Archive for the ‘Democrats’ Category
Posted by Andrew Roman on June 7, 2010
When ObamaCare became the law of the land in February, the majority of Americans did not approve.
Not that it mattered.
Obamacrats knew what was best for the citizenry; and if you would have asked any one of them, they’d have told you so.
While conservatives, Republicans, tea-partiers and sane-minded Democrats (few as they were) unceasingly crunched the numbers to expose a sham of a plan that would all but bankrupt the United States – and ensure mediocre health care for practically all Americans – Democrats sidestepped the land mines of reality and transformed the debate from substantive to emotional.
As Republicans were going through the two-thousand page monstrosity to illustrate how destructive the bill would be to both the economy and the medical industry, Dems were ushering out some of America’s uninsured, presenting sob-story after sob-story, sad-sack tale after sad-sack tale, woe-begotten heartstring-tugger after heartstring-tugger, in an attempt to convince the American people that government-run mandatory health care was an absolute necessity before the bodies started to pile up.
Dems were countering cold-hard facts and analysis with syrup and schmaltz.
Ultimately, thanks to major Democrat majorities in both houses of Congress – and some last-minute vote-buying - two thousand pages of vastly unread government control became law, contrary to the will of the American people.
Welcome to the Obamacratic States of America.
Amazingly, Democrats truly believed that once ObamaCare cleared the final hurdle and officially hit the books, the American people – those cretins, those self-involved, unrefined, God-fixated, gun-loving ninnies – would turn their thinking around, see the wisdom in President Obama’s big-government vision, accept the price tag, and move on.
More than ever, the American people are opposed to ObamaCare – as well as everything else President Obama and his out-of-touch collection of retro-revolutionaries and college campus theorists have been doing.
Let’s summarize some of the highlights from Obama’s Big Book-O-Accomplishments: A Stimulus Bill that has done absolutely nothing except guarantee that money will be taken out of the pockets of the American people; an unemployment rate hovering at near 10%; a private sector that has all but stagnated while the number of government jobs increase; nonexistent leadership in the face of mounting international challenges (e.g., Iran, North Korea); the inability to do anything except deflect blame for everything wrong to the previous administration; the lack of understanding of the dangers of espousing moral equivalency (e.g, Israel and the Palestinians); the ineptitude and lack of leadership in not having the feds take control of the Gulf oil spill efforts; the capacity to transform the mightiest nation on the face of the Earth – the protector of goodness and liberty – into a bastion of weakness and appeasement; and his refusal to hear anything other than his own out-of-touch, arrogant brand of leftist crapola have all contributed to a Presidency that almost makes Jimmy Carter’s palatable.
Not only is President Obama turning out to be a gravely ineffective and embarrassingly incohesive, Americans now feel the first “post-partisan” President is anything but.
Of course, we all knew that by the Spring of 2008.
Andrew Malcolm of the Los Angeles Times writes:
One of the 2007-08 Obama presidential campaign’s changes that Americans believed in by the many millions was his oft-repeated promise to work with all sides no matter what and change the harsh political tone of Washington.
Good luck with that tired professed aspiration. George W. Bush promised the same thing a decade ago. That worked well for several minutes.
Well, Bush is gone and the majority parties have switched places. Now Democrats run the whole D.C. show.
And after almost 17 months of Democrat Obama’s White House administration, it appears Americans have given up on his promised bipartisanship, or even on less partisanship. It’s an impressive squandering of good will from his inaugural glow.
A new Rasmussen Reports survey finds 61% of likely voters believe the nation’s capitol will see more, not less, partisanship during the next year. Which includes, of course, the unfolding midterm election campaigns leading up to Nov. 2.
Michael Goodwin of the New York Post says that O just isn’t up to the job, writing:
The high point of his presidency came the day he took office. Since then, a majority of Americans has opposed virtually all his major policies and he has prevailed on several only because of large Democratic congressional advantages.
The problems are growing, but he’s not. If he were, we’d see green shoots of improvement.
Instead, the White House is going backwards at home and abroad and shows no ability to adjust. Like a cult, it interprets every reversal as proof of its righteousness and of others’ malignancy.
What started out as a whiff of rookie incompetence has become a suffocating odor. It’s hard to find a single area where Obama’s policies are a convincing success.
To be fair, one thing most Americans will probably be able to agree on is that Barack Obama is magnificent – unbeatable – as a campaigner. Indeed, he has been in campaign mode ever since announcing his candidacy for the Presidency a million years ago.
That’s quite an accomplishment, to be sure.
And with few exceptions, the lamestream media are still eating it up.
But many Americans – even those who rode the original Bam-o-licious disciple train – are growing tired of his baby-carrying, whistlestop schtick. Young girls just aren’t fainting anymore at his mere presence. And with each body of water he trods upon, Obama’s ankles are growing increasingly more wet.
The teleprompters are finally starting to get some recognition.
Still, no one – and this is hardly debatable – can bow to foreign heads of state and dignitaries like our own Bam.
Although Secretary of Defense Robert Gates could give him a run for his money.
Secretary of Defense Gates taking a page from the Obama Appeasement Chronicles.
Posted in Bailout, Big Government, Democrats, Economy, leftism, Liberalism, Moral Clarity, Obama Bonehead, politics, stimulus bill | Tagged: "out of touch", Barack Obama, Big Government, Economy, leftist politics, liberal politics, Obamacare, post-partisan, stimulus bill | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on May 5, 2010
There have been a good number of conservative pundits and analysts who have made no bones about the fact that, from a political standpoint, they believe the new Arizona illegal alien law could be trouble for the Republican Party. Concerns range from forever losing the Hispanic vote to diverting attention away from the daily-disaster that is the Obama administration. Good folks on the right worry that a golden opportunity to cause serious political damage to the flailing Dems could be lost if the GOP comes across as too hard-nosed, unwelcoming and uncompassionate on this issue.
This is not your Dad’s immigration debate.
The state of Arizona has changed the rules of the game in a profound – and what I believe will be a most effective – way. In my humblest of opinions, as I have written on several occasions, Arizona’s new focus on enforcing already existing immigration laws will demonstrate that this the best way to deter illegals from coming into the United States today. States that follow Arizona’s lead will see not only a decrease in incoming illegals, but will cause many illegals to emigrate elsewhere or self-deport.
This, of course, does not negate the necessity of a fence along the border. I am a huge proponent of “sealing” the border in whatever way is necessary to protect the United States.
However, deterrence is the key. There can be no doubt about it. The word is out that Arizona is unfriendly to illegals … as it should be.
Not Hispanics. Illegals.
For those on the right who are voicing concerns that the Arizona immigration law could backfire on them, they might find some political comfort in knowing that the issue is actually a winner with Americans – despite mainstream media reports to the contrary.
Jonathon Martin at Politico writes:
The new hard-line Arizona immigration law that has sparked talk of boycotts and caused leading Republicans to fret about the party’s frayed relationship with Hispanic voters may indeed pose a long-term threat to the GOP’s prospects.
But in the here and now — and in many of the most competitive races that will determine control of Congress — the law appears to be a poison-tipped arrow in the Republican quiver.
New polling indicates broad public support for the measure and illustrates the peril embattled Democrats could face this November over the issue.
In the South and Midwest, where some of the most competitive congressional races will be fought, popular sentiment is overwhelmingly in favor of the controversial new law.
According to a New York Times/CBS poll released Monday, 69 percent of respondents from the South said that the law is either “about right” or does not go “far enough” and 66 percent from the Midwest said the same. Opinion is more divided in the Northeast and West, but nationwide, 60 percent of respondents said the Arizona measure is about right or doesn’t go far enough.
Expectedly, Republicans tend to favor the Arizona law while Democrats generally oppose it.
Independents side with Republicans on this one.
In short, Republicans side with the law.
Democrats side with undocumented liberals who are pouring over the border.
Posted in Democrats, illegal immigration, Republican Politics | Tagged: Arizona immigration law, Democrats, illegal aliens, Public Opinion, Republicans | 1 Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on May 3, 2010
Congressman Phil Hare (D-IL)
You may recall that Phil Hare, Democrat Congressman from Illinois, recently made national news by saying he wasn’t concerned with the Constitution when it came to the health care reform debate (i.e., the implementation of Obamacare). “I don’t worry about the Constitution on this, to be honest,” the dashing and well-spoken Mr. Hare said with a camera rolling, “I care more about the people that are dying everyday who don’t have health care.”
To hear it from Hare (and his single-payer-loving chums), the streets are littered with the rotting corpses of Americans who couldn’t find an emergency room compassionate enough to spare a Tylenol or band-aid. Fat cat insurance moguls, along with assorted Klansmen and Republicans, confer over charts and maps almost daily, deciding who will be lucky enough to receive the tiniest morsels of health care and who will be denied.
You’ll recall that a colleague of Mr. Hare’s from Florida – the angry and always nauseating Alan Grayson – said it was a modern day Holocaust.
Just to be clear, Mr. Hare … everyone in America has access to health care – including illegal aliens. The debate is about health insurance – but I digress.
After Hare made it perfectly clear that he was beyond worrying about such trivialities and annoyances as the United States Constitution, you may also recall that the man holding the camera – blogger Adam Sharp – followed up by asking him, “You care more about that than the US Constitution that you swore to uphold?”
Hare replied, “I believe that it says we have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”
It was then pointed out to Hare that those words are not in the Constitution, but, rather, in the Declaration of Independence, to which the master parrier, Mr. Hare, retorted, “It doesn’t matter to me.”
I’ll have to confirm this, but, if I recall correctly, the “Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness” clause of the Constitution is right after the “Emanations and Penumbras” section – which comes right after the “Separation of Church and State” clause. (Does that mean that in Mr. Hare’s world, abortion is undeniably illegal? After all, there is right to “life” is in his version of the Constitution.)
I digress again …
Running against Phil “The Constitution Doesn’t Matter” Hare in Illinois’ 17th district is Bobby Schilling.
A billboard has gone up in East Moline, Illinois – at 19th Street & 37th Avenue, to be precise – in response to Mr. Hare’s anti-Constitution language, sponsored by veterans who support Mr. Schilling’s bid for Congress.
It is the Roman Around Picture of the Day:
The Constitution matters to a lot of us.
Thanks to Gateway Pundit, via Weasel Zippers.
Posted in Constitution, Democrats, Dumb Liberals, Uncategorized | Tagged: billboard, Bobby Schilling, Constitution, health care, Obamacare, Phil hare, veterans4schilling | 1 Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on April 1, 2010
From the “No, Really” file …
Earlier this morning, on his nationally syndicated radio show, Mike Gallagher played a sensationally delicious sound bite from March 25th featuring Georgia Congressman Hank Johnson (Cynthia McKinney’s replacement) and Admiral Robert Willard, Commander of the Navy’s Pacific Fleet, speaking about the island of Guam – specifically the topic of sending more troops there.
This was a troublesome proposition for the Georgia Congressman.
That Guam could capsize from the influx of people.
This was the exchange … literally:
JOHNSON: This is a island that, at its widest level is – what – twelve miles from shore to shore, and at its smallest level – or its smallest location – is seven miles between one shore an another. Is that correct?
WILLARD: I don’t have the exact dimensions but, to your point sir, I think Guam is a small island.
JOHNSON: Very small island … and about twenty-four miles, if I recall, long … so about twenty-four miles long, about seven miles wide at the least widest place on the island, and about twelve miles wide on the widest part of the island. And .. I don’t know how many square miles that is. Do you happen to know?
WILLARD: I don’t have that figure with me, sir. I can certainly supply it to you, if you’d like.
JOHNSON: Yeah, my fear is that the whole island will become so overly populated that it will tip over and capsize.
WILLARD: We don’t anticipate that. The Guam population, I think, currently is about 175,000 and again, with 8,000 Marines and their families, that’s an addition of about 25,000 more into the population.
My editorial staff here at Roman Around – along with a contingency of historians, geologists, stand-up comedians and filling station attendants – have spent the better part of nine minutes scouring news databases and archives looking for any instances of capsizing islands due to overpopulation. Some of the best researchers on my block have taken the time to comb through websites, encyclopedias and limited edition comic books to try and find a single instance where an island literally tipped over due to the abundance of human beings there.
In full candor, we have been unsuccessful to this point, but we may keep trying … maybe.
To begin with … as dim-witted as the assertion of an island capsizing because too many people are threatening its buoyancy sounds, what was more confusing was his fractured attempt (and I use that word with two underlines and a bold italic font) to talk about the island’s dimensions.
What the hell was he talking about?
At its widest point, it is twelve miles long, but the island is actually twenty-four mils long? What?
Watch the people sitting behind Admiral Willard. They’re all reacting as if they’re watching a Saturday Night Live routine but cannot laugh out loud because they don’t want to wake grandma. Even the admiral himself – if you look closely – appears as if he has to contain himself from busting out at Congressman Johnson’s marble-headed, mush-mouthed stupidity.
Second, has Congressman Johnson ever heard of Manhattan?
The total land area of Manhattan Island is 23 square miles.
Twenty-three square miles! (Guam has a land area of 209 total square miles).
Manhattan is only about two miles wide (and still takes an hour to get across). It is the most densely populated county in the United States with a population of 1.6 million people. At any given point during the regular work day, it is estimated that as many as fifteen million human being occupy Manhattan Island’s 23 total square miles. Figure in more cars, trucks, buses and trains than you can shake a knish at – along with a heaviest collection of skyscrapers assembled anywhere – and you’ve got a real scale-tipper.
At least in my lifetime – to the best of my knowledge – I have not known Manhattan to “tip over and capsize” due to the abundance of humans.
But I’ll keep checking.
Posted in Democrats, Dumb Liberals | Tagged: Guam, Hank Johnson | 2 Comments »
Posted by Andrew Roman on March 17, 2010
On Sunday, Ohio Representative Dennis Kucinich had a column published in the Cleveland Plain Dealer that said, in part:
Unfortunately, the president’s plan, as it currently stands, leaves patients financially vulnerable to insurance companies. It requires all Americans to buy private health insurance policies, while failing to ensure those policies do what they are supposed to do — protect people from financial catastrophe caused by injury or illness.
But Sunday was a long long time ago, and even socialists have to deal with things as they truly are, not as they would like them to be.
After a ride onboard the big Presidential jet with Barack Obama, Kucinich is changing his ObamaCare vote from “no” to “yes.”
From Fox News:
Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, announced Wednesday that he would vote for the Senate health care bill, becoming the most prominent House Democrat to reverse his opposition.
With Kucinich’s switch, Democrats now have 212 votes in favor of the bill, four shy of the 216-threshold needed for passage.
“This is not the bill I wanted to support even as I continued efforts into the last minute to try and modify the bill,” he said at a news conference. “However, after careful discussions with President Obama, Speaker Pelosi, my wife Elizabeth and close friends, I’ve decided to cast a vote in favor of the legislation.”
Kucinich didn’t vote for the original House version of the bill when it passed in November, and up until earlier today, was adamantly opposed to the Senate version because of its lack of a public option.
He is, however, a Democrat … so anyone surprised by Kucinich’s lip-licking after this latest serving of Payoff Pie better pull his or her head out and refocus.
The real question is … What, pray tell, was the People’s Watchdog – the unflinching, never-corruptible, always-true-to-his-principles, Dennis Kucinich - promised for his vote?
What was he given on that big ol’ jet airliner that made him switch sides on something he said he could never compromise on?
How much “courage” does it take to flip-flop votes after a ride on Air Force One and a promise of who-knows-what?
Note how Kucinich never once mentioned the people he is charged to represent.
It was only after “careful discussions” with the Messiah and the Nancy Pelosi that he decided to switch sides. It was only after he talked it over with his wife and friends that he had his change of heart.
His wife and friends?
What about his botanist?
Or Sally in Accounting?
Posted in Democrats, Dumb Liberals, Economy, health care, leftism, Liberalism | Tagged: "public option", D-Ohio, Dennis Kucinich, health care reform, Obamacare | 1 Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on March 11, 2010
Too bad for the Dems.
It must truly stink when your efforts to be as underhanded as humanly possible hit a snag. It has to be heartbreaking when, despite your best efforts to bask in grand deceit, there just isn’t enough “bend” available in the process of warping the rules to get your way.
For what it’s worth, things just got a little bit tougher in the Democrat quest to pass the entirely unpopular, thoroughly unwise and profoundly misguided health care reform bill.
What some pro-health care Obamacrats wanted to do was have the House of Representatives pass the original $871 billion Senate bill – complete with all of its bribery and pro-abortion language – and then have that bill sent back to the Senate for further modifications (reconciliation) before it went to the President’s desk for his signature.
But it doesn’t work that way, according to the Senate Parliamentarian’s Office.
If the House approves the original Senate bill as is, that bill must be signed into law by the President before any reconciliation can take place. In other words, the bill that passed the Senate – the one with the abortion funding provisions; the one that included the “Louisiana Purchase”; the one that included the “Kansas Kickback” – must be okayed by the House of Representatives without any changes and sent to Barack Obama for passage before “reconciliation packages” can be crafted to modify it.
In short, it must already be law before anything else can be done to it.
David M. Drucker of Roll Call writes:
The Senate Parliamentarian has ruled that President Barack Obama must sign Congress’ original health care reform bill before the Senate can act on a companion reconciliation package, senior GOP sources said Thursday.
The Senate Parliamentarian’s Office was responding to questions posed by the Republican leadership. The answers were provided verbally, sources said.
House Democratic leaders have been searching for a way to ensure that any move they make to approve the Senate-passed $871 billion health care reform bill is followed by Senate action on a reconciliation package of adjustments to the original bill. One idea is to have the House and Senate act on reconciliation prior to House action on the Senate’s original health care bill.
Information Republicans say they have received from the Senate Parliamentarian’s Office eliminates that option. House Democratic leaders last week began looking at crafting a legislative rule that would allow the House to approve the Senate health care bill, but not forward it to Obama for his signature until the Senate clears the reconciliation package.
The problem, of course, is the House does not like the Senate version of the bill. And House Dems will have to trust that once it becomes law, the Senate would be willing to revisit it and work on those elements that dissatisfy Pelosi’s gang.
That’s alot of blind faith.
In other words, it comes down to having to trust Democrats.
I don’t think Democrats can even do that.
But fear not.
This is the Democrat Party we’re talking about. They have not yet begun to cheat.
Posted in Big Government, Democrats, health care | Tagged: health care bill, Obamacare, reconciliation, Senate bill, Senate Parliamentarian | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on March 4, 2010
Scott M. Matheson, Jr.
Maybe the White House was thinking, “It looks so obvious, so blatant, they won’t think anyone could be that stupid. They’ll decide it’s just a coincidence.”
Maybe the White House thinks we are that stupid.
On the other hand, maybe there really is nothing to it.
Maybe it really is just a coincidence.
Either way, it’s a story that will get very little – if any – coverage by the mainstream media. All of the young “Woodward” and “Bernstein” wanna-bes out there in journalistland will be taking a convenient powder.
It’s a shame, because it’s actually an interesting story – certainly one worthy of visiting at least once. In the days when reporters actually did investigating, it might have grown legs.
What am I talking about?
Last night, the President played host to ten House Dems who voted against ObamaCare last year. Clearly, Obama was hoping to convince some of them – if not all – to flip their ticks over to the “yes” column for the good of the country.
One of those in Obama’s sights was Congressman Jim Matheson of Utah.
What makes this otherwise run-of-the-mill, uninteresting political play a bona fide story is the fact that the White House issued a press release yesterday saying that President Obama nominated Scott M. Matheson, Jr. – Congressman Matherson’s eldest brother – to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit … on the same day.
John McCormack at the Weekly Standard writes:
Scott Matheson appears to have the credentials to be a judge, but was his nomination used to buy off his brother’s vote?
Consider Congressman Matheson’s record on the health care bill. He voted against the bill in the Energy and Commerce Committee back in July and again when it passed the House in November. But now he’s “undecided” on ramming the bill through Congress. “The Congressman is looking for development of bipartisan consensus,” Matheson’s press secretary Alyson Heyrend wrote to THE WEEKLY STANDARD on February 22. “It’s too early to know if that will occur.” Asked if one could infer that if no Republican votes in favor of the bill (i.e. if a bipartisan consensus is not reached) then Rep. Matheson would vote no, Heyrend replied: “I would not infer anything. I’d wait to see what develops, starting with the health care summit on Thursday.”
The real question … Is this necessary now?
Inexplicably, this one seems to have slipped under the radar of the “drive-by media.”
Could this develop into an actual scandal of some kind?
It would first have to warrant a blurb somewhere.
However, one could almost bet a vital body appendage that it would have graced front pages everywhere had these group of players been Republicans.
The timing of this nomination looks suspicious, especially in light Democratic Congressman Joe Sestak’s claim that he was offered a federal job not to run against Arlen Specter in the Pennsylvania primary. Many speculated that Sestak, a former admiral, was offered the Secretary of the Navy job.
I’m not a conspiracist.
Obviously, Court of Appeals nominations are not made on the drop of a dime. I suppose there is some chance that the choice of Scott Matheson, Jr. to the Tenth Circuit is all just a fat and happy coincidence.
But there’s no way – even if the process began before Congressman Matheson’s thumbs down vote in November – that yesterday’s announcement of the elder Matheson’s nomination just happened to fall on the same day ten Democrat “NO” votes visited the White House (including the younger Matheson) to be persuaded by Barack Obama to change sides.
No way in hell.
Somehow, I see a puffy-cheeked Marlon Brando putting his arm around Congressman Matheson in the Oval Office saying, “Congratulations on your brother’s nomination. I hope it all works out for him.”
Posted in Democrats, health care | Tagged: Barack Obama, Democrats, health care, Jim Matheson, Obamacare, politics, Scott M. Matheson, tenth Circuit Court of Appeals | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on February 13, 2010
Senator Jay Rockefeller
If there is a question to be asked, or a comment to be made, it isn’t about what Senator Jay Rockefeller, Democrat, said about the President, but rather in what took him so long to say it – or should I say realize it.
It’s remarkable in that I haven’t seen this kind of open, in-party dissent and dissatisfaction in quite a long time – and certainly never with a Messiah steering the bus.
It’s bad enough for Bammy that with super majorities in both houses of Congress, he could not pass his signature piece of legislation – health care destruction – or his polar bear saving cap-and-trade bill.
It was a downright slap in the chops when Senate Majority leader, Harry Reid, said no to a “bi-partisan” jobs bill that only hours earlier the White House had endorsed.
But when a member of your own party questions your truthfulness and reliability – and does so in an open forum for the whole world to hear – it ain’t good.
Frankly, it had to be said … and Rocky was the man to do it.
The subject was West Virginia coal.
Senator Rockefeller was in the process of questioning Peter Orszag, Director of the Office of Management and Budget, over coal carbon emissions, pricing, and the White House’s overall position on the future of the coal industry:
ROCKEFELLER: The President has a little bit of money in for clean coal and CCS, but not much.
ORSZAG: $530 million.
ROCKEFELLER: I know. And what that is equal to is one power plant in West Virginia – it happens to be the largest one in the country – cutting out 17% of its emissions, reducing the carbon down to 10%.
So it really is like not anything at all.
So, what are my signals that I’m meant to read? … we met with him yesterday, and he said, “Oh I’m for, you know, clean coal.” Then he says it in speeches, but he doesn’t say it in here … And he doesn’t say it in the minds of my own people. And he’s beginning to be not believable to me.
Isn’t that delicious? “He’s beginning to be not believable to me.”
Who says I don’t pat Democrats on the back?
What’s funny is Rockefeller’s use of the word “beginning.” Where has he been? Is the sodium pentathol drip wearing off?
I’m not sure what this says about the Senator’s ability to recognize and comprehend the obvious. He’s a Democrat, so sometimes it takes longer for the water to seep through the cracks.
I’ll take a “benefit of the doubt” out of petty cash.
But even more obvious than Obama’s unbelievability is the fact that the President has said, in no uncertain terms, that the coal industry must go, that he will bankrupt it.
“What I’ve said is we would put a cap-and-trade system in place that is as aggressive, if not more aggressive, than anyone else’s out there. I was the first to call for a 100% auction on the cap-and-trade system, which means that every unit of carbon or greenhouse gases emitted would be charged to the polluter. That will create a market in which whatever technologies are out there that are being presented, power plants that being built, that they would have to meet the rigors of that market and the ratcheted down caps that are placed, imposed every year. So, if somebody wants to build a coal power plant, they can, it’s just that it will bankrupt them because they’re going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that’s being emitted.”
Remember that little gem from the glorious campaign days?
Rockefeller is a politician’s politician.
Think of all the inoffensive, cleverly-crafted, side-stepping, gently-worded ways the Senator could have said what he wanted to say without calling the Big Man less than believeable.
Posted in Democrats, Obama Bonehead, politics | Tagged: "beginning to not be believable to me", bankrupt the coal industry, Barack Obama, clean coal, coal, coal technology, Jay Rockefeller, West Virginia | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on January 19, 2010
Actually, Barack Obama is very transparent. There’s really nothing cryptic or mysterious about him – except maybe his college transcripts. He is a floundering leftist without a single intelligible plan (other than punishing achievement and the free market), without a single accomplishment to speak of, and void of any sense of what it means to be Commander-In-Chief.
And those are his strengths.
His first year in office has been a case study in impotence and infirmity. Still, he is driven by an enormously overpowering, yet completely translucent, conceit. He’s grossly misread the American people, taking them for fools, assuming that his mere existence would be more than enough to push through his radical leftist agenda. But other than catapulting America’s deficits to unseen levels, he has nothing to show for his first year other than his flair for downplaying the importance of national security, and a record-setting number of rounds of golf.
President Obama knows that his big and bold plans for transforming America aren’t popular. He sees growing dissatisfaction and anger spreading across the country. But part of him truly cannot believe that his plummeting poll numbers have anything to do with him specifically. He is convinced the American people simply don’t grasp the reality of the situation (as he sees it), namely that he inherited so many catastrophic problems from his predecessor – perhaps the worst any President has ever inherited at anytime in history – that even his messianic skills aren’t sufficient to the task. Thus, he has abandoned his pie-in-the-sky, messianic aspirations (for now) and has fallen back into a posture of predictable, transparent desperation.
When all else fails, pull out the old standby: the anti-capitalist card.
Let’s get populist. Let’s go after greed:
Mike Allen at the Politico writes:
Reflecting his new tone, Obama last week announced a new fee on big banks by vowing, “We want our money back, and we’re going to get it.”. At a House Democratic retreat a few hours later, he said leaders need to be “fighting for the American people with the same sense of urgency that they feel in their own lives.”
In his weekly address on Saturday, he declared: “We’re not going to let Wall Street take the money and run.” Saluting Martin Luther King Jr. in remarks to a Baptist congregation the next day, Obama railed against “an era of greed and irresponsibility that sowed the seeds of its own demise.”
I hate to use a hackneyed phrase, but you cannot make this stuff up. Deficits have never been higher. Unemployment has gotten worse under this President. The President is on a course to spend this nation into near financial oblivion for generations to come – and wants to add to it with his proposed government takeover of health care – and yet, he whines and cries about Wall Street taking the money and running?
What? Is he serious?
Who takes more money out of the pockets of Americans than the federal government?
Yes, Americans want their money back – but not back in the hands of the unaccountable, irresponsible, expansion-happy feds. How dare Barack Obama talk about an era of “greed and irresponsibility” when it is our government, under Bam, spending and spending unheard of amounts of money, putting future generations on the hook.
Can anything be more transparent than big government liberalism and the games leftists play?
Sure, blame Wall Street. It’ll strike an emotional chord with those who have been raised to be class warriors – those weaned on modern liberalism’s teet. After all, it sounds good to go after big executives, CEOs, rich people and other selfish pinchfists. Go ahead and blame corporate America. It sounds so right to slam big companies. They don’t care about the “little guy.” They only care about fattening up their highly-paid cats at the common man’s expense. Why not blame greed itself? It makes perfect sense, doesn’t it? Especially when a bend-over-and-grab-the-ankles-for-the-big-unions President says it.
At the rally for (candidate for Massachusetts Senator, Martha) Coakley, (President Obama) added: “Bankers don’t need another vote in the United States Senate. They’ve got plenty.”
Good God, Mr. President, is that really the best you’ve got?
“Bankers have plenty?”
What is he? In an eighth grade debating class?
Blame money, capitalism, free markets, corporations, Wall Street or George W. Bush all you want, Bammy; you are the reason the Democrats are dissolving like a graham cracker in a bowl of milk … and the reason the next Senator from the State of Massachusetts will be the Republican, Scott Brown.
You’re damn right today’s election in Massachusetts is a referendum on this administration.
Posted in Big Government, Democrats, Dumb Liberals, Economy, leftism, Liberalism, Obama Bonehead, politics | Tagged: "conservative blog", Barack Obama, greed, Obama transparency, Obama's new fee on big banks, Wall Street | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on January 17, 2010
It was supposed to be all about doing it for “Teddy.”
“This is the way Teddy would have wanted it,” we heard.
“This is Teddy’s health care bill,” they said.
“Do It For Him!” they screamed
By virtue of the fact that Chappaquiddick Teddy passed away last year, the health care reform bill – call it ObamaCare, PelosiCare, ReidCare, horse excrement, whatever – was magically supposed to be a voter favorite, a given, an automatic, “One More For Teddy!“
Unfortunately for Dems, truth has a way of creeping in and swiping the marshmallows from the Count Chocula box.
After being schooled in the cold-hard reality that the open Massachusetts Senate seat is not “Teddy’s Seat,” but rather the People’s Seat, Dems are being slapped across the chops with the latest poll numbers coming from the bluer-than-blue Bay State; and it doesn’t look too donkey-friendly right now. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi may think that Republican momentum shifts are a bunch of hyperbole, but the poor lady’s caboose has once again gone chug-chug-chugging around the bend.
Only a little better than one-third of likely Massachusetts voters say they support Obamacare. In fact, less than half say they even support the job the President is doing.
Terence P. Jeffrey, Chief Editor of CNS News writes:
Only 36 percent of the Massachusetts residents who say they are likely to vote in the special U.S. Senate election that will take place in that state on Tuesday say they support the national health-care plan being pushed by President Barack Obama and only 48 percent say they approve of the job Obama is doing as president.
A 51-percent majority of those likely to vote in Tuesday’s special election say they oppose Obama’s health-care plan.
It still astounds me … What exactly were those who supported Barack Obama expecting? It isn’t as if his unabashed leftist agenda wasn’t spelled out in big bold letters and pinned to his sleeve during the nearly two years of campaigning he did prior to his anointment. It isn’t as if his big government, anti-free market approach would have been a surprise to anyone who was even casually paying attention. What is it that makes Bammy increasingly more distasteful to libs (and other children) who flipped the lever for him fourteen months ago? Is he not leftist enough? Is he too conservative? Does his shirt make him look too fat? Is his waffle-centric agenda too much for the pancake and French toast set?
The same poll said that those who said they were likely to vote in Tuesday’s election favored Republican Senate candidate Scott Brown over Democratic candidate Martha Coakley, 50 percent to 46 percent.
President Obama is scheduled to appear with Coakley today at a campaign event.
(I thought Dems wanted to win this one).
On one hand, to all of us who revere and respect the Constitution, this all sounds quite encouraging. The polls are overwhelmingly showing that Obama and his leftist game-plan is not flying with the American public. The notion that there might actually be a Republican Senator from Massachusetts in two days is about as mind-blowing as Joe Biden completing his sentences.
But in reality, it’s difficult to muster a whole lot of positivity. Keep in mind, today’s Democrat brand isn’t your typical, run-of-the-mill, big government variety. This is a new, screw-our-electorate-and-the-Constitution-at-all-costs kind-of-Democrat – a more frightening, more destructive, more power-mad hybrid than any before them.
Honestly, have Democrats given any indication whatsoever that they will, in any way, take into consideration what their consituents want? While all polls show that Americans everywhere do not want this health care bill to pass, none of that matters to the totalitarians-in-waiting.
If, for instance, polls showed that 100% of likely voters opposed health care, it still wouldn’t matter because Democrats are sure they know what’s best for you. Scott Brown could very well win that Massachusetts race on Tuesday, but so what? Will that stop Democrats from trying to finagle a way, no matter how far-reaching or outlandish, to get this monstrosity of a health care bill passed? Already anticipating Coakley’s defeat on Tuesday, they’re already threatening to follow the path of reconciliation, where a mere 51% of the vote will be sufficient to get something to President Obama’s desk.
Teddy may be rolling over in his grave, but only because Dems aren’t being slimy enough.
Posted in Democrats, health care, politics, Polls | Tagged: "conservative blog" "Roman Around", 36% support health care reform in Massachusetts, CNS News, health care debate, health care reform, Martha Coakley, Masaacgusettes Senate Race, Massachusettes, Obamacare, PelosiCare, reconciliation, RediCare, Scott Brown, Senate debate, Ted Kennedy | 1 Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on January 16, 2010
The horrific scenes of chaos and destruction coming from Haiti in the aftermath of the earthquake are as disturbing as any I’ve seen a long time. The country has descended into total bedlam. Reports of violent gangs running wild are abundant. Grizzly accounts of corpses lining the streets as far as the eye can see have become commonplace. No one knows who is in charge. Meanwhile, hundreds of thousands of people are in immediate need of assistance, unable to get the help they require.
Words like “catastrophe” and “unspeakable” fall short.
The humanitarian response has been overwhelming. But the airport there is small and dangerously congested. There are at least a dozen airplanes full of supplies sitting on the tarmac with many more waiting on the grass with nowhere to go. There is no reliably functioning communications system and no real idea on how to coordinate the distribution of badly needed supplies.
The people of Haiti are desperate. It is difficult to imagine the situation there getting any worse.
My heart is breaking.
But imagine for a moment a Republican was in the White House. Imagine George W. Bush being the Chief Executive while the enormous difficulties in getting relief to Haiti’s beleaguered citizens were taking place. (Hint: Think about how the Left reacted to President Bush’s response to Hurricane Katrina).
Talk show host Mark Levin – the Great One – on his radio program Friday evening put it this way:
It needs to be said, and you know it … If Ronald Reagan were President, or Richard Nixon, or Gerald Ford, or either of the Bushes, this would be an issue of race and politics … It would be said we’re not doing enough, no matter how much we do, no matter how difficult the circumstances, it would be said we’re not doing enough; it would be politicized; it would be called racism, because that’s exactly what happened with (Hurricane) Katrina.
No matter how much supplies we sent, no matter how much military went down there, it never mattered. And Bush, foolishly, apologized. And he’s still attacked for it.
Meanwhile, in Haiti – before we know exactly what’s going on down there – we’re told that the job we’re doing is terrific.
Well, let me say this … the men and women who are actually doing the work are terrific. But why is it that if supplies are stuck at the airport, that’s not Obama’s fault, but it would have been Bush’s fault?
I’ll tell you why.
Because the media in this country is so bastardized that they will take facts and twist them any way they wish to. And we’ll be told to focus –and focus only – on the desperate condition of the Haitians. Fair enough. But during Katrina, half the focus was on politics was it not?
I don’t hear Charles Rangel, or John Conyers, or Jesse Jackson, or Not-so Sharpton. I don’t hear them. I don’t see the liberal media, the anchors, going on and on about the failures of American assistance and leadership at the top.
And you won’t.
And I might add, you shouldn’t.
After Hurricane Katrina slammed into the Gulf Coast, it was utterly reprehensible to hear many claim that George W. Bush’s supposed laxidasical response had anything to do with the fact that predominantly black areas of New Orleans were hit particularly hard. Bush didn’t just react slowly to the tragedy, they groaned; it was his prejudism against blacks that caused more damage and loss of life than there needed to be. He simply didn’t respond with the same urgency he would have afforded primarily white populations, they exclaimed.
Remember that load of steaming excrement?
One positive to come out of all this is the fact that it may be much easier now to predict when an earthquake is on the way.
Check the thermostat.
Actor Danny Glover – activist, certifiable idiot – says that the Haitian earthquake was the result of man’s inability to deal with global warming … or climate change … or whatever it’s being called this month.
It must’ve been one of the six remaining polar bears known to still exist falling off one of those breakaway blocks of melting ice in the Arctic, hitting the rapidly warming waters with such ferocity that it set off a chain reaction that (naturally) led to the shifting of the earth’s tectonic plates.
Posted in Democrats, global climate change, Global Warming, Natural Disaster, politics, Racism | Tagged: "Double standard", Danny Glover, earthquake, George W. Bush, Haiti, Huricane Katrina, politics, race, Racism | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on January 15, 2010
There are times when I do, in fact, wonder if medical marijuana has been approved for members of Congress on the sly. If so, Democrats must be suffering from every illness under the sun because all of them are over-medicating. In Lib-world, everyone is the walrus.
Heading up the “Glazed Eyes and Empty Head” list is House Speaker Nancy Pelosi who truly sounds as if she’s just been dumped out on the street by the Twinkie Truck – or that she may be in need of better pot. Today, she said that whatever talk there is of Republican “momentum” heading into the midterm elections later this year is nothing but “hype and hyperbole.”
Jordan Fabian of The Hill’s Blog Briefing Room writes:
In a fundraising e-mail to Democratic supporters, Pelosi said that the Democratic agenda is moving the country forward and the Democrats toward victory this fall.
“Republicans are in full blown ‘spin mode’ attacking the President and claiming he has lost support,” she wrote. “But that is just hype and hyperbole. You and I know better — together we are moving America forward.”
Hype and hyperbole?
Like, for instance, the promise that “earmarks” will be a thing of the past? Or the promise that debates on health care will be televised on C-Span? Or the assertion that the unemployment rate will not go above 8%? Or the lie that two million jobs were saved or created by Bammy’s Spendulous atrocity?
Republican momentum is hyperbole?
Every single poll is wrong?
Maybe Nancy isn’t inhaling and ought to.
Madame Speaker, do the names Bob McDonnel and Chris Christie have any meaning to you? And how’s that “Ted Kennedy” senate seat looking these days?
Posted in Democrats, Dumb Liberals, Nancy Pelosi, politics, Uncategorized | Tagged: Bob McDonnel, Chris Christie, Democrat politics, liberal lunacy, Nancy Pelosi, politics, Republican "momentum", Republican hype, Republican hyperbole, Scott Brown | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on January 6, 2010
This is taken directly from the great Breitbart.tv website . It is the text of eight – count ‘em eight – different instances where the President of the United States said that negotiations on the health care bill would be televised for the entire nation to see. You recall, it was part of his promise of transparency, a new kind of relationahip and openness between the federal government and the citizens of the United States that would forever transform the presidency.
“..Not negotiating behind closed doors, but bringing all parties together, and broadcasting those negotiations on C-Span, so that the American people can see what the choices are, because part of what we have to do is enlist the American people in this process.” – CNN Debate, January 2008
“I would put my plan forward, and I would welcome input and say, ‘Here are my goals, reduce costs, increase quality, coverage for everybody. If you have better ideas, please present them.’ But these negotiations will be on C-Span. And so, the public will be part of the conversation and will see the choices that are being made.” – San Francisco Chronicle, January 20, 2008
“I respect what the Clintons tried to do in 1993 in moving health reform forward. But they made one really big mistake, and that is they took all their people, and all their experts into a room and then they closed the door. We will work on this process publicly. It’ll be on C-Span. It will be streaming over the Net. – Google Q and A, November 14, 2007
“We will have the negotiations televised on C-Span , so that people can see who is making arguments on behalf of their constituents and who are making arguments on behalf of the drug companies or the insurance companies.” – Virginia Town Hall, August 28, 2008
“But here’s the thing … We’re going to do all these negotiations on C-Span, so the American people will be able to watch these negotiations.” – Ohio Town Hall, March 1, 2008
“Drug and insurance companies will have a seat at the table. They just won’t be able to buy every single chair. And we will have a public process for forming this plan. It’ll be televised on C-Span. I can’t guarantee it’ll be exciting, so not everybody’s going to be watching, but it will be transparent and accountable to the American people.” – Keene Sentinel, November 27, 2007
“So, the drug and the insurance companies who are still going to have a lot of power in Washington, and are still going to try and block reforms from taking place … so that’s why I’ve said, for example, I want the negotiations to be taking place on C-Span.” – St. Petersberg Times, May 2008
“So I put forward my plan, but what I’ll say is, look, if you have better ideas, I’m happy to listen to them. But all of this will be done on C-Span, in front of the public.” – Indiana Town Hall, April 25, 2008
You can see the video from which these quotes are transcribed here.
I blame George W. Bush.
One blogger at Breitbat.tv wrote the following:
“… It’s time the government tightens down on all of this “freedom” that you neocons have been screaming about and puts some money and assets in the hands of the less fortunate in this country and around the world. The only way we will ever live in peace with world is when we raise their standard of living, even if we have to lower the living standard of the well-to-do in this country. We need healthcare NOW and if Obama has to use a little secrecy to get us there then that’s okay. He will do what is best for us in the long run. Some may not like it now, but we will be better off when the government is running things for the benefit of ALL people…”
Take a moment and re-read two of those lines. When you do, you’ll have a handle on modern liberalism:
“We will be better off when the government is running things for the benefit of ALL people.”
“The only way we will ever live in peace with world is when we raise their standard of living, even if we have to lower the living standard of the well-to-do in this country.”
No further comment necessary.
Posted in Democrats, health care, leftism, Liberalism, Obama Bonehead | Tagged: "conservative blog", Barack Obama, C-Span, eight campaign lies, health care debate, health care negotiations, health care reform, Obamacare, PelosiCare, ReidCare | 2 Comments »
Posted by Andrew Roman on December 31, 2009
One can predict some of the words and phrases Obamacrats will use: obstructionists, partisans, ideologues, Obama-haters, so on.
No soothsayers needed. Pretty standard stuff.
Defenders of the Constitution will be attacked as corporate marionettes, accused of bending over for insurance companies and pharmaceutical interests. Republicans in general will be (and have been) accused of viciously and callously standing in the way of fundamental human decency by endorsing what will undoubtedly lead to the deaths of billions and billions of Americans. The bodies of the uninsured will litter the streets of the United States as heartless right-wing fat cats step around their rotting corpses, laughing the sinister laugh of the victorious, as they visit their own doctors where all the real medicine is kept.
Left-wing blogs will explode with mendacious outrage and rice-pudding indignation. The words “Nazi,” and “corporate shill” and “desperate” (among others) will soak up enormous amounts of bandwidth as pajama-clad basement-dwelling blogosphere leftocrats rat-a-tat away, condemning the patriots who fight to bury Obamacare by standing up for the Constitution.
It’s what so many of us who have questioned the absurd claims of ObamaCare have been waiting for. It’s what so many of us who have questioned the constitutionality of it all have been hoping would come to fruition.
It’s a very good first step.
As many as thirteen state Attorney Generals – all Republicans – have said that the Nebraska sweetheart deal won by Senator Ben Nelson in exchange for his support of this health-care reform monstrosity is unconstitutional and must be removed from the bill.
From the Associated Press, via Fox News:
Republican attorneys general in 13 states say congressional leaders must remove Nebraska’s political deal from the federal health care reform bill or face legal action, according to a letter provided to The Associated Press Wednesday.
“We believe this provision is constitutionally flawed,” South Carolina Attorney General Henry McMaster and the 12 other attorneys general wrote in the letter to be sent Wednesday night to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.
“As chief legal officers of our states we are contemplating a legal challenge to this provision and we ask you to take action to render this challenge unnecessary by striking that provision,” they wrote.
There is also a great deal to explore regarding the constitutionality of mandating citizens to purchase a free-market service or good – in this case, health insurance – from a private entity, as presecribed in the bill.
One thing at a time, though.
The letter was signed by top prosecutors in Alabama, Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Michigan, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Virginia and Washington state. All are Republicans, and McMaster and the attorneys general of Florida, Michigan and Pennsylvania are running for governor in their respective states.
Last week, McMaster said he was leading several other attorneys general in an inquiry into the constitutionality of the estimated $100 million deal he has dubbed the “Cornhusker Kickback.”
Republican U.S. Sens. Lindsey Graham and Jim DeMint of South Carolina raised questions about the legislation, which they said was amended to win Nebraska Sen. Ben Nelson’s support.
“Because this provision has serious implications for the country and the future of our nation’s legislative process, we urge you to take appropriate steps to protect the Constitution and the rights of the citizens of our nation,” the attorneys general wrote.
Here’s the funny part … House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn of South Carolina called the letter was “a political ploy.”
Damn right it is.
“This threat stinks of partisan politics,” he said in a statement. “If Henry McMaster wants to write federal law he should run for Congress not governor.”
If it stinks, I like the smell. I hope it comes out in a candle.
I can’t even begin to tell you how comical it is to hear a Democrat decry “partisan politics.” What on earth could be more partisan than having a holdout Senator or two vote for a bill not on its own merits, but as a result of party-unifying bribery? (Is anybody in there, Ben Nelson and Mary Landrieu?)
Surely Mr. Clyburn is aware that all Senate Democrats voted for the bill. By definition, isn’t that partisan politics?
Clyburn needs to think before he speaks. He snidely remarks that South Carolina Attorney General McMaster should run for Congress if he wants to “write federal law.”
Perhaps Clyburn ought to think about actually representing the people – you know,do his job – if he wants to remain in Congress.
At last look, nearly six in ten Americans don’t want this bill passed.
Nice work, Pubs. Don’t let up.
See what happens when they actually set their minds to something?
Posted in Big Government, Constitution, Democrats, Economy, Harry Reid, health care, Nancy Pelosi, Political Corruption | Tagged: "conservative blog", "Cornhusker Kickback", 13 Attorney Generals, Ben Nelson, Harry Reid, health care bill, health care debate, Henry McMaster, Jim Clyburn, Nancy Pelosi, Nebraska sweetheart deal | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on December 30, 2009
I can see it now … I can envision the Dancing Obamacrats explaining to the American people how this administration is proving that it is, indeed, the most open and transparent in this nation’s history. I can hear the leftist phlegm gurglers tell us how it is this President who has broken down the barriers that have separated the common citizen from the seats of power. This will be the most accountable administration ever, they told us. This will be the most open government we have ever seen, they said.
But is this what Barack Obama meant by a more open government?
Declassifying hundreds of millions of pages of Cold War-era documents? Reversing a national security decision made by George W. Bush? Figuring out how to keep more documents from being labeled “classified” in the future?
This is the transparency he spoke of?
The exposing of national secrets from other administrations?
From the Associated Press via CBS News:
President Barack Obama on Tuesday ordered the federal government to rethink how it protects the nation’s secrets, in a move that was expected to declassify more than 400 million pages of Cold War-era documents and curb the number of government records hidden from the public.
Among the changes is a requirement that every record be released eventually and that federal agencies review how and why they mark documents classified or deny the release of historical records. A National Declassification Center at the National Archives will be established to assist them and help clear a backlog of the Cold War records by Dec. 31, 2013.
Obama also reversed a decision by President George W. Bush that had allowed the intelligence community to block the release of a specific document, even if an interagency panel decided the information wouldn’t harm national security.
Advocates for a more open government are cautiously cheering the move.
In the spirit of openness, I suppose Mr. Obama’s college records will finally be made public at some point.
And so, the new era of open government and unprecedented accountability is upon us … Astronomical spending bills sped through Congress without scrutiny; Backroom deals, midnight votes and Christmas Eve rush jobs on unread, unposted legislation; Behind-closed-doors buy outs and pay offs … (feel free to add your own).
It’s good to know we’ve made it.
Pot, meet kettle.
Posted in Democrats, Dumb Liberals, leftism, Liberalism, Obama Bonehead | Tagged: accountable government, Barack Obama, Cold-War era documents, declassified documents, National Declassification Center, national secrets, open government | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on December 23, 2009
Building off my piece earlier today “Sweetheart Dealin’ Frauds” is the story of the Democrat shoot-down of Senator Mike Johanns – the other Senator from Nebraska. Yesterday, Senator Johanns asked that the Senate “strike the special carve-outs from the Senate health care bill” (i.e., get rid of the sweetheart deals).
There was a higher probability of seeing Hillary Clinton in the Penny’s catalogue modeling the latest in thong wear.
Nothing moves faster than Democrat lips saying “no” when their bribes comes under threat from pork smashers.
Said Senator Johanns:
There should be no special deals, no carve-outs for anyone in this health care bill; not for states, not for insurance companies, not for individual senators.
All of the special deals should be removed. If the bill cannot pass without carve-outs, what further evidence is needed that it is bad policy? No senator should vote for the final cloture vote until all of the carve-outs and special deals are removed.
Nebraskans don’t want a special deal, they want good policy. They don’t believe the Federal Government is the answer to every problem and they don’t like backroom deals.
This was precisely the point of my article earlier today.
These earmark whores couldn’t care less what is or isn’t fiscally sound for this country. They haven’t invested an inkling of critical thought into the matter of deteriorating quality of care. They’re not interested in the unprecedented financial discord that lies ahead for the country.
What else is needed to convince those who still support ReidCare that the bill is no good? What more does one need than to watch Senators fall in line only after they are bribed to do so?
Here are some of the goodies Senator Johanns was hoping to have cut out of the bill:
- Eliminating or reducing the Medicaid unfunded mandate on Nebraska, Vermont, and Massachusetts (starting on page 96, line 9)
- Exempting certain health insurance companies in Nebraska and Michigan from taxes and fees (starting on page 367, line 6)
- Providing automatic Medicare coverage for anyone living in Libby, Montana (starting on page 194 – section 10323)
- Earmarking $100 million for a “Health Care Facility” reportedly in Connecticut (starting on page 328)
- Giving special treatment to Hawaii’s Disproportionate Share Hospitals (starting on page 101, line 6)
- Boosting reimbursement rates for certain hospitals in Michigan and Connecticut (starting on page 174 – section 10317)
- Mandating special treatment for hospitals in “Frontier” States like Montana, South Dakota, North Dakota, and Wyoming (starting on page 208 — Sec 10324)
Dems told him to take a walk.
Most of them ought to be home just in time for Christmas Eve pumpkin pie.
And what is the upshot of all of this, if there is one? Dennis Prager said it on his radio program today – that it affords Americans the opportunity to really see leftism in action.
The compassion, the hope, the promise of modern liberalism sure sounds peachy in the brochure, but once the Left is in power, those latent totalitarian tendencies bubble up to the surface.
Posted in Democrats, health care, leftism, Liberalism, Political Corruption, politics | Tagged: health care debate, Mike Johanns, Senate debate on health care, sweetheart deals | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on December 19, 2009
Yes, Senator Ben Nelson, the “Pro-Life To A Point” Democrat, sold out. Like the Joe Lieberman buy out, I suppose this one, too, should have been expected. If nothing else, Nelson has demonstrated for the American people – two-thirds of which do not support this bill – that there is a price tag on innocent human life. He has ripped a page from the Mary Landrieu Book of Ethics and Goodness in securing some Nebraska-bound goodies from the American taxpayer – with money we don’t have – by agreeing to ditch his principles (and I use that word lightly) in the name of political expediency.
Here’s an idea. Let’s go ahead and retire the phrase “pro-life Democrat.” Let’s throw it on the stinking trash heap of alluring words and sayings and set a match to it. Let’s toss it aside like so much salt on an ice-covered driveway. Let’s incinerate the notion that those who claim to be pro-life donkeys cannot be bought off – because they obviously can. Apparently, the life an unborn baby is precious and worth protecting only until enough sweetheart promises can be secured for one’s home state.
Most remarkable is the fact that both ends of political spectrum aren’t happy at all with Harry Reid’s “manager’s amendment.” Both sides are looking at the same language and walking away with completely different conclusions.
What’s consistent is that both sides are pissed off.
Terry O’Neill, President of the National Organization for Women issued a statement today:
The National Organization for Women is outraged that Senate leadership would cave in to Sen. Ben Nelson, offering a compromise that amounts to a Stupak-like ban on insurance coverage for abortion care. Right-wing ideologues like Nelson and the Catholic Bishops may not understand this, but abortion is health care. And health care reform is not true reform if it denies women coverage for the full range of reproductive health services.
We call on all senators who consider themselves friends of women’s rights to reject the Manager’s Amendment, and if it remains, to defeat this cruelly over-compromised legislation.
Meanwhile, the National Right to Life Committee isn’t pleased either:
The manager’s amendment is light years removed from the Stupak-Pitts Amendment that was approved by the House of Representatives on November 8 by a bipartisan vote of 240-194. The new abortion language solves none of the fundamental abortion-related problems with the Senate bill, and it actually creates some new abortion-related problems.
… if the final bill produced by a House-Senate conference committee does not contain the Stupak-Pitts Amendment, NRLC will score the House and Senate votes on the conference report as votes to allow federal mandates and subsidies for coverage of elective abortion. Unless the Stupak-Pitts Amendment is included in the final bill, and the new pro-abortion provisions dropped, a significant number of House members who voted for H.R. 3962 will not vote to pass the final legislation.
The bill stipulates that states will be able to opt out of having to cover abortions.
And for those states that choose not to opt out, can you guess what happens next? (Roadmaps unnecessary). By golly, by gee, the federal government will pick up the tab. Thus, a pro-life taxpayer in Tyler, Texas, for example, will be able to fund the killing of an unborn child in Queens, New York.
Senator Mitch McConnell, earlier today, summed it up: “The bill includes permissive language on government-funded abortion.”
He also confirmed that Ben Nelson’s Nebraska is getting some “sweetheart deals” while the bill “imposes massive burdens on states that are already struggling under the weight of the cost of Medicaid.”
Senator Ben Nelson, I hope you remember how to type. You may very well need that skill once you’re thrown out on your ass come November.
Posted in abortion, Democrats, Harry Reid, health care, politics | Tagged: 60 votes, Ben Nelson, cloture, Harry Reid, manager's amendment, Nebraska sweetheart deal, pro-life democrat, Senate health care debate | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on December 16, 2009
A liberal is a liberal is a liberal. That goes for Joe, too.
As President Obama’s approval rating continues to do its best anvil-falling-out-of-a window imitation, and with poll after poll showing the American people do not buy into the liberty-raping fairy-tale that is ObamaCare, Democrats continue to demonstrate that they are impervious to the people they are charged to represent. The American people do not want what Obamacrats are hawking, yet Dems disdainfully forge ahead in their crusade to sign into legislation something – anything – “historic.”
It is their arrogance that is historic.
Yesterday, Senator Joe Lieberman – often extoled by many conservatives as a political compatriot (specifically on the War on Terror) and a liberal with a conscience – ostensibly informed the world that there are limitations to his principles, and that, much like Louisiana Senator Mary Landieu, he can be bought. Now that he’s got what he asked for – the dropping of both the public option and the Medicare buy-in from the Senate version of the health care reform bill – he’s back in the fold.
Said Senator Independent, “I think what’s beginning to emerge – and I know some people are not happy about it – is an historic achievement: health care reform such as we have not seen in this country for decades.” Talk show host Laura Ingraham called it Lieberman’s “verbal flatulence.”
There are many on my side of this debate – which, incidentally, are the majority of Americans – expressing dismay, and even betrayal, at Lieberman’s apparent shift back into the Leftocrat womb (which, incidentally, he never left). I’m not exactly sure why anyone would be surprised by this. It shouldn’t come as a shock to anyone. He is still a liberal’s liberal on just about every issue. Dropping the public option, as good as that sounds on the surface, doesn’t make the bill any less government-centric, nor does it suddenly make it cost friendly. It’s a ruse. Indeed, Lieberman can gush about the historic nature of this debacle – comparing it to the “achievments” of Medicare and Medicaid, rivaled only by Social Security for their inefficiency and cost-ineffectiveness – but the fact is, once this bill passes (public option or not), 16% of the economy falls under government control just like that.
Insurance companies will be heavily regulated by the feds. A glut of new agencies and commissions will spring to life. Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer describes what will emerge as a kind of “proxy system” where health care will essentially be run by the government through under-their-thumb insurers.
Lieberman, meanwhile, is trying to be all things to all people. He certainly doesn’t want to ruffle the feathers of his insurance company constituency, but he must also remain true to his social liberalism. Standing up against the public option is a nice bone for insurance providers, but the rest of the nearly two-thousand page bill appeals to his big government approach to handling health care reform.
He is no dope.
Health care delivery will belong to the federal government even without a public option. That’s why Dems were willing to give him what he wanted in exchange for his support. Leftists who are mad at Lieberman need to relax and look at the bigger picture. Good times could still be ahead. From a socialist/marxist perspective, if the bill is passed, it’ll still all good. You’ll see.
Posted in Democrats, leftism, Liberalism, politics | Tagged: "public option", health care debate, health care reform, Joe Lieberman | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on December 13, 2009
On Friday, talk show host Rush Limbaugh aired an audio clip of Rhode Island Senator Sheldon Whitehouse speaking from the Senate floor in which the Senator accused Limbaugh-led Republicans for being anti-Obama obstructionists. Limbaugh, he said, was leading the charge to inflict maximum political damage to the President by opposing health care reform.
Blah, blah, blah … and so on.
To Whitehouse, the debate isn’t about the concern over astronomical costs to the American taxpayer or the inevitable decline in quality of health care. It isn’t about the contraction of liberty, or the expansion of government control or even free markets.
It’s really all about Barack Obama.
This is about creating a political defeat for the President of the United States on their side. Nothing to do with health care – entirely about creating defeat for this new president … when in the face of all the obstruction the distinguished Senator from Michigan described so eloquently – this record-breaking, unprecedented in the history of the Senate obstruction that we’re seeing, the person who I think right now seems to characterize the leadership of the radicalized right wing that is running the Republican Party, Rush Limbaugh, is telling the other side that they haven’t been obstructive enough.
Besides speaking somewhat disjointedly, Senator Whitehouse is wrong on several counts.
First of all, if Rush Limbaugh was “leading” or “running” the Republican Party, you can bet a vital appendage that John McCain would not have been the party’s standard bearer in the last election.
Second, the term “obstructionist” is nothing more than a cheap buzz word that the Rachel Maddows of the world can sink their ever-lovin’ teeth into as Dems desprately – frantically – try to connect with fleeing independents. By definition, those who oppose a given policy and wish to see it defeated, regardless of what side of the aisle they’re on, are obstructionists. That the vast majority of Capitol Hill Republicans are adamantly against a government take over of health care is no more obstructionist than a slew of Dems voting against a Republican plan. (Of course, it isn’t obstructionism then … just good old fashioned, healthy checks and balances).
I’m also inclined to ask … Which party has control of both houses of Congress and the White House? What obstructionists?
Third – and most important – no one on the right side of the health care debate (both literally and figuratively) gives a rat’s ass who the President is. This cry-baby, foot-stomping whining about how the big bad right hates poor Obama – and would be willing to do anything to see his initiatives defeated because he is Obama – grew stale in fairly short order. It is all utter nonsense. The fact is, the President of the United States is a raging leftist, and in the minds of limited government conservatives, the policies born from leftism must be squashed for the good of the country.
From the tea parties to the town hall meetings, from talk radio to Capitol Hill rallies, the fervent (and continually growing) opposition to what Obamacrats are trying to do has nothing – repeat, absolutely nothing – to do with Barack Obama. This is not about defeating this President. This is about defeating any President who would promote these asinine policies. To keep this nation from adopting dangerous European models of health care delivery, a political defeat for Obama is necessary – but this isn’t about Obama. Believe it or not, the world does not revolve around him. This is only about the policy.
If, for instance, J Fred Muggs was running the show, each and every single Republican who currently opposes ObamaCare would also oppose MuggsCare (although the influence of the banana lobby could hardly be overstated).
In this context, Barack Obama must fail.
And, by the way, what the hell is the “radicalized right?“
What, pray tell, has the right done to make them “radical?”
Here’s a quick lesson…
It is the Left that wants to completely overhaul the greatest health care system the world has ever known. That sounds fairly radical. It is the Left looking for all-out transformation, as opposed to minor corrections. Again, radical. By definition, it is the Left who wishes to follow the radical path – just as they wish to redefine marriage, manage worldwide carbon emissions, and escalate deficits to unheard of levels thanks to unprecedented spending.
It’s not difficult to understand.
Posted in Democrats, Dumb Liberals, health care, leftism, Liberalism | Tagged: health care debate, health care reform, Rush Limbaugh, Senate debate on health care, Sheldon Whitehouse | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on December 12, 2009
The epoch of earmarks had seen its last days, the American people were told. Government waste was a thing of the past, Americans were advised. Fresh sounding, twenty-first century words like “transparency” and “post-partisan” were peppered into the national dialogue from a guy with great dulcet tones. Things were going to be different. Even people on the right were excited about the dawning of the new age.
Remember what the new guy told us: We were the people we were waiting for.
He was going to be everyone’s president, we were assured. He was going to hear our voices too, he promised. The Transformation Express was boarding on Track Forty-Four, and everyone was invited to grab their slice of the American pie.
But quicker than someone could say TARP, the new guy in charge – The One, we called him in the early days – started doing things that didn’t seem quite right. He spent three-quarters of a trillion dollars on door knobs, hiking trails, the study of rabbit feces, and new computers for government offices, all in the name of stimulating the economy. Not particularly stimulating. Without batting a lash, he mortgaged the future of those yet to be born, burdening them with epic costs so that their predecessors could avoid having to tough it out. He commanded government to take over segments of the private sector – like the auto industry – and made it his primary task to annex 16% of the American economy. He said earmarks were a thing of the past, then redefined the word so that he could let himself off the hook. He said over three million jobs would be created on his watch, only to see at least that many lost.
And now, the most fiscally irresponsible administration in this nation’s history is officially back in the earmark business to the tune of nearly $4 billion. That may not sound like much in today’s trillions-happy environment, but four thousand million is four thousand million … and that’s our money.
Richard Simon from the Los Angeles Times writes:
Reporting from Washington – Getting into the holiday spirit, the House of Representatives on Thursday approved a spending bill loaded with goodies for the folks back home.
Trails for Monterey Bay. An arts pavilion for Mississippi. Bus shelters for Bellflower.
In all, the bill contains 5,224 earmarks costing about $3.9 billion, according to Taxpayers for Common Sense, a watchdog group.
Though Democrats say they have cracked down on pork-barrel spending, critics attacked the bill as excessive.
“Clearly, the earmark culture has not been swept away,” Brian M. Riedl, a budget analyst at the conservative Heritage Foundation, blogged Thursday.
The $447-billion bill, which passed the Democratic-controlled House with no Republican votes and moved to the Senate, combines six spending bills for the fiscal year that began Oct. 1.
The measure brings total earmarks in this year’s spending bills to 7,577 at a cost of about $6 billion, according to Taxpayers for Common Sense. The Pentagon spending bill, the last of the annual appropriations bills, is expected to contain more earmarks than the omnibus bill, said Steve Ellis of the taxpayer group.
In the event you are keeping a score card at home, some of the other pet projects in the bill include a half-million dollars to help build a trench, thirteen-and-a-half million for the creation of a bus lane, a quarter-million for textile research, and almost two-hundred thousand for weather forecaster training.
Oh yeah … I almost forgot two-hundred thousand for the Aquatic Adventures Science Education Foundation in San Diego.
Thank God for that.
“When are we going to say, ‘Enough is enough?’ ” asked House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio), who does not seek earmarks. “I don’t know how worthy any of these projects are, but I do have to ask a question: Are they more important than our kids and grandkids who are going to have to pay the debt?”
It is the very essence of modern liberalism – to act without regard for what happens next. It is what the great Thomas Sowell calls being stuck in “stage one” thinking – failing to consider the ramifications of a policy decision that, for the moment, serves to make the boo-boo feel better.
It is closely related to “Do Something” Disease, which is a mutated strand of “Change For The Sake of Change” Syndrome.
It is a weakness of liberalism best exemplified in how Barack Obama has approached the economic crisis from the outset. To him, Americans aren’t capable of handling tough economic times. We aren’t resilient enough to brave a recession. We cannot face whatever hardships might lie ahead. We need the government to step in and make things better. We need him to tell us everything will eventually be all right. It is imperative that we make our kids and grandkids pay for it tomorrow so that we might live more comfortably today.
Mr. President, that is not America. It never has been.
Not only can Americans handle the most difficult of times, we do so with the understanding that it is our charge – our purpose – to make things better for the next generation. We weather the toughest of storms because there is no other alternative. We roll with the best life has to offer and we bear the brunt of the worst, aware of the immorality in mortgaging the future of our children, our civilization.
For example, what would we think of a parent who secured credit cards in his or her child’s name only to max them out?
I resent the fact that this president has engendered that sense of weakness in a nation built on rugged individualism. That he is willing to make things more difficult for yet unborn generations so that today can feel better may be the most disgraceful thing yet to come from the Messianic Age.
Posted in Big Government, Democrats, Economy, Ethics, leftism, Liberalism | Tagged: $3.9 billion dollars, 5224 earmarks, Big Government, Congressional spending, earmarks, House bill, leftism, Liberalism | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on November 20, 2009
Harry Reid, fudging the damn numbers
I’m not sure how many people would sign on to a program that required them to work full-time for a period of four years before being paid; or one that would require four years of insurance payments on a car before being handed the keys; or one – as Senator Mitch McConnell puts it – that required four years of mortgage payments before one can move into a house, but I’m going to venture out on a limb and say not too many.
Just as the House version of the health care bill did two weeks ago, Harry Reid’s incarnation – over two-thousand pages strong – employs that old accounting chestnut: The Ten Year Dupe.
It’s pie-in-the-sky liberal voodoo at its cooked-books best.
Recall that earlier this week, Reid assured Americans that the Senate’s version of government-run health care would be a money-saver. Like the Pelosi bill, it would be cost-effective and still be able to insure billions and billions of health-care starved people without costing Americans an extra cent. In fact, there’d actually be some money leftover to pour into other meaningful things, like doorknobs at inner-city housing projects, the study of orgasms among college girls, and the continued examination of radioactive rabbit feces.
Over ten years, according to Reid, the whole kit-n-kaboodle would cost “only” $849 billion. (In today’s trillion-happy world, that’s chump change).
But we’ve all seen this movie before … and there are too many who still don’t get it.
Although tax increases would be implemented upon the bill’s passage into law, actual spending won’t begin until the fifth year of the bill’s application, 2014; and even then, it will be relatively miniscule. For instance, only $9 billion is slated to be spent that year. However, in 2016, spending reaches $147 billion. By 2019 (the last year of Reid’s ten year projection), it’ll hit $196 billion.
Thus, actual spending of any significance would only take place during the last six years of Reid’s health care debacle.
But, if one were to look at the actual numbers over a fully implemented ten year period, which would start in 2014, the cost is more than twice the $849 billion espoused by Reid – in the neighborhood of $2 trillion, according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO).
The Ten Year Dupe.
As many as seventeen new taxes will be enacted to help fund everything. As much as $800 billion, according to the CBO, will be sucked from Medicare during the first decade of full implementation and put somewhere else. Plus, hefty penalties for those individuals, families and businesses who fail to comply with guidelines will be imposed.
Let freedom ring.
Seeing as there will be four years of revenue collection before spending really begins – which means four more years of our ongoing American health care holocaust – where is all of that money going to go until it is ready to be spent? Where do four years of taxes and fines get stashed until the government begins saving American lives? Will there be a health care reform fund established? Will there be a secret shoe box hidden at an undisclosed location? Will convicted Congressman William Jefferson of Louisiana allow the government to borrow his freezer?
Or the do words Social Security Fund mean anything to you?
Posted in Big Government, Democrats, Economy, health care, Liberalism, politics | Tagged: 2074 page health care bill, CBO, Congressional Budget Office, Harry Reid, health care reform, Obamacare, Senate health care bill | 2 Comments »
Posted by Andrew Roman on November 11, 2009
The Secretary of State's husband
Last Saturday, President Barack Obama not only referred to me (and millions of others like me) as one of the “teabag people,” but also as an “anti-government extremist.” (Admittedly, there was strange kind of honor in that). He did so behind closed doors after he made his much publicized visit to Capitol Hill to encourage House Dems to vote for the two-thousand page Pelosi-ObamaCare debacle that eventually wound up passing by five votes later that evening.
After a slew of “hip-hip-hoorays,” a little back-patting, and some congratulatory spit-swapping, focus soon turned to the next hurdle in America’s transformation – the Senate.
And who better, only three days after the “historic” House vote, to talk up the positives of a government-run health care system to a room full of bright-eyed, bushy-tailed Senators than the husband of the Secretary of State himself, Mr. Hillary Clinton?
And so it was that yesterday, Bill and the gang did lunch.
To Clinton, however, people like me (and millions of others like me) weren’t just “teabag people,” as Bammy called us. We were actual “tea baggers” – a term with a diversity of colorful and quaint meanings.
Making it all the more interesting was the assertion that the “tea baggers” – according to the first black President – were all “inflamed.”
I’ll get to that in a moment.
Carol E. Lee and Carrie Budoff Brown of the Politico write:
With the issue he has positioned to be his crowning achievement as president at a crossroads, Barack Obama once again called on his former rival to help him follow through.
Former President Bill Clinton told a room full of Democratic senators Tuesday that passing health care reform — which he failed to do 15 years ago — is not only a moral issue but also “an economic imperative.”
Clinton argued that even “the most cold-hearted person” ought to support health care reform simply from an economic standpoint. He reminded Democrats of the political momentum their failure to pass reform in 1993 delivered the House of Representatives to the Republicans the following year.
“The point I want to make is: Just pass the bill, even if it’s not exactly what you want,” Clinton told Democrats. “When you try and fail, the other guys write history.”
Actually, Bill, when Democrats fail, America wins … but that’s a separate issue.
And so the question of the hour is: Why are the tea baggers inflamed?
The answer: Because Democrats are winning.
That’s right, in case you weren’t paying attention to reality – or someone slipped a rather strong hallucinogen into your Ovaltine – the Democrats are winning, according to Number 42 … and I, as a tea bagger, am inflamed because of it.
(I had a line about selling some ocean front property in Wyoming, but it’s slipped my mind).
Not only are Democrats winning now, they have been winning since the health care debate began.
Think back to the spring and summer for a moment.
Whether it was the overwhelming turnout of limited-government, budget-conscious Americans at tea parties all across the country, or the exuberance of spirited protestors who showed up at town-hall meetings to voice their oppostion to ObamaCare, the real reason they did so, according to Mr. Bill, was because the Democrats were (and still are) winning.
(And because they were inflamed).
Honestly, it must be something hard wired in liberal DNA that makes them think this way.
It’s appears to be a universal affliction, although I refrain from jumping to any conclusions.
Still, the evidence is hard to resist.
For instance, in the recesses of the liberal brain, although temperatures have been dropping across the globe for several years now – and NOAA lists last month as the third coldest October on record – global warming still threatens the planet.
To a leftist, although every bit of evidence available points to the Fort Hood killer being a radical Islamist carrying out jihad, it is unclear whether or not religion was a factor in the mass murder.
It is therefore no surprise (or it shouldn’t be) that although the President’s poll numbers continue to plummet, and support for the Obama agenda continues to flounder, and with Democrats getting bounced in last week’s elections (hello New Jersey), and with a huge majority in the House that still saw the health care bill pass by only five lousy votes, Democrats are clearly winning.
Posted in Big Government, Democrats, health care, Liberalism | Tagged: "we are winning", Bill Clinton, health care bill, health care reform | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on November 9, 2009
The Founding Fathers - anti-government extremists
Validation is a good thing – particularly when it comes from the President of the United States. I’m not certain I would have ever been able to summon the nerve to openly admit that I am, in fact, an anti-government extremist, but thanks to President Hope-and-Change, I now know I have the courage to own up to it. I know I need not shy away from it any longer. If gratitude could be measured in terms of minutes, I have fifty years worth of thanks I’d like to lavish on the President.
Liberation can be quite liberating.
Yes, my name is Andrew Roman and I am an anti-government extremist.
(Hugs all around).
During his Saturday visit to Capitol Hill to encourage donkeys to vote for the government-run health care bill, President Unity showed why he is, in fact, President of all the American people – inlcuding me. He demonstrated with keen insight the accuracy of what leftists and other children have been saying all along – namely, that those who divide the American people live on the right.
It’s where hate thrives, prejudice blossoms, and bigotry prospers.
While conservatives tear apart, Obamacrats unify.
Jackie Calmes of the New York Times describes what Bammy’s visit on Saturday was like:
Mr. Obama, during his private pep talk to Democrats, recognized Mr. (Bill) Owens election (New York-23) and then posed a question to the other lawmakers. According to Representative Earl Blumenauer of Oregon, who supports the health care bill, the president asked, “Does anybody think that the teabag, anti-government people are going to support them if they bring down health care? All it will do is confuse and dispirit” Democratic voters “and it will encourage the extremists.”
Such couth. Such class.
Well done, Mr. President.
I assume his teleprompters were out for an electronic high colonic when he once again afforded his unscripted elegance a chance to shine.
If being a “teabagger” means that one is against saddling future generations with trillions and trillions of dollars of debt to “fix” a system that was not broken to begin with, sign me up.
If being an “extremist” means that one does not support the dependency of the American people on government-run health care, I’m there.
If being “anti-government” means that one is on-board with the Founders vision of this nation as one of limited government – which would, by definition, be impossible with a federal takeover of 16% of the American economy – then wrap me in a right wing label, attach an “ist” or a “phobe” to my name, call me a hateful, uncompassionate bastard and begin the personal attacks.
And by the way, their names were Washington, Jefferson, Madison and Hamilton – and they were anti-government extremists.
Posted in Big Government, Democrats, health care, Liberalism, Obama Bonehead | Tagged: "teabag people", anti-government extremist, Barack Obama, health care debate, health care reform | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on November 5, 2009
Interviewing Senator Burris (D-Ill)
The problem with the Constitution, aside from it being a document of negative liberties, is that in order for it to be applied correctly to today’s ever-changing, ever-transforming America, it requires learned men and women to put it all in context for us. The Constitution, ever-breathing and ever-flexible, can only make sense if the most nuanced among continue to negotiate their way through the emanations and penumbras of its two-century old text and explain to the rest of us what it really means.
One may liken the Constitution to a mansion – or castle – with an abundance of secret passages and hidden rooms in which one may potentially find lots of hidden treasures. In those terms, one can begin to understand the basis of the liberal relationship with that document.
Sometimes, however, mere interpretation isn’t enough. There are times when actual words are cited from the Constitution that, somehow, managed to elude over two-hundred years of scholarly review and casual perusal.
It’s convenient, not unlike finding a twenty-dollar bill outside of the Off-Track-Betting place.
Barack Obama’s Senate replacement in Illinois, Roland Burris, is apparently one of those men with the unusual talent to see things that aren’t there.
Not dead people, but words.
Burris must never have watched School House Rock with his children when he was a younger man. My guess is he’s probably not revisited the Constitution in many years.
Curiously, his version of the Preamble contains more words than the one I know.
Nicholas Ballasy, video reporter from CNS News, writes:
When asked by CNSNews.com what specific part of the Constitution authorizes Congress to mandate that individuals must purchase health insurance, Sen. Roland Burris (D-Ill.) pointed to the part of the Constitution that he says authorizes the federal government “to provide for the health, welfare and the defense of the country.” In fact, the word “health” appears nowhere in the Constitution.
“Well, that’s under certainly the laws of the–protect the health, welfare of the country,” said Burris. “That’s under the Constitution. We’re not even dealing with any constitutionality here. Should we move in that direction? What does the Constitution say? To provide for the health, welfare and the defense of the country.”
Wait, it gets better.
James O’Connor, Burris’s communications director, later told CNSNews.com that although the word “health” does not appear anywhere in the Constitution, the senator was referring to the Preamble of the Constitution which says the following:
“We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
Burris’s comment “indicates his belief that the term ‘general welfare’ can be interpreted to include the health and well-being of American citizens, and health care in general,” said O’Connor.
Under such an interpretation, the federal government would, thus, have the power to do whatever the hell it felt like doing in the name of promoting the “general welfare.”
First of all, the Preamble, in and of itself, carries no legal weight. It neither grants nor limits the power of the federal government. Rather, it exists to state the purpose of the document to follow. At the time of the Constitution’s creation, the Preamble was, quite literally, an afterthought.
But even if, in Senator Burris’ world of pliable interpretations and magical authorizations, the Constitution’s Preamble had substantive legal significance, the phrase “general welfare” does not mean that the federal government is obliged, either legally or morally, to provide healthcare to its citizens. It does not mean “welfare” in the sense that we have come to know it – namely, government entitlements.
Far from it.
It simply means that unless something applies to everyone, instead of to specific segments of the population or special interest groups (i.e., the uninsured), it is not within the federal government’s authority to involve itself. The term “general” means that it applies to the whole group, rather than individual subgroups.
It does the heart good to know that our elected officials are so in tune with the document they are there to “support and defend.”
(Yes, it is part of a Senator’s oath).
Posted in Constitution, Democrats, Dumb Liberals, health care, Liberalism | Tagged: Constitution, General Welfare, health care reform, Preamble, Roland Burris | 1 Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on October 26, 2009
I haven’t cracked open a thesaurus in a mighty long time, but in the coming weeks and months, I may have to. Using the word “desperate” over and over to describe liberals and their recurrently pathetic tactics will almost certainly wear thin – not unlike President Obama’s first nine months in office.
Still, it is unavoidable to give credit where credit is due. After all, if not for the American Left, where then would desperation nest?
No, it isn’t enough to have the Speaker of the House accuse fellow Americans of being swastika bearers at Townhall meetings. It isn’t enough to have the Senate Majority leader call those opposed to ObamaCare “hate mongers.” It isn’t enough to have the White House assail private citizens (Rush Limbaugh) and privately owned companies (Fox News) because they have the chutzpah not to bend over for President Liberty-Kill and his big government Obamacrats. It isn’t enough to have a mainstream media so in the tank for the administration that almost no coverage is afforded Anita Dunn and Alan Grayson while names like Joe Wilson become more familiar than Abraham Lincoln.
It just isn’t enough.
Thank goodness for MSNBC’s Chris Matthews - the lacerated septum of broadcast journalism.
Late last week, on MSNBC’s Hardball, Chris Matthews was having a “discussion” with Frank Gaffney and Ron Reagan Jr. about Afghanistan.
As the segment came to an end, the exchange went this way:
Gaffney: (speaking to Reagan) Your father would be ashamed of you.
Reagan: Oh, Frank, you better watch your mouth about that, Frank.
Matthews: That’s not fair. The group in this country that most resembles the Taliban, ironically, is the religious right.
To begin with, Gaffney, who is President of The Center for Security Policy, made himself look a bit silly by having to resort to pulling out the “Ronald Reagan” card while debating Reagan, Jr., who is an unabashed, unapologetic, liberal. Whatever the elder Reagan would have thought of his son’s views on Afghanistan was irrelevant to the discussion. Unquestionably, Gaffney had more than enough substantive ammunition to combat Reagan. He knew better.
However, it was the always ignoble and detestable Matthews (let me count the ways), in true “drive-by” media style, who actually compared the American “religious right” to the barbarous terrorists – the Taliban – before escaping into the security of the ensuing commercial break.
(Of course, if Congressman Alan Grayson could somehow correlate the state of America’s health care delivery system to the Holocaust, then equating American conservatives of faith to the murderous Taliban wouldn’t seem particularly preposterous).
First of all, Mr. Matthews ought to take a moment and brush up on his ideologies. By definition, conservatives want less government involvement in our lives.
If for no other reason than that, the American “religious right” simply does not resemble the Taliban, who exist to impose theocratic influence on every aspect of life through totalitarian rule. Simply having a strong faith in God, which presumably is what Matthews is attempting to use to tie the two together, is an embarrassingly weak premise to build such a ridiculously naive – and easily refuted – argument.
If faith alone, in Matthews’ simplistic, one-dimensional, bumper-sticker world, were the main criterion for drawing parallels between the American “religious right” and the Taliban, then leftists, who worship with equal zeal at the alter of unproven global warming, would, by definition, more resemble the Taliban because of their propensity to expand the power of government.
Naturally, neither the American Left or the American Right really resemble the Taliban in any way whatsoever, but playing along with Mr. Matthews brings certain relaities to light. Leftists are just as religious when it comes to global warming as conservatives are about traditional religion. However, it is the global warming movement, in their ever-growing fanaticism, that demands governments intrusion on the industrialized free market by inflicting crippling emissions standards – guidelines that would literally bring down the American economy.
By contrast, no one on the “religious right” – no one – wants that level of government involvement in American lives. And no one on the religious right advocates, supports, suggests or even hints at imposing a theocracy of any kind in the United States.
If presented in those terms, which side more “resembles” the Taliban, Mr. Matthews?
It isn’t difficult to understand.
Besides, if Mr. Matthews can point me in the direction of those “religious right” organizations that strap bombs to the chests of their young for the purpose of blowing up as many innocents as possible, I’m willing to listen. If there are videos out there of hooded members of the “religious right” slicing the heads off of non-believers, I missed it. If the “religious right” advocate the beating of women for walking by themselves or driving motor vehicles, I’d love to see the literature. Perhaps Mr. Mathews can play on his television program the audio of members of the “religious right” calling for a Holy War against non-Christian nations.
He certainly has the forum to defend his assertions.
Posted in Democrats, Liberalism, Moral Clarity, religion, terrorism | Tagged: Chris Matthews, Conservatism, conservative, Frank Gaffney, Hardball, MSNBC, religious right, Ron Reagan Jr, Taliban | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on October 1, 2009
Congressman Alan Grayson
Congressman Joe Wilson blurted out the infamous words, “You lie!” during President Obama’s address before a joint session of Congress not too long ago. Because of it, for a time, Wilson was ranked – along with typhoid and severe intestinal cramps – on the list of most hated things in American life.
After all, he had the nerve to speak out against the Messiah-In-Chief. It probably had to do with his distaste in having a black man in the White House, blah, blah …
(Columnist Maureen Dowd actually heard Wilson use the word “boy” – in her mind.)
The fact is, it was an emotional outburst that was wholly inappropriate, and he immediately apologized for it.
Yet, he was raked over the coals.
What Wilson was reacting to was the assertion by the President that illegal aliens would not be covered under ObamaCare.
One thing President Obama neglected during his speech, however, was the pesky little fact that anyone seeking health care would not – repeat would not - be required to prove their legal right to be in this country. That simple truth effectively made the President’s contention untrue.
Wilson knew this.
Indeed, he may have been wrong in what he did, but he was substantively correct.
Compare and contrast that situation to that of Florida Congressman Alan Grayson, who helped to reaffirm that first-class bone-headedness is not only a spontaneous phenomenon, but it can be premeditated and well-scripted.
From the House Floor, in a prepared presentation, complete with visual aids, Grayson contended that the Republican’s idea of health care reform consists of an easy-to-follow plan: Don’t Get sick. But if you do, die quickly.
It was almost certainly a big hit among those who live on the hard left – which really means mainstream liberalism.
Does it get any cleverer that that?
It’s catchy; and true to form, it fits nicely on a bumper sticker. It can even be squeezed onto a liberal talking points sheet without having to kill additional trees.
Keep in mind, this exercise in cerebral vapidity was no emotional outburst like Wilson’s. This was a contrived and calculated speech.
He went on to say, “I apologize to the dead and their families that we haven’t voted sooner to end this holocaust in America.”
Yes, he really said that.
A Holocaust in America. (I’ll get to that in a moment).
Let’s think about his first point - his interpretation of the Republican Health Care Plan. According to Grayson, Republicans – who simply do not want the finest health care delivery system in the world to be transformed into one of government-run rationed mediocrity – not only want people to get sick quickly (if they must), they wish to see them die as soon as conceivably possible afterward.
In other words, as a conservative (and also a registered Republican) I am one of those who want people to get sick and drop dead post haste. So does my wife, apparently. And my kids. Mom, too.
We all want people to become ill and die quickly.
It sounds perfectly reasonable, doesn’t it?
Remember, to Grayson and his comrades, conservatives aren’t just on the other side of the debate. They don’t just have an opposing view from theirs. They are bad. They have ulterior motives. They are sinister. They want people to die.
This is the depth of liberal thought in modern America.
This is why libs should never be in charge of things that require adult thinking.
Now, onto Grayson’s second point – a Holocaust in America.
I’m willing to wager a vital body appendage that most of you had no idea that there was a bona fide, honest-to-goodness Holocaust ongoing in the United States of America today.
Mr. Grayson, you DOPE, THIS is the human atrocity that was The Holocaust.
Does Mr. Grayson understand what the Holocaust actually was? Does he have any conception of the unspeakable horrors that are associated with the Holocaust? Does he not understand how he cheapens the atrocities that took place during the Holocaust with his mindless, childish, asinine show-and-tell speech about the supposed health care “crisis” in this country ? Has he no respect for the millions and millions of murdered innocents, their families, and survivors of the death camps?
How ironic it is that liberals, the ones who are constantly pushing to make sure no one in any segment of the population – save for conservative white males – are ever offended for any reason whatsoever, are conspicuously silent here. Grayson – a liberal’s liberal if ever such a thing existed – has drawn from the blob of intellectual excrement that lives between his ears to compare the uninsured status of a very small percentage of Americans to the brutality and horror that was the Holocaust – and no one on that side of the aisle seems to be bothered too much. Does Grayson believe that there is a single Holocaust survivor who will say, “Right you are, Mr. Grayson. It feels like Nazi Germany around here!”
In Grayson’s mind, the uninsured of America are comperable to the slaughtered Jews of the Holocaust.
On his radio program today, talk show host Dennis Prager wondered where the Anti-Defamation league was on this issue? After all, making light of the Holocaust is one of things the ADL is most vocal about.
Grayson is a liberal, however. Perhaps different rules apply.
As Prager said, “He owes history an apology. He owes moral clarity an apology.”
What is it with lefties who reflexively pull out the Hitler card when they’re on the ropes or lack the substance to defend their arguments?
If America had a dollar for every swastika that had been used as a substitute for the letter “s” on anti-Bush protest signs, everyone in the country would have their health care paid for two-fold with enough left over for a pack of Manhattan-bought cigarettes.
Meanwhile, like the media assault on Congressman Joe Wilson a couple of weeks ago, I’ll patiently wait on the outrage against Alan Grayson to bubble up.
I’ve got nowhere to go.
Posted in Democrats, health care, Liberalism | Tagged: Alan Grayson, Florida Congressman, health care debate, Holocaust in America, Joe Wilson, Obamacare | 4 Comments »
Posted by Andrew Roman on September 22, 2009
Barry and Dave
I suppose the easiest thing would be to just call everyone involved a racist and have done with it. Unfortunately, the two players in this interesting little saga are not only black, but painfully liberal – which automatically renders the “Clarence Thomas/Uncle Tom” angle unusable.
Still, the David Paterson-Barack Obama story keeps getting better all the time.
On one side is David Paterson, the beleaguered, do-nothing, impotent, in-over-his-head, stumbling, bumbling Governor of New York. He is the man whose approval rating is often confused for his shoe size. He is the man who has already blamed a racist press for his unpopularity, despite the fact that New York is among the bluest of the blue states.
On the other sides is Barack Obama. He is the Messiah.
The story almost writes itself.
Paterson says he is still running for Governor, period. Despite reports that he was asked to drop out for the good of the Democratic Party by Obama henchmen (after saying that American black leaders, including the President, are treated unfairly by the media), Paterson has refused to throw in the towel.
Whether or not President Obama personally agrees with Paterson’s perceptions of a racially biased media doesn’t matter, nor is it particularly relevant, because almost immediately after the Governor’s comments, the White House decided that Paterson was – pardon the expression – a “black eye” on the Party and needed to go away.
After all, with so much of the national dialogue consumed with matters of race in recent times, it just wouldn’t do to have the President associated with race-baiting twaddle such as Paterson’s – especially with health care yet to nationalize and so much government yet to grow.
Hence, the request from the White House for Paterson to bow out.
Paterson predictably took offense to the White House meddling in Empire State politics, brandishing an attitude that was something akin to, “Stay the hell out of New York!“
(If Paterson was white, Maureen Dowd would have undoubtedly heard the word “boy” at the end of that sentence).
And so we begin the latest chapter of this twisted tale.
As it stands now, the New York Governor is effectively blaming Prseident Obama’s ineffectiveness as Chief Exceutive for the friction that exists between the two of them – and ultimately for Paterson’s own deficiencies.
Azi Paybarah at PolitickerNY.com writes:
Paterson chalked up Obama’s intervention to Washington politics.
“I understand the president’s concern and I understand concern of staff members at the White House. If you look at it from their perspective, they haven’t exactly been able to govern in the first year of their administration in the way that other administrations have, where you would have, theoretically, a period in which the new administration is allowed to pass the needed pieces of legislation.”
But Paterson said Obama “was gracious to me. He asked me how I was feeling” and “he expressed a little chagrin about the process in this situation.”
Paterson also said it was untrue that he had been given a “direct message from a congressman” as had been reported in the New York Times, which named Representative Gregory Meeks as the messenger.
Bam and Company are not exactly thrilled about being tied to Paterson’s failures.
I guess Governor Dave shouldn’t expect any invites to supper at the White House any time in the forseeable future.
Posted in Democrats, Liberalism, Racism | Tagged: Barack Obama, David Paterson, New York Governor, Racism | Leave a Comment »