Obama Goes All In
Mar 16, 2010 Opinion, Political
The health care takeover the Democrats have been working on for over a year is coming down to the final hours and the majority party is pulling out all the stops. They are working on unconstitutional methods to pass the bill, circumventing the normal process and lying about the bill being bipartisan in that they incorporated some Republican ideas.
They have a shell bill which is what they will pass and then when it goes to committee they will remove the items and replace them with the things they really want.
Barack Obama discusses the idea of courage and says that the time for politics is over and Congress should do what is right and put politics aside. Obama does this while playing politics because he is a product of the Chicago thug machine and he does not know what courage is and he is unaware of how to do something without involving politics. Additionally, Obama has allowed politics to get in the way because his desire NOT to fail on this issue has led to his political power play to get it passed. As for courage, if Obama had that trait he would have scrapped the bill and started over in a bipartisan fashion.
Obama delayed his working vacation for a few days to go around the country and …wait for it…engage in a political campaign for the bill. He is out there pushing hard for the bill. In essence, he is now “all in”, a term that describes a card player who throws all his money in the pot.
Obama is now all in on this like he was with the Chicago Olympic bid, the governor’s races in Virginia and New Jersey and the Senate race in Massachusetts. His spin doctors worked hard to make each of these look as if they were not Obama failures but they were.
Now that he is all in on health care he has no place to hide. His spin masters will not be able to spin this in any way, shape, or form should the bill not pass.
If this bill does not pass then Obama will be seen as having failed, especially by his own party. It will look, and rightly so, as if he gave it all he had and could not get it done even with super majorities.
He will be a failure and he knows it.
Right now the votes are not there but that does not mean it will fail to pass. There are plenty of backroom deals being made and offers are flying about the halls of the Capitol to give members anything they want for a yes vote. Pelosi is twisting arms two at a time and doing everything to force people to fall in line and vote yes.
And yet she does not have the votes.
If they happen to pass this then America will be outraged with those who sold their votes, and that is the only way they change, just as they were with Ben Nelson. That anger will show on election day and despite what the pseudo intellectual pundits say, Democrats will lose big. The Democrats know this and it is a major reason that many are hesitant to vote yes.
This is a lose lose situation for the Democrats because they will lose if this fails and lose bigger if it passes.
Obama has put them between Barack and a hard place and now he too, is all in.
But he does not have to worry about being reelected this year.
He has three years to recover. His Democrats in the House do not have that luxury and they know they are being hung out to dry.
[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: Congress, election, health care, lies, takeover
Democrats Run From Obama, Maybe This Is Why
Feb 3, 2010 Political
When Barack Obama took control of the White House he had everything going for him. He had majorities in the House and Senate that were so large the minority party could not stop any legislation. Infighting among Democrats and the desire to protect vulnerable seats are the only reasons that legislation did not pass. The Democrats, and only the Democrats, are responsible for any failures to achieve Obama’s agenda. Republicans could not stop them. The Democrats blame Republicans and call them the party of “No” but the Republicans were not needed to get anything passed. Democrats blame Republicans for not supporting issues that would hurt America and allow Democrats to claim bipartisanship. The votes on legislation that people do not want fall squarely on the shoulders of the Democrats.
This is an election year and the Democrats are pretending to be fiscally responsible. Obama has called for a freeze on a small part of the budget in order to appear as if he is trying to control costs. While he puts on the phony show he continues to spend like a drunken sailor. The difference is, a sailor spends his own money and stops spending when he runs out.
A number of Democrats are distancing themselves from Barack Obama and his latest budget. The Baltimore Sun reports that vulnerable Democrats are voicing their opposition to items in Barack Obama’s budget proposal in order to play to their constituencies back home and improve their prospects for reelection in November.
As Congress begins picking through President Obama’s vast election year budget, many Democratic incumbents and candidates seem to be finding something they love — to campaign against.
The Democrats mentioned have seen the writing on the wall since Scott Brown was elected to the Senate in Massachusetts. They were prepared to steamroll the health care takeover until that upset win. The vulnerable ones seem to have gotten the message while Obama, who is tone-deaf to the desires of America, seems to have a different opinion. He believes the answer to Brown’s win is not to do nothing. Perhaps so but Americans want the right thing done.
Perhaps these Democrats realize that if a Republican can win in Massachusetts then no seat is safe. The Washington Times is reporting that the prospects of Republicans in Senate races is looking better and that they have a chance to pick up ten seats.
The long-shot bid by Republicans to retake control of the Senate is suddenly in play, as the prospect of high-profile Republican candidates entering the fray has pushed the GOP even or ahead in polling for 10 races.
The potential candidacies of former Republican Govs. George E. Pataki in New York and Tommy G. Thompson in Wisconsin are improving the polling fortunes of the party as it pursues seats long in the hands of Democrats, while the anti-government “tea party” movement has provided momentum to Republican challengers in states such as Florida, Arkansas and Pennsylvania.
“If the election were held today, the Republicans could come close to winning back the Senate, if not actually win it,” said pollster John Zogby.
There are still many months to go before the elections in November and anything can happen. The tack to the middle by some Democrats might be viewed as positive by fools who will cry foul if they are reelected and then move back to the left. But the reality is that things are, as of this early date, looking good for the Republican party.
This has to be particularly chilling to these Democrats especially after the surprise win by Brown.
I don’t know if Republicans will take enough seats to win back the Senate but they will gain at least a few more and move the filibuster-proof number farther from the Democrats.
I would like to see the Republicans win back the Senate but I will settle for a few more seats and I particularly want the one held by Arlen Specter. He switched parties solely for the purpose of winning reelection so it would be great to see him lose as a Democrat.
[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: budget, Democrats, election, Obama, Senate, vulnerable
Democrats Will Avoid Tough Issues Until After The Election
Jan 20, 2010 Political
Scott Brown’s historic win in very blue Massachusetts was a shock wave that had been building in momentum. Even if he had lost the tightness of the race was cause for concern among Democrats who are expected to win by huge margins in Massachusetts. The Democrats and their big money supporters were forced to spend a lot of money in this race, money they had not planned on spending.
The ramifications of a contest this historical are nearly immediate. Senator Jim Webb said that there should be no more votes on health care legislation until Brown was sworn in. This is in opposition to all the stories over the last weeks (as a Brown victory became a possibility)that Democrats would drag their feet in getting Brown sworn in. I am still waiting for them to say Biden is at an undisclosed location so he will not be available to swear Brown in.
A story from al-Reuters today indicates that Democrats are unlikely to take up cap and trade legislation this year instead focusing on a separate energy bill that has bipartisan support. Cap and trade is very unpopular, like say, health care and the members of the House are already on a limb because they voted on it and are now stuck with their votes after the Senate dropped the issue leaving House members hanging.
The Democrats were reading the writing leading up to this election and now they are reading the writing all over the place. They can see that the people are angry and want blood (figuratively for those inclined to call law enforcement) and they are not too keen on the idea of voting on something that might well end their careers.
There might be 58 Democrats in the Senate and 256 in the House but they are really 58 individuals in the Senate and 256 individuals in the House who are worried about their own individual careers. When push comes to shove they will look out for their own political life.
Democrats are not likely to put anything on their legislative agenda that will result in tough votes that will require explanations to constituents.
If Coakley had won they would be full speed ahead.
Elections have consequences and this election has effectively defanged the Democrats.
Sources:
Tags: consequences, election, masachusetts, results
Brown Wins! Croakley Concedes; Democrats Beware
Jan 19, 2010 Political
In a stunning turnabout in American politics Scott Brown, a man given little chance only weeks ago, has come from behind to beat Martha Coakley to win the Senate seat formerly occupied by the late Ted Kennedy.
Kennedy held the seat for 47 years and was a leading proponent for government takeover of health care. The people of Massachusetts who put him in office all those many years, bucked his legacy and gave the seat to a person who, barring shenanigans, will effectively put an end to the current health care bills.
This is a historic moment for the state of Massachusetts and for the American people as they were able to get behind Brown and buck the radicals in DC. The left is working on spin to put this on the anger from the last administration but that is not true. Barack Obama, the once popular messianic figure of the left is 0 for 3 in candidates he campaigned for. The loss of the state houses in New Jersey and Virginia and now the US Senate seat in Massachusetts.
People are unhappy with the direction the country has taken and do not like the ham handed tactics deployed by Democrats intent on ramming things through regardless of public sentiment.
The consequences of those actions were felt tonight in very blue Massachusetts.
Beware Democrats, we are coming for you. Republicans who do not follow the will of the people, we are coming for you. We the People are taking our country back. If we can win in the bluest state in the union then we can win in your states as well.
Great Job Senator elect Brown.
Now go to DC and give them hell!!
Patriots, don’t quit now. We have not yet begun to fight.
Source:
Yahoo News
FOX News
[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: election, loss, martha coakley, Massachusetts, scott brown
Catholics Need Not Apply
Jan 15, 2010 Political
Martha Coakley either does not want the job for which she is running or she is incredibly stupid and does not deserve it. I am betting on the latter rather than the former.
Coakley has had an ad out bashing Scott Brown and saying he voted to deny care to rape victims. This is not true. Brown included a conscience clause that says if a provider is opposed to certain treatment (morning after pill, abortion, etc) then that person does not have to provide that care. The person has to already have the status on file and the victim has to be offered the care from someone not opposed to giving it and at no additional cost.
Coakley was interviewed recently and she was caught by surprise with a question regarding the conscience clause.
Under the conscience clause, workers in health-care environments ranging from doctors to maintenance men can refuse to offer services, information, or advice to patients on issues like contraception, blood transfusions, etc..if the workers are morally against it.
This is how Martha Coakley handled a question about the conscience clause:
Ken Pittman: Right, if you are a Catholic, and believe what the Pope teaches that any form of birth control is a sin. ah you don’t want to do that.
Martha Coakley: No we have a separation of church and state Ken, lets be clear.
Ken Pittman: In the emergency room you still have your religious freedom.
Martha Coakley: (……uh, eh…um..) The law says that people are allowed to have that. You can have religious freedom but you probably shouldn’t work in the emergency room. [emphasis in original]
First of all there is no such thing as separation of church and state. The Constitution says Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. Secondly, a hospital or other health care facility is NOT the state (maybe it will be under Obamacare) so this is an inane point for her to make.
I wonder if Coakley is aware of the number of Catholic hospitals across this country or that Catholics established some of the earliest ones. Many nuns become nurses to take care of people. Are we to believe that they should not be allowed to work in an ER because of their beliefs?
I wonder if Muslims had an objection to seeing a woman who is not a wife naked would Coakley say they should not work in health care?
It is amazing that the Constitution states that no religious test shall ever be required for any office but Coakley believes that perhaps we should exclude those whose religion forbids certain practices from working in certain venues.
A commenter at the source made a good point. The person wrote something like did Coakley then go to what naturally follows? A Catholic should never vote for a Democrat…
If a religious conviction should keep people from doing certain jobs that have aspects which conflict with their religious views then certainly they should never vote for people whose views do that.
The Democrats are already looking at this as a defeat and are working on ways to shield Obama.
I read that nearly 40% of the people in Massachusetts are Catholic. I do not know what is going to happen but ticking off this large a segment of the population does not seem very smart.
Source:
Washington Times
[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: catholics, coakley, conscience clause, election, Massachusetts, scott brown