Health Care Copenhagen And Waterloo

Update: Another demographic is writing him off.


Mad Obama

The New York Times sticks with the Mess-iah for Festivus Easter.

But, when you lose Alfred….

—————————————————————————————-

Did everybody but us forget about Obama’s bluff and buffoonery on Copenhagen? Does everyone but us fail to apply the lessons of Copenhagen to the health care debate and the current conventional wisdom that there will be a vote and the results will be passage of the Obama health scam?

We’re not referencing the Copenhagen climate conference which accomplished close to nothing or at least did not live up to the hyped hype – remember that was when the planet would begin to heal – but instead all the conference attendees heeled home-wards. We’re referencing the Copenhagen Olympics Obama flim-flam. Let’s review those events because the lessons have apparently been lost.

On October 1, 2009 we wrote an article which stated that “If the International Olympics Committee chooses Chicago as the host city for the 2012 Olympics, the Olympics will die.” In the article (The Chicago Olympic Tombstone) we noted how David Axelrod and Valerie Jarett had personal financial interests in a Chicago Olympics.

By the next day, October 2, 2009, we noted how “Obama The Boob Is Suckered And Plucked, Again – Olympic Size!” Remember? We played this song for days on end as a tribute to Rio and we laughed at Obama the boob:



This is a selection from that article:

That Big Boob – Barack Obama has been slapped across the face severely. After traveling across the ocean to beg before the International Olympic Committee he has been refused. This is an unprecedented, dramatic slap in the face from the international community. Obama has humiliated America.

World leaders think of Obama as a “Sucker”, now even the lowest of international bureaucrats know they have nothing to fear from the Big Boob. In pursuit of personal glory Obama has humiliated America. DrudgeReport captures the moment with the headline: The Ego Has Landed – World Rejects Obama – Chicago Out In First Round.

This international humiliation further weakens the Big Boob internationally and domestically.

Obama has been plucked.

Remember that? Does anybody remember that? Remember when conventional wisdom was that Obama would not be so stupid, such a boob, as to risk a last minute, high profile junket with Mary Todd Michelle and Oprah in tow unless a “YES” was a sure thing. Such was the boobery on display that on October 3, 2009 we wrote “Zero Sense” and these lessons for the ages (which apparently have already been forgotten):

Remember judgment? The senseless Hopium addled tried for years to convince us that Barack Obama had better judgment than Hillary or anyone because once upon a time in order to get the attention and money from a big dollar donor, he gave a speech about Iraq, to a very liberal audience, in a very liberal state, then did nothing ever again about Iraq and the video of the speech disappeared.

Now Americans are witnessing the zero sense displayed on a daily, hourly, basis, by the Big Zero himself. [snip]

Yesterday, the always speeding Obama rush-rush mobile hit a brick wall. Don’t Blame it on Rio. That brick wall is Reality. [snip]

What Obama wanted was a quick trip to Copenhagen, wasting millions of government dollars. Some planes wasted money lugging Michelle Obama and Oprah, other planes lugged the Obama limousine, other planes carried support personnel and equipment. It was a huge waste of money.

Obama timed it so that the “Yes” vote for Chicago would be announced shortly before he would arrive in Washington, D.C., in time to hold a triumphant publicity stunt press conference. Big Media would shower Obama in rose petals, and light incense to this colossus Caesar “while we petty men walk under his huge legs and peep about to find ourselves dishonorable graves.”

But the International Olympic Committee followed a different script. It is a script we have described and it is the template foreign leaders follow in their dealings with Barack Obama: flatter Obama in public and then slap his face.

Read all of “Zero Sense” if you need a refresher course in Obama boobery, thuggery, and flim-flammery. Read the whole article and refresh the memory of those we quoted regarding Obama’s boobery. We quoted the New York Times quoting the Weekly Standard:

Rarely has a president put his credibility on the line on the world stage in such a personal way and been slapped down so sharply in real time. [snip]

The defeat will be used as a political metaphor and raise painful questions. Why did he invest so much time, taxpayer money and, perhaps most important, presidential prestige in a losing effort? How did he misjudge the potential vote so badly that Chicago evidently was not even in the top tier? What does it say about a leader who may be far more popular abroad than his predecessor yet has trouble converting that esteem into tangible benefits for the United States?



Has that Obama bluff been completely forgotten? It appears so from the “sure thing” prognostications on health care this week.

We are supposed to believe that boob Obama would not postpone a vacation to Indonesia unless there was a sure victory such as was expected at Copenhagen (let’s thrown in the failure of the climate conference in Copenhagen too at this point). We are supposed to believe that Harry Reid would not dare move ahead without the vote a “sure thing” even though his history is, to be kind, less than stellar when it comes to being master of the Senate.

Further we are supposed to believe that Nancy Pelousy would not schedule vote scheduling votes unless it was all a sure thing (remember a very short time ago when Nancy could not count the collapsed support for Charles Rangel, defended him, then had to drop him like a hot potato, only to have Rangel dispute matters and finally leave on his own accord, maybe?)

We’re supposed to trust the political acumen of a Pelousy who said “women won’t suffer a ‘step back’ if Democrat Hillary Clinton loses her presidential bid”? [Don’t miss Valerie Jarrett’s latest praise of Obama for his “womanly leadership.”]

We’re supposed to believe that a bill, which until this very Ides of March did not exist is a “sure thing”? Or is the “sure thing” supposed to be the House passing a “sure thing” bill which accepts, but does not vote on the already passed Senate bill, and then we are supposed to ignore what the Senate will do? Or is the “sure thing” that both the already passed Senate bill will be passed by the House and then the Senate will pass the reconciliation bill passed by the House? The “sure thing” is a shell bill which will be twisted into something entirely different as the week digresses.

We’re supposed to believe that because no one knows what will eventually emerge by the end of this week (which is already yet another missed deadline) that it is a strength? A “defender” of the effort thinks there’s a problem:

“The trouble is, the process just keeps getting worse.

Unlikely as this seems, confusion continues to deepen. Specialists – let alone ordinary voters – struggle to remember the differences between the Senate bill, the House bill, and the president’s unfinished merged proposal. In the last big push to get reform through, using whatever deals, scams, ruses and parliamentary evasions fall to hand, the public and their concerns are pushed ever more to the periphery of Washington’s vision. [snip]

Already beyond abstruse, now in the realm of surreal farce, the debate is thus becoming yet more inward-looking and unintelligible. Can language on abortion be included in a reconciliation measure? (Probably not.) Can the Senate parliamentarian be overruled? (What is the Senate parliamentarian?) All that is missing is a speech in favour of the plan by Groucho Marx. Recovering voters’ respect for the outcome, even assuming the outcome is good, looks an ever more distant prospect.”

The gamble on a “sure thing” that no one really knows, is supposed to be welcomed with love and flowers, in much the same way as Iraqis were supposed to behave according to the Bush W. government. There are doubters:

“Suppose that Mr Obama’s gamble pays off, however. Suppose Nancy Pelosi, leader of the House Democrats, assembles her majority and sets the reconciliation wheels in motion. Suppose all then goes smoothly, and the reform is enacted. Under this best possible scenario, what then? The White House and most Democrats say they would be rewarded in November’s mid-term elections for at least getting something done. This is doubtful. [snip]

Last week two respected Democratic pollsters said that the administration’s drive for comprehensive healthcare reform was a “march of folly”. The battle for public opinion had been lost, they said, and if the Democrats insisted on passing this bill regardless, the country will kick them in the teeth in November.”

The sure thing we suspect is a real sure thing is that “Moderate House Democrats facing potentially difficult reelections this fall have a message for President Barack Obama: Don’t call us; we’ll call you.

Another sure thing is how absolutely wrong fawner-in-chief Andrew Sullivan (“What does he [Obama] offer? First and foremost: his face.” and other Dumb White People (John Kerry thought Obama should be elected “Because he’s African American.”) were about Obama and the world.

Remember when Andrew Sullivan thought Muslims could not hate a post-Obama America? (“A brown-skinned man whose father was an African, who grew up in Indonesia and Hawaii, who attended a majority-Muslim school as a boy, is now the alleged enemy. Maybe this is why Obama postponed his vacation:

“Thousands of followers of a conservative Islamic group held peaceful demonstrations Sunday in several Indonesian cities against the planned visit of President Barack Obama.

Witnesses and police said members of the Islamic group Hizb ut-Tahrir protested in East Java’s provincial capital of Surabaya, South Sulawesi’s capital of Makassar and three other cities. The group, an international network which believes Muslims should unite in a single global state governed by Islamic law, urged the Indonesian government to reject the American leader’s trip, scheduled for late March.”

We know a “sure thing” is protesters in Indonesia. [Andrew Sullivan should check out the photos with the following captions: “A Muslim student kicks a banner of President Barack Obama during a protest against his planned visit in Medan, North Sumatra, Indonesia, Friday, March …” “Muslim students step on a banner of President Barack Obama during a protest against his planned visit in Medan, North Sumatra, Indonesia,” “A Muslim student holds a poster of President Barack Obama during a protest against his planned visit in Medan, North Sumatra, Indonesia,” “A student holds a poster of U.S President Barack Obama as she protests against Obama’s plans to visit Indonesia, outside the U.S. consulate in Med …”]

Another “sure thing” is that the votes sufficient to pass Obama’s health scam do not yet exist.

“Two top aides — senior adviser David Axelrod and press secretary Robert Gibbs — said Sunday the votes will be there.

Other Democrats aren’t so sure.

After nearly a year of haggling, most of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s 252 Democratic colleagues still have concerns about passing the Senate bill, even with some fixes. Their objections range from the ideological to the procedural, and the shape of the final package hinges on an obscure, unelected official — Senate parliamentarian Alan Frumin.”

There are pitfalls, regarding abortion (the Obama Dimocrats sold abortion rights down the river last year and now they wave the abortion flag to convince the betrayed that they are now for abortion rights), the House rules (the solution du jour is the “Slaughter Rule” which creates a vote without an actual vote), parliamentarian Frumin who will determine what is allowed and what is not allowed, maybe, immigration, and more and more procedural traps.

The votes for Obama’s health scam do not exist in the same way the votes for the Chicago Olympics did not exist. Of course, as with the Obama Dimocrat abortion flip-flops (who can argue any longer that this issue is taken seriously by pro-choice congressional Dimocrats as it is clear now that this is just a way to manipulate pro-choice voters?), Obama will do anything, any deal, with anyone or anything, lie, cheat, steal, renege on deals against dealmaking to encourage deals on dealmaking, in order to get a vote for his flim-flam shell bill in the House.

What matters now is that the Obama health scam be defeated. If it is not defeated it must be made an issue (second only to the economy) this November. The Obama health scam is a massive transfer of wealth from the taxpayer to Obama pals Big PhaRma and Big Insurance.

The Obama health scam will be larded with other sweet deals designed to trap the unwary. College loan programs or abortion or anti-abortion shiny objects are distractions meant to… distract. Divide and conquer. The Obama health scam is a scam. It must be defeated.

The prognostications of passage are premature, at best. The prognostications of Chicago Olympics proved to be premature and ultimately a false HOPE. The prognostications of climate conference breakthroughs were premature as well.

Obama went to Copenhagen framed by the usual hype. The usual hype is at work again. This time the hype is to prevent the failure of the scam.

This time the Obama trip is not to Copenhagen.

This time the Obama trip is a one way to Waterloo.

Share

111 thoughts on “Health Care Copenhagen And Waterloo

  1. Admin, that video of Jarrett and the fucking footlicking Indian woman (is she a journalist?) is nauseating. Where do they find these idiots?

  2. admin, we should interpret the “womanly leadership” phrase with its usual stereotypical, pejorative connotation in this context because it fits so well for the wimpy whiny coward sitting in the WH. Jeff Hiatt in the WaPO is making a virtue out of the lazy cowardice of 0bama running away from the day to day challenges of a president to hide behind his wife’s skirt and his children’s toys — real family values, don’t you know? I won’t link to it.

  3. Pm317, a while back we joked that the health care scam would be tied to Easter and the Mess-iah Obama. That picture, which is supposed to be a “red cross” is another deification of Obama (notice the halo on the head). Big Media will do as much as possible to protect the stooge. That photo is an example of how to bias a story beyond repair. The article is a pale version of the stakes for Obama.

  4. admin, bias beyond repair, yes. But could they (NYT) be really that stupid and depraved? Yes, they can. We know who they are holding on to, the koolaid people. Because no one else gives them a damn.

  5. Another great post, Admin.

    This time the Obama trip is a one way to Waterloo.
    ——
    ……and hopefully the Fraud will be a lame duck for the next two+ years and booted out in 2012.

    Then what?

    Let the Repugs run the country again or………help Hillary decide to run for President. She is the only real Democrat that can save her party. Will the DNC be too broken to try and steal another election from her or will the Chicago machine be even more desperate and corrupt in 2012?

  6. White House backs down on health bill deals

    WASHINGTON (AP) – The White House is backing down from trying to get senators to remove some special deals from the health care bill.

    Senior adviser David Axelrod says the White House only objected to deals that affected just one state, such one involving Medicaid and Nebraska that’s being cut from the legislation.

    Axelrod says that deals that could apply to more than one state are OK.

    That means deals pushed by senators from Montana and Connecticut would be fine because they’re written in such a way that other states could potentially qualify.

    It’s a change from a couple days ago when press secretary Robert Gibbs singled out the Montana and Connecticut deals and said President Barack Obama wanted them gone.

    Axelrod spoke on ABC’s “This Week.”

    http://apnews.myway.com/article/20100314/D9EEH2O01.html

  7. Shadowfax said:
    She is the only real Democrat that can save her party. Will the DNC be too broken to try and steal another election from her or will the Chicago machine be even more desperate and corrupt in 2012?

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

    Where the motive is individual greed and the payoff is from the insurance companies and polluters, a GOP victory may pay off just fine.

  8. Love the cartoon of Alfred Newman.It must be the white half of HOCUS POTUS.Meantime another travel schedule for HILLARY (The busy SoS )

    On March 18-19 Secretary Clinton, accompanied by Senator Mitchell, will participate in a meeting of the Quartet with United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, and European Union High Representative Catherine Ashton, as well as Quartet Representative Tony Blair, to discuss efforts to promote Middle East peace.

    The Secretary will also meet with senior Russian officials to discuss progress on a successor agreement to START, cooperation on nonproliferation, counterterrorism, regional security issues, and the work of the Bilateral Presidential Commission.

    ——————————————————

  9. All the mid-east knows that Obama cannot be trusted.
    Obama cannot be trusted by his friends. Obama cannot be trusted by his enemies. Obama cannot be trusted on any issue. Obama cannot be trusted. (did I get that in correct sequence?)
    ~~~~~~~~~~
    Losing Faith in the Messiah
    Obama Unites Israelis and Arabs in Disappointment
    By Gregor Peter Schmitz, Christoph Schult and Bernhard Zand
    03/15/2010

    excerpt:
    “Never before had a US president enjoyed such trust in the Middle East — and gambled it away in such a short time. Obama has vacillated to an extent that has confused friend and foe alike, even baffling veteran observers of the region.”
    http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,683591,00.html

  10. http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601068&sid=a0a8xAghPS8I

    March 15 (Bloomberg) — The U.S. and the U.K. have moved “substantially” closer to losing their AAA credit ratings as the cost of servicing their debt rose, according to Moody’s Investors Service.

    The governments of the two economies must balance bringing down their debt burdens without damaging growth by removing fiscal stimulus too quickly, Pierre Cailleteau, managing director of sovereign risk at Moody’s in London, said in a telephone interview.

    Under the ratings company’s so-called baseline scenario, the U.S. will spend more on debt service as a percentage of revenue this year than any other top-rated country except the U.K., and will be the biggest spender from 2011 to 2013, Moody’s said today in a report.

    “We expect the situation to further deteriorate in terms of the key ratings metrics before they start stabilizing,” Cailleteau said. “This story is not going to stop at the end of the year. There is inertia in the deterioration of credit metrics.”

  11. The Joker goes to Ohio to razzle-dazzle his health care deformity – how lame is that? Strongsville, Ohio?
    Who in Ohio can afford health insurance? — they have no jobs!

  12. Puma-SF, they are resurrecting the ghost of a technique from their campaign days. When all else fails go for the fainting spells.

  13. One of Hillary’s 18 million running for U.S. Congress District 1 Missouri against Lacy Clay Obama is his very good friend. I am a Hillary Democrat running against an Obama Democrat. I need your support!! Please go to http://www.candicebritton.com
    Please help me spread th word of my campaign among Hillary supporters. Thank you so much. This one is for Hillary and her 18 million plus!

  14. Someone needs to get a picture of the woman who “fainted” and see if it matches up with those on the campaign.

  15. Posted below is some information which is incorrect. I called the office of one of those Democrats who has reportedly changed from no to yes. He is in my state but outside my district. He has not changed his vote. Nor has he told Clyburn that he would change. Clyburn said he “hoped” he would change his vote. I asked him if he had communicated to Clyburn that he would change and I was told no he had not. I pointed out that recent polls show that 70% of the electorate will vote AGAINST a congressman who votes in favor of this bill. He said he did not know whether I was aware of it but his congressman was not running for election. I told him I was aware of it but I also knew congressman is a decent and honorable man and as such, he would not vote for legislation which is a goldmine for special interests, and a gotcha for the American People.

    If anyone on this blog wants to help this monster, then I urge you to contact one or more of these congressmen and expressing sentiments like these. The press is misrepresenting the facts to favor Obama. Try it. It is worth a shot.
    —————————————————————————–

    Friday, we reported that the Democrats were within four votes of passing Obamacare.

    Today, we are told that four Democrats are changing their votes from “NO” to “YES” on Obamacare:

    Boccieri, OH – (202) 225-3876
    Altmire, PA – (202) 225-2565
    Gordon, TN – (202) 225-4231
    Baird, WA- (202) 225-3536
    On the other hand, the corner reports the Democrats are still about 10 votes of the 216 required to pass Obamacare, or execute the unconstitutional Slaughter gambit. It is also possible the Democrats could be losing votes.

    Either way it wouldn’t be a bad idea to call the offices of the representatives listed above and let them know how you feel about the Democrats’ Obamacare bill.

    Friday, we reported that the Democrats were within four votes of passing Obamacare.

    Today, we are told that four Democrats are changing their votes from “NO” to “YES” on Obamacare:

    Boccieri, OH – (202) 225-3876
    Altmire, PA – (202) 225-2565
    Gordon, TN – (202) 225-4231
    Baird, WA- (202) 225-3536
    On the other hand, the corner reports the Democrats are still about 10 votes of the 216 required to pass Obamacare, or execute the unconstitutional Slaughter gambit. It is also possible the Democrats could be losing votes.

    Either way it wouldn’t be a bad idea to call the offices of the representatives listed above and let them know how you feel about the Democrats’ Obamacare bill.

  16. And here is some ammo– if you want to take a shot at contacting one or more of these congressmen.

    Swing Districts Oppose Health Care Deform
    ——————————————-

    Posted by Erick Erickson (Profile)
    Monday, March 15th at 9:21AM EDT
    15 Comments
    Following up on Moe, some detailed survey data is out this morning from 35 swing congressional districts around the country.

    Things don’t look good for the Democrats. In those 35 swing districts, people really don’t want health care deform going through.

    The poll was of 1,200 registered voters, which means likely voters will be even more amplified.

    For 82% of those surveyed, the heath-care bill is either the top or one of the top three issues for deciding whom to support for Congress next November. (That number goes to 88% among independent women.) Sixty percent want Congress to start from scratch on a bipartisan health-care reform proposal or stop working on it this year. Majorities say the legislation will make them and their loved ones (53%), the economy (54%) and the U.S. health-care system (55%) worse off—quite the trifecta.

    Seven in 10 would vote against a House member who votes for the Senate health-care bill with its special interest provisions. That includes 45% of self-identified Democrats, 72% of independents and 88% of Republicans. Three in four disagree that the federal government should mandate that everyone buy a government-approved insurance plan (64% strongly so), and 81% say any reform should focus first on reducing costs. Three quarters agree that Americans have the right to choose not to participate in any health-care system or plan without a penalty or fine.

    When 45% of your own voters would oppose you for voting for the Senate plan, you are toast.

  17. What is worse than the infamous Corn husker Kick-back? This:

    Posted by Dan Perrin (Profile)
    Monday, March 15th at 7:07AM EDT
    28 Comments

    Even the Dem supporters and defenders know they are down big in the whip count (this one is from FireDogLake) and even Clive Cook writing in the Financial Times acknowledges that the Dems have lost the war of public opinion:

    the line taken by defenders of comprehensive healthcare reform goes like this. Yes, the public opposes the Democrats’ proposals, but it is the process more than the product that voters question.

    But when supporters (Cook says he is one) warn the Dems of more process perversion, then you know it’s bad for the Dems:

    In the last big push to get reform through, using whatever deals, scams, ruses and parliamentary evasions fall to hand, the public and their concerns are pushed ever more to the periphery of Washington’s vision.

    The White House is supporting reconciliation – a procedure that allows the Senate to accept revisions to its bill by simple majority. This defeats the Republican filibuster. It also complicates the parliamentary process, since not all provisions are allowed under reconciliation.

    Already beyond abstruse, now in the realm of surreal farce, the debate is thus becoming yet more inward-looking and unintelligible. Can language on abortion be included in a reconciliation measure? (Probably not.) Can the Senate parliamentarian be overruled? (What is the Senate parliamentarian?) All that is missing is a speech in favour of the plan by Groucho Marx. Recovering voters’ respect for the outcome, even assuming the outcome is good, looks an ever more distant prospect.

    While the Democrats describe their policies as good, but the process hated, they are busily pouring gasoline on the we-hate-the-process-concerns of the voters and are fixing to get 3rd degree burns all over their body.

    Does anyone know why the Dems are trying to pass the bill without voting for it?

    Here is why: they do not have the votes to pass it on an up or down vote.

    This latest Dem perversion of the process is the same reason they did the Louisiana Purchase and the Nelson Kick-back. They did not have the votes. So they paid off the Senators.

    Just like before this Whip Count from The Hill shows they don’t have the votes to win.

    So they are trying to pass the bill without voting on it. It is the only way they even have a shot, just a shot, at “passing” it.

    There will be court challenges and the case will live on through the fall legally and politically.

    Every Member of Congress who voted yes will be reminded of their corruption of the process during their re-election campaign.

    Who is surprised the Dems change the rules to attempt (and will fail) to get their way?

    They are so arrogant they do it even in the face of massive opposition from likely voters who hate ObamaCare.

    Can you see why rational political observers think the Dems have truly lost their minds?

    The Dems are like Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde — they need to locked up whenever the words health care reform are mentioned, so they do not do injury to themselves and others, including their voters (you know the people who get to pick if the Dems stay in their job.)

    The Slaughter attempt to pass-it-without-voting-on-it will live on in the minds of the voters right up there with the Senator Nelson Kickback, and the Louisiana Purchase.

    But the Dems are so blinded by desire to pass ObamaCare, they can’t see it the destruction they are doing to themselves, just like they could not see the backlash from the Ben Nelson Kickback and the Louisiana Purchase.

    It does not even give them pause that they do not have the votes. Perhaps that’s a red flag? Not if you are delusional and irrational. It all seems normal to them.

    Simply attempting to “pass the bill without voting on it” will cost the Dems the House.

    Members of Congress have heard all about the “Cornhusker Kickback,” well just wait until they hear about “passing a bill without voting on it.” These will be dreaded words, sort of like: I voted for it right before I voted against it.

    During the election, every Member of Congress will be asked: did you have an up or down vote on the ObamaCare? (Uh, no.) So you tried to pass it without voting for it? And you voted yes?

    Toast. They are toast.

    Sphere: Related Content
    Share on: Facebook | | Reddit Category: Associated Press, Clive Cook, Cornhusker Kickback, Dr. Jekyll, Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, Financial Times, FireDogLake, Groucho Marx, Louisiana Purchase, Mr. Hyde, Obamacare, Reconciliation, Senate Parliamentarian, Senator Landrieu, Senator Nelson, Senator Nelson Kickback, The Hill, Whip Count

    RSS feed | Trackback URI

    28 Comments Leave a comment
    Far Worse Than That
    Swamp_Yankee Monday, March 15th at 7:12AM EDT (link)
    The Cornhusker Kickback was ugly, but not really unusual. Stuff like that happens all the time, and it legal. But it was a bigger stage.

    “Deeming” such a major bill passed via incorporation could cause a major constitutional crisis. This is unprecedented. This is nuclear.

  18. If any of you are interested, here is some of the discussion on the legal remedy to be pursued in the event that the dims chose to avail themselves of the Slaughter bill, which will bypass a vote, since at this point the whip count shows it will not pass:
    ——————————————————-
    1. cari: do any of you know the legal route that would be required for the Slaughter rule, if it’s used, to be challenged in court? Who brings up the charges, etc.? I have yet to find it explained. Thanks!

    2. michael: single person with standing; that is, a citizen who would be forced to purchase health care under the Democrat bill.

    3. ColoKid: the person must have already suffered damage, not merely allege that he would suffer damage at some future point. So I think it more likely that a House member would challenge the Slaughter rule, claiming that he was denied an opportunity to vote on the Senate bill, per Art I, Sec 7 of the Constitution. Since the case inolves the direct interpretation of the Constitution, it should go directly to SCOTUS. It seems highly likely that the requisite four member of SCOTUS would vote to take the case.

    I believe they will, they’d issue an injunction against the bill going to the WH for Obama’s signature. As to how SCOTUS would come down on the case is a whole different question, though it’s hard to believe they’d let this kind of nonsense stand in the passage of a bill of this magnitude when Art I, Sec 7 so clearly requires a vote on the bill.

    4. WarEagle: Apparently, we all have standing. Mark Levin has lots of good info on this. He is planning to challenge this in court himself if it passes. http://www.marklevinshow.com/home.asp

  19. The Constitutional Problem explained:
    ——————————-
    Posted by Brian Darling (Profile)
    Sunday, March 14th at 1:06PM EDT
    20 Comments

    On FOX News Sunday, Assistant to the Speaker of the House Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) followed his own advise contained in a memo leaked to Politico that advises silence on unconstitutional ObamaCare procedure. The Constitution clearly states that bills have to be voted upon in the House before being presented to the President. Leaders in the House are considering a complicated procedure to pass ObamaCare in the House without a vote and in violation of Article 1, Section 7 of the U.S. Constitution.The Constitution says that:

    Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law.

    House Republican Whip Eric Cantor (R-VA) said on FOX News Sunday today that “Speaker Pelosi is thinking about bending the rules and frankly making it so there is not a direct vote on the Senate health care bill.” Pelosi is considering a rule that would be structured so that a vote on the rule would deem the Senate passed version of ObamaCare be passed if a health care reconciliation measure is passed. In other words, if the rule is passed, then the reconciliation measure is passed, and then the Senate passed version of ObamaCare would be deemed to have been passed by the House. This clearly is not an “up or down” vote on ObamaCare.

    Van Hollen responded to Cantor by saying that “we are going to have an up or down vote, whether it is going to be on the Senate bill or a procedure that will include passage of the Senate bill recognizing that we are amending the Senate bill.” An up or down vote on a procedure is not an up or down vote on a bill. Van Hollen was quick to attempt a shift away from this procedural debate, but Cantor brought the discussion back to this questionable procedure.

    Cantor further responded to Van Hollen by saying that ”there should be, in the minds of most Americans, a direct vote on the Senate bill. I have the Constitution right here. It is Article 1, Section 7.” Cantor is correct and Republicans in the House should raise a Constitutional point of order against any rule that does not allow an up or down vote on the Senate approach to ObamaCare. Any procedure short of a direct, up or down vote, on the Senate version of ObamaCare will call this bill’s content and procedure to pass the bill into question. Van Hollen’s response to the charge that the procedure being considered to pass ObamaCare is unconstitutional is telling.

    Van Hollen circulated a memo late last week advising members to avoid a discussion of the procedure to be used to jam ObamaCare through the House. Chris Frates at Politico writes about a Van Hollen leaked memo prepared Democrat members for questions on the unconstitutional process:

    The Van Hollen memo also advised members to avoid talking about the process. “At this point, we have to just rip the band-aid off and have a vote — up or down; yes or no? Things like reconciliation and what the rules committee does is INSIDE BASEBALL,” the memo says. “People who try and start arguments about process on this are almost always against the actual policy substance too, often times for purely political reasons.”

    According to Fox, the Democrats are 5 votes short of the necessary votes needed to pass a procedure that will avoid a direct vote on the Senate version of ObamaCare. The tentative tally, again according to FOX is 211 to 220. They are 5 votes short of the 216 needed to pass and a promise not to force moderate Democrats to have to vote directly on the Senate version of ObamaCare may help pass the bill. Promising members in conservative leaning districts to vote for a procedure rather than an unpopular bill may help to convince enough Democrats to vote for the procedure. This is one instance where an unconstitutional procedure is being employed to pass a piece of legislation.

  20. Admin:

    “We know a “sure thing” is protesters in Indonesia. [Andrew Sullivan should check out the photos with the following captions: “A Muslim student kicks a banner of President Barack Obama during a protest against his planned visit in Medan, North Sumatra, Indonesia, Friday, March …” “Muslim students step on a banner of President Barack Obama during a protest against his planned visit in Medan, North Sumatra, Indonesia,” “A Muslim student holds a poster of President Barack Obama during a protest against his planned visit in Medan, North Sumatra, Indonesia,” “A student holds a poster of U.S President Barack Obama as she protests against Obama’s plans to visit Indonesia, outside the U.S. consulate in Med …”:
    ________________________________

    Admin- The photos should be a grim reminder to Obama. He may not be welcome in the country he publicly renounced. When during the campaign, he denied his Muslim background and upbringing. Indonesia may feel betrayed. As the line of countries and peoples standing up against Obama grows noticeably longer.

  21. O is here in Ohio

    I was wondering why he picked Strongsville Ohio.

    Cleveland is not too far from Strongsville Ohio. It is a rich community.
    Why did he not come to Cleveland where unemployment is at an all time high.

    One of the reasons i think he did not pick Cleveland is no one wants to hear about healthcare,they want to know where are the jobs.

    Everyone i talk to including blacks and whites are so disgusted with O.

    The koolaid is wearing off.

  22. O
    ur President in waiting just keeps working while BO flies around in his Royal Jet using up costly fuel and entertaining his family and supporters in order to avoid answering questions about his agenda.Time to dump him folks and draft Hillary.Take a look at her schedule in spite of a cold that would stop ordinary political figures.

    ————————————————–

    Daily Press Briefings : Daily Press Briefing – March 15
    Mon, 15 Mar 2010 17:47:42 -0500

    Philip J. Crowley

    Assistant Secretary
    Daily Press Briefing

    Washington, DC

    March 15, 2010

    INDEX:
    DEPARTMENT

    Secretary Clinton will participate in a meeting of the Quartet On March 18th and 19th, to discuss efforts to promote Middle East peace.
    The Secretary will also meet with senior Russian officials to discuss progress on the successor agreement to START
    Tomorrow, Assistant Secretary of State for Population, Refugees, and Migration Eric Schwartz will present the keynote speech at the celebration of the 30th anniversary of the Refugee Act of 1980 at Georgetown University’s Gewirz Student Center
    State Department announces the launch today of Opinion Space, an interactive site hosted on State.gov, that seeks to foster global conversations on foreign affairs
    Assistant Secretary Kurt Campbell remains in the Asia Pacific Region
    Ambassador Robert King, our Special Envoy for North Korean Human Rights Issues, is in Geneva today to participate in the UN Human Right’s Council’s 13th session
    The DPRK granted the Swedish Embassy, our protecting power, consular access to a detained U.S. citizen

    MEXICO

    Secretary Clinton and the President pledged, work tirelessly with Mexican authorities to bring the killers of American citizens to justice
    Today is a Mexican national holiday, but the Consulate will be closed tomorrow to review its security posture / Incident Involving the Killing of U.S. Consular Employees and the Spouse of Another U.S. Consular Employee in Ciudad Juarez/Issue of Authorized Departure
    U.S. Wants to See Killers Brought to Justice/Mexican Authorities have Lead in the Investigation/FBI and Diplomatic Security are Consulting / U.S. Consulate Ciudad Juarez Closed Tomorrow to Review its Security/FBI Mobilized Teams to Engage and Support Investigation
    Incident Reinforces Why the U.S. has Provided Significant Assistance to Mexican Authorities Through Merida/U.S. Satisfied with Mexican Authorities’ Response/Violence has Profoundly Affected the Mexican Population/U.S. will Review Security Procedures at Facilities All Along the Border/U.S. is Encouraged by the Commitment of Calderon Government/Up to Families to Announce What Details They Want on Their Particular Identities/Throughout Mexico Consular and Security Officials Constantly Look at and Evaluate Safety and Security of Mexico and Implications on U.S. Citizens/ Issue of Investigation by Mexican Authorities/Tragedy of This Weekend Underscores How Severe, Significant a Danger This Represents to Mexico/Significant Challenge for U.S., a Joint Challenge/

    ISRAEL/PALESTINIANS

    Secretary Outlined for Prime Minister Netanyahu Some Specific Things that the U.S. Wanted to See from the Israeli Government/U.S. has Concerns About the Tensions Regarding the Rededication of a Synagogue in the Jewish Quarter of the Old City/U.S. Call Upon Palestinian Officials to Put an End to Such Incitement/ Will Continue to Talk to Both Parties/Both Sides have Responsibilities/ U.S. has Asked for a Formal Response from Israeli Government/George Mitchell in the Region this Week/U.S. Call to Everyone to be Careful About Public Statements that Can Incite Further Violence/ U.S. in Contact with both Palestinians and Israelis/Continue to Look for the Right Conditions to Move Talks Forward/U.S. has Particular Concerns about the Housing Project Announced While the Vice President was in Israel/Israel is a Strategic Ally of the U.S. and will Continue to Be So/Want to have an Environment to Move the Scheduling of Next Round of Talks Forward

    TRANSCRIPT:

  23. Republican National Review outlines the difficulties of getting votes (though let’s not underestimate the power of “sweetener” bribes). We think Altmire is a key vote and although he says he is “undecided” he sounds like a “yes” vote to us (but anyone who has heard a judge speak before rendering a contrary decision will take Altmire’s words with lots of salt):

    http://healthcare.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MGUxNTIwYjhmNjRmMDNiZmIyNTNlNzQ4ZWViOGFiODM=

    Three Reasons Why Obamacare Isn’t Likely to Pass [Jeffrey H. Anderson]

    If Obamacare’s opponents keep up the pressure on wavering House Democrats, victory is within our grasp. Obamacare faces three major hurdles to passage. You might reasonably assume that these are as follows: It’s a colossally bad bill; it’s an extremely unpopular bill; and members of Congress — despite what President Obama apparently thinks — do care about getting reelected. While you’d be right on all three counts, I’m talking about more specific hurdles related to the concrete numbers in the House.

    Things have changed. The Democrats need every member of their caucus who voted “yes” last time to vote “yes” again — or, for every defection, they need to convert a prior “no” vote to their side. They don’t have a single vote to spare. [snip]

    They need two-thirds of our 40. Andy Wickersham and I have listed the 40 Democrats we think are the most key to passage or defeat. Assuming that all other Democratic members vote the same way as last time — and that all Republicans vote “no” (as they will) — the Democrats need 27 of these 40 to vote “yes” in order to pass the bill. This is a high bar when you consider that 35 of these 40 reside in Republican territory — many of them solidly so — and 24 supported the Stupak Amendment.

    Early returns aren’t good for Obamacare supporters. The Hill currently lists only one of these 40 as leaning “yes” (Rep. Vic Snyder (D., Ark.)) and ten — five prior “yes” votes, five prior “no” votes — as leaning “no”: Reps. Michael Arcuri (D., N.Y.), Joe Donnelly (D., Ind.), Bark Stupak (D., Mich.), Marion Berry (D., Ark.), and Steve Driehaus (D., Ohio) among the prior “yes” votes; and Mike Ross (D., Ark.), John Adler (D., N.J.), John Barrow (D., Ga.), Larry Kissel (D., N.C.), and Michael McMahon (D., N.Y.) among the prior “no” votes.

    Other Democrats are more likely to swing against Obamacare than for it. Beyond these 40, the Democrats are far more likely to lose additional members who voted “yes” last time than they are to convert additional members who previously voted “no.” Many other Democrats beyond our 40 still reside in highly contentious districts, and a couple even oppose Obamacare from the (even more extreme) left. The Hill currently lists four Democrats from outside of our 40, who voted “yes” last time, as currently leaning “no.” Conversely, of the 24 Democrats outside of our 40 who voted “no” last time, The Hill lists none as currently leaning “yes” and lists 22 as leaning “no.”

    These 24 reps reside in solidly red districts. Of them, the one representing the least Republican-leaning district is Rep. Jason Altmire (D., Pa.), whose district has nevertheless supported Republican presidential candidates by an average of nine percentage points over the last three elections. Altmire also voted “yes” on Stupak, and he also represents a district where a whopping 60 percent of seniors are enrolled in Medicare Advantage — about three times the national average. Medicare Advantage benefits would be cut by $2,100 per enrollee per year under Obamacare (but, thanks to “Gator Aid,” not in South Florida). According to The Hill, Altmire is one of the two undecided members among these 24, along with Rep. Bart Gordon (D., Tenn.).

    So, overall, how are President Obama and Speaker Pelosi doing? If members vote how The Hill projects they would as of now, the Democratic leadership would have a won-lost record of 1 and 10 so far among our 40 key members. They need to go 27 and 13 overall, so they would have to go 26 and 3 the rest of the way. But since four other members (from outside of our 40) who previously voted “yes” are also leaning “no,” the Democratic leadership would therefore have to go a perfect 29 and 0 among the rest of our 40 — and also convert one other member from The Hill’s “no” list back to “yes.”

  24. Betcha Obama and Axelrod knew:

    http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Rielle-Hunter-John-Edwards-had-problems-VP-vetting-didnt-find-87645447.html

    Rielle Hunter, mistress of John Edwards and mother of their child together, has given a long interview to GQ magazine. In it, she says she was surprised that Edwards decided to pursue a run for the presidency because “he had a lot of problems going on that nobody knew about.” Hunter tells GQ that Edwards “had already been vetted for a vice-presidential campaign. And he had a lot of problems going on that nobody knew about.”

    In the interview, GQ’s Lisa DePaulo asks about Edwards’ decision to announce his candidacy in December 2006 in New Orleans.

    In that time, did you think he should be running for president?

    Oh, no, I did not think he should run for president.

    Because of you?

    Because of his entire life. Here’s the most interesting thing. He had already been vetted for a vice presidential campaign. And he had a lot of problems going on that nobody knew about. So no, I didn’t think he should run…

  25. From BP…I heard this on the radio too.
    ****************

    hi guys!

    wow, I just read at gateway pundit, only 200 people showed up at the POSfraud’s pep rally.
    so apparently the camera focus had to be tight so that the empty space would not be seen.

  26. Ace
    *********

    Nomentum: John Adler is a “No.”
    —Gabriel Malor
    John Adler is a “No.” I’ve moved him from the “No, But Maybe” group into the “No Means No” category, which means Pelosi now needs 25 out of 28 “maybes”. See update below.

    Put another way, we only need four of the “maybes” to vote “no” and there aren’t enough Dems left to pass the bill.

    Additional signaling today came from Marion Berry, one of the Stupak Dozen, who voted for the reconciliation bill in committee, and from Allen Boyd, one of the supposed “No, but Maybe” guys, who voted against the reconciliation bill in committee.

    Berry swears he ultimately won’t vote for abortion funding, but, well…he lies. A lot. Boyd hasn’t told anyone what he’s up to, and he may still be courted by Pelosi. Without more info, I’m not moving them from where I’ve got them.

    Oops. And More Updates:

    First, I only had eleven folks in the Stupak Dozen. That’s because I left off Tom Perriello (VA-5), who has said several times that he will not support the Senate abortion language. His staff just confirmed to one of our commenters that “if the abortion language is not changed he will vote no.” I’ve added his name to the Stupak Dozen category below (and checked my math to make sure all 255 Dems are accounted for).

    Second, Gabrielle Giffords (AZ-8 ) released a statement a few minutes ago, announcing her willingness to be bought. She says, “When and if these problems are addressed, I will publicly commit to vote for this historic health insurance reform legislation.” Based on that, I’m not ready to move her out of the “Yes, but Maybe” category. I think it very likely that she will vote for the bill, but she hasn’t said that she will yet.

    Pelosi’s goal is still 25 out of 28 “maybes.”

  27. Gateway pun…note as you read on down…the Slaughter vote Wed?
    *******************

    Memo From Speaker’s Office: Expect TENS OF THOUSANDS In DC Tomorrow
    Monday, March 15, 2010, 5:52 PM
    Jim Hoft
    This memo was obtained and forwarded to me from the Office of the Assistant to the Speaker. It was sent out earlier today by Doug Thornell.

    Democrats expect TENS OF THOUSANDS in DC tomorrow for the Code Red rally against their unconstitutional takeover of the health care industry:

    From: Thornell, Doug [mailto:Doug.Thornell@mail.house.gov]
Sent: Monday, March 15, 2010 5:25 PM
    To: Thornell, Doug
    Subject: Tea Party Etiquette

    TO: Freshman and Sophomore House Democrats
    FROM: Office of the Assistant to the Speaker
    DATE: March 15, 2010
    RE: Tea Party Etiquette
    As many of you have read, tomorrow, Tuesday, March 16, 2010, tens of thousands of conservative and Tea Party activists will be on the Hill as part of what they are dubbing a “Surge Against Obamacare.” Rick Scott, a multimillionaire investor and former hospital executive, is helping to lead the grassroots effort along with a number of other groups on the right like Dick Armey’s FreedomWorks. While many of you have met with outspoken activists in your districts in the past, we wanted to remind you of some of the best practices to review with your DC staff:
    1. Be prepared. Activists are expected to begin arriving around 9am and they have been given instructions to wait in your office until they can have a meeting. Please have an orderly process and enough staff and interns to welcome what could be a very large number of visitors throughout the day:
    • Have staff and/or Member time set-aside to visit with attendees in small groups;
    • Ask for extra chairs or seating to be brought to your office or the hall in case there are seniors or disabled visitors that need to be accommodated;
    • Consider having some light snacks, H2O, and coffee available;
    • Ask visitors to leave all signs and banners outside the office.
    2. Prioritize listening to your constituents:
    • Have multiple guest books/comment sheets available for all visitors to sign-in and leave comments — we recommend you have one for residents of your district, one for residents of your state (but not your district), and one for out-of-state visitors. Have a Capitol Directory and map available to direct visitors to their Member of Congress and written instructions on how

    to get over to the Senate side of the Hill.
    • There is limited rationale for your Member to meet with out-of-district constituents, especially if you already had other business or meetings previously scheduled with constituents who had planned to visit with you tomorrow on other topics. It is up to individual offices to decide if staff would like to take these meetings.
    3. Listen and communicate in small groups:
    • As we learned in August, small groups are typically the best venue for exchanges on this complicated topic.
    • Many of the conservative activists are not opposing the actual provisions in the bill, but are instead reacting to a caricature of the reform bill presented by right-wing media outlets. In fact, many conservative and GOP ideas and concerns are addressed in the legislation:
    ü Reduces the deficit;
    ü Cracks down on Medicare waste, fraud, and abuse;
    ü Provides historic tax credit for small businesses and individuals to purchase health insurance;
    ü Allows consumers to shop for health insurance across state lines via multi-state compacts;
    ü Inaugurates medical malpractice reforms, (an area where the GOP failed to take any action when in charge of Congress for 12 years).
    • Also, don’t assume common myths about this bill have been debunked. Be prepared to explain that there are no death panels, that Medicare is in fact strengthened, and that reform is not a government take-over, but it is an attempt to crack down on the abusive practices of health insurance companies by providing oversight and increasing competition.
    • Finally, work to establish common-ground with visitors by ensuring they are aware and supportive of the important changes that will take place immediately:
    ü Offer tax credits to small businesses to purchase coverage;

    ü Prohibit pre-existing condition exclusions for children in all new plans;
    ü Provide immediate access to insurance for uninsured Americans who are uninsured because of a pre-existing condition through a temporary high-risk pool;
    ü Prohibit dropping people from coverage when they get sick in all individual plans;
    ü Eliminate lifetime limits and restrictive annual limits on benefits in all plans;
    ü Require premium rebates to enrollees from insurers with high administrative expenditures and require public disclosure of the percent of premiums applied to overhead costs;
    ü Ensure consumers have access to an effective internal and external appeals process to appeal new insurance plan decisions;
    ü Require plans to cover an enrollee’s dependent children until age 26;
    ü Require new plans to cover preventive services and immunizations without cost-sharing;
    ü Relief on the Donut Hole.
    If you have any questions, please let us know.

    Doug Ross reported that his source in DC said the unconstitutional “Slaughter Rule” will likely be used on Wednesday.

    More… AllahPundit offers this advice to protesters tomorrow:

    A few tips if you do find yourself inside some lucky Blue Dog’s office: Be sure to ask (a) what Pelosi’s bribing him with; (b) why, if Democrats are so confident about cost control, they had to rig the estimate on the first decade of costs by delaying the program’s start by five years (in fact, just hand your rep a copy of this); (c) how he/she can be so sure what’s in the bill when they’ll be busy writing it right at that very moment

  28. admin
    March 15th, 2010 at 8:49 pm

    Betcha Obama and Axelrod knew:

    ________________________________

    They knew and they played him like a pair of grifters handing in their thesis on :The Importance of Loyalty and Trust in Symbiotic Relationships..

  29. And the Fruad calls them future Dem voters…

    ://www.dailybreeze.com/news/ci_14646604

    25% of Welfare And Food Stamps Go To Illegal Immigrants

    Nearly one-quarter of state welfare payments and food stamps issued in Los Angeles County go to children whose parents are in the U.S. illegally, according to January figures released today.

  30. I’m hoping the protesters set up bonfires of the 2,200 pg telephone book sized HCR package in effigy throughout DC tomorrow.

  31. #
    gonzotx
    March 15th, 2010 at 9:34 pm

    And the Fruad calls them future Dem voters…

    ://www.dailybreeze.com/news/ci_14646604

    25% of Welfare And Food Stamps Go To Illegal Immigrants

    Nearly one-quarter of state welfare payments and food stamps issued in Los Angeles County go to children whose parents are in the U.S. illegally, according to January figures released today.

    This is the rightwing crap that surprises me on this site. So what? Do we want to starve children of illegal immigrants? What choice would you suggest? These are human children within our boarders. Is the idea not to feed them? Not to mention food stamp spending is the most stimulative federal spending in our arsenal. Who the hell is hurt by some poor children having food? I think Hillary would be disgusted to read what is a traditionally human value, feed poor kids, used as a talking point just because people don’t like Obama. You can dislike Obama, and not really care if poor children are getting food stamps. I mean, this statement also assumes these children are not US citizens. If they were born here, they are US citizens. They are just as entitled to food stamps as anyone else. Honestly, this is a site devoted to the woman who wrote “It takes a village” and yet some commentators continue to disparage her image by spewing this sort of crap.

  32. Gonzotx,

    Immigrants tend not to vote. Poor people, people on food stamps, people on TANF, don’t vote. We don’t provide food stamps to poor children because we want their parents to vote Democratic. We provide food stamps to poor children so that they can eat.

  33. “Immigrants tend not to vote. Poor people, people on food stamps, people on TANF, don’t vote. We don’t provide food stamps to poor children because we want their parents to vote Democratic. We provide food stamps to poor children so that they can eat.”
    _________________________

    Obama campaign staff will obligate their VOTE to him the day after he announces a proposal legislating amnesty for all illegals. He won’t let them forget it was because of him they can live in peace not fear in the US.

  34. gonzotx
    March 15th, 2010 at 9:34 pm

    And the Frud calls them future Dem voters…

    __________________________

    Probably the first time in his life he spoke a truism… (see above)

    Obama is cultivating illegals as his Third Wave of sure thing voters. It won’t only be the Hispanic vote after he opens the floodgates for Muslims entering the country.

  35. #
    Mrs. Smith
    March 15th, 2010 at 10:19 pm

    gonzotx
    March 15th, 2010 at 9:34 pm

    And the Frud calls them future Dem voters…

    __________________________

    Probably the first time in his life he spoke a truism… (see above)

    Obama is cultivating illegals as his Third Wave of sure thing voters. It won’t only be the Hispanic vote after he opens the floodgates for Muslims entering the country.

    Hillary was for a path to legalisation, was she also “cultivating illegals as his Third Wave of sure thing voters?”

  36. mj
    March 15th, 2010 at 10:23 pm

    Hillary was for a path to legalisation, was she also “cultivating illegals as his Third Wave of sure thing voters?
    _______________________________________

    When have Obama’s plans and proposals ever paralleled Hillary’s?

    Obama’s HCR is modeled on the failed MA HC plan. (Deval Patrick’s scheme)

  37. Come on guys. Nobody on this site is saying they want the children of illegal immigrants to starve. That is a red herring. But the cost of taxpayers supporting this underground economy is substantial, and cannot be overlooked. Furthermore, it is a proven fact that you cannot have unlimited immigration and safety nets for the citizen population. So it comes down to a question of which you would rather have–cheap celery or social security, medicare, medicade, umemployment? If you are a fat cat then you want cheap celery–and that is exactly what they have told me. But if you are not a fat cat, if you are out of work, if you want need some form of public assistance then you want safety nets. Is this unfair? If citizenship means nothing and borders mean nothing then your claim is no greater than the claim of any other human being on the planet. But if citizenship is meaningful, if borders count and if you have paid into those plans with their taxes then than answer is different. And if borders mean nothing, then private property means nothing, and we can all camp out at Bill Gates house any time we feel like it—but I would not recommend it. If you think illegal immigrants do not vote think again. If there are no eligibility requirements, or they are not enforced, or the Obamathugs roll in to corrupt the process, and if Soros has bought the Secretary of State positions like he did with Lynn Bruner in Ohio, then guess what. It is Iowa all over again. As far as Obama not trying to initiate policies that will capture the Hispanic vote for himself that is reality. The fact is Rove had similar plans. In sum, I think the criticism leveled here is misplaced. Why don’t we settle it by blaming Bush and noting that here as elsewhere Obama is Bush III.

    1. Nobody on this site is saying they want immigrant children to starve. That is a red herring argument.

    2. But it is a proven fact that you cannot have unlimited immigration on the one hand, and safety nets on the other.

    3. If you want to blame Bush for the problem go ahead–I will agree with you.

  38. Obama’s HCR is modeled on the failed MA HC plan. (Deval Patrick’s scheme)
    ——————————————————————————–

    Uh,didn’t Romney come up with MA’s plan when he was governor?

  39. wbboei
    March 15th, 2010 at 10:29 pm

    wbb- Inventing a starving children dynamic belies the impetus of Obama’s intent of amnesty of illegals, opening our borders in a free for all for immigration.

    Hillary believes just the opposite. She believes the solution to the illegal immigration problem is to make “a path to earned citizenship for those who are here, working hard, paying taxes, respecting the law, and willing to meet a high bar for becoming a citizen.”

  40. What The In Play Dims Are Saying About Obamacare

    Posted by Dan Perrin (Profile)
    Monday, March 15th at 9:13PM EDT
    33 Comments

    The following was emailed to me from a friend:

    Rep. John Adler (D-N.J.): If the House and Senate can’t work out cost containment, I don’t see how I could support a bill that doesn’t help our business community,” Rep. John Adler (D., N.J.) said on “Fox News Sunday.” (John D. McKinnon and Jared Favole, “Democrats Voice Health-Bill Doubts,” The Wall Street Journal, 3/8/10)

    Rep. John Adler (D-N.J.): “If the House and the Senate can’t work out cost containment, I don’t see how I support a bill that doesn’t help our business community and create more jobs.” (Fox News Sunday, 3/7/10)

    Rep. Jason Altmire (D-PA): “Is she going to be able to hold everybody that was for it before?” Altmire asked. “What about the marginal members in the middle who got hammered over this vote and would love a second chance to perhaps go against it?” (Erica Werner, “Hoyer: Comprehensive Health Bill May Be No Go,” The Associated Press, 2/23/10)

    Rep. Jason Altmire said today on Fox News that the President’s health care plan is a “missed opportunity” and is “very weak in cost containment.” (Fox News, 2/23/10)

    Rep. Jason Altmire (D-PA): Others, like Representative Jason Altmire, a Pennsylvania Democrat who also voted against the House bill, seem to wonder aloud why Mr. Obama is bothering. With so many Democrats feeling nervous about their past votes in favor of the health bill, Mr. Altmire said, he can imagine vote-switching in only one direction: from yes to no. “I don’t know of any no votes at this point that would switch unless the bill is substantially changed, including me,” he said. “And I know of a handful of ‘yes’ votes who regret it and would relish the opportunity to put a ‘no’ vote on the board so they could go back home and talk about that.” (The New York Times, 2/28/10)

    Rep. Jason Altmire (D-PA): “The Senate has given us a lot of reason not to trust them. Certainly that’s a key component of the dynamic of getting the votes is there has to be some certainty that the Senate is going to follow through on their part.” (Fox News Sunday. 3/7/10)

    Rep. Jason Altmire (D-PA): “I’m not sure we’ve gone far enough in terms of fixing the underlying system to make it affordable for businesses and taxpayers.” Rep. Jason Altmire (D., Pa.), also appearing on Fox, said he needed “to see a much clearer picture of the cost containment.” (John D. McKinnon and Jared Favole, “Democrats Voice Health-Bill Doubts,” The Wall Street Journal, 3/8/10)

    Rep. Michael Arcuri (D-NY) on the Senate bill: “There would have to be some dramatic changes in it for me to change my position,” Arcuri said…Arcuri says his opposition is based on three main concerns: That the bill is too sweeping and comprehensive; that Democrats plan to use reconciliation to amend it in various ways; and, substantively, that it calls for taxes on health benefits. (Brian Beutler, “For It Before He Was Against It: Arcuri Will Likely Vote No On Health Care,” Talking Points Memo, 3/3/10)

    Rep. Michael Arcuri (D-NY) “NO” on health care: “I think the President wants action, but many people that represent moderate districts such as myself think that hey, you know, we need to take this thing and do it in a more incremental way, and we continue to think that.” (Gary Liberatore, “Arcuri to Vote ‘no’ on Senate’s Health Care Reform Bill,” WKTV.com, 3/7/10)

    Rep. Michael Arcuri (D-NY): Arcuri, D-Utica, said he has multiple concerns with the Senate bill. “It’s not one thing in particular,” the second-term congressman said. “There is a real concern the changes we want in the Senate bill will not be passed.” (Mark Weiner, “Central New York Congressmen Emerge As Key Swing Votes on Final Health Care Bill,” The Post-Standard, 3/8/10)

    Rep. Brian Baird (D-WA): He responded “yes” when host Candy Crowley asked if he would vote against the current proposals even if it meant that healthcare reform went down. (Bridget Johnson, “Baird: Healthcare Votes of Retiring Democrats Aren’t Necessarily In the Bag,” The Hill, 3/7/10)

    Rep Shelley Berkley (D-NV): “I am not inclined to support the Senate version,” said Representative Shelley Berkley, Democrat of Nevada, who voted for the House bill in November. “I would like something more concrete than a promise. The Senate cannot promise its way out of a brown paper bag.” (Sheryl Gay Stolberg and Robert Pear, “Obama Calls For ‘Up or Down Vote’ On Health Care Bill,” The New York Times, 3/4/10)

    Rep. Dan Boren (D-OK): “They can break my arms. They can do whatever they want to and they’ll never get my vote. Ever,” Boren said. “I mean they’ll have to walk across my dead body if they want my vote on this issue.” (“The Gales of November Came Early,” FoxNews.com, 3/6/10)

    Rep. Dan Boren (D-OK): We cannot raise taxes in the middle of a recession. We cannot create a brand-new entitlement program when we can’t afford the ones that we have now. (Fox & Friends, 3/10/10)

    Rep. Rick Boucher (D-VA): I reject unequivocally the unsavory deal making that took place in the Senate where Nebraska, Florida and Louisiana obtained special benefits that do not apply to the other states, and those special benefits provided to those states at the expense of residents of all the other states,” he said. “I simply cannot support legislation that contains those unwarranted giveaways to a select few states at the expense of the others…Boucher said he is hearing that cuts to Medicare funding to help pay for the reform package “may be as great as $500 billion. That’s ‘billion’ with a ‘B.’” … “I am persuaded that Medicare cuts at that level would impair the delivery of health care within our region. We have a large population that receives Medicare. It is the principal source of income for our nonprofit hospitals and virtually all the hospitals in my district,” Boucher said. (Steve, Igo, “Boucher Won’t Support Health Reform With Medicare Cuts,” The Kingsport Times News, 3/13/10)

    Rep. Allen Boyd (D-FL): Rep. Allen Boyd, a conservative Democrat from Florida who voted no last time on the health overhaul, said Friday that using reconciliation would be “very problematic for a lot of House members” who don’t want Congress to override public concerns with the Democratic health bill. (Greg Hitt And Janet Adamy, “Pelosi, Democrats Push Ahead With Health Care,” The Wall Street Journal, 2/27/10)

    Rep. Michael Capuano (D-MA): At this writing, it is not at all clear what legislative changes will be made to the final bill. Reconciliation is a complicated and dangerous process. In this instance, it requires the House to adopt the Senate bill and then trust that the Senate will pass, and the President will sign the reconciled bill that “fixes” any problems in the existing Senate bill. There is great risk in this course of action…Beyond the process, Capuano lays out a series of substantive concerns he has with the Senate bill, some of which he believes will fail the reconciliation test. (Brian Beutler, “Capuano Suggests He’s Leaning No on Health Care,” Talking Points Memo, 3/11/10)

    Rep. Chris Carney (D-PA): “As I said publicly, I can’t vote for a bill that will publicly fund abortion,” Rep. Chris Carney (D-Pa.) told the Scranton Times-Shamrock. (Aaron Blake, “Carney Holds Line On Abortion Funding,” The Hill, 3/15/10)

    Rep. Ben Chandler (D-KY): “Congressman Chandler’s position on the bill remains the same,” Chandler spokesperson Jennifer Krimm tells our reporter Ryan Derousseau. “He expects to vote against the legislation.” (Greg Sargent, “Two More House Dems To Vote No,” The Plum Line, 3/12/10)

    Rep. Jerry Costello (D-IL): “I’m opposed to the Senate bill in its current form.” His concerns with voting for the Senate bill are that it would allow public funding for abortions, that the congressional budget office has yet to determine the cost of the bill, and that partially funding the bill by slowing the growth of Medicare by $500 billion would adversely affect senior citizens…I don’t like the process at all – I think the White House and the leadership has bungled this from the start,” he said. “It’s so complicated that the American people are fearful of what’s in the bill – this is a very complex issue that affects every man, woman and child, and it’s so complex that it scares people.” (Kathie Bassett, “Costello Opposes Heath Care Reform Bill in Its Current Form,” The Telegraph, 3/14/10)

    Rep. Kathy Dahlkemper (D-PA): While Mrs. Dahlkemper campaigned as a supporter of health care reform and made an impassioned plea on the House floor in July, citing access as the problem that demanded action from Washington, she’s made it clear since the House acted in November that the key issue for her is abortion…Her office confirmed that recently when her spokeswoman said that Mrs. Dahlkemper could not support the Senate’s language “period.” (Nick Hildebrand, “Dahlkemper’s Health Care Opinion Is Hot Topic,” The Sharon Herald, 3/6/10)

    Rep. Artur Davis (D-AL): “Congressman Davis will be present for the HC vote and he is a no,” Davis’s communications director, Addie Whisenant, wrote in an email. (Jeffrey Young, “Alabama Dem Lawmaker Will Break From Campaign Trail to Oppose Health Reform,” The Hill, 3/8/10)

    Rep. Joe Donnelly (D-IN): President Barack Obama wants Congress to vote yes or no on a comprehensive reform measure from the Senate. Donnelly likes a lot about the bill, but its language on abortion is a “fatal flaw.” For him, it is a deal breaker. “I would not vote for it,” he said. He figures there will be a vote within a month or so. The abortion language is unpopular with “a significant” number of congressmen. It has the potential to kill the bill, he said…Joe Donnelly would prefer voting on health care reform one piece at a time. (W.S. Wilson, “Donnelly: Pass Health Bill In Pieces,” The Rochester Sentinel, 3/9/10)

    Rep. Steve Driehaus (D-OH): “While I certainly support this initiative … I will not bend on the principle of federal funding on abortion,” Driehaus said in an interview with The Enquirer. “They are going to have to do it without me and without the other pro-life Democrats.” (Malia Rulon, “Biden Visiting But Driehaus Unswayed,” The Cincinnati Enquirer, 3/14/10)

    Rep. Steve Driehaus (D-OH): Last fall, I worked to pass legislation to bring needed changes to our health care system, while putting in place strict prohibitions on the use of taxpayer funding for abortion. The House will soon take up this issue again. When there is a final piece of legislation, I will take the time needed to review the bill and determine how I will vote. However, my overall position is unchanged. Health care reform is critically important for our nation, and I support efforts to enact changes to our system – if those changes are done the right way. But I’m firm in my commitment that I won’t support legislation that provides federal funding for abortion.

    Rep. Chet Edward (D-TX): “Once again, it will be a ‘no’ from Rep. Chet Edwards, D-Waco, on healthcare as congressional Democrats scramble for every critical vote. ‘If the question is whether I would vote for the comprehensive health care bill currently being considered, the answer is ‘no,’’ Edwards said in a statement to the Star-Telegram.” (Maria Recio, “Waco Democrat Chet Edwards Says He’ll Vote No on Health Bill Again,” Fort Worth Star-Telegram, 3/4/10)

    Rep. Raúl Grijalva (D-AZ): “As I weigh it, I think — for me — a ‘no’ vote is something that I continue to lean toward,” Rep. Raúl Grijalva, D-Ariz., the co-chairman of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, told Salon in a brief interview off the House floor Wednesday. “Especially the last additions — that was kind of a slap in the face for all of us who fought for the public option.” (Greg Sargent, “Key House Liberal “Leaning” Towards No On Health Reform,” Plum Line, 3/3/10)

    Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-IL): Gutierrez, a member of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus (CHC) in which he serves as chairman of its Immigration Task Force, said the caucus still has concerns over the extent to which the healthcare bill excludes illegal immigrants as well as legal residents from receiving benefits in the healthcare plan. “They are enough to say I can’t support this bill,” Gutierrez said during an appearance on MSNBC. (Michael O’Brien, “Gutierrez: Health Bill’s Immigration Parts Enough To Vote Against,” The Hill, 3/11/10)

    Rep. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (D-SD): “I will not vote for the Senate bill as is,” she said. “I will not vote for a package of changes that would go through the reconciliation process.” (Kevin Woster, “Herseth Sandlin Says No To Senate Health Bill, Reconciliation,” The Rapid City Journal, 3/4/10)

    Rep. Tim Holden (D-PA): “I will not vote for the Senate bill,” Holden said. “It makes significant cuts to Medicare and Medicaid … and the restrictions on (federal funding for) abortion are not as strong.” (Ben Wolfgang, “Conservatives Urge Holden to Oppose Reform Bill; Holden Says He’s Planning To Vote ‘No,’” Republican Herald, 3/11/10)

    Rep. Steve Kagen (D-WI): “Let me put it this way: you’re asking whether or not I trust the United States Senate, where they came up with a deal for Nebraska that the other states didn’t get; where Louisiana would get a special deal. No, I don’t trust the U.S. Senate,” said Rep.
    Steve Kagen (D-8th District). “So I think I’d like to have a vote on something very meaningful…I have made the case to the speaker and also to the White House that we should take small pieces, small bites,” Kagen said. “In the practice of medicine, I can’t give a child a big pill. What do we do? We cut it up into pieces. Let’s find things we can agree on.” (Robert Hornacek, “Congressmen Sound Off On Health Care,” WLUK-TV, 3/8/10)

    Rep. Larry Kissell (D-NC): Indeed, Rep Larry Kissell of North Carolina, who was rumored today to be mulling a switch from No to Yes, is not changing his position, spokesperson Haven Kerchner confirms to me. (The Plum Line, 3/8/10)

    Rep. Frank Kratovil (D-MD): “He would vote against it,” the spokesman, Kevin Lawlor, says. Crucially, Kratovil would vote against the Senate bill even if there’s some kind of verbal guarantee that it would be fixed via reconciliation later, Lawlor says. (Greg Sargent, “Another House Dem A “No” On Senate Bill; A Previous “Yes” Now Undecided,” Plum Line, 3/4/10)

    Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH): “I told the president twice in two different meetings that I couldn’t support the bill if it didn’t have a robust public option” or significant consumer protections, he said on MSNBC… If the White House is ready to go back and have a robust public option…Then we have something to talk about. Otherwise, I need to hear more about what they’re proposing. And what they’ve proposed so far isn’t anything different than I voted against.” (Jordan Fabian, “Kucinich Indicates Willingness To Be Deciding Vote Against Healthcare,” The Hill, 3/9/10)

    Rep. Dan Lipinski (D-IL): Asked if the congressman is “open to voting for a health care bill that lacks the Stupak amendment,” Lipinski’s spokesman Nathaniel Zimmer replied in an email to The Weekly Standard: “No. Congressman Lipinski will not vote for a health care bill that provides federal funding for abortion.” (John McCormack, “Illinois Democrat Lipinski Will Switch From Yes To No If Health Bill Lacks Stupak Amendment,” The Weekly Standard, 3/8/10)

    Rep. Dan Lipinski (D-IL): “I would not accept a promise that legislation will be acted upon in the future, because it’s unlikely that something will get done,” said Daniel Lipinski, D-Ill., who said he was one of the “Stupak Dozen.” “In my eyes, it would have to be done beforehand.” (Clea Benson and Edward Epstein, “House Democrats Still in Search of Abortion Agreement on Health Care Bill,” CQ, 3/9/10)

    Rep. Dan Maffei (D-NY): “I will trust the president, but I will not trust the Senate,” Maffei said. “The Senate bill, in my view, burns the village in order to save it.” (Mark Weiner, “Central New York Congressmen Emerge As Key Swing Votes on Final Health Care Bill,” The Post-Standard, 3/8/10)

    Rep. Jim Marshall (D-GA): First up: Dem Rep Jim Marshall, a prominent Blue Dog who voted No last time but was believed to be open to backing the Senate bill, is now a definite No, his spokesperson confirms… “Marshall is a no,” Marshall tells our reporter, Ryan Derousseau. (Greg Sargent, “Another House Dem Confirms He’ll Vote No on Senate Bill,” The Plum Line, 3/10/10)

    Rep. Mike McIntyre (D-UT): “Health care reform is needed, but the bill before us is too expensive, does not adequately address rising medical costs and skyrocketing insurance premiums, and tries to do too much too soon. We simply cannot afford to create a new federal bureaucracy that costs nearly $1 trillion when our national debt is $12 trillion and there is no plan in place to address it. I will not vote for it.” (Scott Saxton, “McIntyre Says He’ll Vote NO Again on Health Care Reform,” WECT, 3/15/10)

    Rep. Michael McMahon (D-NY): “I haven’t seen enough to have me come off my ‘no’ vote,” said McMahon (D-Staten Island/Brooklyn), who voted last year against a House version of health care reform. “I don’t see anything that would make me change my position.” (Tom Wrobleski, “Despite Makeover, Staten Island Rep. Michael McMahon Remains A ‘No’ On Health Care Plan,” SIlive.com, 2/23/10)

    Rep. Jerry McNerney (D-CA): McNerney criticized the current version of healthcare reform passed by the U.S. Senate for the deals it makes with certain states, its lack of a public option and the inadequate number of people it extends coverage to. He said he would not vote in favor of that version of the bill if it comes back to the House. (Michael Moore, “Congressman Visits Morgan Hill,” The Morgan Hill Times, 2/18/10)

    Rep. Walt Minnick (D-ID): Rep. Walt Minnick of Idaho will not change his vote from no, spokesman Dean Ferguson said last night. Minnick had declined to state a position when contacted earlier by the AP. (Charles Babington, “White House Hopes ‘No’ Votes Turn To ‘Yes’,” The Associated Press, 3/2/10)

    Rep. Walt Minnick (D-ID): “If it is simply the Senate bill, I’ve looked at that and decided I was opposed to it.” …“This is not a process that I’m very excited about. I’d much rather have a bill that had enough support, bipartisan support, so you didn’t have to go through the process,” he said. “I think that sentiment is rather widely shared.” (Ryan Grim, “Minnick Waiting For Final Step In Health Care Fight,” The Huffington Post, 3/3/10)

    Rep. Jim Oberstar (D-MN): Congressman Jim Oberstar of Minnesota has said that he will not vote for the health care bill if it lacks the Stupak amendment: “I will not vote for a health care bill that doesn’t have the House abortion language in it,” Oberstar told Congressional Quarterly on February 24. (John McCormack, “Illinois Democrat Lipinski Will Switch From Yes To No If Health Bill Lacks Stupak Amendment,” The Weekly Standard, 3/8/10)

    Rep. Glenn Nye (D-VA): [I]f the bill that is put forth does not contain significant changes and does not actually reduce health care costs for Americans and small businesses, it will not have my support. I believe it is absolutely imperative that any health care reform bill reduces costs for families and small businesses, allows Americans to keep their existing plan and choose their doctor, is bipartisan, is deficit neutral, does not force Americans to use a certain type of health insurance, maintains Medicare benefits for seniors, and lowers the overall costs of health care. H.R. 3962 does not meet these criteria, which is why I do not support it.
    Additionally, we must fix our current system before we add more people into it, which will only exacerbate any current problems…. (Jeffrey H. Anderson, “Rep. Nye of Virginia Looks Like A “No,”” The Weekly Standard, 3/15/10)

    Rep. Tom Perriello (D-VA): “If the final bill is going to bring down premiums for middle-class families and small businesses, then I’ll support it,” said Rep. Tom Perriello, D-Va., a centrist who voted for the bill in November but is now reserving judgment. “If it’s not going to do that, then I won’t.” (John Fritze, “Dems Have Trouble with Health Care Rifts,” USA Today, 3/5/10)

    Rep. Tom Perriello (D-VA): I just got off the phone with his office who told me that he was still undecided and waiting on the final language. I reminded them of the abortion promise, and the staffer told me unequivocally that if the abortion language does not change he will oppose the bill. He also said that if the middle-class taxes that are a part of the senate bill are not changed, that would lead him to oppose the bill. (“Where Are Pelosi’s Flippers?” NRO, 3/15/10)

    Rep. Collin Peterson (D-MN): “No, I would not vote yes, and I don’t think they could pass it in the House,” said Peterson, the only Minnesota Democrat to vote against the House’s health care reform bill…Should a compromise plan not be possible, Peterson’s not opposed to punting. “I do think there are problems with the health care system that need to be fixed, but I’m not in the camp that says we have to do something no matter what,” he said. (Derek Wallbank, “Now What? Minnesota’s Delegation Has Many Views,” Minnpost.com, 1/21/10)

    Rep. Mike Ross (D-AR): “He’s a no,” spokesman Brad Howard said by e-mail, in response to an ongoing survey of all 38 House Democrats who voted against health care legislation in the fall. (Jon Ward, “Arkansas Democrat Rep. Mike Ross To Vote No On Obama Health Care Proposal,” The Daily Caller, 3/8/10)

    Rep. Mike Ross (D-AR): Ross, our only delegate seeking to stay in the House, tells me he remains “no,” even though the public option is gone from the Senate bill. He says the entire process has been “tainted” by political misplays and that 75 percent of his constituents are opposed. The Democrats have been “out-messaged” by the Republicans, Ross says. (Jim Brummett, “One of Our Lame Ducks Balks,” Arkansas News, 3/6/10)

    Rep. Heath Shuler (D-NC) on Obama’s Health Care bill: “I was actually surprised that they’re pushing it again. The most important thing is jobs, jobs, jobs, jobs. We need to focus on jobs,” said Rep. Heath Shuler, North Carolina Democrat and a leader of the 54-member Blue Dog coalition of conservative Democrats. … “I don’t think a comprehensive bill can pass,” he said. “I hate to use a football analogy,” said the former Washington Redskins quarterback, “but first downs are a lot better than throwing the bomb route or the Hail Mary.” (Jon Ward, “Democrats’ Attempts To Coordinate Health-Care Message Leave Republicans Scratching Their Heads,” The Daily Caller, 2/23/10)

    Rep. Ike Skelton (D-MO): Mr. Skelton says he does not see any improvements in the measure that would cause him to vote in favor of it; like Mr. Kratovil, he favors a smaller, less ambitious bill. “It would be a lot easier,” he said, “if we cut this back to basics — take two or three or four issues on which everyone agrees and build on it.” (Sheryl Gay Stolberg and Robert Pear, “Wary Centrists Posing Challenge in Health Care Vote,” The New York Times, 2/27/10)

    Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI): Mr. Stupak said in an interview that even if the abortion language were tightened, he still couldn’t support the bill, because it didn’t include the House’s tighter regulations on insurance companies, and it retained a tax on high-value insurance plans, albeit a watered-down one. “We’re not going to walk the plank again just to see the Senate shut us down,” he said. (Greg Hitt, Laura Meckler and Janet Adamy, “Democrats Chase Health Votes,” The Wall Street Journal, 3/3/10)

    Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI): I was pleased to see that President Obama’s health care proposal did not include several of the sweetheart deals provided to select states in the Senate bill. Unfortunately, the President’s proposal encompasses the Senate language allowing public funding of abortion. The Senate language is a significant departure from current law and is unacceptable. While the President has laid out a health care proposal that brings us closer to resolving our differences, there is still work to be done before Congress can pass comprehensive health care reform. (Ben Smith, “Stupak: ‘Unacceptable’,” Politico, 2/23/10)

    Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI): “Despite the abortion language, no, there are other problems with this bill… [I have spoken to] probably about 15 or 20 of them in the last 24 hours they’ve said there are other problems with this bill.” (Jordan Fabian, “Stupak: 15-20 Dems Withholding Support for White House Health Plan,” The Hill, 2/24/10)

    Rep. John Tanner (D-TN): Mr. Tanner has told colleagues he has no intention of switching his vote, said one Democratic lawmaker who has spoken with him. (Sheryl Gay Stolberg and Robert Pear, “Wary Centrists Posing Challenge in Health Care Vote,” The New York Times, 2/27/10)

    Rep. Gene Taylor (D-MS): “I don’t think the votes are there it barely passed the house last time, and I don’t think the votes are there to pass it this time,” said Taylor…”Two-thousand pages scares the dickens out of everybody, and what’s in those 2,000 pages,” said Taylor. “That’s why the call has been for single item bills that are smaller and clear.” (Kevin Wheeler, “Gene Taylor Holds Town Hall Meeting,” WDAM.com, 3/1/10)

    Sphere: Related Content
    Share on: Facebook | | Reddit Category: Rep. Allen Boyd (D-FL), Rep.

  41. wbb- Inventing a starving children dynamic belies the impetus of Obama’s intent of amnesty of illegals, opening our borders in a free for all for immigration.
    ————————-
    Sure does. Like I said, it is a red herring. And then there is the Chicago thug Guttierez. He is telling eveyone he hates the health care bill because it does not go far enough in providing taxpayer benefits for illegals. By his lights, illegal immigrants (who he pedantically calls undocumented workers whether or not they are here to work) should receive facials, nip and tuck operations, lazik surgery on demand. Pardon me for making light of a serious subject, but Gutierrez is the Rodney Dangerfield of the Chicago Machine.

  42. #
    Mrs. Smith
    March 15th, 2010 at 10:40 pm

    wbboei
    March 15th, 2010 at 10:29 pm

    wbb- Inventing a starving children dynamic belies the impetus of Obama’s intent of amnesty of illegals, opening our borders in a free for all for immigration.

    Hillary believes just the opposite. She believes the solution to the illegal immigration problem is to make “a path to earned citizenship for those who are here, working hard, paying taxes, respecting the law, and willing to meet a high bar for becoming a citizen.”

    Hillary and Obama have exactly the same position on this issue. Please cite the evidence to the difference in their approach.

    wbboei
    March 15th, 2010 at 11:08 pm

    wbb- Inventing a starving children dynamic belies the impetus of Obama’s intent of amnesty of illegals, opening our borders in a free for all for immigration.
    ————————-
    Sure does. Like I said, it is a red herring

    BS. Poor kids, kids who would otherwise not have enough to eat, are the kids eligible for foodstamps. The article cited does not say “illegal immigrants” but rather “the children of illegal immigrants” which strongly suggests they themselves are American citizens, completely entitled to welfare and food stamp benefits.

  43. Since you all are talking about healthcare, let me give you all some REAL-LIFE experiences…I actually called today to see if I can get health insurance. I am 59, have high blood pressure. I was easily covered with what I would say was equal to what my last employer had. It was 299. monthly that includes dental and vision. This insurance has NO deductible and the one at work had a 250. deductible. Later today I got another call and got a quote of 149. monthly for a skimmed down model. I thought these two quotes were good, especially since I live in Texas, where we give Free health care to the illegals. The $299. a month was what I was paying for health insurance to my employer, but it would have $525. thru cobra. How that happens is beyond me..

    I also want to share with you republican leaning folks that say no one in America doesn’t get taken care of (Michelle Bachman) in the emergency room.

    My daughter has a friend who is 22 years old and has lost half of her peripheral vision in her right eye. She is having pressure headaches that go from the vertex of her skull to half way down the occiptal bone. Her right eye has now inverted towards her nasal bridge. So she goes to the ER and the foriegn Doctor orders a c-spine xray and ct of her cspine…it was all negative. The doctor never ordered a head ct, he told her to go to a neurologist. She was working for a small company and now they won’t let her come back to work until she finds out whats wrong with her…but they don’t offer insurance even though its a fairly good job for this area. So now she is without work, without insurance and no one will help her get to the neurologist. She desperately needs an MRI. Her mother has a brain tumor and cancer runs in her family…These are the people that the republicans seem to forget about when they say people can just go to the emergency room and get taken care of..This woman had a job, with no benefits…We can find no one that will help her!

    Any and all suggestions will be appreciated!

  44. confloyd
    March 15th, 2010 at 11:22 pm

    Stick with your cobra. I would bet money that the other choices you are being offered will cost you a lot more money if you really get sick. Are you still seeking employment?

  45. Confloyd, those sxs could indicate a brain tumor. She needs a head CT scan and/or MRI ASAP. Does she qualify for Medi-caid?

  46. Your friend needs to apply to disability, and should also apply for Supplemental Security Income. Once she qualifies for one or both she can get health insurance through Medicaid(though Texas may have rules in regards to Medicaid based on assets. Does she have any assets?). She should try to find a pro bono lawyer to help with the paperwork. She may want to call around to some churches and see if anyone can help her find a lawyer to fill out the paperwork. She does not need an attorney however, to make sure she has her i’s dotted and her t’s crossed, and attorney is advisable.

  47. Confloyd, she may be able to get the Medicaid without SSI or disability, however, if she gets the disability, she will automatically be eligible for Medicaid(though perhaps asset contingent).

  48. SSI takes months to go through, and is a federal program. Applying for Medicaid would be the fastest thing to do. The laws differ from state to state, so I don’t know what works in Texas.

  49. #
    birdgal
    March 15th, 2010 at 11:54 pm

    SSI takes months to go through, and is a federal program. Applying for Medicaid would be the fastest thing to do. The laws differ from state to state, so I don’t know what works in Texas.

    True. My gut says that TX is going to be a difficult state to get Medicaid in though, but maybe not. So I would go ahead and apply for disability and SSI. If she gets turned down for Medicaid she should repeal but if she gets disability she should automatically qualify.

  50. MJ, totally agree. Since SSI is such a long process, the application should be made and if it is denied the first time (which it is most of the time), it can be appealed. The benefits are retroactive to the time that the application was first made.

  51. Another narrative discussed here years ago now recycled in the Washington Post, a few years too late:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/14/AR2010031401390_pf.html

    Here’s a theory about why President Obama is having a tough political time right now: He doesn’t seem all that happy being president.

    I know, it’s the world’s hardest job, and between war and the world economy collapsing, he didn’t have the first year he might have wished for. And, yes, he’s damned either way: With thousands of Americans risking their lives overseas and millions losing their jobs at home, we’d slam him if he acted carefree.

    Still, I think Americans want a president who seems, despite everything, to relish the challenge. They don’t want to have to feel grateful to him for taking on the burden.

    I started thinking about this a few weeks ago when Obama confidant David Axelrod, noting that the president always makes time for his daughters’ recitals and soccer games, told the New York Times, “I think that’s part of how he sustains himself through all this.”

    Really? Is the presidency something to sustain yourself through?

    He did ask for this job; we didn’t make him take it. And so it seems fair to ask: What part of it does he enjoy? [snip]

    In a column last week, Jackson Diehl pointed out that Obama’s relations with just about every counterpart are prickly.

    How about horse-trading or arm-twisting, like President Lyndon Johnson? George Will last week cited a recent Obama statement on the health-care bill (“Unfortunately, what we end up having to do is to do a lot of negotiations with a lot of different people”) to point out that Obama views such politics with a certain disdain.

    Putting his feet up on his desk after a long day and chewing over events with aides, like Bill Clinton? If insider accounts are to be believed, Obama would rather preside briskly over the meeting and then go up to the family quarters or out for some basketball. [snip]

    A year later, here’s how they came across to People Magazine:

    “It was their first interview of the New Year on Jan. 8 in the rose-colored library on the ground floor of the White House. President Obama spoke in such a hush about the loneliness of his decisions on war and terrorism that one could hear between his words the tick of an old lighthouse clock across the room.”

    Do Americans really want to hear the tick of the old lighthouse clock? Or would they prefer the good cheer that we associate with FDR or JFK, the jauntiness with which they took over the White House and made it theirs?

  52. BS. Poor kids, kids who would otherwise not have enough to eat, are the kids eligible for foodstamps. The article cited does not say “illegal immigrants” but rather “the children of illegal immigrants” which strongly suggests they themselves are American citizens, completely entitled to welfare and food stamp benefits.
    ——————————-
    mj: if you want to wrestle with that red herring be my guest. But again, nobody here is saying they must starve. And they will not starve as long as the food stamp programs are in place. The issue here is the presumption that mi casa es su casa, and all the ripple effects which flow from that proposition from overwhelming safety nets to expansion of drug gang activity to the creation of a black market economy which was a key factor in the fall of the old soviet union. This is what occurs when we have massive illegal immigration in a contracting economy. That is the critical issue in this immigration debate. The other is the same kind of pushing of emotional buttons by the Chicago Machine which we saw in the campaign. We should be wise to their perverse game by now, surely.

  53. n a column last week, Jackson Diehl pointed out that Obama’s relations with just about every counterpart are prickly.
    —————————–
    “Prickly”? . . . oh, I get it. As in prick.

  54. I’ve read that one of the rationales that the House leadership is recommending for House Dims who voted “yes” last time but are now leaning “no”, is to vote “yes” again since they will already have the taint of voting “yes” on health care reform previously, so what do they have to lose?

    If these Dims are not competent enough to explain to their constituents that the votes were for two different bills, do they really deserve to be re-elected? John Kerry was also unable to explain in 2004 that the bill he voted “for” before he voted “against it” were two different bills. Why is this concept so difficult for them?

  55. Uh,didn’t Romney come up with MA’s plan when he was governor?
    ———————————–
    What exactly does it prove? That Romney is an intolerant bigoted white plutocrat, but when it comes to the issue of health care he is a humanitarian genius. Logically speaking he cannot be X and not X at the same time. But the bots at HuffPo are not what you might call logical. Lest we forget he is running for POUSA in 2012. And some day he will be–just like his father was (not). That happened right after he returned from Viet Nam, changed his position and claimed he had been brain washed. It wasn’t the reversal that bothered people so much as the false claim that George had a brain to wash.

  56. wbboei and Mrs. Smith: you put into very clear and concise words my thoughts on the illegal immigration debacle. A few months ago, I met someone who was born and grew up in CA. Her mother, sister, aunts and a lot of relatives were (or had been)on the welfare system there; it pays better evidently. Her husband’s parents came to CA from Mexico with two children as illegals. They worked there, I guess, and ended up having eleven 11 children in all without ever becoming citizens. Her husband and others took advantage of grants for college, etc. They are likely very nice people, but raped and perverted our system IMHO – just try to do that in THEIR country. My taxpayer dollars are not supposed to go to THOSE who will not work OR those who swamp and break the systems set up for legal citizens.

  57. Timeline of possible felonies by the White House in offering federal jobs to Sestak and Messina

    Specter Opens Door on White House Felonies

    h t t p://spectator.org/archives/2010/03/16/specter-opens-door-on-white-ho

  58. Thanks for all the advice for my daughters friend. When I get off on Wednesday I am going to take her to an er that I know will do the mri/ct with contrast. They also have american trained doctors.

    Yes I am still looking for work and found a part-time job. If I did not live in the woods it would be much easier to find one.

    I thought my husband was having a stroke yesterday as he was having so much trouble walking and his right leg was numb, so I took him to the local er, they were going to to just an unenhanced head ct to ascertain if he had a stroke. I had to school the dr. on this. A CT non contrast is good, but it will not show if there is an exerbation of his MS. I asked him to order it and he did and sure enough my husband was having an episode. He has never had relapsing and remitting but is now having them. I think he will be going down much faster now. There really isn’t any thing to do for him, but I am sure medicare won’t pay for it anyway.
    Off to work on my new job, catch you guys later tonight. I actually have a daytime job, something I haven’t had in over 10, hope I can stay awake, LOL!!

  59. wbboei
    March 16th, 2010 at 2:49 am
    Uh,didn’t Romney come up with MA’s plan when he was governor?
    ———————————–
    What exactly does it prove? That Romney is an intolerant bigoted white plutocrat, but when it comes to the issue of health care he is a humanitarian genius. Logically speaking he cannot be X and not X at the same time. But the bots at HuffPo are not what you might call logical. Lest we forget he is running for POUSA in 2012. And some day he will be–just like his father was (not). That happened right after he returned from Viet Nam, changed his position and claimed he had been brain washed. It wasn’t the reversal that bothered people so much as the false claim that George had a brain to wash.
    ——————————————————————————————————–

    It doesn’t prove anything. Just that it wasn’t Deval Patrick’s creation. I was responding to a prior comment.

  60. mj
    March 15th, 2010 at 11:15 pm

    “Hillary and Obama have exactly the same position on this issue.” (Immigration)
    ______________________________

    You made the assertion. Please give examples how they are exactly the same w/links.

  61. “It doesn’t prove anything.”
    _______________________________

    My comparison was that Obama’s (original) version of HCR is based on the MA model (Patrick’s version). (Romney denies Obama’s HC version is anything like his.) However, now that another 1000+ pages have been added to the bill/Plan; who knows what is in it, no one has read it…. What bothers me more than the plan itself is the enforcement portion. The IRS is legislated through the HC Bill of putting liens on your residence for non payment of premiums. How healthy is that?

  62. Mrs. Smith there is NO “Patrick version”. Romney signed the MA plan into law before Patrick even announced he was seeking office. The law has not been touched by Patrick. It’s the bill Romney advocated for and signed into law.

    Obama on immigration: “We are not going to ship back 12 million people, we’re not going to do it as a practical matter. We would have to take all our law enforcement that we have available and we would have to use it and put people on buses, and rip families apart, and that’s not who we are, that’s not what America is about. So what I’ve proposed… is you say we’re going to bring these folks out of the shadows. We’re going to make them pay a fine, they are going to have to learn English, they are going to have to go to the back of the line…but they will have a pathway to citizenship over the course of 10 years.”

    glassbooth.org/explore/index/barack-obama/11/immigration/10/

    Hillary on immigration: “I’m in favor of comprehensive immigration reform, which includes tightening our border security, sanctioning employers to employ undocumented immigrants, helping our communities deal with the costs that come from illegal immigration, getting the 12 million or so immigrants out of the shadows. That’s very important to me. After 9/11, we’ve got to know who’s in this country. And then giving them a chance to pay a fine, pay back taxes, learn English and stand in line to be eligible for a legal status in this country.”

    glassbooth.org/explore/index/hillary-clinton/1/immigration/10/

    Not a dimes worth of difference. Indeed, they both supported the Bush plan for comprehensive immigration reform. The Democratic position is always illegal immigrants should pay fines, back taxes, and then get in the back of the line. This is the Party position. The Republican position is collect them all and send them back, but Bush proved this was just hyperbole, and Republicans who actually understand the issue know that isn’t practical, which is why Bush proposed immigration reform supported by both Obama and Hillary.

  63. Pelosi Plan to Pass Health Care Without Traditional Vote Riles Critics

    An emerging Democratic plan to vote on health care reform without really voting on health care reform has critics riled up, as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her allies are accused of resorting to legislative trickery to send a bill to President Obama’s desk.

    Senate Democratic leaders had already drawn jeers from Republicans for a plan to try to pass a follow-up health bill with only 51 votes, as opposed to 60. Now Pelosi and Rep. Louise Slaughter, D-N.Y., chairwoman of the House Rules Committee, are cooking up a plan to pass the original health bill from the Senate side without forcing rank-and-file Democrats to technically go on record in An emerging Democratic plan to vote on health care reform without really voting on health care reform has critics riled up, as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her allies are accused of resorting to legislative trickery to send a bill to President Obama’s desk.

    Senate Democratic leaders had already drawn jeers from Republicans for a plan to try to pass a follow-up health bill with only 51 votes, as opposed to 60. Now Pelosi and Rep. Louise Slaughter, D-N.Y., chairwoman of the House Rules Committee, are cooking up a plan to pass the original health bill from the Senate side without forcing rank-and-file Democrats to technically go on record in support of it.

    “Republicans believe that if the Democrats are willing to have the government take over our health care system, they should be willing to vote for it — without any gimmicks,” House Republican Leader John Boehner’s office said in a statement. “Democrats wonder why people are so upset with Washington.”

    Here’s how the maneuver would work and why Pelosi wants it:

    Before Congress can consider the package of changes that many lawmakers want in exchange for their support on the original bill, the House has to first pass the original bill from the Senate side.

    Problem is, even with assurances that the package of changes will be considered, many House Democrats don’t want to go on record in support of the Senate bill — what with its sweetheart deals, tax on high-value insurance plans and other controversial provisions.

    Enter the Pelosi tactic, known as a “self-executing rule.”

    Under this tactic, the House could simultaneously approve the Senate version of the bill while voting on the package of changes. This would “deem” the Senate bill passed, though not directly show members voting in favor of passage.

    It may sound murky, but the option is winning favor among Democrats.

    Pelosi reportedly told liberal bloggers Monday that “nobody wants to vote for the Senate bill,” and so she’s strongly considering the non-vote vote.

    “I like it, because people don’t have to vote on the Senate bill,” she said.

    Republicans are dubious.

    “That’s not exactly a ringing endorsement for a plan that will remake one-sixth of the American economy,” Boehner’s office said.

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/03/16/pelosi-plan-pass-health-care-traditional-vote-riles-critics/

  64. My take is that Republican politicians are laughing their a$$es off at the Dimocrats right now; damned if they do and damned if they don’t. It has been asserted that if Dims vote for the senate bill in any format; that they will imperil themselves further when the reconciliation part, if it happens at all, will be siderailed every which way from here to Sunday by admendments infinitum. It will be especially ‘sweet’ for the house Dims up for re-election because Pelousy would have duped them into placing the senate Dim version into law. I would bet that Donna Brazilla’s mother would have predicted this.lol

  65. Thank God Hillary is ut of that cesspool called Congress.

    —————————————————–

    Daily Appointments: Daily Appointments Schedule for March 16, 2010
    Tue, 16 Mar 2010 08:52:23 -0500

    Daily Appointments Schedule for March 16, 2010

    Washington, DC

    March 16, 2010

    ——————————————————————————–

    SECRETARY OF STATE CLINTON

    9:30 a.m. Secretary Clinton meets with Moroccan Princess Lalla Hasnaa, at the Department of State.
    (CLOSED PRESS COVERAGE)

    10:15 a.m. Secretary Clinton meets with Lieutenant General Keith Dayton, U.S. Security Coordinator for Israel and the Palestinian Authority, at the Department of State.
    (CLOSED PRESS COVERAGE)

    11:00 a.m. Secretary Clinton hosts a Bilateral Meeting with Irish Foreign Minister Michael Martin, at the Department of State.
    (JOINT PRESS AVAILABILITY FOLLOWING BILATERAL MEETING AT APPROXIMATELY 11:35 P.M.)
    Pre-set time for cameras: 11:00 a.m. at the 23rd Street Entrance.
    Final access time for journalists and still photographers: 11:15 a.m. at the 23rd Street Entrance.

    12:05 p.m. Secretary Clinton meets with Indian Foreign Secretary Nirupama Rao and Under Secretary Burns, at the Department of State.
    (CLOSED PRESS COVERAGE)

    12:30 p.m. Secretary Clinton holds a Bilateral Meeting with Northern Ireland Secretary Shaun Woodward, at the Department of State.
    (CLOSED PRESS COVERAGE)

    1:45 p.m. Secretary Clinton meets with Chinese Ambassador-Designate to the U.S. Zhang Yesui, at the Department of State.
    (CLOSED PRESS COVERAGE)

    2:15 p.m. Secretary Clinton meets with Uzbek Ambassador to the U.S. Ilkhamdjan Nematov and Under Secretary Burns, at the Department of State.
    (CLOSED PRESS COVERAGE)

    2:30 p.m. Secretary Clinton meets with Gerry Adams, Irish Member of Parliament and President of Sinn Fein, at the Department of State.
    (CLOSED PRESS COVERAGE)

    4:30 p.m. Secretary Clinton holds a Bilateral Meeting with Northern Ireland First Minister Peter Robinson and Deputy First Minister Martin McGuinness, at the Department of State.
    (CAMERA SPRAY PRECEDING BILATERAL MEETING)
    Pre-set time for cameras: 3:30 p.m. at the 23rd Street Entrance.
    Final access time for journalists and still cameras: 3:45 p.m. at the 23rd Street Entrance.

    7:15 p.m. Secretary Clinton meets with Irish Prime Minister Brian Cowen, at the Ronald Reagan Building.
    (POOLED CAMERA SPRAY)

    7:30 p.m. Secretary Clinton attends the American Ireland Fund Dinner and delivers the Keynote Address, at the Ronald Reagan Building.
    (OPEN PRESS COVERAGE)
    State Department Press Corp Members interested in covering the event must RSVP by email, hdalsimer@oneillevent.com, or phone, (301) 229-0064.

    UNDER SECRETARY FOR ECONOMIC, ENERGY & BUSINESS AFFAIRS HORMATS

    2:30 p.m. Under Secretary Hormats participates in an Interagency Press Availability with Secretary of Commerce Gary Locke following a Trade Policy Coordinating Committee Meeting, at the Department of Commerce.
    (OPEN PRESS COVERAGE)

    ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR POPULATION, REFUGEES AND MIGRATION SCHWARTZ

    9:15 a.m. Assistant Secretary Schwartz delivers Remarks to Mark 30th Anniversary of the Refugee Act of 1980, at Georgetown Law’s Gewirz Student Center.
    (OPEN PRESS COVERAGE)
    For more information, click here.

    PRESS BRIEFING SCHEDULE

    2:00 p.m. Daily Press Briefing

  66. wbboei
    March 16th, 2010 at 2:49 am
    Uh,didn’t Romney come up with MA’s plan when he was governor?
    ———————————–
    What exactly does it prove? That Romney is an intolerant bigoted white plutocrat, but when it comes to the issue of health care he is a humanitarian genius. Logically speaking he cannot be X and not X at the same time. But the bots at HuffPo are not what you might call logical. Lest we forget he is running for POUSA in 2012. And some day he will be–just like his father was (not). That happened right after he returned from Viet Nam, changed his position and claimed he had been brain washed. It wasn’t the reversal that bothered people so much as the false claim that George had a brain to wash.
    ——————————————————————————————————–

    It doesn’t prove anything. Just that it wasn’t Deval Patrick’s creation. I was responding to a prior comment.
    —————————–
    I know Birdgal. I agree with you. What I am responding to is the argument advanced by the hypocrites at HuffPo.

  67. ABM90
    March 16th, 2010 at 11:42 am

    Thank God Hillary is out of that cesspool called Congress.
    ——–
    No kidding.
    Wise move on her part, as always…

  68. #
    wbboei
    March 16th, 2010 at 11:47 am

    wbboei
    March 16th, 2010 at 2:49 am
    Uh,didn’t Romney come up with MA’s plan when he was governor?
    ———————————–
    What exactly does it prove? That Romney is an intolerant bigoted white plutocrat, but when it comes to the issue of health care he is a humanitarian genius. Logically speaking he cannot be X and not X at the same time. But the bots at HuffPo are not what you might call logical. Lest we forget he is running for POUSA in 2012. And some day he will be–just like his father was (not). That happened right after he returned from Viet Nam, changed his position and claimed he had been brain washed. It wasn’t the reversal that bothered people so much as the false claim that George had a brain to wash.
    ——————————————————————————————————–

    It doesn’t prove anything. Just that it wasn’t Deval Patrick’s creation. I was responding to a prior comment.
    —————————–
    I know Birdgal. I agree with you. What I am responding to is the argument advanced by the hypocrites at HuffPo.

    Agreed. What a foolish argument.

  69. With the track record of the Fraud’s campaigning for fellow Democrats, this should encourage Dems to vote NO on the pork filled smoke and mirrors, ‘heath care’ bill….

    Bribes and lies…

    —–

    Barack Obama has said he will not campaign for any Democratic congressmen who fails to support health care reform.

    The president will refuse to make fund-raising visits during November elections to any district whose representative has not backed the bill.

    A one-night presidential appearance can bring in hundreds of thousands of dollars in funds which would otherwise take months to accumulate through cold-calling by campaign volunteers.

    Mr Obama’s threat came as the year-long debate over his signature domestic policy entered its final week.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/7450237/Barack-Obama-threatens-to-withdraw-support-from-wavering-Democrats.html

    —–
    This also sounds like a similar threat made to delegates and superdelegates that wanted to vote for Hillary in Denver. The DNC threatened to not give them support for their re-election.

  70. The Politico conventional wisdom:

    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0310/34468.html

    Here are five ways health reform survives — and five ways it could falter inches from the finish line.

    It lives:

    1. Obama’s presidency depends on passage of the bill, so he has every incentive to cajole, threaten and flatter his way to passage. [snip]

    2. Pelosi, too, has every incentive to pull out all the stops — not only to preserve the Democratic House majority but also to protect her legacy and her longevity in the job. [snip]

    3. Democrats already own the bill — so they might as well reap the benefits that come with passage.[snip]

    4. The Stupak coalition falls apart. [snip]

    5. It seems inevitable (even though it may be anything but). [snip]

    The White House has tried to build the illusion that Obama’s health care reform plan will be the law of the land by next week, even though top aides acknowledge privately that chances of that are maybe 55 percent. Plus, the White House and congressional leaders will argue to members: Do you want to be part of a small clutch of Democrats who killed the most sweeping piece of progressive legislation in generations?

    It dies:

    1. Endangered Democrats don’t really care about Pelosi’s or Obama’s legacy. [snip]

    2. Undecided Democrats decide the bill is just too toxic.[snip]

    But even days before a potential history-making vote, there are a lot of unknowns about the bill. Much of the cost savings depend upon punting budget-cutting moves to future Congresses — who are no less likely to take a hard vote than this one. Republicans can rightly say the bill raises taxes (on people making more than $250,000). There are cuts to Medicare. Some people might have to switch insurance. And the major reforms don’t kick in for a number of years.

    3. The Stupak coalition holds firm.[snip]

    4. 2,000-plus pages, hundreds of reasons to say “no.” [snip]

    5. The polling in swing districts is ominous for Democrats, particularly those who come from districts that backed Republican John McCain in 2008.

    The White House has pushed back hard in recent days on the notion that Democrats will suffer dire consequences if the bill passes, with Obama’s lead pollster, Joel Benenson, refuting the charge in a Washington Post op-ed. But a new set of numbers released Monday by Republican pollster Kellyanne Conway will sow fresh seeds of doubt. Conway surveyed 1,200 votes in 35 swing districts, in which 15 members voted no and 20 voted yes.

    “Should members from these districts and those like them be concerned? Yes,” Conway wrote in the Wall Street Journal with Heather Higgins, president of Independent Women’s Voices. “Walking the Democratic line now means walking the plank. Sixty percent of the voters surveyed will vote for a candidate who opposes the current legislation and wants to start over.”

  71. mj
    March 15th, 2010 at 9:42 pm

    People in the country illegally who cannot adequately support themselves, should be deported back to their home countries.
    Nothing should be done that encourages illegal behavior. Although every illegal cannot be deported, many should go. Those who have real jobs, legal housing can pay any and all taxes could be given permmanent residence status…not citizenship unless they want to return to their home countries and return legally.

  72. MJ, Identical articles on paper…one is copy cat and the other is the original. Sorry, but I have to ask, how can Obama’s Immigration plans be identical to Hillary’s when one of them is a proven LIAR and the other one is Hillary? This site itself represents the dogma of Obama’s promises exposed daily over and over again as lies and deceptions BO supporters swallow whole as gospel. Tell me why you believe anything written or promoted by Obama and why you still do not know the difference?

    Repeating Dem talking points equivocating that Hillary’s Immigration position is identical to Obama’s position regarding Immigration is an intellectually dishonest and misleading statement because it infers Obama will implement this policy.

  73. http://www.politico.com/livepulse/0310/Altmire_leadership_even_working_the_hard_nos.html

    Rep. Jason Altmire, a Pennsyvlania Democrat who has positioned himself as a key swing vote, said he thinks leadership is seriously struggling to marshal the votes.

    “They’re calling the hardnosed people…who have put out firm statements saying no,” he said. “They wouldn’t be doing that if they were anywhere close.”

    That means Democrats like first-term New Jersey Rep. John Adler should still expect a phone call from party leaders, even after they tell the hometown press they’re voting against the bill. Adler, who voted against the first bill but who many members believed to be in play on this round, told the Courier-Post (N.J.) Monday that he’d vote against the final bill because it doesn’t do a good enough job cutting costs.

    Adler made the remarks during an editorial board meeting.

    Altmire, for his part, said he remains undecided and is waiting to listen to his constituents.

  74. Mrs. Smith your argument is based on nothing but your personal distaste for Obama. obama has already submitted a proposal to Democrats that outlines the basic Democratic approach to health care. Obama and Hillary both supported Bush’s health care proposal. Just because one doesn’t like Obama doesn’t mean one can factually argue he has some sort of radical approach to immigration. He does not. Indeed, Obama’s domestic plans thus far are to the right of every single proposal Hillary ran on. On immigration, as the quotes and the very proposal both have outlined at various times, they are in agreement.

    Carol, good luck finding policy makers who will implement your round ’em up strategy. The general strategy of Democrats(and some Republicans, ie Bush) is to offer a path toward legalization that includes fees, back taxes, and lawful behavior.

  75. “obama has already submitted a proposal to Democrats that outlines the basic Democratic approach to health care.” that should be “immigration” not “health care”.

  76. Yikes! Again “Obama and Hillary both supported Bush’s health care proposal.” Health care should read immigration.

    Honestly, you really have to use evidence to argue your point. Not simply, “well, he’s a liar, therefore I will argue he will try to implement some radical approach to immigration, and the majority of Democrats who thus far have voted for(under Bush) and agreed to a certain approach already embraced by Democrats and articulated by Obama and Hillary, will go along with his nefarious radical plan”.

  77. mj

    This is a Hillary site. My distaste for anything Obama notwithstanding. If you feel compelled to defend Obama as some sort of people’s president or of the caliber of Secretary of State Clinton, I suggest you start another blog for that purpose.

    Here is a link to the Immigration policies of all 3 candidates running for the presidency. McCain, Hillary and Obama.

    After over a year has passed Obama hasn’t deployed or implemented one of his promises of reforming immigration. To date, it’s all smoke and mirrors. Unfortunately some are too bind to see past it. Here:

    http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/campaign-2008/2008/03/17/where-clinton-obama-and-mccain-stand-on-immigration.html

    and here:

    Obama to Push Immigration Bill as One Priority

    April 9, 2009 (note the date) Did we hear anything about Immigration last summer? And what if anything did Obama produce in the way of Immigration reform?

    All we heard about was Obama’s trip to the Vineyard and how he didn’t want to be disturbed.

    http://sweetness-light.com/archive/obama-will-still-push-amnesty-as-a-top-priority

    Barack Obama’s Immigration Plan:

    Obama’s plan: 1) Improve border security; 2) Crack down on employers who hire illegal immigrants; 3) Enable undocumented workers to voluntarily pay a fine, learn English, and get in line for legal citizenship; 4) Fix the immigration bureaucracy; and 5) Provide additional economic assistance to Mexico.[194] Obama also supports issuing driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants to prevent unlicensed drivers from creating a public safety hazard[195].

    Have any of these proposed reforms become law or implemented?

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_United_States_presidential_candidates,_2008#Immigration

  78. mj

    This is a Hillary site. My distaste for anything Obama notwithstanding. If you feel compelled to defend Obama as some sort of people’s president or of the caliber of Secretary of State Clinton, I suggest you start another blog for that purpose.

    Here is a link to the Immigration policies of all 3 candidates running for the presidency. McCain, Hillary and Obama.

    After over a year has passed Obama hasn’t deployed or implemented one of his promises of reforming immigration. To date, it’s all smoke and mirrors. Unfortunately some are too bind to see past it. Here:

    usnews.com/articles/news/campaign-2008/2008/03/17/where-clinton-obama-and-mccain-stand-on-immigration.html

    and here:

    Obama to Push Immigration Bill as One Priority

    April 9, 2009 (note the date) Did we hear anything about Immigration last summer? And what if anything did Obama produce in the way of Immigration reform?

    All we heard about was Obama’s trip to the Vineyard and how he didn’t want to be disturbed.

    sweetness-light.com/archive/obama-will-still-push-amnesty-as-a-top-priority

    Barack Obama’s Immigration Plan:

    Obama’s plan: 1) Improve border security; 2) Crack down on employers who hire illegal immigrants; 3) Enable undocumented workers to voluntarily pay a fine, learn English, and get in line for legal citizenship; 4) Fix the immigration bureaucracy; and 5) Provide additional economic assistance to Mexico.[194] Obama also supports issuing driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants to prevent unlicensed drivers from creating a public safety hazard[195].

    Have any of these proposed reforms become law or implemented?

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_United_States_presidential_candidates,_2008#Immigration

  79. Admin:

    There is a copy of the above caught in the spam filter. Not really important for retrieval, as I have abbreviated the offending html triggering spammy in the above post.

  80. mj,

    Unless you post something addressed to me worthy of discussion, I will terminate any further communication with you. Yes, I remember how you carried on with loaded questions/false arguments (to the point of harassment)with JanH. I have no problems with a better use of my time..

    sayonara,

    Mrs S.

  81. Jason Altmire, Rep of PA. I’d guess he’s trying to make amends for having cast his SuperDelegate vote for O’Bummer inspite of the fact that his district was 60% for Hillary. (Going on memory here, folks regarding the number; quite certain it is accurate.)

  82. Go, mj!! And thank you for helping out that friend of Confloyd’s. Hope your advice works for her.

    Sayonara to you too, Mrs. Smith. Better luck with your time.

  83. basement angel said:
    Immigrants tend not to vote. Poor people, people on food stamps, people on TANF, don’t vote. We don’t provide food stamps to poor children because we want their parents to vote Democratic. We provide food stamps to poor children so that they can eat.

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

    You do write well! Though I’d quibble, that different politicians vote for food stamps for different reasons. (Remember ‘commodities’?)

  84. Mrs. Smith
    March 16th, 2010 at 1:34 pm

    mj

    This is a Hillary site. My distaste for anything Obama notwithstanding. If you feel compelled to defend Obama as some sort of people’s president or of the caliber of Secretary of State Clinton, I suggest you start another blog for that purpose.

    You are really nuts! I’m not defending Obama as Hillary. that’s so freaking dumb. That’s not even an argument, it’s hyperbole. The immigration plan Obama and Hillary both back is the standard fare immigration policy of the Democratic Party.

Comments are closed.