Share This Article with a Friend!

Outsiders vs. Insiders: If wishes were fishes Democrats would have everyone eating sushi

If wishes were fishes, we'd all cast nets.” ― Frank Herbert, The Dune Storybook

Parents everywhere recognize this old saying, employing it whenever kids yearn for something off the wall – or simply wish something isn’t exactly the way it is. “I wish we could get a pony,” or “I wish this tuna sandwich Sharkwere really a chocolate chip cookie.” If only we could turn reality into the stuff of dreams we would all cast nets (for fishes)…or perhaps get a lot more sleep.

Prayer works too, though the almighty’s answers typically don’t come quickly, usually aren’t apparent with a “Your prayers were answered!” flashing neon sign and don’t always end up with the outcome we’d prefer.

Wishes and prayers sum up the Democrats these days as the minority party certainly wishes it could change course from the reality on the ground and appears to be praying for a miracle. A month or so ago Democrats were not only confident they’d retake the House after this year’s federal elections they’d also hedged bets on securing enough Republican-held Senate seats – and defending all of theirs – to put Chuck Schumer in the anti-Trump driver’s seat for the next two years.

Unfortunately for Democrats the tide turned against them now. One case in point is the Texas U.S. Senate race where Democrats did much wishing to be rid of stalwart conservative Senator Ted Cruz, but it ain’t happening for them. Democrat challenger Beto O’Rourke initially turned heads but down the stretch has faded faster than a claiming horse sucking air (and mud clods) chasing stakes competition.

Jim Geraghty wrote at National Review, “[W]hat the national media really yearn to see is a Democrat who can win Texas. A Democrat who could win Texas in a presidential race would end the competition before it began; a Republican candidate is up a creek with no paddle without the Lone Star State’s 38 electoral votes, and a Democrat charismatic and appealing enough to win Texas would probably put other red states in play…

“The ingredients were there for a much less flattering media portrait of O’Rourke — a boarding-school-attending son of a judge who escaped serious consequence for a DUI and burglary charges, used gentrification to jump-start his career in El Paso city politics, supported the use of eminent domain to drive out poor residents, and married into the family of his region’s most influential businessmen. In Congress, O’Rourke was largely ignored until his Senate bid; he’s been the primary sponsor for just three bills that became law. One of them renamed a federal building in El Paso.

“But that’s not what the media wanted to see, and you can’t write that story for a national magazine after you’ve submitted expense reports for a flight to Texas, a hotel, plenty of tacos, and God knows how much Shiner Bock. A Democrat who really had a shot at winning Texas would indeed be a huge political story. Alas, Beto O’Rourke is shaping up to be just a charismatic guy who will do better than the Texas Democrats’ usual bad performance.”

The Democrats’ hopes are reflected in O’Rourke’s incredible fundraising numbers…but kind of like with wishes, having campaign money doesn’t always make dreams come true. Some think Beto’s cash haul just takes away from other Democrats…and who’s to argue?

Is Geraghty’s assessment harsh or the truth? As he explained, Democrats, perhaps puffed with self-assurance by their belief Donald Trump would sink the GOP’s chances this year, actually believed O’Rourke was “the one” who would break Republicans’ stranglehold on the Lone Star State. All the demographic trends seem headed Democrats’ way in Texas but reality indicates they’re making slow – if any – progress in turning the state blue.

Complicating Democrats’ wishful thinking is many Texas conservatives remained miffed at Cruz for his foot-dragging in getting behind Donald Trump two years ago. As you recall Cruz left the Republican primary race in early May (after being soundly defeated by Trump in Indiana) yet waited until late September to formally endorse the eventual election winner.

Of course John Kasich took the race’s #3 spot and never did endorse Trump… but did anyone truly care?

With Trump running against Hillary Clinton and her labeling half of his supporters “deplorables,” most conservatives felt it was long past time for Cruz to rally around the party standard and back its nominee. Many who supported Ted up until his bow-out were angry with him for his bull-headed-ness which threatened to take the country down by tacitly sabotaging Trump’s chances to win.

No one questions Cruz’s legitimate personal motives for hesitating (Trump was certainly over-the-top in his denigration of the Texas Senator (remember “Lyin’ Ted”?)) but politics ain’t bean bag and sometimes you just gotta take a bullet to advance the overall cause. Cruz’s quirky non-endorsement during his GOP convention speech only made matters worse – even conservatives who were with him from the start were furious over that one.

Those were hard times for Republicans. Recall the #NeverTrump movement tried replacing Trump as nominee (even though they didn’t have a stand-in candidate at the ready) and virtually the entire GOP establishment was lukewarm at best towards him. Practically half the party said “only because it’s Hillary” in pledging to sustain Trump’s bid. It was bad.

Things are different now. With polls showing Trump’s intra-party support at around 90 percent, happy days are here again for Republicans. Cruz and Trump shook hands and made up and there were even post-election rumors Trump was thinking the Texas senator might make a good attorney general or Supreme Court justice (the seat that eventually went to Neil Gorsuch).

All along the most ardent Trump backers were still averse to forgive Cruz for his perceived betrayal. It’s testament to the intense feelings stirred up by the 2016 Republican primaries – never to be forgotten.

As a result Cruz’s reelection was never a foregone conclusion -- not because O’Rourke represented a serious challenge to him, but due to Ted’s not yet securing his own base. Never one to shy from a fight, Cruz ticked off just about everyone who could help him two years ago. To his credit he’s been a force ever since and was a leading voice in Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation (he sits on the Senate Judiciary Committee), and, his “confrontation” with outrageous and disruptive leftist protesters a few weeks ago at a restaurant might have even been a turning point in his own race.

The left’s antics turned Cruz into a sympathetic character, which given the senator’s reputably crusty personality is not the easiest thing to do. Ted earned a lot of goodwill that night by simply exiting the scene rather than staying behind to battle with people who hate him.

The Texas race amply demonstrates why polls taken six months (or more) in advance of election day are so useless in predicting the eventual outcome. Americans’ attention spans aren’t exactly long – so there’s very little value in fretting over surveys lightyears disconnected from actual votes. They basically give pundits something to talk about… otherwise, forget them.

What’s helping people remember this year is the Democrats’ and their leftist minions continuing violent behavior. Republican party offices across the nation are under assault by window smashing anarchists seeking to scare GOP voters away with their antics. The opposite is happening – and it’s great for Republican candidates.

Meanwhile, it's Washington’s most poorly kept secret that Democrats plan to investigate the administration to proverbial death if they return to the majority. Paul Bedard reported at The Washington Examiner, “President Trump is likely to face at least five new House investigations -- plus a likely impeachment probe -- if Democrats take the chamber in the fall elections and make Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi speaker.

“’Our caucus -- led by Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi -- will need to ruthlessly prioritize the most important matters first,’ said Rep. Adam Schiff, a longtime critic of the president. ‘We must do what the supine Republican Congress has failed to do over the past two years: restore Congress as an equal branch and check the ambition of an imperial and erratic president,’ he wrote in a Washington Post oped.”

Bedard additionally reported Schiff, the top Democrat on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, listed five different investigations he sees should the House take over, including one that will probe his charge that Russians are laundering money through properties owned by the Trump family.

Bedard’s article lists the five in their entirety – if you’re curious, click the link. The proposed investigations – and justifications for them -- can be summarized thusly: lazy and apathetic Republicans dragged their heels in getting to the bottom of Russian collusion that went on prior to the 2016 election (and after!) and Democrats intend to ignore their political opposition in rooting out the lying executive branch scoundrels, flog them before a star-chamber like tribunal and dam up the system so Trump can’t do any more good things for the American economy.

And, when Democrats are done bloviating over Russia and Vladimir Putin – should we say if they’re ever done – the newly instituted majority will get to the heart of the matter on why the Trump administration is so lenient on the hated drug companies, plus, whether the president abused his pardon power (along with violating campaign finance laws) additional snooping into Veterans Affairs and last but not least, to determine if Trump’s making money off his position.

Then, if there’s any time and energy remaining, Democrats will do impeachment!

As a reminder, Democrats didn’t give a hoot about supervisory matters during Obama’s presidency, you know, things like Lois Lerner’s IRS harassing and bogging down conservative groups with excessive documentation requirements before granting tax exempt status, the terrorist attack in Benghazi where four Americans were killed (on 9/11/12) and Operation Fast and Furious (and the death of Officer Brian Terry).

The list goes on and on…but it’s tough to remember now because House Democrats were only in charge for the first two years of Barry O’s liberal reign of terror. Needless to say, Republicans (under John Boehner and then Paul Ryan) weren’t overly aggressive in pursuing administration scofflaws, one of many bones-to-pick conservatives still carry with the party establishment.

We “wish” Jim Jordan would be the next Republican leader. Who knows, maybe this is one that actually might come true. Jordan would have the House sticking its oversight nose where it needs to be – uncovering the Obama Justice Department’s and FBI’s complicity in spying on the 2016 Trump campaign and then the Trump administration in its earliest days. Jordan might even get the ball rolling on looking into Hillary Clinton’s email scandal. Wouldn’t it be refreshing?

At any rate, Democrats won’t be deterred if they’re back in power next year. They’ll do their level best to screw up the healthcare system even further by instituting “Medicare for All,” which would be a fiscal disaster the country would likely never recover from.

David Catron wrote at The American Spectator, “As President Trump predicts, if payment rates to doctors and hospitals are actually held to the abstemious levels stipulated by the bill’s language, ‘Doctors and hospitals would be put out of business. Seniors would lose access to their favorite doctors. There would be long wait lines for appointments and procedures. Previously covered care would effectively be denied.’ This is not, as [Sen. Bernie] Sanders would have it, a ‘lie.’ It will be an inevitable consequence of the laws of economics — supply and demand.

“Which brings us back to the inevitable effects of Medicare-for-All: Dramatic increases in the aggregate cost of care, reductions in access to providers, and rationing. Why will seniors feel these effects more acutely than other Americans? They use more health care and tend to be more expensive to treat. If a physician gets paid about the same amount for treating healthy young patients as he gets paid for seniors, he will start turning away the latter. This is called ‘stealth rationing’ and it is a common feature of all single-payer systems. Seniors will have to seek primary care in hospital ERs, the most expensive health care anywhere. President Trump is right. Medicare-for-All would be outrageously expensive, ageist, and immoral.”

Americans aren’t dumb, and we’ve been down this road before. Democrats always offer everything without paying for anything. They’d quickly run out of other people’s money; in Medicare’s case the program’s already set to go belly-up in less than a decade.

Democrats wish for a lot of things, but their cure for the issue “ailments” would end up worse for America than the “disease.” Voters have a chance to stave off endless stupid investigations and Democrat chicanery by voting Republican on November 6. Will conservatives step up?

Share this

Medicare for All

Let me tell you how Medicare works. I pay about $130/mo. for Medicare Part B, the part that pays doctors. I rarely go to the doctor (about 4 times annually). I visited my doctor in August with multiple issues. The Medicare Summary came yesterday. My doctor billed $218.00 for the visit. Medicare "approved" $73.25. Medicare paid 14 cents and my secondary paid $73.11. My doctor was forced to eat $144.75 of the cost. First of all, why is Medicare in financial jeopardy if they only pay 1/3 of 1% and take in over $1500 annually from the patient? Second, what medical practitioner is going to willingly take patients if they have to eat 66% of the cost?