What Post-Shutdown Polling Suggests

     The post-shutdown polling is out, and as could have been predicted, has been misinterpreted by Democrats to mean they smashed the Republicant party into tiny little bits and the American people now love ObamaCare, and by Republicants to mean they employed a disastrous strategy at the behest of Ted Cruz, et al. But the real question for Democrats is, "Will this hit Republicants took in the polling last in the very fluid environment of politics, at least until next Fall's mid-term elections?" An equally important question for Republicants is, "Was it the strategy of forcing the administration and Democrats to partially shutdown the federal government, or the fact that moderates in the party forced a capitulation to every demand of the President, that caused their drop in the polls?"
     My money would be on the latter proposition, weakness of any kind not being a desirable characteristic in an individual or a political party. No one wants to follow a general into battle that surrenders to his enemy before the skirmish even begins. The Republicants did not drop in the polls among the American people because of a partial shutdown of the federal government that did not effect most of their lives one iota, but because the Republicants failed to show that they had the courage of their convictions and an overwhelming dedication to moral certitude.
     Some on the Right have even suggested that the Republicants behavior leading up to and during the shutdown is analogous to if the Democrats had used their newly won majority in the House of Representatives in 2007 to force a shutdown over the Iraq war. But this analogy misses some very important facts and is just another example of some on the Right offering up the instrument of their own defeat. The Iraq war did not fundamentally change the relationship between the United States government and the United States citizen. The Iraq war did not limit citizens freedom of choice in anything, especially not in the most personal and intimate arena of something like health care. The Iraq war did not rip one sixth of the U.S. economy from the private sector and place it into the hands of bureaucrats and politicians in the federal government. The Iraq war did not bury a private sector industry like health care insurance under a mountain of regulation which has the specific endgame to destroy that very industry.
     The entire issue of what President Obama and Democrats call health care reform is how much government involvement their should be in this area of a citizen's life that only 60 years ago completely belonged to the free market. Democrats and Mr. Obama have stated publicly they want 100% government involvement through a single-payer system. Conservatives, on the other hand, know that the more health care and health care insurance can be placed back into the hands of the private sector, the better and more cost effective it will be for everyone. But President Obama and congressional Democrats have a goal, not of making health care better for everyone, but making it the same for everyone. So they are in the process of replacing a system with which every poll for the last 25 years showed 85% of Americans were satisfied, with one where no one will be satisfied, but it will be "fair." Equality of misery being the cornerstone of every socialist system.
     It is the impending misery of ObamaCare, and the Republicants unwillingness to take a stand against it and for the American people, which has them suffering in the polls. The American people are drowning in the deep waters of Obama misery and the Republicant party establishment just threw them an anchor instead of a life preserver.