The Temple Of Doom

Final Update: New article with information on the rumors of a deal with Bart Stupak has been posted. We’ll update the new article throughout the day.

—————————————————————————————-

Update VI: Video of Steny Hoyer contradicting John Larson’s “we have the votes” comment.



They don’t have the votes but they continue to insist they do. Obama will likely have to sign an Executive Order which bans money for abortions. On this Sunday, the Conference of Bishops says that is not enough and they urge opposition to the scam.

Drudge reports, without proof, this: “OVERHEARD: Walking into Capitol this morning on phone, Speaker Pelosi tells Hoyer: ‘Steny, we have to get to 217. None of these members wants to be the deciding vote'”

Increasingly, the question is not “Do they have the votes?” but rather “Do they know what they are doing?”.

Nancy Kaptur votes to “Save Obama” and abandons the pro-life forces on the basis of “assurances”. Kaptur is a loss but not a surprise as she was not a “Stupak Bloc” diehard. She was “low hanging fruit”.

Solomon Ortiz is also a “Save Obama”.

The vote at this late Sunday morning is 206 “Save Obama” votes, 209 “NO!”. An Obama Executive Order which bans money for abortion (language unknown as of now and of dubious value other than politically), a Dimocratic president signing such an order, is the only way it appears that they can get the votes.



There are many primary challenge threats against “NO” voters. There is a lot of pressure on the “NO” votes. Will they cave? Stay tuned. They Still Don’t Have The Votes. Keep fighting.

—————————————————————————————-

Update V: [update to the mini update update: Politico’s count is 210 “Save Obama” votes – a count which is closer to our count than to the Larson count. Steny Hoyer also says they “will” have the votes, not that they do.]

[update to the mini update HERE which calls into question the claim they have the votes]

[mini update immediately after we posted the update – the House Caucus chairman John Larson insists they do have the votes. By our count as of 9:00 a.m. They don’t have the votes. We’ll wait to see if there were any overnight deals we have yet to hear about. .] Sunday morning – They Still Don’t Have The Votes.

The entire day will be consumed with attempts by Pelousy to get the “Save Obama” votes Obama pretended he already had. But they still don’t have the votes. The official schedule starts at about 2:00 p.m. ET

At 2:00 there will be a one hour debate on the rules of debate for the reconciliation bill and the Senate bill. At 3:00 the vote on the rules. The circus will continue throughout the afternoon and final votes are expected, if they have the votes, around 6:00.

They Still Don’t Have The Votes.

—————————————————————————————-

Update IV: Sanchez! Viva Sanchez!

She was a “yes” in November. The “NOs” still rolling in even after the big publicity stunt this afternoon. The DireFog number is now “Save Obama” 205, “NO!” 209, leaning “NO” 10, unknown 8.

Why is this a shocker? She was an easy “Save Obama” vote but instead…

“The Senate bill is a bad bill,” she told the paper.

Politically, the vote should be a relatively easy lift for Sanchez. The seven-term lawmaker has been re-elected with at least 60 percent of the vote since 2000, winning by a decisive 69 percent in 2008. President Barack Obama carried the district by 60 percent.

Expect Sanchez to be beaten up until she changes her “NO”. The “NO” vote is still ahead. The “Save Obama” Hopium guzzlers are behind. They still don’t have the votes.

—————————————————————————————-

Update III: It’s been a while since our last update, but guess what: They Still Don’t Have The Votes.

A supposed “Save Obama” vote says ‘it ain’t so’. Representative Glenn Nye still undecided or something. The New York Times says he’s a “NO”.

National Review writes that the abortion executive order is the treachery to be discussed tonight “Dem staffer says “this still isn’t nailed down”‘. Pro-choice “leader” DeGette has saluted the plan.

DireFog has the vote at this astonishing result: “Save Obama” 205; “NO” 207, leaning “NO” 10! unknown 9.

Back to the treachery of the night.

Looking at the numbers, I don’t see a really good way to evade the Stupak bloc without pulling the trigger on the executive order from the President clarifying no federal funding for abortion services. While Diana DeGette has agreed to such a maneuver, I’ve heard nobody in the Stupak bloc actually do the same. Apparently members are reading the proposed language.

The “creative clueless” agree:

Looking at the latest vote counts from The New York Times and David Dayen, tomorrow’s vote still hinges on the current size of the Stupak bloc.

Last but not least, here’s Zack Space on why he votes “NO”:

“Getting it done just to get it done is not something we should be doing. We should be doing it right,” Space told the Gannett Washington Bureau in a phone interview late Saturday.

Space said he has been getting calls and letters from his constituents, most of whom do not like the bill.

“I’m doing what I think is right,” Space said. “I have been under enormous amount of pressure this week in Washington. I have spoken to the president twice, once in the Oval Office. My own leadership has been working hard to get me to vote for this. But I don’t represent them. I represent the people in the 18th Congressional District.

Now that is a shocking revolutionary statement!



Keep fighting. They Still Don’t Have The Votes!

—————————————————————————————-

Update II: Zack Space of Ohio chooses to live and flips from a “yes” in November to – a “NO” today. Zack Space is a big get. Jim Matheson is also a “NO”.

The count at DireFog is 207 “NO” and 204 “Save Obama” votes.

Hillbuzz has photos of the Washington protests. The allegedly “pro-choice” clowns are “Save Obama” no matter that he will sign an Executive Order on abortion. No details on what the order will or will not say – or whether Obama will use blood instead of ink.

They still don’t have the votes.

—————————————————————————————-

Update: A victory on Demon Pass extracted from the “Save Obama” Cult. With that victory the fight continues on the Obama scam legislation itself.

Obama held a publicity stunt today but we still do not know if there is indeed a deal for him to sign an executive order on abortion designed to win votes from Bart Stupak and his cohort. If true, the blood will now be on Obama’s misogynistic hands.

The potential executive order on abortion and the death of Demon Pass are signs of weakness. Demon Pass is dead because the scam was hurting more than helping. The American people, who according to the “creative class” don’t care or are incapable of understanding “process”, are revolted and revolted. The prospective lawsuits also scared the Demon away.

The numbers are tightening up. They Still Don’t Have The Votes.

—————————————————————————————-

Hillary Clinton supporters vividly recall the treacheries and illegalities of the Cult Of Obama at the Democratic Rules Committee. We’ve been fighting to expose Obama for a long time, so we know the tricks. It’s happening again. Now it’s the Rules Committee of the House Of Representatives.



The Obama Cult in The Temple Of Doom – the Rules Committee of the House Of Representatives – want to “Save Obama”. To that end, the Cult, with their Hopium ceremonies and incense priests seek to plunge the nation into the abyss of Demon Pass.

They still do not have the votes. Such is the desperation that there is even talk (by Steny Hoyer) that Barack Obama himself might sign an Executive Order to appease the thus far stalwart Bart Stupak. The Republicans are also not making it easy to “Save Obama”.

What about “deem and pass” (hereinafter “Demon Pass”)? We’ll let Byron York explain the devil details of Demon Pass at the Temple of Doom:

“At the House Rules Committee meeting, Democrats desperate to pass their national health care plan are running into the barrier of basic civics. Here is the problem: The Senate has passed its HCR bill. If the House passes the same bill, it goes on to the president; once he signs it, the bill becomes law. But House Democrats, when they vote for the Senate bill using the “Deem & Pass” dodge, also want to simultaneously pass a package of amendments to the law. Except HCR will not, at that point, be law. It will only become law when the president signs it. Congress can amend the law — it does so all the time — but can it amend something that isn’t law?

No, you cannot amend what does not yet exist. Is this an actual problem? Um, yeah.

“Which is where Democrats are tripping up. Passage of their HCR proposal should be very simple: Senate passes it, House passes it, president signs it. But House Democrats are terrified of voting for the unpopular bill, so they hope to pass it by “Deem & Pass,” in which they will vote, not for the bill, but for a rule that both deems the Senate bill to have passed and, in the same vote, passes the package of amendments. So House Democrats will have two fig leaves: 1) they didn’t vote directly for the Senate bill, and 2) they voted to simultaneously amend — to “fix” — the Senate bill.”

It’s not confusion and chaos, it’s skulduggery and chicanery and Arrogance! Incompetence! Corruption! Cowardice!. More from York:

“The problem is the sequence. Can the House vote to amend something that isn’t the law, as the Senate bill will not be law before the president’s signature? The Rules Committee meeting turned into mass confusion when Democratic Rep. Henry Waxman said, “We’re not going to ‘deem’ the bill passed. We’re going to pass the Senate bill…I would be against the idea of ‘deeming’ something — we either pass it or we don’t.”

To Republican ears, that sounded as if Waxman was speaking out in support of a direct vote on the Senate plan. “I hope we’re making news here,” said Republican Rep. Joe Barton. If so, Barton added, “Praise the Lord!” Other Democrats jumped in to say that no, there would not be a direct vote on the Senate bill.

Barton then asked whether there would be some period of time between House passage of the Senate bill and House passage of the HCR amendments. During that period of time, the president would sign the Senate HCR bill into law. For the House to amend the HCR law, Barton said, it has to be law, which means the president has to have signed it. “If he doesn’t, it ain’t a law,” Barton said.

Democratic Rep. Sander Levin jumped in. “We’re going to be amending the law,” he claimed. Waxman added, “We change current law, and the current law will be the Senate bill once it’s voted on in the House.”

But it won’t be law until the president signs it. Obviously, Democrats are performing such strange contortions because many of their members are scared of voting for a bill that will likely mean defeat for them in November. But their attempts to avoid responsibility have created some very basic problems.”

They still do not have the votes for the Obama health scam. We still don’t know what will happen in the Rules Committee, other than skulduggery and chicanery. The situation and legal issues are even more complex than York describes.

Fred Barnes touched on the additional complications and political battles to come if, and it’s still an if, the Obama health scam passes. For now, the scam still does not have enough votes to pass and the protests are in the streets and moving into the congress. They still do not have the votes, but the whorehouse of Obama Rezko style bribery is filled with beds and gifts.

What if the Rules Committee passes the Obamaination health scam by taking the Demon Pass shortcut? Former federal judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, Michael McConnell (a Republican conservative) explains:

“The House will likely adopt a “self-executing” rule that “deems” passage of the amendatory bill as enactment of the Senate bill, without an actual vote on the latter.

This enables the House to enact the Senate bill while appearing only to approve changes to it. The underlying Senate bill would then go to the president for signature, and the amendatory bill would go to the Senate for consideration under reconciliation procedures (meaning no filibuster).

This approach appears unconstitutional. Article I, Section 7 clearly states that bills cannot be presented to the president for signature unless they have been approved by both houses of Congress in the same form. If the House approves the Senate bill in the same legislation by which it approves changes to the Senate bill, it will fail that requirement.

Judge McConnell explains further why Demon Pass is a much bigger problem than the big problem it already appears to be:

“No one doubts that the House can consolidate two bills in a single measure; the question is whether, having done so, it may then hive the resulting bill into two parts, treating one part as an enrolled bill ready for presidential signature and the other part as a House bill ready for senatorial consideration. That seems inconsistent with the principle that the president may sign only bills in the exact form that they have passed both houses. A combination of two bills is not in “the same form” as either bill separately.”

This has not been done before, argues the Judge:

“Defenders of the Democratic strategy say that a self-executing rule has been used many times before by both parties. But never in this way. Most of the time a self-executing rule is used to incorporate amendments into a pending bill without actual votes on the amendments, where the bill is then subject to a final vote by the House and Senate. That usage may be a dodge around House rules, but it does not violate the Constitution. I am not aware of any instance where a self-executing rule has been used to send one bill to the president for signature and another to the Senate for consideration by means of a single vote.

Self-executing rules have also been used to increase the debt ceiling by virtue of adopting a budget resolution. That procedure is questionable, but because budget resolutions are not laws, this usage does not have the feature of using one vote to send a bill to the president and at the same time to send a different bill to the Senate. There may have been other questionable uses of self-executing rules, but not often enough or in prominent enough cases to establish a precedent that would overcome serious constitutional challenge.”

The question is whether the courts will dare rule on such a prominent issue. We suspect the Supreme Court and Chief Justice Roberts do indeed have the fortitude to kill this sick bill. The Judge addresses the doctrine of courts not intruding on congressional actions:

“Whether the courts would entertain such a challenge is a harder question. The “enrolled bill doctrine,” announced by the Supreme Court in Marshall Field v. Clark (1892), holds that the courts will not question whether a bill certified as having passed both houses of Congress was properly enacted. More recently, in United States v. Munoz-Flores (1990), in a footnote, the Supreme Court stated that Field concerned only the “evidence” the courts would consider in such a challenge and that when “a constitutional provision is implicated,” the enrolled bill doctrine would not apply. These holdings are not easy to reconcile. The D.C. Circuit, in a 1995 case, essentially said that it did not understand the Munoz-Flores footnote and thus would not follow it.

The Supreme Court might well hold that Field governs only questions of historical fact, while Munoz-Flores governs questions of constitutional interpretation. In Field, the question was what text passed the two houses of Congress; there was no doubt that only what the two houses passed could be treated as law. Here, by contrast, there will be no dispute about what occurred in the House; the question will be whether using a self-executing rule in this way is consistent with Article I, Section 7. It is one thing for the Supreme Court to defer to Congress on questions of what Congress did, and quite another to defer to Congress on the meaning of the Constitution. Indeed, in United States v. Ballin, decided the same year as Field, the Court ruled, “The Constitution empowers each House to determine its own rules of proceedings. It may not by its rules ignore constitutional restraints . . . .”

One thing is sure: To proceed in this way creates an unnecessary risk that the legislation will be invalidated for violation of Article I, Section 7. Will wavering House members want to use this procedure when there is a nontrivial probability that the courts will render their political sacrifice wasted effort? To hazard that risk, the House leadership must have a powerful motive to avoid a straightforward vote.


Demon Pass might be cut off, but the hazard is reelection.
The hazard is the Cowardice! of those that do not want to go on the record voting for the Obama health scam. The hazard is They Still Do Not Have The Votes.

Share

138 thoughts on “The Temple Of Doom

  1. We are reposting this comment. We are happy that Hillary and Bill are far, far away from this mess.
    —————————————

    Hold your stomachs. Who is Obama missing in his list of presidents who tried to reform healthcare? The jut-jaw creep mentions Teddy Roosevelt, Truman, and – Teddy Kennedy? But no Bill Clinton. No mention of Hillary Clinton. [at around the 3 minutes and 30 seconds mark]

  2. They are not doing deem and pass. They are going with an up or down vote. Obama headed to Congress to rally the troops.

  3. They obviously have the votes then..it would have been even more offensive if they went “deem and pass” . It will result in a bill that does not please the far left or more moderate democrats, but allows them to “make history”(albeit historically wrong).

  4. The Demon has been killed, it appears, but we’ll wait until the Rules Committee actually votes.

    Have we said recently, they still don’t have the votes? Others agree.

    Behind in the numbers The Hill still does not show the numbers are there.
    http://thehill.com/homenews/house/85693-whip-watch-the-hills-survey-of-house-dems-positions-on-healthcare-

    The NothingLeft “creative clueless” say ” The whip count remains close, and the outcome is far from clear.” (as of 3:30 p.m.)
    http://www.openleft.com/diary/17925/democrats-will-not-use-deem-and-pass

    DireFog, has it close and closing: 209 “NO” and 3 leaning “NO”. 202 “Save Obama” and 6 leaning “Save Obama”. 212 “NO”, 208 “Save Obama” in toto. Unknown is at 9. Number required is 216.
    http://news.firedoglake.com/2010/03/19/scott-murphy-to-vote-yes-rumors-of-a-fallback-stupak-deal/

  5. Thanks for the Harriett Christian video Admin-I love that lady!!! As the late Howard Cosell use to state, she is “telling it like it is”.

  6. There is no “far left”. 80% of the American public supported public insurance. Why do you call that the “far left”? Further, Hillary’s bill was to “Left”, in other words anti-forking huge amounts of money over to private industry, of this bill in every significant area, is she “far left”? This isn’t “moderate”. It’s corporate friendly with a twist of anti-choice. That’s all. It’s far more expensive then a simple expansion of federally funded health care, every single CBO score showed that, so how is that moderate? I really freaking HATE all this “far left”/”moderate” bs, when every single congressperson is voting with industry. There is nothing far left or moderate about that. The right/left paradigm clearly no longer represents our political Parties.

  7. jbstonesfan,

    There is nothing leftwing about this bill. This is rightwing stuff = forcing citizens to pay their money to private corporations. it’s fascist, not socialist. It’s way to the right of center.

  8. If people were afraid Obama would be liberal or not corporate friendly. Don’t worry. You have nothing to fear. He is totally pro-industry. He is with you. if those are your principles, he’s one of you, and certainly far more so than Bill and Hillary Clinton were. So rejoice. he’s your guy.

  9. JBStonesFan, here’s a “demon life” song to commemorate the demise of the Demon Pass, you will likely appreciate.

  10. So is the current plan for the House to pass a bill of which they disapprove, allow it to be signed into law, so that they can immediately modify it with the assumption that the Senate will agree to all of their modifications, so that they can avoid the traditional conferencecommittee method, which the Senate would never be able to pass?

  11. #
    Mike Marks
    March 20th, 2010 at 4:10 pm

    So is the current plan for the House to pass a bill of which they disapprove, allow it to be signed into law, so that they can immediately modify it with the assumption that the Senate will agree to all of their modifications, so that they can avoid the traditional conferencecommittee method, which the Senate would never be able to pass?

    Yes.

  12. I agree with Obama on two points he made just now.

    The bill will be easier on Dems once it passes because it’s a very limited bill.

    The bill is middle of the road(I’d say to the Right). As he said, Howard Baker and Bob Dole support it. This should affirm for everyone that Obama is not a wide eyed liberal socialist.

  13. Mike Marks, we also have not seen what executive order it is that Obama plans to sign regarding abortion.

  14. Just minutes ago the DNC called here to request I phone my representative to indicate that I support ObamaCare.

  15. MJ @ 4:11 PM

    Thanks. So the historic signing ceremony would be for a bill (if it passes) which the House hates enough to not want to vote on in its present form but, for its enactment, they would be back-slapping and congratulating themselves. All the while assuming that it will be changed. What a crowd!

  16. We updated with this:

    Update: A victory on Demon Pass extracted from the “Save Obama” Cult. With that victory the fight continues on the Obama scam legislation itself.

    Obama held a publicity stunt today but we still do not know if there is indeed a deal for him to sign an executive order on abortion designed to win votes from Bart Stupak and his cohort. If true, the blood will now be on Obama’s misogynistic hands.

    The potential executive order on abortion and the death of Demon Pass are signs of weakness. Demon Pass is dead because the scam was hurting more than helping. The American people, who according to the “creative class” don’t care or are incapable of understanding “process”, are revolted and revolted. The prospective lawsuits also scared the Demon away.

    The numbers are tightening up. They Still Don’t Have The Votes.

  17. I picked this video up at a site not often mentioned here. Appears to be posted at youtube by John Boehner. I’ll leave the url as text so you can decide its worth.

    YouTube – Key House Democrat: “There Are No Rules Here … We Make Them Up As We Go Along”
    www youtube.com/watch?v=CbHTJSu_2Lk

  18. ‘Obama is not a wide eyed liberal socialist.’

    Maybe not but he’s definitely a POS and should be impeached.

  19. #
    Paula
    March 20th, 2010 at 5:05 pm

    If Bob Dole and Howard Baker support this, why are no Repubs on board? Weird …

    Politics! They have no reason to support an Obama win. Their agenda is to stop his agenda.

  20. basil9
    March 20th, 2010 at 5:05 pm

    ‘Obama is not a wide eyed liberal socialist.’

    Maybe not but he’s definitely a POS and should be impeached.

    ——-

    I actually would prefer a liberal, basil. My point is all this talk about socialism is idiotic.

  21. Admin,

    Thanks as always for your excellent work. I just mosied over to FDL to read the comments since they are also very concentrated in HC votes this weekend — they are calling him the “Fraud in chief” — the bulk of these comments sound like they could be on this website (only not as smart). I couldn’t log in there and soooooooooooooooooooooo wanted to ask them if they thought hillary would be threatening to sign an Executive Order re abortion to appease Stupak. I though FDL were Obama people? Didn;t they throw her under the bus too? When the hell did they finally wake up?

  22. Why would Stupak and other pro-life Dems vote for the bill with the Obama Executive order when they know it’s going to be modified immediately afterward?

  23. I do think and believe Obama is a socialist/marxist
    and the capitalist favoring is a ruse, a means to an end.

    How else can he demonize them ?

    I think Obama and is many “demon friends” are all a POS!
    i will never believe anything good about him. I will only suspect
    it to be suspect at best.

    Truthfully….at this point i don’t trust one damn person who is apart of Washington.

  24. mj, then how do the pro-choice Dems vote for the bill? Isn’t there the potential to lose some of them?

  25. to further my thoughts above…

    by favoring the big bankers, corporations etc

    I believe it is the biggest grand daddy of all BAMBOOZLES AND OKIE DOKES
    he has achieved to date.

    I believe obama does nothing but lies.. I believe his entire existence is a BIG ASS LIE!

    OBAMA IS NOT TO BE TRUSTED! NOT BY FRIEND NOR FOE.. OBAMA SIMPLY CAN NOT BE TRUSTED.

  26. djia
    March 20th, 2010 at 5:21 pm

    I do think and believe Obama is a socialist/marxist
    and the capitalist favoring is a ruse, a means to an end.

    How can you POSSIBLY believe that? Passing laws that heap money into the hands of private industries is not a “ruse”. When in the world do you picture undoing such a “ruse”? Not trusting Obama is one thing, saying he’s a “socialist/marxist” is absolutely bizarre. There is just no evidence to support that argument. You don’t have to believe anything good about Obama to know he isn’t a “socialist”. He’s to the right of Nixon, isn’t that bad enough?

  27. So our corporatist in chief is going to sign an executive order, effectively banning abortion in this country? This POS can’t sign an executive order repealing DADT, but he sign an order limiting the reproductive rights of women? And people actually think this is a good idea? Unbelievable.

    BTW, OBAMA IS NOT A SOCIALIST. HE IS THE EXACT OPPOSITE.

  28. AmericanGal
    March 20th, 2010 at 5:24 pm

    Maybe, I expect no. They don’t want to interrupt Obama’s “historic” bill.

  29. mj, I appreciate your postings here. It’s helping a political neophyte like me see things a lot clearer (and it’s making me more and more concerned about the state of our nation).

  30. djia
    March 20th, 2010 at 5:25 pm

    to further my thoughts above…

    by favoring the big bankers, corporations etc

    I believe it is the biggest grand daddy of all BAMBOOZLES AND OKIE DOKES
    he has achieved to date.

    —-

    Huh? You think a socialist would pamper wall street to “bamboozle” them? That makes utterly no sense.

  31. Maybe, I expect no. They don’t want to interrupt Obama’s “historic” bill.
    ___________________________

    What will happen in the aftermath of this vote?

  32. Here’s the deal, under stupak any woman receiving a federal subsidy could not buy insurance that included abortion services. Under the Senate bill a woman could buy a separate policy for abortion services, if the particular state opted to include those in their exchange. Stupak wants no insurance with any subsidy to include abortion services, even a separate policy. today, must insurance plans include them. I mean, abortions are not even always elective, miscarriages, ectopic, etc, require a D & C. Those will no longer be covered in the insurance through the Exchange or for any person receiving a subsidy. It’s ridiculous. The House will pass the Senate version, and then Obama will issue an Executive order. The question now is will this Exec. order mirror the Stupak language.

  33. MJ, doesn’t Stupak also prevent insurance companies that receive any federal subsidies from offering abortion coverage? This means that the large HMO that I work for, if the organization wants to increase enrollment in their program through the exchanges, they cannot offer abortion coverage. This is absolutely NUTS. They will have to stop covering abortions. This is insane and inhumane, I don’t know where to begin. So, this measure effectively outlaws abortion, except in the cases of rape,incest, or if the mother’s life is in danger. It won’t cover abortion for a severely deformed fetus. This is so bizarre and this is 2010, not 1950.

  34. The debate on is Obama a “socialist” or a “capitalist” or a “corporatist” is not very productive. We’ve defined him in the past as an “opportunist” on the ideological spectrum. That is plenty dangerous by itself.

    Is he a “socialist”? It depends on how that is defined. Clearly, there have been takeovers of industries such as the automotive companies and massive intervention of the state into the private sector. The interventions are such they have a quality to them which can be termed “socialist”. The health scam is further massive government intervention into the private sector – whether you agree with this level of intervention or not – that it can be termed “socialist”.

    Is he a capitalist? Clearly there have been massive injections of taxpayer dollars to Wall Street and industry and the health scam is essentially a massive bailout of the Big Insurance companies and a swampland of money for Big Pharma. These interventions have been a vast economic benefit to private corporations – so this can be termed “capitalist”.

    Obama policies which transfer money to his pals can be termed crony capitalism or even a form of oligarchy. Or are they capitalism for the poor and socialism for the rich?

    We think Obama is an opportunist and that is why there are such strong opinions on what label can be attached to him. In the end, it does not matter. They are labels. What we do know is that we do not like what he represents and what he has done. Some of us also don’t like him. But it does not matter and energy expended in trying to place him on the political spectrum does not accomplish much. Obama will define himself by his actions and trying to affix a label on him only divides the opposition.

    We’ll continue to think of him as a flim-flam man, although we accept “confidence man”, “self-promoter”, “scam artist”, etc. Others are free to disagree with us and form their own opinions, and we welcome that. What matters is a united opposition front that holds his feet to the fire.

  35. Opportunist, flim-flam man, and snake oil salesman are all appropriate “labels.” I think there are so many labels being attached to him, because he is void of core values, which makes a precise definition difficult and so varied. I agree, forget the labels. His actions will define him. Admin, you are right about this.

  36. Is he a “socialist”? It depends on how that is defined.

    That’s not true. You could call him a facist but not a socialist. And, if you will argue that, then you MUST argue George Bush is a socialist, because he was the one to give the tarp funds over to the banks. Oh, also, FDR=socialist. LBJ=socilist. Hillary=HUGE socialist, because she and Bill both agreed that the auto makers and the banks needed bailing out. Hillary proposed a MUCH more massive intervention of government in health care so she would be top of your list for socialist. Honestly, the argument Obama is a socialist os for small minded, bitter people who let rightwingers do their thinking for them.

  37. MJ, we are not “small minded, bitter people”. Perhaps you need to expand your horizons. In case you have not noticed many people do think Hillary is a socialist. Many people do think Bush was a socialist., Ditto FDR, LBJ and we’ll throw in Nixon. In each case the argument is advanced that they believe in (massive) state intervention and the policies are “socialist”. While we disagree with these characterizations they have a basis in fact.

    From Wikipedia: “Socialism is not a concrete philosophy of fixed doctrine and programme; its branches advocate a degree of social interventionism and economic rationalisation (usually in the form of economic planning), but sometimes oppose each other. A dividing feature of the socialist movement is the split between reformists and revolutionaries on how a socialist economy should be established. Some socialists advocate complete nationalisation of the means of production, distribution, and exchange; others advocate state control of capital within the framework of a market economy.”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

    It is the small minded that want to fit things into a slot and ignore the opinions of others. Socialism can be “reformist” or “revolutionary”. For those that believe even the most tepid state interventions are “socialist” then indeed by that definition we and Hillary, by that definition, are socialists. For Marxists that want a Pol Pot regime Hugo Chavez and Castro are capitalist enablers.

    As we wrote, the demand that everyone adhere to a one specific label for Obama, is a foolish demand. It does not get us anywhere.

  38. Our latest update:

    Update II: Zack Space of Ohio chooses to live and flips from a “yes” in November to – a “NO” today. Zack Space is a big get. Jim Matheson is also a “NO”.

    The count at DireFog is 207 “NO” and 204 “Save Obama” votes.

    Hillbuzz has photos of the Washington protests. The allegedly “pro-choice” clowns are “Save Obama” no matter that he will sign an Executive Order on abortion. No details on what the order will or will not say – or whether Obama will use blood instead of ink.

    They still don’t have the votes.

  39. Interesting discussions today. Admin, I see what you are saying about labels. It certainly is true that Obama has shown it over and over that he is really only out for himself.

  40. Now that the Slaughter Rule has been slaughtered she’s going to get hers and more.

    In Buffalo someone threw a brick through her office window.

    She and Scott Murphy, who is unfortunately one of my congressmen, are toast.

    BTW, interesting that most sites didn’t discuss the actual meaning of the word “deem.” I looked it up and aside from meaning “to take something for granted,” other definitions include “To evaluate according to one’s beliefs and to hold as a personal opinion.”

    What a bunch of MF’ers we have representing us. The b@stards don’t given a cucking frap about the constitution. And note Alcee Hasting’s words of wisdom today – “we make up the rules as as we go along.” I think he and Bradzilla have been doing the ole humpety hump or bumpety bump or whatever the heck dance that Wright clone was ranting about in January 2008. It all seems Soooooooooo long ago. I hope they all rot.

  41. quiet honestly Mj, you are sounding more and more like a bot. are you one? and before you huff and puff I am certainly not calling you one…. just merely pointing out that the thought has crossed my mind.. i don’t know and i don’t really care if you are.

    i don’t believe i am “small minded” or under the GOP mind meld. but i am mad as hell about where this country has gone and where we are headed and i do not believe
    I am seeing things wrong either.

    I believe what i believe based on things i have culled together over time and many forums and such.

    you have a right to believe what you believe as do i, and you have a right to speak your mind here just the same
    even “if” you are a obama supporter or are not.

    But!! I resent you implying that because i believe what i believe is “small minded and bitter thinking” and that i must only listen to GOP chatter.

    you do not have to agree with my point of view, but you do not have the right to insult me for what mine is.

    and while i am at it here is something else i believe.

    I do believe lobbyist are very bad for government and the american people…. they are opportunists….. as is obama

    admin is right on the money on this one. (as always)
    but he is a puppet for socialists because i believe they offered him the “opportunity”

    I think obama the man could successfully wear many hats and all would fit perfectly except for the hats of

    Honest, American, or of being proud of this country and its people.

    He has an agenda for “transformational” changing America
    and i do believe the “change” he intends is along the lines of socialism/marxism.

  42. Socialism has a specific meaning, and it simply cannot be applied to someone who uses his power to funnel trillions in dollars to Wall Street and health insurance companies. Yes, he is first, foremost and to the core an opportunist. Obama doesn’t have political ideology or, say, a philosophy of governance. Obama is a narcissist and supports policies that benefit himself, his friends and people he wants to be friends with. That’s what he is.

    Socialist policies tend to be very, very good for the people of the country – that’s why all of western Europe has longer life spans, and a lower infant mortality rate than we do. But nothing that obama is proposing here is going to be very good for ordinary people. Instead, these policies will benefit the health insurance companies and their shareholders = that’s who comes out ahead here and that means that is it not, by definition, socialism.

    His rhetoric leans to the left – that’s because narcissists all want to be loved by everyone so he’ll say what people want to hear. But you have to judge him by what he DOES and what he does supports big business at the expense of average citizens. Just as with Michelle’s scheme for the University Hospital, wealthy people will do very well under this plan and ordinary people will get less health care. We’ll be so inundated paying our premiums to health insurance companies, that we will not be able to afford the co-pays for actual health care – that’s what’s going to happen here. So what Obama has arranged is a situation where the health insurance companies get our dollars but don’t have to give us health care. It’s as dastardly as it gets. But it is not, in any way, shape, or form, socialism.

    Obama is way to the right of almost every Democrat that I know of. He may well be to the right of Reagan, who is his idol.

  43. Re: The “creative class.”

    People who are truly members of the creative class are poor. They are struggling artists, musicians, writers, poets, actors but they generally don’t qualify for Medicaid or otehr government subsidized insurance. They’re the ones who will be screwed if Obamacare passes. Since many are self-employed or underemployed, they buy their own health insurance and under Obamacare they’ll have to buy a lot more of it. The emphasis here is HAVE TO.

    So why would these folks support this bill? They might as well take every dollar they’ve ever earned and hand it over to the insurance companies.

    Makes no sense.

  44. Agreed, Obama can be labeled anything across the spectrum:

    * socialist: he stole many of Hillary’s good ideas, and don’t forget, FDR and LBJ and The Real Comeback Kid were labeled “socialists” by those who considered the term a perjorative

    * Communist: govt takeover of as much as it can (running GM, banks, etc.)

    * Fascist: brown shirt thugs sweeping him into power, implementing brain washing into the school system

    * Centrist: Lefties who see Obama sucking up to Repubs or following W’s path on this or that say he’s being pragmatic

    * Satanic; Hmmmm, just right.

  45. ACORN IMPLODING

    Obama was corruptly installed into office by the super wealthy who pulled his puppet strings, and wide-eyed lefties, and eventually more moderate folks tagged along. But as the whole Obama schtick is revealed for how corrupt and inept he really is, the more things start falling apart for the Obama Infrastructure.

    Now it is ACORN on the verge of extinction. It was a well funded power house just a couple of years ago, with its path ascending as “its guy” was “swept into office”. Now…

    nytimes.com/2010/03/20/us/politics/20acorn.html

    Acorn on Brink of Bankruptcy, Officials Say
    By IAN URBINA
    Published: March 19, 2010

    BALTIMORE — The community organizing group Acorn, battered politically from the right and suffering from mismanagement along with a severe loss of government and other funds, is on the verge of filing for bankruptcy, officials of the group said Friday.
    Acorn is holding a teleconference this weekend to discuss plans for a bankruptcy filing, two officials of the group said. They asked not to be identified because they were not authorized to speak to the news media.

    Over the last six months, at least 15 of the group’s 30 state chapters have disbanded and have no plans of re-forming, Acorn officials said. The California and New York chapters, two of the largest, have severed their ties to the national group and have independently reconstituted themselves with new names. Several other state groups are also re-forming outside the Acorn umbrella, and will not be affected if the national organization files for bankruptcy.

    This week, the Maryland chapter announced that it would not reopen its offices, which were shuttered in September in the wake of a widely publicized series of video recordings made by two conservative activists, posing as a prostitute and a pimp, who secretly filmed Acorn workers providing them tax advice. In the videos, Acorn workers told one of the activists, James E. O’Keefe III, how to hide prostitution activities from the authorities and avoid taxes, raising no objections to his proposed criminal activities.

    After the activists’ videos came to light and swiftly became fodder for 24-hour cable news coverage, private donations from foundations to Acorn all but evaporated and the federal government quickly distanced itself from the group.

    The Census Bureau ended its partnership with the organization for this year’s census, the Internal Revenue Service dropped Acorn from its Voluntary Income Tax Assistance program, and Congress voted to cut off all grants to the group.

    A network that once included more than 1,000 grass-roots groups, Acorn, which stands for Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, was created in 1970 and has fought for liberal causes like raising the minimum wage, registering the poor to vote, stopping predatory lending and expanding affordable housing. The organization helped roughly 150,000 lower-income families prepare their tax returns and obtain $190 million in tax refunds between 2004 and 2009, Acorn officials said.

    But long before the activist videos delivered what may become the final blow, the organization was dogged for years by financial problems and accusations of fraud. In the summer of 2008, infighting erupted over embezzlement of Acorn funds by the brother of the organization’s founder. Some chapters were also found to have submitted voter application forms with incorrect information on them during the lead-up to the 2008 presidential election, leading to blistering charges from conservative organizations linking Acorn’s errors to the Obama campaign.

    “That 20-minute video ruined 40 years of good work,” said Sonja Merchant-Jones, former co-chairwoman of Acorn’s Maryland chapter. “But if the organization had confronted its own internal problems, it might not have been taken down so easily.”

    The national organization’s housing affiliate, long one of the best-financed offshoots, has been hit especially hard. The group, which changed its name to the Affordable Housing Centers of America this year, now has 17 offices, down from 29 a year ago. The housing group’s annual budget has dropped to $6 million this year, down from $24 million last year.

    Some of Acorn’s state chapters have tried to remake themselves in recent months.

    Calls to Acorn’s New York City offices, for example, are now met with a recording that says: “Acorn is not providing services in New York. If you’re interested in hearing from local organizations with similar purposes, please press zero.”

    The New York chapter has been replaced by a new group, called New York Communities for Change, whose Web site promotes many of Acorn’s goals and many of whose staff and community members are the same.

    In Pittsburgh, Acorn officials said they were trying to continue work while they decided whether to stay with the national organization or form a new one. Maryellen Hayden, the volunteer director of Allegheny County’s Acorn, said the group was continuing to counsel people facing foreclosure and had recently sent two buses with dozens of members to Washington to rally for the Democratic health care bill.

    Many former Acorn staff members and beneficiaries of its work say that while the group was its own worst enemy in many ways, it was also one of the most consistent advocates for the poor. Acorn’s sudden demise, supporters say, has left a vacuum in services for communities that used to rely on it for free advice on employment, tax and loan matters.

    In Prince George’s County, Md., the Rev. Gloria Swieringa said she owed her home to Acorn. Ms. Swieringa, 72, who is blind, said her mortgage payment was $1,100 per month, more than she could afford on her fixed income of about $1,500 a month, until Acorn stepped in.

    After she tried unsuccessfully to persuade her mortgage company to lower her rate or readjust her loan, Acorn workers began writing letters, making calls and contacting the news media on her behalf. Last May, the company relented and lowered her monthly payments to $771 per month.

    “That’s what I know Acorn for,” Ms. Swieringa said. “And that’s why it’s just awful for it to disappear.”

    But other supporters have grown disenchanted. Rick Tingling-Clemmons, 66, a teacher in Washington, was an enthusiastic dues-paying member, but soured on the organization over the reports of embezzlement and dropped his affiliation last year. By the time the scandal over the videotaped employees erupted, he was already done with Acorn, he said, and he now believes it needs to reinvent itself with a new mission and a new name.

    “We get better, all of us, after we make mistakes that we learn from,” he said. “It’s from those mistakes that we learn and we get smarter. I think the people in Acorn will get smarter.”

    Bertha Lewis, the chief executive of Acorn, said in an e-mail message that her organization’s problems were the result of “a series of well-orchestrated, relentless, well-funded right-wing attacks” reminiscent of the McCarthy era.

    “Our effective work empowering African-American and low-income voters made us a target,” she said. “And the videos were a manufactured, sensational story that led to a rush to judgment and an unconstitutional act by Congress.”

    In the month after the videos were released, Acorn commissioned an internal audit by a former attorney general of Massachusetts, Scott Harshbarger. His report, released in December, said the employees portrayed in the videos had not engaged in any illegal activity. Last month, the Brooklyn district attorney’s office completed an investigation of the Acorn employees there who appeared in the video and concluded that they had not taken part in any criminality.

    Nonetheless, the damage had been done. Republicans and conservatives attacked the group, in part because the group’s registration efforts typically signed up voters who were believed to support Democrats. Those critics saw the videos as evidence of Acorn’s corruption.

    Darrell Issa of California, the ranking Republican on the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, described Acorn at a December hearing as a “criminal organization” working hand-in-glove with the Obama administration. In February, committee Republicans released a report saying that Acorn “exploits the poor and vulnerable” for political gain.

    A federal district court judge in New York ruled in December that the Congressional ban on funding for the group was unconstitutional. This month, the same judge barred federal officials from enforcing it, but no federal money is flowing to the organization while the government appeals the ruling.

    In January, Mr. O’Keefe and three other men were arrested in New Orleans and accused of trying to tamper with the office telephone system of Senator Mary L. Landrieu, Democrat of Louisiana.

    Mr. O’Keefe has denied the charges and said the group was trying to investigate complaints that constituents calling Ms. Landrieu’s office could not get through to criticize her support of a health care overhaul bill.

  46. TOE SUCKER EXPLAINS ONE HALF OF THE OBAMA LOSE / LOSE

    realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/03/20/why_democrats_are_doomed_if_obamacare_passes_104860.html

    March 20, 2010
    Why Democrats Are Doomed if ObamaCare Passes
    ==============
    By Dick Morris

    If the House Democratic majority passes Obama’s health care proposals, one of two things will happen by Election Day, 2010 — and neither one will be healthy for the Democrats seeking re-election.

    Either the Medicare cuts will take effect or they will be postponed by a terrified Congress.

    If they take effect, physicians’ fees will be slashed 21 percent and hospital reimbursements for Medicare patients will be cut by $1.3 billion. Tens of thousands of doctors and thousands of health care institutions — hospitals, hospices, outpatient clinics and such — will refuse to treat Medicare patients.

    Entire cities will be without one doctor in important specialties who will take care of the elderly on Medicare. Particularly in fields like G.I. care or arthritic and joint pain, doctors will simply refuse to accept the low reimbursement rates they are being offered and hospitals will refuse all but emergency care to Medicare patients. In effect, the elderly will experience a doctors’ strike against Medicare patients.

    Congress, faced with this massive revolt coming right on the verge of the election, may back down and postpone the cuts. Originally, doctor reimbursement rates were scheduled to drop on March 1 of this year, but Congress postponed it until the fall. Now the Democrats in Congress will face not only cuts in doctors’ fees but in all forms of Medicare reimbursement — the so-called “market basket” of cuts programmed into Obamacare.

    Congress, being Congress, will probably seek to postpone the cuts until after Election Day. But in doing so, they would expose the deficit-reduction and cost-containment features of Obama’s bill for the fraud that they are. The news media headlines would blare that Congress just voted to add tens or hundreds of billions to the deficit, and the big-spending, high-borrowing image of Congress will worsen. All pretense that Obamacare is not a reckless spending bill will be stripped away, and we will be face to face with the reality that it will add hugely to the deficit.
    All this will come at precisely the time that House and Senate Democrats are scrambling to rebut the attacks of their Republican challengers over these very issues. If Congress votes to postpone the Medicare cuts, as a former secretary of health and human services predicted to me, they will have to answer for their fiscal irresponsibility right before the election.

    Either poison — the cuts or the deficit — will be enough to eradicate an entire generation of House and Senate Democrats.

    And these cuts will take place against a backdrop of continuing increases in health insurance premiums, no expansion of coverage (it doesn’t kick in until 2013) and no tangible benefit from the Obama bill.

    This is the prospect the House and Senate Democrats who vote for Obamacare will face in the fall of 2010. This is the record they will have to defend.

    Or, they could save their political lives and vote no.

  47. Dija, I am pissed off too, but not because Obama is freaking socialist. Sounding like a bot? I said you could argue he was a freaking FACIST!

    I will just say two more things on the matter, basement angel has it right on socialism. And, yes, admin, I know right wingers have long called Hillary and those others socialist, but I also know those wingers have a few screws loose. That’s my point.

  48. orangepunch.freedomblogging.com/2010/03/19/obamacare-remains-unpopular-with-the-people/19435/

    ObamaCare remains unpopular with — the people
    March 19th, 2010, 9:54 am · 17 Comments · posted by by Alan Bock, Register editorial writer

    As Congress moves toward a narrow partisan vote (however it turns out on Sunday) on what is probably the most far-reaching legislation since Medicare (which passed by solid bipartisan consensus-like majorities), the evidence is that the administration and congressional Democrats are still flying in the face of public opinion. The gap is not as dramatic as it was a few weeks ago, but the evidence of public opinion polls is still that most Americans still think that this legislation will make the country and themselves worse off.

    The latest comes from a Gallup poll conducted Wednesday. It showed that for most groups in society Gallup’s respondents thought they would be worse off. Those polled did think lower-income families and those without health insurance would be better off, but the U.S. as a whole, middle-income families, hospitals, doctors, pharmaceutical companies, insurance companies, “you and your family” and upper-income families would all be worse off rather than better off if the bill passes, by margins ranging from 5 to 25%. The highest percentage who thought it would “make things better” (except for the poor and uninsured) was 39%.

    The results were extremely polarized as to self-identified Republicans and Democrats.

    This dovetails nicely with a California Field Poll that asked slightly different questions. 80% of Californians give Congress a rating of poor. The same percentage disapproves of Congress’s handling of health care. President Obama’s overall approval rating has slipped from 56% to 52%. On the question of Obama’s handling of health care, however, approval was notably lower, with voters split 45-45 in approval and disapproval. More details are here, and more complete statistical tabulations here. Gallup has a lower rating for Obama in a national poll, 46 approve and 48 disapprove.

    It is hard to believe that pushing through this legislation on a strictly partisan vote will redound to the benefit of the Democratic party. If it passes, the thing to watch for is how many “yes” voters get special goodies for their districts, and how many of those who end up losing in November get cushy jobs like ambassadorships. At this point most of the deals are still being cut behind the scenes.

  49. rollcall.com/news/44382-1.html?type=aggregate_friendly

    Phone Calls Continue to Batter Congress
    ===================================

    By Emily Yehle

    March 19, 2010, 12:38 p.m.

    Members continued to be inundated with phone calls from constituents and interest groups Friday thanks to an impending vote on health care reform this weekend.

    Calls to the House numbered close to 100,000 an hour, creating a bottleneck in a phone system only meant to handle 50,000 calls an hour. The chamber has been similarly overloaded for four consecutive days, beginning on Tuesday when radio host Rush Limbaugh told viewers to call the Capitol switchboard phone number.

    Jeff Ventura, spokesman for Chief Administrative Officer Dan Beard, said the problem was essentially unsolvable. The issue lies with the capacity of the cables buried underneath the Capitol complex — and even if those could be dug up and replaced, Members simply don’t have enough staff to answer so many calls, he said.

    “Our capacity rate is about 50,000 calls an hour, and once we hit the 40,000 mark, we start to get these signals,” he said. “We’re beyond that. There’s no other way to say it other than the system is at capacity.”

    Officials expect calls to taper off after the House’s scheduled Sunday vote on the health care reform package. But Ventura emphasized that the system for staffers’ BlackBerrys and smartphones was running smoothly.

    “It’s not like Congress has come to a communication standstill,” he said.

    This isn’t the first time Congress has been overcome with phone calls and e-mails in the runup to an important vote. Interest in the 2008 stimulus bill crashed House.gov and some Member Web sites, and in November, the Senate’s voice mail system was overloaded before the chamber’s cloture vote on health care reform legislation.

    “It’s hard to predict the interest in this kind of legislation,” Ventura said. “I mean it’s historic. Here you have piece of legislation that is so defining, it’s just causing massive interest.”

  50. mj
    March 20th, 2010 at 9:10 pm
    Dija, I am pissed off too, but not because Obama is freaking socialist. Sounding like a bot? I said you could argue he was a freaking FACIST!

    I will just say two more things on the matter, basement angel has it right on socialism. And, yes, admin, I know right wingers have long called Hillary and those others socialist, but I also know those wingers have a few screws loose. That’s my point.
    ————————————————————————————————-

    Basement Angel was correct in her assessment. Also, MJ is not a bot. Jeez….

  51. dailycaller.com/2010/03/19/chaos-stupak-proposal-riles-pro-choice-dems-but-shows-pelosi-may-not-have-the-votes/

    chaos: Stupak proposal riles pro-choice Dems but shows Pelosi may not have the votes
    By Jon Ward – The Daily Caller 03/19/10 at 7:53 PM

    UPDATE – SATURDAY 11 A.M. – Stupak’s press conference, which was scheduled for 11 a.m. and was thought to be where he would unveil his proposal, has been postponed indefinitely. Time’s Jay Newton Small is reporting that a Democratic whip meeting has just been scheduled for noon.

    National Review is reporting that Stupak has broken off negotiations with Speaker Nancy Pelosi. These don’t seem to be good signs for Democrats, given that if Pelosi was negotiating with Stupak over pro-life votes, that would indicate they don’t have enough votes without them.

    Hang on to your hats.

    *****

    An attempt late Friday by Rep. Bart Stupak, a pro-life Michigan Democrat, to change abortion language in President Obama’s health care bill riled pro-choice lawmakers who vowed not to allow the revision.

    The move by Stupak, who holds a crucial bloc of Democratic votes that if released would clear the way for the health bill, threw Capitol Hill into confusion late Friday, less than two days before the House is set to vote on the landmark legislation.

    Stupak, leaving the Capitol, said that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s willingness to talk to him about his idea shows Democrats “don’t have the votes, or they wouldn’t be talking to me,” he said in an interview with The Hill’s Molly Hooper.

    It was not entirely clear how exactly Stupak’s proposal would work. Stupak is reportedly trying to change the abortion language through a procedure called a “concurrent resolution,” but a parliamentarian expert told The Daily Caller that such a move would face huge hurdles.

    The House would likely have to pass the Senate bill, and then hold it back from going to the president for his signature while they voted on the concurrent resolution. Or the president could receive the bill but not sign it into law, waiting for the resolution changing the abortion language to go through the Senate.

    The chances of passing such a provision through the Senate, in addition, are not good.

    Nonetheless, Pelosi appeared to be taking the proposal seriously, judging by the reaction from her pro-choice caucus.

    Rep. Diana Degette, Colorado Democrat, emerged clearly agitated from a meeting with Pelosi and other pro-choice members in a room just off the House floor.

    She said the Stupak proposal was a “non-starter.”

    “Nobody likes this,” she said, claiming that more than 40 pro-choice Democrats would oppose the move.

    “If Mr. Stupak and a few members … decide to use this to take health care down, then that loss of health care coverage will be on them,” she said.

    Asked if she was willing to vote against the health care bill if Stupak got his way, she said “we are not going to vote for a bill that restricts the woman’s right to choose beyond current law.”

    “So you’re willing to take down the health care bill?” the Daily Caller asked.

    “That’s it! That’s all I’m saying!” she said.

    She then added: “I’m not taking any bill down.”

    Pelosi, hurrying out of the meeting with the pro-choice caucus, refused to talk to reporters as she headed to a meeting with other lawmakers in her offices.

    Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2010/03/19/chaos-stupak-proposal-riles-pro-choice-dems-but-shows-pelosi-may-not-have-the-votes/#ixzz0ilqaUuqk

  52. Reports of John Lewis and another being called the “N” world. I respect that man, but you knew somehow “race” would come in down the wire…the bill is being compared by some to the civil rights act..not a very good analogy imho.

  53. realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/03/20/the_difference_between_a_president_and_a_king_104859.html

    March 20, 2010
    The Difference Between a President and a King
    =========================================
    By Jeremy Lott

    Washington, D.C. is consumed with talk of healthcare reform. This is not popular with the rest of the country, if polls are anything like a reliable indicator. Yet everybody here keeps jawing about it because President Barack Obama is determined that a bill simply must pass. He speechifies about it endlessly and he and his surrogates are busy twisting arms until enough members of his own party cry “Uncle!”

    In a telling phrase, the AP reported that Obama was “turning up pressure as only presidents can” in search of those final votes. He met privately with several members of Congress to convince them to vote for the bill, over their loud public objections to its contents. He offered opera tickets to Bart Stupak and gave Dennis Kucinich a ride on Air Force One. However he hasn’t been so nice to all the likely no votes. The less said about his naked chief-of-staff, the better, but Obama has reportedly told Democrats who don’t vote for the bill that they shouldn’t expect his support in the midterm elections. His close allies the labor unions are calling for primary challengers to those wavering congressmen who decide to vote against the bill.

    Right now, people are betting on Obama’s success – literally. Punters on Intrade.com give it a better than 70 percent chance of passing. They are likely looking to history as their guide. The last major expansion of U.S. government healthcare was the massive drug subsidy of Medicare Part D. It occurred in 2003 when President George W. Bush put the screws to an extremely reluctant Republican Congress.

    D.C. Examiner online opinion editor David Freddoso was then covering Capitol Hill for Human Events. He told me he had talked to Iowa Congressman Steve King “on the phone maybe three hours before the vote. King said he absolutely was going to vote against it and then he voted for it.” King wasn’t alone. Several holdouts caved at the last minute, leading Freddoso to be extremely skeptical of any publicly announced whip counts on bills that the president cares about.

    The congressmen caved because of the tremendous pressure the president brought to bear on members of his own party. In one case, Bush’s operatives sent letters to all the big financial donors of one stubborn Republican opponent, telling them not to give him money. If you believe Obama is above that sort of thing, drop me an e-mail. We should talk about a timeshare.

    This is not how the presidency was supposed to work, argues Gene Healy, a vice president at the libertarian Cato Institute and author of The Cult of the Presidency. The president was supposed to be a “limited constitutional officer,” not the man who “sets the national agenda” and “bullies Congress into submission” through his media provided pulpit or through more direct pressures. Certainly, said Healy, many of our early presidents were involved in the details of legislation but the “niceties that had to be observed” forbade the sort of threats and speech making that many recent presidents have been so keen on.

    “For most of the nineteenth century,” Healy told me Tuesday, “the legislature was in the driver’s seat.” In fact, Andrew Jackson, the first president to really embrace the bully pulpit, inspired a whole new political party to rise up against his allegedly tyrannical rule. Healy observed that the founders would have considered Obama’s recent harangue in Ohio – in which the president ordered Congress to damn the polls and pass the legislation, already – “the height of demagoguery.”

    It’s not just right-of-center types who are concerned with our too powerful executive. During the Bush years, countless liberals warned of the return of an “imperial presidency.” Liberal historian Garry Wills’s latest book, Bomb Power, is all about how our modern executive has turned into a sort of elected monarch with few checks on his authority. Wills and company are more concerned with how the president treats matters of war and peace and civil liberties, but the president’s ability to impose an unpopular agenda matters just as much, I should think. In the end, the difference between a president and a king is quite simple: you can say no to a president.

  54. Basement Angel, there have been plenty of self-identified “socialists” who are monsters. There are plenty of horrid states that identified as “socialist”. You say that “Socialist policies tend to be very, very good for the people of the country” but that ignores so much history. Ceausescu was a monster who called himself a socialist and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics was a horrid gulag. The entire “socialist” Eastern European bloc was a captive people ruled by monsters who called themselves “socialist”.

    We suppose that it is possible to call “socialist” only those states that are “evil” or only those states that are viewed as “good” – but that does not take us vary far. By the way, most of the “socialist” monsters did indeed funnel money to their friends in industry (and their own pockets). The argument is then to say “Oh, but they are not really socialists” – which brings us back to the runaround. Declaring someone’s analysis has “a few screws loose” does not get us far either.

    Western Europeans can be termed “good socialists” but they indeed do share the “socialist” label with some of the most horrific states in the history of the planet.

    George W. Bush was termed to be “socialist”, “fascist”, and he described himself as a “compassionate conservative” – all have a case to be made for them but we think “spoiled brat” is probably where we place him. Many conservatives did not think Bush was a conservative at all. Many conservatives think John McCain is a socialist too. None of this takes us very far.

    These arguments bring so much personal history into how we label others on the ideological spectrum that we wind up in a fog. We think Hillary was the most “progressive” candidate out there because we took into account her entire history and all the knowledge we have of her going back so many years. We certainly do not view her as “socialist” – but many do and attack her for her views.

    Most of the Hopium guzzlers viewed Obama as the more “progressive” candidate. We mocked that analysis because he had such little history of being a “progressive” and his rhetoric was frequently an attack on what was up until 2008 viewed as core Democratic values. The Hopium guzzlers never argued from fact or history – they called Hillary a dynast and a DLC triangulator bent on sucking up to corporations and the power elite. Obama to these Hopium guzzlers was an object of faith which made logical discourse impossible. He was the one that would bring change and Hillary to these often well-educated buffoons was the candidate of the hated establishment. To them Obama was the progressive and Hillary was not. To us Hillary was the progressive and Obama the regressive. To many Hillary supporters Hillary was a moderate.

    The Hopium guzzlers were wrong, we are right, on who was the establishment candidate. If anything Hillary was feared by the establishment. We thought Hillary was the best person for the job, but to argue her merits by slapping a label on her as “most progressive” or something leads down a dry well because to some people “progressive” is not a good thing, to some it is the only thing.

    One last example: the “creative class” think of themselves as “progressives” and denounce us as disguised right wing Republicans. We call them PINOs because by their own definition they violate their own values (for instance Hillary had the most progressive rhetoric and policies on health care and Social Security and Obama had the most anti-progressive rhetoric and polices on these issues). Both Hillary and Obama self-identify as “progressives” but we certainly don’t view Obama as a “progressive”.

    Where does any of this label slapping get us? What do you call someone who is fiscally “conservative” (meaning they like balanced budgets best) and a social liberal who wants people to be allowed opportunity based on their character not color of skin, gender, orientation, ethnicity, religion, etc.?

    We certainly don’t lose any sleep over attacks on Big Pink or Hillary supporters and the labels we get placed on us. We are sure the PINOs don’t lose sleep over the way we mock them (although we might be wrong based on the obsessive behavior we witness via email).

  55. PROMISES, PROMISES? LIAR LIAR!

    sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2010/03/19/national/w131302D40.DTL&tsp=1

    Final health bill omits some of Obama’s promises
    ==============================

    By ERICA WERNER, Associated Press Writer
    Friday, March 19, 2010

    It was a bold response to skyrocketing health insurance premiums. President Barack Obama would give federal authorities the power to block unreasonable rate hikes.

    Yet when Democrats unveiled the final, incarnation of their health care bill this week, the proposal was nowhere to be found.

    Ditto with several Republican ideas that Obama had said he wanted to include after a televised bipartisan summit last month, including a plan by Sen. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma to send investigators disguised as patients to hospitals in search of waste, fraud and abuse.

    And those “special deals” that Obama railed against and said he wanted to eliminate? With the exception of two of the most notorious — extra Medicaid money for Nebraska and a carve-out for Florida seniors faced with losing certain extra Medicare benefits — they are all still there.

    For the White House, these were the latest unfulfilled commitments related to Obama’s health care proposal, starting with his campaign promise to let C-SPAN cameras film negotiations over the bill. Obama also backed down with little apparent regret on his support for a new government-run insurance plan as part of the legislation, a liberal priority.

    But was it all the president’s doing?

    In the cases of the insurance rate authority, the Republican ideas and the special deals, it came down to Obama making promises that Congress didn’t keep. He can propose whatever he wants, but it’s up to Congress to enshrine it into law.

    Arguably, the president could have foreseen that outcome, and was making a low-risk p.r. move by floating proposals — dismissed by critics as insubstantial anyway — whose demise he couldn’t be blamed for.

    While the White House worked hard to trumpet Obama’s plans for the rate authority, his embrace of bipartisanship and his opposition to special deals, the administration hardly advertised the lack of follow-through. Understandable, certainly, but perhaps not the new way of doing business that Obama promised to bring to Washington.

    Removing the special deals ran into opposition from powerful lawmakers including Sens. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., and Max Baucus, D-Mont. The rate-limiting authority and the Republican ideas were left out of the legislation because the bill is going to be considered under special filibuster-proof Senate rules that prohibit provisions that don’t have a budgetary impact, and those ideas don’t fit in.

    “There are a number of proposals that the president wanted to incorporate into the legislation including additional Republican proposals, but the parliamentarian ruled against allowing those proposals to be included,” said White House spokesman Reid Cherlin. “We would like to enact those proposals in separate legislation in the coming months. In the meantime, some important Republican measures remain.”

    Of the four main Republican ideas Obama endorsed, only one made it into the final bill — a proposal embraced by Sen. Charles Grassley of Iowa to bump up payments to primary care physicians under Medicaid. A proposal to expand the use of health savings accounts was rejected out of hand by congressional Democrats, while a plan to increase funding for medical malpractice reform projects was also determined to be undoable under fast-track Senate rules.

    Coburn’s spokesman, John Hart, complained that Democrats “found time to buy votes with earmarks but couldn’t include bipartisan ideas endorsed by President Obama.” House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, had dismissed the GOP ideas Obama endorsed as “bread crumbs” sprinkled atop the health bill — and now even most of those bread crumbs are blown away.

    At the same time, Baucus got to keep a provision to give Medicare benefits to asbestos-sickened residents of Libby, Mont., and Dodd still has one that could result in a new hospital being built at the University of Connecticut. Both senators argue their special deals aren’t really special deals, because the Medicare provision could apply to other places where public health emergencies are declared, and other sites outside of Connecticut could be eligible for the hospital.

    Most of the provisions of the health care bill don’t kick in until 2014, so Obama still has time to make good on everything he promised — or try to get Congress to do so.

    “To hold the president accountable for every single provision he advocates for is simply unreasonable,” said Alec Vachon, a health policy consultant and former Republican Capitol Hill aide. “Some things aren’t in there because the members of Congress who have the votes don’t want it. Some things aren’t in there because congressional rules which Republicans will be enforcing won’t allow it. But Democrats will have three years to tinker with health reform before universal coverage goes live.”

  56. Rgb44Hrc, without a way to keep premium costs down, Obama health insurance will be a loser’s game. Taxpayers will pay rising costs for junk insurance that gives them nothing.

  57. Our latest update:

    Update: It’s been a while since our last update, but guess what: They Still Don’t Have The Votes.

    A supposed “Save Obama” vote says ‘it ain’t so’. Representative Glenn Nye still undecided or something. The New York Times says he’s a “NO”.

    National Review writes that the abortion executive order is the treachery to be discussed tonight “Dem staffer says “this still isn’t nailed down”‘. Pro-choice “leader” DeGette has saluted the plan.

    DireFog has the vote at this astonishing result: “Save Obama” 205; “NO” 207, leaning “NO” 10! unknown 9.

    Back to the treachery of the night.

    Looking at the numbers, I don’t see a really good way to evade the Stupak bloc without pulling the trigger on the executive order from the President clarifying no federal funding for abortion services. While Diana DeGette has agreed to such a maneuver, I’ve heard nobody in the Stupak bloc actually do the same. Apparently members are reading the proposed language.

    The “creative clueless” agree:

    Looking at the latest vote counts from The New York Times and David Dayen, tomorrow’s vote still hinges on the current size of the Stupak bloc.

    Last but not least, here’s Zack Space on why he votes “NO”:

    “Getting it done just to get it done is not something we should be doing. We should be doing it right,” Space told the Gannett Washington Bureau in a phone interview late Saturday.

    Space said he has been getting calls and letters from his constituents, most of whom do not like the bill.

    “I’m doing what I think is right,” Space said. “I have been under enormous amount of pressure this week in Washington. I have spoken to the president twice, once in the Oval Office. My own leadership has been working hard to get me to vote for this. But I don’t represent them. I represent the people in the 18th Congressional District.

    Now that is a shocking revolutionary statement!



    Keep fighting. They Still Don’t Have The Votes!

  58. Thanks MJ.

    Sanchez! Viva Sanchez!

    She was a “yes” in November. The “NOs” still rolling in even after the big publicity stunt this afternoon. The DireFog number is now “Save Obama” 205, “NO!” 209, leaning “NO” 10, unknown 8.

    Why is this a shocker? She was an easy “Save Obama” vote but instead…

    “The Senate bill is a bad bill,” she told the paper.

    Politically, the vote should be a relatively easy lift for Sanchez. The seven-term lawmaker has been re-elected with at least 60 percent of the vote since 2000, winning by a decisive 69 percent in 2008. President Barack Obama carried the district by 60 percent.

    Expect Sanchez to be beaten up until she changes her “NO”. The “NO” vote is still ahead. The “Save Obama” Hopium guzzlers are behind. They still don’t have the votes.

  59. Dear Admin,

    Oh, lots of horrible people have used the rhetoric of socialism to win the rights of a tyrant. But what I’m saying here is that if you judge Obama by what he does, rather than by what he says, he’s not a socialist – at least, not as socialism is defined as a political ideology. He is very much on the right end of the spectrum. And you are, of course, absolutely right about him not having an ideology and being a narcissist. Everything he does is about making himself and his friends rich or richer – personally, I think that’s 100% of his motivation. He’s here to rob us all blind, if he can.

  60. “He’s here to rob us all blind, if he can.” yes.

    #
    birdgal
    March 20th, 2010 at 11:55 pm

    Where is Sanchez from?

    California.

  61. mj
    March 20th, 2010 at 11:57 pm
    “He’s here to rob us all blind, if he can.” yes.

    #
    birdgal
    March 20th, 2010 at 11:55 pm

    Where is Sanchez from?

    California.
    ——————————————————————————

    I was wondering if that was her. I believe she is from Southern CA and was a Hillary supporter, IIRC. I think she also has a sister who is in politics.

  62. I don’t know if this has been posted but I just read that John Hall (NY) is voting YES. Don’t know if he has been counted in Admins tally of votes.

  63. Well. I still think it will pass. Pelosi only lost one vote as Speaker(does anyone remember what this was on? For the life of me, I can not) and with all the hoopla, i don’t think she would allow herself to be humiliated. House members are pawns. They are up every two years. The Dems can spare some House members. My guess is they will blackmail the last few into it.

  64. This is amazing theatre. They really don’t have the votes. And this is the thing about the Democrats right now, not a one of them has any sense of theatre. The Republicans are only about theatre, but the Democrats are as hamfisted as any group in history. They don’t have the theatrical panache to pull this illusion off well enough to make it work. They may hammer enough reps into voting yes for it to pass, but they won’t win by crafting the illusion. They just don’t have the showmanship.

  65. I really don’t even think that Obama cares about making his “friends” richer. Narcissists don’t have friends, they have people that they can use and that are willing to be used – those are the people that they “value.” The whole HCB debacle at this point has become nothing more than a giant narcissistic temper tantrum scheduled to climax around 2pm tomorrow. And this kid has most of the “adults” at his disposal just terrified of him, obviously.

  66. There are definitely some leftie ideologues on this site, but to each their own. I believe Obama indeed is a socialist, but now that he has gained the presidency, he has found that he is just a figurehead that [supposedly] gives a good speech, but is controlled by some big money supporters.

    By the way, you don’t have to be poor to be a socialist. Look
    at Soros. He makes his money through capitalism but spouts leftist bullshit.
    Neither poltical extreme is good in my opinion, and I’ve come to believe in
    the past couple of years that Republican doesn’t automatically mean “bad”. I believe the extreme left to actually be more dangerous to America than the extreme right, and I have felt that way for some time, even as I voted straight Democratic ballots fro
    1980 through 2006. That all changed in 2008. Hillary got, actually earned my vote in the Florida primary, and the corrupt DNC, the champions of democracy, took might vote away. Republicans gained a voter in me until I feel
    sufficiently satisfied that the corrupt Democratic party has either ceased to exist, or has purged itself of it’s leftist scum.

  67. So happy to see some Democrats voting “no” in the final
    act of this bizarro circus. Maybe Slaughter will accidentally vote “no” tomorrow because of her perpetual confusion.

  68. Obama doesn’t have a single socialist accomplishment to his name, though he has oodles of accomplishment at odds with socialism. Obama has never done anything for ordinary people – not even once. And if you have no history of working to improve the lives of ordinary people and an extensive history of working to make the wealthy wealthier, then you are not a socialist.

    Personal wealth is irrelevant to whether someone is a socialist. It’s what you do that defines whether you are a socialist, and none of Obama’s actions are the actions of a socialist. He’s very conservative in what he does. He’s opposed to gay rights, regards women as second class citizens, doesn’t support unions, is in favor of involving religion with the government, and is pursuing economic policies that only benefit the already wealthy.

    There is literally no reason to think he is a socialist. He sure as hell wouldn’t have repped Rezko if he was.

  69. Obama’s current life as president does not reflect well on Obama’s past life as whatever he was. He had what I can only describe as socialist sympathies. I believe that if Obama did not have to worry about the big money that props up each administration that occupies the White House including his own, you would see the ugly face of socialism here. Yes, socialism is ugly because it takes away incentive, and it stifles individuality. You referenced Europe, but they are hybrid versions of socialist democracies. Straight out socialism and it’s close cousins communism and Marxism were a ruse in which they described themselves as people’s democracies that were actually stifling dictatorships that crushed personal freedoms. I have to write that it troubles me when I read comments that promote socialism as something good. In practice, it has always evolved into exploitive governments that
    treat their citizens badly while those in the higher levels of government treat themselves lavishly. The admin best described Obama as an opportunist, but still, given his druthers, Obama if allowed to govern how he would prefer, would have no problems with following a socialist path. I thank God that he has constraints
    on him that prevent him from trying to do so.

  70. Also, are you trying to say that all socialists support gay rights? If you are, then I think that would be an invalid assumption.

  71. Nobama,

    No, that’s simply not an accurate portrayal of socialism. England, Canada, France, Sweden are all socialist countries. Socialism stifles nothing. It’s simply a brake on the process of money funneling upwards as money inevitably does. Lots of very wealthy, financially sound and sophisticated nations are socialist in orientation.

    As for Obama’s past life – no, there is nothing to suggest in his actions that he was ever a socialist. Repping Rezko is as far from socialism as it gets. He has no history as a state senator of pursuing legislation that was socialist in orientation. At every step of the way, he sells out without hesitation to the highest bidder. When it comes to healthcare, he earns kudos from the insurance industry for seeing things there way and reworking the sCHIP legislation to their specifications. When it comes to nuclear energy, even though his is a coal state, you find him massaging the legislation to the benefit of the nuclear power industry. When Maytag is moving to bust their union and take jobs from Chicago, Obama does nothing to stop them and hundreds of high paying jobs are lost. I know of no point in his life when he has sided with ordinary people over corporate industry.

  72. Obama – combining the visionary, principled leadership of James Buchanan, with the progressive compassionate courage of Wilson, with financial insight and political dexterity of Hoover and the integrity of Reagan. He’s a real winner, alright.

    However this vote ends, this process is catastrophically ugly. I can’t believe that this is unfolding in such a morbid fashion.

  73. The story I am hearing is that Obama promised Kuccinich’s wife a job, and that was the quid pro quo for him to flip. I got this from Eric Erickson who acknowledges that it is a rumor. As I look at that pint sized geek Dennis, and then look at that wife of his it is pretty obvious the man is desperate. He has to find some way to make her happy and maybe this is it. But that is a hell of a reason for him to betray the country. Treason should be made of sterner stuff.

  74. It’s better to be paralyzed from the neck down (like Krauthammer), than to be paralyzed from the neck up (like Feineman, Kornblutt, Ezra Kline, Modo, Georgie Boy Stephanopolis, Mitchell the Malignant Dwarf, Olberstrumfeurer, Maddog, Tweetie, Tapper, the editors of AP and NYT, Chuckie Cheeze the sleezeball Todd, et al). The latter are personally responsible for the destruction of our country. If you took their combined IQ and squared it they could not measure up to Krauthammer.
    —————————————————————————————

    Dr. Charles Krauthammer

    Dr. Krauthammer is on Fox News. He is an M.D. and a lawyer and is paralyzed from the neck down. A friend went to hear Charles Krauthammer. He listened with 25 others in a closed room. What he says here, is NOT 2nd-hand but 1st. The ramifications are staggering for us, our children and their children.

    Last Monday was a profound evening; Dr. Charles Krauthammer spoke to the Center for the American Experiment. He is a brilliant intellectual, seasoned & articulate. He is forthright and careful in his analysis, and never resorts to emotions or personal insults. He is NOT a fear monger nor an extremist in his comments and views. He is a fiscal conservative, and has received a Pulitzer Prize for writing. He is a frequent contributor to Fox News and writes weekly for the Washington Post.

    The entire room was held spellbound during his talk. I have summarized his comments, as we are living in uncharted waters economically and internationally.

    Even 2 Dems at my table agreed with everything he said! If you feel like forwarding this to those who are open minded and have not drunk the Kool-Aid, feel free.

    Summary of his comments:

    1. Mr. Obama is a very intellectual, charming individual. He is not to be underestimated. He is a cool customer who doesn’t show his emotions. It’s very hard to know what’s behind the mask. The taking down of the Clinton dynasty was an amazing accomplishment. The Clintons still do not understand what hit them. Obama was in the perfect place at the perfect time.

    2 Obama has political skills comparable to Reagan and Clinton. He has a way of making you think he’s on your side, agreeing with your position, while doing the opposite. Pay no attention to what he SAYS; rather, watch what he DOES!

    3. Obama has a ruthless quest for power. He did not come to Washington to make something out of himself, but rather to change everything, including dismantling capitalism. He can’t be straightforward on his ambitions, as the public would not go along.

    He has a heavy hand, and wants to level the playing field with income redistribution and punishment to the achievers of society. He would like to model the USA to Great Britain or Canada .

    4. His three main goals are to control ENERGY, PUBLIC EDUCATION, and NATIONAL HEALTHCARE by the Federal government. He doesn’t care about the auto or financial services industries, but got them as an early bonus. The cap and trade will add costs to everything and stifle growth. Paying for FREE college education is his goal. Most scary is his healthcare program, because if you make it FREE and add 46,000,000 people to a Medicare-type single-payer system, the costs will go through the roof. The only way to control costs is with massive RATIONING of services, like in Canada .God forbid!

    5. He has surrounded himself with mostly far-left academic types. No one around him has ever even run a candy store. But they are going to try and run the auto, financial, banking and other industries. This obviously can’t work in the long run. Obama is not a socialist; rather he’s a far-left secular progressive bent on nothing short of revolution. He ran as a moderate, but will govern from the hard left. Again, watch what he does, not what he says.

    6. Obama doesn’t really see himself as President of the United States , but more as a ruler over the world. He sees himself above it all, trying to orchestrate & coordinate various countries and their agendas. He sees moral equivalency in all cultures. His apology tour in Germany and England was a prime example of how he sees America , as an imperialist nation that has been arrogant, rather than a great noble nation that has at times made errors. This is the first President ever who has chastised our allies and appeased our enemies!

    7. He is now handing out goodies. He hopes that the bill (and pain) will not come due until after he is reelected in 2012. He would like to blame all problems on Bush from the past, and hopefully his successor in the future. He has a huge ego, and Dr. Krauthammer believes he is a narcissist.

    8. Republicans are in the wilderness for a while, but will emerge strong. Republicans are pining for another Reagan, but there will never be another like him. Krauthammer believes Mitt Romney, Tim Pawlenty & Bobby Jindahl (except for his terrible speech in February) are the future of the party. Newt Gingrich is brilliant, but has baggage. Sarah Palin is sincere and intelligent, but needs to really be seriously boning up on facts and info if she is to be a serious candidate in the future.. We need to return to the party of lower taxes, smaller government, personal responsibility, strong national defense, and state’s rights.

    9. The current level of spending is irresponsible and outrageous We are spending trillions that we don’t have. This could lead to hyperinflation, depression or worse. No country has ever spent themselves into prosperity. The media is giving Obama, Reid and Pelosi a pass because they love their agenda. But eventually the bill will come due and people will realize the huge bailouts didn’t work, nor will the stimulus package. These were trillion-dollar payoffs to Obama’s allies, unions and the Congress to placate the left, so he can get support for #4 above.

    10. The election was over in mid-September when Lehman brothers failed, fear and panic swept in, we had an unpopular President, and the war was grinding on indefinitely without a clear outcome. The people are in pain, and the mantra of change caused people to act emotionally. Any Dem would have won this election; it was surprising it was as close as it was.

    11. In 2012, if the unemployment rate is over 10%, Republicans will be swept back into power. If it’s under 8%, the Dems continue to roll. If it’s between 8-10%, it will be a dogfight. It will all be about the economy. I hope this gets you really thinking about what’s happening in Washington and Congress. There is a left-wing revolution going on, according to Krauthammer, and he encourages us to keep the faith and join the loyal resistance. The work will be hard, but we’re right on most issues and can reclaim our country, before it’s far too late.

    Do yourself a long term favor, send this to all who will listen to an intelligent assessment of the big picture. All our futures and children’s futures depend on our good understanding of what is really going on in DC, and our action pursuant to that understanding!! It really IS up to each of us to take individual action!! Start with educating your friends and neighbors!!!

  75. It continues to astound us. Obama wanted his “situation comedy” coalition and threw out the most reliable and largest group of off year election voters – seniors – and now the Republicans/conservatives are making a winning play for those voters. Truly transformational.

  76. I don’t know, Wbboei, that’s pretty feverish stuff and he doesn’t substantiate it with anything. Obama’s closest, long term associate seems to be Tony Rezko. According to FBI testimony, Rezko was in and our of his office on a daily basis. And all those banker assholes (excuse my crudeness) that he hangs out with have all run major companies. He goes to bat for Wall Street, health insurance companies and the nuclear industry. I didn’t see him go to bat for ACORN.

  77. Hatch Says It’s ’Nuts’ to Think House Vote Ends Health Issue
    March 20 (Bloomberg) — Republican Senator Orrin Hatch said Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives are “nuts” to think tomorrow’s vote on health-care legislation will resolve the issue.

    If the measure passes, Senate Republicans have enough votes on at least two points of order to alter the measure and send it back to the House for a second round of votes, Hatch said in an interview on Bloomberg Television’s “Political Capital with Al Hunt,” airing this weekend.

    “If those people think they’re only going to vote on this once, they’re nuts,” Hatch said as House Democratic leaders rounded up support before the scheduled vote on President Barack Obama’s top domestic priority.

    The senator from Utah also said the approach Democrats are using to pass the legislation in the House may be unconstitutional because the House and Senate aren’t voting on “exactly the same language.”
    Business Groups Press Lawmakers to Oppose Health-Care Measure

    ————————————————————–
    March 19 (Bloomberg) — Business groups led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce today urged lawmakers to oppose the Democratic-backed health-care legislation, as the House headed for a showdown vote this weekend.

    The Chamber, the nation’s largest business group, the National Association of Manufacturers and the National Retail Federation told lawmakers in letters that their health-care votes will be highlighted in annual scorecards sent to members before the November election.

    The bill is “fundamentally flawed” and would impose job- killing mandates and penalties on businesses and increase taxes, the Chamber said in a letter to members of the House of Representatives. The group said Congress must “start over.”

    “The measure would drive up labor costs to the point of forcing job losses,” the National Retail Federation said in its letter. “A ‘transparent procedural ploy’ for passing the package would harm Congress’s reputation.”
    Caterpillar: Health Bill Would Cost Company $100 Million
    Caterpillar Inc. said the proposed overhaul of the U.S. health-care system could increase its costs by $100 million, signaling disquiet in corporate America about the controversial plan.

    In a letter Thursday to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D., Calif.) and House Republican Leader John Boehner (R., Ohio), Caterpillar urged lawmakers to vote against the plan “because of the substantial cost burdens it would place on our shareholders, employees and retirees.”

    The company said the potential extra costs would primarily come from provisions to tax the federal subsidies the company now receives for providing prescription-drug benefits to retirees and their spouses.

    Since the Medicare drug program was enacted in 2003, Caterpillar and more than 3,500 companies that already provided drug benefits for retirees have received tax-free subsidies from the federal government as an incentive to maintain their drug programs.

    The subsidies average $665 per person covered under a company-sponsored prescription program, according to benefits consultant Towers Watson, which recently completed a study on the health-care legislation’s effects.

    Watson Towers estimates federal taxes on the drug subsidies would amount to $233 per person receiving drug benefits under such programs.

    McDevitt estimates that a company with 25,000 retirees on subsidized drug benefits could see its 2010 earnings reduced by $70 million.

    Business executives have long complained that the options offered for covering 32 million uninsured would result in higher insurance costs and hinder economic growth. Opponents of the legislation have stepped up their attacks in recent days as the House moves closer toward a vote on the Senate version of the health-care legislation.

    A letter Thursday to President Barack Obama and members of Congress signed by more than 130 economists predicted the legislation would discourage companies from hiring more workers and would cause reduced hours and wages for those already employed.
    States Say We Don’t Need No Stinkin’ Health Reform
    If Democratic leaders ever get a health-care overhaul through Congress, they could find themselves only halfway through the slog.

    While no arm is left untwisted, no parliamentary maneuver ignored on Capitol Hill, state legislatures have been busy themselves passing laws to defeat whatever package emerges.

    Idaho wants no part of any overhaul dreamed up in Washington. Neither does Virginia or Arizona, their legislators say.

    “The citizens of our state won’t be subject to another federal mandate or turn over another part of their life to government control,” Idaho Governor Butch Otter declared this week when he became the first governor to sign into law a so- called Health Freedom Act.

    The Idaho law says every Idahoan is free “to choose any mode of securing health-care services without penalty.” It then instructs the attorney general to go to court to make that happen.

    Already, the law has legal problems of its own. Idaho Attorney General Lawrence Wasden points out that the state constitution gives him the job of deciding whether to go to court and when. No mere statute can change that.

    And Wasden isn’t ready to declare his position.

    “If Congress does pass legislation, we will review it and determine at that point whether we can bring a lawsuit that has merit,” says Wasden spokesman Bob Cooper.

    Virginia’s Route

    Virginia’s legislature went a different route. Without telling the attorney general how to do his job, the lawmakers passed a bill that says no Virginia resident “shall be required to obtain or maintain a policy of individual insurance coverage.”

    Even advocates say that amending the constitution is a legally preferable route to passing a mere statute.

    The Arizona legislature has already gone the amendment route and passed a proposal that will appear on the ballot in November.

    But that isn’t law yet. And if you put those three all together, they don’t add up to much of a roadblock at this point.

    Gaining Momentum

    So advocates point to their movement’s momentum. Beyond the three states, some 30 to 35 others have bills pending, they are quick to say.

    There is a long road between dropping a bill in a hopper and attending a signing ceremony. And then, whatever state efforts get that far would have to survive a federal court fight.

    “The ivory tower folks will tell you, ‘No, they’re not going anywhere,’” Otter told reporters. “But I’ll tell you what. You get 36 states, that’s a critical mass. That’s a constitutional mass.”

    That number approaches the 38 states it takes to ratify an amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Otter is getting ahead of himself, given that his own attorney general, a fellow Republican, has already said he may or may not try to enforce the new law.
    What A Mess

    I am confident President Obama will buy the six votes he needs. That is the way the system works. I am less certain that the House reconciliation bill passes Senate challenges. If not, expect to see the bill back in the House at least once. Should that happen President Obama may need to convince 6 more representatives to sign on. Is that doable? At what cost?

    There will not be a vote on Monday unless Pelosi thinks she has the votes. However “think” and “have” are likely but not necessarily the same thing. All it would take is a couple of representatives to decide to torpedo the legislation or simply get cold feet.

    That said, the most likely outcome is President Obama will buy the votes he needs. It will be much more difficult the second time if the Senate sends it back because of procedural rules so the House better get it right the first time.

    Next week, we will see who is “nuts” and who isn’t. Meanwhile, a bill that 37 states and the majority of the US do not want is about to be rammed through Congress by a President willing to buy out anyone and everyone who is against it.

    Payback time is November.

  78. I hope everyone who votes on this bill remembers that Obama had alot of choices here. For example,

    He did not have to adopt this far reaching to this bill. He could have done this incrementally.

    He did not have to pin his presidency on its passage. He could have stayed above the process and waited for it to play out.

    He did not have to put the careers of others on the line. He could have shown concern for their political survival.

    He did not have to turn a blind eye to the threats and bribes. He could have behaved like a president rather than a thug.

    He did not have to violate the Constitution. He could have said no to demon pass and reconciliation.

    He did not have to defy the will of the American People. He could have said I respect the will of the people.

    He did not have to reduce the benefits for seniors. He could have red circled them.

  79. The joke of the week is that Obama lover Howard Feineman is now saying big media may no longer take everything Obama says for granted.

    Save your breath Howard. It’s too late. Your train left a long time ago. You and your colleagues have put the country at risk and that is all anyone will remember. We do not give a damned what you do. The parade has passed by Howard.

  80. It’s going to be a long day. Here is our Sunday morning update:

    Update V: [mini update immediately after we posted the update – the House Caucus chairman John Larson insists they do have the votes. By our count as of 9:00 a.m. They don’t have the votes. We’ll wait to see if there were any overnight deals we have yet to hear about. .] Sunday morning – They Still Don’t Have The Votes.

    The entire day will be consumed with attempts by Pelousy to get the “Save Obama” votes Obama pretended he already had. But they still don’t have the votes. The official schedule starts at about 2:00 p.m. ET

    At 2:00 there will be a one hour debate on the rules of debate for the reconciliation bill and the Senate bill. At 3:00 the vote on the rules. The circus will continue throughout the afternoon and final votes are expected, if they have the votes, around 6:00.

    They Still Don’t Have The Votes.

  81. Amen wbboei.You are always on target.There is a big event for Hillary on Mon.7000 will attend.

    Secretary Clinton To Deliver Remarks to American Israel Public Affairs Committee

    Posted: 20 Mar 2010 10:08 AM PDT

    Secretary Clinton will deliver remarks to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee Annual Policy Conference on Monday, March 22 at 9:10 a.m. AIPAC’s annual policy conference will bring approximately 7,000 of its supporters to Washington, D.C. March 21-23, 2010.

    The Secretary’s remarks will be open to press coverage and live-streamed here on DipNote, state.gov and aipac.org.

  82. The latest on the vote count. John Larson, as we wrote in our mini-update, claims to have the votes. Here is an even later statement which calls into question that statement:

    http://www.politico.com/blogs/politicolive/0310/Dems_have_the_votes_chief_deputy_whip_says_.html

    Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.), a chief deputy whip, said Democrats have the votes to pass sweeping health care overhaul, but the whip count “is in flux.” She said Democrats don’t have a “hard 216 right now.

    “I couldn’t tell you which 216 members we will have,” Wasserman Schultz said on “Fox News Sunday.”

    Wasserman Schultz is the second Democratic leader to make such remarks this morning. Democratic Caucus Chairman John Larson of Connecticut said his party has the votes to pass the legislation.

    The Floridian also said there is “no decision” for President Barack Obama to sign an executive order reaffirming the Hyde amendment.

  83. MJ’
    based on the sum of your comments above…there is a sense of support of BO’s agenda and policies. I cannot speak for others, but my understanding was that hear at Hillary 44 as well as myself, stand in general OPPOSITION to BO’s policies and decisions. His whole administration is about HIM. I really don’t care anymore what labels you come up with for him…personally I have a few names of my own, but out of decency to the members of this site I will not repeat them. There is one phrase I will go down believing about BO..Anti-Constitutional-Anti-patriotism-Anti-voice of the people.

    There was and still IS a BETTER CHOICE to all this maddness….However our hopes were let down that fateful day in D.C. at the DNC meeting in 2008.

  84. Like Krauthammer, always the voice of reason, wbboei. I googled Alcee Hastings, was he not an instrument in the RBC on May 31 – the day the Democratic Party was overthrown by the Chicago friends, uh thugs of Obummer? I found this that you might find interesting:
    November 09, 2006
    Time For a New Scandal: Alcee Hastings
    Once you read this, you’ll have a hard time defending Alcee Hastings.

    “Be assured that I’m going to be a judge for life,” Mr. Hastings told reporters in 1983 after his acquittal. But the arguments that swayed a Miami jury did not sway the Congress. The Democrat-controlled House of Representatives impeached Hastings for bribery and perjury by a lopsided vote of 413 to 3. Then the Democrat-controlled Senate convicted him on eight articles of impeachment by well over the required two-thirds majority in 1989. Thus Mr. Hastings became only the sixth judge in the history of our Republic (and only the third in the 20th Century) to be removed by Congress. He was, and is, an utter disgrace to the nation and to the legal profession. Among those voting to impeach him were Ms. Pelosi herself, Maryland Rep. Steny Hoyer, the Democratic whip who is likely to become the new House majority leader, and Mr. Hastings’ fellow African-American Congressman, Michigan’s John Conyers, who took pains to deny that race had anything to do with the removal of the bribe-taking jurist.

    Earth to Pelosi: Marginalize Hastings.
    _________________________________________________
    I have no knowledge of the qualifications of the site, but the info was found here:
    http://cobb.typepad.com/cobb/2006/11/time_for_a_new_.html

  85. ABM90, Bill Clinton spoke at the Gridiron Dinner last night. Politico has a video of Big Media creeps assessing the great president of yore’s mostly funny remarks. We won’t post the video, because John King snidely says that Bill Clinton clearly loves the spotlight, instead of kissing Bill’s feet for appearing before that almost defunct group of creeps.

    The link to the video and remarks is: http://www.politico.com/click/stories/1003/orrin_hatch_draws_unintentional_laughs_.html

    For those that get upset every time Bill or Hillary have been forced to comment on health care there is an interesting comment. As you know our riposte to Bill/Hillary comments on health care is to note that in public they don’t say much on the topic and only when pressed. We always note how Bill and Hillary know how to get attention to their remarks and if they wanted to express support they would have conducted a very visible, very public tour or make very public remarks. We typically say “The medium is the message.”

    So here was Bill Clinton on the eve of the health care vote before just about every Big Media type in Washington, D.C. and what does he say? What message, what medium:

    In a more serious vein, Clinton predicted that the Democrats would succeed in steering health care reform through Congress. “It may not happen in my lifetime or in [former vice president] Dick Cheney’s, but hopefully by Easter,” he said.

  86. I am a Family Practice health care provider….
    I want reform of our health delivery and healthcare system….however this is the wrong plan, and the wrong way to go about reform.

    Take it from me….Just like back in the late 1990’s when Hospital systems thought they had “the answer” to improving healthcare delivery by getting into the “doctor’s office business”, they were sadly mistaken to find the idea was a disaster, and quickly pulled out! The government is about to make the same mistake….By virtue of how this scheme is supposed to pan out (most of the benefits not kicking in until 4-6 years from now), the cost of healthcare delivery will skyrocket. Quality of care will go down, doctors will abandon practicing “the art of medicine” and instead exchange that mentality with a ” 9-5pm.. shortest and cheapest distance between two points is a straight line” approach.
    Those in favor of “making history”…do they realize that they will have to wait 4 years before any insurance company accepts them with their pre-existing conditions???

    Let us PRAY our lawmakers come to their senses at the final hour…If not, REPEAL THE BILL and start over!!!

  87. UnLadyLike
    March 21st, 2010 at 9:21 am

    MJ’
    based on the sum of your comments above…there is a sense of support of BO’s agenda and policies

    ReallY? Really? Are you out of your mind? I won’t defend myself to ignorant fools. Calling Obama a “socialist” is simply incorrect and a rightwing talking point. They and you would have a better argument with facist. Now when I say Obama’s policies are facist I suppose pinheads who don’t like that I don’t accept what the wingers say, that Obama is a “socialist”, don’t like it. Apparently, there are a lot of dolts out there who think to says ones policies are facist is a compliment, but I don’t worry about pleasing the opinions of idiots.

  88. UnLadyLike, they still don’t have the votes.

    Politico this morning has a count which while more optimistic than our count, is still short:

    http://www.politico.com/livepulse/0310/Sunday_Extra_House_votes__Latenight_negotiations_over_executive_order_on_abortion_could_bring_on_har.html

    House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is close to getting 216, but it looks like she still needs to get the support of the three retiring Democrats. Our POLITICO whip count shows that she has 210 votes, according to Democratic insiders’ feel for how some of the remaining undecideds will swing. If she’s going to get health care passed, she’ll first need to get the support of several undecided members who voted for last November’s bill.

  89. Shorttermer,

    Notice that many of the DNC rooooolz makers are from the out-of-control AA contingent?

    Bradzilla? Hastings? Germand? Cryburn?

    And notice how little respect they have for the constitution or rules put in place by previous leaders? They want to overthrow everything that preceded them.

    I don’t know if they’re under pooplosie’s spell or they’re under hers but it is am alliance crafted in he11.

    I have not sworn at the TV this much since the May 31 RBC catastrophe. I can’t remember being this furious about government workings ever.

  90. Basil9, stop cussing at your innocent TV. 🙂

    Tempers are running hot, let’s try to keep our cool today.

    We’ve been doing a series of mini updates to our regular updates because there are so many developments coming in so rapidly. The latest link we added is this one:

    http://www.politico.com/blogs/politicolive/0310/Hoyer_Not_at_216_yet.html

    Countering some of the “we’ve got it” optimism of several colleagues, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer seems to be saying that Democrats do not yet have the 216 votes they need to pass health care reform.

    “We’re going to get those 216 votes because we believe that they understand that Americans want health care reform by an overwhelming majority,” Hoyer said on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”

    When host David Gregory asked Hoyer if he has the votes now, the Maryland Democrat said: “I think we’re going to have 216 when the roll is called, yes.”

    Gregory: “But not yet? You’re not nailed down, a few behind?”

    Hoyer: “There are still members looking at it, trying to make up their minds, we think 216 plus votes when we call the roll.”

    They don’t have the votes.

  91. Obummer so eloquently demonstrated with ‘brushing’ the problem off his shoulder; and as the lyrics sang out from Obummer’s platform from JayZ that stated “I got 99 prolems, but a B!TCH ain’t one.” I recommend this strategy to those who call our friends and posters names on this Hillary site!!!! Like, Brazilla, my mama (God rest your soul, Mother) always told me:
    -fool’s names and fool’s faces are often seen in public places
    -the more you stir sh!t, the worse it smells
    -don’t ever start a fight, but never walk away from one either
    -a hit dog ALWAYS barks

    And to add to that what schoolyard friends and bloggers have said:
    -I am rubber, you are glue; what you say bounces off me and sticks to you
    -sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never harm me
    -as always, it is BIG I, and LITTLE u
    -use the same tactics they use to discredit them, for so many only hear/see what they want to
    -DON’T feed the trolls

  92. basil9, I suspect that they attend a church that believes in Liberation Theology; and they practice what they are taught.

  93. You’re right, admin. It’s not the TV’s fault. It’s only in the line of fire because it’s Sunday morning housecleaning time and tuning in to the talking heads usually revs up my energy so I can attack the chaos of the previous week.

    One of the main things I am enraged about in this POS bill is cutting medicare by a half trillion to fund another entitlement program for the so-called 30 million without insurance.

    Having recently CONQUERED CANCER (I am in remission) and having had far more insurance agency contact than I ever could have imagined, or wanted, I know for a fact that if it’s hard now to get benefits paid for during a lifetime of employment it will be a thousand times worse if this POS passes.

    I’m also CONVINCED I made the right decision to treat before the issue hit the fan. I feel truly sorry for taxpayers and citizens who have been faithfully contributing to the various state, federal and local systems all their lives. You are all about to get royally screwed. The only ones who will escape are those for whom money is not an issue.

    I’m no math wizard but even I understand that cutting medicare benefits, reducing doctor reimbursement and simultaneously adding millions of new patients to a system in which employees are baling does not make any friggin sense!

    It’s like when I taught music, having the district say we were getting another 1000 kids with a concurrent 20% staff cut and expecting the school to function at all.

    It is madness.

    And my other big objection is why should those who have paid into the system for decades be penalized in favor of anyone else? Personally, I couldn’t afford insurance until I was in my 30’s but that was partially my choice as I stayed in a profession with no benefits. I could have changed. Eventually, I did.

    I don’t mind providing emergency care for people but I am 1000% against footing the bill for everyone who happens to reside in the US. It is not a right anymore than owning a house or driving a car is a right. It is something that should be worked for, earned and deserved.

    Compassion should be extended to the very young, the very old, and the very sick. Everyone else should accept responsibility.

  94. I’m under the impression that they do, in fact, have the votes. At least when you look at past behaviours… Cap and Trade come to mind.

    I think there are several more yes votes out there, but aren’t being public about it until the vote. Maybe they think they’ll avoid the hyper critical scrutiny and campaigns… who knows. But I’ve been watching these theatrics for the last couple days with one question:

    “Who benefits from the chaos?”

    I’ve decided today that it’s most likely the dems that benefit from the chaos because it could lead to panic from all of us that oppose this particular bill. Missteps and tipping of hands from those in congress that plan to address certain measure of the buill to foroce re-votes (and whatever else) can only benefit the Dems at this point.

    I just have the unsettling feeling that the Dems do, indeed, have the votes and are just trying to devise ways to counter any parlimentary challenges that they expect. Making the Republicans (and some Dems)so uncomfortable that they’ll tip their hands in how they’ll challenge it.

    There may be campaigns to refuse to pay taxes (when there are no goods/services rendered)in coming years.. campaigns to repeal this bill and so many other ways the ‘war’ can be engaged, but this ‘battle’ is a mess. And sad too.

  95. No link from Drudge yet but he is running this bit of news:

    OVERHEARD: Walking into Capitol this morning on phone, Speaker Pelosi tells Hoyer: ‘Steny, we have to get to 217. None of these members wants to be the deciding vote’… Developing…

  96. IndyPUMA, Cap and Trade passed the House but not the Senate. The only way to get the votes right now is to break the Stupak Bloc. Instead of looking at the Cap and Trade vote, we suggest the better reference is the health scam vote in November, which would have failed without the Stupak Bloc. As to your point about who benefits from chaos? It’s not Obama and the Dimocrats. They have tried a flim flam strategy of convincing everyone they have the votes. They don’t. If they get the votes it will be because a Dimocratic president signs an Executive Order banning abortion funds.

    Here’s our latest update:

    Update VI: Video of Steny Hoyer contradicting John Larson’s “we have the votes” comment.



    They don’t have the votes but they continue to insist they do. Obama will likely have to sign an Executive Order which bans money for abortions. On this Sunday, the Conference of Bishops says that is not enough and they urge opposition to the scam.

    Drudge reports, without proof, this: “OVERHEARD: Walking into Capitol this morning on phone, Speaker Pelosi tells Hoyer: ‘Steny, we have to get to 217. None of these members wants to be the deciding vote'”

    Increasingly, the question is not “Do they have the votes?” but rather “Do they know what they are doing?”.

    Nancy Kaptur votes to “Save Obama” and abandons the pro-life forces on the basis of “assurances”. Kaptur is a loss but not a surprise as she was not a “Stupak Bloc” diehard. She was “low hanging fruit”.

    Solomon Ortiz is also a “Save Obama”.

    The vote at this late Sunday morning is 206 “Save Obama” votes, 209 “NO!”. An Obama Executive Order which bans money for abortion (language unknown as of now and of dubious value other than politically), a Dimocratic president signing such an order, is the only way it appears that they can get the votes.



    There are many primary challenge threats against “NO” voters. There is a lot of pressure on the “NO” votes. Will they cave? Stay tuned. They Still Don’t Have The Votes. Keep fighting.

  97. Basil9, it’s always great to be reminded that cancer can be held at bay as well as outright defeated. Keep your personal health fight up. Keep fighting the scam too.

  98. IndyPUMA, apologies to you if our response to you came off as harsh or overly dismissive. Tempers are running hot and we don’t want to contribute to discord. There are plenty of people who speculate that the Dimocrats do have the votes but are not announcing them for some tactical reason. We don’t agree with those theories but they certainly have validity.

    We think they don’t have the votes and are trying to flim flam everyone into thinking they do. That was the history of Obama during the primaries (this whole episode has had a whiff of New Hampshire to us for a while) and it has been repeated during the election campaigns in Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Virginia (and let’s not forget Copenhagen when the conventional wisdom was that no president would be so foolish as to go to peddle Chicago Olympics without having success in hand).

  99. Admin, if Obama does indeed sign an anti-abortion executive order what do you think Hillary will do?

  100. AmericanGal, if it were up to us, Hillary would just go to dinner with Bill. She should keep away from this disaster as far as possible. Hillary should follow the advice of “Don’t get between your enemy and a speeding train.”

    After the November elections Hillary can resign. As we’ve written before, her resignation should be timed until after a Republican governor is elected and seated in Massachusetts. That way if Obama wants to appoint John Kerry to his dream job of Secretary of State there would be a problem of succession. 🙂

  101. Hello Admin,

    I have been a long very long term lurker since jan. of 2008, I have probably only posted a comment 1 or 2 times.

    I saw something, and wanted your opinion of it.

    the Executive order that is being dangled in front of Stupak. I just read that would be knocked down immediately in the courts, b/c it would be a line item veto and there is already precent ffrom the Clinton lawsuit, and it was found to be illegal. And the same would happen here.

    http://patriotroom.com/article/rember-this-stupak-clinton-v-city-of-new-york-line-item-veto-is-unconstitutional

    your thoughts?

    thank you.

  102. Thanks admin.

    I had the most wonderful doctors and nurses. I researched my condition enough that I am fairly sure that while it’s not curable I have an average of 5-7 years, possibly more before recurrence.

    Hopefully, by that point other therapies will be available.

    Problem is, will I be able to get them?

    And it’s not as if I feel my life is worth more than anyone else’s BUT as a citizen, taxpayer, employee and someone who has given back while taking precious little from the so-called “safety-net” – never on welfare, food stamps, unemployment only once, that sort of thing – I see absolute red at the thought that others who have not “paid their dues” could take priority over those of us who keep the machine operating.

    And, again, I know to some I might sound miserly but the fact is the chemo clinic where I treated was absolutely swamped with patients with people sometimes lined up waiting for a chemo chair.

    The nurses were burning the candle at both ends and there were not enough doctors to go around.

    There’s no such thing as personal correspondence anymore. It’s all by automated telephone system as no one can afford the extra staff.

    I was one of the youngest patients there as most were retired or senior citizens.

    And the numbers of retirees and senior citizens is going to increase because baby boomers constitute a large percentage of the population.

    So the ones who have propped the system up are set to be kicked to the curb in favor of who? Squat’s preferred constituency? Why?

    I am thrilled I am cancer free and very grateful for having had the opportunity to get treatment.

    I also hope I never get sick again because should it recur I may be asked to go to the back of the line and wait for treatment behind someone here illegally, someone who never made the effort to pull themselves up by their bootstraps, someone who is trying to milk the system.

    And that makes me angry!!!!!

    On another note, The communities I cover for several local weeklies are in terrible shape financially.

    One of the school districts is cutting 48 teachers and aides.

    The country is going bankrupt and yet Squat wants to spend even more of our money for the programs he DEEMS important.

    Important for who?

    To help get him re-elected!!!!!!

  103. Tim, welcome. Without going into a long discussion of whether or not the bill allows, or there are enough “leaky corners” whereby abortion could be funded, it seems to us that an Executive Order won’t do much. The Executive Order would have to be worded extremely well to have an effect. Remember that this Obama health scam essentially brings millions more people into a system that has been denounced as “rotten” and run by Big Insurance companies.

    An Executive Order cannot tell private companies what to do. Unless the order is worded at least as stringently as affirmative action executive orders, it seems to us that it would be an imperfect vehicle to accomplish what the “pro-life”, “anti-abortion” people say they want to do. The Conference of Bishops appears to agree with us in this analysis.

  104. Hey Admin,

    Not offended at all nor did I think you’re being harsh. :0)

    I have a feeling that some of the left sources are trying to show inevitability and some of the right sources are are drumming up that they don’t have it. I fear that, as usual, that the truth is somewhere in between. It’s probably closer than we think. Which requires less of the 20 holdouts to commmit ‘yes’.

    Anyways, thank you (and others) for continually updating us with what you are hearing/seeing.

    Between today’s vote and everything else to follow… I still have some hope.

  105. of course, one big tell-tale sign is if they decide to delay. lol

    Redstate.com posted a tally from different sites as well a little while ago. (moderate voice, firedog (like here) and others).

  106. Admin:

    thank you. I am a PUMA. Became one on May 31th, 2008, reregistered as an Independent after what I saw happen to a party I had been part of for over 40 years and saw what they did to Hillary. 4 delegates!

    I know most people on this board are pro-choice, but I am not, I am pro-life, however I do not support roe-v-wade being overturned, for me this is a major issue, along with even more major fact that this disgusting bill will lead to rationing, lower quality and higher prices.
    I supported Bill and Hillary clinton’s words “safe, rare but legal”
    But this bill is a rationing bill. Make no mistake about it.

    My sister in law is a physician, she will be retiring out of the profession in the comning year, should this bill goes thru, most of her patients are medicare patients, and she was telling me, already it is very hard for her to stay in business, and this bill will essentially make her a govt employee, her freedom to care for her patients, as a former poster said “art of medicine” will be taken away. People will suffer, seniors and the weakest in our society will be the ones paying the heaviest and ultimate price for this disgusting rationing bill.

    I stongly supported Hillary in 2008, but when I saw that flim-flam man, I knew there was no way in hell I could support him, and so supported Mccain&Sarah, and I have tremendous respect for Sarah.

    I was one of those Reagan democrats, I was a JFK democrat and I was a Hillary democrat. I have no words of the disgust I feel towards the disgusting “democratic” party, these people are nothing but thugs, its the dem. primaries all over again.

    I will never be voting for another democrat again, the party has been taken over by unamerican thugs, they don’t care for anything but power for themselves.

    My uncle, a WWII veteran would weep if he saw what was happening, he was a staunch supporter of JFK and of Hillary, this party is nothing but chicago radical unamerican thugs, the party in my eyes is a party of tyranny now.

    (Please keep up the great work, I feel I am not alone when I read the comments and the posts. And thank you.)

    I probably won’t be posting again for a while, I feel more comfortable lurking, but I email your posts to so many people, who are PUMAs, now independents, or repubs or tea party patriots. Thank you again for you hard work in these troubling times.

  107. Tim, thanks for reminding us all that indeed there are plenty of good Democrats who part company with many other good Democrats on the issue of abortion and abortion rights. “Safe, Legal, and Rare” is the Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton formulation on abortion and abortion rights.

    Thanks also for your testimony on the Obama health scam.

  108. That there are so many watching The Fools on the Hill today is simply poetic justice of the most exquisite and well-deserved variety.

  109. Admin:

    I also meant to let your posters know. My sister-in-law has been hearing the same from her collegues, they will be moving up their retirement dates.

    I truely do not think the lunatics in the WH or Congress have any clue that doctors will be leaving the pratice, they cannot be bribed with a doctor fix bill.
    Most doctors I know what to be independent to care for their patients, this bill will severely restrict their independence to do what they think is best for their patients, and docs feel they can no longer do that because of govt mandates, then why would they continue to practice.

    I read an IBD poll, that about 46% docs will leave the profession, I absolutely believe it, my sister-in-law is ont of them, as are many of her collegues.

  110. Indeed, welcome, tim.

    As for Obama’s promise to buy pro-life Dem votes with some Executive Order, by now, anyone negotiating with him knows that his promises are worthless. His reputation is promise the moon, then when that fails, promise a small island, then a car, then an apple, and even then, he winds up trying to “deliver the apple”.

    So I think Stupak and other negotiators are enjoying their power over the weak president who is desperate.

    Desperate poker players don’t win.

  111. Obama’s idiocy is in promising to address real problems: uninsured, insurance co’s declining people due to pre-existing conditions, rising hospital and insurance rates, etc.

    But in order to fix those, htey are going to raid Medicare? And tax “cadillac health plans” (which cannot be truly exorbitant policies if the unions had to try to negatiote an exemption)?

    Tax the lower and middle classes, and drive Medicare to ruin. Isn’t that what the Obama-lefties were complaining about Bush? (I am lefty on many issues, centrist on others, and I like jazz).

  112. IndyPUMA wrote “of course, one big tell-tale sign is if they decide to delay”.

    http://www.hillaryis44.org/2010/03/20/the-temple-of-doom/#comment-283996

    The latest schedule, compare it to the earlier one today:
    http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2010/03/21/2235459.aspx

    4:30-ish: Two-hour general health care debate begins
    – 7:00-ish: Debate ends. Vote on the SENATE bill begins (This is where John Boehner has asked for a manual vote, which would take much longer than a normal electronic vote. He isn’t likely to get it, however.)
    – 730-ish: Debate on a Republican “motion to recommit.” This is the Republicans’ best shot all day, a motion that would scuttle the whole thing. Substance is always a secret until last minute, but we can expect it to involve abortion in an effort to put the Stupak group on the spot.)
    – 745-ish: Vote on motion to recommit
    – 800-ish: If motion to recommit fails, then the final vote on reconciliation “fixes.”
    – 830-ish: Gavel comes down on final vote. If it’s close, Dem leaders will extend the usual 15 minutes to twist arms.

  113. Goosebumps? Goosebumps????? Are you f’ing kidding me???? Are you crazy or just so d@mned arrogant??????? I might remind you that I was the one who informed Debbie Wasserman Schultz at the protest in DC to count the FL votes that someone had informed the head guy that she did not support democrats. Debbie had no comment to that, but I have witnessed her working her butt off since then to prove herself to the Dimc. This is an email that I just got from her…….I might add that I do NOT have goosebumps, instead I have the runs (sorry to be so graphic):

    I wish you could’ve been there.

    Yesterday, I joined my fellow House Democrats to take a significant step forward for our country – passing comprehensive health insurance reform. While you may not have been on the House floor with me, I felt your unwavering support and your passion as I cast my vote.

    Of course, our Republican colleagues had other thoughts in mind. Tomorrow night, those Republican “no” votes are joining their fat cat lobbyist friends for a $1,000 a plate banquet with Fox News right-wing mouthpiece Sean Hannity.

    Their goal is to finance more swift boat attack ads and dishonest robocalls to try to tarnish yesterday’s victory and claim that “real Americans” stand behind their twisted ideology. They will use their old, tired playbook…distortion, lies, and fear mongering.

    We can’t let the right-wing spin machine distort our historic victory – We need to let every American know that healthcare in America is a right, not a privilege and that our country enthusiastically supports reform.

    Contribute $5, $10 or more to our Million Dollar Match to show that our grassroots support can beat their fat cat lobbyists. If you give before the March 31st FEC filing deadline, your gift will be matched dollar-for-dollar by a group of generous Democrats.

    House Democrats will fight back against every fear-and-smear attack they throw at us. And, we’re counting on grassroots Democrats like you to stand with us.

    More than 75% of the money we raise comes from individuals like you. We rely on your support to combat the powerful special interests that fund the Republicans’ attacks.

    That’s why it’s so important we have an overwhelming showing on March 31st, the first FEC reporting deadline since we passed reform.

    Contribute $5, $10 or more to our Million Dollar Match to show that our grassroots support can beat their fat cat lobbyists. If you give before the March 31st FEC filing deadline, your gift will be matched dollar-for-dollar by a group of generous Democrats.

    Thank you for your support.

    Debbie Wasserman Schultz

    P.S. We are just days away from the first FEC quarterly fundraising deadline since President Obama will have signed health insurance reform into law. We need to have a strong showing so the world will see that Democrats stand united behind the President and behind reform. Contribute to our Million Dollar Match to show that our grassroots support can beat their fat cat lobbyists. And, if you contribute before the March 31st deadline, your contribution will be matched dollar-for-dollar by a group of generous Democrats. Thank you.

Comments are closed.