Ben Nelson Should Have Waited
by Big Dog on Jan 7, 2010 at 11:18 Political
Ben Nelson sold his political career in the US Senate for Obamacare. Nelson was opposed to provisions of the plan and eventually took a payoff to give his vote even though the payoff did not correct that to which he was opposed. It did, however, give him a provision that requires the rest of the country to pay the tab for Nebraska’s Medicare.
Ever since Nelson sold is soul for party politics his constituents have been letting him have an earful and he has been running around trying to explain why he sold out. Nelson is now saying that Democrats should have waited on health care and focused on the economy.
Mr. Nelson, YOU could have forced them to wait. You claim that Democrats should have waited but you had the power to slow down the process and allow the debate (such that it was with Republicans blocked out) to continue. You sold your vote and now you are trying to blame your party.
You are really a pathetic little man. You voted for the bill and regardless of the reason you should have the testicular fortitude to stand up and take responsibility for YOUR vote. The voters know why you did it so all the rationalizing in the world is not going to save you on this issue. Be a man and accept the responsibility for your actions. The only thing you have going for you is that you are not up for reelection until 2012 but I believe that will be the end of your time in the Senate. Nebraskans will not forget how you betrayed them and how you sold your vote in favor of party politics.
You folks in the great state of Nebraska need to keep pressure on this little man and hold him accountable. It did not take C-SPAN for Americans to see how Nelson betrayed is constituents.
Speaking of C-SPAN, CBS is now on the Obama is not transparent bandwagon. In a piece entitled, Obama Reneges on Health Care Transparency, CBS reports:
During the campaign, though, candidate Obama regularly promised something different – to broadcast all such negotiations on C-SPAN, putting the entire process of pounding out health care reform out in the open. (That promise applied to the now-completed processing of forging House and Senate bills, too.)
Back when Republicans controlled Congress and George W. Bush was in the White House, it was Democrats who angrily complained about secret backroom deals.
Now the roles are reversed.
CBS and the rest of the Lame Stream Media carried the water for Obama and helped him get elected. He could not have gotten better treatment from them if he had paid them to campaign for him (and maybe he did) so it is interesting that CBS would point out this glaring lie that is Obama. But in a fashion for which the LSM is known, CBS comes to the table just a little bit late in the discussion. From the start of this debate it was obvious that it would not be transparent and that Democrats were hiding in rooms with the doors closed negotiating under cover of darkness. Democrats went extremely covert after Town Hall meetings in August where constituents let them have it with both barrels. Rather than address constituent concerns or take a new look, Democrats hunkered down in bunkers away from the public’s eye. Welcome to the party CBS, even if you are many months too late.
How long before you report on the moon landing?
As for cover of darkness, a Pennsylvania Democrat looking to unseat Arlen Specter, says that the blame for the drop in public support falls squarely on the Democrats.
Rep. Joe Sestak blames Democratic leaders for the plunge in public support for overhauling the health care system, saying Wednesday they failed to defend proposals that helped carry the party to victories in 2008.
“They said it would be transparent. Why isn’t it?” said Sestak, a Delaware County Democrat, in a meeting with Tribune-Review editors and reporters. “At times, I find the caucus is a real disappointment. We aren’t transparent, not just to the public but at times to the members.” Pittsburgh Tribune
CBS is pointing out the Democrat’s lack of transparency and a Democrat is pointing out the same thing and blaming it, in part, for the lack of support. When Republicans complain about the lack of transparency we are greeted with assurances that this has been the most transparent administration and Congress in history.
Evidently, some of their own are finding that the only transparency involved is how transparent the lies are.
UPDATE: Jack Cafferty of CNN rips Obama on transparency and hopes voters remember this in the midterm elections.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: cbs, Democrats, health care, Obama, sestak, specter, transparency. lies
Speaking of those taking a hit on how they behaved during the healthcare debate, consider this fellow.
“Lieberman Tanks
81% of Democrats now disapprove of Lieberman’s job performance with only 14% approving, and he’s not real popular with Republicans who disapprove of him by a 48/39 margin or with independents who do so by a 61/32 spread either. It all adds up to a 25% approval rating with 67% of his constituents giving him bad marks.
Lieberman managed to antagonize both sides with his actions during the health care debate. Among voters who support the health care bill 87% disapprove of how Lieberman handled it with only 10% supporting it. But by voting for the final product after getting it watered down he also managed to earn the unhappiness of constituents opposed to the bill, 52% of whom say they disapprove of what Lieberman did to 33% in support.
Overall just 19% of voters in the state say they like what Lieberman did on the issue with 68% opposed.”
Public Policy Polling.
Nebraska was 16th in health care this year in state rankings; it was 9th in 2008. 12% of its population has no health care.
http://www.americashealthrankings.org/yearcompare/2008/2009/NE.aspx
Nelson’s job is to improve his state. Conservatives hate it when politicians do their jobs. Look at how poorly Bush did his…
Is it any surprise?
“…the red states they represent are the unhealthiest in the nation.”
Red State Reality: Unhealthiest Residents, Worst Health Care.
Excerpt:
“Following on the heels of the Commonwealth Fund’s 2009 Scorecard of state health care system performance, the United Health Foundation’s report is just the latest confirmation that health care is worst where Republicans poll best.
As Forbes noted:
“The annual ranking looks at 22 indicators of health, including everything from how many children receive recommended vaccinations, to obesity and smoking rates, to cancer deaths.”
The diagnosis isn’t pretty for Republicans committed to denying the health care their constituents need most of all. The 2009 rankings reveal that nine of the top 10 healthiest states voted for Barack Obama in 2008. Conversely, 9 of the 10 cellar dwellers backed John McCain in 2008; four years earlier, the 15 unhealthiest states voted for George W. Bush for President.”
Link
You are wrong Darrel and you are too blind to see it. I have no problem with politicians improving their states I have a problem with them doing it with MY money. I don’t live in Nebraska so why should I pay for their uninsured?
And no one can show how what Nelson did helped his state. And, since his own constituents don’t like it then he has lost the idea behind representative government.
Bigd: “have no problem with politicians improving their states”>>
DAR
Well, that’s what Ben tried to do. With mixed results. His numbers suck at the end of this for the same reason Lieberman’s do: he managed to piss off both sides.
Bigd: “I have a problem with them doing it with MY money.”
DAR
We’re all in this together. Remember… it takes a village (sometimes a country). And they are already doing it with your money. The goal of this is to get the overall cost to everyone, down. If we we more efficient we would have the best healthcare in the world, available to all (that’s what we are paying for), instead of crappy healthcare, not available to tens of millions.
France has 67% less administration. Can you imagine how much money could be saved if we had that kind of efficiency? Breathtaking.
D.
As I explained before, you cannot tie color of the state to this stuff because many red states have very blue cities. Break this down by voter registration or political philosophy and let me know how it turns out.
Bigd: “you cannot tie color of the state to this stuff because many red states have very blue cities.”>>
DAR
But of course. The 15 unhealthiest states just happen to be red and voted for Bush, but it just so happens to be due to that minority of the population, in the cities… in those red states. How convenient. But what else *could* you say? Blue states don’t have blue cities do they…
And the fact that 9 out of the 10 healthiest states ARE BLUE (Vermont, home of Dean #1), must be due to the hard working, living in the country, healthy rightwingers in those states. Right?
So whenever it is shown that the red states have high rates of social dysfunction (and they do, and they are the most religious too), it’s always those “blue cities.” But this ignores the fact that these little dysfunctional reds states are red for a reason:
More rightwingers.
If your rightwing political philosophy led to more successful and better functioning societies we should find a strong correlation between red states and social function. But instead we find THE EXACT OPPOSITE. Do you have an explanation for this? Do you have a reason for why the redder a state is, the more likely it is to be screwed up? Or is this just some colossal, unbelievable (and I do mean unbelievable) fluke?
D.
——————
Bible Belt Leads U.S. In Divorces
“Aside from the quickie-divorce Mecca of Nevada, no region of the United States has a higher divorce rate than the Bible Belt. Nearly half of all marriages break up, but the divorce rates in these southern states are roughly 50 percent above the national average.
According to federal figures:
* The rate was 8.5 per thousand in Nevada, 6.4 in Tennessee, 6.1 in Arkansas, 6.0 in Alabama and Oklahoma.
* Of southeastern states, only South Carolina’s rate of 3.8 was below the national average.
* By contrast, the divorce rate is less than 3.0 in Connecticut, Massachusetts and New York.”
Of course they will lead in divorces, liberals knock up their girls and move on without marriage.
Here is a red/blue map from 2004 by country. Show me, in your wisdom, how one could NOT make it all about the red states?
Also, look at the blue states and see how much red are in them. The blue cities are densely populated with libs. Look at how small areas of blue turn states blue. MD is an example. 4 or 5 subdivisions determine the outcome of the election despite a very red map especially in the other of the 23 subdivisions.
The country is very red. The major cities are very blue. Perhaps someone can explain, other than population density, how the tiny little blue areas determine elections.
Bigd: “Here is a red/blue map from 2004 by [county].”>>
DAR
Land doesn’t vote, people do.
Bigd: “look at the blue states and see how much red are in them.”>>
DAR
Land doesn’t vote.
Bigd: “the blue cities are densely populated with libs.”>>
DAR
Completely irrelevant to my point that a state “color” is determined by more or less, red or blue VOTERS (people). It doesn’t matter the slightest *where* they live in a state. This is because land doesn’t vote, people do.
Bigd: “The country is very red.”>>
DAR
If land could vote, yes. But it can’t vote, nor is it relevant.
Bigd: “Perhaps someone can explain,… how the tiny little blue areas determine elections.”>>
DAR
That’s an easy one. That’s where the most people live, and people vote. Land doesn’t.
Oh, and all of those red areas? They’re, almost without exception, mooching (welfare) off of the hard work and productivity of the blue areas. And it’s not even close.
Red States are big welfare states.
D.
It does not take a village, it takes people with personal responsibility. I do not think I should pay for Nebraska’s problems and I expect no one from Nebraska (or anywhere else) to pay my debts.
I pay my own and if we all did that things would be great.
What did we do 200 years ago?
Bigd: “What did we do 200 years ago?”>>
DAR
We died, at about age 38 (for men) and 40 (for women). Stats from 1850.
Not a lot of need or concern for SS or medicare eh?
There’s something about the past that you conservatives wouldn’t want to “conserve” eh?
Times have changed, the bar has been raised. It’s such a different world it might as well be a different planet.
D.
Exactly, we died young because of infection and disease, things we had little knowledge of and knew nothing about fixing. The free market allowed us to fix these things (and war as well) and now you libs want to take that away and stifle innovation.
Funny how you say we conservatives live in the past but it is the libs who bring the past up all the time. Lynching, slavery, blah blah. Live on the DIFFERENT PLANET.
Ran into a lady yesterday who has black relatives. One of the kids is half and half and she was told by her teacher (a black woman) that she had to register every year to vote because she is black and that this is how America treats black people. This is how you libs keep blacks on the plantation.
Bigd: “…the free market allowed us to fix these things>>
DAR
Sure, government spending wasn’t involved at all. For instance, a biggie:
“In 1947, Salk accepted an appointment to the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine. In 1948, he undertook a project funded by the National Foundation for Infantile Paralysis [set up by Franklin D. Roosevelt] to determine the number of different types of polio virus.”
etc.
Bigd: (and war as well)>>
DAR
The free market helped us “fix” war as well? We’ve fixed war?
Bigd: “it is the libs who bring the past up all the time.>>
DAR
To remind you how bad it was and why we need be “progressive” and move forward.
D.
Darrel, you could not be more wrong. Land does not vote but the color of the land is determined by the people who do. The red areas are not densely populated but have conservatives in them who vote make it red. The POPULATION of the large cities control the elections for all the other areas that are red because of population. I know you find it hard to believe but that is how it works.
The small land mass areas that control the results of elections are DENSELY populated with libs and they get to decide for all the others, in less populated areas, who is in office.
Land is irrelevant so don’t get confused (or excited) by your red/blue map. Rightwingers like to look at these maps and be encouraged by all of the red which mostly signifies empty land. Land doesn’t vote, people do, so the map means nothing.
D.
The large cities control the elections for the other areas…because there are more voters there. How would you rather it work? You want some cowpoke in Montana to get more voting power to outweigh the evil city folk and their liberal agendas? We already mute this affect in presidential elections a little with the Electoral College but I’m not really getting your point.
We also mute this effect by having two senators per state irregardless of their population.
No Darrel, many of our medical advances came as the result of war.
The point Adam, is that the dense population determines the outcome for the rest each state and you can’t say that red states suck up money when many red states have lots of densely packed liberals.
A red state is a red state for one reason and one reason only. It has more people voting Republican that Democratic. How that ties into any factors like healthcare, education, divorce rates, etc., is beyond my pay grade.
The Senator issue worked better until people started electing them.