On the state of the health-care debate:
What happened with that [CBO] assessment is that we went from the level of rhetoric to reality.
As long as it was on a rhetorical level, Obama had high numbers on this [health-care reform] because he promised the impossible–expanded coverage, less cost. And he made it sound doable and wonderful. Of course it is–if it could be done.
The minute it entered into language and legislation, it became obvious that it can’t happen.
What’s interesting is how the legislation itself is dying of the cuts of a thousand deaths by Democrats. All of those numbers are coming out in Democratic bills and Democratic hearings. The rebellion is among the Democratic Blue Dogs who do not want to destroy the budget.
And because of that, I’m a little bit worried about Michael Steele, as head of the RNC, taking on the president of the rhetorical level with a speech he made in which he said “Slow down, Mr. President”…
The cardinal rule in Washington is if the other guy is committing suicide, get out of the way. All of these revolts and difficulties are happening in the Democratic side of the aisle.
By entering into a one-on-one rhetorically–Steele against Obama–Obama always wins. He is the master rhetorician.
And the idea of “slow down” is not the best slogan, because Obama is going to be out there in Cleveland, and he’s going to find Mrs. Smith in the audience who has a nine-year-old child who is not getting adequate health care, and he will say that the Republicans are saying “Slow down, Mrs. Smith.” This stuff writes itself.
If you want to make a slogan—“Stop, Mr. President. Don’t imagine that your boy geniuses in the White House, these social engineers, are going to reconstruct a sixth of the American economy and do it well.”
On India rebuffing U.S. pressure to cap carbon emissions:
This is real amateur hour. It’s one thing to go around the world apologizing over and over for a country that is the most benign and beneficent and generous in the history of the world. It is an affront to our dignity.
But more than that, in the context of India, it makes no sense at all. Our logic is that we say to the Indians: “Yes, for the last 100 years, we have polluted the atmosphere in order to attain a high level of standard of living and become rich. And our demand is you, at the beginning of your development–with hundreds of millions still in poverty–stop all this, give up the idea of using cheap fuels as we did and stay poor.” Now, that is a hell of an argument. It makes no sense at all.
And this administration that prides itself for its realism and not ideology–because of its ideology about the climate change (which is almost a religion) it is, as we saw, disrupting our relations with our natural ally in the region.
India is the prize. It’s democratic, English-speaking, rule of law, threatened by Islamic radicalism, a natural ally in the U.S., [India is] the strongest nation in the region with a real navy, army, a real military.
If we had a strong alliance with it–and not disrupted because of these absurd [environmental] demands on them, which we know will not be met–we would be in a geopolitical position of great strength.