Posts Tagged ‘health care reform’
Posted by Andrew Roman on May 24, 2010
Liberals have no interest in what Americans really care about. Rather, they are interested in telling Americans what they should – nay, will – care about. The needs of their constituencies are irrelevant to them, because, for the most part, they don’t believe the people they are charged to represent really know what they need. It’s because buried deep within the soul of the modern-day American liberal, stuck to their DNA like Nutella to a butter knife, is that inherent tendency toward totalitarianism. Whether it’s someone in the thick of the liberal stew like New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman, who says he actually fantasizes about what it would be like in America if we were like China for just one day, to entertainment icon Woody Allen, who says that a few years of an Obama dictatorship would be good for this country, they are liberals, and they know best.
Just ask one.
Ever since Arizona passed its illegal immigration law, a majority of Americans have been in favor of it. In fact, in some polls, support for the law has actually increased. Meanwhile, Obamacrats continue to speak out against it – including those who haven’t yet read it – demonstrating how out-of-touch with the country they really are.
The same can be said for Obamacare.
According to a new Rasmussen poll, a convincing six in ten Americans believe that Obamacare should be flat out repealed.
That’s right … repealed.
That’s the highest level ever.
A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 63% of U.S. voters now favor repeal of the plan passed by congressional Democrats and signed into law by President Obama in March.
Prior to today, weekly polling had shown support for repeal ranging from 54% to 58%.
Currently, just 32% oppose repeal.
The new findings include 46% who Strongly Favor repeal of the health care bill and 25% who Strongly Oppose it.
While opposition to the bill has remained as consistent since its passage as it was beforehand, this marks the first time that support for repeal has climbed into the 60s. It will be interesting to see whether this marks a brief bounce or indicates a trend of growing opposition.
Thirty-three percent (33%) of voters now believe the health care plan will be good for the country, down six points from a week ago and the lowest level of confidence in the plan to date. Fifty-five percent (55%) say it will be bad for the nation. Only three percent (3%) think it will have no impact.
This can be filed under “Why Elections Matter.”
We are a little over five months away from, arguably, the most critical non-Presidential election in America’s history. Key components of ObamaCare really don’t start to kick in until 2014. For a repeal to actually happen, Republicans must come away winners in November and then take back the White House from the jaws of destruction in 2012.
One step at a time.
But it isn’t that one-dimensional.
Republicans cannot just run on repealing ObamaCare. They must put together sensible reforms as part of a repeal package.
That’s how a roadmap to repeal could work … “on paper.”
Unfortunately, the fear is that once the “benefits” start flowing, only the most steadfast conservatives will not cave.
Supreme Court, anyone?
Posted in health care, Polls | Tagged: health care bill, health care debate, health care reform, Obamacare, Rasmussen poll | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on March 26, 2010
Congressman Steny Hoyer (the one on the left)
Incidents abound, say the mainstream media.
They have been born from the kind of hatred that leftists and other children have been warning us about for years. Since late Sunday, when America became less free thanks to the passage of Obamacare into law, it has been manifesting itself in violent outbursts that – according to the mainstreamers – are sweeping across the nation. Angry right-wingers, threatened by the civility and decency of the compassionate class (i.e., Democrats), are fighting back, selfishly desperate to hold onto their bigotries, biases and tax dollars.
From all corners of the mainstream media complex, the reports have been filling the airwaves: threats, gunshots, broken windows – all being perpetrated by furious anti-Obamacrats.
The mood in America is turning ugly, they say. It’s getting scary out there, they claim. The right-wing is becoming unhinged – and since the right is the home of the “God-and-Guns” crowd, fair-minded liberals are now understandably frightened.
That’s what they’re saying.
Congressman Steny Hoyer of Maryland is very concerned about the threat of reprisals from merciless ObamaCare foes who take the Constitution too literally. Congresswoman Betsy Markey of Colorado says her office received a threatening call the day before the vote from someone who said she had “better hope I don’t run into you in a dark alley with a knife, a club or a gun.” A Democratic lawmaker’s brother in Virginia had a gas line cut at his house. Windows were broken at four Democrat offices in three states.
To hear it from the mainstream media, the nation may be descending into right-wing-led chaos.
Even NBC’s Ann Curry (Today Show) – a beacon of impartiality and objectivity – says that Republican lawmakers are “encouraging the violence” against Dems. Sarah Palin, for example, “posted a map highlighting weak Democratic districts…with a crosshair symbol” on her website. Words like “targeted” and “battleground” are incendiary terms, according to Curry, and can incite violence in these “very dangerous times.”
Curry’s psychiatrist was not available for comment.
It goes without saying that threats against politicians or acts of violence of any kind against any public official – Democrat or Republican – are not to be tolerated. Such behavior is repugnant and can never be acceptable.
But some of these “backlash” incidents have not even been verified; and the ones that have are isolated.
Almost immediately, as soon as the media when orgasmic reporting on this new wave of rampant conservative ugliness, Republicans took to microphones everywhere condemning such acts.
Some of the interviews that ensued were almost comical.
Reporters made sure to ask these Republicans – these monsters, these aliens – what they thought about such behavior against poor Democrats who only wanted to help Americans in need, as if there was a genuine possibility one or two of them might say, “Well, I can see their point.” Maybe – just maybe – one of them would slip up and say something that would confirm the fact that conservatives really are violence-loving, rifle-toting, enraged psychopaths.
Unfortunately, despite salivating palettes and “See, I Told You Conservatives Were Bad” demeanors on the part of the mainstream talking heads and print pimps, there simply is no story here. There is no groundswell of conservative violence across America, nor is there any kind of organized movement. A few freaks do not represent nor define how conservatives are wont to handle Obamacratic encroachments on liberty.
Sadly, threats to people in the public eye – including politicians – are made daily. It’s a fact of American life. There are nuts in all sectors of society, left and right, up and down, high and low. The difference, however, is that in the past, such threats have not followed the passage of “historically transforming” legislation enacted by Obamacrats – thus, making them unworthy of air time, bandwidth or page space.
Note that left-wingers are almost never depicted as being inciters of needless violence, nor are the terms “left-wing” or “left” ever used to describe them. Rather, they are portrayed as concerned justice-seekers, compelled to stand for a cause, sometimes forced into unpleasantness by the weight and severity of a given injustice.
That is, unless the act is so heinous, so egregious that it cannot be glossed over.
For instance, is Lee Harvey Oswald ever described as a “left-wing” assassin? If he had been, for instance, a commited fascist instead of a die-hard communist, the words “right-wing” would have become extensions of his name.
Just for fun, I must make it a point to go back through the archives of the major news services and revisit how the “drive-by” media, in all of their objectivity, covered the angry protests of the Left during the Bush administration.
There were probably more Hitler moustaches seen in public during the Bush years than at any time since the days of Joseph Geobbells, but I don’t recall too many stories on the outrage and instability of the “incendiary” Left.
Recall how the letter “s” was given a much-needed rest on protest sign and banner alike, thanks to swastika substitutions in the word “Bush.” Those were the days when dissent was good, remember?
Where was Ann Curry then?
Movies and books that talked about the assassination of George W. Bush must’ve gotten a wealth of coverage as well, although I don’t recall.
And the incivility of students on college campuses across the map attacking such conservative speakers as David Horowitz and Ann Coulter certainly must have had the talking heads expressing concern.
Oh wait …
Posted in health care, Media Bias | Tagged: Ann Curry, backlash against Obamacare, Betsy Markey, health care reform, leftism, Liberalism, Media Bias, Obamacare, Steny Hoyer, threats against Democrats, violent against Democrats | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on March 20, 2010
If this wasn’t Nancy Pelosi, I might shake my head a little harder, a little faster.
It’s at the point now that Pelosi should only warrant mention on this blog if she actually does something noteworthy – like speak coherently or juggle pomegranates with one hand. Truly, if this wasn’t something coming out of the mouth of the most inept and incompetent House Speaker in my lifetime, I might actually be surprised.
Pelosi, apparently, is summoning higher authority in the hope that it will be enough to get ObamaCare passed.
From the woman whose purpose (among others) as a militant Leftocrat is to ensure that as many abortions take place as possible – in the name of “reproductive rights,” mind you – comes the revelation that Nancy Pelosi has been praying to Saint Joseph in the hope that he might sprinkle a little magic dust on the process.
On Friday, Madame Speaker said the following:
Today is the Feast of St. Joseph, the worker – particularly significant to Italian-Americans. And it’s a day where we remember and pray to St. Joseph to benefit the workers of America. And that’s exactly what our health care bill will do.
Along with a whole lot of blah, blah, blah about how the bill is gaining momentum and will be historic (there’s that word again), Pelosi went on to say that she has received letters representing “sixty leaders of religious orders” supporting this “life affirming legislation.”
Life affirming legislation?
It’s obviously no great analytical accomplishment on my part to showcase the absurdly obvious, but that’s still one hell of a ballsy assertion considering that the Catholic Church is adamantly opposed to abortion, and the bill that would become law – the original Senate version – would allow taxpayer dollars to fund the killing of the unborn.
If by “life affirming” Pelosi means everyone except those who have yet to emerge from the womb, those who’ll be dead soon, and those considered disabled, Pelosi may be on to something.
Posted in Big Government, health care, Nancy Pelosi | Tagged: Feast of St. Joseph, health care reform, leftism, Liberalism, Nancy Pelosi, Obamacare, politics, St. Joseph | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on March 18, 2010
This is more like it.
This is the kind of thing that gets us pro-Constitution types singing around the campfire. This is the type of thing that’ll get Obamacrats screeching about us gun-and-God-clinging bigots even more than they already have. In a sense, one could think of this as a kind of legislative tea party – a push back at the soft tyrants running the show in Washington.
Yes, the gesture is largely a symbolic one, but it does matter – except to Democrats, of course.
Thirty-seven states are in line to follow what Idaho did yesterday.
John Miller of the Associated Press writes:
Idaho took the lead in a growing, nationwide fight against health care overhaul Wednesday when its governor became the first to sign a measure requiring the state attorney general to sue the federal government if residents are forced to buy health insurance.
Constitutional law experts say the movement is mostly symbolic because federal laws supersede those of the states.
But the state measures reflect a growing frustration with President President Barack Obama’s health care overhaul.
With Washington closing in on a deal in the months-long battle over health care overhaul, Republican state lawmakers opposed to the measure are stepping up opposition.
(Idaho Governor C. L. “Butch”) Otter, a Republican, said he believes any future lawsuit from Idaho has a legitimate shot of winning, despite what the naysayers say.
“The ivory tower folks will tell you, ‘No, they’re not going anywhere,’ ” he told reporters. “But I’ll tell you what, you get 36 states, that’s a critical mass. That’s a constitutional mass.”
“A constitutional mass,” as Otter calls it – the overwhelming rejection by the American people of this unprecedented encroachment of the federal government on their liberties – is a very good thing, even if it is symbolic; although I’d like to believe that genuine legal action actually could be taken in some form should ObamaCare become the scourge of the land.
Still, the rejection of ObamaCare from every sector of American life is unquestionable … and fascinating to watch.
It’s as if the Body American is reacting instinctively – intuitively – dispatching antibodies to fight the infection of government-run health care. The irony, however, is that the ones reacting without thinking – the ones who are on ideological auto-pilot – are the Democrats.
They are not hearing the American people.
They don’t care what we think.
They’ve told us we will know all about the bill after its been passed. They have tried to sidestep and rework every rule, and still cannot – and will not – accept that they do not have the votes to get it done. They are even attempting a measure that would enable the Senate version of the bill to pass the House without a vote ever having to be taken there – something that would have summoned the lynch mobs had Republicans ever dreamed of doing such a thing.
When the rules get in the way, they change them.
When the people get in the way, they stomp on them.
The funny thing is, the Constititutional process is working, and it pisses off Obamacrats. Thus, they effectively urinate on the Constitution and call it Miracle-Gro.
Just as America rejects ObamaCare, Dems reject Americans, as Congressman Dennis Kucinich proved yesterday, when he admitted that he took his cues on how to vote on the bill from his wife and friends – not his constituency.
Posted in Constitution, Economy, health care, Liberalism | Tagged: Forced to buy health care, Governor Otter, health care reform, Idaho Governor, Obamacare, sue Congress, unconstitutional | Leave a Comment »
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
It’s unclear whether large, dark-clad Obamacrats carrying big sticks will show up at the house of Senator Dick Durbin in the middle of the night for a “friendly visit,” but it’s obvious, he won’t be getting a whole lot of love from the White House – that is, until Durbin can come out and tell us how what he said was misquoted and taken out of context by sinister Republicans. Like most things that come out of the mouths of Democrats, “further clarification” will almost assuredly follow.
Still, Senator Durbin did tell it like it is (and how it will be) – to his credit – and is worthy of a special “quote of the day” space on this blog.
Anyone who would stand before you and say, “Well, if you pass health care reform, next year’s health care premiums are going down,” I don’t think is telling the truth. I think it is likely they would go up. What we’re trying to do is slow the rate of increase.
Although the word “likely” is a bone for the left. There can be no doubt that premiums will go up.
Nice job, Dick.
Posted in health care | Tagged: Dick Durbin, health care debate, health care reform, Obamacare | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on February 25, 2010
I didn’t want them to go.
I admit I was wrong.
Yes, I swore I was only going to pay peripheral attention to this Obama health care summit thing. For the past week I was pecking lightly at the “I Couldn’t Care Less” snack platter. The whole notion of Barack Obama holding court with those he treats worse – and sees as more of an enemy – than Hugo Chavez and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was a joke of epic proportion. I saw the entire thing as a fraud, a no-win situation for Republicans.
Besides, the last thing on earth I was interested in was another one of these Obama “summits.” Using the word “Obama” and “summit” in the same sentence is like saying “Jimmy Carter” and “national security” in the same breath.
Yet, thus far, I have been surprised – although I shouldn’t be. I have been entertained – although I didn’t want to be. For our President, it has proven to be a carnival of unparalleled arrogance, worthy of a slot on the Gershwin Theater stage.
No one does it better.
Along with the fact that the smooth-talking, well-dressed Chicagoland socialist has looked wholly unprepared for the questions and commentary he was fielding this morning, it is obvious that he hasn’t even read the health care bills that are being discussed, unlike the Republicans who have come in primed and ready. Stellar performances by people like Congressman Eric Cantor of Virginia, who clearly has read the bill – and quite literally confronted the President on actual portions of the proposed legislation – has made the stumbling, bumbling Chief Executive look foolish.
Of course, Bammy didn’t need Cantor’s help for that.
If ever there was a human in need of a teleprompter, it is Barack Obama.
It’s quite comical.
At every turn, the President has managed to criticize the method by which Republicans are taking this bill to task.
As expected, everything the Republicans say is unhelpful to the process. Republican criticisms of the health care bill are political ploys to obstruct. Using or referring to the 2,000-plus page health care bills to make points is a distraction of “props.” So, while Republicans weathered messianic criticism for resorting to visual aids, Democrat Senator Tom Harkin from Iowa – and others – read emotional letters from constituents without ever being accused of “prop manipulation.”
As expected, Democrats rarely addressed the bill itself, instead playing the emotion card as often as possible.
You can do that when you think Americans are idots.
But the highlight of the day thus far – the thing everyone has been, and will be, talking about – is the Monument to Arrogance erected by the messiah himself when speaking to John McCain. It is this moment alone that has made this “summit” worthwhile.
Following remarks made by Senator John McCain, the President – with a pomposity and superiority that would have made Lady Gaga seem timid – responded, “Let me just make this point, John … because we’re not campaigning anymore. The election’s over.”
McCain retorted, “I’m reminded of that everyday.”
(What he should have said is that America is reminded of that everyday).
Is Barack Obama kidding? He lives in campaign mode. His entire political life is campaign mode. He is a revolving bumper sticker dispenser in well-tailored suits. He is Bromide-Man, able to leap over reality in a single bound.
It’s as obvious as the ears that dangle on his head that he hasn’t read the health care bill, and thus speaks about it in campaign buzz phrases. To accuse McCain – who ran his campaign like Air America ran their radio network – of being in campaign mode is beyond hilarious.
Incidentally, during this morning’s session, out of 164 total minutes of discussion time, Democrats had spoke for 108 of those minutes. Republicans spoke for 56.
Out of the 108 Democrat minutes, President Obama spoke for 58 of them.
Of course, that doesn’t count, according to Bam.
He’s the President, after all.
Posted in health care | Tagged: "conservative blog", Barack Obama, CSPAN health care debates, Eric Cantor, health care reform, Health Care Summit | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on February 25, 2010
Congressman Anthony Weiner
I live in New York, so I am well acquainted with the bellicose sniveling of Congressman Anthony Weiner. If ever there was a quintessential poster child for a New York Democrat, Mr. Weiner is it. To Weiner, the self-sufficient among us are involuntarily obligated to carry the load for everyone else through incentive-raping taxes and government-led smackdowns of free enterprise. Corporations, big businesses, wealthy people and, of course, conservatives are to blame for everything wrong in society and need to be roundly punished for whatever successes they’ve amassed. After all, achievement is largely a matter of luck, inheritance, and successful cheating, right?
On the floor of the House of Representatives, pulling out his “corporations are evil” card, Weiner called Republicans a “wholly owned subsidiary” of the insurance companies. Granted, it wasn’t a particularly intelligent or original thought – he is a liberal’s liberal, after all – but because he happens to be quite good at class warfare rhetoric, I thought it was worthy of mentioning.
After some objections, Weiner decided to revise his comments by being less general in his assertions, saying that every Republican he had ever met is wholly owned by the insurance companies.
Gee, that was better.
That Weiner and all Democrats are wholly owned by the teacher and labor unions is probably largely irrelevant.
That Weiner and the Democrats are wholly owned by enviro-fascists, pro-abortionists, the race-baiting left and the New York Times probably means nothing.
And despite the fact that the cost of a college education has gone through the stratosphere in recent years – and no one on the left seems to be complaining about the out-of-control education industry – the fact that Weiner and the Democrats are wholly owned by big education probably should be overlooked.
Just ignore the man behind the curtain.
“Wholly owned by the insurance companies”?
In what way?
What in the world in Weiner talking about?
I honestly believe that liberals do not know what it is they’re actually saying. They’re like Slinkies. They just reflexively move along – alone or in pairs – until they can’t anymore.
I know this is a difficult point for leftocrats to comprehend, but I’ll try to write in small letters …. Dems like Weiner can blame the Republicans all they like, but up until a short time ago, it was the Democrat Party that had super majorities on both houses of congress. They should have been able to pass through a peptic ulcer with that kind of power. They blew it – not the GOP.
That the Dems couldn’t get anything passed for President Obama’s salivating pen has nothing – repeat nothing – to do with Republican dissent.
Not a damn thing.
Other than Republicans are on the right side of the issue, of course.
Posted in health care, leftism, Liberalism | Tagged: "wholly owned", Anthony Weiner, Democrats, health care bill, health care reform, Insurance Companies, leftist, Liberalism, Republicans | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on January 21, 2010
When you’re on the left, and you’re President of the United States, and your perceived ability to save human kind from itself by virtue of your existence has faded like belief in the Tooth Fairy, and only one year into what was to be a magical Messianic Age is the cold hard reality that America is not nearly as gullible as you had thought (or hoped), and when even the persistently annoying Marxist agenda-peddler Paul Krugman of the New York Times is slinging daggers at you, it may be time to re-evaluate.
Krugman, like other lefties, is caught in the whirlwind of his own tizzy-fit, anguished and frazzled, woebegone and farklempt, devastated and relegating himself to the painful truth that President Obama is not the one we’ve been waiting for. On that score, Krugman and I can agree – but his is a disappointment in the fact that Obama has not been able to yank the nation into the periphery of common sense, where the far left lives. His disenchantment is in the reality that the brilliant rhetoric-huckster from the golden campaign-trail days has been replaced by an over-teleprompted, over-exposed, over-rated political laggard without a scintilla of executive experience and no idea how to lead.
The stimulus bill wasn’t big enough. The President didn’t blame George Bush enough. The banks got off too easy. Blah, blah, blah …
His – *gulp* – doubts are being confirmed.
Health care reform — which is crucial for millions of Americans — hangs in the balance. Progressives are desperately in need of leadership; more specifically, House Democrats need to be told to pass the Senate bill, which isn’t what they wanted but is vastly better than nothing. And what we get from the great progressive hope, the man who was offering hope and change, is this:
“I would advise that we try to move quickly to coalesce around those elements of the package that people agree on. We know that we need insurance reform, that the health insurance companies are taking advantage of people. We know that we have to have some form of cost containment because if we don’t, then our budgets are going to blow up and we know that small businesses are going to need help so that they can provide health insurance to their families. Those are the core, some of the core elements of, to this bill. Now I think there’s some things in there that people don’t like and legitimately don’t like.”
In short, “Run away, run away”!
Maybe House Democrats can pull this out, even with a gaping hole in White House leadership. Barney Frank seems to have thought better of his initial defeatism. But I have to say, I’m pretty close to giving up on Mr. Obama, who seems determined to confirm every doubt I and others ever had about whether he was ready to fight for what his supporters believed in.
I’ll reiterate that there isn’t a chance in hell that House Democrats sign onto the Senate version of Obamacare – or “LeftCare,” as talk show host Dennis Prager calls it. To Krugman, and others of the far leftist creed, House Dems need to summon the courage to be able to awaken the frightened inner socialist within – their conscience, he would say – forget about Scott Brown’s victory in Massachusetts, and do what’s right for the American people. To Krugman, doing something is better than doing nothing – vastly better, he says.
And if it all can be blamed on George W. Bush, all the better.
But simply “doing something” for the sake of doing something is precisely what 52.7% of Americans did in November, 2008 by electing the enormously under qualified and unmistakably overwhelmed candidate for the world’s most important elective office.
A year and a day into the Messianic Age, it’s all worked out so wonderfully, hasn’t it, Paul?
Posted in Big Government, health care, leftism | Tagged: Barack Obama, health care reform, Paul Krugman | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on January 20, 2010
The dancing in the streets has subsided, the sun has risen on a brand new day, the reality has sunken in, and the Democrat supermajority is history. The morning after the racist, homophobe from the Bay State snagged the empty Senate seat left behind by a half-century of Teddy, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts – and, indeed, all of America – is poised to move into uncharted, post-Kennedy territory.
It’s a strange new world.
Regardless of what the spinsters on the Left say; despite the tripe that’ll fly from the mouths of Obamacrat and pundit alike; no matter what the apologists and disciples hawk, this most definitely was a referendum on the Obama administration. Indeed, this was a national election. This was an indictment of Obamacrat leftism. This was a huge smackback in the face of the President and his vastly unpopular, radical initiative of health care reform.
Without a heavy diet of hallucinogens, there is simply no other way to spin it.
Scott Brown, a Republican, is Massachusetts’s next Senator – only weeks removed from being down by double-digits in the polls against the contemptible Leftocrat, Martha Coakley – but he is, more importantly, this nation’s symbol of how peaceful revolutions are conducted. (What a difference one year makes). What was, by any stretch of the imagination, an impossibility, is now a shocking reality. The idea that a Republican would replace Ted Kennedy in a state where left is center, center is right, and right is Hitler, is unthinkable.
The fact is, the atrocity that is Barack Obama’s health care reform took a big hit last night.
But don’t worry. That won’t stop Dems from quickly regrouping and trying to figure out other subversive, dishonest and underhanded ways to get health care done, despite the wishes of the American people; despite the glaring message sent to Washington last night with the election of Scott Brown; despite the deposing of Democrat governors in New Jersey and Virginia; despite disastrous poll numbers.
They still know best … and they’ll tell you so.
Dems still have two words up their sleeves: Nuclear Option.
A few hours before Brown was declared the winner, Trish Turner at Fox News wrote:
A top Senate Democrat for the first time Tuesday acknowledged that the party is prepared to deal with health care reform by using a controversial legislative tactic known as the “nuclear option” if Republican Scott Brown wins the Massachusetts Senate election.
Calling the state’s special election “an uphill battle to put it mildly,” Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin, D-Ill., said “there are options to still pursue health care” should Democrat Martha Coakley lose to Brown.
Well, Coakley did lose to Brown, and don’t think for a single moment that some donkeys aren’t banging their skulls together trying to figure out a way to go nuclear.
…Durbin said, the Senate could make changes to the bill by using the nuclear option, known formally as “reconciliation,” a tactic that would allow Democrats to adjust parts of health care reform with just a 51-vote majority.
“We could go to something called ‘reconciliation’, which is in the weeds procedurally, but would allow us to modify that health care bill by a different process that doesn’t require 60 votes, only a majority,” Durbin said. “So that is one possibility there.”
But other Democrats are saying it would be political suicide to move forward and not recognize that last night’s victory by Brown was, indeed, a referendum on not only ObamaCare but on how the government operates.
Susan Davis at the Wall Street Journal writes:
Virginia Democratic Sen. Jim Webb is calling for a time-out on the health care overhaul until Republican Sen.-elect Scott Brown is seated following his upset victory in the Massachusetts Senate race.
Calling the race “a referendum not only on health care reform but also on the openness and integrity of our government process” Webb said Democrats need to hold off on further action until Brown is formally sworn in to the chamber.
“It is vital that we restore the respect of the American people in our system of government and in our leaders. To that end, I believe it would only be fair and prudent that we suspend further votes on health care legislation until Senator-elect Brown is seated,” he said.
The chances that the House will simply go along with the Senate version of the bill is on par with wishing for world peace or a Chicago Cubs World Series appearance.
It just isn’t going to happen.
Congressman Stephen Lynch from Massachusetts said it best: “If it comes down to that Senate bill or nothing, I think we are going to end with nothing because I don’t hear a lot of support on our side for that bill.”
Last night’s stunning win for Brown will send enough Dems scrambling to the railings of the good ship ObamaCare to stop the bill in its tracks, despite the bloviations of Madame Speaker. Nancy Pelosi, of course, has pledged to move forward, no matter what – through typhoon, flood and botox – to make sure a health care bill passes as soon as humanly possible.
But even Congressman Barney Frank has caught a whiff from the political coffee pot:
“I have two reactions to the election in Massachusetts. One, I am disappointed. Two, I feel strongly that the Democratic majority in Congress must respect the process and make no effort to bypass the electoral results. If Martha Coakley had won, I believe we could have worked out a reasonable compromise between the House and Senate health care bills. But since Scott Brown has won and the Republicans now have 41 votes in the Senate, that approach is no longer appropriate. I am hopeful that some Republican Senators will be willing to discuss a revised version of health care reform because I do not think that the country would be well-served by the health care status quo. But our respect for democratic procedures must rule out any effort to pass a health care bill as if the Massachusetts election had not happened. “
Sometimes, even Democrats can read the writing on the wall.
Some of them anyway.
It speaks volumes that Democrats consider themselves defeated, even with 59 Seante seats. The Obamacrat agenda is so radical, so out-of-touch with America, they know only a supermajority could ever push it through.
And that says it all.
Posted in Elections, health care, Uncategorized | Tagged: "conservative blog", 41 Republican Senators, health care debate, health care reform, Martha Coakley, Massachusetts Senate seat, Nuclear Option, Obamacare, Scott Brown | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on January 19, 2010
As Democrats shiver in their political moccasins anticipating what will be a devastating loss in Massachusetts should the Republican, Scott Brown, seize Ted Kennedy’s old Senate seat later today, the real issue of what will happen to health care reform without a donkey supermajority looms large. While House Speaker Nancy Pelosi vows that a health care bill will pass no matter what happens, including a Brown victory, others are not so sure – or arrogant.
Democrat congressman Anthony Weiner from New York has been as honest as anyone in understanding how crushing of a defeat it will be for his party – and health care reform – should the detestable Martha Coakley lose to Scott.
On today’s edition of “Morning Joe” on MSNBC, Weiner had the following exchange with one of the panel members:
Panel Guy: Let’s say, for argument’s sake, she loses. Let’s just assume that for a moment. What happens to health care? We’ve heard that, perhaps, the Senate will ask the House to sign the Senate bill as is. What’s the next move if you only have 59 senators?
Weiner: I think you could make a pretty good argument that health care might be dead.
Panel Guy: Really?
Weiner: Yeah … I think it’s going to be very hard to ask us in the House to take the Senate bill when everyone acknowledges it was a worse bill. Everyone said the only reason we were passing the Senate bill was to move the ball forward.
I happen to agree with Weiner on this one – I just don’t think there’s a Hagen Dazs chance in Hades for the Senate version of ObamaCrap to meet with House approval.
Dems may, indeed, attempt to come up with something through reconciliation, but the process is an arduous one. The already rapidly declining shelf life of health care reform may long have run out by then.
H/T to RealClearPolitics.
Posted in health care | Tagged: "conservative blog", "Morning Joe", Anthony Weiner, health care reform, Massachusetts Senate seat, reconciliation, Scott Brown, special Massachusetts election, Ted Kennedy's Senate seat | 1 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 10, 2010
When conservatives lash out against the most liberal president in the history of the nation, it isn’t exactly earth-shattering. While some arguments against the unprecedented growth of government, loss of liberty, accumulating debt and weakened national security may be more cogent than others, generally speaking, it’s hard to be incoherent when writing about – and rightfully criticizing – the radical transformations taking place under the Obamacrats.
It’s elementary stuff.
However, when dissent rises from the ranks of the mainstream media – default Messianic bedfellows – it can be earth shattering. When one of their own emerges from the refuge and aegis of the leftist womb to serve up some shredded Bammy, it’s tough to ignore. The reasons for his or her anger may be very different than that coming from conservatives, but they are no less relevant.
Enter CNN’s Jack Cafferty.
This has already made the rounds across the conservative blogosphere – and also on some liberal blogs – but I had to acknowledge it. I had to take the time to tip my hat to Cafferty. (Just saying that is uncomfortable).
If you’ve heard it already, it’s worth revisiting. If you haven’t – and you’re on the right side of things, literally and figuratively – it doesn’t get old.
Here’s what he had to say:
How dare they? President Obama and Democratic leaders, have decided to bypass a formal House and Senate Conference Committee in order to reconcile those two health care bills. Instead, White House and Democratic leaders will hold “informal” – that’s another word for secret – negotiations, meant to shut Republicans and the public out of the process.
What a far cry from the election when then-candidate Obama pledged to “broadcast health care negotiations on C-Span, so that the American people can see what the choices are.”
President Obama hasn’t even made a token effort to keep his campaign promises of more openness and transparency in government. It was all just another lie that was told in order to get elected.
The head of C-Span wrote a letter: “Ask Congress to open all the important negotiations, including any Conference Committee meetings, to electronic media coverage.”
When White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs was asked whether the administration would support televising the negotiations, he refused to answer – instead mumbling something about, “I haven’t seen the letter.”
That wasn’t the question, Mr. Gibbs. You either support openness or you don’t.
The Democrats insist this is all on the up-and-up with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi saying, “There’s never been a more open process for any legislation.”
This is the same Nancy Pelosi who, you may recall after becoming Speaker in 2006, promised the Democrats would have “the most honest, most open, and most ethical Congress in history.”
Here’s hoping some of the voters remember this crap when the midterm elections roll around later this year.
This is the same Jack Cafferty who said he will go to his grave believing that George W. Bush and Company are war criminals.
This video link from YouTube has had almost 350,000 hits in a little less than four days.
Posted in health care, Nancy Pelosi, Obama Bonehead | Tagged: C-Span, CNN, commentary, conference committe debates, government transparency, health care debates, health care reform, Jack cafferty, Obamacare | 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 28, 2009
Frum = dumb?
On Christmas Day, while most Americans were celebrating the holiday with their loved ones, columnist David Frum – so-called conservative – had an article published at The Week Online that probably would have served him better had it gone unnoticed. It was his attempt to explain why Obamacare is, in fact, constitutional, despite assertions by some Republicans (Senators Jim DeMint and John Ensign, specifically) that it is not.
I derive no great pleasure in pointing out how embarrassing Frum is on this issue, or how stupid he makes himself sound. I get no kick out of saying how ill-informed and weak this article is, or how laughable he makes himself out to be in the name of “conservatism.” It doesn’t do my heart any good to highlight his intellectual vapidity.
Frankly, I happen to believe passage of this bill would be unconstitutional, but that is not my over-arching point here. Rather, this is about the carelessness of Frum’s assertions and his egregious misstating of facts. This is about an opinion piece from a so-called “conservative” perspective so badly done, it would almost have to be a parody. It’s about a poorly constructed, terribly presented, ill-conceived joke of an article coming from someone who should have stayed away from his word processor last week.
I’ll focus on two small passages.
DeMint’s and Ensign’s argument against the constitutionality of the Obama-Reid health reform rests upon the ancient theory of enumerated powers. Under this theory, Congress may do only what the Constitution specifically authorizes Congress to do. Since (for example) the Constitution speaks only of a Supreme Court, Congress has no power to create lower federal courts. Since the Constitution does not mention a national bank, Congress may not charter banks.
To begin with, the Constitution does grant Congress the power to create lower federal courts – in the plainest of English (Article III, Section I):
The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.
This is one of those “gotcha” moments that is so obvious, so conspicuous, so void of any challenge in counter-arguing his allegation, that it isn’t even fun to take the time to point it out.
Not exactly hidden in the eminations and penumbras, is it?
As far as the Constitution not mentioning a national bank, Frum is absolutely right. In fact, Thomas Jefferson took what would today be called the “strict constructionist’s” position in opposing Alexander Hamilton’s initiative of establishing the First Bank of the United States. Hamilton argued that the “Necessary and Proper Clause” of the Constitution authorized the federal government to execute already existing powers enumerated in the Constitution – taxation, in this case – and thus, allowed for the establishment of the bank (later upheld in McCulloch v. Maryland –1819).
But what Constitutional passage authorizes the federal government to compel its citizens to purchase health insurance?
What already enumerated power grants the federal government such authority?
Where in the Constitution can it even be suggested that Congress shall have the power (enumerated or implied) to force citizens to purchase anything?
A fair question, no?
And as far as Frum’s “ancient theory of enumerated powers” remark is concerned, I must ask … is it possible for one person to be as blatantly wrong as he is arrogant? Does the word “stupid” fit?
Did Frum put any thought into his piece at all?
While no one can deny that a “limited powers” argument – at least in terms of the Framers’ interpretation – is a difficult one to make in today’s day and age of endless entitlements and endless bureacracy, how can he contend with a straight face that enumerated powers are an “ancient theory?”
Are there no boundaries then on what Congress may do? Is there no whim or agenda beyond restraint?
If Congress can, essentially, do whatever it damn well pleases, as Frum’s argument seems to suggest – even under the authority of the “Necessary and Proper Clause” – what would be the point of acknowledging enumerated powers to begin with?
Why recognizee them at all? Why not just make it up as they go along?
Mr. Frum seems to believe that today’s conservative should just roll over and concede that ever-expanding government is a foregone conclusion. It’s just a matter of pushing back a little every now and then to keep things honest. Those antiquated “limited government” principles are quaint and all, but they have no relevance today.
He also writes:
The federal government already requires every American to purchase health insurance. That’s what Medicare does. The difference now is that everyone will be required to buy a private plan to cover them up to age 65 in addition to the government-run plan they are compelled to buy to cover them after 65.
This may be the most embarrassing paragraph of all.
Let’s be clear … Medicare is a tax. American citizens who earn income via wages are required to pay this tax. The money collected from this tax is intended to be returned in the form of government benefits (i.e., Medicare). That’s how it is set up to function. Simple really.
ObamaCare, by contrast, makes it illegal not to purchase a free-market good from a private entity. It literally requires one to buy something or else be punished. The fines from such a punishment would then be collected as a tax. Jail time is a possibility, too.
How in the world is that constitutional?
Congress has never mandated that its citizens purchase anything at any time.
There is no precedent.
Recall that President Franklin Roosevelt tried to initially peddle Social Security as a compulsory insurance plan. It didn’t fly. Eventually, it was sold as a mandatory tax.
But even Alexander Hamilton did not believe that Congress’ charge to “provide for the … general welfare” gave it the power to do as it saw fit. He actually sounded much like Jefferson and Madison on the matter when authoring his Federalist essays. While he believed the First Bank of the United States was a constitutional venture because it was necessary in the federal government’s function to “collect taxes” as enumerated in Article I, Section VIII, he still took a very narrow view of providing for the “general welfare” – far different than today’s big-government, liberty-crushing Obamacrats see it.
In arguing against the Bill of Rights in Federalist 84, for example, Hamilton wrote:
I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous.
They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power. They might urge with a semblance of reason, that the Constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority which was not given, and that the provision against restraining the liberty of the press afforded a clear implication, that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it was intended to be vested in the national government.
This may serve as a specimen of the numerous handles which would be given to the doctrine of constructive powers, by the indulgence of an injudicious zeal for bills of rights.
These sound like the opinions of a man who would, today, be called a “strict constructionist” – even though he was a Federalist (the opposition party of Jefferson’s Democratic-Republicans).
To Frum, the thoughts and interpretations of the “ancient ones” – those who who were actually there at the Constitution’s creation – have little relevance today.
Kind of like Frum in the arena of ideas.
Posted in Constitution, health care, RINO, Taxes | Tagged: Constitution, David Frum, Enumerated Powers, health care bill, health care reform, Necessary and Proper Clause, Obamacare | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on December 24, 2009
When Harry met Nancy
The function of a journalist long ago metastasized from being one that reports what is happening in as objective a manner as possible to one who fancies himself (or herself) a kind of modern day crusader, desirous of righting the wrongs around them, revealing injustices, and saving the planet from second-hand smoke, greenhouse gases, God, and conservatives (quite possibly in that order).
Interesting is how the glossy veneer of the mainstream media’s troubling charade continues to remain uncompromised – amongst themselves. Their facade of impartiality is still foisted onto the American people daily, but because they exist primarily within their own forest, they almost always miss the trees. They distinguish themselves as straight down the middle, detached from affiliation, objective purveyors of whatever they deem to be news, ready to involuntary activate the “neutral” switch when the situation calls for it. (Recall the famous line attributed to theater critic Pauline Kael in 1972 after Richard Nixon’s landslide victory: “How could Nixon have won? I don’t know anyone who voted for him.” Whether the quote is apocryphal or not is irrelevant, because the sentiment, as it pertains to the relationship between the main stream media and the rest of the country, is spot on). Media bias is not self-evident primarily because the mainstreamers find themselves in a fraternity that is overwhelmingly liberal (i.e., normal).
The concept of mainstream media objectivity is certainly pleasant enough – much like calorie-free milk chocolate or world peace – but not very realistic.
Some can adhere to it.
Think of how the mainstream media would be covering this wham-bam-thank-you-ma’am health bill that passed the Senate earlier today if Republicans were in charge. Try and imagine the level of outrage and indignation that would be leveled at GOPers had a bunch of sweetheart deals been brokered for Republican pet projects in order to get this unread, unreviewed, two-thousand page legislative atrocity passed. How many times do you think the word “tyranny” would have been tossed about by the punditocracy? How often would the American people be hearing about “the least transparent administration in history” or the “cloak and dagger” way the President is running his ship? Would the media stand for it? Or bend over for it?
Now that reconcilliation is next on the docket, how, pray tell, would the media handle a not too far-fetched scenario being suggested by John Fund of the Wall Street Journal, where the tag-team tandem of Pelosi and Reid all but thumb their noses at the process of trying to reconcile the House and Senate versions of the bill in conference, sidestepping protocol, tradition and accountability? How would the mainstream media report on GOP attempts to breach every code of conduct, foregoing the normal process of coming up with a compromise between the two houses, so that a bill could be rushed through to passage without the opportunity for the American people to know what’s in it?
John Fund of the Wall Street Journal writes:
Look for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to try to circumvent the traditional conference committee process by which the different versions of health care reform passed by each house will be reconciled. If so, it will be the latest example of violating principles of transparency and accountability in the single-minded pursuit of legislative victory.
Mr. Reid and Ms. Pelosi would love to come up with a way to bash heads in private and skip any public discussion that further reveals just how incoherent and unworkable both the bills are. Luckily, there is a subterfuge readily available that wouldn’t require the House to swallow the Senate’s bill unchanged but also ducks the traditional give-and-take of the conference committee.
When Democrats took over Congress in 2007, they increasingly did not send bills through the regular conference process. “We have to defer to the bigger picture,” explained Rep. Henry Waxman of California. So the children’s health insurance bill passed by the House that year was largely dumped in favor of the Senate’s version. House Ways and Means Chairman Charles Rangel and other Democrats complained the House had been “cut off at the knees” but ultimately supported the bill. Legislation on lobbying reform and the 2007 energy bill were handled the same way — without appointing an actual conference.
Rather than appoint members to a public conference committee, those measures were “ping-ponged” — i.e. changes to reconcile the two versions were transmitted by messenger between the two houses as the final product was crafted behind closed doors solely by the leadership. Many Democrats grumbled at the secrecy. “We need to get back to the point where we use conference committees . . . and have serious dialogue,” said Rep. Artur Davis of Alabama at the time.
But serious dialogue isn’t what Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid are interested in right now. Look for the traditional conference committee to be replaced by a “ping-pong” game in which health care is finalized behind closed doors with little public scrutiny before the bill is rushed to the floor of each chamber for a final vote.
Now that the Democrats have got their Senate bill passed, just in time for turkey and mistletoe, be prepared for a cavalcade of lies about how “the American people want this change,” and “Last November, the American people chose to move in a new direction,” and whatever else they’ll say to stir the stomach acids of a bamboozled American public. Brace yourself for a whole lot of nauseating “blah, blah, blah” and gut-churning “yada, yada, yada.” Expect to hear the word “historic” a few thousand times, and waist-deep-in-the-fertilizer deceptions about how the deficit will actually be lowered thanks to the eventual passage of this disastrous bill into law. Get ready for dancing Democrats to find their way to every camera within spitting distance, sporting that look of sweet victory, claiming that the American people are the real winners. (Barf bag manufacturers might make a killing over the next few days).
It will be as disgusting a display as one could imagine – donkey faces all aglow in the fleeting hours before Christmas as they move that much closer to grabbing 16% of the American economy and crushing our liberties.
Merry Christmas, indeed.
There isn’t a device in all the world capable of measuring how utterly unfathomable and unAmerican Congress’ actions have been up to this point in getting this bill passed.
It is stunning.
The most transparent administration in history?
Posted in Big Government, Harry Reid, health care, Liberalism, Nancy Pelosi, politics | Tagged: 60-39, health care bill, health care reform, Obamacare, RediCare, Senate health care bill | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on December 23, 2009
Senator Dodd - $100 million for a hospital
There is no question in my mind that many of the sixty Senators who will be voting to pass this monstrosity of a health care reform bill – and thus, voting to strip Americans of their liberty – genuinely do believe that what they’re doing is good for America. I have no doubt that a sizeable percentage of Senate Dems actually believe in their hearts – where all liberal policy-making emanates – that the government takeover of 16% of the American economy is a positive thing. Indeed, it is hard to imagine that anyone with a reasonable mind could actually look at this bill and feel good about its potential to live up to the fairy-tales Dems are peddling, but there are many who genuinely do.
Some of them get in front of cameras and burble about how critical it is to make insurance more affordable for everyone. Some truly subscribe to the notion that only government is capable of such a thing. Others cackle about the moral imperative in passing it – how it’s the right thing to do. Still others ramble on about this bill’s fiscal soundness and how deficits will actually be lowered over a period of years, blah, blah, blah.
Senator Nelson - Everyone else pays for Medicaid
Profoundly misguided as this group of Senators is – and as dangerous to this country as they are – these people are not the truly despicable ones. Indeed, there can be no doubt that passage of this who-did-it-and-ran bill would be disgraceful and immeasurably damaging to this nation. But those who really believe this unprecedented expansion of government and liberty-eroding power play will work are not nearly as contemptible as those who allowed their vote to be bought.
Two questions I used to regularly ask of man-made global warming zealots was: If the world was, in fact, warming, and it could be proven, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that human activity had absolutely no role in it whatsoever, would it still matter to you? And if, indeed, rising temperatures are as much of a threat to the planet’s well-being as you claim, does it matter what’s causing it?
Indeed, the political game is played by brokering deals, shoveling promises, and bribing the fence-sitters. No can deny that.
Mary Landrieu from Louisiana scored $300 million for her state.
Ben Nelson from Nebraska sold out the unborn and made the other forty-nine states foot his state’s Medicaid bills.
Senator Landrieu - $300 million for Louisiana
Chris Dodd from Connecticut secured $100 million for a hospital.
But this bill is unique in that it is set to transform forever the American economy and health care delivery system on a scale no one could have imagined even one year ago. It is slated to increase government involvement in our lives in a way that has not been seen or conceived of before. It will, for the first time, mandate that Americans purchase a specific product or else be subject to penalties. It will promise fines and even jail sentences for those who do not comply. It is a bill that has been hotfooted through the Senate – a bill that wasn’t even seen by the public until Saturday of last week – so that some arbitrary Christmas deadline can be met. It is a bill that has garnered less scrutiny and discussion time than some railroad crossing bills have, yet it will seize for the federal government nearly one fifth of the American economy.
Two questions for all of those who were promised goodies in exchange for their vote: If it could be proven, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that ObamaCare would cripple this nation financially and cause the quality of health care to decline, would you then turn down the goodies promised your state? And if, indeed, America is really suffering from a health care crisis of epic proportion as you claim, why is a sweetheart deal necessary to bring you on board to fix that crisis?
Democrats, if I may … Is doing the right thing dependant on what you can get in return?
Posted in Harry Reid, health care, politics | Tagged: Ben Nelson, Chris Dodd, health care bill, health care reform, Mary Landrieu, Obamacare, ReidCare, sweetheart deals | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on December 22, 2009
Senator Lindsey Graham
Zip, at the great Weasel Zippers blog, wrote precisely what I was thinking about South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham: “For once I can wholeheartedly agree with Graham.”
It does sound funny to say, I admit.
To be fair, Graham was quite good – great, in fact – in questioning Attorney General Eric Holder not too long ago about President Obama’s decision (and make no mistake about it, it was Obama’s decision) to try the mastermind of the 9/11 terrorist attacks in civilian court.
Obviously, it isn’t unheard of that Graham would say something that makes sense. It just doesn’t happen as often as it should.
For instance, on Sunday, he was definitely on his game when he said that the agreements reached with various Senators leading up to the passage of Harry Reid’s “manager’s amendment” was the result of “seedy Chicago politics.”
Today, Graham was even better.
Earlier, Graham said that the deal given to the State of Nebraska in exchange for Ben Nelson’s support of ObamaCare (or ReidCare, if you prefer) may be Constitutionally unsound.
Susan Jones, Senior Editor at CSN News writes:
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) is blasting the deal Democrats made with Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) in exchange for Nelson’s vote to advance the health care bill.
In exchange for Nelson’s critical 60th vote to cut off debate early Monday morning, Sen. Harry Reid agreed that the federal government would pick up 100 percent of the tab for the planned Medicaid expansion in Nebraska – forever.
“Legally, I think other states can make a constitutional challenge,” Graham said in an appearance on Fox & Friends Tuesday morning.
Instead of negotiating in public, there was a back-room deal, Graham said. “It goes sort of like this,” Graham said, imitating Democratic leaders:
“What do you need, Ben, for this last vote? Well, I tell you what, Medicaid’s expanding under this bill for everybody in the country…Ben, what would happen if we let Nebraska expand their Medicaid enrollment and the federal government pay for it?’”
“Done!’” Graham said, imitating Ben Nelson.
Graham recited a list of things that are not fair about the Democrats’ health care bill – including the unfairness of giving a special deal to the people of Nebraska to get one senator’s vote “and not share that deal with the rest of the country.”
One can make the argument – and a damn good one – that Ben Nelson’s sweetheart buy-out does not pass the constitutional smell taste. The notion that one state should be singled out for non-emergency preferential treatment under a federal law (unlike disaster relief after a hurricane, for example) at the expense of other states might prompt some sort of constitutional challenge. In effect, the feds would be commanding other states to foot Nebraska’s bill for Medicaid. It might be enough to get some eagle-eyed constitutionalists wondering if such a thing doesn’t violate the tenth amendment. Maybe even the fourteenth.
Earlier today, on his talk radio program, Dennis Prager was speaking with Martin Gross, bestselling New York Times author of such books as “National Suicide: How Washington is Destroying the American Dream” and “The Government Racket: Washington Waste From A to Z”:
Gross: [The federal government is} now telling the states that they have to pay for Nebraska. All the Republicans have to do is have an emergency call of the Supreme Court and point out that it’s a “crisis,” and have the Court, within a week, give a decision. And the Court – unless they’re illiterate in a judicial sense – they’re going to say it’s unconstitutional to get Nebraska off the hook when you have a health care bill.
And the Republicans should do it very rapidly, get a decision, and the bill will be dead, because it is plainly unconstitutional. It violates the federal and state compacts of the Tenth Amendment.
Prager: I will pose this question to Senator Kyle tomorrow.
Gross: Good. Good. Good.
Prager: have you posed this to any Republicans in office?
Gross: This is the first time I’ve mentioned it.
Prager: With all your knowledge, you do not know of a precedent of a federal bill – a congressional bill – that isolated a state?
Gross: Never before in history. They’re giving [Louisiana Senator Mary] Landrieu the $300 billion because of the disaster in New Orleans. That might pass or it might not pass. But the Nebraska thing is a pure anti-Constitutional violation of the Tenth Amendment which specifies federal and state opportunities and obligations. You cannot take from New York and Connecticut and give it to Nebraska – not only for an emergency period – this is forever.
Another point of constitutionality could be in the fact that this bill requires people to purchase health insurance. Earlier today, Nevada Senator John Ensign said, “”I don’t believe Congress has the legal or moral authority to force this mandate on its citizens.”
And while there is obviously nothing in the Constitution requiring American citizens to purchase anything, ObamaCare proponents will fall back on the old stand-by of citing the Commerce Clause as its reason for annexing 16% of the American economy. (You knew that was coming).
What doesn’t the Commerce Clause cover in lib-world? It is the justification for everything leftocrats feel they need to be in control of for the betterment of the nation. It gets more of a workout than Tiger Woods’ wood. (Golf club, I mean).
And for those who like to use the requirement of automobile insurance as a means of validating mandatory health care, the comparison is painfully flawed. First, the main purpose of auto insurance is not – repeat not – to make sure drivers themselves are covered. It’s to make sure that other drivers are covered in the event of an accident. Second, auto insurance is only required if one chooses to drive. Third, auto insurance is not a federal issue. It is a state issue.
Assuming that a health care bill eventually does become law – after what will be, at the very minimum, a whole lot of screamin and yelling between House and Senate Dems – and these constitutional challenges do, indeed, make it to the Supreme Court, it becomes abundantly clear why it is absolutely necessary to elect the right people to the Presidency (literally and figuratively).
It is the Chief Executive who appoints justices to the Supreme Court.
If, for instance, the moderate John McCain would have won the election last November, and the question of this health care law’s constitutionality came before the Supreme Court with an appointee of his as David Souter’s replacement – a strict constructionist – the bill would almost certainly face the death it deserves … which it may anyway.
There is hardly a Presidential legacy more enduring than whom he appoints to the Supreme Court – except maybe that of government run health care.
Posted in Constitution, Harry Reid, health care, politics | Tagged: Dennis Prager, Harry Reid, health care bill, health care reform, John Ensign, Lindsey Graham, mandatory health care, Martin L. Gross, Obamacare, ReidCare, unconstitutional | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on December 19, 2009
As midnight approached last evening, reports started surfacing via the news wires that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid appeared to be very close to securing the 60 votes he needs to get radical health care reform – ObamaCare – passed in the Senate.
That means he may have found a way to win over Ben Nelson, Democrat Senator from Nebraska.
And that ain’t good.
Yesterday Reid spent most of the day meeting with Nelson – the lone Democrat holdout – trying to woo him back into the donkey fold. Apparently, the negotiations were quite successful. Nelson himself said that “real progress” was made.
It sort of gives you that warm and fuzzy feeling inside, doesn’t it? Like a coat hangar ripping out your gut.
Patrick Yoest with Dow Jones Newswires, via the Wall Street Journal posted this:
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.) appeared close Friday to securing the needed votes to pass sweeping health-care overhaul legislation, as senators shuttled to his office to work out a last-minute compromise on abortion … Nelson said late Friday after a negotiating session in Reid’s office that “real progress” has been made on a compromise and indicated that the two sides are looking closely at language aimed at bridging the two sides’ differences on abortion.
Reid spokesman Jim Manley said that Friday was “a day of long, hard negotiations,” but that senators “made great progress and are pleased with how the discussions have proceeded.”
Democrats sought language on the abortion issue that would satisfy Nelson, who previously sought language similar to that in a House-passed version of health-care legislation that effectively bars insurance plans receiving any federal subsidies from offering coverage for abortion for any of their enrollees.
WKOW-TV in Madison, Wisconsin reports:
Nelson has been seeking stricter abortion language and said new concepts he’s been offered may accomplish the goal of barring federal funding for abortion. He also reported progress on addressing his concerns over the costs to Nebraska of an expansion of Medicaid.
The talks were expected to continue Friday night and Saturday morning.
Dems want to see this monstrosity passed by Christmas Day.
In order for that to happen, a lot of things have to fall into place.
Later today – sometime after 7:30AM (after the Department of Defense Appropriations Bill is voted on) – focus will shift back to health care. There will be three total motions filed by Harry Reid – each one requiring thirty hours of debate time before a vote can be taken.
He is expected to file what is known as a “manager’s amendment” – a version of the health care bill that is inclusive of all the changes to the original 2000-plus page bill currently in the Senate.
After Reid files the “manager’s amendment,” it will be read aloud – something that could take anywhere from 10 to 11 hours.
From the time the reading of the bill is completed, thirty hours of debate time is required before the first cloture vote on the “manager’s amendment” can take place.
So, let’s say, for the sake of argument, the “manager’s amendment” is filed at 8:00AM this morning. The bill is then read aloud for eleven hours, which takes us to 7:00PM tonight. After that, 30 hours of debate brings us to approximately 2:00AM Monday morning. That’s when the first cloture vote is taken.
Thirty hours after that – approximately 8:00AM Tuesday morning – the second cloture vote takes place (the substitute amendment).
Then, thirty hours after that – approximately 2:00PM Wednesday afternoon – the shell bill or underlying bill (inclusive of all changes and amendments) will come up for what will be the third cloture vote.
Thirty hours after that – approximately 8:00PM on Christmas Eve – the final vote on the whole deal will take place.
That’s the breakdown.
God help us.
Update December 19, 2009 – 9:52 AM
The Senate, as expected, approved the $636 billion Department of Defense Appropriations Bill this morning. That means the road to ObamaCare is officially open – and if there’s any truth to the reports circulating this morning, Ben Nelson has crumbled. Dems have got their sixty.
Posted in Harry Reid, health care, politics | Tagged: Ben Nelson, cloture, Harry Reid, health care bill, health care reform, Obamacare, Senate cloture votes | 2 Comments »
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 8, 2009
If not for racism, sexism, homophobia, xenophobia and any other “ism” or “phobia” they can exploit, exactly what points of argument would liberals ever use to defend their positions? If the issue cannot be compared to some social injustice of the past, or if the policy cannot be framed around tapping into the raw emotions of constituents, or if the opposition cannot be marginalized and characterized as the spawns of Satan, how would liberals ever be able to convince anyone of anything?
To say that Senate Majority leader Harry Reid is beneath dignity is to assume he possesses any – and I’m not prepared to make that leap. The man is a veritable fountain of imbecility, never once failing to prove the point when afforded the opportunity. Even if he never spoke another foolish word, he has long since removed all doubt.
But speak he did from the Senate floor yesterday morning – with an inflection of numbskullery that would make Joe Biden proud.
With the prowess and grace of a can of mushroom soup, and a command of history rivaled by only Congressman Alan “Our Healthcare System is like a Holocaust” Grayson of Florida, Senator Reid said that Republicans who oppose ObamaCare are modern day versions of those who opposed abolishing slavery and affording women the right to vote.
He didn’t go as far as calling GOPers baby rapists, but Reid’s time on floor was limited.
From The Hill’s Blog Briefing Room, Jordan Fabian writes:
“Folks tend to crack under pressure,” said Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.) at a press conference. “It is an indication of desperation.”
Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) said he was “personally offended” by the remarks that were “beneath the dignity of the Majority Leader…and the Senate.”
Senate Republican Policy Committee chairman John Thune (S.D.) called the comments “inflammatory and irresponsible.”
Speaking on the Senate floor this morning, Reid said “Instead of joining us on the right side of history, all the Republicans can come up with is, ‘slow down, stop everything, let’s start over.’ If you think you’ve heard these same excuses before, you’re right.”
He continued “When this country belatedly recognized the wrongs of slavery, there were those who dug in their heels and said ‘slow down, it’s too early, things aren’t bad enough’ … He continued: “When women spoke up for the right to speak up, they wanted to vote, some insisted they simply, slow down, there will be a better day to do that, today isn’t quite right.”
Whether he was trying to be clever by delivering a well-cadenced, “themed” commentary about the infamous “slow downs” of history – his pitiful, weasel-like attempt at a mini “I Have A Dream” missive – or whether he was just “winging it” around some loose index card scribblings, his asininity is epic.
That he could speak as clearly as he did with both feet firmly ensconced in his mouth is the real story here.
Surely Mr. Reid is aware that more Democrats, as a percentage, opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 than Republicans. Surely Mr. Reid is aware that the Republican Party was the anti-slavery party. (More on this history in a moment).
But far more relevant than that is the absolute absurdity in trying to compare the concern of American citizens who oppose – or at least question – the concept of revamping the entire health care delivery system to those who enslaved other human beings. It is inconceivable that any clear thinking human being could draw such a comparison in good conscience. The notion that Americans who worry about costs, or who are concerned about the decline in quality of health care, or are wary about the government seizing far too much power, is akin to owning other human beings and denying them their basic human rights is contemptible.
According to Reid, simply by virtue of the legislation being a “health care” bill, it should be reflexively supported by the American people, no questions asked.
The irony is … health care reform, as Reid sees it, creates an unprecedented level of servitude to the federal government.
Recall the famous screeching screed of Senator Hillary Clinton exclaiming how everyone has the right to debate and disagree with any administration, regardless of who they are. (It’s a sound bite well played on talk radio, annoying as it is). That’s all well and good, of course, but when conservatives do it, it somehow harkens back to a time of lynchings and whippings.
But returning to history for a moment … Through the middle of the twentieth century, segregationists overwhelmingly voted Democratic – and that includes four election victories for the patriarch of quintessential modern liberalism, Franklin Delano Roosevelt. University types conveniently ignore this long standing “relationship” of racism and political ideology – that is, until white Southerners began voting Republican in the 1960s. Suddenly, such connections mattered. To academia, the affiliation between racism and liberalism was nothing more than sheer coincidence prior to the 1960s, but once the GOP began drawing Southern whites, the connection somehow became obvious and worthy of mentioning.
Incidentally, I happen to agree that early twentieth-century Roosevelt liberalism was not inherently or philosophically tied to the racism that permeated the Democrat Party (especially in the South).
Precisely my point.
Through the end of the 1960s and into the 1970s, as the Democrat Party continued to shift more blatantly leftward, older segregationists were, in essence, forced to choose between the lesser of two evils in terms of party affiliation. Theirs was a weakening coalition anyway – certainly not strong enough to form a third party – so their leanings, in the absence of anything better, tended toward more race-neutral politics and smaller government.
The Democrat Party, meanwhile, was reinventing itself, becoming the anti-war, big government, welfare party. Liberals were, among other things, promoting abortion rights, bussing and affirmative action.
Many middle class Americans didn’t like what they were hearing from Democrats and began jumping ship – and not just in the South either.
It wasn’t until the 1980s that most white southerners actually identified themselves as Republicans. And it wasn’t until a decade later when Republicans finally held most House seats in the South.
That the decline of racism – particularly in the South – coincides with the steady rise of Republican affiliation is, to say the least, most interesting.
Posted in Harry Reid, health care, leftism, Liberalism, politics | Tagged: civil rights, government run health care, Harry Reid, health care reform, Obamacare, Racism, Senate debate on health care, Slavery, suffrage | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on November 24, 2009
Cheaper costs or a return of the King?
You see, the question is … will Democrats, who are running the whole kit and caboodle on Capitol Hill, actually start paying attention to the electorate on health care, or will they continue to meander down the path of we-know-better-than-you elitism?
For panicky Dems still wondering where it all went wrong in ten short months, keeping a brave face and shrugging off poll results for the cameras is one thing; trying to figure out how to save their political hydes behind closed doors is another. Make no mistake, there are a whole lot of donkeys who know they must start paying attention to the poll numbers at some point.
The game of determining how much of a hit the ship can sustain before the lifeboats become necessary isn’t one for the faint-of-heart.
The real question is: How low do the numbers have to go before the rumble coming from the peasants reaches the ears of the exalted ones, Harry Reid and Company?
Rasmussen says the numbers constinue their steady saunter south:
Just 38% of voters now favor the health care plan proposed by President Obama and congressional Democrats. That’s the lowest level of support measured for the plan in nearly two dozen tracking polls conducted since June.
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 56% now oppose the plan.
Half the survey was conducted before the Senate voted late Saturday to begin debate on its version of the legislation. Support for the plan was slightly lower in the half of the survey conducted after the Senate vote.
Only 38% say “yay” to ObamaCare.
Even registered Democrats aren’t buying into the gobbledygook that health care costs will go down if ObamaCare becomes law. Only 16% of Americans believe that fairy tale.
That’s only five points more than the percentage of Americans who believe Elvis Presley is still alive.
Posted in health care | Tagged: 56% oppose health care plan, health care reform, Obamacare, Rasmussen poll | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on November 22, 2009
Senator Mary Landrieu of Louisiana - the $300 million baby
A little perspective, please.
Don’t let the left’s seizure of the word “historic” after last night’s vote in the Senate convince you that it was anything more than routine. Last night’s 60-39 vote was not historic. It did not make government-run health care a reality. It was nothing more than a procedural vote allowing the matter of health care reform to be formally discussed on the floor of the Senate after Thanksgiving. I’m not even sure that there were many who actually believed that it wouldn’t muster sixty votes. ($300 million can buy alot).
Face it, last night’s vote really wasn’t one that Republicans could win anyway. Did anyone really think that any Democrat was going to deny anyone in their own party the opportunity to talk about this on the Senate floor?
It simply wasn’t as critically earth-shattering as many have made it out to be.
Certainly, I didn’t like it one bit. Indeed, it would have been a pleasant surprise had the winning side fallen short of sixty, but I didn’t expect it to.
One thing is certain: The ultimate passage of this bill would be a disaster for the United States of America. It must be stopped. There is still time. But last night’s vote, to be quite honest, was being built up far more than it needed to be.
The process has only just begun.
More disturbing, however, was some of the commentary from Democrats.
Just before the vote, Senator Chris Dodd spoke of the late Senator Edward Kennedy, saying it would pay Kennedy the highest compliment of all if they were able to fulfill “that quest of achieving the goal that all Americans aspire for, and that is a national health care plan that serves every one of our citizens.”
“Every one of our citizens?”
Hmmm … Call me unnuanced, but that smells an awful lot like government-run health care, doesn’t it?
And of course, Harry Reid himself said, ”Today we vote whether to even discuss one of the greatest issues of our generation – indeed, one of the greatest issues this body has ever faced – whether this nation will finally guarantee its people the right to live free from the fear of illness and death, which can be prevented by decent health care for all.”
He’d be almost adorable if he wasn’t so frightfully irritaing.
The Senate Majority Leader obviously believes that the federal government can legislate immortality. Death can be prevented? And all it takes is a merely “decent” health care bill? That’s quite incredible. What if it were a “fantastic” health care bill? Or a “sensational” health care bill? Would they also have the power to bring back the dead and make them well again?
Or maybe Reid meant to say that the fear of illness and death can be prevented.
So, if the Senate passes this bill, and it is eventually signed into law, no one will be afraid anymore? No one will fear death? That which has plagued humanity since its inception – the fear of death – will be erradicated by passing a “decent” health care bill?
Why didn’t we elect a Messiah sooner?
And by the way … nice job, Senator Landrieu. $300 million is a nice chunk of change.
You go girl.
Posted in Big Government, health care, Liberalism, politics | Tagged: 60-39, Chris Dodd, Harry Reid, health care bill, health care reform, Obamacare, Senate vote | 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 6, 2009
House Speaker, Nancy Pelosi
From the “Who Didn’t See This One Coming?” file …
Like a big-government liberal salivating at the thought of siphoning more of my paycheck, or an Obamacrat pecking incessantly at my liberties, it’s been gnawing at the sensibilities of clear-thinking Americans for the better part of ten months. It is imperative, the American people have been told time and time again, that health care reform happen as soon as humanly possible. It’s something that needed to happen yesterday, so the story goes; and if not for the racists and money-hoarders on the other side who use talk radio as the vehicle to spread their vitriol, everyone would be already be covered with top-flight, inexpensive, world-class health-care.
According to Washington’s Holey Trinity – Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid – the American people cannot afford another nanosecond of having to deal with the current capitalist, greed-uber-alles health care delivery debacle that leaves millions and millions to die while fat cat insurance companies roll in the dough. Recall that the health care “crisis” was recently called a “Holocaust” by Florida Congressman Alan Grayson. Recall that those who spoke out against the government takeover of health care at town-hall meetings all across America were said to be swastika-carriers by the Speaker of the House.
(You gotta love that German National Socialist imagery).
As critical as the passing of a health care reform bill is supposed to be to the welfare of the American people, none of it (oddly enough) is to actually be implemented until either 2013 or 2014, depending on the version of bill. (So much for urgency). Three years, it seems to me, is a mighty long time, especially when a “crisis” as far-reaching as this is afoot, but I’m obviously missing something. Still, considering the “seriousness” of the situation, potentially, we’re talking about alot of dead bodies littering the streets.
Proponents of Democrat health care reform have been feeding the American people the notion that all plans to completely overhaul the system are not only going to save trillions and trillions of lives, but it will be cost-effective. In fact, according to the Holey Trinity, it won’t cost Americans an extra nickel.
Senator Harry Reid
Of course, being one of the unsophisticated lock-steppers awaiting his daily marching orders from my talk radio overlords, that never made an iota’s worth of sense to me – nor did it to tens of millions of Americans who spent the better part of the summer and autumn speaking out in opposition to such a blatant erosion of liberty. It ate away at common sense. Without increasing the amount of doctors in the country while (supposedly) adding thirty million Americans to the insurance rolls, the idea that costs would not increase was about as coherent as Joe Biden sober.
Making things all the more deceptive for clarity-loving, clear thinking Americans was the fact that, according to all versions of the bill, revenues for the overhaul would begin to be collected almost immediately.
In short, taxpayers would begin footing the bill now, while the health care “Holocaust” would be allowed to fester for three years under the Pelosi version of the bill (four years under Reid’s version) until the actual rescuing of suffering Americans by the federal government could begin.
Naturally, members of the exalted Trinity (and their mouthpieces) would find every opportunity to gravitate toward hot microphones demanding that those of us in the skeptic’s camp do the math and see that over the next ten years, everything, indeed, checks out cost-wise.
“We’re telling you, it all works out,” they would say.
“Here’s a calculator, do the math. It’ll cost no one a penny extra,” they would contend.
“Look at how things shape up over an entire decade! Your concerns are unfounded!” they would claim.
But here’s the reality of the situation: The only way to conduct an honest analysis of the costs of the Holey Trinity’s attempt to nationalize the American health care system is to run the numbers for a ten year period that includes both spending and revenue collection.
And when the real numbers are crunched … it is not pretty.
Benjamin E. Sasse & Jefferey H. Anderson, in comparing the House version of the bill with the Senate version of the bill, write in the New York Post:
Each bill is routinely “scored” for its 10-year costs from 2010-19. Yet this includes several years when the spending wouldn’t yet have kicked in. According to the Congressional Budget Office, fully 99.9 percent of the Pelosi bill’s costs would hit from 2013 onward. Similarly, 98.3 percent of Reid’s spending would come after 2014.
If you start the tally when the bills’ spending would actually start, then the bills’ real 10-year costs become clear — and are remarkably similar.
The CBO reports that, in their true first 10 years, the House bill would cost $1.8 trillion, and the Senate bill would cost $1.7 trillion. Pelosi would raise Americans’ taxes by $1.1 trillion over that period, while Reid would hike them by $1 trillion.
And the House bill would siphon about $800 billion from Medicare to spend it elsewhere, while the Senate bill would suck out about $900 billion.
And if we discount the bills’ claims to divert hundreds of billions of dollars from Medicare (which is already on the edge of insolvency), the CBO says the House bill would raise our national debt by about $650 billion in its real first decade, while the Senate bill would up it by $740 billion.
So, the bills would either sock older Americans by taking huge sums of money from Medicare — or hit future generations with huge tax hikes to cover the shortfall.
Whether it’s our grandparents or our grandchildren, someone is going to pay.
If there aren’t alarms blaring in your head after ingesting those nuggets, it may be time to have a work crew brought in to clear away any cranial cavity blockages.
Numbers have a funny way about them.
Is there anyone who truly believes that the elderly are not going to have their health care substantially rationed under government-run health care? Or that future generation upon gfuture eneration will not be paying for this mess long after the Holey Trinity have moved on to the next world?
Count on both.
Seniors will see their health care – to the tune of $900 billion – quite literally, given to someone else. In other words, benefits will be extracted from a segment of the electorate that is not particularly smitten with President Obama – seniors – and redistributed to that portion of the electorate that still is – the young and the poor.
The only thing as certain as the astronomical costs and sub-par medical care this bill will bring is the fact that not a single member of Congress will ever trade in his or her own health care plan for anything they bestow upon the masses.
Posted in Big Government, Economy, Liberalism, Nancy Pelosi, Nanny State, politics | Tagged: "scored" for 10 years, CBO, Congressional Budget Office, Harry Reid, health care debate, health care reform, House bill, Nancy Pelosi, Obamacare, PelosiCare, Senate bill | 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 7, 2009
From the “Nothing Is Real” and “Manipulation 101” files …
Remember the Office of President-Elect? It was created by Barack Obama for the short-lived pre-Executive branch of government he established prior to his anointment on January 20, 2009. It had a sort-of Easter Bunny meets the Super Friends feel to it. It came out of nowhere – kind of like cohesive English from Joe Biden’s mouth. There was no precedent for it, no Constitutional directive, absolutely nothing that authorized such an invention – save for his ego. Yet, before anyone knew it, the Office of President-Elect had an emblem and official stationary.
Sure, it wasn’t real, but it sounded innovative and fresh – and Obama looked quite presidential reading those cue-cards from behind that cool logo.
Remember when President Obama invoked Winston Churchill while attempting to garner support for his anti-waterboarding position, supposedly quoting the great leader to the effect that “we don’t torture?” It was a pivotal moment for the young Commader-In-Chief.
Of course, Churchill never said anything of the sort, particularly in reference to fighting the Nazis during World War II, but it didn’t keep Bam from saying he did.
After all, if Churchill, a hero to the war-happy right, is against torture …
Churchill did, in fact, comment on how he was opposed to torturing civilian prison inmates, but there is not a word Churchill ever spoke or wrote that came close to suggesting he was against doing whatever was necessary to secure victory during war – including torture (which British interrogators did, thank goodness).
Sure, it wasn’t real, but out-of-context quotes from dead white guys are always effective against close-minded, short-sighted, right wing gun nuts.
Had Obama been anyone else but Obama – and particularly if he were a Republican – the unbiased, always-objective, straight-down-the-middle mainstream media might have actually tapped the President’s brain on these little ditties, as well as a myriad of other messianic manipulations and Obamacratic fairy tales.
It actually took a comedy sketch on Saturday Night Live to get the “drive-by media” to actually do a little work – but not because they attempted to pick apart and dissect Obama and his assertions, as they did regularly with George W. Bush. Rather, they attempted to defend the President, lest they lose their spot in Obama’s bed.
Face it, when CNN takes the time to fact-check an SNL bit highlighting Obama’s ineffectiveness, there’s a whole lot of trouble in River City.
So, what then would the cackling masses have been saying if a Republican President of the United States had gathered a group of professionals together from across the country for a White House photo-op and handed out costumes to help reinforce a policy position?
A fair question, I believe.
On Monday, as has been widely written and talked about, in his ongoing crusade to peddle his health care reform initiatives, i.e. government-run health care, President Obama invited physicians from “all fifty states” to the White House for a pep-rally and photo shoot.
What could be more of a boost to a President trying to keep his socialist health care agenda afloat than to have a small army of supportive contributors – er, professionals – by his side, on the lawn of the People’s House, singing the praises of rationed, aspiring-to-be-mediocre medical care?
Nothing … in theory.
However, as it turned out, some of the doctors who came to the event were not properly attired – not in the way prescribed by their Obamcratic hosts.
You see, this White House Rose Garden event had a motif.
It was to be a White Coat Extravaganza (stethoscope and headgear optional).
Luckily, the White House was more than happy to accommodate the physicians who came in ordinary, every day clothes. (Taxpayer bucks hard at work).
Charles Hurt from the New York Post writes:
President Obama yesterday rolled out the red carpet — and handed out doctors’ white coats as well, just so nobody missed his hard-sell health-care message.
In a heavy-handed attempt at reviving support for health-care reform, the White House orchestrated a massive photo op to buttress its claim that front-line physicians support Obama.
A sea of 150 white-coated doctors, all enthusiastically supportive of the president and representing all 50 states, looked as if they were at a costume party as they posed in the Rose Garden before hearing Obama’s pitch for the Democratic overhaul bills moving through Congress.
The physicians, all invited guests, were told to bring their white lab coats to make sure that TV cameras captured the image.
But some docs apparently forgot, failing to meet the White House dress code by showing up in business suits or dresses.
So the White House rustled up white coats for them and handed them to the suited physicians who had taken seats in the sun-splashed lawn area.
All this to provide a visual counter to complaints from other doctors that pending legislation is bad news for the medical profession.
“Nobody has more credibility with the American people on this issue than you do,” Obama told his guests.
Yes, Mr. President.
You’ve hit the nail on the head.
No one has more credibility with the gullible, easily manipulated, visually-hypnotized American people on the issue of health care reform than a small group of Obama supporting doctors who were asked to show up in stereotypical, archaic white lab coats for a cheesy photo op.
Indeed, these are precisely the people I want (and expect to be) endorsing a government-run health care plan – physicians who let the White House dress them up.
Incidentally, do doctors actually wear white lab coats anymore? My doctor comes into the examination room with his Yankees shirt on – which frightens me a bit as a Met fan.
Just think for a moment if George W. Bush (or any Republican), in attempting to sell a military operation to the American people, invited a group of service personnel – both active and retired – to the White House to show support. Then imagine staffers at the Bush White House handing out military uniforms to those who may have shown up in civilian clothes so that TV cameras could “capture the image.”
Think it might have made the news … times ten?
The only question would have been whether or not enough black magic markers were available to the general public for the purposes of drawing black Hitler moustaches on the face of the President; or whether or not there were enough swastikas in all the world to use on all the anti-Republican protest posters that would pop up across the map.
(Perhaps House Speaker Nancy Pelosi best knows the answer to that one).
Posted in Big Government, health care, Liberalism, Media Bias, Obama Bonehead | Tagged: 150 Doctors at the White House, health care reform, Obamacare, white lab coats | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on September 23, 2009
When leftists take to the streets to protest, it is not only newsworthy, it is also (we are told) noble, meritorious and rooted in genuine concern for some great issue affecting humanity.
When conscientious young skulls of leftist mush demonstrated against Ronald Reagan in the 1980s, convinced he would lead the world into World War III and foreordained nuclear devastation, they did so with the world’s media gazing upon them in awe. Protestors were showered with accolades, praised not only for their highborn cause, but their willingness to get involved and stand up for their beliefs.
Protests – even riots – against George W. Bush (complete with calls for his impeachment, routine comparisons to Adolf Hitler, and publications hopeful for his eventual assassination) were met with reckonable commentary focusing on the deep concerns of the American citizenry, the anxiousness of a troubled electorate, and the blessings of a society that affords its people the opportunity to redress their grievances.
By contrast, when liberals are in power, protests against them are never based on the genuine concerns of the public. Those who speak out against leftists at the helm are never noble or admirable. The beauty of a society where the citizens can redress their grievances suddenly becomes irrelevant. Whatever anxiousness there may be among those protesting liberal power is rooted in selfishness and even bigotry. Thus the motivations of those who oppose liberal policies are engrained not in presenting a viable alternative, but in achieving a diabolical and sinister goal – whatever that might be.
It seems perfectly reasonable, doesn’t it?
Remember, whereas conservative bigotry divides, liberal bigotry fosters unity.
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi can accuse those who oppose ObamaCare of being swastika carriers, and no one is particularly outraged. She can tearfully warn against conservative protestors potentially resorting to the kind of violence that took the lives of San Francisco Mayor George Moscone and Supervisor Harvey Milk in 1978, and no one blinks an eye. Corrupt Congressman Charles Rangel of New York can say that racism is behind the widespread opposition to Obama’s leftist policies, and it all seems to make sense. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid can call Town-Hall protesters “evil mongers,” and his words are taken seriously. Reid can also call President Bush a liar, and no one as much as lifts an eyebrow; but when Congressman Joe Wilson accuses President Obama of lying, America pauses in gapped-mouthed amazement at the lack of civility. Dissenters to the Obamacratic vision for America can be called kooks, fringies, right-wing nutcases, gun-happy bigots, Kool-Aid drinkers, racists, or whatever pejorative fits the bill for the moment, and never are the validities of their dissent analyzed the same way “Bush=Hitler” protestors were.
Liberal anger is patriotic.
Conservative anger is dangerous.
On yesterday’s edition of Hardball on sparsely viewed MSNBC, the ever-vexatious and never-delightful Chris Matthews said the following:
“ … the activists on radio are not afraid because they’re not afraid of anything. But at some point if we have violence in this country against our president of any form or attempt, people are gonna pay for it, the people who have encouraged the craziness. And I get the feeling, at some point, the responsible grown ups like people who have [been] elected 20 or 30 years, who know what it means to be responsible officeholders, must be saying to themselves, ‘I don’t want to be one of the people responsible if one of these Looney Tunes gets a gun and does something.’ “
“People are gonna pay for it?”
Civility, thy name is Matthews.
What exactly is he talking about? Angry, sign-waving, expletive-shouting, rock-throwing, anti-war, Amerika-with-a-k, Bush-lied-people-died fanatics were nothing to concern ourselves with, but conservative dissent somehow translates into the frightening prospect of violence?
Funny how that works.
Matthews also said that all of the “anti-government” talk wasn’t improving anyone’s life and that the “clown show” was over. (Of course, Obama has at least three more years to serve, so the “clown show” regrettably goes on).
Note how Matthews unabashedly reveals the core belief of his political creed: that only government can improve anyone’s life.
It goes without saying (or it should) that anyone with any sense of what this country has always been about understands that one’s liberty is directly proportional to the amount of power the government has over its citizens. As talk show host Dennis Prager often says, “The bigger the government, the smaller the citizen.”
This kind of thinking, of course, creates ulcers in the collective colon of liberal America. To them, it’s only about government.
The so-called “lack of civility” on the right – fuelled by talk radio haters and angry cable news channel gabbers, they say – has become all the rage in trying to explain why there is so much opposition to the Obamacratic transformation of America. It isn’t possible in Liberal-Land to legitimately oppose an expansion of government, or speak out against it, because in the world of Chris Matthews (and his fun-loving leftist brethren), only government can make the boo-boo all better. Thus, the motive for the dissent must rest elsewhere – perhaps in racist inclinations, deep-rooted anger in the multiculturalization of the country, greed, selfishness, sexism, whatever. There is no genuine compassion on the right – only self-centeredness. There is no tolerance on the right – only bitterness. There is no civility on the right – only anger.
Yesterday, Transportation Secretary Ray Lahood – a Republican – broke out his own slice of civility by lashing out against conservative talk show radio hosts and cable new network talking heads, saying “they have eroded civility and impeded the nation’s ability to solve big problems.”
Joe Hallett of the Columbus Dispatch writes:
Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood told The Dispatch that the level of “harsh discourse in Washington has probably reached an all-time high,” and he partly blamed it on “all of this trash talk about the process and about politicians 24/7” on cable television and talk radio.
LaHood referred to criticism Obama received for appearing Sunday on five television news shows to promote his health-care overhaul. The secretary also indicated that even the president’s bully pulpit is no match for the cacophony over the airwaves from the political right.
“He can’t even compete with all this stuff that people are saying about him, so the idea that he did five interviews on Sunday, that’s just minuscule compared to the kind of trash talk that goes on all week prior to that,” LaHood said.
“All of this background, all of this trash talk in the background, it does not contribute to civil discourse, and it does not contribute to the government or the country’s ability to solve big issues.”
What Mr. Hallett really means is that conservative talk-show hosts and cable news channel kibbitzers are helping to make it impossible for the federal government to do whatever the hell it wants without a meddling constituency sticking their noses in things. What Mr. Hallett is bothered by is the fact that Americans are not just rolling over and taking whatever they’re told to take by the big boys in charge. What disturbs the Transportation Secretary is the reality that taxpayers will not accept that their elected officials can be trusted.
It is precisely conservative talk-radio, right-leaning cable news channel pundits, and the explosion of coast-to-coast Tea Parties – in conjunction with a very well-informed electorate – that have enabled the current debate on health care reform to flourish and continue.
It is not trash talk, despite what Hallett the Rino says.
As I have alluded to before – and still worth repeating – it makes one wonder exactly what acceptable discourse and dissent actually sounds like in the eyes of panicked leftists.
Posted in health care, Liberalism, Media, Media Bias, politics | Tagged: "lack of civility", Harry Reid "evil mongers", health care reform, leftism, leftists, Nancy Pelosi swastikas, Obamacare, protestors, Town-Hall protestors | 2 Comments »
Posted by Andrew Roman on September 15, 2009
What is wrong with these people?
It makes no sense.
It’s almost as if those who oppose Him don’t wish to be saved. Can’t these contrarians and malcontents understand that when they cry afoul and moan about the erosions of personal liberty, they are helping to extinguish moral and economic imperatives being proposed for their own good? Can’t these rabble-rousing, tea-party drones cool it with their tiresome talk-radio inspired “personal responsibility” chatter and all that “liberty” rhetoric?
Clear-thinking reasonable citizens of the world would never oppose such a battery of forward thinking policies as we are now seeing nine months into the Messianic Age. It thus stands to reason that to be against Him is to be mired in timeworn obsoleteness. To oppose Him is to oppose all that would unify. It cannot possibly be the substance of an Obamacratic policy that causes people to take an opposing position; not when the policy in question is cut from messianic cloth. It can only be the myopic citizenry wallowing in their antiquated prejudices and bigotry, hell-bent on stifling an uppity black man with vision. And since asking the question, “What is wrong with these people?” will never bring an answer that satisfies the disciples, there can only be one reason why there still exist those who won’t board the Obama transformation train.
His skin color.
That’s what we’re told by the most serious thinkers on the left.
Those who postulate and predicate modern liberalism are doing all they can to create new conventional wisdom – namely, that what sits at the core of the uproarious opposition to Barack Obama’s push to drop the health care delivery system on the lap of the federal government is the darkness of his skin.
It has to be, they say.
What else could it be?
Fair and open-minded people would never argue that there will be a major problem in adding thirty million people (formerly forty-seven million) to the nation’s insurance rolls while the number of physicians and nurses remains stagnant. No way. That’s race-based gobbledygook.
Rational thinkers would never question how such an expansive plan could possibly save money, as He suggests it would, even though demand would explode to astronomical proportions. No chance. To do so would be engaging in masked racism.
Level-headed policy wonks would never question Him when He says that illegal aliens would not be covered with taxpayer dollars, even though there is no provision that allows for the citizenship status of potential patients to be verified. No sir. To suggest He is being dishonest about this, as Congressman Joe Wilson did last week, is akin to burning a cross, or using the “n” word.
In short, those who stand up against the policies of Barack Obama do so because he is black.
And they hate having a black President.
So we’re told.
If it were Joe Biden (God forbid) making the same speech last Wednesday, Joe Wilson would have said nothing.
The ever-effervescent Maureen Dowd in her most recent column writes:
Surrounded by middle-aged white guys — a sepia snapshot of the days when such pols ran Washington like their own men’s club — Joe Wilson yelled “You lie!” at a president who didn’t.
But, fair or not, what I heard was an unspoken word in the air: You lie, boy!
Wilson clearly did not like being lectured and even rebuked by the brainy black president presiding over the majestic chamber.
Dowd goes on to point out that Wilson, at one time, belonged to the Sons of the Confederacy – an offense so hanus, its equal has yet to be realized. I’m not sure exactly how much weight Ms. Dowd really puts in the past associations of elected officials, but the names Bill Ayers and Jeremiah Wright immediately come to mind. The organization ACORN also rings a bell.
Nowhere did the magnificent Ms. Dowd bother to mention that Mr. Wilson is also a colonel in the National Guard.
She’s silly that way.
Sports-scribbler-turned-incoherent-leftocrat Mike Lupica of the New York Daily News wrote:
This is an America where Rep. Joe Wilson, whoever he is, thinks he can call the President of the United States a liar, Wilson talking to the President the way he would the help, or some waiter who was supposed to bring him another drink.
Wilson really did sound like somebody who had been on hold for an hour, waiting to scream about socialism to Rush.
But why wouldn’t Wilson scream out the way he did? This is a time when a radio host like Mark Levin routinely refers to President Obama as “that jerk,” all in the name of liberty, of course, and the fight against tyranny. Or maybe this all just comes out of a fury that there weren’t enough screamers to keep the black guy from getting elected.
Such is the intellectual left.
Note that race magically becomes a negligible component when the likes of Ms. Dowd and Mr. Lupica, i.e., white liberals, speak out in opposition against powerful black conservatives, like Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas (black). Does Thomas’ “blackness” – or lack thereof as some have suggested – suddenly become irrelevant when lefties espouse criticisms of his positions? Why does no one accuse Dowd of harboring deep-seated racist inclinations when she criticizes a black who happens to be conservative? Or Lupica? Or any white on that side of the garden? Surely, they have no great love for the positions and philosophies of people like Larry Elder, J C Watts and Walter Williams. So then, when white libs criticize black conservatives, where are the “You’re not black enough, boy!” accusations?
Because race is an issue only to conservatives, even though liberals are the ones who keep bringing it up. Even the ever-affable and lovable Bill Cosby referred to Clarence Thomas as a “brother lite” not too long ago.
I suppose that when “one of them” criticizes “one of their own,” there is truth in it.
So, when columnist extraordinaire Paul Krugman takes the opposing view of conservative thinker Thomas Sowell, is it because of Sowell’s race? Shouldn’t Krugman be branded a racist by default?
How about columnist Frank Rich? Safe to say, he’s no supporter of RNC Chairman Michael Steele. If he lambastes the Republican Party in his columns (which is like saying, “if he breathes”), should those of us on the right now fit him for a white sheet and hood?
As long as guilt-ridden white people can point out how awful other white people are, with a whole lot of black people looking on, modern liberalism will never run out of nourishment.
Posted in health care, Liberalism, Media Bias, Racism | Tagged: "You lie", health care reform, Joe Wilson, Maureen Dowd, Mike Lupica, Obamacare, Racism, racists | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on August 20, 2009
And so it is that in the United States of America – where the health care delivery system is so deficient, so defective, so in need of a thorough reconditioning – the life expectancy of Americans has reached its highest level ever, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). In fact, there has been a ten year upward trend..
From the CDC website:
U.S. life expectancy reached nearly 78 years (77.9), and the age-adjusted death rate dropped to 760.3 deaths per 100,000 population, both records, according to the latest mortality statistics from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
The report, “Deaths: Preliminary Data for 2007,” was issued today by CDC’s National Center for Health Statistics. The data are based on nearly 90 percent of death certificates in the United States.
The 2007 increase in life expectancy – up from 77.7 in 2006 — represents a continuation of a trend. Over a decade, life expectancy has increased 1.4 years from 76.5 years in 1997 to 77.9 in 2007.
While heart disease and cancer remain the two leading causes of death in the United States (nearly half of all), both saw declines in their mortality rates in 2007. In fact, death rates have gone down for eight of the top fifteen causes of death – including influenza, pneumonia, diabetes and stroke.
It is important to note that two of the top fifteen leading causes of death – number five (accidents) and number 15 (homicide) – are not health related at all; and while both of those rates declined in 2007, number 11 (suicide) did not.
With all of this in mind, recall an article published by the New York Times two years ago in which they referenced an oft-quoted 2000 World Health Organization (WHO) report ranking the United States health care system 37th out of 191 nations surveyed:
There is a growing body of evidence that, by an array of pertinent yardsticks, the United States is a laggard not a leader in providing good medical care.
Of course, just a little bit of digging into the WHO report – and a subsequent report put out by the Commonwealth Fund that actually ranked the United States health care system at or near the bottom – shows that the rankings are based heavily on equity not quality. Such an approach assumes that providing health care to its citizens is the responsibility of government.
ABC’s John Stossel, in a response to the New York Times piece, wrote:
The WHO judged a country’s quality of health on life expectancy. But that’s a lousy measure of a health-care system. Many things that cause premature death have nothing do with medical care. We have far more fatal transportation accidents than other countries. That’s not a health-care problem.
Similarly, our homicide rate is 10 times higher than in the U.K., eight times higher than in France, and five times greater than in Canada.
When you adjust for these “fatal injury” rates, U.S. life expectancy is actually higher than in nearly every other industrialized nation.
Diet and lack of exercise also bring down average life expectancy.
The lines aren’t exactly extending around the country with people waiting to leave the United States for countries like Andorra and Columbia – both of whom ranked higher than the United States.
Posted in health care | Tagged: American Life Expectancy, Barack Obama, CDC, Center for Disease Control, Commonwealth Fund, Deaths: Preliminary Data for 2007, health care reform, Obamacare, World Health Organization | 2 Comments »
Posted by Andrew Roman on August 17, 2009
Last week, in front a Hillsboro, Missouri crowd, Senator Clair McCaskill asked the fateful question, “Don’t you trust me?”
The crowd answered with a resounding, “No!”
Keep that sentiment in mind while this story develops.
In a blog from earlier this morning, commenting on reports that the White House may be “backing away” from the “public option” in the ObamaCare debacle, I began one of the paragraphs, “Still, if there is any truth to the reports that Obama is slinking away from his unapologetic desire to have the federal government takeover the healthcare system …”
Note the degree of confidence I place in anything that comes from this White House or anyone affiliated with this administration.
I am simply not convinced that the “public option” is off the table – or that it ever will be.
Neither are Democrats (as I will get to in a moment).
“Public option” or not, this debate is far from over. And if there will not be a “public option,” then what? Once the government finds its way into the kitchen, does anyone truly believe they will not eventually slither their way to the stove and poison the stew anyway?
There is simply no telling what the Democrats are thinking or what any of this really means. The party’s liberal base obviously wants this health care overhaul to happen, and as I alluded to in my earlier piece, Dems may be more than willing to take some minor to moderate hits in order to bring this victory home for Obama, as long as the power ultimately remains theirs.
Yet, as things continue to develop, the Dems seem a tad confused.
Yesterday, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius did an about-face on a long-time hallmark of the Obama health care vision, saying that government-run health care wasn’t “the essential element” of reform. (Since when?) She started talking about “insurance cooperatives” (Co-Ops) – a phrase that is sure to find its way into the American lexicon post haste.
But hold on.
In response to Sebelius, an administration official (anonymously) came forward and said that Sebelius actually misspoke.
Mark Ambinder at The Atlantic writes:
This official asked not to be identified in exchange for providing clarity about the intentions of the President. The official said that the White House did not intend to change its messaging and that Sebelius simply meant to echo the president, who has acknowledged that the public option is a tough sell in the Senate and is, at the same time, a must-pass for House Democrats, and is not, in the president’s view, the most important element of the reform package.
A second official, Linda Douglass, director of health reform communications for the administration, said that President Obama believed that a public option was the best way to reduce costs and promote competition among insurance companies, that he had not backed away from that belief, and that he still wanted to see a public option in the final bill.
“Nothing has changed.,” she said. “The President has always said that what is essential that health insurance reform lower costs, ensure that there are affordable options for all Americans and increase choice and competition in the health insurance market. He believes that the public option is the best way to achieve these goals.”
Senator Kent Conrad of North Dakota, on the other hand, says that the “public option” is all but dead.
Carrie Budoff Brown at Politico writes:
“Look, the fact of the matter is there are not the votes in the United States Senate for the public option,” said Conrad, who has pushed an alternative proposal to create a network of consumer cooperatives, on Fox News Sunday. “There never have been. So to continue to chase that rabbit, I think, is just a wasted effort.”
Not to confuse things any further, just this morning, former Democratic Party Chairman Howlin’ Howard Dean said that meaningful health care reform just cannot happen without a direct government role.
Philip Elliot of the Associated Press writes:
Dean urged the Obama administration to stand by statements made early on in the debate in which it steadfastly insisted that such a public option was indispensable to genuine change, saying that Medicare and the Veterans Administration are “two very good programs that have been around for a long time.”
Dean argued that a public option is fair and said there must be such a choice in any genuine shake up of the existing system.
“You can’t really do health reform without it,” he said. Dean maintained that the health insurance industry has “put enormous pressure on patients and doctors” in recent years.
He called a direct government role “the entirety of health care reform. It isn’t the entirety of insurance reform … We shouldn’t spend $60 billion a year subsidizing the insurance industry.”
The President himself has started suggesting that the “public option” isn’t essential to his plan.
Oh, those wacky Dems.
The real shame is that while the mainstream media continues to obsess over so-called splits in the Republican Party, there is actually a much better – and far more interesting – story to cover over on the donkey’s side – if they’d only crawl out of the tank long enough to take a look.
Posted in health care | Tagged: "public option", government run health care, health care overhaul, health care refor, health care reform, Howard Dean, Kathleen Sebelius, Kent Conrad, Obamacare | 2 Comments »
Posted by Andrew Roman on August 11, 2009
The call from the White House for Americans to keep their ever-vigilant eyes and ears open for fellow citizen dissenters remains active. A week after it was originally posted by Macon Phillips on the White House blog, the “Calling All Snitchers” campaign lives. It was intended to draw the White House’s attention to “disinformation” on blogs and websites critical of President Obama’s health care reform initiatives. Of course, this “Rat Out Your Neighbor” crusade is still being largely ignored by the mainstream media – as difficult as that might be to believe.
It just isn’t particularly newsworthy to them.
Meanwhile, the objective mainstream media coverage of manufactured dissenters, contrived protests, and right-wing-led “marching order” rabble-rousing kool-aiders who disrupt townhall meetings across the map goes on in earnest.
I admit to finding it a tad mystifying how more people – even Obamacrats and other assorted leftists – aren’t enraged that the White House, regardless of whose feet are up on the desk, could make such an intimidating (and intrusive) request of its citizens.
Imagine for a moment that the George W. Bush White House had posted a request for Americans to notify them of any blogs or websites openly critical of the war in Iraq. The media would have wet themselves. The skulls of liberals would be exploding from sea to shining sea. Grey ponytails on college campuses all over America would spontaneously burst into flame. Jeneane Garafolo’s face would have already melted into a fine yellow custard-like paste.
It would not have been pretty.
In that spirit, the great Indy Mind blog brings to my attention a story out of Nashua, New Hampshire.
Apparently, invoking the state’s “Live Free or Die” motto while criticizing the President can bring one face to face with the Secret Service.
Albert McKeon, staff writer for Nashua Telepgraph, writes about a man who posted an online criticism of the Obama health care plan:
The man, who posted his comments Wednesday under the username NashuaDan, wrote that Obama’s events are often orchestrated and that the president’s upcoming Town Hall meeting in Portsmouth could be more of the same.
“I hope NH is better than letting this guy off the hook. Let Obama know what ‘Live Free or Die’ means (hint: it isn’t reckless TAXING and SPENDING). Otherwise, Portsmouth will just be another glorified photo-op for the Socialist-in-Chief,” he wrote below a news brief announcing the president’s Seacoast visit Tuesday.
On Thursday morning, NashuaDan found himself on the phone with a Secret Service agent, explaining that his remarks were only philosophical and not intended to threaten Obama, he said.
The Secret Service accepted his response, he said. And from now on, NashuaDan said he will use caution in future Internet postings.
“I do support the fact that we have freedom of speech,” he said in an interview. “This incident doesn’t change my thoughts on that, but the lesson is, I’ll have to choose my words carefully.”
NashauDan is not incorrect.
Indeed, Freedom of Speech accurately relates to the content of what is being said, not necessarily the manner. For instance, laws against indecency across certain forums – like the public airwaves – do not inhibit someone from professing a view or opinion, just the way in which they say it. And when there is no law in place restricting manner, societal standards, values and common decency should (and often do) prevail.
Such is the way of a civil society.
The question in this instance is … Did NashuaDan cross the line?
Another registered user who goes by the name of SLRNashuan thought so – and turned NashuaDan in.
(SLRNashuan) posted a comment in reply to NashuaDan on Wednesday afternoon: “Amazing, NashuaDan. All of those words and not one truth! And, by the way, is that a veiled threat ‘Let Obama know what ‘Live Free or Die’ means’ on the President’s life. Just in case, I called it in.”
Based on the White House blog post calling for Obamacratic Americans to rat out other Americans, one can only conclude that President Obama himself would be damn proud.
It is unclear whether or not SLRNashuan was responding directly to the White House’s request, but at the Indy Mind blog, there can be no doubt:
A fellow reader found the comments to be objectionable and inspired by the new fascistic White House, called in a complaint! Apparently someone took the complaint very seriously and Dan found himself on the phone with the Secret Service! At this point, some people should be wondering what country are we living in and I can only smugly say – Welcome to Obamanation.
You see, when we disagree with the policies of this ultra liberal administration then we are labeled in the worst imaginable way. These tactics are used to shut us up and paint the opposition as a bunch of raving Nazi lunatics. However all that is required to decipher this nonsense, is a modicum of historical knowledge and the realization that the only Nazis in this country are the ones that clamp down free speech and advocate government run health care. Yet I implore you to go to Google and search for “Bush Hitler” and observe how much information you get back from a seemingly idiotic combination of words, amount of hate speech and edited photography is overwhelming. Yet, apparently that is considered to be “patriotic” and perfectly normal, after all, bashing a Republican is akin to exercising one’s duty.
As leading Democrats continue to condemn those who vigorously speak out at town hall events against Obama’s health care debacle, dismissing them as nothing more than organized, manufactured, “astro-turf”, nazi-like trouble makers, one can at least hope they are willing to extend kudos to the White House with equal zeal.
After all, if using the White House blog to ask people to rally against those who voice dissent isn’t the very essence of manufactured and organized “astro-turf” activism, then nothing is.
Posted in health care, politics | Tagged: "disinformation", health care plan, health care reform, healthcare disniformation, Macon Phillips, Obama health care, Obama's health plan, White House blog | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on July 15, 2009
I’d like to think that there must be – has to be – among clear thinking Americans, a festering anger waiting to explode into full-blown take-to-the streets outrage. In the hearts and minds of Americans who value the free-market system – the very one that has built this nation into the most successful the world has ever known – there must be a bubbling animus on the brink of detonating.
As the nation continues to be reinvented thanks to its 21st Century Marxist makeover, I simply cannot believe how much my country has been transformed in six short months. And save for a few notable moments over the course of that span (like the hundreds of April 15th Tea Parties held across the nation), there have been agonizingly few public displays of fed-up Americans making themselves heard … and a whole host of reasons why they should be.
With the promised Obama transformation of a country founded on limited government and individualism in full-swing, the tenets of self-reliance and liberty are being pushed aside in favor of a more powerful, intrusive state. It is simply inconceivable to me that reasonable Americans, with any sense of the liberty they are privileged to possess, or with any real understanding of how that liberty exists inversely to the amount of government involvement in our everyday lives, could ever consider the nationalization of health care a legitimate path to follow.
But here we are the day after House Dems disclosed a 1,000 page plan for a mammoth expansion of government-backed health care insurance, dangling a $1.5 trillion price tag, slated to boost taxes on the “wealthiest households” over the next ten years, and all I can think is, “This is America?”
Indeed, I know there are tens of millions like me who cannot begin to believe that the health care system that is the envy of the world – the system that provides the medicines that save countless lives and the doctors that provide the highest quality care on earth – could ever (or should ever) be reconstructed to replicate the inefficient European models that Obamacrats are so enamored with. What is it that is so damn appealing about the rationing of what will evolve into sub par, assembly-line health care?
Indeed, it is an inevitability once the government sets the rules.
A small percentage of Americans who wish to have health insurance do not; that should be enough to have the best and brightest minds figuring out how to improve the system, not overhaul it. As usual, liberals don’t seek to elevate those at the bottom to better their circumstances; they wish to punish those at the top for having more.
At the risk of drawing the barrage of poison arrows I will surely take (and I am more-than-prepared to be branded a heartless, soulless, miserable excuse for a human being) the “health care” situation in this country simply isn’t the dire, cataclysmic national predicament it is made out to be.
The belief that the American health care system is in bad enough shape to warrant a complete change in the way it works from top to bottom is categorically untrue. No evidence exists, and no reason can justify (other than the need to appease liberal emotion) such a catostrophic change.
Is it imperfect? Can it be improved?
To say otherwise would be a lie.
Still, the American health care system – flawed as it is (like any other system developed by human beings) – is simply the best on earth. And if one factors automobile-related deaths and murders out of the equation, Americans have the longest life expectancy of any nation on the planet. It is free enterprise and competition that enable life-saving innovations to take place.
And despite the media spin, the socialization of American health care is not just about taxing the “wealthiest” among us to pay for the distressed few who are without health insurance – because that, too, is a misnomer (which I will explain in a moment).
It is really about the bewildering Democrat notion that health care insurance is as fundamental an American right as life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The orifice from which this preposterous concept was drawn from must be as deep as it is wide, because no matter how many hysterical whine-time leftists claim it is so, health care insurance is not a right, nor is it something to be provided by government to the public at large, like police or fire protection.
The right to have one’s electricity paid? The right to have one’s rent taken care of? The right to a job? The right to have the expensive name-brand chocolate pudding over the generic store-name brand?
And, of course, as with all Obamacratic initiatives, there is no time to waste on frivolous debate and political grandstanding. Those who would oppose health care coverage for someone like a single mom with six kids from the inner city are heartless, cold-blooded, politically-motivated right-wing zealots anyway. These transformations, so we are told, are necessary measures that require implementation as soon as humanly possible, lest millions of people start dropping like anvils in the streets of America.
In reality, Dems are looking to rush this through before Americans get wind of what’s really in there.
From Erica Werner of the Associated Press:
Under the House Democrats’ plan, the federal government would be responsible for ensuring that every person, regardless of income or the state of their health, has access to an affordable insurance plan. Individuals and employers would have new obligations to get coverage, or face hefty penalties.
The legislation calls for a 5.4 percent tax increase on individuals making more than $1 million a year, with a gradual tax beginning at $280,000 for individuals. Employers who don’t provide coverage would be hit with a penalty equal to 8 percent of workers’ wages, with an exemption for small businesses. Individuals who decline an offer of affordable coverage would pay 2.5 percent of their incomes as a penalty, up to the average cost of a health insurance plan.
The liberal-leaning plan lacked figures on total costs, but a House Democratic aide said the total bill would add up to about $1.5 trillion over 10 years. The aide spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss the private calculations.
Three House committees will begin voting on the bill Thursday. Changes in the legislation are likely to satisfy a group of moderate and conservative Democrats who are withholding support.
The 1,000-page bill is unlikely to attract any Republican backing, and business groups and the insurance industry immediately assailed it as a job-killer.
The business groups also warned that the U.S. health care system could be damaged by adding a government-run insurance plan and a federal council that would make some decisions on benefits, as called for in the legislation. Thirty-one organizations signed the letter, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Business Roundtable representing top corporate CEOs and the National Retail Federation.
And of course, the idea that “taxing the wealthy” (at the heart of a liberal’s conception of “fairness”) will somehow make this fairy-tale, one-and-a-half-trillion-dollar government phony band-aid an effective elixir to help curb the ills of the current American health care system is as disingenuous as anything that has ever escaped the lips of any Obamacrat anywhere.
This fantasy-land leftist snow job is predicated on the theory that employers, medical providers and “the rich” will be footing the bill, keeping it all “affordable” to regular, everyday Americans.
But medical providers will almost assuredly raise their rates. Employers will then be forced to cut salaries, or even jobs. The “wealthy,” who create and own the businesses that employ people, will scale back operations as their costs grow.
And in the end, who will wind up paying?
The very people Obamacrats are trying to “help” with their socialization of the American health care system – the everyday taxpayer.
Thus, costs go up while quality of care goes down.
Plus, if “everyone” is to be covered, limitations are inevitable – from time and resources, to medications and providers. The bureaucracy that would be guaranteed to follow would be almost incomprehensible.
Rationing is guaranteed.
In short, $1.5 trillion doesn’t just grow on the trees of the wealthy. This potentially economy-crushing disaster cannot be paid for by just taxing the so-called “rich.”
And if there is anyone who really believes that the cost of such a destructive plan will cost only $1.5 trillion, I’d like to offer you a tunnel to go along with that bridge the Dems are peddling.
The bottom line is, this is not about health care reform, or even fixing the economy.
This is only about having more people dependant on government.
Posted in Big Government, Economy, health care, Liberalism, politics | Tagged: $1.5 trillion, health care, health care insurance, health care reform, House bill, Obama's health care reform | 1 Comment »