Tuesday, August 10, 2010

Obamacare on the ballot
Missouri voters give the administration a preview of what’s to come

MISSOURI—The Show Me State voters are showing the Obama administration just what they think of health care reform: it stinks. Two out of three voters went to the polls on August 2nd and cast a ballot for Proposition C, a proposition against allowing Obamacare into Missouri.

National polls conducted before and after the passage of health care reform showed the American people were not in favor of such a federal overhaul and reworking of the health care industry from private sector to pubic sector and democrats are poised to take an electoral punishment this November for doing so. The latest Real Clear Politics average shows 51.8 of Americans oppose and/or want to appeal Obamacare with just 37 percent approving. Rasumussen has a wider margin with 58 percent against and 37 for HCR.

Some twenty state’s attorney generals have filed challenges to the federal health care reform act and if ruled based on the Interstate clause of the Constitution, key provisions are likely to be struck down. The administration is arguing its not mandating buying coverage but levying a tax—some argument.  

So now we’re going to tax our way into prosperity by taxing health care?

-- Owen E. Richason IV
Chief Editor, Killswitch Politick

Tuesday, August 3, 2010

Obama supporters stop blaming Bush, but Obama doesn’t
A recent poll shows Obama’s base are looking for that promised hope and change

WASHINGTON, DC—The don’t blame me president won’t welcome the latest round of polling that shows empirical proof his base is blaming him instead of the evil George W. Bush for the country’s woes. A Reuters-Ipsos poll shows support waning for the blame Bush strategy as voters feel its Obama’s turn to take responsibility for the direction of the country with a staggering 67 percent responding the president is not focused on the economy and joblessness.

Moreover, an AP-Univision poll finds that Hispanics are increasingly troubled by Obama’s lack of attention to their demographic, with 43 percent stating he is not meeting their needs

Tom Jensen, director of Public Policy Polling notes, "A lot of these folks wouldn't like him no matter what, but I think the country has pretty much the same problems it did before Obama took office—at least that's how voters feel—and more and more that's becoming Obama's fault rather than Bush's fault."

The Reuters-Ipsos poll also found that only 34 percent approved of the one-time community organizer’s job, with 46 percent saying his performance was unsatisfactory. The overarching conclusion is with a year and a half in office, Obama should be taking responsibility instead of blaming the ghosts of president’s past.

-- Owen E. Richason IV
Chief Editor, Killswitch Politick

Tuesday, July 27, 2010

A hyper racially biased, post racial administration
Shirley Sherrod is indicative of a larger picture

WASHINGTON, DC—In a matter of hours, a low-level USDA administrator went from self professed racist to post racial epiphany, to class warfare advocate, to race baited victim, to a transcended racially biased government official.

When Andrew Breitbart posted video of Ms. Sherrod speaking to a local Georgia chapter of the NAACP confessing to a sympathetic audience she did not want to help a white farmer save his land, reaction from the White House via Agricultural Secretary Tom Vilsack was swift and decisive—she was forced out. But then more of the video came to light and it showed Ms. Sherrod to be speaking about an epiphany that it wasn’t about race it was about class and the “haves versus the have nots”—just shy of violating the Hatch Act which restricts federal employees from engaging in political activity while acting in their official capacity.

Upon learning this revelation, Vilsack offered to reinstate Sherrod and Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said of the quick-draw firing of Ms. Sherrod:

"Members of this administration, members of the media, members of different political factions on both sides of this have all made determinations and judgments without a full set of facts. I think that is wholly and completely accurate. I think, without a doubt, Ms. Sherrod is owed an apology."

My beef is with what has not been dealt with or analyzed. And that is the Obama administration seems to have a penchant for racially biased socialists. If you listen to Sherrod’s remarks in their entirety, she clearly sees America through the prism of race and prescribes redistribution as the solution. 

-- Owen E. Richason IV
Chief Editor, Killswitch Politick

Tuesday, July 20, 2010

White liberals begin turning on Obama
A FOX News/Opinion Dynamics polls shows little hope for change

WASHINGTON, DC—President Obama lost moderate republicans shortly after his election; over the health care debate, he lost independents. Now he is losing white, liberal democrats. In a FOX News/Opinion Dynamics poll, the agent of hope and change has lost 8 percent of liberal support in a single fortnight, dropping to 76 percent from 84 percent from the end of June to mid July.

Why the drop?

Over eighty-nine days of the worst environmental disaster in United States history and golf outing after golf outing comes to mind. Other reasons for the defections include isolating whites while going head-long for the Hispanic vote and failure to prosecute a very winnable voter intimidation case against black hate group members.

Now, couple that with steady high unemployment, not getting out of Iraq, not winning or leaving Afghanistan, not closing GITMO, not offering up cap-and-trade during the Gulf oil spill, not getting immigration reform when he had a sixty vote majority in the senate, not holding-on to Ted Kennedy’s seat, not being able to deliver on a plethora of other campaign promises and not paying attention to anyone that isn’t a minority—now that’s change white liberals can’t believe in.

-- Owen E. Richason IV
Chief Editor, Killswitch Politick

Tuesday, July 13, 2010

Democrat governors caution administration over Arizona lawsuit
The New York Times reports legal action could cost the party in the fall

WASHINGTON, DC—According to a Sunday night headline on the Drudge Report in a private meeting with the White House, “Dem Govs Warn: Obama Lawsuit vs. AZ is ‘Toxic’”. KP is not surprised to learn the governors of several states are not in line with the administration’s legal challenge to the so-called controversial Arizona immigration enforcement law (nearly 60 percent of non-Arizonian’s support the bill and would like to see a similar bill in their state).

The challenge is bad politics from a strategy perspective because you can’t reach 70 percent Arizonian majority support without a substantial amount of Hispanics in agreement. Moreover, the move is too transparent to likely voters of all demographics, which looks like pure vote-pandering. But then again, most of what this administration has done and is doing is without majority support.

And the administration is completely aware of this. On Sunday, Press Secretary Robert Gibbs told Meet the Press that republicans are likely to win control of the House. Which translate directly to a lame duck congress from November 2nd until January 20th of next year—a lame duck congress with nothing to loose and just enough time to ram through a more far left agenda.  

-- Owen E. Richason IV
Chief Editor, Killswitch Politick

Tuesday, July 6, 2010

More trouble for Obama, dems—white voters leave
Amid jobless double dip recession, more voters turn away from democrat party

WASHINGTON, DC—A new Washington Post poll shows that white voters have begun a mass exodus from President Obama and the democrats by extension. According to the poll, white voter support has gone from north of 60 percent to just over 40 percent, the twenty-plus point drop occurring just four months prior to the November midterms and 79 percent of the 2006 midterm voters were whites.  2008’s presidential election was comprised of 74 percent of white voters as well.

That spells trouble with a capital “T” for the democrat majority in November, when voter turnout is already lower than on-year elections; the democrat’s strategy is to spend ten of millions of dollars to bolster turn out, a model borrowed from the stimulus package to create jobs (which cost approximately $700,000 per job created).

A democrat operative that tracks House races said of the erosion, "Since in the past House elections white voters tended to represent the independent vote, [the midterms] will surely be devastating for Democrats running in an election that will be a referendum on the Obama agenda."

White voters, along with independents and moderate democrats have been fleeing the Obama scene for weeks on end now, with the economy continuing to struggle, the jobless rate remaining high, the disaster in the Gulf, global economic decline, unchecked illegal immigration, and Afghanistan faltering, its no wonder polls are showing such attrition.

-- Owen E. Richason
Chief Editor, Killswitch Politick

Tuesday, June 29, 2010

Kagan versus free speech
The little that is known about the president SCOTUS nominee is disturbing

WASHINGTON, DC—Confirmation hearings began yesterday for Elena Kagan’s Supreme Court Nomination by President Obama. Conservatives and libertarians have much to worry about, but this selection is a stark reminder, like health care reform and civilian criminal trials for enemy combatants, that elections have consequences. Once Ms. Kagan is confirmed—which I fully expect to happen at this early juncture—she will be seated on the nation’s highest court for at least two, perhaps three decades.

Little is actually known about Ms. Kagan—and that was purposeful by Mr. Obama—he nominated someone without a paper trail and with no record as a jurist. What we do know about Kagan is that she is a liberal and by all indications, views the United States Constitution as a, “charter of negative liberties”, just like Obama.

And we know that Kagan’s involvement in Citizens United v. FEC as a solicitor general was one of hostility to the First Amendment, arguing that certain political speech could be proscribed. When pressed about her position and extending it to books or pamphlets, she said, "FEC has never applied this statute to a book." But specifically stated that pamphlets could be censored; I might remind Ms. Kagan that Thomas Paine’s Common Sense was also a pamphlet.


-- Owen E. Richason
Chief Editor, Killswitch Politick

Tuesday, June 22, 2010

Oil spill commission comprised of advocates
The White House panel is made-up of technocrat policy wonks

WASHINGTON, DC—President Obama’s blue ribbon commission looking into the Deepwater Horizon/BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico are mostly environmental and clean/green energy advocates with no engineering or technical background—some of which blog on a regular basis about the need to end drilling altogether or at least ban deepwater drilling.

One panel member, environmental activist and president of the far left Natural Resources Defense Council, Frances Beinecke; who on May 27th wrote on her blog, "We can blame BP for the disaster and we should. We can blame lack of adequate government oversight for the disaster and we should. But in the end, we also must place the blame where it originated: America's addiction to oil." And earlier in May on the 20th, she wrote, "Even as questions persist, there is one thing I know for certain: the Gulf oil spill isn't just an accident. It's the result of a failed energy policy."

In fact only one of the seven panelists has a background in engineering—Cherry A. Murray, who is the dean of Harvard's engineering and applied sciences school—but his knowledge lies in physics and optics, not environmental, civil, or mechanical engineering. The co-chair is Bob Graham, the former democrat governor of Florida and senator who opposed offshore drilling.

In short, Mr. Obama has assembled a panel of anti-exploratory, hostile environmentalists, and green energy theoreticians to look into the safety and viability of deep and shallow water drilling. Even the New York Times is critical of the selection; we wait with baited breath to see their recommendations.

-- Owen E. Richason
Chief Editor, Killswitch Politick

Tuesday, June 15, 2010

Who is Alvin Greene?
The mysterious talking-points reader is causing quite a stir

SOUTH CAROLINA—In a stunning democrat primary win, penniless senatorial candidate Alvin Greene bested the favorite Vic Rawl, putting him up against Republican Senator Jim DeMint who is considered to hold a safe seat. The unexpected victory has democrats concerned and Congressman James Clyburn (D-SC) has called him a republican plant. Moreover, Clyburn is also calling for an investigation into the primary race.
Greene, who did not campaign—because he did not have or raise any money—has given a few interviews, two of which were with Shepard Smith on FOX News and one with radio talk-show host Mark Levin. Both were phone interviews and it is clear the democrat candidate is reading talking points, as he pauses when asked basic questions and then repeats his answer as if to reassure himself he’s given the correct answer. In the Levin interview, after being asked who his opponent would be in the general election, Greene paused and then stuttered, “Incumbent Senator DeMint” twice, while repeating he believed himself to be the best candidate.

So how does a candidate who’s never ran for or held elected office, has no record, and did not campaign win a senatorial primary? The whole affair is odd at best and we hope that South Carolinian officials are successful in investigating the matter.

-- Owen E. Richason
Chief Editor, Killswitch Politick

Tuesday, June 8, 2010

Are you dumber than a fifth grader? Chances are excellent if you’re a liberal
A new study by Zogby shows liberals can’t answer basic economics questions

FAIRFAX, VA—A study conducted involving 4,835 American adults by Daniel Klein and Zeljka Buturovic asked eight basic economics questions to persons describing themselves as very liberal, liberal, moderate, conservative, very conservative and libertarian. The results? Liberals aren’t smarter than a fifth grader when it comes to answering basic economics questions.

The first statement given to the participants was, "Restrictions on housing development make housing less affordable." And they were given five choices with which to answer: 1) strongly agree; 2) somewhat agree; 3) somewhat disagree; 4) strongly disagree; 5) are not sure.

Of the nearly 5,000 answers given, 82.4 percent of those that identified themselves as very conservative answered correctly and even more libertarians, 84.3 percent, also responded correctly, but only 32.4 percent of those who identified themselves as very liberal answered correctly—a full 67.6 percent did not choose the right answer.

According to the study, of the eight statements given to the participants, liberals scored abysmally:

[The] average number of incorrect responses from 0 to 8: Very conservative, 1.30; Libertarian, 1.38; Conservative, 1.67; Moderate, 3.67; Liberal, 4.69; Progressive/very liberal, 5.26.

This study demonstrates the glaring disconnect liberals have with reality. As the first statement establishes, liberals are unable to reconcile that when you regulate something more, less of it will be available.

-- Owen E. Richason
Chief Editor, Killswitch Politick

Tuesday, June 1, 2010

No win in sight
How a political calculation over the oil spill could cost the president

WASHINGTON, DC—In what is now clearly a political calculation gone awry, President Obama is feeling the effects in his poll numbers and his political clout. The fallout his inaction to the BP oil spill will come at a heavy price and may even damage his party more come November. This remains to be seen, but an early handicapping would indeed conclude the president’s party is going to be set back even more because voters will remember the federal government’s response to Katrina—there was one, whereas here, there has not been one.

When asked about the political strategizing that came when the president was informed about the spill, I simply explain the advice he received from Rahm Emanuel and David Axelrod was probably, “Stay out of it; you don’t want your fingerprints on this.” That is until the spigot would be capped within a week or so, then, “Mr. President, move in and take credit.” But that didn’t happen and over thirty days later, Obama had to hold a press conference stating the federal government had been in charge since day one but didn’t have the resources for a fix.

Strange how a man, with a statist mentality who pushed health care reform at the cost of losing a democrat majority, who nationalized General Motors, and who seeks to regulate every aspect of Wall Street has to admit that government isn’t the answer. As Peggy Noonan wrote in the Wall Street Journal, “When you ask a government far away in Washington to handle everything, it will handle nothing well.”

-- Owen E. Richason
Chief Editor, Killswitch Politick

Tuesday, May 25, 2010

National Intelligence Direct to resign
Repeated failures to foil terror plots cited as why Dennis Blair will step aside

WASHINGTON, DC—The Director of National Intelligence, Dennis Blair, will officially resign his post on Friday, May 28th in the wake of three high profile intelligence failures. The resignation is being characterized by republicans as political scapegoating.

Senator Kit Bond (R-MO), the ranking Republican member on the Senate Intelligence Committee said, "Blair deserves this nation's thanks for his long service to our country. It must have been challenging to be forced on the sidelines by the attorney general but still catch all the blame for failings." 

And the top Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, Representative Pete Hoekstra (R-MI), said Blair's resignation "is the result of the Obama administration's rampant politicization of national security and outright disregard for congressional intelligence oversight."

Mr. Blair’s oversight and jurisdiction (in the thinking of the Obama administration) is second to that of Attorney General Eric Holder, whom has a number of missteps on his AG resume. Regardless of who replaces Blair, without sufficient latitude to perform the duties of the post, the definition of insanity will control the next director.

-- Killswitch Politick

Tuesday, May 18, 2010

AZ immigration law makes its beauty pageant debut
Miss Oklahoma is asked about her stance on immigration enforcement

LAS VEGAS, NV—Judge Oscar Nunez from television’s The Office (one of the funniest shows on TV) asked Morgan Woolard, Miss Oklahoma 2010 what she thought of the controversy surrounding Arizona’s new immigration law, “I’m a huge believer in states’ rights. I think that’s what’s so wonderful about America."

The knee-jerk reaction is to assume this was a gotcha type question, not necessarily to rob Miss Oklahoma of the crown, but to get a ton of free press. So, we’re using our free press to give Mr. Trump and his judges what they want—sort of.

I’ve always marveled at the dichotomy surrounding beauty pageants: the contestants are stunning young women but somehow expected to come up with Winston Churchill or John Locke treatises on world peace.  This question was obviously this year’s gay marriage question, posed to Carrie Prejean, Miss California 2009, was asked a loaded question about same-sex marriage.

Ratings these publicity stunts may garner, but using such serious issues to pad ratings and turn attention away from the actual issue is shameful. Arizona should enforce its borders if the feds won’t do so, but in the eyes of politicians and pageant directors, they are looking at voters and viewers, not citizens whom need to be protected.

-- Killswitch Politick

Tuesday, May 11, 2010

UK voters say no to another term of hard Labour
Conservatives see significant gains, but are left with a hung Parliament

LONDON, UK10 Downing Street has a new Prime Minister. May 6th elections gave candidate David Cameron and the Torries solid gains in Parliament, but just short of the needed 226 seats to form a majority. It appears that that Liberal Democrat, Nick Clegg isn’t forming a coalition with Labour’s Gordon Brown and has said the party with the most seats should be the governing majority.

But most UK political talking-heads are speculating that Cameron will govern with a minority, should Gordon Brown resign and the Queen appoints him as PM—additionally, there’s a possibly the Lib Dems will caucus with the Conservatives.

Whatever the outcome, the votes sent a clear signal to the UK government its subjects are tired of overburdened social programs, slack immigration policies, and fiscal irresponsibility. Not to mention, the UK has pushed forward with green policies in the form of more taxes and polling shows the citizenry has tired of paying to curb the problem only to be told its getting worse. Moreover, regulation has put serious roadblocks in the way of entrepreneurs.

Simon Cowell, in an interview with The Sun said, “Right now it takes twice as long to start a business in the UK as it does in the USA. I was recently told that around 40,000 new regulations have been introduced since 1998 - that's 14 every working day.”

It is our hope at this publication that Mr. Cowell’s concerns will be headed in Parliament, and here across the pond as well.

-- Owen E. Richason IV
Chief Editor, Killswitch Politick

Tuesday, May 4, 2010

If left is not right, right is the only thing that’s left; right?
When republicans and democrats moved left, the country pitted right

BOSTON, MA—The wave of fiscal conservatism being called for by American citizenry and reigning in of government started may have started in 1773, but after being dormant for 223 years, it resurrected when republicans lost in 2006 due to their reckless spending trends and has gained momentum since.

The republican majority congress, along with a republican president engaged in deficit busting spending and when American voters gave the majority to democrats in 2006, they responded by continuing the trend. In 2009, President Obama more than doubled down on fiscal irresponsibility in sixteen months.

The net result is the new Tea Party movement, which polls show is comprised of different party affiliations and political philosophies who have greatly tired of taxation without representation—the Tea Party (an acronym for Taxed Enough Already) exists precisely because elected officials refuse to represent their constituency. TARP was the first act of misrepresentation, then stimulus, followed by health care reform.

Because Washington seems to be dead set on not representing the American people, the movement has formed and will have its voice heard come November—and this time, they cannot be ignored.

-- Owen E. Richason IV
Chief Editor, Killswitch Politick

Tuesday, April 27, 2010

The CEO myth: Government is not a business
Businessmen look to be the answer to many voters, but government isn’t a business

Naples, FL—Rick Scott, a local business man in South Florida, has thrown his hat into the governor’s race. Mr. Scott’s credentials are of a successful businessman and is marketing himself as the answer to Tallahassee’s woes.

No offense to Mr. Scott, who we are sure has the best intentions and undoubtedly believes that his experience and skill set would be beneficial to Florida, but success in private sector business doesn’t translate into good government management. For instance, in running a business, you can incentivize employees to be more productive and fire those that aren’t performing well or stray from the company mission statement. But in government, a governor cannot fire elected officials that don’t share their issue stance or are blocking agenda items.

Moreover, in government each politician isn’t accountable to the executive branch; they are accountable to their constituency. Elected officials are supposed to act in the best interest of the voters they represent and if that conflicts with an agenda, it is their duty to oppose it.

In business, an individual can chose which vendors they do business with; whereas in government, special interest steer opinion and legislation. Simply put, business and government are two completely different dynamics and neither the twains shall meet.

-- Owen E. Richason IV
Chief Editor, Killswitch Politick

Tuesday, April 20, 2010

Has Crist put the “I” in VETO?
With his veto, Governor Crist may be signaling his run as an independent

Tallahassee, FL—Last week, Governor Charlie Crist vetoed Senate Bill 6, a bill that would have broken the strangle-hold of the Teacher’s Union and based part of teacher’s pay on student performance.
Crist said the billed was deeply flawed and felt he had a duty to veto it because of such. But conventional wisdom quickly took hold of the tealeaf readers (myself included) after the news broke. Receiving a news alert on my Blackberry, I texted my wife, “Crist veto SB 6; may run as an (I)”. Talking heads picked-up and populated the same thing on the local evening news.

Its no secret Crist has been down in the polls (by 23 points) for in a primary race against conservative Marco Rubio for the republican nomination to fill former Senator Mel Martinez’s seat.

For about the past fortnight, the Crist camp has been running negative ads; Rubio hasn’t responded in kind, which leads me to believe Rubio is getting the same advice I would give him—wait-and-see. Since the negative ads aren’t having any effect, the veto of SB 6 looks like Mr. Crist has put in his bid to run as an independent, but one wonders what possible benefit it would have, even if the Sunshine State Governor wanted to play spoiler, there may not be enough votes to peel-off from Rubio.

-- Owen E. Richason IV
Chief Editor, Killswitch Politick

Tuesday, April 13, 2010

Special elections or referendums?
Special elections in Florida, Hawaii, and Pennsylvania have the dems worried

Three special elections are coming in the next few weeks. The first of which is in Florida’s liberal 19th Congressional district, where Republican Edward Lynch faces Democrat Ted Deutch. Two other special elections are being held in May, one in Pennsylvania, the other in Hawaii.

According to Politico, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee is pulling out all the stops to prevent another Scott Brown type of victory. Brown, elected to replace Ted Kennedy, was the third conservative candidate to be elected during the health care debate. In two preceding races, Chris Christie defeated liberal gubernatorial incumbent John Corzine in New Jersey and Bob McDonnell handily defeated Tim Kaine for the governor of Virginia. In all three races, the losers embraced President Obama’s agenda, while the winners made opposition to Mr. Obama’s agenda the centerpiece of their campaign.

Since the three national losses, many democrat congressmen and senators have been announcing their retirement or a return to the private sector. There is good reason for such trepidation with congressional job approval at an all time low and the economy showing little signs of significant recovery.

The conventional wisdom is a republican House Majority come November and by all indications thus far, it would seem inevitable. But the midterms are a political light year away and one significant event could change the dynamics—the democrats might want to take a lesson from the three prior victors.

-- Killswitch Politick

Monday, April 5, 2010

Rubio v. Crist
A conservative versus a popular politician

Why the most interesting race in all of the 2010 elections the Republican primary fight between Speaker of the Florida House Marco Rubio and Governor Charlie Crist? Simple, everyone loves Charlie Crist!

This is not an exaggeration. The few times I have met Mr. Crist; he has always greeted me by my first name and always asks a question relevant to something we spoke about the last time. The man has no boundaries on his intelligence, his likeability is beyond measure, and he knows how to speak to anyone—even people who don’t like him, like him.

In Florida’s Republican primary, Crist is getting some stiff competition from Rubio (currently he is down 11 points in the latest Mason-Dixon poll). Crist is perhaps the most popular politician of all time in the Sunshine State. Before being elected governor, Crist held a state senate seat, was the Education Commissioner and Attorney General for Florida—in each office his approval numbers stayed high.

So why is the popular man of the people losing in a primary? There is one simple answer: a presidential hug.

After passing his stimulus package in early 2009, Crist surfed on President Obama’s long coattails. At the time, it was considered a shrewd political move, showing Crist to put policy before party. But the party went a decidedly different direction as the policy went nowhere.

As with Virginia, New Jersey, and Massachusetts, independents, conservatives, and republicans of all stripes are gravitating to the conservative candidate who is running against a liberal president. Rubio has had marked success in linking Crist to Obama—the death knell in the coffins of three other candidates.

-- Owen E. Richason IV
Chief Editor, Killswitch Politick

The credibility factor—why Obama can’t sell Obamacare
A 17 minute and 2,500 word non-answer

Charlotte, NC—Health care reform may have been signed into law, but the public still isn’t buying it. In fact, during a town hall meeting, the president was asked a simple question by an attendee named Doris, “[Is it] wise decision to add more taxes to us with the health care?”

Mr. Obama’s non-answer took just over 17 minutes and 2,500 words in its entirety. And this is precisely why the American people aren’t on board—the president didn’t have any credibility going into the supposed debate. His administration and the democrat majority simply put it out there without an introduction. True, it was an integral part of Obama’s campaign stump speech but in a country with rising unemployment and golden parachutes for those largely seen as creating the problem, HCR was largely window dressing draped in the background with the economy and two wars in the foreground.

I make this point to make another point. Obama was seen as a new politician, one who would end America’s partisan divide but he didn’t use his political capital to unite quarreling factions, instead he dove head-long into an agenda item that no one was concerned about—health care. Hence, any talk about anything other than the economy and jobs (perhaps the wars), wasn’t going to win the president any support. Had Obama actually engaged the economic recession he may have had the credibility to tackle HCR. But he chose idealism over reality and because of it, the recession continues on and the American people will stay opposed to HCR for as long as the president purports it.

-- Owen E. Richason IV
Chief Editor, Killswitch Politick

Follow Owen…