Why they are rushing health care through

"Say this about the 1,018-page health-care bill that House Democrats unveiled this week and that President Obama heartily endorsed: It finally reveals at least some of the price of the reckless ambitions of our current government. With huge majorities and a President in a rush to outrun the declining popularity of his agenda, Democrats are bidding to impose an unrepealable European-style welfare state in a matter of weeks." WSJ Review and outlook

Looking back at what I've written since last July when he became the putative president, why am I not surprised? His handlers carefully went over Hillary's mistakes on health care government take-over of the early 90s, and decided to take a different route--speed, obfuscation and no discussion. Hit 'em high, hit 'em low; apply a twitch so they don't notice the other searing pain (farrier tool).

But perhaps the silliest thing I've seen in print in a long time in the WSJ was the next article by Ted Van Dyk (Hubert Humphrey's assistant in the Johnson White House and active in national Democratic politics over 40 years), subtitled: "The president we have is very different from the man who campaigned for the office in 2008." No he's not. Only an aging Democrat with buyer's remorse could say that. Those of us who saw through the pretty words and polished oratory knew exactly what would happen. There is no one to block him and his "ruin America" agenda. Of course, I didn't believe he was intellectually superior to Bush or that he was a graceful and spellbinding speaker, either. I listen to content, and was very, very afraid of what I heard undergirding the blatitudes and spamobams. Must have learned more in all those boring Russian history classes than I realized.

Obama's methods of take over have certainly caused me to lose faith in Bush's strong belief that democracy was needed in the Middle East. We can't even handle it here in a country where we've had a long tradition of voting and freedom.