Quick Hits: 10-9-09

from 'round the sphere...

Democracy, shlemocracy...

Newt Gingrich points out the undemocratic way the health care reform bill is being put together...as in by just a few senators and their staff members.

Think about it: All of the power of the United States Senate to transform one-sixth of our economy will be in the hands of three men and their aides. It's government by staff, aided by lobbyists, for the benefit of bureaucrats.

No wonder so many Democrats in Congress are so dead set against having members read - and more importantly, allowing the American people to read - bills before they vote on them. ...

Just 5 more days for that Specter refund

The Washington Examiner notes that October 15th is the last day you can get a refund from Arlen Specter if you happened to give him a campaign contribution before he jumped ship and became a Democrat.  The Club for Growth has made the generous effort of contacting all such Specter donors by mail (over 6,000 of them) and providing them with a form they can fill out and tell Specter they want their money back.

We're sure Specter appreciates their kind assistance.

Could Obamacare be repealed?

That's the question Stephen Spruiell is asking over at National Review Online.  He points out that many of the "reforms" being considered under various versions of health care reform have been tried at the state level in places such as Kentucky and Vermont...and all with disastrous consequences.  As in driving the costs of individual insurance through the roof and causing the majority of insurers to leave those state markets.  He then points out that a few states that made such mistakes, (like Kentucky and Washington), have since repealed those "reforms".  The question becomes, if it passes at the national level, could it be repealed?

Time for Obama to make a decision on Afghanistan

Charles Krauthammer points out that Obama's dithering over whether to accept General McChrystal's report and go with a surge of 40,000 troops in Afghanistan just underlines the cynical nature of the Democrat's mantra of condemning the war in Iraq and lauding the war in Afghanistan as the "good war".

...championing victory in Afghanistan was a contrived and disingenuous policy in which Democrats never seriously believed, a convenient two-by-four with which to bash George Bush over Iraq -- while still appearing warlike enough to fend off the soft-on-defense stereotype.
    
Brilliantly crafted and perfectly cynical, the "Iraq War bad, Afghan War good" posture worked. Democrats first won Congress, then the White House. But now, unfortunately, they must govern. No more games. No more pretense.
    
So what does their commander in chief do now with the war he once declared had to be won but had been almost criminally under-resourced by Bush? ...

Less than two months ago -- Aug. 17 in front of an audience of veterans -- the president declared Afghanistan to be "a war of necessity." Does anything he says remain operative beyond the fading of the audience applause?

Right now the answer doesn't look promising.