Obama Wants Courage, Pelosi Gives Cowardice
by Big Dog on Mar 17, 2010 at 05:01 Opinion, Political
Barack Obama is out on the campaign trail community organizing support for his health care takeover because he does not have the votes to get it passed. He will be interviewed on FOX News tonight because FOX has the largest audience, the biggest number of people opposed, and because Obama’s health care takeover is on the ropes.
While Obama was trotting out sob stories and telling half truths about the medical situations of those he exploited, he called for courage. He wants the Democrats to have the courage to vote for his plan even though it will severely hamper the ability of many of them to get reelected. Courage is what the man wants.
But cowardice is what he gets. The Democrats do not have the courage of their convictions and do not want their names attached to the vote. Nancy Pelosi is considering using a procedure that will cover Democrats and allow them to claim they did not vote for the bill.
The tactic — known as a “self-executing rule” or a “deem and pass” — has been commonly used, although never to pass legislation as momentous as the $875 billion health-care bill. It is one of three options that Pelosi said she is considering for a late-week House vote, but she added that she prefers it because it would politically protect lawmakers who are reluctant to publicly support the measure. [emphasis mine] Washington Post
She likes the procedure (which is likely unconstitutional) because it provides protection for Democrats reluctant to vote for the Senate Bill. This is nothing but cowardice.
While Obama is out calling for courage his Democrats are hiding behind Pelosi’s skirt because they are a bunch of thumb-sucking pansies who do not have enough of a spine to stand up for what they believe in.
If the bill is so wonderful and does so many great things then why do they need cover? If this is the panacea that will solve our health care problems then why are they not proudly standing up and voting for it?
They are not voting for it because they know it is a crap sandwich that Obama wants them all to take a bite from.
Arms are being twisted, deals are being cut, and members of Congress are being embarrassed into doing what Obama wants them to do but what the majority of Americans do not.
Despite the rationalization by some, these Democrats are in trouble. At least 35 of them are in districts that were easily won by Republican presidential candidates and it is unlikely that those districts will put them back in office if they vote for this.
A year ago I figured that Republicans would gain seats in the midterm election because that is the historical trend. I never thought they could take back the House but now I am convinced that Republicans will win enough seats to gain the majority.
Of course things can change in eight months but if the elections were held today the Republicans would have control of the House.
Health care is the straw that broke the camel’s back. Pass or fail, a lot of Democrats will get flushed because of it and their blind loyalty to a community organizer who is hell bent on destroying this country.
Related:
Wall Street Journal
[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: courage, cover, cowardice, farce, health care, lies, Obama, Pelosi
What was threatened or promised to Dennis Kucinich? I read a headline where he is going to vote for healthcare now. The Public Option like you said or something. These people have no morals of any kind.
I guess he got a ride in Air Force One.
Political courage is exceptionally rare. The way GOP legislators ran and hid when President Bush floated the idea of partially privatizing Social Security indicates that the malady isn’t confined to the Left. All the same, it can be fun to begin a random sentence with “Are you really going to let old people and minorities…” and watch an officeholder cringe preemptively.
Imagine how the left would have reacted if Bush had changed Social Security using the procedures that the Dems are using for health care.
Kos would have crapped his pink panties and Darrel and Adam would have been having seizures.
Kind of wish they had done it that way but now that we know the rules we can use them when we are in charge again. Then we can change all this stuff.
I won’t agree with the process but if it happens then the Dems have only themselves to blame.
Bigd: “Imagine how the left would have reacted if Bush had changed Social Security using the procedures that the Dems are using for health care.”>>
DAR
The “left” wouldn’t have had to do anything. The seniors would have risen up in the middle of the night and strangled him. The only evidence would have been all of the wheel chair tracks leaving the White House.
I must say I immensely enjoyed watching Bush blow all of his political capital on an intensely unpopular and completely hopeless endeavor. I knew it didn’t have a chance from the start.
Bigd: “…now that we know the rules we can use them when we are in charge again. Then we can change all this stuff.”>>
DAR
Oops, Bigd just admitted, by his own measure, he’s a hypocrite. He thinks it’s unconstitutional but then he wouldn’t mind at all to do it if it’s for a cause he supports.
Bigd: I won’t agree with the process…”>>
DAR
Sure you won’t. Empty posturing.
D.
——————-
“Art. 1 Section 5:
“Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings, punish its members for disorderly behavior, and, with the concurrence of two thirds, expel a member.”
The filibuster, reconciliation, and the self-executing rule Pelosi is proposing are long established, well-known Congress rules.
So of course, they are perfectly legal.
Republicans have used them and are using them constantly.
The author [Tony Blankley] is just being hypocrite.”
Link.
That effort might have been “unpopular” D, but it has been long overdue, and at least Bush had the balls to try, while your progressives hunker in a corner and whine.
I notice that Darrel and Adam are fond of saying well Republicans did it too.
But when I say something that they think is beyond the pale and then remind them of how the left acted when Bush was in office they say just because Dems acted that way does not mean you have to.
Any truth to the rumor that Obama gave Kusinich a Lewinsky on AF 1 to get him to change?
Bigd: “Darrel and Adam are fond of saying well Republicans did it too.”>>
DAR
Well they did.
Upon what basis can you say they can’t do this when it’s well established procedure practiced regularly by your party?
And try to do it without looking like an flaming hypocrite. That would be a neat trick.
D.
——————
“When Republicans took power in 1995, they soon lost their aversion to self-executing rules and proceeded to set new records under Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.). There were 38 and 52 self-executing rules in the 104th and 105th Congresses (1995-1998), making up 25 percent and 35 percent of all rules, respectively. Under Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) there were 40, 42 and 30 self-executing rules in the 106th, 107th and 108th Congresses (22 percent, 37 percent and 22 percent, respectively). Thus far in the 109th Congress, self-executing rules make up about 16 percent of all rules.
On April 26 [2006], the Rules Committee served up the mother of all self-executing rules for the lobby/ethics reform bill. The committee hit the trifecta with not one, not two, but three self-executing provisions in the same special rule.” Link.
This raises the question, are there any bounds to republican hypocrisy or is it truly infinite?
Why would the seniors rise up? None of the proposals effected them because it left the system intact for them and was in place for younger people.
The number of people opposed to this health care plan are just a bit more, including seniors who do not want Medicare cut.
But the voices of opposition had no effect on the deaf Dems.
Sorry, but Congress cannot make rules that are contrary to the Constitution and it specifically states that EACH bill must be passed with a yea or nay vote.
They can’t be deemed. Yes, that process has been used to fix errors or correct a number problem but not for entire legislation.
Once again Darrel you miss the point. The point is you will say they did it too but then chastise people who counter an attack about what they say by saying Dems did it.
That is hypocritical.
I have opposed unconstitutional acts regardless of who did it.
And the filibuster is a rule that is Constitutional so to say it is not, is wrong.