Money Quote from Pelosi: “A vote for the motion to recommit, is a vote for members to be able to read a bill before they vote on it. IS THAT ASKING TOO MUCH?”

Hypocrisy thy name is Democrat.

“We’re trying to do too much at once,” Lieberman said. “To put this government-created insurance company on top of everything else is just asking for trouble for the taxpayers, for the premium payers and for the national debt. I don’t think we need it now.”…

Lieberman did say he’s “strongly inclined” to vote to proceed to the debate, but that he’ll ultimately vote to block a floor vote on the bill if it isn’t changed first…

“I can’t see a way in which I could vote for cloture on any bill that contained a creation of a government-operated-run insurance company,” Lieberman added. “It’s just asking for trouble – in the end, the taxpayers are going to pay and probably all people will have health insurance are going to see their premiums go up because there’s going to be cost shifting as there has been for Medicare and Medicaid.”

Since that statement came out earlier today the Reid camp…or cheerleaders….have tried to spin it so it doesn’t sound as bad as it really is. I mean how can it be bad if Joe will vote to open floor debate on Reid’s bill? Of course they are leaving out the other vote…the one that closes debate and moves the bill to a vote. Joe says he will NOT vote for that if the public option is there.

Good for him.

RINO Snowe says she won’t vote for the public option either….at least today she is saying it:

Maine Sen. Olympia Snowe says she would vote with fellow Republicans to block the Democratic health care overhaul if changes are not made to the version Majority Leader Harry Reid outlined this week.

Karl at Hot Air thinks all this is leading to is Reid being able to say “I tried…but the evil empire struck me down” to his leftist loons.

Reid apparently does not have 60 votes lined up for the public option, though Reid thinks he will have them after the CBO scores it. This move was supposedly forced by the hardcore liberals in the Senate, though this could still be the kabuki by which Reid sheds responsibility for a later failure to include the public option. Either way, the ball is now in the moderates’ court.

But there is more trouble looming for Reid:

U.S. Sen. Blanche Lincoln, D-Ark., said Tuesday she still can’t support a government-funded insurance option, a day after legislation was unveiled that would give states the choice of whether to participate in the program.

“Creating another government-funded option is not where we’re going. We don’t need to go there,” Lincoln told members of the Arkansas Farm Bureau during a video conference. “A government-funded option is something that I think is not the way to go.”

And Robert Laszewski at Health Care Policy and Marketplace Review doesn’t see 60 votes coming anytime soon and does a good job of describing why:

Reid is reportedly going to include a robust Medicare-like public option with a state opt-out. That means there would be a federal Medicare-like public plan but that a state could opt out. Opting out would mean that both houses of a state’s legislature and its governor would have to agree to opt out. That’s a pretty high hurdle and it is not going to appease the moderate Democrats in the Senate, or any Republicans including Snowe, who oppose a robust public option.

We could have a public option only if a “trigger” occurs. That is Senator Snowe’s general idea. OK, define that trigger. Do you think for one moment a liberal’s definition of a trigger will come close to a moderate’s definition of a trigger? It is the last week in October and we’ve been hearing about a trigger for months. Have you seen a definition of it yet?

Then there is the possible course in the House—a public option that has to negotiate with providers just like a private health plan does—“arms’ length negotiations.” For liberals, how is that different than a co-op and its inability to gain any real kind of traction? For moderate Democrats, it will likely be seen as the “wolf in sheep’s clothes.” Maybe a place to compromise but hardly the robust government plan its proponents are looking for and there is no evidence that this idea will attract those moderate Senate Democrats that don’t like the public option.

Then there is the state opt-in. The idea is that both the state’s legislative branches and the governor would have to agree to opt-in. This could well win moderate Democratic support because very few states would do it and it is attractive to states’ rights moderates who would like to see state experimentation. This is a possible place for compromise but hardly a robust public option.

As I have said many times before, there will not be a robust Medicare-like public option or any form of a thinly veiled Medicare-like public option.

And the GOP has found some a backbone:

But before that issue can be joined on the Senate floor, Reid’s first challenge is to gain 60 votes — the number needed to overcome a filibuster by Republicans — just to bring the bill up, a parliamentary maneuver so routine that a vote is rarely required.

Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader, announced that in this case, members of his party will treat it as though it were “a vote on the merits” of a bill he said would “cut Medicare, raise taxes and increase health insurance premiums.” He suggested Democrats could expect campaign commercials next year on the basis of the vote, and recalled that Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., was ridiculed in his 2004 presidential campaign for having once said he voted for a bill before he voted against it.

For those leftist Democrats the threat means nothing because they were elected in strong leftist strongholds….but the moderates? I think this threat will be taken seriously and some idiot trying to change the name of “public option” won’t help one iota.

All in all, its good news today.

Yet the reason they have an aversion to such “labels”, no matter how descriptively accurate, is because in order to sell any of their bill of goods to the American public, they have to engage in deception. Can you say “stealth socialism”?

“Public option” is now politically damaged goods; so let’s give it a makeover, says Nancy Pelosi, even though poop by any other name still smells like poop:

A government-sponsored “public option” for health care lives, though it may be more attractive to skeptics if it goes by a different moniker, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Monday.

In an appearance at a Florida senior center, the Democratic leader referred to the so-called public option as “the consumer option.” Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Fla., appeared by Pelosi’s side and used the term “competitive option.”

Both suggested new terminology might get them past any lingering doubts among the public—or consumers or competitors.

“You’ll hear everyone say, ‘There’s got to be a better name for this,’” Pelosi said. “When people think of the public option, public is being misrepresented, that this is being paid for with their public dollars.”

?…..?……?!

Ah yes, the lure of the free lunch.

The speaker said the “competitive option” idea emerged during her closed-door roundtable at the Sunrise Senior Center with advocates of seniors and others who work with older populations. Wasserman Schultz suggested the term might be here to stay.

“I think she’s going to go up and test-drive it when she goes back to Washington,” Wasserman Schultz said. “It might stick.”

As for having the votes to pass such a measure, both women said a public option would survive. They wouldn’t get into numbers of congressional supporters, but said it was simply a matter of picking which type of public option to pursue.

Thus is the case with the plot for usurping traditional input from the public, and passing a bill reforming remaking America’s health care system… with very little cost savings measures included.

Yesterday, the puzzle piece assembler happened to be Brian Darling, posting at Heritage Foundation’s blog, The Foundry. Yes yes, many of you will say… the *conservative* Heritage Foundation?? Lest you embarrass yourself resorting to the typical “attack the messenger” defense, you’ll find that Mr. Darling’s facts and events have been confirmed by many a traditional and prominent liberal leaning media, as well as Congressional events. However, as the MSM constantly demonstrates, they are math challenged and – in this case – they have failed to put two and two together.

Allow me to ’splain…

My first heads up came with a morning Senate Brief email update from McConnell’s office, discussing the Baucus bill, with the following comments that piqued my curiousity…

First, as Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell pointed out this morning, the bill “has as its foundation a trillion dollars in spending, half a trillion dollars in cuts to Medicare, higher premiums, higher taxes on just about everyone at a time of near double-digit unemployment, and limits on the health care choices that millions of Americans now enjoy.” As for the CBO score, Sen. McConnell said, “It’s irrelevant. The bill it’s referring to will never see the light of day.” He explained why last night: “This partisan Finance Committee proposal will never see the Senate floor since the real bill will be written by Democrat leaders in a closed-to-the-public conference room somewhere in the Capitol.”

~~~

So Democrats are starting with two flawed pieces of legislation and will then be stitching them together behind closed doors. As Sen. McConnell put it, “the real bill will soon be cobbled together in a secret conference room somewhere in the Capitol by a handful of Democrat senators and White House officials.” And that’s why the CBO score that Democrats are so proud of today is much less consequential than they would have Americans believe.

Hummm… what two flawed pieces of legislation will be stitched together, and how does it slide past the US taxpayer in the dark of night? By playing games with Congressional rules, of course. Now to Brian Darling’s summary of the four part Congressional Act designed to hoodwink the US taxpayer, using loophole rules.

Note: Each “STEP” title is a link itself… expand your horizons and click on them!

STEP ONE

“The Senate Finance Committee will finish work on the marking up of Senator Max Baucus’ (D-MT) conceptual framework for legislation by this Friday.” Progress on this had been stalled and the bill was not passed by the end of last week. Foxnews.com… is reporting that the Congressional Budget Office score of the bill will be released later today and a high score may further stall progress on the Committee’s Vapor Bill. Senate Finance Committee’s progress on passing something out of committee – INCOMPLETE.

Since “later today” has passed, and we now have a figure estimated at $829 bil, the game playing moves on with Dems ecstatic at having a figure under a trillion to dangle before the nation’s eyes. Aside from the fact that we’ve become so immune to the billion-trillion nuances, this figure helps advance the progress of Step One.

But remember what McConnell said above about the CBO math being irrelevant because that bill – in it’s current form – will never see the light of day. Which brings us to….

STEP TWO

Next, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid will take the final product of the Senate Finance Committee and merge it with the product of the Senate Health, Education, Labor & Pensions (HELP) Committee. CNSnews.com has confirmed that “the actual final text of the legislation will be determined by Reid himself, who will consolidate the legislation approved by the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee [HELP] and the still-unapproved legislation from the Senate Finance Committee [Baucus]. Reid will be able to draft and insert textual language that was not expressly approved by either committee.” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid will write the final version of Obamacare to be considered in the Senate with no input from the American people.

This is an extremely complex procedure that will not be done in public, or in the form of a hearing, or a public conference committee, and only Senator Harry Reid, some other Senators chosen by Reid and Obama Administration officials will be allowed to read the bill before the Senate debate starts. Merger of the bills – IN PROGRESS.

Starting to understand the puzzle pieces, and why the Dem’s are adamant that the public doesn’t get to read the bill? It’s because any mandate that the public be allowed to view throws a monkey wrench into their carefully plotted four act Congressional stage play to merge the bills at last minute and get that turkey to the POTUS table by Thanksgiving.

Allow me to jog your memory on the HELP proposal passing the Senate Committee. I posted on this July 15th when the nation and the media were all fired consumed with the Sotomayor debate. There was a specific reason for my title to that post… “While the nation was busy with Sotomayor…. health care destruction advancing under cover of media darkness”.

The Senate Committee appeared to be addressing the House proposal – HR 3200 – introduced by Michigan’s John Dingell (D) and his eight Dem crony co-sponsors including Rangel and Waxman. The Times description suits HR 3200 to a tee.

What seems less clear is how and why the Senate was entertaining a House bill that had not been voted on by the body. And I have been unable to locate a sister bill in the Senate chamber that echos the same mandates. Any of you stellar readers out there are free to dig up what I’m missing if there is such a Senate bill for related legislation. Otherwise, it strikes me that the Senate appears to be usurping the usual path by having House bills voted on by that chamber before advancing it to their own committees for consideration… bizarre.

Just for a bit of procedure, Committees, much like “mini-Congresses”, generally advance or kill legislation by reporting favorably or unfavorably. In the case of HR 3200, it has thus far passed thru the House Energy and Commerce Committee and the House Ways and Means Committee… both of which revised the bill text. We do not have access to that revised text as committee proceedings are notoriously opaque, varying in what information they make public. Additionally, they often do not provide basic public information such as the results of votes electronically or in an understandable format. Furthermore, if you do not have a representative that sits on that committee, you have no input via elected official, and therefore no opportunity to voice an opinion.

Are the shenigans becoming more clear?

The HELP proposal, as summarized by the WA Times article I linked in that post, creates a mandate for citizens to purchase insurance, and employers to contribute to that cost. Make note… any Baucus bill that combines with this committee passed proposal doesn’t need a mandate. It’s already there.

The mandate for every American to purchase insurance is, of course, an insurance company’s demand because – quite simply – with the advancing boomers apt to increase claims risks exponentially, they need the younger, healthier Americans to foot the bill.

Now, with an “acceptable” under trillion price tag, the Baucus bill can advance.. making Step One “complete”, and advancing the Step Two “In Progress” to a “complete”. Once that happens, Sen. Reid can proceed with the opaque “merge” process of the bills. As New York Times reported on Sept 27th, Reid’s plans are specifically to marry the Baucus bill with the HELP proposal, … leaning heavily on President Obama to arbitrate a number of contentious issues that still threaten to divide liberal and centrist Democrats and derail a final bill.

Mr. Reid’s challenge is to stitch together legislation that can win 60 votes to stop a Republican filibuster. It must satisfy liberals demanding more generous subsidies and safety-net provisions for the middle class, without alienating centrist budget hawks or Senator Olympia J. Snowe of Maine, the only Republican who has indicated she might back the bill.

Democrats now control 60 seats in the Senate, with the appointment last week of Paul G. Kirk Jr. of Massachusetts as the interim successor to Edward M. Kennedy, who died in August. But the party is far from united on the health care issue, even though Mr. Obama has declared it his top domestic priority and has expended enormous political capital on getting a bill passed.

Senator Kent Conrad, Democrat of North Dakota, said the task of merging the two bills would be “very challenging.” Democrats are also mindful of the disaster that befell them in 1994 after the majority leader, George J. Mitchell of Maine, failed to pull together competing health care proposals.

All of this is accurately predicted, and substantiated in Mr. Darling’s Step Two above… which then brings us to:

STEP THREE

Senator Reid will then move to proceed to H.R. 1586, a bill to impose a tax on bonuses received by certain TARP recipients. A senior aid to Senate Majority Leader Ried has confirmed that he will move to proceed to Senate Calendar Number 36, H.R. 1586, or another House passed tax measure, so the Senate can avoid the Constitutional mandate that tax bills originate in the House. Proceed to tax shell of a bill – CONFIRMED.

HR 1586 is a Charlie Rangel sponsored bill that passed the House 328 to 93, with 10 present/not voting (See vote details here) In that vote, 85 GOP representatives unwittingly contributed to the Congressional back room scam.

HR 1586 imposes a 90% tax rate on bonuses received by any individual who earned them via any business entity receiving $5 billion or more of TARP bailout funds. Lest ye believe this only affects those evil CEOs, it applies to any individual with a regular pay or adjusted gross income over 250,000 dollars for an individual filer, or income over 125,000 dollars. Woof….

To “be perfectly clear”, as the POTUS loves to say, HR 1586 is the shell to which the tax heavy health care bill will be attached as a rider in order to usurp Constitutional law that tax appropriations *must* originate in the House. It is to be the vehicle to which Obama’care, designed by the Senate in the back rooms with the chosen few and the WH, can hitch a legitimate ride to the Oval Office desk.

Utilizing such tactics for such a game changing piece of legislation, not to mention the economic repercussions, is ensuring the nation’s taxpayers are being taken for a ride right along with the health care rider.

Step Four is also complete… insure a supermajority by replacing the vacated Kennedy seat with a friendly and pliable Democrat.

STEP FOUR

This scenario would most likely be implemented after the Massachusetts state legislature gives Governor Deval Patrick the power to appoint a new Senator and that Senator is seated by the Senate. The Senate swore in new Massachusetts Senator Paul Kirk on September 25th. Change Law of Massachusetts to allow for interim Senator – COMPLETE.

One now sees why Obama felt quite comfortable “meddling” in MA state law…. their very back door scam depended on that seat being filled, blocking any potential filibusters and thwarting any changes that can delay the plan. I posted on the somewhat dirty method used to accomplish that 60th MA seat back on Sept 25th. To usurp MA law and deadlines, Gov. Deval Patrick had to declare their reversal of Kennedy legislation “emergency legislation”. Yes… definitely an emergency if Obama, Reid and Pelosi are to be successful in their political subterfuge.

The final nail in the coffin… which appears to be only a hair shy of being sealed… is to hand the legislation back to the House, who initiates a vote without a single change and advancing it to the desk of the POTUS for signature. CNS confirmed this to be in the works.

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) won’t rule out having the House vote on the Senate health-care bill without making any changes in it, which would allow the bill to go directly to President Barack Obama without having to pass through a House-Senate conference committee and another round of votes in the House and Senate–and a longer period of public scrutiny of what the text of the proposed law actually says.

“I won’t rule it out or in because I don’t know what the package is,” Hoyer told CNSNews.com… on Tuesday.

“However, content will be critical in what action the House takes,” he added a moment later.

This would, of course, be the same Steny Hoyer who defended the reconciliation process as “… doing what Democracy calls for” during a Sept 1st townhall meeting in Waldorf, MD.

Going back to the first CNS story quoted INRE the House scam:

Under the proposal, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) would offer the Senate’s version of health reform as an amendment to a House-passed bill, H.R. 1586, which levies a 90-percent tax on bonuses received this year by employees of financial institutions that took at least $5 billion in government bailout money. Reid’s amendment would strip out the substance of H.R. 1586 as passed by the House and replace it with the entirety of the Senate health care bill.

As a senior aide to Reid explained to CNSNews.com…, this would be done because the Constitution only allows the House to initiate revenue bills, and since the Senate health care bill contains revenue provisions it technically cannot be initiated in the Senate. By being amended into the “shell” of H.R. 1586, which is a House-initiated revenue bill, the Senate health care bill would technically become a House bill.

If Reid can muster enough votes (60) to overcome a filibuster of this maneuver and filibusters of any amendments subsequently made to the bill, Senate Democrats could pass their health care bill and send it back to the House, where it nominally originated. (See related story here)

The only prediction above I may disagree with is the “stripping out” of the 90% tax hike. I’m not so sure the Dems will let go of that revenue (designed to punish), and may just pass on all of it, in it’s entirety, to the Executive Branch to sign.

So for those of you who have believed this remaking of health care could be avoided, you might want to be aware that… at this point… the only thing standing between passage and reconciliation is blue dog Democrats. So if you’ve got a betting pool going, you may want to start considering the back door approach, well on it’s way to success, when placing your bet and assessing the odds. It ain’t lookin’ good…

Once again, the “transparent” Pelosi House and the “transparent” POTUS have tossed public involvement/engagement under the bus with so many others, merely to advance an unpopular agenda….

Legal via Congressional rules? Yes. Moral? Not in the America I was raised.

Oct 9th – Newt Gingrich Democracy: The joke is on us

Oct 9th – Joseph Smith, American Thinker Watching the Constitution Disappear

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) says there’s no reason for Rep. Alan Grayson to apologize for his “Die quickly” remark, since Republicans have made statements just as outrageous as his.

“If anybody’s going apologize, everybody should apologize,” Pelosi told reporters at her weekly press conference. “We are holding Democrats to a higher standard than their own members.”

She deemed the flap over Grayson’s remarks a distraction from the healthcare debate.

“Typically, Republicans would like to use this as distraction because they have no plan,” Pelosi said.

Republicans, who have been eager to compare Grayson’s remark to Rep. Joe Wilson’s (R-S.C.) “You lie!” outburst, said Pelosi’s refusal to call on Grayson to apologize meant that she condones “despicable” conduct.

“The only thing lower than the Speaker’s actions – or inaction – are her ever-worsening public approval ratings,” said Ken Spain, spokesman for the National Republican Congressional Committee.

If anybody’s going to apologize, everybody should apologize?

Wh-wh-what?

What an ignorant dunce this lady is.

And they are holding people to higher standard by ignoring insulting language uttered by members of their party while screeching about much less grievous behavior by the other side of the aisle?

But now the aide to Grayson say’s that not only do the Republicans want people to die quickly….they want to MURDER people:

Tyler Norkus was responding to a previous email from Ken Hutcheson, a businessman in Grayson’s Orland-area district who had written of the congressman’s “die quickly” statements:

“I am embarrassed; for you, for me, and for the district my Congressman represents,” Hutcheson wrote. Time is important; it should not be wasted on childish antics like we saw in his speech on the floor.”

From: Norkus, Tyler [Email address redacted]
Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2009 11:39 AM
To: Ken Hutcheson
Subject: RE: Congressman Graysons speech on health care

As you know, we do support the health care plan and feel failure to act is similar to murdering the uninsured. On the other hand, we respect differences of opinion and I will let him know how you feel.

Best,
Tyler Norkus

Will she, or anyone from the Democrat party, hold them accountable now for truly lowering the level of discourse?

Not betting on it.

Pelosi came near to tears when she said the following on Thursday, after a questioner wondered whether the current debate on healthcare could lead to violence and domestic terrorism:

“I have concerns about some of the language that is being used because I saw this myself in the late ’70s in San Francisco, this kin(d) of rhetoric. … It created a climate in which violence took place. … I wish we would all curb our enthusiasm in some of the statements and understand that some of the ears that it is falling on are not as balanced as the person making the statements may assume.”

~~~

“Our country is great because people can say what they think and they believe. But I also think that they have to take responsibility for any incitement that they may cause,”

~~~

“I wish that we would all, again, curb our enthusiasm in some of the statements that are made,”

Yes, we should ALL curb some of what we say and take responsibility for “any incitement” that we may cause. You wouldn’t want to sound like a hypocrite, now, would you?

In a fundraising e-mail letter from the DCCC, Nancy Pelosi blames Republicans for the shouting and the falsehoods.

Here’s the fundraising email:

Dear Friend,

If this summer proved anything, it showed how urgently we must stand together to restore civility to our politics and help President Obama seize this historic moment for health insurance reform in America.

You have already taken a stand against the Republicans’ attempt to shout down President Obama and restore civility in Washington. For that, I cannot thank you enough.

We have entered the make-or-break month. The media is closely watching to see which side has the momentum. With the Republicans already claiming victory for trying to silence respectful debate, it is up to grassroots Democrats to show the world that no amount of shouting can drown out our determination to enact health insurance reform.

Show the world that no amount of Republican shouting can drown out our determination to help President Obama reform health insurance. Contribute $5, $10 or more to our Million Dollar Match today and your gift will be matched 2-to-1, tripling its impact.

In his eloquent call for action last week before a joint session of Congress, President Obama called on us to “replace acrimony with civility.” He reiterated his call to restore civility to Washington during his interview on “60 Minutes” this weekend. Yet, our opponents continue their name-calling in a cynical attempt to derail these reforms.

The Republican defenders of the status quo are shouting because they understand that this is the toughest Midterm Election that Democrats have ever faced. They also understand that this is a critical month for health insurance reform and they are trying to deal a serious blow to President Obama’s agenda for moving America forward.

Show the world that no amount of Republican shouting can drown out our determination to help President Obama reform health insurance. Contribute $5, $10 or more to our Million Dollar Match today and your gift will be matched 2-to-1, tripling its impact.

It is urgent that we stand together as Democrats. With all eyes on the coming Midterm Elections, let us use this critical September deadline to show the world just how prepared we are to maintain a strong Democratic Majority for President Obama so he can keep America moving in a New Direction.

Thank you.

Nancy Pelosi
Speaker of the House

P.S. The Republicans recognize that September is the make-or-break month for health insurance reform. That is why they have increased their shouting and their false attacks on President Obama. It is urgent that we stand together.

Contribute to our Million Dollar Match today and House Democrats will match your generosity 2-to-1, tripling its impact.

Joe Wilson’s been made the poster-boy punching bag for GOP incivility, despite the fact that Joe Wilson himself immediately called and apologized to the President for his trespass of decorum; and in spite of the fact that he was correct in the substance of what prompted his outburst.

When will Pelosi and fellow Democratic leaders take responsibility for the incitement they are causing?

Hmmm…funny when even supporters of President Obama’s agenda to remake America are making the Hitler comparison.

Harry Reid proud of his labeling protesters of Obamacare as “evil-mongers”:

the Senate majority leader invoked the e-word himself last week at an energy conference in Las Vegas, where he accused those protesting President Barack Obama’s health-care proposals of being “evil mongers.” So proud was he of this contribution to the American political lexicon that he repeated it to a reporter the next day and noted the phrase was “an original.”

Rep Maxine Waters calling some Senators “neanderthals”:

“Not only are we going to do everything we can to organize and put pressure on the senators — some of whom are Neanderthals — we’re going to say to the president, ‘We want you to use every weapon in your basket in order to get those senators to do what they should be doing,’ “

Rep. Brian Baird:

“What we’re seeing right now is close to Brown Shirt tactics. I mean that very seriously.”

Rep Pete “Get the f**k out of here or I’ll throw you out the window” Stark in a display of class and civility to his constituency:

“I wouldn’t dignify you by peeing on your leg, it wouldn’t be worth wasting the urine,”

Rep. David Scott

Scott lost his temper and began yelling at a crowd that included two people who came forward during the question-and-answer portion of the meeting to ask Scott about his stance on the health care plan proposed by the White House and being debated on Capitol Hill.

Rep Hank Johnson:

“I guess we’ll have folks putting on white hoods and robes again and riding through the countryside intimidating people.”

Former President Jimmy Carter accusing most of the protests as being motivated by racism:

Responding to an audience question at a town hall at his presidential center in Atlanta, Carter said Tuesday that Wilson’s outburst was also rooted in fears of a black president. “I think it’s based on racism,” Carter said. “There is an inherent feeling among many in this country that an African-American should not be president.”

Did I forget anyone?

And Nancy Pelosi wants to feign outrage at GOP’s ratcheting up of the rhetoric and the incivility? She can’t even control her own self, let alone her fellow Democrats in congress.

My colleague Dana Bash and I have learned from a source, each one of us, that this White House right now is very quietly in serious conversations with Republican Senator Olympia Snowe, a key moderate.

She is basically the last Republican out of those gang of six senators who have been negotiating, really the last Republican that has an open line to this White House right now.

What we’re hearing that she’s talking about with White House staff is sort of a scaled-back bill that would focus on insurance reforms that both sides could agree to, but would not have a full public option, instead, would have a so-called trigger. What that means in layman’s terms is basically that the insurance companies would have a couple of years to make some dramatic changes.

If they do not make those changes, then a public option would be triggered. So, it would be used down the road. They would hope that this would appease liberals by saying it’s not completely off the table. And the big hope is that this could bring along another moderate Republican, like maybe Susan Collins of Maine, some conservative Democrats, like Ben Nelson and Mary Landrieu in the Senate, who don’t want a public option, but would sort of potentially be open to a trigger like this.

Nancy is saying no way:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said she is firmly committed to passing a comprehensive healthcare reform bill with a public insurance option despite signals from top White House aides that the president may forge another path to gain bipartisan approval. “We can’t pass a bill without a public option,” Pelosi told reporters after speaking at a healthcare event hosted by the San Francisco Chamber of Commerce in her home district.

Which means there is no coincidence that Obama will host the two nimrods of Congress just before his speech next week:

And I’m also told that next Tuesday afternoon, the president, the day before the speech, is going to host Speaker Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid here at the White House Tuesday afternoon to kind of run through the final details with them.

Yup…he will lay down his backdoor plan and they will go along with it. No question about it. But Karl at Protein Wisdom thinks there could be a silver lining in this new tactic:

Sen. Snowe has pushing the notion of a “public option with trigger” for months, and it has been the Left expressing dismay over the idea. True believers like Robert Reich say Snowe is fronting for Big Pharma and health insurers, with conditions that would be easily met by other pieces of the emerging legislation. Rahm Emanuel has been floating the trigger idea since January, again to the dismay of lefty groups like MoveOn. The left notes that congressional Republicans crafted a similar trigger for the Medicare prescription-drug benefit in 2003 — and it has never been triggered. For the left, the “public option” deferred is the “public option” denied.

However, it is a proposal that serves the administration’s interests. Pres. Obama reportedly would like not only to pass a takeover of health insurance based on an individual mandate, but also to get back some of the post-partisan image he had as a candidate. Some administration officials welcome a showdown with the left wing of the party to achieve these goals. The maneuver would also lure Blue Dog Democrats to the bill — and many Blue Dogs still expect to pass some healthcare reform bill.

This tactic carries its own measure of risks for the administration. The first risk is that the progressives continue to balk and refuse to vote for a final bill with a trigger. This seems unlikely, but most of them are from safe seats and plan to hold those seats long after the Obama presidency, so there could be some rebellion at the margin.

The second (and larger) risk is that a proposal designed to grab the center holds only a handful of votes. That is what happened in the dying days of HillaryCare in 1994. Those proposals never made it to any sort of vote.

The third risk is that whatever momentum is left for ObamaCare rests on the notion that politically, failure is not an option on healthcare reform. The theory that Democrats in swing districts are better off voting for an unpopular takeover of one-sixth of the economy has always seemed counter-intuitve. Now, Sean Trende has done a regression analysis of the 1994 midterm election showing that holding all other things equal, had Democrats gone ahead and passed HillaryCare, their losses likely would have been even greater than they were.

Myself, this is all a move by Obama to shore up his falling numbers. Like Bill Clinton, he will sway in the political wind, saying and doing whatever it takes to be liked. We knew the man had no convictions long before he was elected and this just proves it. Remember this?

And I think this will end up biting him in the ass. Moderates and independents are leaving his side, and if he back-peddles on the public option the left will start to leave also.

Either way, we cannot afford to let our guard down. These “triggers” will probably be so easy to trip that the public option will become a reality anyways…

Now some Democrats are using the line as a rallying cry for health care in light of the death of Senator Ted Kennedy.  Democratic Senators Robert Byrd and Chris Dodd, as well as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi have all suggested a return to civility and bipartisanship in the debate and passage of the bill to honor Kennedy’s legacy.  They might even name the bill after him.  Perhaps “win one for the skinny dipper” might be a more appropriate slogan.

Unlike the legislative process, a presidential campaign and election is like a football game.  Sometimes you’re on offense, sometimes defense, but you are always using your game strategy to score more points and win more votes than the other team.

Unfortunately, about the only thing Kennedy and Gipp have in common is the word “Irish”.

Fundamentally, many people (including I) believe there is no constitutional basis for the federal government to be regulating health care.  President Obama and congressional Democrats believe that the Constitution does not limit federal power but rather opens to national regulation all doors not specifically closed by the founding document.  In other words, the language of the Constitution is meaningless.  Of course, this way of thinking ignores the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the Constitution but that’s how liberals have been able to expand federal power at the expense of the people and local officials.

But, leave that aside since we face the reality of expanded federal intervention.  It is one thing for a football coach to invoke a dying player’s final wish to motivate his squad to leave everything on the gridiron.  The goal is to win the game.  Indeed, though, in the end it’s just a game.  No matter how important it is to the participants and fans, or how it is viewed historically, it’s still just a game.  And there is no bipartisanship in football.

Health care reform legislation at the federal level, on the other hand, isn’t a game.  The health care industry represents a large portion of our overall economy covering many different areas, from medical services to pharmaceuticals sales, private insurance to public benefits, research and development to records and billing, and many others.  National-scale reforms, even if mere tweaks, will likely cause significant tremors throughout all sectors of the industry.

There are also important moral questions presented by some proposed reforms.  Bureaucratic panels would be set up to review some care decisions, especially later in patients’ lives.  Are they “death panels” as Sarah Palin called them?  Perhaps.  A form of them essentially exists already in Oregon and at least one example shows Palin’s claim is not right-wing hysteria.  And we know that government never limits the power it takes for itself.  It’s the kind of thing that could readily and administratively (i.e through the rule-making process without additional legislation) be expanded to include life and death decisions.

The legislation also includes mandatory coverage for “reproductive health”.  Given the militant pro-abortion stand of Democrats and President Obama, it is not much of a stretch to conclude that abortions, including late-term and partial birth abortions, will be included in the coverage.

Now comes word that the bill includes provisions to allow the IRS to divulge your tax information to the “Health Choices Commissioner” for determinations of whether people will qualify for something called “affordability credits.”  You can just feel the warm fuzzies from sea to shining sea.  And it’s all designed to help you, you ungrateful wretch.

The idea that we (through our representatives) should quickly rally around a 1,000-plus page bill that is incredibly complicated, patently unconstitutional, increasingly socialist, morally and ethically questionable, economically deleterious, constantly changing and largely unread by our representatives, just so we can fulfill dead Uncle Teddy’s last wish, is an absurd and tremendous breach of the public trust, especially when large majorities don’t support the bill.

No matter for the Democrats.  They say they want to pass health care reform to honor Uncle Teddy, which is curious since I’m quite certain no federal agency or commission intervened in his care decisions.

Parts of the health care system need reform.  Shouldn’t we take our time to ensure the reforms debated and enacted are market-based solutions that will not increase federal power or decrease individual liberty?  Shouldn’t freedom of choice be available beyond decisions involving killing babies in utero?

The real reason Democrats want bipartisan support is so they can share the blame when things inevitably go awry.  With a current 59-40 majority, they don’t need bipartisanship for passage.  They want to point a finger across the aisle.  Unfortunately for the Democrats, they are on the run and attached to a bill (and concept) that is losing momentum the death of which could be a crushing blow to their power and the Obama Administration.  Yet they are true believers in federal control of health care and currently seem willing to buck the will of the majority of Americans.  That’s an enormous gamble to honor dead Uncle Teddy.

Keep speaking your minds and there’s a better chance they’ll crap out.

Crossposted from The Los Angeles Examiner

A few weeks later, when the distraction had faded and poll numbers were sagging again, the Obama Admin tried to suggest that “torture” had been going on without the informed consent of Congress. The problem there was that Congress HAD been informed, and CIA Director Leon Panetta was compelled to release documents showing that Congress had been informed. This put the Speaker of the House in an awkward position, and she handled it poorly.

She tried the torture-distraction-tactic as well by claiming that there were other CIA programs that were illegal, that she had no knowledge of, and that were criminal. Again, CIA Director Panetta was forced to reveal that no, the programs she referred to were not illegal. He tried to claim that it was just a miscommunication and misunderstanding on the Speaker’s part, but she had lost face, argued she understood perfectly, and Panetta had to fall on his sword by claiming he’d screwed up and falsely reported the existence of these illegal programs.

Well, it’s that time of year again. The President and the Democrats’ Congress have sagging approval ratings, SO!!!!!!! Let’s talk torture! Obama’s Department of Justice has re-reviewed some of the already investigated allegations of torture, and decided to re-open some of the cases that had been closed. Will the torture-distraction-tactic work again? Probably not.

There are multiple problems with investigating closed cases from a previous Administration, but the core problem is that there is no statute of limitations on how far back such allegations can be re-opened and re-investigated. Using the exact same argument that’s being used to re-open these allegations of “torture,” the DOJ may be required to pursue standing orders, techniques, and policies that pre-date the Bush Administration. Moreover, if they are re-opening past allegations of “torture”, then when the same or similar tactics and techniques are used today by the Obama Administration, then the DOJ is even more compelled than usual to investigate the Obama Administration OR face a Special Prosecutor. The latter is not likely if Democrats hold control of Congress, but that’s not likely either. If Republicans take even one House of Congress in 14 months, then they very well could have a case for impeachment on their hands-impeachment of President Obama on charges that he authorized the same or similar “torture” and extraordinary rendition of prisoners to other countries FOR torture as did his predecessors Bush and Clinton.

More specifically, if the Obama DOJ investigates the Bush Admin for conducting extraordinary renditions (sending prisoners to other countries so the other country can torture them on our behalf), then the Obama Admin will have to explain why IT TOO is even now conducting extraordinary renditions. It will have to explain why the CIA Director, Leon Panetta, claims to have personally arranged renditions himself when he was President Clinton’s Chief of Staff. President Clinton’s Counterterrorism Czar, Richard Clarke, will have to testify to the extraordinary renditions he admits he personally authorized.

Many on the left will find vigor and woohoo in the idea of possibly prosecuting anyone who had anything to do with the Bush Administration. This is ALWAYS an effective way for Team Obama and the Democrats’ Congresss to refire their base.
Good luck with that this time though. While falling poll numbers are partially the result of an increasingly apathetic and frustrated base, the real problem is the independent-minded swing voter who was promised good things in 2006, and again in 2008, and has yet to see any of the big promises fulfilled.

Besides, Bush and Cheney are surely protected, and just going after them or anyone in their administration open’s a Pandora’s Box of problems for Obama and the Democrats. It’s not like some Republican Congressman from Podunk, USA isn’t going to go on TV and immediately ask pundits, “Why just go after people who did this in the Bush Administration? Why not go after those in the Clinton and Obama Administrations who are doing it even today?”

This problem is made worse by the very real possibility that Republicans will take one or both Houses of Congress next year, and they will steer the investigations towards THEIR political ends rather than towards Obama’s.

Democrats’ face:
Losing Congress for the same reasons they took Congress in 2006
If they lose Congress, Obama becomes a lame duck and goodbye CHANGE

Say it with me,

President Biden, please raise your right and and repeat after me.
Do you solemnly swear…..

UPDATE:
Recall earlier that I said the DOJ would have to appoint a special prosecutor. They’re doing it. Now, if Repubs re-take at least one House of Congress, and this Special Prosecutor hasn’t made a case there can be almost NO DOUBT that Republicans will demand/force the investigation to re-examine Clinton and Obama records on rendition and torture (read the link, and see that some Repubs are already pointing the fingers at Dems as well).

This is a political doomsday bomb in the making if not quelled soon. Obama has GOT to stop letting Rahm Emanuel play politics w national security. It only re-ignites the DNC base for a few days, and each time this little game has been played by the Obama Admin, the Dems have been seriously wounded by the consequences.

The faux outrage politicians manufacture on demand has been replaced by real outrage. Outrage at the American people for failing to understand the nuances, the broad outline of a 1,000 page plus bill that most politicians haven’t even read. Hey, that’s what staff is for, explained new Democrat, Arlen Spector.

Peons from fly-over country are daring to challenge the carefully scripted and (deliberately?) misleading talking points. Talking points which, by the way, have been endorsed by the media. Don’t these guys read the New York Times?

Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi are using the standard liberal tactic of diverting attention from the issue by demonizing the dissenter, in this case, the American people. According to Pelosi and Reid, voicing objections to the federal government’s take over of 17% of the formerly free market economy is ‘un-American.’ Harry Reid has gone a step further, tarring dissenters as ‘evil mongers.’

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs has blithely dismissed the burgeoning dissent by informing one and all that these ‘townhalls are not representative of America.’ Obama, meanwhile, is trying to divert the issue by blaming the ‘headline hungry television networks’, accusing them of ‘inflaming an ugly backlash.’

Unused to any opposition that can’t be spun to their advantage, or ignored, Democrats are desperately trying to convince Americans that the tidal wave of opposition is not genuine. Used to viewing every issue in political terms, our elected officials are actually convinced that the disruptive townhalls are merely the product of an evil conservative cabal. After all, every person these lawmakers know agree with them on this issue. Its called the ‘inside the beltway syndrome.’

Despite a new $12 million ad campaign designed to soothe Americans into relying on misplaced compassion instead of common sense, pesky Joe Six-Pack and Susy Homemaker still don’t get it. And adding insult to injury, American citizens are starting to question where all the money is coming from to run these ads. And by the way, who’s signing the paychecks for the new army of health care advocates who are being paid $12 to $13 an hour for their support? Inquiring minds want to know.

Answers to these questions are not forthcoming. Like the classic case of a wife catching her husband in bed with another woman, the question has become, “Who are you going to believe? Me, or the evidence of your own eyes?”

Obama, in his latest finger-pointing lecture to the great unwashed, assured the masses that the proposed ‘public option’  won’t put private insurers out of business. When confronted with his own words to the contrary in 2007,  he dismissed the discrepancy as a ‘mis-statement’. Oops. Time to move on. Time to focus on the real villains.

Identifying a common enemy is another tried and true tactic liberals employ when it gets too hot in the kitchen. But the historically favorite villain, those dastardly drug companies, have already made their deal with the government health plan. And blaming the insurance companies won’t work either, since they’re on board, too. The only villain left is the American people.

Not all Americans, Obama and the media assure us. No, the real villain can be traced to the ‘hate groups’ that have suddenly, and conveniently emerged. As reported by ABC: “Experts say a sharp growth in so-called militia groups that helped spawn a wave of domestic terrorism in the 1990s –  are now using YouTube, rock music and the Internet to recruit members and spread hate and fear – and shouldn’t be ignored.”

These hate groups, we are assured by the ultra liberal Southern Poverty Law Center, are protesting President Obama, not his health care plan. Not only that, they are putting his life in danger. Headlines inform us: ‘Fear For Obama’s Safety Grows As Hate Groups Thrive On Racial Backlash.’

This is a media twofer. Obama is the now the victim instead of the oppressor. And dissenters are racist rednecks.

The only problem is, Americans aren’t buying it. They’re suffering from the political equivalent of the ‘battered woman syndrome.’ Americans have been deceived and beaten up by the government so many times lately, that, even though they still love Obama, they’re taking steps to distance themselves from what has become  an increasingly dangerous relationship. Flowers, new cars, and soothing words are no longer effective. Even the race card isn’t ringing their bells.

Liberals have finally succeeded in persuading Americans to look at the broad picture instead of inconvenient details. The kicker is, as more Americans see the broad picture, they see the unprecedented devolution of power to the federal government. They see the loss of America’s traditional reliance on individuals instead of government. They see the loss of personal liberty and freedom of choice. And they don’t like it.

Crossposted from Right Bias

2) Recognize, and admit the ugly truth, any healthcare program will have to be either unlimited in funding for people’s treatments, OR there will have to be a government group-just like the insurance companies have-that determines whether or not a 99yr old woman’s chemotherapy gets funded. Simple math tells us that if a single heart bypass can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars, and a lifetime of doctor visits adds up too, then averaging $1million per American (lowball) is not fiscally feasible. The Federal government cannot afford $300million-million dollars (ie 300TRILLION). The Congressional budget Office points this out, so do former President Clinton’s economic advisors and a long list of others. To make the plan “deficit neutral” it has to either limit coverage or bankrupt that nation down the road. The solution is to make coverage limited by duration like welfare is; 6 months of govt coverage, or 12, or 18, or even 24, but not 100yrs of free and unlimited medical coverage. The entire planet combined couldn’t afford that.

3) Take control of the healthcare plan. Senator Obama blew off his responsibility in making sure the TARP plan had safeguards; he just trusted Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Chris Dodd, and Barney Frank. They played him hard. They told him it’d be ok, and rather than read it or study it or form a commission to study it…he said, “ok” and backed them at their word. When the stimulus came around, Mr Obama called for “shovel ready projects” then let go of the ball, tossed it to the same people that failed him on the TARP program’s protections, and they had a porkfest field day. These are the same people that forced Mr Obama to sign a budget that Senator Obama and others had packed with 9000 pork barrel projects…sign it behind closed doors after promising for 2 1/2 yrs not to do so. President Obama needs to take the healthcare reform ball BACK from the failed members of the Democrats’ Congress, and he and his administration need to write the bill. Passing the buck to Congress has proven to cost 2 bucks or more. If the bill will have his name on it, he shouldn’t just read it, he should have been there writing it.

4) Passing the healthcare reform bill is becoming a benchmark for future political power. Independents are the key. If Democrats continue to paint those who question or oppose infinite government spending as racists, loons, covert operatives, misled or misleading people, then they continue to ostracize the very people that put them in power, the people who no longer approve of Congress or the President, and the people who will decide the next election. Policy differences can be swept under the rug, but the sense of alienation, disenfranchisement, and a feeling of being attacked is not so easily forgotten. Rather, instead it is remembered, and historically it has made a difference at the polls.

Mr Obama was elected/convinced independents to vote for him on the idea that he would “end the divisive politics of old,” and now those very same tactics are being used against the very same people who put him there. The left’s “un-American” claims must stop, and the only way to disarm the right is to embrace them. Obama and Democrats need to unclinch their fist and offer an open hand to Republicans as they do the Iranians. Mr Obama should have immediately, and personally, and very strongly come out and publicly chastised Speaker Pelosi for calling opponents of healthcare “un-American.” His failure to do so is a passive embracing of those remarks. It is a sin of omission. The President needs to lead the nation, to unite the United States, and instead he’s playing partisan politics AGAINST the majority of Americans who are skeptical of the plan (Americans have been burned twice by Democrats’ trillion dollar spending-why trust em a third time in 6 months?)

5) President Obama needs his name taken off the healthcare reform issue. It’s been labeled by opponents and the media as Obamacare. Why? Because it’s not a plan that the nation put together, but a plan w his name on it, rushed into play for his political PR benefit, and he’s the one out there defending the plan that there’s no way he could have possibly read let alone written (there are currently FIVE bills averaging 1000 pages each, and if our President has time to read 5000 pages of healthcare reform, then something is wrong).

There way for President Obama to save healthcare reform is to stop the process, make government healthcare coverage a temporary coverage like welfare, set a flatline limit to the coverage person can get from the govt, and encourage them to have private insurance to cover the rest. Take the bill(s) away from a Congress that has screwed up several trillion dollar spending sprees of late, and instead form a commission at the White House where Republicans are represented so much that they have more political capital vested in passing reform than they do in blocking it. Taking the bill away from partisan hacks like Nancy Pelosi will help cool tempers that are nationally rising, and causing violence to stir. This bi-partisanship (if strong enough in sizzle and steak) will bring back independents and silence the right’s organized opposition.

There are of course 5 reasons that President Obama will not do this:

1) He won’t stop the rush to spend because to do so would be admitting a failure. Doing that would at the least give Press Secretary Gibbs a heartattack, and at most remind President Obama that his mandate is gone. Presidential ego (something all Presidents have and must have) prohibits or limits the potential for this humility.

2) Mr Obama can’t tell the American people that govt healthcare coverage is limited for several reasons. First, it would frustrate his political base, and while 9/10 times they’re content to give him a free pass, he’s broken so many campaign promises, and so many hopes (see also no change in Iraq strategy, closing Gitmo, etc) that he’s closing in on that scary 10th broken promise. When it comes, and he starts to lose his base, he will be in the George Bush approval rating zone. Second, if he admits that there’s just not enough money in the world to give everyone unlimited coverage, then he’s admitting that his political rival, Sarah Palin, was right, and there will be a Democrat or commission of Democrats deciding who gets treated, who does not get treated, who lives, and who dies. Third, ego. The President has just staked too much personal clout on the idea that he can give the lowliest trailer park pizza boy the same medical coverage that the President’s daughters will get. Break that promise, and people will ask, “What’s the point? Pay for limited govt insurance via fine/fee or pay for private insurance?”

3) President Obama cannot take control of the healthcare plan away from the Democrats’ Congress because he is clueless on writing bills-let alone multi-trillion dollar bills. As a Senator, he was away campaigning most of the time, and he never wrote-let alone passed-a major bill or reform. He just has no experience doing it. Moreover, if he takes it away from the Democrats’ Congress, then he risks widening a rift that’s already appearing in the party; a rift between Blue Dog Democrats who need to listen to their constituents or they lose their jobs and Democrats lose their supermajority/unchecked power and the partisan Democrats who control the committees and the chambers (albeit with no accomplishments in the past 3yrs). If he takes the bill away from Congress, he might split the party, lose control of one or both houses next year, and become an impotent, lame duck President with approval ratings already falling at a rate faster than even George W Bush’s.

4) Making the healthcare reform effort a bi-partisan one, requires President Obama to silence the right by embracing them while silencing a vengeful left. If anyone can do that, President Obama’s the man, but his track record as a President has always been to bow down and/or bend over to the left’s wishes. Can he go against their 8yrs of salivating want for vengeance and tell them to “end the divisive politics of old”? The answer is no. He’s tried this since he won the nomination, and his followers don’t follow. More and more, people see him as a leader by rank and responsibility rather than by example.

5) Everything adds up to this: can President Obama stomach taking his name off healthcare reform? Forget the politics of it. Does the man really want to get SOMETHING done, or does he want an accomplishment with his name on it (something he’s never had before other than being the first black man elected President)? There’s nothing in his history that shows he really wants to get something done for the sake of getting something done. Sure, he’s claimed it ad nauseum, but what’s he done just to get done? What has he worked hand in hand with the right on to get accomplished? What can he direct independents to look at and say, “See, THIS is how I can bring people together, how I can unite the United States and get things done for all Americans-not just the 20-30% who follow me without question regardless of what I do, but for all Americans.”

Healthcare is failing.
The majority of Americans do no support it right now.
The problem is that independents don’t trust Democrats’ and Obama’s spending anymore (according to polls).
No independents means Obama has a choice: ram healthcare through and lose power in 14months, or abandon the partisan healthcare plans, reboot with so much Republican involvement that they had more vested in passing it than opposing it, and actually get something done…albeit without his name on it.

Failure is in the air.

Four executive jets are not enough for Madam Speaker, she requires twice that number.

Opposition Emerges to House’s Jet Spree
By BRODY MULLINS and T.W. FARNAM
The Wall Street Journal

WASHINGTON—Bipartisan opposition is emerging in the Senate to a plan by House lawmakers to spend $550 million for additional passenger jets for senior government officials.

The resistance to buying eight Gulfstream and Boeing planes comes as members of both chambers of Congress embark on the busiest month of the year for official overseas travel. The plan to upgrade the fleet of government jets, which was included in a broader defense-funding bill, has also sparked criticism from the Pentagon, which has said it doesn’t need half of the new jets.

I should hope so.

In this time of recession bordering on depression one would hope that Congress would fly commercial, thus pumping money into the airlines, vice taking flight crews and service crews away from the Air Force in time of war.

It’s not like they couldn’t afford the money out of their own pockets.

1. Millions Will Lose Their Current Insurance. Period. End of Story: President Obama wants Americans to believe they can keep their insurance if they like, but research from the government, private research firms, and think tanks show this is not the case. Proposed economic incentives, plus a government-run health plan like the one proposed in the House bill, would cause 88.1 million people to see their current employer-sponsored health plan disappear.
2. Your Health Care Coverage Will Probably Change Anyway: Even if you kept your private insurance, eventually most remaining plans–whether employer plans or individual plans–would have to conform to new federal benefit standards. Moreover, the necessary plan “upgrades” will undoubtedly cost you more in premiums.
3. The Umpire Is Also the First Baseman: The main argument for a “public option” is that it would increase competition. However, if the federal government creates a health care plan that it controls and also sets the rules for the private plans, there is little doubt that Washington would put its private sector “competitors” out of business sooner or later.
4. The Fed Picks Your Treatment: President Obama said: “They’re going to have to give up paying for things that don’t make them healthier. … If there’s a blue pill and a red pill, and the blue pill is half the price of the red pill and works just as well, why not pay half for the thing that’s going to make you well.” Does that sound like a government that will stay out of your health care decisions?
5. Individual Mandate Means Less Liberty and More Taxes: Although he once opposed the idea, President Obama is now open to the imposition of an individual mandate that would require all Americans to have federally approved health insurance. This unprecedented federal directive not only takes away your individual freedom but could cost you as well. Lawmakers are considering a penalty or tax for those who don’t buy government-approved health plans.

And the people are waking up from their messiah coma and starting to understand this is not the direction they want to go in:

…the latest national survey by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, conducted July 22-26 among 1,506 adults reached on landlines and cell phones, finds that many of the health care proposals being debated in Congress are sparking negative reactions, especially from those following the debate most closely. By a 44% to 38% margin, more Americans generally oppose than favor the health care proposals now before Congress. Opposition rises to 56% among people who say they have heard a lot about legislation to overhaul the health care system. Concerns about the costs and increased government involvement in the health care system are volunteered most often by Americans critical of the health care proposals.

Hell, Mike shows us that not only do the people not want socialized health care, they are starting to find some negatives in the Obama armor.

In a number of polls Obama is at or below the percentage of votes he had in the 2008 election meaning he is losing support directly from the people who voted for him.

And it only took six months. I didn’t think it was possible. I believed it would be a good two years before this came about.

Back to the topic at hand, who do the Democrats blame for this ObamaCare negative press? The evil insurance companies. Not the frivolous lawsuits and the ambulance chasing lawyers, but the insurance companies because….get this…they don’t want the competition from the Government.

More like they know this will put them out of business:

A day after formally delaying a vote on a healthcare bill and having to accept a further weakening of a public option to compete with private insurers, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) lashed out at the health insurance industry and urged her members to do the same during the August recess.

“They are the villains in this,” Pelosi said of private insurers. “They have been part of the problem in a major way. They are doing everything in their power to stop a public option from happening. And the public has to know that. They can disguise their arguments any way they want, but the fact is that they don’t want the competition.”

Bulls&%t.

We just don’t want this to happen to our country:

Millions of adults in England and Wales haven’t been to an NHS dentist since April 2006 mainly because they couldn’t find one to treat them, says new research carried out for national charity Citizens Advice as it urges Primary Care Trusts to spend newly allocated resources to improve access.

~~~

It was mentioned by 31% of respondents in England and Wales who have not been to an NHS dentist since April 2006. This is the equivalent of approximately 7.4 million people who have not been to an NHS dentist since April 2006 because of difficulties in finding one. Of these, the equivalent of approximately 4.7 million have sought private treatment instead and the equivalent of approximately 2.7 million have gone without treatment altogether.

~~~

A [charity] in North Yorkshire reported a pensioner on a low income who needed emergency dental treatment in hospital. They advised her she would need further treatment and would need to find an NHS dentist. There were two available in the area but both have 12 month waiting lists…

Twenty-one freshman Democratic House members have signed a letter opposing their leadership’s plan to raise taxes to finance a healthcare overhaul.

Rep. Jared Polis (D-Colo.) circulated the letter, saying that the income surtax on the wealthy would place an undue burden on small businesses, some of which pay taxes in the same way as an individual. The letter had 22 signers, all freshmen except for Rep. Paul Hodes (D-N.H.), who is in his second term.

“Especially in a recession, we need to make sure not to kill the goose that will lay the golden eggs of our recovery,” the letter said. “We are concerned that this will discourage entrepreneurial activity.”

June 26, 2009

The Honorable Leon E. Panetta, Director
Central Intelligence Agency
Washington, D.C. 20505

Dear Director Panetta,

You recall, no doubt, that on May 15, 2009, you stated the following in a letter to CIA employees:

“Let me be clear: It is not our policy or practice to mislead Congress. That is against our laws and values.”

Recently you testified that you have determined that top CIA officials have concealed significant actions from all Members of Congress, and misled Members for a number of years from 2001 to this week. This is similar to other deceptions of which we are aware from other recent periods.

In light of your testimony, we ask that you publicly correct your statement of May 15, 2009.

Sincerely,

/s/

Anna G. Eshoo
Rush D. Holt
Alcee L. Hastings
John F. Tierny
Mike Thompson
Janice D. Schakowsky
Adam Smith

Panetta denies this:

CIA spokesman George Little told the Washington Independent late Wednesday that the claim that Panetta admitted his agency has misled Congress is “completely wrong.” He added, “Director Panetta stands by his May 15 statement.”

But the funny thing in all this, and as Dafydd ab Hugh notes at Hot Air, the timing of the release of the letter smacks of an attempt to get the CIA to open its books to the whole of Congress:

[Rep. Rush Holt (D-NJ, 100%), one of the seven signers] said that the release of the letter [from the seven] was timed to coincide today with the start of debate on an intelligence reauthorization bill. Among those issues up for debate is whether the number of lawmakers briefed on the CIA’s actions should be expanded.

The Republicans AND Obama both disagree with the move:

House Republicans oppose at least one provision in the intelligence authorization bill, and they have an unusual ally: the White House.

Obama’s aides have said they will recommend he veto the bill if it includes a Democratic-written provision requiring the president to notify the intelligence committees in their entirety about covert CIA activities.

And for good reason:

…the White House is concerned that briefing more lawmakers might compromise the most sensitive U.S. intelligence operations.

Might?

There is no might there. It WOULD compromise our intelligence and Dafydd gives us some examples:

When Sen. John “Jay” Rockefeller (D-WV, 94%) was the chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (he is still a member but no longer chairman), he was one of the leaders in abusing his intelligence access to perpetuate the “Bush lied, people died” meme; he repeatedly stated that no prewar intelligence supported the idea that Saddam Hussein had ongoing chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons programs — even though he himself had earlier stated the exact opposite, and despite a wealth of intelligence indicating exactly that, published in the committee’s own report on pre-war intelligence during Rockefeller tenure.

~~~

Sens. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA, 100%), Russell Feingold (D-WI, 100%), and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI, 90%), all current members of the Senate Intelligence Committee — Feinstein is the chairman — wrote a letter in July, 2007, demanding a “special prosecutor” be appointed to investigate then-Attorney General Alberto Gonzales for perjury… because of a trivial difference between Gonzales’ testimony and that of then-FBI Director Robert Mueller over the exact subject of a hospital-room discussion between Gonzales and former Attorney General John Ashcroft three years earlier.

Mueller, who was not present during the conversation itself, gained the impression afterwards that the discussion had been about the Terrorist Surveillance Program (TSP); but Gonzales testified to Congress three years later that it was about a different but similar surveillance program. And for that, four Democratic senators wanted to send Gonzales to federal prison — the three mentioned above, plus Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY, 100%).

To complete the humiliation, the very next day — July 29th, 2007 — the New York Times published a story revealing that the subject was not, in fact, the TSP… it was the “data mining” surveillance program. So Gonzales had been telling the truth all along, and it was Mueller who misunderstood which program was under discussion.

~~~

Turning to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, the current chairman, Rep. Silvestre Reyes (D-CA, 82%), flunked an intelligence quiz just a month before he was slated to assume that position; the quiz included such tricky, unfair questions as whether al Qaeda is Sunni or Shiite. (Reyes’ answer: “They are probably both,” followed by “Predominantly — probably Shiite.”)

~~~

The next ranking Democrat on the committee is Rep. Alcee L. Hastings (FL, 100%)… a former federal judge who was impeached and removed from office for accepting a $150,000 bribe, then perjuring himself when caught.

But you know what….lets throw out the excuse that all this “The CIA Lied People Died” was posturing to defend a Democrat provision. According to the loonies on the left this was all a cover to hide the evil Dick Cheney’s assassination program…I kid you not:

Another theory being bandied about concerns an “executive assassination ring” that was allegedly set up and answered to former Vice President Dick Cheney. The New Yorker’s Seymour Hersh, building off earlier reporting from the New York Times, dropped news of the possibility that such a ring existed in a March 2009 discussion sponsored by the University of Minnesota.

“It is a special wing of our special operations community that is set up independently,” Hersh said. “They do not report to anybody, except in the Bush-Cheney days, they reported directly to the Cheney office. They did not report to the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff or to Mr. [Robert] Gates, the secretary of defense. They reported directly to him.

And people wonder why we call these people moonbats.