The Eric Massa Edition – Arrogance! Incompetence! Corruption!: Election 2006 And Dimocrat Obama’s Culture Of Corruption Election 2010, Part II

Update: “Articulate” Barack Obama can’t “sell watermelons” says Dan Rather on racist NBC [audio here].

Eric Massa on Glenn Beck show for the full hour tomorrow. On Larry King show too, tomorrow.

More Eric Massa quotes (from the interview video, below):

23:23 “I’ve had union leaders tell me point blank ‘we are not going to contribute to your campaign unless you vote for this health care bill.’ Is that, or is that not a bribe?” 23:32

25:47 “I was set up for this from the very very beginning. If you think that somehow they didn’t come after me to get rid of me because my vote is the deciding vote on the health care bill – then ladies and gentleman, you live in a world that is so innocent, as not to understand what is going on in Washington, DC.”26:00 “The leadership of the Democratic Party have become exactly what they said they were running against.” 26:07

26:16 “The entire nation has said, ‘let’s rewrite the health care bill. Let’s find what we can agree on.’ ‘No, no, no, we’re gonna ram this down the throats of the American people and anyone who stands in the way of doing that is gonna be smeared and they’re going to be kicked out of Congress, and we’re gonna have people like Steny Hoyer lying in the press.’”20:33

69:49 “If they ram this health care bill through which apparently they’re going to do now, because I’m not going to be there to vote against it, then it’s going to rip this country to pieces” 69:54

Arrogance!, Incompetence!, Corruption!

————————————————————————————————————

Another breakthrough today. Eric Massa spoke. What Massa said we will discuss today. Eric Massa was not what our Part II was going to be about. We’ll post a Part III another day, in order to discuss Eric Massa today.

In an update to our last post (Arrogance! Incompetence! Corruption!: Election 2006 And Dimocrat Obama’s Culture Of Corruption Election 2010, Part I) we wrote:

Regarding David Paterson and Eric Massa, we are not excusing the conduct of either of them. However, as we wrote before about David Paterson, these are Obama thug drive-by shootings. Paterson and Eric Massa both fit into the pattern of Obama using sex related stories to destroy opponents (such as Blair Hull).

Let’s expand on that right-on-target update with three points. First of all, Rahm Emanuel – this is what Chicago Corruption Crime expert John Kass has written:

When the president installed Rahm as his chief of staff, the Washington media were turgid with respect, praising Rahm as a shrewd political alley fighter, a maestro of profanity, a former ballet dancer tough enough to send a dead fish to an enemy, just like a Hollywood gangster.

Naturally, the national media marveled that Obama selected a Clinton guy, Emanuel, to run things.

But Rahm is no Clinton guy. He’s a Daley guy.

Rahm Emanuel is a Daley guy. Second, Eric Massa. In our update we linked to a story discussing Eric Massa’s purported history of sexual interest in men. The history extends into Massa’s Navy days. The writer of the Eric Massa history, a confessed enemy of Massa, states he knew of allegations regarding Massa’s alleged attraction to men over three years ago. The Dimocratic House leadership acknowledges they were aware of “rumors” about Massa “for weeks” at the very least. More likely, whatever “rumors” about Massa existed were discovered during the vetting for his first run for congress.

Rahm Emanuel was in charge of the DCCC in 2006 when Eric Massa first ran for congress and Emanuel is not known to assist congressional first time candidates without thorough vetting. Whatever rumors about Massa existed in 2006, Rahm Emanuel knew them all before authorizing a single dollar to Eric Massa’s campaign (Massa was a special “Red to Blue” DCCC special candidate in 2006).

Third, David Paterson (as we wrote long ago) became a target for Obama thugs the minute he defied Barack Obama and did not appoint Caroline Kennedy to the U.S. Senate.

Today all of this exploded.

While Barack Obama ran off to stage another of his closed door publicity stunts (protests are planned) to ram through his health scam which transfers wealth from taxpayers to Big Insurance and Big Pharma Obama pals, the bad news took center stage. Previous “yes” votes on the Obama health scam are now “NO” votes. And Eric Massa spoke. Eric Massa became a whistle blower.



Eric Massa is a “NO” vote on Obama’s health scam. Getting rid of Eric Massa will likely mean a Republican will win his congressional district in the next election. But for now getting rid of Eric Massa will mean that only 216 votes will be needed to pass Obama’s health scam and not 218. The determinative vote in the House will be so close that getting rid of Eric Massa (a single payer health care supporter) might get Obama’s health scam passed. Eric Massa had to go. The Obama thugs set to work on Massa like they have done in many elections (read all about Axelrod and the long history of Obama using sex to destroy Obama opponents HERE).

Today Eric Massa stated that it is Dimocrats who want him out because he opposes Barack Obama’s health scam.

Some Eric Massa quotes:

Mine is now the deciding vote on the health care bill,” Massa, who on Friday announced his intention to resign, said during a long monologue on radio station WKPQ. “And this administration and this House leadership have said, quote-unquote, they will stop at nothing to pass this health care bill. And now they’ve gotten rid of me, and it will pass. You connect the dots.”

More:

Massa, who voted against health care reform in November, accused Democratic leaders of driving him out of office in the cause of passing health care reform. “With the departure of Congressman Neil Abercrombie (D), who is running for the governorship of Hawaii, and with the tragic and very sad passing of my personal friend Jack Murtha (D-Pa.), mine is now the deciding vote on the health care bill and this administration and this House leadership have said, quote-unquote, they will stop at nothing to pass this health care bill. And now they’ve gotten rid of me and it will pass. You connect the dots.”

The comment that landed Massa in hot water, he claimed, was a sexual proposition he made in jest at a table full of drunken male staffers at a wedding reception on New Year’s Eve. He also said that the complainant was not the man he allegedly harassed, but an offended third party who witnessed the incident.

According to Eric Massa, “his chief of staff informed him in early February” of the charges filed against him. Early February, but only with every single vote a make or break vote, is the push on to get rid of Massa. Indeed, the “rumors” about Eric Massa were circulating “for months” but only now is there action.

Again, we do not defend Massa’s actions (or David Paterson’s actions). Eric Massa should stay in the House, not resign, and fight it out. But, if any of the allegations against him are true in any way, it would come out in an investigation by the House. Eric Massa has a lose/lose situation before him: stay and fight and be destroyed personally or quit and be called a “drama queen” (this “drama queen” anti-gay slur appears to be how the Dimocrats and stupid Republicans will respond to the latest Obama Drama because it avoids substantive responses and because “she’s crazy” or “he’s crazy” is what Obama thugs usually say).

More from Massa, this about Rahm Emanuel:

Massa voted against health care legislation in Nov., and he has not been a reliable vote for Dem leadership. That, he said, has put a target on his back.

“When I voted against the cap and trade bill, the phone rang and it was the chief of staff to the president of the United States of America, Rahm Emanuel, and he started swearing at me in terms and words that I hadn’t heard since that crossing the line ceremony on the USS New Jersey in 1983,” Massa said. “And I gave it right back to him, in terms and words that I know are physically impossible.”

“If Rahm Emanuel wants to come after me, maybe he ought to hold himself to the same standards I’m holding myself to and he should resign,” Massa said.

It was not only on the phone that Rahm Emanuel reached out to Eric Massa:

“Rahm Emanuel is son of the devil’s spawn, Rep. Eric Massa (D-NY) said. “He is an individual who would sell his mother to get a vote. He would strap his children to the front end of a steam locomotive.”

Rep. Massa describes a confrontation with Emanuel in a shower: “I am showering, naked as a jaybird, and here comes Rahm Emanuel, not even with a towel wrapped around his tush, poking his finger in my chest, yelling at me.”

It all sounds like an episode from the Sopranos or low grade Godfather dialogue. Corruption! describes it best. Desperation is the reason for the thug tactics:

“There is not a single member of the Democratic freshman class whi (sic) is going to vote against this health care bill now that they’ve got me,” he said. “Eric Massa’s probably not going to go back to Congress, because the only way I would go back there would be as an independent. A pox on both parties.”

We hope Eric Massa does not resign. Eric Massa today should think about what is best for the American people. Eric Massa should vote “NO” and then if necessary quit. Eric Massa should also leave the Dimocratic Party of Arrogance! Incompetence! Corruption!

Increasingly that is the answer, get rid of Barack Obama, or leave the Obama Dimocratic Party of Arrogance! Incompetence! Corruption!


[Part III next, unless some new corruption bursts forth.]

Share

144 thoughts on “The Eric Massa Edition – Arrogance! Incompetence! Corruption!: Election 2006 And Dimocrat Obama’s Culture Of Corruption Election 2010, Part II

  1. PM317 and Basement Angel, in response to your comments from the earlier article on Social Security, we have written about Barack Obama and Social Security before. Try these two articles from 2007 (note the titles which say it all):

    http://www.hillaryis44.org/2007/09/20/barack-obamas-social-insecurity/

    http://www.hillaryis44.org/2007/10/29/is-barack-obama-a-closeted-ripublican/

    In January 2009 we wrote this:

    http://www.hillaryis44.org/2009/01/08/obamas-social-security-treachery/

    Obama has now revealed what his legacy is to be – the destruction of Social Security.

    Ignore the flowery words, Obama is planning a great treachery. Expect PINOs to be silent.

    Obama today mouthed another “big speech” on the economy. Ignore it. Obama is doing the ol’ Razzle Dazzle to distract from his real plans.

    The Obama economic plan, the so-called “stimulus” – all are stalking horses for the destruction of Social Security.

    Doesn’t that say it all?

    In 2007 we posted, with some regularity, this video:

  2. A Youtube version of the Massa interview, for those who could not access the version we posted in the article:

  3. Yep, and doing in Social Security will be a lot easier with a Republican majority in at least one house of Congress. Let’s remember, the Republicans managed to impeach a first rate, Democratic president with control of only one house – well, the critical one. Anyway, Obama can’t even think about doing in Social Security with both houses of Congress in Democratic hands, but he can get it done with crazed Republicans who have hated Social Security since it’s inception at his side. If health care reform fails, Dems may hold on to Congress for two more years. But if health care reform passes, Americans will ride them out of Congress on a rail.

    Thanks for the links.

  4. The loss of Massa hurts….they will no wjust squeak by with the vote. Obama seemingly thinks no matter waht, this legislation will make him a POTUS if historical significance. The sad thing is, despite all the hope and change bs, I have not recalled, sans Vietnam when I was very young, a nation more divided.

  5. If the health care reform scheme passes, the Democrats will be an utterly broken party. Everyone is going to be terrified to stand up to Obama. I know the existential definition of sadism is the process by which someone becomes an instrument of another’s will. That’s what we’re seeing here – Obama is attempting to break the Democrats who will stand up to him. Once the party is broken, he’ll be able to hand our health care dollars over to the health insurance companies and our retirement dollars over to Wall Street with impunity. A few people will get rich and a lot of people will get hurt. And the titans of finance will love Obama. When he leaves office, he’ll get invited to all the best parties thrown by all the best people. In the end, that’s what he wants.

  6. Basement Angel, while the “Pelosi airlines” story is a distraction, a few clarifications. There is no private jet for speakers of the house. After 9/11 George W. Bush ordered that the Speaker be provided with access to military aircraft when traveling on official business. The Speaker’s office, via the Sergeant at Arms makes a request to the military for use of an airplane from a pool of airplanes. Republican Hastert of Illinois used a C-208.

    Pelosi, after she became Speaker, wanted a C-21 or a C-37A which could travel, without refueling stops, to California. The planes Pelosi wanted are also more spacious and luxurious. The Sergeant at Arms, Bill Livingood (that’s his real name not added snark), as the responsible official made the request to the military.

    While a lot of these Pelosi “airlines” stories are distractions there are some issues which are legitimate. This one we think is a legitimate problem:

    http://www.rollcall.com/issues/55_19/news/37552-1.html

    Last year, lawmakers excoriated the CEOs of the Big Three automakers for traveling to Washington, D.C., by private jet to attend a hearing about a possible bailout of their companies.

    But apparently Congress is not philosophically averse to private air travel: At the end of July, the House approved nearly $200 million for the Air Force to buy three elite Gulfstream jets for ferrying top government officials and Members of Congress.

    The Air Force had asked for one Gulfstream 550 jet (price tag: about $65 million) as part of an ongoing upgrade of its passenger air service.

    But the House Appropriations Committee, at its own initiative, added to the 2010 Defense appropriations bill another $132 million for two more airplanes and specified that they be assigned to the D.C.-area units that carry Members of Congress, military brass and top government officials.

    Because the Appropriations Committee viewed the additional aircraft as an expansion of an existing Defense Department program, it did not treat the money for two more planes as an earmark, and the legislation does not disclose which Member had requested the additional money. [snip]

    The Gulfstream G550 is a luxury business jet, which the company advertises as featuring long-range flight capacity that “easily links Washington, D.C., with Dubai, London with Singapore and Tokyo with Paris.” The company’s promotional materials say, “The cabin aboard the G550 combines productivity with exceptional comfort. It features up to four distinct living areas, three temperature zones, a choice of 12 floor plan configurations with seating for up to 18 passengers.”

    The version Gulfstream sells to the military is reconfigured for the government with modest accommodations, not the luxury version sold to private customers, said a source familiar with the planes.

  7. Admin,

    Thank you, as always, for the clarification.

    I’m glad that you’ve kept posting in the aftermath of the election. This blog provides a lot of the kind of value that Somerby’s incomparable archives provide.

    It’s so hard for me to believe that this nation has gone down this path, but we have. We’re here and it’s going to get worse. It always does when a sociopath sinks their claws in.

  8. We updated the article with this:

    “Articulate” Barack Obama can’t “sell watermelons” says Dan Rather on racist NBC [audio here].

    Eric Massa on Glenn Beck show for the full hour tomorrow. On Larry King show too, tomorrow.

    More Eric Massa quotes (from the interview video, below):

    23:23 “I’ve had union leaders tell me point blank ‘we are not going to contribute to your campaign unless you vote for this health care bill.’ Is that, or is that not a bribe?” 23:32

    25:47 “I was set up for this from the very very beginning. If you think that somehow they didn’t come after me to get rid of me because my vote is the deciding vote on the health care bill – then ladies and gentleman, you live in a world that is so innocent, as not to understand what is going on in Washington, DC.”26:00 “The leadership of the Democratic Party have become exactly what they said they were running against.” 26:07

    26:16 “The entire nation has said, ‘let’s rewrite the health care bill. Let’s find what we can agree on.’ ‘No, no, no, we’re gonna ram this down the throats of the American people and anyone who stands in the way of doing that is gonna be smeared and they’re going to be kicked out of Congress, and we’re gonna have people like Steny Hoyer lying in the press.’”20:33

    69:49 “If they ram this health care bill through which apparently they’re going to do now, because I’m not going to be there to vote against it, then it’s going to rip this country to pieces” 69:54

  9. wbboei, your 1st, 2nd, 5th and subsequent objections to this article are all ad hominem. Your 3rd argument, that 47% is really bad, may well be wishful thinking. That could be turned around from now until January 2012 and, if o doesn’t get it back above 50%, it still won’t stop him from running for a 2nd term, just as the other presidents mentioned (Ford, Carter) did. So, in o’s mind, 47% is AOK.

    Your argument that Bayh is dull is unconvincing. He is better known to the public now than Kerry was, 3 years before the 2004 election, or even 1 year before that election. Also, he has never lost an election in otherwise red Indiana, and has experience in that state. Furthermore, he has already called it quits with the dimocrat machine, is a conservative Dem, and seems well positioned now for a challenge against o.

    Again taking the lesson of 1968, RFK, who was the Dem c-e-l-e-b-r-i-t-y of that era, only entered the race once the unknown McCarthy had upset LBJ in the first primaries. It took those upsets to convince LBJ that neither the country nor the party wanted him any more. RFK entered the primary race in March 68.
    ————————————————–
    Yes, they are ad homium attacks alright but they go to the larger question of the writers motivations and the weight we should give to his opinion. Einstein was a mathematical genius, but if he tried to tell you what kind of tires to buy for your car, you might question the basis for his opinion. (Especially since he claimed driving a car was too complicated and refused to get a license for that reason).

    He argues that a 47% approval rating is not so bad and there is time for him to recover. I am sure you are right that Obama believes the same thing. But if you ask Rassmussen he will tell you that the critical metric is not approval rating, because that is the consensus of a body of people who are not really paying attention. He claims the critical metric is the strongly in favor vs strongly against. And there the numbers are running 2 to 1 against Obama.

    Furthermore he is sinking in quicksand over the health care issue. If he wins it is a pyrhic victory since public opinion is strongly against the bill. If he loses, well Carvelle put it best: its Waterloo. Either way Cook is right that it is his Iraq. And of course there is the enormous deficit he is running up on the country. And the economic gotterdamerugn in 2011 predicted by Senator Gregg. And the administration itself is predicting high unemployment through 2015.

    None of his bodes well for a turnaround in his popularity. On the contrary it foretells a continuing decline in his presidency. His character flaws will be more apparent as well.

    As far as Bayh is concerned, I just got off the phone with a democrat in Indiana. She confirmed to me that he is dull. More important however, the electorate is hurting and they are re evaluating him. They do not like the fact that he vouched for the flawed health care deform bill, that his wife is a senior executive with a health care company that stands to make a lot of money from it and that he waited until the deadline to declare that he is not running, to block third party candidates.
    Thank you for the response. I was hoping for some push back. Here is my rebuttal:

    In fairness, the writer does a journeyman job of articulating conventional thinking. But conventional thinking never moved a mountain, recognized a tipping point, or rescued a nation teetering on the verge of disaster. The Obama brand no longer works. Why? Because the test of any brand is its ability to deliver what it promises (See Branding Is For Cattle). And, Mr. Obama has broken every promise he has made.

    In times like this, politics is not driven by linear logic. What drives politics three things: the candidate, the message and the moment. That is why I am hopeful that Hillary will be elected.

  10. basement angel/admin: Thanks for the clarification on Nancy’s jet.

    basement angel: I especially would like to tell thanks for seeing what I see is that Obama is a republican and is being protected (in cognito) by the republicans and I also think was elected with the help of the republicans. The last thing the republicans wanted after the Bush screwups was a Clinton….that scared the…..of them. Bush I was supposed to get another 4 years and then on further for republican domination.
    I guess I got my blues and yellow dogs mixed up, but I thought most of Hillary supporters were getting challenged??? I makes sense when you think of it…Hillary’s supporters would be challenged.

  11. basement angel per your last comment on the previous thread @ 2:44….I have to tell this theory of yours really makes sense to me….It is really the only thing where all pieces fall into place. Where does Bayh fit into your puzzle???

  12. Thanks, Admin. I quickly looked at the comments too on those 2007 articles. How the world has changed!

  13. basement angel, you know of coarse the BM says that he is a total leftie….how do you explain….even on many blogs they ask if he is going to move to the center to save his Presidency.

  14. This “couldn’t sell watermelons” comment sure seems like a racist comment to me….Why isn’t the media going crazy..oh thats right it was said right in front of Tweetie and he said nothing.

  15. The guys at Hillbuzz are asking these questions about Rather/watermelons.

    “Would Rather REALLY be stupid enough to fall right into the Race Industry’s hands and actually us a watermelon analogy?”

    “Has Rather lost his mind?”

    “Did Ratehr, strangely, do this on purpose to take attention off Rahm Enamuel’s shower attak on Eric Massa? Because there is nothing that can bump naked shower screaming off the headlines faster than someone like Dan Rather saying the current president can’t sell watermelons.”

    “Maybe Rather, sickly, fell on a sword to get back in good graces with [the MSM] these lunatics.”

    “…wonder if the comment was made on purpose tohelp the Leftist cause in some way?”

  16. Southern Born, we believe the Rather comment was made yesterday, before the Massa comments became a sensation. In the presence of Chris Matthews, “tingly” comments and “racist” comments, however disguised as compliments, come trippingly off the tongue.

  17. Massa really doesn’t have anything to lose now to stay in Congress, with coming out with all of this. If they con’t to go after him, it will look very bad for the Fraud indeed.

    Too bad he resigned, we needed him in there

  18. BTW, at Obama’s publicity stunt today, certain people were missing:

    http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/03/vulnerable-dems-dont-accompany-obama/37183/

    President Obama made an in-person push for health care reform in the Philadelphia suburb of Glenside today, but Hotline OnCall’s Reid Wilson notes that some vulnerable Democrats from Pennsylvania were not in attendance for his speech.

    Democratic Reps. Patrick Murphy, Chris Carney, and Tim Holden did not attend the event. Meanwhile, Senate primary combatants Arlen Specter and Rep. Joe Sestak were there.

  19. I love facebook, as you know I used to work with a bunch of emergency room docs that were republicans and were always razing me about my backing Hillary….I have reconnected to most of them and its politics at its best again…LOL!!! Their whole facebook pages are healthcare/Obamacare.

  20. Confloyd,

    We’re shooting a documentary about weight loss surgery right now, and spent the day with a bunch of surgeons at a convention. They all sounded off loud and clear about how badly Obama has screwed up health care reform.

  21. An important BTW, the House was not in session today so Eric Massa could not formally resign. News reports are that he has resigned. We are going to wait until tomorrow to see if Massa has officially resigned.

  22. pl. educate me — what is the connection between watermelons and race? (I didn’t grow up here.)

  23. I think Rather’s comments were not in any way racist. He stated the truth. Obama talked a good game but when the real game started, he could not back up his words. Off course had Bill/Hill or any republican stated it as Dan did, Jesse, Al, and the rest of the “race baiters” would be going nuts. Tweety’s selective outrage is far more egregious. I sure Eugene Robinson will pipe in soon as well…

  24. I hear Massa and Wesley Clark are buds…is that true…so that tells me where Hillay stands in all of this!

  25. pm317, In the south…watermelons and fried chicken are known to be liked and cooked by most blacks in the south.

    I won’t tell you the pic I just got emailed to me from my republican friend it has a person sitting in a bucket of chicken from Kentucky Fried Chicken….very,very racist.

  26. basement angel, I just got the factoid that our two surgeons in our itsy, bitsy town have decided not to take anymore medicare patients…this is going to get real interesting…wait until the old folks find out its the Combine that is screwing up their healthcare…the …will hit the fan..

  27. Dan is from Texas and talks in that manner . I think he was a great journalist/anchor and got railroaded . His reporting during the Nixon yrs was incredible as well as his time on 60 minutes.

  28. Massa Will Resign Monday as Planned
    Buzz up!2 votes Send
    Email IM Share
    Facebook Twitter Delicious Digg Fark Newsvine Reddit StumbleUpon Technorati Yahoo! Bookmarks Print By Tory Newmyer, CQ-Roll Call Tory Newmyer, Cq-roll Call – Mon Mar 8, 12:18 pm ET
    Rep. Eric Massa (D-N.Y.) will follow through with his resignation, scheduled to take effect at 5 p.m. Monday, his chief of staff confirmed.

    Massa suggested to a New York radio station on Sunday that he could rescind his resignation after asserting that an ethics investigation into allegations that he sexually harassed an aide may have been orchestrated by Democratic leaders to get him out of office before the health care vote.

    “The comments on the radio came from constituents calling in, saying, ‘You should rescind.’ And that’s how that fire got fed. He addressed them by thanking them for the comments, but the resignation is still effective,” Massa Chief of Staff Joseph Racalto said in an interview outside the New York Democrat’s office in the Longworth House Office Building.

    Massa, a freshman, is not expected to return to Washington, Racalto said, and staff were busy Monday boxing up his books and other belongings. Racalto said he is “desperately” trying to find new jobs for about 20 staff members, but for the time being, they will remain in the office handling district casework.

  29. jweswezey: here is another thing to consider in terms of polling. Let us assume the general approval rate is in fact 47% as suggested. Is that an accurate predictor of whether those 47% would vote for him against a generic democratic candidate in the primary or a generic republican candidate in the general. I think the answer is an emphatic no. The reason I say that is because of the Bradley effect. I was told that today by someone who knows. When someone receives a call in their home from a stranger who asks them what they think of Obama, they do not want to be labeled a racist, so they give the safe answer. The better indicator of how they will vote is whether they support his policies. Those will be the basis of how many people will judge him in the privacy of the voting booth. Call it the Bradley effect if you like. I tried to play devil’s advocate with this individual who is a Hillary supporter and they would not budge. So I said I think the people of this country still love this guy and are too dumb or preoccupied or bamboozled to realize what he is doing to the country. They love him to death and so does big media. That will never change. This individual said no, the chances that he will be re elected are zero and he knows it. If you want to know how people really feel about him look at the approval rating for his policies. On health care deform it is like 80 against and 20 for him. And after this Louisiana Purchase, Cornhusker Kickback, and Massa Soiree the trust factor be in the toilet. There is just no way out for Mr. Obama. None that I can see.

  30. March 08, 2010
    Uh-Oh: Stupak “Optimistic” Abortion Dispute Can Be Resolved
    —Ace
    Wonderful.

    From Ace
    *************

    They’re really going to do this, huh?

    Rep. Bart Stupak said he expects to resume talks with House leaders this week in a quest for wording that would impose no new limits on abortion rights but also would not allow use of federal money for the procedure.
    “I’m more optimistic than I was a week ago,” Stupak said in an interview…

  31. When are you all going to realize this is a coordinated effort to screw the American people….from both parties….

  32. I hope Massa has the guts to show up on Beck and blow the whistle on Obama and his thugs. He says he will but I have my doubts The White House people are desperate and the guy he threatens most apart from Obama has already fantasized about leaving dead horse heads in people’s beds.

  33. Obama’s way out is to be offered a UN Presidency and resigning as US President to accept the offered position.

  34. JanH, blessings to you and your family at their time of need. Health issues always take president. Prayers and Godspeed to the family member in need of your support.

    I will be looking forward to your return. I miss your input and commentary on what is going on in the Middle East and Israel.

  35. Well, here is what the conservative (not to be confused with republican) bloggers are saying about all this:

    OBAMACARE IS RIPPING THIS NATION TO PIECES

    Posted by Brian Darling (Profile)
    Monday, March 8th at 9:00PM EST
    3 Comments

    Congressman Eric Massa (D-NY) gave us a glimpse into the inner workings of the House Democrat Caucus. Massa voted against ObamaCare when it came up in the House last year. He alleged on a New York radio station that he is being forced out of Congress because of his stance on ObamaCare. Aside from the validity of the allegations against him, Massa gives us a glimpse into a fight within the Democrat Caucus on the political viability of the President’s health care reform proposal. Massa shows us that there are some Democrats pleading with Speaker Pelosi (D-Ca) to back away from ObamaCare.

    According to Politico:

    Rep. Eric Massa (D-N.Y.) says the House ethics committee is investigating him for inappropriate comments he made to a male staffer on New Year’s Eve — and that he’s the victim of a power play by Democratic leaders who want him out of Congress because he’s a “no” vote on health care reform.

    If this is true and Democrat Leaders are forcing Massa out of Congress to help pass ObamaCare, this something that should be investigated by the House Ethics Committee. When did Democrat Leadership know about the allegations against Massa? Was the timing of the disclosure of the allegations part of a plan to help pass ObamaCare? Massa claims that the Democrat Leadership will “stop at nothing” to get what they want. More Politico:

    And this administration and this House leadership have said, quote-unquote, they will stop at nothing to pass this health care bill.

    Were they willing to force a member out of Congress to pass ObamaCare? Much of this story came from a radio broadcast of Massa on WKPQ (TH to Brietbart.tv). Massa claims that one pressure point that Dems used was to have union leaders threaten him to vote for ObamaCare or get no union money.

    I have had union leaders tell me point blank we are not going to contribute to your campaign unless you vote for this health care bill. Is that or is that not a bribe?

    I don’t know. It seems unethical. The promise of campaign contributions for a vote for health care may be considered a quid pro quo bribe under current law. A bigger question is whether this threat was made at the behest of Members of Congress or Obama Administration officials. Massa alleges that Democrats have lost their way. They railed against Republicans for using strong arm tactics to pass bills, like the Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit, yet now they are engaging in unethical behavior to pass health care reform.

    The leadership of the Democratic party have become exactly what they said they were running against they have become exactly what we all ran against.

    This anger and rage is coming from an elected member of the Democrat party. This is a member that attended closed door meetings with leaders. One of the points Massa made is that Democrats are ignoring Republican claims that the American people do not like ObamaCare and have repeatedly rejected it.

    You can not effectively govern this country without the consent of governed. The entire nation has said let’s rewrite the health care bill. Let’s find what we can agree upon. No. No. No. We are going to ram this down the throats of the American people.

    Consent of the governed is an important concept and the Democrats have ignored the polls calling for Congress to start over and people of Massachusetts who sent Senator Scott Brown (R-MA) to the Capitol to kill ObamaCare. Massa, a Democrat, was a voice in the caucus saying to rewrite the bill and listen to the American people.

    The American people have lost faith in this piece of legislation and if we pass this bill using reconciliation it will tear this country to pieces. It will rip this country asunder. And I have made this argument over and over and over and over again with House Leadership.

    And the House leadership ignored him and others saying that reconciliation, the Health Care Nuclear Option, will destroy our nation politically. The people will be very angry and our populace will become more polarized.

    I have said we are supposed to be as democrats the party of unity. We are supposed to be the party that builds consensus. We are supposed be the part that governs equally without malice towards anyone. We are supposed to be the ones that find the solutions.

    The promise — the covenant Democrat leadership had with the American people has been broken. They have not been the party of unity, nor the party of consensus, nor the party that governs without malice, nor the ones that find solutions. They have been the party of a faction that ignores broad based solutions in favor of using strong arm tactics to force through a left wing approach to health care reform.

    But instead of actually trying finding the solutions and writing a piece of legislation that will get you a 90 percent solution with 70 percent agreement among the American people. They are going to ram this bill down the throats of this country and it is going to rip this nation to pieces politically and it will be a generation for this nation to recover.

    These are strong words from Congressman Massa, but, his words give us some evidence that elements of the Democrat party are pleading for ObamaCare to be shelved. One may be skeptical of his claims of innocence, yet still give credence to his strong claims of unethical behavior on the part of Dem Leadership. ObamaCare is taking on some water and the bill may yet stink because of the dangerous tactics Dems have used to railroad the bill through Congress against the will of the American people.

  36. What is it that irritates me when I hear Lindsey Graham speak??? I really want to know, I know no dirt on him…he just grates on my nerves to hear him speak?

  37. The Bradley effect has been pretty thoroughly debunked. There wasn’t any real gap between the polling numbers and Obama’s performance in the election.

    As for whether he’ll be re-elected, who knows? Bush was massively unpopular and so were his policies and yet, he got away with smearing a war veteran and took the White House a second time. I have my doubts about the authenticity of his win, but Obama is not above cheating either.

  38. Yes Jan H, Sorry for all your heartache…looking forward to you coming back…your my Israel/Iran connection

  39. basement angel, I have doubts the authenticity of a bunch of recent elections….they have control over the diabold voting machines…..they can make an election say whatever they want it too

  40. This commenter didn’t give a cite, but I think it’s worth posting, as the same sort of massive attacks now seem to be aimed at Gore himself.


    http://www.badscience.net/2010/03/when-is-it-okay-to-ignore-people-you-dont-trust/
    IIRC, Al Gore made it very clear that the PR companies that lobbied governments for non-intervention and pushed cigarette denialism for years (and years and years) are the same PR companies that have done the same thing with oil and climate change.

  41. Confloyd,

    Oh yeah, you are right about that. In point of fact, the unreliability of voting machines in Florida is what got Democrats to vote for the Republican authored bill that moved Florida’s primary up and wound up costing Democratic voters in that state, half their delegates.

    Think about that – Republicans were willing to mandate paper trails for their electronic voting machines in order to delegitimize Hillary’s win in Florida. Just think about that. Why were Republicans so interested in making sure that Hillary didn’t get all of the delegates that she was going to win in that state?

    Admin has linked this article a couple times. If you’ve never read it, you need to. It’s all about how the Republicans rigged events in Michigan and Florida to cost Clinton:
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/wayne-barrett/could-the-republicans-cou_b_94158.html

  42. Watching that video of Hillary’s 1995 speech how could Mitt Romney not want his wife to be like Hillary…she is the epitome of womanhood! Mitt is stuck on stupid!

  43. The Bradley effect has been pretty thoroughly debunked. There wasn’t any real gap between the polling numbers and Obama’s performance in the election
    ———————————–
    Bear in mind what we are really talking about here is a corollary to the Bradley effect. In both cases, they voter tells the pollster that they will vote for the black candidate, and then vote against him in the privacy of the voting booth. In both cases they are unwilling to tell the pollster what they really think because they do not want to be accused of being a racist. But the motivation for voting against him in the voting booth is fundamentally different. In the Bradley effect scenario the motivation is race, whereas in the present scenario it is job performance, as indicated by the way they vote against his policies. That proposition has never been debunked. Indeed how else do you account for the wide disparity between the approval rating of him and the approval rating of his policies? People are afraid to tell pollsters what they really think about the man because they do not want to be thought of as racists. That is what I am being told, and looking around me I think that is what is happening. If George Bush were doing what this joker was doing his approval rating would be half of Obama’s and the critical factor here I believe is race. As for the Bradley effect, i.e. the notion that voters are closet racists, that has been proven despite what Chuck Todd told us at the end of the New Hampshire primary. Subsequent research revealed flaws in the polling methodology.

    The Bradley effect has been debunked by the election of Obama. However, this phen The Bradley effect posits that white people will vote against a black candidate on the grounds of race. Whereas, this are closet racists and will tell a pollster that they will vote for a black candidate and will then turn around and vote against him in the polling booth because of his race. This is different in the sense that white people still say they will vote for him but refuses and then turn around and vote against him strictly on grounds of race. What ? Not from what I am hearing. I think it was misapplied to New Hampshire when the polls were debunked by the election results. The problem lay in the polling methodology. But think about what my friend said. She said many people felt guilty about the racial issue, felt good about voting for Obama because he was black, and now that he is governing badly they still give him good marks but give low marks to his policies. I think the Bradley effect is the reason. They do not know who the person who is calling them to ask polling questions. They do not want that person or anyone else to perceive them as racists. The mere thought of that paralyzes their thinking, or as we used to say sucks the oxygen out of the room. So they make casper milk toast statements about him like he is not the same man as we saw in the general election but they go on to say they still like him even though he is stealing them blind. But they do not like his policies and the figures are 10

  44. http://thenewagenda.net/2010/03/08/video-please-reach-out-to-ohioans-on-statuary-hall/

    From March 20th to June 1st, the citizens of Ohio will have an opportunity to “vote” for a new statue in National Statuary Hall. Here is an opportunity for citizens of Ohio to help our government move closer to gender parity! What’s unique about this “election” is that all citizens of Ohio can vote, regardless of their age. Voting is done at one of the many Historical Sites around the state or Ohio residents can download a ballot at http://www.legacyforOhio.org and mail it in.

    Out of the ten nominees, there are three women, Harriet Beecher Stowe, Judith Resnik and Harriet Taylor Upton. So watch this short video, and then forward it to your friends in Ohio, and ask them to take all their friends, family and children to the nearest polling place and help “Put A Woman in National Statuary Hall.” The competition is stiff, but if we band together we can change the number of women in Statuary Hall from nine to ten. For latest updates on what’s happening in Ohio, go to the FACEBOOK page Put a Woman in Statuary Hall.

  45. Sorry. I thought I had erased the second paragraph. It was going to be the first paragraph but I decided to start over because I realized that this is not really the Bradley effect, and I tried to stress that in what I wrote later which is the present first paragraph. Sorry for the confusion. Any reaction?

  46. turndownobama
    March 8th, 2010 at 10:24 pm

    This commenter didn’t give a cite, but I think it’s worth posting, as the same sort of massive attacks now seem to be aimed at Gore himself.

    __________________________

    Gore has to be held accountable for his statement: “Humans are responsible for global warming.” No matter what it takes.

    If he is legitimate, he has nothing to fear. Gore should be standing up for what he believes and for what is right. So far, Gore has been habitually evasive about answering questions in a public forum which gives most of us pause, asking: “why the silence”, when we are waiting to be convinced, “humans are responsible for global warming” by the seemingly altruistic Gore.

  47. As for whether he’ll be re-elected, who knows? Bush was massively unpopular and so were his policies and yet, he got away with smearing a war veteran and took the White House a second time. I have my doubts about the authenticity of his win, but Obama is not above cheating either.
    ————————————————-
    I think this is completely different. And believe me this is not a brief for Bush. However, Bush tried to introduce massive change in social security like Obama is trying to institute massive change to health care. In each case, the public was bitterly opposed. Bush backed off whereas this joker has said the public be damned this is going through. Bush cut taxes whereas this clown will be raising them in a time when nobody has any money. Bush had low to moderate unemployment during his tenure until the very end, whereas Obama has 17% effective unemployment and no plan to solve the problem. Bush was devisive as hell but nothing like this clown. Bush never had 2 million people march on Washington in opposition to his policies. Consequently, I am skeptical of the comparison. I think we are on the road to disaster here.

  48. The other thing about Bush was after a year and a half he was on his way to becoming a one term president. But then 9/11 happened the country was terrified and he was seen as taking charge. Obama does not have that same luxury. He has already marked himself as weak on national defense, border security, and confronting the real problem which is Iran, terrorism and so forth. Foreign policy cannot save or redeem him, like it did Bush.

  49. http://www.alternet.org/environment/145838/how_the_mountain_of_climate_change_evidence_is_being_used_to_undermine_the_cause?page=entire

    How the Mountain of Climate Change Evidence Is Being Used to Undermine the Cause
    [….]
    Every major scientific body in the world has produced reports confirming the peril. All 15 of the warmest years on record have come in the two decades that have passed since 1989. In the meantime, the Earth’s major natural systems have all shown undeniable signs of rapid flux: melting Arctic and glacial ice, rapidly acidifying seawater, and so on.
    [….]
    The campaign against climate science has been enormously clever, and enormously effective. It’s worth trying to understand how they’ve done it. The best analogy, I think, is to the O.J. Simpson trial
    [….]
    The Dream Team of lawyers assembled for Simpson’s defense had a problem: it was pretty clear their guy was guilty. Nicole Brown’s blood was all over his socks, and that was just the beginning. So Johnnie Cochran, Robert Shapiro, Alan Dershowitz, F. Lee Bailey, Robert Kardashian et al. decided to attack the process, arguing that it put Simpson’s guilt in doubt, and doubt, of course, was all they needed. Hence, those days of cross-examination about exactly how Dennis Fung had transported blood samples, or the fact that Los Angeles detective Mark Fuhrman had used racial slurs when talking to a screenwriter in 1986.
    [….]
    [ Lord Mockton ] is also identified as a “former advisor to Margaret Thatcher,” and he did write a piece for the American Spectator during her term as prime minister offering his prescriptions for “the only way to stop AIDS”:
    “…screen the entire population regularly and… quarantine all carriers of the disease for life. Every member of the population should be blood-tested every month… all those found to be infected with the virus, even if only as carriers, should be isolated compulsorily, immediately, and permanently.”

  50. bah, I was scooped! I see admin already posted it! 😉 sorry, that’s what I get for getting here late in the day…

  51. He is so bad he makes the republicans look good . . . This is from a progressive polling agency.

    Poll shows Obama, Dems losing ground

    A majority of Americans say the United States is less respected in the world than it was two years ago and think President Obama and other Democrats fall short of Republicans on the issue of national security, a new poll finds.

    The Democracy Corps-Third Way survey released Monday finds that by a 10-point margin — 51 percent to 41 percent — Americans think the standing of the U.S. dropped during the first 13 months of Mr. Obama’s presidency.

    “This is surprising, given the global acclaim and Nobel peace prize that flowed to the new president after he took office,” said pollsters for the liberal-leaning organizations.

    On the national security front, a massive gap has emerged, with 50 percent of likely voters saying Republicans would likely do a better job than Democrats, a 14-point swing since May. Thirty-three percent favored Democrats.

    “The erosion since May is especially strong among women, and among independents, who now favor Republicans on this question by a 56 to 20 percent margin,” the pollsters said in their findings.

    A May 2009 survey by the pollsters found the public saw the Democratic and Republican parties as equally able to handle national security (41 percent trusted Democrats more, and 43 percent trusted Republicans more.) On conducting the war on terrorism, the two parties were tied at 41 percent.

    The Democrats’ gap on national security has widened on several other fronts:

    • “Keeping America safe”: Democrats now trail by 13 points (34 percent to 47 percent.) The gap was just 5 points in July 2008.

    • “Ensuring a strong military”: Democrats trail by 31 points (27 percent to 58 percent.)

    • “Making America safer from nuclear threats”: Democrats trail by 11 points (34 percent to 45 percent,) “despite the president’s strong actions and speeches on steps to reduce nuclear dangers,” the pollsters said.

    The poll, conducted late last month, found “the administration’s response to the Christmas Day terrorist attempt has contributed to the erosion.”

    “While public polling showed that initial approval of Obama’s response was above 50 percent, two months of Republican criticism have taken a toll. Now a narrow 46 to 42 percent plurality of likely voters say they feel less confident about the administration’s handling of national security because of how it responded to the incident,” the pollsters said.

    In addition, the detention of terrorist suspects and the Obama proposal to prosecute suspects in civil trials in New York City, which was later abandoned, also have taken a toll on the president’s approval ratings.

    “Whereas a majority of the public approves of the job President Obama is doing in most aspects of national security, a 51 to 44 percent majority of likely voters disapproves of his efforts on the prosecution and interrogation of terrorism suspects,” the pollsters found.

    Democracy Corps calls itself an independent, non-profit organization dedicated to making the government of the United States more responsive to the American people.” It was founded in 1999 by former Clinton adviser James Carville and Stanley Greenberg, a leading Democratic pollster.

    Third Way calls itself “the leading moderate think-tank of the progressive movement.”

  52. This article tells it how it is now, and it will only be more so in the future, e.g. Obama’s lack of experience, his dependence on rhetoric rather than action, his disconnection from the lives of many millions of Americans all handicap him heavily. It is not about whose advice he is taking: it is about him grasping what is wrong with America, and finding the will to put it right. That wasted first year, however, is another boulder hanging from his neck: what is wrong needs time to put right. The country’s multi-trillion dollar debt is barely being addressed; and a country engaged in costly foreign wars has a President who seems obsessed with anything but foreign policy
    ——————————————

    The end of the road for Barack Obama?
    Barack Obama seems unable to face up to America’s problems, writes Simon Heffer in New York.

    By Simon Heffer
    Published: 8:16AM GMT 08 Mar 2010
    Comments 699 | Comment on this article

    The once mighty Detroit seems on the verge of being abandoned Photo: Jeffrey Sauger
    It is a universal political truth that administrations do not begin to fragment when things are going well: it only happens when they go badly, and those who think they know better begin to attack those who manifestly do not. The descent of Barack Obama’s regime, characterised now by factionalism in the Democratic Party and talk of his being set to emulate Jimmy Carter as a one-term president, has been swift and precipitate. It was just 16 months ago that weeping men and women celebrated his victory over John McCain in the American presidential election. If they weep now, a year and six weeks into his rule, it is for different reasons.

    Despite the efforts of some sections of opinion to talk the place up, America is mired in unhappiness, all the worse for the height from which Obamania has fallen. The economy remains troublesome. There is growth – a good last quarter suggested an annual rate of as high as six per cent, but that figure is probably not reliable – and the latest unemployment figures, last Friday, showed a levelling off. Yet 15 million Americans, or 9.7 per cent of the workforce, have no job. Many millions more are reduced to working part-time. Whole areas of the country, notably in the north and on the eastern seaboard, are industrial wastelands. The once mighty motor city of Detroit appears slowly to be being abandoned, becoming a Jurassic Park of the mid-20th century; unemployment among black people in Mr Obama’s own city of Chicago is estimated at between 20 and 25 per cent. One senior black politician – a Democrat and a supporter of the President – told me of the wrath in his community that a black president appeared to be unable to solve the economic problem among his own people. Cities in the east such as Newark and Baltimore now have drug-dealing as their principal commercial activity: The Wire is only just fictional.

    Last Thursday the House of Representatives passed a jobs Bill, costing $15 billion, which would give tax breaks to firms hiring new staff and, through state sponsorship of construction projects, create thousands of jobs too. The Senate is trying to approve a Bill that would provide a further $150 billion of tax incentives to employers. Yet there is a sense of desperation in the Administration, a sense that nothing can be as efficacious at the moment as a sticking plaster. Edward B Montgomery, deputy labour secretary in the Clinton administration, now spends his time on day trips to decaying towns that used to have a car industry, not so much advising them on how to do something else as facilitating those communities’ access to federal funds. For a land without a welfare state, America starts to do an effective impersonation of a country with one. This massive state spending gives rise to accusations by Republicans, and people too angry even to be Republicans, that America is now controlled by “Leftists” and being turned into a socialist state.

    “Obama’s big problem,” a senior Democrat told me, “is that four times as many people watch Fox News as watch CNN.” The Fox network is a remarkable cultural phenomenon which almost shocks those of us from a country where a technical rule of impartiality is applied in the broadcast media. With little rest, it pours out rage 24 hours a day: its message is of the construction of the socialist state, the hijacking of America by “progressives” who now dominate institutions, the indoctrination of children, the undermining of religion and the expropriation of public money for these nefarious projects. The public loves it, and it is manifestly stirring up political activism against Mr Obama, and also against those in the Republican Party who are not deemed conservatives. However, it is arguable whether the now-reorganising Right is half as effective in its assault on the President as some of Mr Obama’s own party are.

    Mr Obama benefited in his campaign from an idiotic level of idolatry, in which most of the media participated with an astonishing suspension of cynicism. The sound of the squealing of brakes is now audible all over the American press; but the attack is being directed not at the leader himself, but at those around him. There was much unconditional love a year or so ago of Rahm Emanuel, Mr Obama’s Chief of Staff; oleaginous profiles of this Chicago political hack, a veteran of the Clinton White House, appeared in otherwise respectable journals, praising the combination of his religious devotion, his family-man image, his ruthless operating technique and his command of the vocabulary of profanity. Now, supporters of the President are blaming Mr Emanuel for the failure of the Obama project, not least for his inability to construct a deal on health care.

    This went down badly with friends of Mr Emanuel, notably with Mr Emanuel himself. His partisans, apparently taking dictation from him, have filled newspaper columns and blogs with uplifting accounts of the Wonder of Rahm: as one of them put it, “Emanuel is the only person preventing Obama from becoming Jimmy Carter”. They attack other Obama “sycophants”, such as David Axelrod, his campaign guru, and Valerie Jarret, a long-time friend of Mrs Obama and a fixer from the office of Mayor Daley of Chicago who now manages – or tries to manage – the President’s image. These “sycophants” have, they argue, tried to keep the President above politics, letting Congress run away with the agenda, and gainsaying Mr Emanuel’s advice to Mr Obama to get tough with his internal opponents. This naïve act of manipulation has brought its own counter-counterattack, with an anti-Emanuel pundit drawing a comparison with our own Prime Minister and ridiculing the idea that Mr Obama should start bullying people too.

    The root of the problem seems to be the management of expectations. The magnificent campaign created the notion that Mr Obama could walk on water. Oddly enough, he can’t. That was more Mr Axelrod’s fault than Mr Emanuel’s. And, to be fair to Mr Emanuel, any advice he has been giving the President to impose his will on Congress is probably well founded. The $783 billion stimulus package of a year ago was used to further the re-election prospects of many congressmen, not to do good for the country. America’s politics remain corrupt, populated by nonentities whose main concern once elected is to stay elected; it seems to be the same the whole world over. Even this self-interested use of the stimulus package appears to have failed, however. Every day, it seems, another Democrat congressman announces that he will not be fighting the mid-term elections scheduled for November 2. The health care Bill, apparently so humane in intent, is being “scrubbed” (to use the terminology of one Republican) by its opponents, to the joy of millions of middle Americans who see it as a means to waste more public money and entrench socialism. For the moment, this is a country vibrant with anger.

    A thrashing of the Democrats in the mid-terms would not necessarily be the beginning of the end for Mr Obama: Bill Clinton was re-elected two years after the Republicans swept the House and the Senate in November 1994. But Mr Clinton was an operator in a way Mr Obama patently is not. His lack of experience, his dependence on rhetoric rather than action, his disconnection from the lives of many millions of Americans all handicap him heavily. It is not about whose advice he is taking: it is about him grasping what is wrong with America, and finding the will to put it right. That wasted first year, however, is another boulder hanging from his neck: what is wrong needs time to put right. The country’s multi-trillion dollar debt is barely being addressed; and a country engaged in costly foreign wars has a President who seems obsessed with anything but foreign policy – as a disregarded Britain is beginning to realise.

    There are lessons from the stumbling of Mr Obama for our own country as we approach a general election. Vacuous promises of change are hostages to fortune if they cannot be delivered upon to improve the living conditions of a people. The slickness of campaigning that comes from a combination of heavy funding and public relations expertise does not inevitably translate into an ability to govern. There is no point a nation’s having the audacity of hope unless it also has the sophistication and the will to turn it into action. As things stand, Barack Obama and America under his leadership do not.

  53. Their hypocrisy is on display:
    ————————————————————-

    A Complicated Enemy: Obama Seeks to Vilify Health Insurers, Give Them $336 Billion Check
    March 08, 2010 6:20 PM

    ABC’s Z. Byron Wolf reports: Obama and Democrats launched a campaign to vilify insurance companies in the final stretch of their health reform effort.

    Republicans, meanwhile, pointed out that those very same insurance companies would get huge checks from the government if health reform is enacted.

    “(Health Insurers) will keep on doing this for as long as they can get away with it. This is no secret,” the president said. “They’re telling their investors this – ‘We are in the money. We are going to keep on making big profits even though a lot of folks are going to be put under hardship,’” the President told supporters at a stop in Pennsylvania today.

    HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, meanwhile, wrote to insurance company executives demanding that they justify premium hikes.

    Neither mentioned that the Senate health reform bill, which is the basis for Democrats’ last best chance at comprehensive reform, would give the insurance companies millions of new customers required by law to buy health insurance. It would also require insurers to cover everyone, regardless of age, gender or pre-existing condition.

    To help pay for the new insurance requirements the government would give to people money to buy insurance – $336 billion over the next ten years. That money, ultimately, would have to go to… drum roll… insurance companies.

    People without employer-sponsored insurance who make too much money to qualify for Medicaid and less than about $88,000 for a family of four, would get tax credits to help them buy insurance on the open market. But the payment of the tax credits would be made, point out Republican researchers, directly to insurance companies. See page 37 here of the Senate Finance Committee’s exhaustive explanation of the plan:

    During the 2008 Presidential campaign, then-Senator Obama criticized a proposal by Sen. John McCain because it would send government help for people to buy insurance directly to insurance companies.

    “But The New Tax Credit [For Health Insurance] He’s Proposing? That Wouldn’t Go To You. It Would Go Directly To Your Insurance Company – Not Your Bank Account,” said Obama in October on the Campaign trail.

    And yet that’s exactly what Democrats’ proposal would do and why so many would prefer public insurance option to compete with the private market. Supporting the Senate bill will be tough for many liberal Democrats in the House.

    To the Republicans’ (and Obama’s on the campaign trail) point about the payments going directly to insurance companies, remember that people with employer-sponsored insurance or current federal medical benefits do not usually get a separate check to buy insurance either. They pay premiums directly to the insurance company and so does their employer. The Senate proposal would create a similar relationship between people who don’t have employer-based insurance and the government.

    So why do Insurance companies, if they’re set to receive more than $330 billion in government subsidies to insure people without insurance now oppose the Senate bill?

    “Health plans proposed more than a year ago robust insurance market reforms and new consumer protections to guarantee coverage for pre-existing conditions. Much more needs to be done in the current legislation to address the skyrocketing cost of medical care, which is making health care coverage unaffordable for working families and small businesses,” said Robert Zirkelbach, a spokesman from America’s Health Insurance Plans, in a statement today.

    He argued that health insurers should not be targeted by the President and their profits are lower by margin than other sectors in the health industry.

    “For every dollar spent on health care in America, less than one penny goes towards health plan profits. The focus needs to be on the other 99 cents,” he said.

  54. basement angel
    March 8th, 2010 at 10:46 pm
    In point of fact, the unreliability of voting machines in Florida is what got Democrats to vote for the Republican authored bill that moved Florida’s primary up and wound up costing Democratic voters in that state, half their delegates. [….]
    Admin has linked this article a couple times. If you’ve never read it, you need to. It’s all about how the Republicans rigged events in Michigan and Florida to cost Clinton:
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/wayne-barrett/could-the-republicans-cou_b_94158.html

    =================

    There was another good in-depth article on this (iirc including Brazile/Rove meeting) from some paper in the SF area with an editor named Rosemary. I can dig that up if anyone wants it.

    1950democrat at gmail

  55. Somehow I doubt that Gore actually said the internet invented global warming. 😉

    Here is a good article showing that he is often misquoted about climate change issues, as he was in the 2000 campaign about other matters.
    http://mediamatters.org/research/200703230007

    Here are some sources with context giving Gore’s perspective. (The scientific consensus is that current warming is caused somewhat by non-human factors but greatly by human factors.)

    http://www.ted.com/talks/al_gore_s_new_thinking_on_the_climate_crisis.html

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34345406/ns/politics-more_politics/
    In this interview I suspect the old journalistic trick of “Let’s you and him fight.”

    I posted a long recent piece by Gore in the NYT but can’t find that link.

    As to ‘public forum debate’. Meeting someone in discussion or debate gives them and their ideas publicity and credibility. The US President shouldn’t meet with terrorists, Hillary shouldn’t go on hate radio. Gore, like everyone, has to draw the line somewhere.

  56. confloyd,

    There was another good in-depth article on this (iirc including Brazile/Rove meeting) from some paper in the SF area with an editor named Rosemary. I can dig that up if anyone wants it.
    1950democrat at gmail

    ==================

    confloyd
    March 9th, 2010 at 4:50 am
    Turndown, I would like to have that article about the Rove/Brazile meeting.

    =======================

    I’ve found the paper but can’t find the article.
    http://www.thecityedition.com/Pages/Politics%20and%20Culture.html
    Rosemary Regello, editor
    The City Edition of San Francisco
    News, Health, Arts and Marketplace
    239 – 16th Avenue
    San Francisco, CA 94118

    Looking through my correspondence with the editor, I see that I referred her to
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/wayne-barrett/could-the-republicans-pic_b_94158.html

  57. basement angel
    March 8th, 2010 at 2:18 pm
    [….] Democrats will lose control of Congress in the fall. If that happens, then Obama will go into revamping Social Security and Medicare with a conservative congress hot to cut entitlement programs. Obama and the Republican congress will destroy Social Security as we know it. Obama cannot destroy Social Security and turn our retirement accounts over to his good friends in Wall Street with a Democratic congress. They won’t let him do it. But if Republicans have the majority, he’ll be able to pass (and without 60 votes, I might add) a bill that will decimate Social Security.

    =========================

    This is why we should think twice about helping the GOP get control of Congress. With DINO Obama hampering the real Dems, Obama and the GOP could do permanent damage.

  58. TurndownObama, the Dimocrats must suffer devastating defeat, doom and death and disaster this November. Anything less will encourage Obama and the Dimocrats to continue on the path they are on and that path includes the destruction of Social Security. Obama will continue with his treacheries as long as Dimocrats continue to enable him and Dimocrats will continue to enable him as long as they do not suffer devastating defeat, doom and death and disaster this November.

    Mind, we understand your “GOP is bad don’t vote for them” argument, however giving Dimocrats votes will not change Dimocrats’ behavior. It won’t. Only with devastating defeat, doom and death and disaster this November is there the slight, very slight, chance that Dimocrats will come to their senses and reject Obama and Obamaism. It is a slim chance but it is the only one available.

    A vote for Dimocrats is a vote to “stay the course” and stick with the “situation comedy” demographics as well as the current Arrogance!, Incompetence!, Corruption! of the Dimocratic Party. It’s a vote for bad behavior. Dimocrats must be punished with devastating defeat, doom and death and disaster this November if they are ever to learn.

    You are right that “Obama and the GOP could do permanent damage”. The counterargument is that Obama and the Dimocrats could do permanent damage. In fact the second of the two possibilities has the stronger case because we have seen what Dimocrats and Obama actually do. Dimocrats must be punished with devastating defeat, doom and death and disaster this November and only then is there the slight possibility that we can return to a Democratic Party that can undo Obama damage (whether enabled by Dimocrats or GOP).

    You won’t change behavior unless punishment is meted out for bad behavior. You won’t change behavior as long as the “vote for Dimocrats because they are slightly better than the GOP” argument prevails. This is a lesson that by now should have been learned thanks to the health scam debate. The weak and stupid “progressive block” and the “creative class” were not willing to walk away from the health scam so they were rolled. People like Bart Stupak made it clear they are willing to walk away and therefore they get what they want. The lessons are clear – when dealing with thugs stick by your guns and make sure the bullets in the gun are not blanks.

    The Dimocrats must suffer devastating defeat, doom, and death and disaster this November.

  59. TurndownObama, Basement Angel, one additional point to add. We disagree with the following and indeed believe the contrary is true:

    Obama cannot destroy Social Security and turn our retirement accounts over to his good friends in Wall Street with a Democratic congress. They won’t let him do it. But if Republicans have the majority, he’ll be able to pass (and without 60 votes, I might add) a bill that will decimate Social Security.

    Like Nixon/China it is the Dimocrats who will destroy Social Security. The Republicans know what happened when George W. Bush tried to destroy Social Security – the Democratic rank and file rose up against Bush. Republicans know that Social Security can only be undone by Democrats.

    On matters of national security (the KSM trial for example) Republicans essentially have a veto. On matters of domestic policy like Social Security the Democrats have the upper hand. Those that want to save Social Security should work to make sure Dimocrats suffer devastating defeats, doom, death and disaster in November. The more severe the defeat the more likely Dimocrats will get off the Hopium and work against Obama and Republicans who try to destroy Social Security.

    If the Dimocrats are rewarded with votes in November, Obama and his Dimocrats will destroy Social Security and Medicare via the fig leaf of the Obama appointed deficit commission.

  60. Thank you Turndownobama @4:33am for linking again to the article by Wayne Barrett. It was interesting to see the name of Mark Rubio. The first I heard of the Florida repub, was from posters here at Big Pink. Interesting that he was a major factor of the Florida primary debacle and a Bush protege’.

    He may sound good, he may look good, but my momma always said “Birds of a feather,…”. We must look very closely at candidates associations and not blindly support the one saying what we think sounds good. Past associations and actions must be the touchstone. Oh, how do they bad guys always hide in plain site?

  61. There will be a poll coming out today from PPP, a firm used by Democrats, on the Marco Rubio/Charlie Crist Republican primary.

    Both Republicans, Crist and Rubio, beat the opposition candidate Meeks (by 16 and 20 points respectively, according to a Rasmussen poll).

    Regarding Crist:

    http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com/2010/03/crist-poll-preview.html

    Here’s a little preview: among Republican primary voters 19% would like to see him as Governor a year from now, 14% want him in the Senate, and 56% want him out of elected office.

    If there is any path to his winning office in Florida again- and there may not be- it’s as something other than a Republican.

  62. realclearpolitics.blogs.time.com/2010/03/08/3-yes-votes-on-hc-now-undecided/

    From the Syracuse Post-Standard:

    Central New York’s three congressmen, who voted for health care reform in November, are now undecided as President Barack Obama tries to push his top legislative priority across the finish line.

    As a result of their concerns about a final bill, Democratic Reps. Dan Maffei, Michael Arcuri and Bill Owens are emerging as a key block of swing votes that could make or break the historic legislation.

    For the latest updates on the health care vote in the House, see Jay Cost’s whip count.

  63. As to ‘public forum debate’. Meeting someone in discussion or debate gives them and their ideas publicity and credibility. The US President shouldn’t meet with terrorists, Hillary shouldn’t go on hate radio. Gore, like everyone, has to draw the line somewhere.
    _______________________________

    Gore meeting in a public debate is giving the public an opportunity for asking questions when public funds are going to be appropriated supporting his thesis of humans are responsible for CO2 emissions and global warming. His contention wrought over and over again in his film “An Inconvenient Truth”.

    Gore’s movie based on scientist’s falsified data has set in motion a movement for Federal Tax dollars to subsidize Third World countries CO2 emissions in the form of Copenhagen’s scuttled Cap and Trade Agreement and a Carbon Tax on every American. Had the Copenhagen Agreement gone through CO2 would have been declared a pollutant which is ridiculous on it’s face but works for the Cap and Trader’s agenda and the wealthy buyers investing in the new Carbon Credit bubble.

    There was a study done where CO2 was doubled in a plot of trees by CO2 emitting towers. The foliage growth did increase but only slightly. CO2 is not the main limiting factor in plant growth and therefore in order for an increase in CO2 have the outcome you suggested you would also have to fertilize every plant with nutrients such as phosphorous and nitrates.

    People are doing their own research. Whatever goodwill Gore embodied because of the Clintons has worn out. The mounting public opinion against the once well thought of Gore has evaporated due to his reaction to questions from a Congressional Committee disproving his contention, “humans are responsible for global warming”.. Gore is shaky and resentful of the questioning by the Senators.

    Here is Al Gore putting on a brave face to Congress when caught with his pants down:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aNzBRiAyn8o

    Thanks in advance admin for posting this video. It’s important both sides of this debate be heard.

  64. Thanks admin for posting the Ohio hall of fame Women vote. I posted it on this blog about 1 month ago, and I emailed it to all of my Ohio friends. There are very few women statues (I think maybe 1) in this hall.

  65. Al Gore sure knows how to dodge a question. He may not be a scientist but he knows politics inside and out. The revelation that he stands to make a fortune from this legislation is scandalous. Big Al has become the classic villainous politician archetype from old hollywood movies like “Mr Smith goes to Washington.”

    Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R) Tennessee reveals Gore’s money connection:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WbLK4RZDdzI

  66. The American People still love this guy. They do not like this health care pusche. But when the chips are down congress will roll over, and the people will accept whatever is passed down to them. They will go on loving and admiring Obama. They will blame the people around him but not him because they do not want to be called racists. He will take this victory over the American People and use it as a template to destroy social security and to grant amnesty for 25 million illegals 50% of whom are currently on welfare.

    The Republican Party will fail in its efforts to stop them because they do not have the votes. The American People will blame others because to blame Obama for what he is doing to destroy our country would be racist, and they will do anything to avoid being called racist, even when the people who are calling them that are the biggest racists of them all. White guilt is a bad thing. If you fast forward where we are today, that is where we will be at by 2012. And what about the 17% unemployment. Only the beginning. The Administration promises it will continue through 2015 and is promoting policies that will inhibit recovery. How do you provide jobs when the work is not there. The great purge in November will not happen. They will trick the system, and convince the American People that Bush not Obama is the problem. The people who were dumb enough to vote for Obama are the problem. Big media will attack whoever the Republican is and Obama will get a second term

    That is what someone told me last night. He is not buying this landslide in November scenario, and a transfer of control of both Houses. He thinks the country is doomed. I just sat there and listened. Hell, he may well be right. Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American People. Oh, we on this blog get it. It is the rest of our fellow citizens that I worry about.

  67. Someone tell me…Worst case scenario, Fraudcare is passed…

    Good case sencario..Repubs re take Congress in 2010… Can they overturn it, or stop it in it’s tracks?

  68. admin:
    You are right that “Obama and the GOP could do permanent damage”. The counterargument is that Obama and the Dimocrats could do permanent damage. In fact the second of the two possibilities has the stronger case because we have seen what Dimocrats and Obama actually do. Dimocrats must be punished with devastating defeat, doom and death and disaster this November and only then is there the slight possibility that we can return to a Democratic Party that can undo Obama damage (whether enabled by Dimocrats or GOP).
    _______________________________________________

    Thanks for that analogy, but why in the heck do things have to be so difficult to understand and figure a way to proceed??LOL! I suppose your saying we taught the republicans a lessons in 06′ and 08′ so they’ve learned their lesson they won’t take our medicare and social security…..I not good at this…its a scary scenario…..I need my social security and medicare although when Obama is finished there will be no dr.s who will take care of the medicare folks….thus they will have to buy real insurance in one of those exchanges which will undoubtedly have high premiums….its not going to be called the “golden years” much longer!

  69. gonzotx

    My understanding is this: If the HCplan is passed, it won’t take effect for 4 yrs. However, we will be paying for it long before it takes effect.

  70. bad case scenario….it gets past….the republicans take back both houses and the Presidency and they do nothing to resend it! Could that happen?

  71. Mrs. Smith
    March 9th, 2010 at 10:53 am
    gonzotx
    ***********
    I know Mrs Smith, but is there anyway back….

  72. cotrip…Rubio was a partner in the Bush debacle??…have you got any links to newstories about that??? I think Texas Governor Rick Perry is too, but its hard to find articles since the net is swept for the ruling party everyday…

  73. I know Mrs Smith, but is there anyway back
    ________________________

    Republicans are the best policy wonks on the planet. I’m sure they will find a way to dismantle Obamacare if passed. We are dealing with Congressional pariahs. The question is how do we stop Republicans from doing the same thing once they are in control? You know they will be approaching the Drug and Insurance industries making their own deals now that the public is primed and demanding a HC Plan. I wouldn’t be surprised if republican negotiators are currently in talks with Insurers and Big Rx banking on the failure of Obama’s plan.

  74. I understand that Massa is going on the Glenn Beck show or radio, not sure, does anyone here know??

    I am willing to bet that Beck makes everyone believes Massa is nuts by the end of the show….Beck is on the payroll.

  75. Defeat vs. Repeal

    http://tinyurl.com/yae9ens

    The big question for Americans is whether they are better off defeating the monstrosity of Obamacare now or whether it is best to let the Democrats pass it and then work to repeal it, whether it takes a day or a decade.

    The short answer is: Defeat it. The passage of Obamacare lets a genie of government power out of the bottle that will be very difficult to put back in. It will turn health care into an ineffectual government program much like education, in which Americans are endlessly fighting for advantage. Nobody with an ounce of compassion could wish Obamacare on the American people.

  76. Zogby: is tied to Obama through a blood relative, so take this with a grain of salt. But it does suggest that the hopium has worn off. More important, I think the sampling is skewed if you look at the percentages.
    ——————————————————————————————–

    Hillary vs. Obama for President

    The Newsmax/Zogby poll also asked: “If an election for president were held today between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, for whom would you vote?”

    The results: 38 percent chose Obama, 30 percent opted for Clinton, 29 percent said neither, and 4 percent were not sure.

    Obama finished ahead of Clinton among Democrats by a large margin, 67 percent to 23 percent.

    But surprisingly, Clinton far outpaced Obama among Republicans, 33 percent to 6 percent.

    Independents also favored Clinton.

    Another twist: Hillary fared better with men than with women. She topped Obama among men by a margin of 35 percent to 32 percent, while Obama won 44 percent of the women’s vote, compared with 26 percent for Clinton

  77. Apparently they are working a deal on the abortion language to get the dem hold outs on board. Like it or not, this thing is going through.

  78. If you do not defeat it now, you never will. It will build a constituency and then it is over. Anyone who thinks it can be repealed once it is past is delusional.

  79. I read that article at least part of it, until it starts talking about the U.S. being like Greece…well that’s right off the Glenn Beck program….he is crook and a sellout to the Rino’s who are trying to break the country….we need real conservatives….where are they and WHO are they?

  80. You all are right about that, once its in it will never be repealed….just like medicare and social security has never been repealed!

  81. Can’t find a permalink for this so scroll down to March 8. Long article, very good, re history of progressive legislation in past severl decades.


    Barack Obama, who has repeatedly told the country that this is a great bill because (1) it’s not an unrealistic and impractical foreign-inspired government-run program; (2) it doesn’t turn your health care over to government bureaucrats; and (3) it relies entirely on the principles of business competition and consumer choice (usually abbreviated to “choice and competition”).

    http://www.tinyrevolution.com/mt/
    March 08, 2010
    Why health care reform is not a “huge progressive victory”
    by Seth Ackerman
    Ezra Klein says progressives should see the health care bill as a “huge progressive victory.” He makes a number of points to support his claim, but I think these are the main ones: The bill is the most ambitious piece of social legislation since the 60’s. The plight of the uninsured has been a liberal rallying-cry for decades. The exchanges, regulations and subsidies in the bill will “create the core structure of a universal health-care system in this country.”

    To me, these are all reasons why the Democratic bill is not a huge progressive victory. In fact, it’s closer to being a huge progressive defeat.

    Let’s start by asking why there have been no large-scale advances in social legislation since the 1960’s. The first thing I’ll note here is that the last big, ambitious measure, Medicare, was a government-run single payer program that displaced or preempted private health insurance coverage for about one in ten Americans. That’s why the AMA, Ronald Reagan, and the nascent conservative movement spared no effort to decry it as socialism.

    Yet none of that prevented Medicare from passing in 1965 with 13 out of 32 Senate Republicans voting in favor. Nor did it stop the bill from winning the support of half the senators from the Deep South (5 out of 10, or 7 out of 14, depending on whether you count Texas and Florida). And what about the Mark Pryors, Blanche Lincolns, Ben Nelsons, Mary Landrieus of the world? In 2009, we were told they fought the Senate bill’s mildly progressive elements because they represented states that are “obviously” too conservative to support even such tepid liberalism. But in 1965, three of the six senators from Arkansas, Louisiana, and Nebraska voted for or pledged support for single-payer Medicare, a.k.a socialism.

    Clearly something has gone terribly wrong since 1965. The ideological barriers against solving national problems through public provision rather than through the logic of profit maximization have increased enormously.

  82. Apparently they are working a deal on the abortion language to get the dem hold outs on board. Like it or not, this thing is going through.
    ———————–
    Correct. Also, social security will be gone and the same with our borders. The party for the American People is over.

  83. A Ray of Hope, or More of the same. You decide. My view is this: if we are going to create jobs, small business will be the engine. The dictator hates small business, and loves multinational corporations, consistent with his state capitalism model. Thus, it is not a bad thing for the Chamber to set up offices in contested states and obliterate the congressional candidates who are party to this treason. It is not the small businesses that have too much power, that promote monopoly, fix prices, buy government and ship our jobs overseas. It is the friends and allies of the Dictator. This move by the Chamber is probably something worth supporting as a means to several ends.
    ————————————————————————-

    Say hello to the US Chamber of Commerce. Or don’t; they’re coming to sit down at the table any which way.

    The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is building a large-scale grass-roots political operation that has begun to rival those of the major political parties, funded by record-setting amounts of money raised from corporations and wealthy individuals.

    The new grass-roots program, the brainchild of chamber political director Bill Miller, is concentrating on 22 states. Among them are Colorado, where incumbent Democratic Sen. Michael Bennet is vulnerable; Arkansas, where Democratic Sen. Blanche Lincoln faces an uphill reelection battle; and Ohio, where the chamber sees opportunities in numerous House races and an open Senate seat.

    The network, called Friends of the U.S. Chamber, has been used to generate more than a million letters and e-mails to members of Congress, 700,000 of them in opposition to the Democratic healthcare plan. That is an increase from 40,000 congressional contacts generated in 2008.

    The article goes on to note that the CoC’s grassroots planning recently got a big boost from the recent Citizens’ United case, as well as that this organization is increasingly publicly acknowledging that ‘pro-business growth’ means ‘pro-Republican.’ And why would that be? Probably because of Democratic assaults like this one:

    A Democratic aide says a new provision in the health care bill will require businesses to count part-time workers when calculating penalties for failing to provide coverage.

    Via Hot Air, and that particular sudden addition to the health care bill should have the same effect on small business growth as would, say, a load of buckshot to the face. Remember, folks: the current ruling party of this country is largely led by people who have never worked for a living in their lives – and by God, does it show sometimes! Keep this in mind when opening your checkbooks, because the business community certainly plans to…

  84. wbboei
    March 9th, 2010 at 11:31 am
    Zogby: is tied to Obama through a blood relative, so take this with a grain of salt. But it does suggest that the hopium has worn off. More important, I think the sampling is skewed if you look at the percentages.
    ——————————————————————————————–

    Hillary vs. Obama for President

    The Newsmax/Zogby poll also asked: “If an election for president were held today between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, for whom would you vote?”

    Another twist: Hillary fared better with men than with women. She topped Obama among men by a margin of 35 percent to 32 percent, while Obama won 44 percent of the women’s vote, compared with 26 percent for Clinton
    &&&&&&&

    Perhaps this reinforces observations that “women tend to nest” (stick with something), and that men “admire someone with balls”.

  85. MUSICAL VOTES…follow the shifting allegiances.

    rgb44hrc
    March 9th, 2010 at 9:38 am

    In addition to the link, I provided excerpts that cover about 60% of the ever-growing article. But the sign-off on the bottom sums up the situation:

    “Bottom line: Democratic leaders have a tough road ahead.”

    Here’s the link to Jay Cost’s following the Democrats HCR voting intentions:

    realclearpolitics.com/horseraceblog/2010/03/counting_the_heads_of_house_de.html

    March 05, 2010
    Counting the Heads of House
    ===========================

    Democrats / Updated 3-9

    Remember, check back in for updates as I find them. If you have news that I haven’t covered, send it my way! Also, you can follow me on Twitter for updates.

    Update, 6 PM 3/8 Adding Dan Maffei (NY-25) to the list of Democrats who voted yea in November but who are now undecided, thanks to this report, in which Maffei says, “The Senate bill, in my view, burns the village in order to save it. I will say, however, the president’s direct involvement gives me hope they will come up with a compromise.”

    Update, 5:30 PM 3/8 Adding Henry Cuellar (TX-28) to the list of Democrats who voted yea in November but who are now undecided, thanks to this report. Also, Kathy Dahlkemper was on the list of suspected Stupak Democrats. Her representative confirms that the Senate abortion language is unacceptable, “period.” Thus, I move her to the list of Democrats who voted yea in November but who are now undecided.

    Update, 12:15 PM 3/8: Moved Dan Lipinski (IL-3) to the category of Democrats who voted yea in November who have now explicitly said something negative about the current legislation.

    Update, 3:30 PM 3/6: A recent report suggested that Raul Grijalva – co-chair of the progressive caucus – is leaning back toward supporting the bill. I have him on my list of fence-sitters who had previously voted nay. I’ll keep him on for now, but he looks like a gettable vote if the final margin is close. Thanks to reader Michael for the tip!

    Update, 2:30 AM 3/6: I am adding Baron Hill (IN-9) and Marion Berry (AR-1) to the list of Democrats who voted yea in November, but who are now reconsidering. Berry appears to be a Stupak Democrat. (Thanks to readers Darrin and Robert for sending in the links!) Also, I am moving Mike Ross (AR-4) from “Hard to Persuade” to “Very Hard To Persuade.”

    Update, 12 AM 3/6: Adding Dina Titus (NV-3) to the list of Democrats who voted yea in November, but who are now reconsidering.

    Update, 4 PM 3/5: Eric Massa’s planned resignation takes him off the list. There are now 37 Democrats who voted nay in November who will be Democrats when (if?) the next vote occurs. With the House vacancies being what they are now, Speaker Pelosi will need 216 votes to pass the bill.

    That leaves six members I’d put in the “Persuadable” category.

    1. John Adler (NJ-3)
    2. Brian Baird (WA-3)
    3. John Boccieri (OH-16)
    4. Bart Gordon (TN-6)
    5. Suzanne Kosmas (FL-24)
    6. Scott Murphy (NY-20)

    On the flip side, we have (so far) eight nine eleven thirteen fifteen sixteen Democrats who voted yes in November who have since suggested they might not be willing to sign on to a new bill.

    1. Michael Arcuri (NY-24)
    2. Marion Berry (AR-1)
    3. Shelley Berkley (NV-1)
    4. Dennis Cardoza (CA-18)
    5. Henry Cuellar (TX-27)
    6. Kathy Dahlkemper (PA-3)
    7. Raul Grijalva (AZ-7) (Update, 3:30 PM 3/6: Or maybe not?)
    8. Baron Hill (IN-9)
    9. Steve Kagen (WI-9)
    10. Dan Lipinski (IL-3)
    11. Dan Maffei (NY-25)
    12. James Oberstar (MN-8)
    13. Earl Pomeroy (ND-AL)
    14. Kurt Schrader (OR-5)
    15. Bart Stupak (MI-1)
    16. Dina Titus (NV-3)
    What about the so-called “Stupak Democrats?” Berry, Dahlkemper, Lipinski, Oberstar, and (of course!) Stupak fall into this category, but there are probably others. I have two ways to gauge who they might be.

    1. They voted for the Stupak amendment and they have a lifetime NRLC rating of higher than 80%.
    2. They voted for the Stupak amendment and they signed a letter in June, 2009 saying that they would oppose a bill “unless it explicitly excludes abortion funding from the scope of any government-defined or subsidized health insurance plan.”

    I’ve made a note of those who fall into both categories.

    1. Jerry Costello (IL-12) (both)
    2. Joe Donnelly (IN-2) (NRLC score of 82%)
    3. Steve Driehaus (OH-1) (signed letter)
    4. Brad Ellsworth (IN-8) (NRLC score of 91%)
    5. Paul Kanjorski (PA-11) (signed letter)
    6. Marcy Kaptur (OH-9) (signed letter)
    7. Dale Kildee (MI-5) (NRLC score of 87%)
    8. Alan Mollohan (WV-1) (NRLC score of 97%)
    9. Solomon Ortiz (TX-27) (both)
    10. Nick Rahall (WV-3) (NRLC score of 97%)
    Charlie Wilson (OH-6) has been mentioned as a Stupak Democrat, though he does not fit these categories. Using a different, but equally good, methodology – Chris Bowers of Open Left finds a lot of overlap. He adds Chris Carney (PA-10), Mike Doyle (PA-14), Baron Hill (D-IN), and Ann Kirkpatrick (AZ-1) while removing Kaptur and Ortiz. Kirkpatrick does not fit his methodology, having voted against the Stupak amendment in November – but the rest of them make sense. Doyle has a very high NRLC score (77%) while Hill and Carney come from pro-life districts. Update, 2:30 AM 3/6: As mentioned above, Hill has suggested that he is wavering, in part because of the use of reconciliation. Also, it’s important to note that my methodology did not catch Marion Berry as a potential defector because of abortion. This just underscores the roughness of my count. Even members who seem to have committed can flip back. Remember MM-M!

    Bottom line: Democratic leaders have a tough road ahead.

  86. Perhaps this reinforces observations that “women tend to nest” (stick with something), and that men “admire someone with balls”.
    —————————————
    Yes indeed. Where men are concerned they know instinctively that they may be pressed into battle at some point in their lives and out of this subliminal apprehension, comes a concomitant tendency to look at any would be leader with a certain degree of skepticism and wonder to themselves will this idiot get me killed. In that sense men, and those women who share that predisposition look at a guy like Obama and puke.

  87. Women are a woman’s worst detractors.. especially when it comes to high stakes, I know it by experience.

  88. Meg Whitman is running for Governor of California. She was the founder and chief executive officer of e-Bay. I picked up copy of her book the other day and started reading it. I think she is made of the right stuff. A leader not a nester. By contrast a list of nesters would include the women in big media who tolerated the sexism of their organizations directed toward Hillary and later on Palin. And the nesters would also include Ezra Klein, Joe Klein and Andrew Sullivan. As you can see it is not a gender based organization. Going back to the founding days of the Republic, the Tories were nesters.

  89. wbboei
    March 9th, 2010 at 1:00 pm
    —————————–

    Minor correction Meg Whitman is not the founder of eBay. It was founded by a young guy by name Pierre Omidyar. She was hired to run it once the company/concept took off in a big way. Most of these companies (Google, eBay..) are brainchildren of young (very young) entrepreneurs just out of school. The line is that at Stanford and other places, they start out thinking what/how can I invent/innovate. One of the Google guys, Sergei was an undergraduate at our school. It is quite awe inspiring to have these people do this and this kind of creativity/innovation happens more in America than in any other place for a reason.

  90. Kirkpatrick from Arizona…she seems like my kind of politician…she is sponsoring a bill for Congress to take a 5% paycut. There has not been a paycut since the depression…like 77 years ago…Its time when Americans have to work 2 part-time jobs to make a living…its past time for the politicians to take a pay cut.

  91. In its Advisor Outlook for this year, Merrill Lynch asks a provocative question: “The Hand of Government: Are Federal Reserve and Obama Administration Policies Working As Intended?”

    This is the Wall Street perspective. Read if you will between the lines (oh, I will help you):

    1. Jeffery Rosenberg (Head of Global Credit Strategy Research, Bank of America: ” To ease credit, the Fed has PRINTED MONEY and used it to buy assets–Treasury debt, mortgage backed securities, and the debt of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. A deep, globally synchronized recession has been mitigated by a deep synchronized policy response. IN THE END THOUGH, YOU CANNOT CREATE PROSPERITY BY PRINTING MONEY, SO GOVERNMENT STIMULUS WILL HAVE TO SHRINK. THE BIG QUESTION IS WHETHER PRIVATE DEMAND WILL RETURN TO REPLACE GOVERNMENT SPENDING.” (Emphasis added).

    2. Ethan Harris (Head of North American Economics, Bank of America): “You can give high marks to policy makers for recognizing the true scale of the crisis and reacting to it. The TARP bailouts while unpopular, stabilized the economy. (Note: this occurred prior to Obama.) Other moves–cash for clunkers, tax credits for home buying, extended unemployment benefits–have been useful in keeping the recovery going. (Note: these are the Obama smoke and mirrors). BUT SOME INITIATIVES HAVE DISTRACTED. INTRODUCING AMBITIOUS HEALTH CARE AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS MIGHT MAKE MORE SENSE “WHEN THE ECONOMY HAS STABILIZED”.

    3. David Bianco (Head of Equity Strategy, Bank of America): “GOVERNMENT DEFICITS AND SPENDING REMAIN OF GREAT CONCERN, AND THERE IS CONSIDERABLE UNCERTAINTY ABOUT POLICY. (Note: Hard to believe with Nancy, Harry and the Little Dictator running the show but there you have it). RIGHT NOW INVESTORS FEAR “EVERYTHING”. THEY DON’T KNOW WHAT IT GOING TO HAPPEN, SO THEY FEAR HIGHER TAXES AND HIGHER DEFICITS. Usually it is the other way around. The United States is already second only to Japan in terms of corporate tax rate, and there are significant pressure on government to allow companies to compete on a global scale. The Administration may target certain industries, but I do not think it’ll raise corporate tax rates over all. (Note: that leaves one alternative: raise individual taxes, which is part of the reason for this health care bullshit.)

    4. Ethan Harris (see above): The Obama Administration will face a huge dilemma this year when it has to decide whether to let tax rates go up. All of the Bush tax breaks expire. UNTIL THEN THERE WILL BE A LOT OF QUESTIONS IN THE MARKETS ABOUT INVESTING AND JOB CREATION. (Note: will the little dictator raise taxes? Does a cat bark??).

  92. If I lived in California I would vote for Meg Whitman anytime…Carlie Fiorna…what is she running for?

  93. I don’t know why women are still not voting for Hillary…its no wonder we have not broken the glass ceiling….most women are just plain stupid…it pisses me off to on end to see that poll…women voting for the fraud over the real deal Hillary!!

  94. I don’t know why women are still not voting for Hillary…its no wonder we have not broken the glass ceiling….most women are just plain stupid…it pisses me off to on end to see that poll…women voting for the fraud over the real deal Hillary!!
    ————————–
    Amen.

  95. If you read the Merrill Lynch piece above, then you should now read this report by the McKensie Group which is the leading management consulting company in the world. The big news here is MORE GOVERNMENT HELP WILL BE NEEDED–AND TIGHT CREDIT. Not the formula for economic expansion and jobs.
    ———————————————–
    WHAT IS NEXT FOR GLOBAL BANKS?

    In 2008, as the credit crisis broke, banks underwent near-death experiences on a massive scale. Last year, many enjoyed a recovery that was nearly as abrupt. In the intense uncertainty that ensued, bankers around the world have rightly shifted their focus away from growth and toward survival as they confront ambiguity about markets, risk, regulation, and demand.

    Amid such extreme mood swings, long-term structural changes now under way will fundamentally affect banking in the years to come. To understand these changes, we undertook research that combined a historical view of the industry with an analysis of 25 global banks to see how various portfolios of banking businesses and geographic distributions would fare under different macro and regulatory scenarios. Among our findings:

    Under a scenario of lower global economic growth and tough regulatory restrictions, all but emerging-market banking giants will probably destroy value over the next four years. Funding costs will remain high, further hurting profitability.

    Without any management moves, banks of every type will need more capital—as much as $600 billion over the next five years for the 25 banks we modeled. That suggests a real danger of a capital crunch, further forced asset sales, and the need for additional government help.

    The range of performance by banks using similar business models will widen. Big European banking groups, for example, will see returns on equity (ROE) ranging from 9 to 18 percent. (Note: I think this is fanciful)

  96. I like Crist as he is a moderate republican. Unfortunately, he made a big mistake accepting stimulus funds, albeit Fl is really being hit hard with unemplyment, as the conservative base was/is still livid at him.

  97. wbboei, I like Meg Whitman. In fact, I also browsed through her book in a book store recently. These are fiscally conservative socially liberal, middle of the road candidates. I have republican friends who are atheists but who want fiscal responsibility and that is why they are republicans. They have run businesses and therefore view the government differently than the lefty guys who look at govt as a big treasure trove to use to eradicate all human ills (well, at least the good ones anyway). I think Meg Whitman kind of candidates will work to strike a balance between individual responsibility and collective societal obligation. At least they look like problem solvers. BTW, I got the sense that her smart neurosurgeon husband was deemed as a hick by her New England type family.

  98. I like Crist as he is a moderate republican. Unfortunately, he made a big mistake accepting stimulus funds, albeit Fl is really being hit hard with unemplyment, as the conservative base was/is still livid at him.
    ———————————————
    I respect your opinion. I agree that it was a mistake to accept the stimulus. I also did not like his actions in the primary which hurt Hillary’s campaign. I saw him as cozying up to Obama. Of course I get this second or third hand. You are have a better sense of this election than I do from this distance. But it sure looks like the gloves have come off. The waxing comment by Crist was bad and the conservatives are all over it.

  99. JAY COST HAS A TIP FOR MODERATE DEMS INTERESTED IN SELF-PRESERVATION

    realclearpolitics.com/horseraceblog/2010/03/its_time_for_moderate_house_de.html

    March 09, 2010
    It’s Time for Moderate House Democrats to Stand Up to Obama
    According to Gallup, Barack Obama entered the presidency with a net approval rating (i.e. percent approve minus percent disapprove) of 56%. This past weekend, he was at just +1%. No newly elected President has fallen so far so fast since polling began. Only Bill Clinton – in his difficult first year in office – came close.

    Some pundits have an overly-reductionist take on Obama’s fast-declining numbers, arguing that the precipitous drop is entirely due to the stagnant economy. They like to draw a comparison to Ronald Reagan, whose numbers fell quickly as he dealt with a recession early in his term. No doubt some of Obama’s decline is related to the recession, but the 44th President – unlike the 40th – was elected when the economy was already contracting. This gives Obama political cover that Reagan did not have. Just 7% of Americans, according to a recent CBS News/New York Times poll, blame Obama for the recession.

    If it’s more than the economy, what else is it? Health care is a strong contender. Between Memorial Day and Labor Day of last year, Obama’s net job approval rating in the RCP average declined by 63%. This was the period when House Democrats were beginning to divide openly over their reform proposals, and when the town hall protests started. As the debate has dragged on, his net approval has inched closer and closer to zero. Today, the country is essentially split in half over his tenure.

    That split is not random. It breaks down along the typical cleavages. Obama is strong in the East; weak in the South. Young people like him; seniors do not. Democrats stand with him; Republicans and Independents don’t. Blacks approve; whites do not. Single people support him; married people don’t.

    Yet the Democratic Party controls Congress today because in the last two election cycles it healed these divisions, at least partially. In 2008, House Democrats split the South. They won voters young and old. They won Independents. They held their own with whites. They split married voters. This is why they have a majority in the 110th House of Representatives.

    If the current trends in public opinion continue, they will lose that majority because of President Obama’s divisiveness. We have seen hints of things to come with GOP victories in Virginia, New Jersey, and most recently Massachusetts – as the difference-making voters for the Democrats in 2006 and 2008 turned to the Grand Old Party.

    Either Mr. Obama and his advisors are blind to this, or they don’t care, or both. I think it’s both; call it willful blindness, a self-serving belief that 2008 was indeed a liberal realignment, and that the numbers will eventually reflect it. Regardless, House Democrats should know that the voters who have made them a majority party in recent cycles strongly oppose this health care bill; they have turned against President Obama; and they will eventually turn against them if they go along with the President. Moderates from the South and Midwest will be the first to go down to defeat as the party shrinks from a majority to a minority.

    Yet such crassly selfish political considerations are not at the core of the debate moderate Democrats should be having. The real question is this: what is the Democratic Party all about? As I have argued before, the substance of this bill – with a mandate enforced by the Internal Revenue Service that all citizens buy a product from a private company as part of the terms of public citizenship – is antithetical to the historical spirit of the party.

    But it’s not just the substance. It’s the process. The ever-obliging mainstream media have helpfully reduced the appropriateness of reconciliation to a merely legislative question, thus obscuring the bigger political reality: the Democrats must use reconciliation to pass health care because they no longer have a filibuster-proof majority; they no longer have a filibuster-proof majority in part because of health care. Their chosen strategy may pass muster with the Senate parliamentarian, but it suggests a blatant disregard for public opinion.

    This is par for the course for the 44th President, who has made pretty clear his belief that, when he and the people disagree, the people must be in error. Democratic primary voters in small town Pennsylvania opposed him not because he was inexperienced, you see, but because their bitterness made them provincial. Now, Americans who don’t support this bill simply don’t understand it. They’ll see things better after the Congress passes it.

    Such arrogance makes for bad politics because it’s un-democratic. Yet it’s also un-Democratic. It’s not unreasonable to expect the party of the people to respect the judgment of the people, especially on an issue that is so important and that has attracted so much attention. The public is as well informed about the health care debate as they ever are about anything. One would hope that the Democratic Party would acknowledge and respect this fact.

    Progressives at liberal opinion journals and in the D.C. press corps have had trouble with this idea – and have ironically taken to employing fallacies of composition to suggest that public opposition is irrational. The people like the various elements of the bill, so the fact that they dislike the whole thing is a sign that they’re not thinking clearly. If this argument was valid – if the whole was merely the sum of its parts – the Washington Redskins, an organization that likes to lure the best players from other teams rather than build from the ground up, would stand at the top of the National Football League.

    The Democratic Party is broader than its progressive intellectuals and media cheerleaders. It has the majority not just because of San Francisco, California – but also Murfreesboro, Tennessee and Zanesville, Ohio. Those places voted Democratic in the 2008 House elections. Some progressives, especially in the blogosphere, see that as a problem – the “ConservaDems” they elect hold up true progress. But it’s historically the greatest strength of the Democratic Party, whose appeal has long been much broader than the GOP’s.

    House Democrats should bear this in mind as they consider the current reforms. This bill would signal not just a major change in health care, but also in the Democratic Party itself. The end result will be a smaller, more narrowly liberal party that is less trusted by the mass public to respect its collective judgment. The party will keep San Francisco and The New Republic, but sooner or later they’ll lose Murfreesboro and Zanesville.

    Mr. Obama has indicated that he is all right with this. But in our system of separated powers, his opinion is insufficient. Ultimately, the decision rests with Southern and Midwestern House Democrats. They must make the final choice. They can vote with the President on a bill whose substance and process reflect little of the grandest traditions of the Democratic Party. Or they can stand up to him, and tell him that they have had enough of his condescending attitude and strong-arm tactics.

    What moderate House Democrats should not do is assume that, if they vote with him on this one, President Obama will stop here. This President talked during the campaign about building a broad consensus for change. Yet when push comes to shove, he cares much more about change than consensus. He plans to tackle immigration reform, and there’s no doubt he’s still eyeing cap-and-trade. He has promised the Congressional Progressive Caucus that they can revisit health care later. If their constituents ultimately disapprove, moderate House Democrats shouldn’t expect Barack Obama to give a damn. That’s not his style. He likes to give lip service to consensus – but when you read the fine print, he inevitably defines any divergent viewpoints as out-of-bounds. He did it on the stimulus. He’s doing it on health care. If moderate House Democrats don’t stand up to him now, he’ll do it on cap-and-trade, immigration reform, and who knows what else. Sooner or later, their constituents will elect representatives who will stand up to the President.

    And those new representatives will probably be Republicans.

  100. I just don’t want anyone to mess with Social Security for anyone that is now on it or about to be within 6 or 7 years because its too late to save much and there are no jobs right now. Every year you don’t work your social security goes down….so people that unemployed are the over 50 set and the very young….I want to get people off welfare…we need to look at some of the government retirements….some are very high for just a few short years…there is also fraud in medicare and medicaid. Stay away from social security for the over 50 set and what ever the youngsters want to do is up to them. I have paid in my whole life and now its my turn soon.

  101. BOB HERBERT: OBAMA AND DEMS IN TROUBLE

    Some of the juicier quotes include:

    “The economy shed 36,000 jobs last month, and that was trumpeted in the press as good news. Well, after your house has burned down I suppose it’s good news that the flames may finally be flickering out.”

    “Instead of focusing with unwavering intensity on this increasingly tragic situation, making it their top domestic priority, President Obama and the Democrats on Capitol Hill have spent astonishing amounts of time and energy, and most of their political capital, on an obsessive quest to pass a health care bill.”

    “Health care reform is important. But what the public has wanted and still badly needs above all else from Mr. Obama and the Democrats are bold efforts to put people back to work.”

    And a nod in agreement with Jay Cost, who accuses Obama dismissing critics as “uninformed”, BH writes:

    “The talk inside the Beltway, that super-incestuous, egomaniacal, reality-free zone, is that President Obama and the Democrats have a messaging or public relations problem. We’re being told — and even worse, Mr. Obama and the Democrats are being told — that their narrative is not getting through. In other words, the wonderfulness of all that they’ve done is somehow not being recognized by the slow-to-catch-on masses. ”

    nytimes.com/2010/03/09/opinion/09herbert.html

    The Source of Obama’s Trouble
    =============================

    By BOB HERBERT
    Published: March 8, 2010

    The Obama administration and Democrats in general are in trouble because they are not urgently and effectively addressing the issue that most Americans want them to: the frightening economic insecurity that has put a chokehold on millions of American families.

    The economy shed 36,000 jobs last month, and that was trumpeted in the press as good news. Well, after your house has burned down I suppose it’s good news that the flames may finally be flickering out. But once you realize that it will take 11 million or more new jobs to get us back to where we were when the recession began, you begin to understand that we’re not really making any headway at all.

    It’s also widely known by now that the official employment statistics drastically understate the problem. Once we take off the statistical rose-colored glasses, we’re left with the awful reality of millions upon millions of Americans who have lost — or are losing — their jobs, their homes, their small businesses, and their hopes for a brighter future.

    Instead of focusing with unwavering intensity on this increasingly tragic situation, making it their top domestic priority, President Obama and the Democrats on Capitol Hill have spent astonishing amounts of time and energy, and most of their political capital, on an obsessive quest to pass a health care bill.

    Health care reform is important. But what the public has wanted and still badly needs above all else from Mr. Obama and the Democrats are bold efforts to put people back to work. A major employment rebound is the only real way to alleviate the deep economic anxiety that has gripped so many Americans. Unaddressed, that anxiety inevitably evolves into dread and then anger.

    But while the nation is desperate for jobs, jobs, jobs, the Democrats have spent most of the Obama era chanting health care, health care, health care.

    The talk inside the Beltway, that super-incestuous, egomaniacal, reality-free zone, is that President Obama and the Democrats have a messaging or public relations problem. We’re being told — and even worse, Mr. Obama and the Democrats are being told — that their narrative is not getting through. In other words, the wonderfulness of all that they’ve done is somehow not being recognized by the slow-to-catch-on masses.

    That’s just silly. People are upset because they are mired in economic distress and are losing faith that their elected representatives are looking out for their best interests. They’ve watched with increasing anger as their government has been hijacked by the economic elite. They know that the big banks that were bailed out by taxpayers can borrow money at an interest rate of near zero while at the same time charging credit-card holders usurious rates of 20 to 30 percent.

    They know that the financial fat cats are fighting the creation of a truly independent Consumer Financial Protection Agency. They know that while ordinary Americans are kept out of the corridors of power, the elites with their lobbyists and lawyers and campaign contributions have a voice in every important decision that is made.

    It’s not the message that’s a problem for Mr. Obama and the Democrats, it’s the all-too-clear reality. People know that the government that is supposed to be looking out for ordinary people — for working people and the poor — is not doing nearly enough about an employment crisis that is lowering standards of living and hollowing out the American dream.

    This is not just a short-term crisis. There are many communities across the country in which the effective jobless rate is higher than 50 percent. Many state and local governments are grappling with disastrous revenue shortfalls that are forcing cuts in services and layoffs, and threatening the viability of even a modest national economic recovery.

    A University of Michigan survey of consumer sentiment in February found that 60 percent of American consumers expect to receive no income gains at all in the year ahead, the worst finding in that category in the history of the surveys.

    The Republican Party has nothing in the way of solutions to Americans’ economic plight. It is committed only to the demented policy of trying to ensure that President Obama and the Democrats fail.

    But the fact that the Republicans are pathetic and destructive is no reason for the Democrats to shirk their obligation to fight powerfully and relentlessly for the economic well-being of all Americans. There are now six people in the employment market for every available job. There is a staggering backlog of discouraged workers who would show up tomorrow if there were a job to be had.

    The many millions of new jobs needed to make a real dent in the employment crisis are not going to materialize by themselves. Mr. Obama and the Democrats don’t seem to understand that.

  102. I don’t think there is anything wrong with moderate democrats or moderate republicans as long as they are not big spenders/pork barrelers and hooked up with the globalists to a point where americans will have NO middle class.

  103. A TRILLION HERE, A TRILLION THERE, AND PRETTY SOON YOU’RE TALKING ABOUT REAL MONEY

    blogs.ajc.com/kyle-wingfield/2010/03/08/obamas-8-6-trillion-in-deficits-only-a-low-ball-estimate/?cxntfid=blogs_kyle_wingfield

    Obama’s $8.6 trillion in deficits: Only a low-ball estimate
    ========================

    10:48 am March 8, 2010
    by Kyle Wingfield

    Anyone trying to claim a fiscal equivalence between the Bush era and the Obama era needs to review the latest report from the Congressional Budget Office.

    In its recent budget report, the White House forecast budget deficits totaling $8.6 trillion over the next decade. To keep that in perspective, the total public debt held by the end of 2009 — that is, by the end of George W. Bush’s last budget — was $7.5 trillion.

    CBO, however, says even that mind-boggling projection is too low. In fact, the nonpartisan budget crunchers estimate, the cumulative deficit from 2010-2020 will be $9.8 trillion. That’s a difference of $1.2 trillion, as illustrated to the left (the graph comes from Greg Mankiw).

    How much is $1.2 trillion? It’s roughly the same as the combined deficits of Bush’s first four years in office. And remember, we’re only talking about the “extra” amount of total deficits in the decade to come.

    But as bad as a $1.2 trillion underestimate is, here are the numbers to really worry about:

    $9.8 trillion: The cumulative budget deficits from 2010-2020 given Obama’s plans, according to CBO. In other words, we will average a $1 trillion deficit over the next 10 years, after never breaching $1 trillion a single time before Bush’s final budget.
    $3.8 trillion: The additional budget deficits from 2010-2020 given Obama’s plans, compared to just leaving the budget on auto-pilot, according to CBO.
    90 percent: The public debt as a share of the total economy by 2020 given Obama’s plans, according to CBO. The current figure is 53 percent.
    80 percent: The amount by which the White House has overestimated next year’s economic growth, according to CBO (4.3 percent GDP growth in 2011 forecast by White House, versus 2.4 percent per CBO). Even if the White House is correct and the economy is about to come roaring back, it is foolish to count on such spectacular growth. (Recall what I’ve said before about rosy scenarios.)
    24.1 percent: The average proportion of GDP that the federal government will spend from 2010-2020 given Obama’s plans, according to CBO. The 40-year historical average is 20.7 percent. So, we are talking about a federal government in 2020 that is one-sixth larger than it historically has been.
    And all of this assumes that there will be no national emergencies over the next 10 years: No terrorist attacks or natural disasters that require extra spending. And it assumes that we will have a decade of uninterrupted economic growth; history suggests that’s unlikely.

    We are talking about an expansion of government, the deficit and debt that is an order of magnitude greater than anything we’ve seen before. If you’re one of those people asking why fiscal conservatives are suddenly concerned about the deficit now, and weren’t holding tea parties back when Bush was still in office, this is why.

  104. WATCH THE INEXPERIENCED QUARTERBACK THROW ANOTHER INTERCEPTION

    “Why’d he do that??!!”

    realclearpolitics.blogs.time.com/2010/03/09/obama-hits-road-as-internal-strife-threatens-reform/

    March 9th, 2010
    Obama Hits Road As Internal Strife Threatens Reform
    Posted by Mike Memoli | Email This | Permalink | Email Author
    So close to an important vote, President Obama might have been expected to be traveling Monday to the district of an undecided member of the House. Instead, Obama was outside Philadelphia, in a town shared by three Congressmen who voted for health care reform and show no signs of wavering.

    “If you look at where we’re going, it doesn’t really have an impact on a particular member,” White House deputy press secretary Bill Burton told reporters on Air Force One en route to the event. “I wouldn’t say that this is about any specific targeting in that sense.”

    What the White House reportedly was hoping to do was create a sense of momentum behind his proposal, combining a supportive crowd with a particularly fiery speech from Obama.

    “I ask you to help us get us over the finish line these next few weeks,” Obama shouted at the end of the event, described by many to be reminiscent of the 2008 campaign. “The need is great. The opportunity is here. Let’s seize reform. It’s within our grasp.”

    In several interviews at the start of 2010, Obama said that if he were to point to one mistake in his first year, it would be that he and his administration were too focused on the inside game, making what were in some cases critical decisions, but overall failing to communicate with the public at large.

    “What they’ve ended up seeing is this feeling of remoteness and detachment,” Obama told George Stephanopoulos just after Scott Brown won the Massachusetts Senate race.

    Events like Monday’s, and another to come Wednesday in the St. Louis area, would seem to be part of the administration’s answer. Sen. Arlen Specter (D), who joined Obama in his home state, said he was glad to see the passion from Obama, and that he wished he’d seen it sooner.

    But the issue at hand is not how it plays in the heartland, or “quasi-heartland,” as Specter described the Philadelphia-area setting Monday. Rather, it’s the whip count in the House Democratic caucus, with the White House hoping for a successful vote by next Thursday. And so it is again Obama’s inside game that’s at play here, and his seeming inability to win the battle inside the Beltway has led to more palace intrigue that is threatening to overshadow the policy fight at hand.

    Last week, Obama held a series of meetings with Democrats trying to shore up support for his legislative strategy going forward, with some of those House Democrats still unsure whether they have faith enough in the Senate to again put their necks on the line. In one meeting, Obama told a more progressive group that should this latest effort to pass health care fail, it would doom the left’s entire agenda for the foreseeable future. Rep. Raul Grijalva, who was in that meeting, said that sentiment made a strong impression.

    But the voice of another group of uneasy Democrats was given a greater megaphone Monday. Retiring Rep. Eric Massa’s (D-NY) comments in a weekend radio interview, focused as they were squarely on White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel, have added to a growing obsession about administration tactics, and a debate over who is to blame for an agenda that has failed to progress at the expected speed.

    “Rahm Emanuel is son of the devil’s spawn,” Massa famously said. “He is an individual who would sell his mother to get a vote. He would strap his children to a front end of a steam locomotive.”

    House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer’s office did reject Massa’s claim that his resignation was orchestrated to help lower the threshold of votes Democrats need to pass the Senate version of health reform. Press secretary Robert Gibbs told ABC this morning, “I think this whole story is ridiculous. I think the latest excuse is silly and ridiculous.” You can be sure that Obama’s time will be increasingly occupied with reassuring forces in Washington before he heads back on the stump Wednesday.

  105. You got to wonder why Obama is pushing this bill, he is bound to know the American people don’t want it?

  106. Rgb44Hrc, thanks for keeping track of the Obama crash for us. The flood of articles describing the Obama disaster is overflowing the banks of the Potomac.

  107. confloyd
    March 9th, 2010 at 4:44 pm
    MOst of the job losses are the older workers I think.
    &&&&&

    Older workers are “don’t have the right skill set, so they have to be let go”, we are told.

    Younger workers “lack experience, have the least seniority”, so they are first to be let go.

    The economy is sucking big time across the board. Even lawyers and other “safe” jobs / professions are feeling the squeeze.

    The stimulus package was too small, and was mismanaged (not yet spent, or spent badly).

    People who can’t find work, worry about keeping their jobs, or have hours cut back are not buying how many “jobs created, jobs saved” crapola.

    So, we passed your damn stimulus bill, yet no stimulus.

    Now you want us to us to double-down???

    Fool me once…

  108. God I wish I had a tv right now. I know it is Becks nature to bash all dems, but in the case of Massa I do not see that it is in his interest to do it. If Massa is attacking Obama, Emanuel and Pelosi then Beck will let him talk and give him a little encouragement along the way. But then again I have no idea.

  109. rgb44hrc,
    Exactly I am 59 years old and I had worked at a small hospital for quiet a long time and had every reason to believe I would work there until I retired. The very large company that owns the hospital just before the election of Barack Obama hired a new manager. Every employee in my dept had somewhere between 5-20 years in with the company, all were at top pay….In less than 6 months after the new manager got there every one of us were gone one way or the other and they hired new technologists with NO experience and cut the pay over $5.00 an hour. I am just a little pist at the current situation.

  110. Confloyd,

    He is pushing the bill because of the deals he has made for himself. If this bill passes, the health insurance industry and the for-profit hospital industry love him and he is guaranteed some well-renumerated board seats for the rest of his life.

    In addition, he will lose at least one house of Congress and with the Republicans at his side, he will do in Social Security. I’m sure it’s part of the plan.

    Obama is a trojan horse. He is doing in the Democratic party and the Democratic legacy from the inside. That’s why he is pushing this bill.

  111. Well, I have finally solved the mystery which has perplexed the dimwitted Politico hack Ben Smith: who is Admin. Judging by the passage below it can only be Jay Cost. Thanks for the posting that article rgb. It it cuts through the crap and tells it how it is right now, before the economic crash Obama crash. As Brian Williams would say: “something of a lesson for the high minded young president”.
    ————————————————————————-
    The real question is this: what is the Democratic Party all about? As I have argued before, the substance of this bill – with a mandate enforced by the Internal Revenue Service that all citizens buy a product from a private company as part of the terms of public citizenship – is antithetical to the historical spirit of the party.

    But it’s not just the substance. It’s the process. The ever-obliging mainstream media have helpfully reduced the appropriateness of reconciliation to a merely legislative question, thus obscuring the bigger political reality: the Democrats must use reconciliation to pass health care because they no longer have a filibuster-proof majority; they no longer have a filibuster-proof majority in part because of health care. Their chosen strategy may pass muster with the Senate parliamentarian, but it suggests a blatant disregard for public opinion.

    This is par for the course for the 44th President, who has made pretty clear his belief that, when he and the people disagree, the people must be in error. Democratic primary voters in small town Pennsylvania opposed him not because he was inexperienced, you see, but because their bitterness made them provincial. Now, Americans who don’t support this bill simply don’t understand it. They’ll see things better after the Congress passes it.

    Such arrogance makes for bad politics because it’s un-democratic. Yet it’s also un-Democratic. It’s not unreasonable to expect the party of the people to respect the judgment of the people, especially on an issue that is so important and that has attracted so much attention. The public is as well informed about the health care debate as they ever are about anything. One would hope that the Democratic Party would acknowledge and respect this fact.

    Progressives at liberal opinion journals and in the D.C. press corps have had trouble with this idea – and have ironically taken to employing fallacies of composition to suggest that public opposition is irrational. The people like the various elements of the bill, so the fact that they dislike the whole thing is a sign that they’re not thinking clearly. If this argument was valid – if the whole was merely the sum of its parts – the Washington Redskins, an organization that likes to lure the best players from other teams rather than build from the ground up, would stand at the top of the National Football League.

    The Democratic Party is broader than its progressive intellectuals and media cheerleaders. It has the majority not just because of San Francisco, California – but also Murfreesboro, Tennessee and Zanesville, Ohio. Those places voted Democratic in the 2008 House elections. Some progressives, especially in the blogosphere, see that as a problem – the “ConservaDems” they elect hold up true progress. But it’s historically the greatest strength of the Democratic Party, whose appeal has long been much broader than the GOP’s.

    House Democrats should bear this in mind as they consider the current reforms. This bill would signal not just a major change in health care, but also in the Democratic Party itself. The end result will be a smaller, more narrowly liberal party that is less trusted by the mass public to respect its collective judgment. The party will keep San Francisco and The New Republic, but sooner or later they’ll lose Murfreesboro and Zanesville.

  112. basement angel, Isn’t that what Donna Brazile said in 2007 or 2008, they were going to have to destroy the democratic party in order to save it??

    I am sure that Obama is the Trojan horse, probably why Hillary did not fight on the floor, she wouldn’t have anything to do with destroying the party or the country.

    Yes, you are preaching to the choir, I believe both sides are on the take and are doing what the IMF and Soros wants done. I am sure the ruling elites know WHERE all the bodies are buried and also know who they can manipulate and who they can’t….Hillary obviously is one they can’t.

  113. I must tell you in all candor, I believe it is too late. Obama has screwed the pooch. It ain’t Bush. It ain’t Emanuel. It ain’t even Congress. Not at this point. They are what they are. The blame for the coming depression rests with Obama.

    But he had help. Big media was his accomplice. To this day they lie cheat and steal to support him. And then you have the idiots who elected him. And they are as delusional as ever. As everything crashed down around us, they prefer him to Hillary 37 to 30. That is what we are dealing with. And despite what you see now I fear they will re elect him.

    The only question I have is this: How much stimulus monies will be allocated to putting our first black president and dictator on Mount Rushmore so guilty white people can feel good about themselves while Rome burns.

  114. Pat Racimora @ No Quarter

    When I heard about how the Democrats are treating Eric Massa for sticking to his guns rather than falling in line with Democratic Party orders, I thought about Eric’s old boss, General Wesley Clark, and and what General Barry McCaffery once wrote about him. “Wes was always looked on as too well-educated, too wired, too good-looking. He’s not a simple crunch soldier.” Eric isn’t a simple crunch Democrat—he thinks for himself. That can no longer to be tolerated.

    I am watching his resignation from Congress play out with great sadness.

    I knew Eric.

    I was active* in both of his campaigns. He has a fresh honesty about him. I knew he had battled cancer. I knew he could swear like the sailor he used to be and that he had a low crap tolerance. I knew he was not perfect. Yet his directness and hopes for the future of our country were healthy and persuasive. He was a man of the people.

    I never thought I would tell this story in public, but I know for a fact that the recent clash with Rahm Emanuel was not the first. I actually witnessed such a confrontation several years ago at a meeting in Washington DC arranged by General Clark. Emanuel was giving a talk to the 40 or so of us in the meeting room, and so inappropriately attacked Erick by denigrating the way he was running his campaign. It was shocking and embarrassing, especially because Eric was right there in the room. But it’s not Rahm’s style to pull someone aside to speak privately about any concerns. No sadistic fun in that. Well, they went at it in the hotel lobby. And let me tell you that Eric may be the only human being who can indeed hold his own with Emanuel. If it were now only a two-man fight, I’d put my money on Eric.

    Finally, there is an easy and cheap way to destroy the credibility and reputation of another human being. You just have to be evil enough to be willing to do it. First you find something unflattering, make a big deal out of it, gather up your allies, and start suggesting that your prey is both ridiculous and mentally unstable. We are seeing that play out now. It’s ugly theater, yet we are all watching as those in power reveal the tactics they will use to destroy any dissidents standing in their path.

    *Eric would know me only by my “day job” name.

Comments are closed.