DEDICATED TO EXPOSING DISINFORMATION AND PROPAGANDA AND TO PROMOTING UNIVERSAL HUMAN RIGHTS - WITH SHARP ANALYSIS AND BLUNT COMMENTARY. NO ADS. NO TIP-JAR. JUST THE TRUTH.
Obamacare - or Pelosicare, if you prefer - is a LOSE-LOSE Proposition for Obama and the democrats.
If they pass nothing, then they fail.
If they pass ANYTHING then they will damage the already weak recovery and damage the health insurance industry and the healthcare industry and create unsettling havoc in millions and millions of families lives.
The power grab also will continue to turn independents off and ensure that 2010 will give us huge GOP and conservative victories.
That's a good thing.
These victories are coming no matter what.
The only difference is that by passing Obamacare the left ensures that there is gong to be a WAVE OF COUNTER-MEASURES AND SIDE-EFFECTS AND UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES IN THE MARKETPLACE CREATING MORE INSECURITY and ensuring millions of people will therefore unnecessarily suffer between now and 2010.
Obama cares not for the people, just achieving his deeply held socialist dreams of having the state "create a utopia" by taking over.
It's about POWER: the Left wants the state to have it.
Once they get power, the state will ruin whatever they takeover. It's inevitable.
It's the postofficification.
They will turn the best healthcare system in the world into a clunker.
WE WILL ALL SUFFER AS A RESULT.
Sigh.
Until we retake power in 2012 and undo the damage they're doing now.
Obama and the Chicago Machine won a big victory last year.
They ran as Obama as a moderate, outspent McCain by 8-1, exploited Bush Fatigue and the recession and won.
Since then they have made one misstep after another and are crashing at the polls.
The fundamental mistake was not just HUBRIS and EGOMANIA - thinking that since they won and since their party held both bodies of Congress that they could do whatever they wanted.
They took power and IMMEDIATELY passed the ridiculously useless and totally corrupt Stimulus Package which contained $1 Trillion of UNNECESSARY spending - a goulash of PORK, BOONDOGGLES and EARMARKS. A spending spree which took up UNREAD 100 pages. And which has DONE NOTHING FOR THE ECONOMY. (France, Germany and Japan are already out of recession and they did not do anything approaching Obama's PORKULUS!)
As unemployment numbers kept going up despite the PORK, more and more people became skeptical - after all, Obama had campaigned on LOWERING the deficit!
Now Obama and Axelrod and Rahm are trying to pass SOCIALIZED MEDICINE cloaked as "healthcare reform" and then "Healthcare INSURANCE reform" but it's floundering.
WHY!?!?
How did they miscalulate so badly?
Simple: Obama and Axelrod and ESPECIALLY Rahm felt that they could control the Congressional Democrats by CYNICALLY using the PORK as an election tool in 2010.
Most of the PORK is still unspent - only about 15% of the $1 TRILLION has been spent.
WHY ARE THEY HOLDING IT BACK?
They intended from the very start to spend it in KEY districts next year.
They are probably telling wavering House Democrats to hold the line on OBAMACARE, to ignore the polls and the townhalls - to ignore the public outcry.
They are telling them that they will get the SEIU and ACORN to counter-attack the "MOB" at townhalls and that they will get the MSM to ignore the "MOB" or characterize the "MOB" as ignorant, mislead, racist fear-mongers.
And they are telling them they will pour MILLIONS into their districts and ACORN and the SEIU to crank up the machine and fraudulent vote-machine.
BUT IT ISN'T WORKING!
YOU KNOW WHY!?
Because of the INTERNET.
Because of bloggers and regular folks who are posting photos and video of the townhalls and their SEIU thugs.
THINGS THE MSM DELIBERATELY IGNORE GET PUBLISHED AND SEEN BY MILLIONS.
THINGS LIKE THIS - AND COUNTLESS OTHERS LIKE IT:
AND THIS:
Regulars folks who voted for Obama because he was charming and had a pleasant smile and a calm demeanor and went to Harvard and told them he was a MODERATE.
They trusted him, but now they know Joe the Plumber was right!
These folks are the new vanguard of CITIZEN JOURNALISM.
These folks are why the MSM can't control the national debate anymore.
In this regard it's a lot like IRAN where TWITTERING helped cause the rebellion there.
WE'RE NOT THERE YET.
WE HAVEN'T TORPEDOED OBAMACARE YET.
WE MUSTN'T REST ON OUR LAURELS - EVER!
But we're winning. We now know we can defeat the Obamanistas. We can threaten the re-election of the Blue Dogs - and even Senators like Reid and Boxer!
I don't know whether the Blue Dogs will succumb to White House pressure and White House promises that they will pour MILLIONS of "stimulus money" into their districts during next year's campaign.
I do know that most Americans feel BURNT by Obama.
And they will not let themselves be twice burned.
There may be now way out for Obama and Axelrod and Rahm: if they capitulate to the PEOPLE and pass simple incremental BI-PARTISAN reform they lose the Left and take a HUGE personal hit (after having staked so much on OBAMACARE). Losing their Left-wing base will cost them the House.
If they pass it over the objections of the majority of Americans, they will lose big in 2010.
FOR OBAMA, AXELROD AND RAHM, IT'S NO A LOSE-LOSE PROPOSITION.
The best they can hope for is to pass a watered down version of Obamacare - declare victory, and then do something HUGELY unexpected to change the entire dynamics of the 2010 election.
Probably an Arab-Israeli "Peace" deal.
I think Obama will pull out all the stops on this front. Even more than BJ Clinton did at the end of his term.
Which means TURNING UP THE HEAT ON ISRAEL, AND MAKING THEM THE BAD-GUY IF IT FAILS.
Yeah: scape-goating the JOOOOOOOZE. Straight out of the Left's old-time playbook.
Obama Axelrod and Rahm probably think this type of move would win back the Left-wing base, and that along with the help of the SEIU and ACORN and BILLIONS of PORKULUS funds pouring into key districts from June to November 2010.
I don't think it will work.
I think they have already lost a politician's most prized possession: TRUST.
Barack Obama ended the bipartisan summit today at the Blair House by threatening Republicans to accept the democrat’s plan. (He will not start over.) Or, he will ram it through Congress without them.
“Elections have consequences.”
MY COMMENT:
ELECTIONS HAVE CONSEQUENCES.
YES.
AND RAMMING THROUGH UNPOPULAR LEGISLATION TAKING LIBERTY AWAY FROM AMERICANS HAS CONSEQUENCES, TOO.
BWAHAHAHAHA!
I've posted several times that the way Obama handled it, healthcare was a lose-lose for the Dems: if they pass it they lose, and if they don’t pass anything they lose.
Obama painted the Dems into a corner.
And the GOP will reap huge elctoral rewards as a direct result.
The economy isn't likely to improve enough to lower unemployment enough to help him.
Obama's class warfare tactics won't help him.And the unions are too small to make a difference. He is losing about 20% of the Democrats and 60% of the independents.
If the GOP has a good GOTV, then Obama will lose in a landslide. And the GOP will almost certainly hold the House and win the Senate.
The only things that can help Obama WIN is if the economy makes an extraordinary comeback AND if the GOP GOTV flops.
WHAT MIGHT DEMORALIZE LIKELY REPUBLICAN VOTERS AND SUPPRESS GOP TURNOUT?
The only thing that can fatally demoralize and suppress and fatally damage the GOP GOTV is if conservatives like the great MARK LEVIN continue to harass and harangue ROMNEY so much that hordes of conservatives stay home if Romney gets the nomination, which is likely.
For a few weeks Levin's has been spending the first hour of his show lately ATTACKING ROMNEY - mostly over Romneycare. Levin casually adds that he would vote for Romney over Obama should Romney win the nomination, but the brutal bashing he's been doling out makes that proviso MEANINGLESS.
All this can accomplish is making many conservatives so dis-enamored of Romney that they stay home - and re-elect Obama.
What makes Levin's non-stop attacks even more unnecessary - and exasperating to me, an avid fan of The Great One - is the PLAIN TRUTH that Romney is to the RIGHT of the other candidates on many issues:
Levin admits that Cain's 9-9-9 tax plan is unacceptable without a Constitutional Amendment and he admits that is not likely - BUT - Levin still thinks Cain is better than Romney. (Levin ignores that fact that it raises taxes on 47% of Americans, many of whom are living paycheck-to-paycheck and who would WIPED OUT by a 9% national sales tax.)
Levin admits that Perry's stands on HPV and in-state tuition for illegals are unacceptable - and that Romney's stands on illegal immigration is better - BUT - Levin still finds Perry acceptably conservative, but not Romney.
Levin seems to believe - for some reason I cannot fathom - that Romneycare makes Romney unable to criticize and run against Obamacare.
I argue it's exactly wrong; in fact, Romneycare makes Romney the best possible GOP candidate to run on a platform that says it will be repealed.
Romney can't be labeled anti-healthcare reform or as someone who doesn't care about the uninsured.
Romney can best criticize Obamacare on the merits.
I am not arguing that Romney should not be criticized at all. ALL the candidates need careful aggressive vetting. I am just saying that conservative pundits like Levin should not damage Romney to the point of turning off large swaths of conservatives voters to him.
If they don't vote for Romney then they will re-elect Obama.
I think Ann Coulter's conservative creds are at least as good as Levin's and Rush's and Hannity's.
She supports Romney.
She is right.
Mark Levin and the others should DIAL BACK their attacks.
And give Romney credit for running to the right of McCain in 2008 and staying there for 5 years.
A Romney-Rubio or Romney-Cain or Romney-Demint or Romney-Jindal or Romney-Barbour ticket will be conservative enough.
Most self-affiliated members of Tea Party Nation, one of the largest national organizations for the grassroots conservative movement, would vote for Mitt Romney as president if confronted with a choice between him or President Obama, according to a poll of members released to The Hill on Friday.
The group surveyed its members this week in an informal poll posted at the group’s website. The question asked was: If Romney is the GOP nominee, what will you do in the general election?
Fifty-two percent of about 1,150 respondents said they would “hold their nose” and vote for Romney if he becomes the GOP nominee, while 23 percent said they would vote for an unspecified third-party candidate. Twelve percent said they would not vote in the presidential election at all if the choice is between Romney and Obama.
IF ONLY 52% OF TEA PARTY VOTERS VOTE FOR ROMNEY THEN OBAMA COULD WIN.
IT WAS THE TEA PARTY THAT GOT US CONTROL OF THE HOUSE. WITHOUT THE TEA PARTY WE WILL NOT WIN THE WHITE HOUSE.
If Romney is the best the Republicans have to offer, it’s time to boycott them. He does not deserve an honest man’s vote. Nothing will change in this country until all the government subsidized leftists have their taxpaYer funds cut off. This will not happen with Romney.
I am not pulling the lever for another Dhimmeroid Lite. Not again. I’d just stay home this time. If this country cannot cough up a decent conservative candidate then it’s time to retire my vote and let all y’all got to hell in your chosen way. I and my buddies did not serve this country so we could choose between bad and worse.
sorry, but I voted for the establishment choice in 2008. I will vote for any other of the candidates, I will vote for everybody else on the ticket, but I will not vote for Romney.
Nope. My vote will not matter here in commie CT no matter who is on the ballot so save the vitriol. I will no longer be part of the problem. What chuck in st paul said, we get what we deserve if Mitt is the best we can do.
I am an Indy, after being through with the Dim. party. I cannot vote for Romney. I will just not mark the Prez. part of the ballot. Romney for me is a shapeshifter flip flopper. Worse, he is unlikeable. He is not a choice vs Obama. They both produce in me the same visceral reaction. Both are arrogant poseurs.
I am a conservative. I do not vote for liberals, no matter the circumstance or the party.
The ONLY reason to vote for the GOP is that they are different than the Democrats. If they are no different, then there is no reason to vote for the GOP, and if there is no reason to vote for the GOP, then we cannot elect anyone.
Our only electoral weapon, both short and long term, is our distinctiveness.
Would you give away your only weapon for the promise of victory?
No one could hope to start a business with a business plan which is 1000 pages long; it would be deemed too complicated and far-fetched on its face.
Yet Obama and the Democrats of Congress think they can effect positive INDUSTRY WIDE change with bills which are 1000 pages long! In both the health care and energy industries.
Forget for a moment what the Leftist Democrats WANT to do, forget their intended consequences - socialism!
The unintended consequences alone will make it a failure if enacted.
History has proven time and time again that a select group of intellectuals - no matter how smart and well-meaning - can not centrally command an industry better than the distributed GENIUS of the free market.
If the Leftist Democrats succeed in making Obamacare law, then they will prove it once again - and prove it in an industry which comprises 15% of our GDP!
It will be a health care and an economic and fiscal disaster.
COULD THEY BE SO DUMB AS TO NOT KNOW THIS, OR ARE THEY PRACTICING CLOWARD PIVEN - WHICH IS A LEFTIST STRATEGY TO FOMENT DISASTERS JUST IN ORDER TO HAVE THE STATE TAKE OVER MORE ASPECTS OF THE ECONOMY, YOU KNOW: "NEVER LET A CATASTROPHE GO TO WASTE!"?
Same difference. IOW: It would seem the intended and unintended consequences of Obama's statism are the same. This is why it must be stopped at any cost. It's a lose-lose if they pass. A guaranteed disaster.
OBAMACARE: "the bastard son of a hundred maniacs" - and it's a work in progress because the other 200 "progressive" maniacs in Congress want a piece of the action, too!
We posted on why it was doomed early last year: it's WAY too big, and - as a result- the public recognizes it as a revolution and not reform. No amount of tweaking and rewriting at this point can change that.
EVEN BETTER: Politically, it's a lose-lose for the left. And the longer they work on it the worse they appear.
Senate Republicans say they can get the whole package of reconciliation fixes – the fix-its that make the Senate plan palatable to House Democrats – thrown out with a trump card procedural motion.
... “Immediately after receiving the final reconciliation bill language, Senate Republican staff was ready and willing to meet with Senate Democratic staff and the Senate Parliamentarian to discuss the fact that the House reconciliation bill may be brought down by the 310(g) point of order in the Senate. Senate Democrats are mysteriously unavailable until after the House votes on the health care bill tonight. The Senate Democrats appear to be pushing off this meeting so that House Democrats will remain in the dark about what is likely to happen to the reconciliation bill on which many have staked their careers in Congress.
Section 310(g): Social Security and Reconciliation Prohibits consideration of reconciliation legislation that contains recommendations with respect to Social Security.
BWHAHAHAHA!
WE GET TO HAVE OUR CAKE AND EAT IT TOO: THE DEMOCRATS WHO VOTED "YES" ON CLOWARD-PIVEN-OBAMACARE ARE TOAST, ANDS WE DON'T HAVE TO SUFFER THE CONSEQUENCES!
After hearing arguments on both sides, Frumin said that Democratic plans to push back an excise tax on so-called Cadillac insurance plans until 2018 was within the purview of budget rules allowable under the filibuster-proof reconciliation process. The GOP had argued it was beyond the scope of the five-year budgetary window allowed under the rules, and it was a violation of the so-called Byrd rule because of its changes to the Social Security law.
Republicans were hoping that if Frumin had ruled that the tax plan was out of order, it would have derailed the entire reconciliation measure.
WE SHALL NEVER GIVE UP OR GIVE IN... ON TO THE NEXT FRONT... THEN NEXT BATTLEGROUND: THE SCOTUS!
Panel sees race bias in health care bill: "The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights says some little-noticed provisions in the House health care bill are racially discriminatory, and it intends to ask President Obama and Congress to rewrite sections that factor in race when awarding billions in contracts, scholarships and grants. The commission also fears the programs, which are designed to improve health care in underserved areas, will not be effective. In a draft of a letter the commission approved Friday, the group raises constitutional questions about giving preferential treatment to minority students for scholarships, and about favoring medical schools and organizations that have a record of sending graduates to areas with inadequate health care services."
Donk Congressmen in hiding: "Stung by howling protesters and losing ground in the public relations battle over health care, members of Congress this summer are ditching traditional town-hall meetings and using less confrontational methods of meeting constituents as they try to persuade a wary public to back the Democrats' overhaul plans. For Rep. Ed Perlmutter, Colorado Democrat, that meant holding court outside the King Soopers grocery store here Saturday behind a 6-foot wall of bottled water, blocked from view of roughly 400 voters in a parking lot. "He's in there hiding," said John Frantum of Denver, who opposes the proposed expansion of government-provided health care. "He should have been out here with a bullhorn once he saw the writing on the wall."
Healthcare crisis solved (with vouchers): “Democratic proposals to reform the American healthcare industry require too much faith in government while Republican proposals don’t solve the problem of the uninsured. The best known hybrid proposal, the Wyden-Bennett plan, overhauls the current insurance industry and solves the uninsured problem by mandating coverage. But as we have learned from Massachusetts’ experience, enforcing mandated coverage is very difficult. Americans deserve reform that deals with the three most important problems with American healthcare: (1) many people are uninsured, (2) those who have insurance worry that if they lose their job they might become locked out of the system because of a pre-existing condition, and (3) many people are frustrated with increasingly intrusive insurance companies that treat patients more like criminals than customers. … Any plan that doesn’t address these three problems is inadequate. Any plan that requires nationalizing healthcare is excessive and prone to failure.”
The market doesn’t ration health care: “When a person buys five apples in a grocery store rather than ten because he wishes to use the rest of his money for other purposes, it seems entirely wrong to say the market (or even the grocer) has rationed the apples. The customer makes his choice on the basis of his preferences and the money available (which is the result of previous transactions). It is true that as a result of market exchanges, goods and resources change hands and (except for land) locations. But in no sense is this rationing or allocation. The resulting arrangement of resources is simply a product of many transactions. Of course, people’s choices of what and what not to buy and sell at which prices create an arrangement of goods and resources that tends to be intelligible in terms of consumers’ subjective priorities. But that does not warrant calling the process rationing or allocation.”
Real health reform: "For most Americans, the shortfalls of our health care system express themselves in high costs (leading to the high number of uninsured), the instability of health coverage tied to employment, and the long-term fiscal nightmare of our Medicare and Medicaid entitlements. To begin to address costs, conservatives should stress some ways of combating the inefficiencies of the current system. Ending the tax penalty for purchasing health coverage outside the employer system would help build a genuine individual market in health insurance and encourage the informed consumer choices and provider competition essential to reining in costs. The Democrats are increasingly open to taxing employer health benefits to pay for their massive new entitlement. Republican reformers should instead propose to extend the benefit to everyone in the form of a refundable tax credit for individuals to enable the creation of a true private health insurance market.”
AARP suffers backlash over health “reform” stance: “Elected officials aren’t the only ones facing frustrated, angry crowds at healthcare town hall meetings. The senior advocacy group AARP is now coming under criticism from its own members for appearing to support President Obama’s healthcare reform plans. The internal debate is heating up as lawmakers prepare to enter what could be the final stretch in writing legislation, with just one committee left to vote on it. But just as constituents are giving their elected representatives a piece of their mind over the August recess, some seniors are starting to protest the AARP. Last week, AARP officials speaking at a forum in Dallas walked out after several seniors interrupted the meeting with critical questions and comments.”
Ten questions politicians won’t answer: “The past week’s debate about health care has shown that in Washington the only things more stubborn than facts are politicians who evade them. In spite of a torrent of independent analyses showing that the so-called health-care ‘reform’ bills moving through Congress will dramatically increase the deficit and cause millions of Americans to lose their health insurance, the politicians leading the effort have steadfastly refused to consider that their ideas and policies, rather than the character of their critics, may be flawed. At the same time, the politicians writing the bill still refuse to answer basic questions about how it will be paid for and how it will affect patients.”
Obama’s latest health care weapon: A White House website: “The White House has rolled out its newest weapon in the cyberwars over health care: A website called ‘Reality Check.’ The White House says its site ‘focuses on what reform really means for you and your family, debunks some common myths along the way and provides you with online tools and content to share the facts with friends, family and anyone else in your social network.’”
The myth of free-market health care in America: "ObamaCare is in retreat. That much was clear the moment the president started springing B-grade Hollywood references to `blue pills and red pills' in its defense during his news conference last week. But before ObamaCare can be beaten back decisively, its critics need to answer this question: How did his plan for a government takeover of roughly a fifth of the U.S. economy get this far in the first place? The answer is not that Democrats have a lock on Washington right now - although they do. Nor that Republicans are intellectually bereft - although they are. The answer is that both ObamaCare's supporters and opponents believe that - unlike Europe - America has something called a free market health care system. So long as this myth holds sway, it will be exceedingly difficult to prescribe free market fixes to America's health care woes - or, conversely, end the lure of big government remedies."
Buy now, pay later: "Listen to liberal advocates of health-care reform and you'll hear two constant refrains: We must expand coverage to everyone, and we must control costs. Democrats tend to sell this as a package deal, a sort of political version of the Billie Mays pitch - but that's not all! And while they've put forth a number of plans that would expand coverage by varying degrees, the tacked-on bonus - as is the case with most info-mercials - is essentially a scam: Claims that the Democrats' current proposals will rein in health-care spending are sketchy at best. Nor is that surprising. Despite all the talk of cutting costs, the tacit plan, from the beginning, has been to pass reform by building a coalition that would collectively agree to give members whatever they wanted now, while cheerfully talking around the serious budgetary complications posed by universal coverage."
Perils of Obamacare: The three big lies: "The Congressional Budget Office has made it clear that the reform plans now being debated will increase overall health-care costs, yet President Obama on Friday repeatedly said that his reform would reduce costs and save Americans money. But no matter how many times he says it, the truth is you will pay more - much more - both in higher taxes and in higher premiums. The final health-care bill is expected to cost more than $1 trillion over the next 10 years. That means much higher taxes, and not just for the wealthy."
Posted by John Ray. For a daily critique of Leftist activities, see DISSECTING LEFTISM. To keep up with attacks on free speech see TONGUE-TIED. Also, don't forget your daily roundup of pro-environment but anti-Greenie news and commentary at GREENIE WATCH . Email me (John Ray) here
Either Obama wins Obamacare now (because of thuggery and intimidation and arm-twisting), AND HE AND THE DEMOCRATS SUFFER A HUGE BACKLASH AND LOSE BIG IN 2010)...
OR OBAMCARE GOES DOWN TO DEFEAT NOW, AND OBAMA'S PRESIDENCY IS MORTALLY WOUNDED.
IT'S A WIN-WIN FOR THE RIGHT-WING.
Ahhhhhhhh.......
IOW: HUBRIS STRIKES AGAIN!
[NOTE: YOU READ IT HERE FIRST: THESE ARE THE SAME TACTICS OBAMA AND AXELROD AND RAHM USED IN THE CAUCUSES AGAINST HILLARY SUPPORTERS, AND THAT THE BPP USED IN PHILLY!] Posted by Reliapundit @ 9:41 PM ; Permalink
THIS WAS POSTED WHEN OBAMA WAS PUSHING FOR PASSAGE IN AUGUST!
The USA took another step toward instituting politician designed, government bureaucrat run, taxpayer financed healthcare.
Instead of attempting a few small and widely agreed to reforms - and addressing tort reform at all - Obama and the radical left running the show in DC rammed through a humongous overhaul of 1/6th of our economy. They did it in the middle of the night on a weekend.
Even if they think their intentions were nice - and most do think they are doing something good - only one thing is certain: 85% of Americans who have insurance are going to be in for some big surprises should the Senate pass a bill and Obama sign something like what the House passed into law.
The unintended consequences will wreak havoc with people's lives and pocketbooks. And the interned consequences will ultimately give more control to the government over our private lives and health and medical decisions.
YES: WHEN THE GOVERNMENT PAYS THE BILLS, THEY HAVE THE RIGHT AND THE POWER TO MAKE THESE DECISIONS.
AND THEY WILL.
DON'T BELIEVE ME!?!?
HAH!
LOOK WHAT THEY ARE DOING TO THE BANKS THEY BAILED OUT!
THEY ARE NOW GOING TO CONTROL AND LIMIT THE PAY OF EXECUTIVES AT THESE COMPANIES.
THE GOVERNMENT HAS EVERY RIGHT TO DO THIS - THEY PURCHASED THE RIGHT WHEN THEY BAILED THEM OUT.
IT'LL BE THE SAME WITH YOUR HEALTHCARE:
THE GOVERNMENT WILL MAKE DECIDE WHAT CARE YOU WILL BE ENTITLED TO - NOT YOU AND YOUR DOCTOR.
AND THE GOVERNMENT'S INTERESTS AND YOURS WILL NOT ALWAYS COINCIDE.
If we want more and better and cheaper healthcare, all we really needed to do was to empower individuals: (1) give individuals the same tax break we give businesses to buy healthcare; (2) foster MORE competition between insurance companies by allowing national/cross-state border commerce. That and TORT REFORM - which has been rpvoe to lower healthcare costs everywhere it's been enacted.
Instead it seems more likely than ever that we will get Obamacare.
They are going to ram it down our throats.
In the dead of the night - if they have to.
They are doing this now because they know that come 2010 they will lose at least one body of Congress and lose their ability to pass anything.
Obama and Axelrod and Rahm and Reid and Pelosi are now in a mad dash to pass as much socialist crap as they can. Between now and then they can do a lot of damage.
The United Nations chief has urged world leaders to "seal a deal" on climate change when they meet in Copenhagen next week.
Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said he believed an agreement was in sight, with recent moves by some countries a positive step to cutting emissions.
Danish PM Lars Lokke Rasmussen said he hoped to see "money on the table" at the UN conference he will host.
Both spoke at a Commonwealth meeting also focusing on climate change.
The Copenhagen summit, from 7-18 December, will see more than 85 national leaders gather to discuss climate change.
"Our common goal is to achieve a firm foundation for a legally binding climate treaty as early as possible in 2010," Mr Ban told the Commonwealth leaders at their summit in Trinidad and Tobago where he was a guest.
THERE IS A GREAT SENSE OF URGENCY - A RACE - NOW BECAUSE CLIMATEGATE HAS MADE THE AGW ALARMISTS REALIZE THEIR CHARADE MAY SOON COME ENTIRELY UNDONE.
THE ALARMISTS HAVE TO ACT BEFORE A MAJORITY OF PEOPLE REALIZE THAT AGW AND CO2 CONTROL ARE TOTAL SHAMS - MERELY STEALTH SOCIALISM AND STEALTH GLOBAL GOVERNANCE.
[ASIDE: THIS URGENCY IS NOT UNLIKE OBAMA'S/REID'S/PELOSI'S SENSE OF URGENCY WITH REGARD TO OBAMACARE:
THE RECENT ELECTIONS IN THE USA MADE THEM REALIZE THEY ONLY HAVE BETWEEN NOW AND NEXT SUMMER TO PASS THEIR SOCIALIST AGENDA BECAUSE IN NOVEMBER 2010 THEY WILL LOSE CONTROL OF CONGRESS.]
ABE LINCOLN KNEW WHY SCOUNDRELS LIKE OBAMA ALWAYS LOSE IN THE END:
"YOU CAN FOOL SOME OF THE PEOPLE ALL OF THE TIME, AND ALL OF THE PEOPLE SOME OF THE TIME BUT YOU CANNOT FOOL ALL OF THE PEOPLE ALL OF THE TIME."
I was reading an eloquent eulogy by Ted Sorensen in Time to the late Ted Kennedy. At one point, he writes: “Both a plane crash in Massachusetts in 1964 and the ugly automobile accident on Chappaquiddick Island in 1969 almost cost him his life, and the Chappaquiddick incident ultimately ended his bright prospects for still higher office.”
Something rings wrongly in this. I don’t think it was Sorensen’s intent to be callous, but Chappaquiddick for many is not remembered just as ending Teddy’s “bright prospects for still higher office,” or even as an “ugly automobile accident [that] almost cost [Kennedy] his life,” but rather as an incident that unnecessarily resulted in the death of Mary Jo Kopechne (never mentioned by name in the essay) owing to (according to a later inquest) the negligence of the driver, Ted Kennedy.
We should not speak ill of the dead, nor at a time of mourning gratuitously inject politics, but there is something surreal in remembering Chappaquiddick chiefly as either an ugly accident that almost killed Ted, or an unfortunate accident that cost him “higher office.” That July 1969 evening remains a terrible tragedy only because a young, bright woman at 28 lost a chance to enjoy a full life due to an entirely preventable occurrence.
I'm staying mostly silent about Ted Kennedy for reasons that should be obvious. There was obviously a good side to him. He cared greatly about his causes. He was personally charming. He worked tirelessly and nurtured many careers. I could go on, but others more passionate about the man can say it better.
But here's one tip for liberals outraged that anyone would speak ill of the dead in regard to Kennedy. Such protests are fair for the moment. But they lose all legitimacy the moment liberals try to use his memory to steam roll a health-care bill through Congress. If they want to invoke his memory or legacy as a reason to pass their partisan version of health-care reform, that is their right. But they should not then say that nobody should dare criticize Kennedy. That's not making an argument for health-care reform, that is simple bullying and I see no reason why opponents of the Democratic push should cave in to it.
IF DEMOCRATS RE-CHRISTEN OBAMACARE, KENNEDYCARE.
I WILL CALL IT KOPECHNECARE!
TEDDY WAS WRONG ABOUT EVERYTHING - EVEN IRAQ, AND HE WAS A BLOWHARD:
AND A FOAMING AT THE MOUTH LYING LEFTIST SCARE-MONGERING PIECE OF CRAP - HERE BORKING BORK:
I had dinner with an old friend and die hard leftist the other night.
She doesn't like Obama - because he caves in to the GOP all the time!
I asked her to name cave-in and she said Obamacare: she wanted the single-payer approach and if not that then at least the so-called "public option." That was dropped and she blames Obama for "caving in to the GOP."
PURE FANTASY.
Obamacare was passed without a single GOP vote. And in order to pass it Obama had to LARD IT UP with all sorts of pork - the Nebraska Deal to get Nelson's vote, the Louisiana Deal to get Landrieu's. YES: he had to promise (in a bald-faced LIE!) that it would not fund abortion - but again: this was to get DEMOCRAT votes.
If Obama had REALLY compromised with the GOP and perhaps only passed a 500 page bill, then he might have gotten dozens of GOP votes and be at 75% popularity now instead of the dumpster.
In breaking other promises, Obama did cave in to the GOP, but into REALITY: Obama HAD to keep Gitmo open despite promising to close it because DEMOCRATS were opposed to closing it. He had to cancel plans to try KSM in NYC because DEMOCRATS opposed it. We are floundering in Afghanistan because Obama gave our Afghan mission LESS troops than the Brass wanted - and he chose to do so with a timetable - to suck up to the LEFT, not the GOP.
Yes: Obama compromised once: Obama extended the Bush Tax Rates because the nation had just had an election and the GOP won OVERWHELMINGLY and when he did so his popularity went up.
But ever since Obama has followed the incorrect path of attacking the GOP and the Right. And His ratings have gone steadily down, (with a temporary and small few blips up).
She didn't buy it. To her, Obama is a moderate.
So, she asked, why is Obama veering even further to the left now?
I think because he and his comrades decided they were probably going to lose in 2012, and that therefore they started to try to ram through as much socialistic crap as they could while they could - hoping that most of it will proves as hard to undo as Obamacare.
Imagine how extreme Obama will be if he is re-elected - G-D FORBID!
The only safety valve or insurance we have is to elect a GOP Senate to go along with the GOP House.
Other wise, Obama and his comrades will succeed in making the USA just another weak euro-socialist state, and thereby succeed in tossing the West into the dustbin of history as China and Global Jihad take over.
That's what's ultimately at stake.
Not just whether the USA remains a beacon of hope for liberty, but also if we can once again be the economic engine of global growth and the defender of the Free World.
Postmodern leftists like Obama want to USA to become no more exceptional than Belgium. If we allow him to be re-elected, then he will succeed.
Either Obama wins Obamacare now (because of thuggery and intimidation and arm-twisting), AND HE AND THE DEMOCRATS SUFFER A HUGE BACKLASH AND LOSE BIG IN 2010)...
OR OBAMCARE GOES DOWN TO DEFEAT NOW, AND OBAMA'S PRESIDENCY IS MORTALLY WOUNDED.
IT'S A WIN-WIN FOR THE RIGHT-WING.
Ahhhhhhhh.......
IOW: HUBRIS STRIKES AGAIN!
[NOTE: YOU READ IT HERE FIRST: THESE ARE THE SAME TACTICS OBAMA AND AXELROD AND RAHM USED IN THE CAUCUSES AGAINST HILLARY SUPPORTERS, AND THAT THE BPP USED IN PHILLY!]
Senate Finance Committee Democrats have rejected a GOP amendment that would have required a health overhaul bill to be available online for 72 hours before the committee votes.
Republicans argued that transparency is an Obama administration goal. They also noted that their constituents are demanding that they read bills before voting.
Democrats said it was a delay tactic that could have postponed a vote for weeks.
OBAMA RPOSED GREATER TRANSPERNCY, BUT HAS BROKEN HIS WORD.
REID HAS PROMISED THAT - IF OBAMACARE CAN'T WIN AN CLOTURE VOTE, THAT HE WILL PUT THROUGH OBAMACARE ON A RECONCILIATION BILL.
THIS ISN'T DEMOCRACY; IT'S RULE BY FIAT.
IT MAY BELONG IN CHAVEZ'S VENEZUELA OR PUTIN'S RUSSIA OR AHMADINEJAD'S IRAN, BUT IT DOESN'T BELONG IN THE USA.
IF THEY GO THROUGH WITH THIS THEY WILL LOSE BOTH HOUSES OF CONGRESS IN 2010, AND THEN WE WILL IMPEACH OBAMA.
Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and Steny Hoyer have called the constituents speaking out against ObamaCare at town halls “un-American,” and that didn’t slow them down. Will calling them “racists” do it? MS-NBC’s Ed Schultz tosses a softball to Rep. John Dingell (D-MI), last seen being flummoxed by his own constituents last week. At the time, Dingell dismissed his critics as “infiltrators.” Today, they’re the equivalent of the Ku Klux Klan (viaThe Weekly Standard):
What message has the House Democratic leadership sent this week to voters in their district? If you show up to town halls to criticize us, you’re un-American Klan members. Somewhere in here, there’s a killer GOP television spot just itching to run in the summer of 2010.
And, for the record, here's some footage of the "KKK rally" to which Dingell:
AND, BY THE WAY, IF YOU WATCH THE ABOVE VIDEO THE WHOLE WAY THROUGH YOU WILL SEE THAT MR. SOLA RECEIVED A THREATENING VISIT AT HIS HOME IN THE MIDDLE OF THE NIGHT
FOR HAVING THE AUDACITY TO STAND UP AND QUESTION HIS CONGRESSMAN ON A OBAMACARE POINT ABOUT WHICH HE HAD PREVIOUSLY LIED.
ELECTIONS HAVE CONSEQUENCES.
YES.
AND RAMMING THROUGH UNPOPULAR LEGISLATION TAKING LIBERTY AWAY FROM AMERICANS HAS CONSEQUENCES, TOO.
BWAHAHAHAHA!
I've posted several times that the way Obama handled it, healthcare was a lose-lose for the Dems: if they pass it they lose, and if they don’t pass anything they lose.
Obama painted the Dems into a corner.
And the GOP will reap huge elctoral rewards as a direct result.
BWAHAHAHA!