Monica Crowley

I Love (?) New York

New York is getting hit by two storms today. One, a monster nor'easter dropping over a foot of snow. And the other, a political storm of epic proportions involving 3 top Democrats.

The Governor, David Paterson, will not seek re-election amid news that he and the State Police intervened in a domestic abuse case involving a close aide. Paterson, you'll recall, assumed the Governorship after his predecessor, Eliot Spitzer, was revealed as hooker-favorite, Client # 9.

The dean of the NY Congressional Democrats, Charlie Rangel, is to be formally admonished by the House Ethics Committee for accepting corporate-funded trips to the Caribbean. Top Democrats are now seeking to strip Rangel of his Chairmanship of the powerful Ways and Means Committee. Sorry, Charlie.

Congresswoman Louise Slaughter of NY defied her own leadership and put dangerous and irresponsible language in the 2010 intelligence bill, calling for criminal punishments for CIA agents and other intelligence officials who take part in enhanced interrogation procedures. Mrs. Slaughter forgets who the actual enemy is. Even some of her fellow Democrats realize she's a wacko on this and are moving to try to strip the language from the bill.

Snowplows are cleaning the streets of New York State. In November, voters will plow away these corrupt disgraces who have lost whatever shred of trust they had left.

Health Care Fandango

Today we saw a breathtaking exercise in absurdity. The health care charade was nothing more than a political vogue-ing session in which each side struck a pose. But the Democrats lost today for 4 reasons: 1. Big majorities of Americans hate their bills; 2. Big majorities of Americans want the big government spending stopped; 3. The Republicans presented sound and responsible ideas; and 4. The president was rude, arrogant, and imperious. (Trying to shut up Senator John McCain, American hero, by reminding him that "the election's over"? I'm sorry, but the President is an obnoxious jerk.)

I'll be all over the health care carnival of idiocy this weekend on the radio show, but consider this: The Bama repeatedly stressed the urgency of getting "reform" done because "people are suffering." He said the "people" need the Democrats' plan "now" because they "cannot wait" any longer. But the benefits of their monstrosity don't kick in for years. So, I guess if you're "suffering right now," you're screwed.

Viva "reform!"

7000 Pages

Today, the President and the Congressional leadership will sit down to "discuss" health care reform. We'll be watching closely. But keep in mind a few things:

The total number of pages of the Senate bill, the House bill, and the Bama's proposal: 7000 pages.

The stated total cost of all three combined: $3.3 trillion.

The actual projected cost of all three combined: $7.5 trillion.

And away we go.

What Would Washington and Lincoln Do?

Find out, in my column in today's "Washington Times:"

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/feb/24/fumbling-the-work-of-our-forefathers/

The O'Reilly Factor---TONIGHT!

I'll be a guest on "The O'Reilly Factor" tonight at 8pm and 11pm ET on the Fox News Channel. Please tune in.

Brownie, We Have A Problem

In his maiden voyage vote, the newest member of the Senate, Scott Brown of Massachusetts, voted the wrong way. Yesterday, he voted with the Democratic majority for the $15 billion "jobs" bill. Apparently, Senator Brown fell hook, line, and sinker for the Democrats' line of BS that this WAS, in fact, a "jobs" bill.

It's nothing of the sort. It's Stimulus II. Since Stimulus I, in all of its $862 billion infamy, did not work, the Democrats decided they needed another big-spending monstrosity. So they produced this thing of a bill that costs us $15 billion we do not have. $15 billion we cannot afford. $15 billion for tax credits for businesses (which do not work in spurring job creation and are not to be confused with tax cuts, which do work) and highway spending.

In other words, it's nothing but spending. After the voters sent Senator Brown to DC to STOP spending. If they had wanted another Ted Kennedy spendaholic, they would have voted in Martha Coakley.

How do you explain yourself, sir? Well, Brown says that although he realizes the bill "isn't perfect" (understatement of the year), he hopes his "vote is a strong step toward restoring bipartisanship."

He's either naive or a closet Democrat. The Democrats' idea of bipartisanship is that Republicans cave on their ideals and vote with them. With Senator Brown, mission accomplished. Of course, most Dems never have any intention of returning the favor.

My only hope, and perhaps it's just wishful thinking, is that Senator Brown thought this vote was an easy giveaway to the Dems, and will make it easier for him to vote against their really big horrors, like health care. He can say, "Look, I tried to restore bipartisanship. I tried to work with the Democrats. I even voted with them for their stuff. But they won't meet me halfway."

Maybe. That's the least bad of the explanations for his vote yesterday. I hope he returns to his senses, or when he's up again for re-election, the voters of Massachusetts will turn his sorry butt out.

President Union

Just when you thought that this president could not get any more arrogant and any more outrageously political, he does. The latest takes the cake.

Last week, Obama announced the formation of a special "deficit commission," whose goal would be to provide him with recommendations on deficit and debt reduction and spending control. Any sentient human being knows this is simply a cover to raise taxes on everyone, particularly the one group the Bama said he absolutely, completely, and unequivocally would not raise their taxes: the middle class. "If you make less than $250,000 a year, your taxes will not go up---not by one penny," he said incessantly during the campaign. So much for that.

The commission is supposed to be "bipartisan," but check it out: there are 18 positions on the panel. Since the Bama created it by executive order, he gave himself the privilege of picking 6 of them on his own. Democrats in Congress get to choose another 6. Do the quick math: the Democrats get 12 seats, the Republicans get 6. Very "bipartisan!"

Here's the kicker: the Bama is set to announce the following 3 of his 6 choices. Andy Stern is president of the huge Service Employees International Union (the SEIU). He is already the most frequent visitor to the White House and a major beneficiary of the big spending coming out of this administration. Unions are imploding state and local governments and have gotten enormous payoffs in the auto bailouts and the stimulus. Does anybody with a brain believe that Mr. Stern is going to argue for ANY spending cuts?

The other two Bama choices are Alice Rivlin, Bill Clinton's White House budget director, and David Cote, the president of Honeywell. Ms. Rivlin was part of an administration that produced a budget surplus, true. But remember: that was the same administration that ratcheted up the Community Reinvestment Act, which was the policy germ that diseased the entire economy via the housing bubble. And Mr. Cote voted for the Bama in 2008 and supported the stimulus last year. Tells you where he's coming from.

The Bama is president and can choose whomever he'd like for this commission. It's a great reminder that elections have consequences.

The inclusion of Mr. Stern, in particular, shows how fundamentally unserious the Bama is about deficit and debt reduction and spending restraint. This commission is as much a charade as is the health care reality show happening on Thursday. It's all for show. It's all an illusion. It's all smoke and mirrors, meant to distract you from the fact that the president is a radical progressive ideologue trying to remake America by shattering our very foundations.

The commission is a joke. Unfortunately, the Bama isn't joking.

The McLaughlin Group

Please tune in to another freewheeling edition of "The McLaughlin Group" this weekend. Check your local listings for time and channel, or visit McLaughlin.com for more information.

Woman of the Year

I'm off to CPAC to accept the "Woman of the Year Award," which the Clare Boothe Luce Institute is graciously giving to me. Given that there are so many great, brilliant, influential, dynamic conservative women with the guts to speak on behalf of limited government and individual freedom, I am thrilled and humbled by this award. It's an extraordinary honor, and I will always do my best to deserve it.

What Was That Again, Mr. President?

Yesterday, the president touted the now-$862 billion economic "stimulus" on its one-year anniversary. He sung its praises to high heaven: "We have rescued this economy from the worst of this crisis. The American people are rebuilding a better future."

With no help from him or his ludicrous, counterproductive "stimulus."

Today we get word of two disturbing developments: 1. Initial claims for unemployment benefits jumped last week to an unexpected high, and this jump comes after the previous week's jobless number was revised UPWARD. And 2. Inflation is starting to creep in, with the producer price index unexpectedly surging.

The stimulus has made things worse, not better. You cannot take nearly a trillion dollars out of the private sector and push it into the public sector and create jobs and real growth. Government kills growth and productivity, it doesn't generate them.

On this, Obama isn't naive or clueless. He knows exactly what he's doing. He INTENDED to take the trillion dollars out of the private sector because he intends to grow and grow and grow government. The "stimulus" created or saved nearly no private sector jobs. But government jobs? Boom times. Mission accomplished.

The people suffer at the hands of radical progressives hell-bent on destroying the private sector. Sounds a lot like the socialist utopias of the Soviet Union, or modern Cuba or Venezuela. All hail, Che Obama.