 and realize that now, it’s his war as much as it was Bush’s.

h1

Cartoon: White House, Red Fountain

March 19, 2009