It seems President Obama is now attempting to channel Theodore Roosevelt. Sure, why not? It's amazing how many former presidents he (or the ever-fawning media) has tried to model himself after - it started with the comparisons to FDR and JFK, but continued with quite laughable attempts to connect him to Reagan and even Harry Truman. Now, I have to say, there is a bit of a similarity on that last one, but not the bogus "Do Nothing Congress" angle he's been working for all he's worth. No, the real similarity is that both are responsible for dropping huge bombs that crippled nations - Japan, in Truman's case, and the American economy via Porkulus, over regulation and Obamacare in Obama's. Unfortunately for President Obama, the rising consensus is that, performance-wise, he is a far closer match to Carter than any of the giants with whom he has attempted parity.
Showing posts with label progressives. Show all posts
Showing posts with label progressives. Show all posts
Tuesday, December 6, 2011
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
ARE WE GETTING THROUGH YET?
The national Republican party just doesn't get it. Even after all these months, they still don't understand what conservatives want - I'm talking to you, Messrs. Rove and Cornyn. When Tea Partiers say they are tired of both parties, they mean it. They are tired of the reckless, untargeted spending, the pork, the expansion of government and the wholesale repudiation of the Constitution, and that was not just under the guidance of the democrats. Bush was hated for his spending and expansion, too - was vilified for it, actually, and the democrats came into power in 2006 because of it. The Tea Partiers aren't just looking at the past two years and dems were not the only ones in their sights, and the Delaware senate primary was proof of that.
Yesterday, Christine O'Donnell won the republican primary against incumbent Mike Castle. This was a come from behind victory, in a hotly contested race. She was heavily endorsed by the Tea Party Express and Sarah Palin, but had a much smaller war chest and some personal baggage, and yet still she won. Establishment republicans are bemoaning her win, saying the seat is all but gone. Democrats are cheering for their good fortune. The National Republican Senate Committe, chaired by Sen. Cornyn, came out last night after the race was called for O'Donnell and flatly stated that they would not be funding her race in the general election.
Talk about sour grapes. They feel O'Donnell doesn't have a snowball's chance, so they want to cut their losses and reroute the money to a race with better prospects. Mike Castle refused to throw his support in with O'Donnell - a petty bit of churlishness - and the Delaware GOP still haven't taken down their attack website.
Fortunately for Ms. O'Donnell, the NRSCwas shamed into are seeing the error of their ways and made a max contribution today of $42,000. Cornyn, in a deft move, then turned the potentially damaging funding and support issue back on the democrats, calling on them to fund their own longshot races. Quite the politician.
As wonderfully unifying as it is that the NRSC is making nice-nice with O'Donnell and ponying up some cash, she doesn't seem to really need them right now. Her website has been so inundated that it has been crashing all day. There are reports that her money bomb bagged a whopping $750,000 today.
It will be an interesting race to follow. It is understandable that the RNC would support their own incumbent during the primary, but their petulant reaction to the loss is not. They should take their cues from Bill Clinton. Never thought I'd say that. Speaking of Mr. Clinton, he had a moment of insight that the republicans should also take to heart. He was referring to Bush when he said:
Actually, a progressive, but why split hairs?
It is true that O'Donnell's chances are slim, but the desire for fiscal restraint is a powerful force these days, and should not be discounted. As Ms. O'Donnell herself said, the experts said she didn't have a chance of winning the primary against the oh-so-popular and much loved Mike Castle, either. And perhaps, if he hadn't voted for cap and trade, she might not have won. But the cap and trade vote was what did him in. It branded him a RINO and, with a few exceptions like John McCain (amazing how his pre-primary "no amnesty whatsoever" has phased into post-primary "resolving their issues..."), RINO's are becoming an endangered species politically speaking.
The republicans should take note and learn from this. Are they being "held hostage" by the "right-wing radicals" that allegedly are the tea parties? Well, if demanding a return to their fiscally conservative roots is being held hostage, then yes, they are. Does it mean a return to ultra-conservative policies across the board, as democrats keep warning? Not so much. Most tea partiers are only concerned with fiscal policies. Since the the early 1990's, the republican party has tacked to the center-left, buying into the theory that bringing home pork and expanding government was the way to keep getting elected. The needs of the country were secondary to the party and the individual politician, and the Constitution was an inconvenient piece of paper that restricted their plans. Establishment pols are being tossed because they are the problem, and the problem is on both sides of the aisle.
Never underestimate an electorate scorned and taxed to within an inch of their lives. Establishment politicians have forgotten that they are public servants. The tea party is simply reminding them. They would be wise to take heed. Even Chris Matthews has gotten the memo:
Yesterday, Christine O'Donnell won the republican primary against incumbent Mike Castle. This was a come from behind victory, in a hotly contested race. She was heavily endorsed by the Tea Party Express and Sarah Palin, but had a much smaller war chest and some personal baggage, and yet still she won. Establishment republicans are bemoaning her win, saying the seat is all but gone. Democrats are cheering for their good fortune. The National Republican Senate Committe, chaired by Sen. Cornyn, came out last night after the race was called for O'Donnell and flatly stated that they would not be funding her race in the general election.
Talk about sour grapes. They feel O'Donnell doesn't have a snowball's chance, so they want to cut their losses and reroute the money to a race with better prospects. Mike Castle refused to throw his support in with O'Donnell - a petty bit of churlishness - and the Delaware GOP still haven't taken down their attack website.
Fortunately for Ms. O'Donnell, the NRSC
As wonderfully unifying as it is that the NRSC is making nice-nice with O'Donnell and ponying up some cash, she doesn't seem to really need them right now. Her website has been so inundated that it has been crashing all day. There are reports that her money bomb bagged a whopping $750,000 today.
It will be an interesting race to follow. It is understandable that the RNC would support their own incumbent during the primary, but their petulant reaction to the loss is not. They should take their cues from Bill Clinton. Never thought I'd say that. Speaking of Mr. Clinton, he had a moment of insight that the republicans should also take to heart. He was referring to Bush when he said:
"A lot of their candidates today, they make him look like a liberal,"
Actually, a progressive, but why split hairs?
It is true that O'Donnell's chances are slim, but the desire for fiscal restraint is a powerful force these days, and should not be discounted. As Ms. O'Donnell herself said, the experts said she didn't have a chance of winning the primary against the oh-so-popular and much loved Mike Castle, either. And perhaps, if he hadn't voted for cap and trade, she might not have won. But the cap and trade vote was what did him in. It branded him a RINO and, with a few exceptions like John McCain (amazing how his pre-primary "no amnesty whatsoever" has phased into post-primary "resolving their issues..."), RINO's are becoming an endangered species politically speaking.
The republicans should take note and learn from this. Are they being "held hostage" by the "right-wing radicals" that allegedly are the tea parties? Well, if demanding a return to their fiscally conservative roots is being held hostage, then yes, they are. Does it mean a return to ultra-conservative policies across the board, as democrats keep warning? Not so much. Most tea partiers are only concerned with fiscal policies. Since the the early 1990's, the republican party has tacked to the center-left, buying into the theory that bringing home pork and expanding government was the way to keep getting elected. The needs of the country were secondary to the party and the individual politician, and the Constitution was an inconvenient piece of paper that restricted their plans. Establishment pols are being tossed because they are the problem, and the problem is on both sides of the aisle.
Never underestimate an electorate scorned and taxed to within an inch of their lives. Establishment politicians have forgotten that they are public servants. The tea party is simply reminding them. They would be wise to take heed. Even Chris Matthews has gotten the memo:
Monday, June 21, 2010
DEMOCRATIC DISARRAY
The democrat party seems to be hitting the skids. They are in deep denial over their prospects in November. They have plans to run on the passage of Obamacare - a program that is becoming more and more unpopular as time goes by. Their other option is to have their candidates run against George W. Bush. Again. But, then, what else have they got? Stimulus? Oil spill? Foreign relations? Yeah... better stick with Bush.
There has been a great deal of turmoil on the campaign trail, too. They have been unsuccessful in the primaries in more ways than one. The biggest puzzle is Senate candidate Alvin Greene. The question shouldn't be how did Alvin Greene get the nomination, the question should be how bad was his primary opponent that Greene managed to win without running any campaign whatsoever? His opponent spent lots of money on a high profile campaign complete with web site and the full backing of the DNC. Even with all of that, Greene won with 59% of the vote. And I thought Republican candidates were bad.
Now they have another headache in Texas with their new 22nd congressional district primary winner, Kesha Rogers. She is a LaRouchie - a follower of Lyndon LaRouche. These are the decidedly left-wing nutballs that are on the fringes of the Tea Parties, carrying those Obama as Hitler posters. In fact (and this is my favorite part of the story), there is photographic evidence that Ms. Rogers supports that meme. Why is this my favorite part? Because this will finally debunk the left's narrative that it is right-wing Tea Partyers that are carrying those darned Obama as Hitler posters. Unless, of course, they manage to sell the theory that she, too, is a GOP plant.
So how bizarre is this win? Well, if it's any indication, Ms. Rogers is looking to impeach Mr. Obama if she wins in November. That's right, the democrat nominee for Texas' 22nd CD wants to impeach Obama. Although, considering it is Texas, she might just win on that platform....Crazy? Or crazy like a fox?
It seems that the moderate faction is beginning to rebel against the liberal/progressive leadership who have taken over the party in recent years. In the meantime, the radical far-left faction is rebelling against the administration for not getting radical enough.
It's amazing that this was a group that, just two short years ago, managed to unite not just the entire democrat spectrum but many independents and even a good amount of conservatives under their banner. Not even two years later, everyone is at everyone else's throats, and it seems that the only thing they all have in common anymore is how quickly they are trying to distance themselves from each other.
Considering their gleeful pronouncements that the 2008 election signified the demise of the conservative movement in this country, the irony is rich and deep. Or perhaps the term 'karma' would be more apt.
There has been a great deal of turmoil on the campaign trail, too. They have been unsuccessful in the primaries in more ways than one. The biggest puzzle is Senate candidate Alvin Greene. The question shouldn't be how did Alvin Greene get the nomination, the question should be how bad was his primary opponent that Greene managed to win without running any campaign whatsoever? His opponent spent lots of money on a high profile campaign complete with web site and the full backing of the DNC. Even with all of that, Greene won with 59% of the vote. And I thought Republican candidates were bad.
Now they have another headache in Texas with their new 22nd congressional district primary winner, Kesha Rogers. She is a LaRouchie - a follower of Lyndon LaRouche. These are the decidedly left-wing nutballs that are on the fringes of the Tea Parties, carrying those Obama as Hitler posters. In fact (and this is my favorite part of the story), there is photographic evidence that Ms. Rogers supports that meme. Why is this my favorite part? Because this will finally debunk the left's narrative that it is right-wing Tea Partyers that are carrying those darned Obama as Hitler posters. Unless, of course, they manage to sell the theory that she, too, is a GOP plant.
So how bizarre is this win? Well, if it's any indication, Ms. Rogers is looking to impeach Mr. Obama if she wins in November. That's right, the democrat nominee for Texas' 22nd CD wants to impeach Obama. Although, considering it is Texas, she might just win on that platform....Crazy? Or crazy like a fox?
It seems that the moderate faction is beginning to rebel against the liberal/progressive leadership who have taken over the party in recent years. In the meantime, the radical far-left faction is rebelling against the administration for not getting radical enough.
It's amazing that this was a group that, just two short years ago, managed to unite not just the entire democrat spectrum but many independents and even a good amount of conservatives under their banner. Not even two years later, everyone is at everyone else's throats, and it seems that the only thing they all have in common anymore is how quickly they are trying to distance themselves from each other.
Considering their gleeful pronouncements that the 2008 election signified the demise of the conservative movement in this country, the irony is rich and deep. Or perhaps the term 'karma' would be more apt.
Tuesday, June 8, 2010
THIS EXPLAINS A LOT
A new survey has come out today and boy, is it interesting. The Wall Street Journal is running a story by Daniel Klein about a Zogby International survey on economics and politics. For all those people who say liberal/progressives are clueless about the economy, guess what?
You're absolutely right.
Mr. Klein describes the survey:
The respondents were asked 8 questions:
The political/ideological breakdown was as follows: Very Conservative, Conservative, Moderate, Liberal, Liberal/Progressive, and Libertarian.
Eight questions, five possible answers for each. The results are compelling (emphasis mine):
Of eight questions, progressives got, on average, five and a half wrong. The big question is, on the remaining two and a half possibly right answers, how many of them were counted as correct but were actually answered "Not Sure"? Mr. Klein does not say, but considering how poorly the liberal/progressives are doing steering our economy right now, it's tempting to think the other two and a half answers were not so much answered correctly as answered "Not Sure".
Kinda puts our current economic crisis and the failure of our liberal/progressive government's attempts to fix it into perspective, doesn't it?
You're absolutely right.
Mr. Klein describes the survey:
Zogby researcher Zeljka Buturovic and I considered the 4,835 respondents' (all American adults) answers to eight survey questions about basic economics. We also asked the respondents about their political leanings: progressive/very liberal; liberal; moderate; conservative; very conservative; and libertarian.By flatly unenlightened, he means a definitive wrong answer. If the respondent answered 'not sure', it was not considered a wrong answer. The five answer choices are: Strongly Agree, Somewhat Agree, Somewhat Disagree, Strongly Disagree, and Not Sure.
Rather than focusing on whether respondents answered a question correctly, we instead looked at whether they answered incorrectly. A response was counted as incorrect only if it was flatly unenlightened.
The respondents were asked 8 questions:
"Restrictions on housing development make housing less affordable." People were asked if they: 1) strongly agree; 2) somewhat agree; 3) somewhat disagree; 4) strongly disagree; 5) are not sure.
The other questions were: 1) Mandatory licensing of professional services increases the prices of those services (unenlightened answer: disagree). 2) Overall, the standard of living is higher today than it was 30 years ago (unenlightened answer: disagree). 3) Rent control leads to housing shortages (unenlightened answer: disagree). 4) A company with the largest market share is a monopoly (unenlightened answer: agree). 5) Third World workers working for American companies overseas are being exploited (unenlightened answer: agree). 6) Free trade leads to unemployment (unenlightened answer: agree). 7) Minimum wage laws raise unemployment (unenlightened answer: disagree).
The political/ideological breakdown was as follows: Very Conservative, Conservative, Moderate, Liberal, Liberal/Progressive, and Libertarian.
Eight questions, five possible answers for each. The results are compelling (emphasis mine):
How did the six ideological groups do overall? Here they are, best to worst, with an average number of incorrect responses from 0 to 8: Very conservative, 1.30; Libertarian, 1.38; Conservative, 1.67; Moderate, 3.67; Liberal, 4.69; Progressive/very liberal, 5.26.
Of eight questions, progressives got, on average, five and a half wrong. The big question is, on the remaining two and a half possibly right answers, how many of them were counted as correct but were actually answered "Not Sure"? Mr. Klein does not say, but considering how poorly the liberal/progressives are doing steering our economy right now, it's tempting to think the other two and a half answers were not so much answered correctly as answered "Not Sure".
Kinda puts our current economic crisis and the failure of our liberal/progressive government's attempts to fix it into perspective, doesn't it?
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
THE ISSUE'S NOT THE ISSUE
Chris Horner, author of "Power Grab" was on Hannity tonight. In his interview, he used, over and over, the phrase "The issue's not the issue". This is the mainstay liberal/progressive tactic to a T, and he deserves a hearty thank you for tagging it as such. It's quick, concise, easy to remember and right on the mark. A perfect foil for the coming campaign clashes.
In his book, he discusses the Obama administration's green agenda. On the face, the green agenda is hard to fight - after all, it's all about "saving the planet", and what kind of heartless, selfish person would you be if you wouldn't want to do that?
But if you dig deeper, as Mr. Horner did, you will find that it has, in reality, very little to do with saving the planet - that angle is used merely as a means to an end. For all the hundreds of billions of dollars in taxpayer funds that it will suck up and the unprecidented control over American citizens, there is little or no measurable good for the environment that will come of it. As Horner says, it's all about power and control. The green agenda is a perfect illustration of his quote, "the issue's not the issue". It is being sold as good for us, but in reality it is not. The issue isn't saving the earth, the issue is grasping more power into the ever-expanding federal government.
This phrase, "the issue's not the issue" is something that needs to be remembered and repeated so that all will know it, because within that phrase is the key to fighting back. Understanding your opponent's tactics is the first step in defeating them.
The issue not being the issue concept applies to every piece of legislation that has passed this Congress so far. The stimulus was not about helping the country get back on it's feet. That is just the bill of goods we were sold. That bill was all about consolidation of power. It was a big, wet, sloppy kiss to all of the special interests who helped put the democrats in power. That expensive thank you also acts as a promise of thank yous to come if the democrats stay in power, thus ensuring their legacy.
The health care bill was not about lowering costs, as was sold to us. It was about redistribution of wealth and control over the most important part of your life - your health. If they hold the key to your good health, you're more inclined to vote to keep them happy and in power, and redistribution buys a whole sector of voters.
Cap and trade isn't about the environment, it's about seizing wealth and controlling the energy sector. Period.
The coming election isn't about a referendum on the distinctly leftward tilt towards european socialism that we are currently pursuing - it's apparently about George W. Bush. I haven't quite figured out how yet, but give me time. Suggestions are appreciated.
The democrat's talking points these days are not just a reflection of their desperation, they are also a roadmap for the coming elections. But then, faced with polls like these and these and these, it's no wonder there is a distinct whiff of desperation in the air. It seems that their entire strategy for the 2010 election is "the issue's not the issue" (and blame Bush, of course).
The liberals are geniuses at directing a conversation. This is what they will attempt to do over the next few months. Instead of addressing the issues that are paramount to a majority of Americans, they will redirect the conversation to either other issues altogether or changing the issue to suit their needs. Thus the green agenda is not about power and control, it's about saving the planet somehow. Instead of being accused, they are going to attempt to be the accuser. When they are accused of grasping for power, they will accuse you of hating the planet. Health care doesn't lower costs translates to "you hate people and don't want them to have insurance". Concerns that there is a lot of taxation coming down the pike becomes "you're one of those fringe militia people, aren't you?"
It's a brilliant strategy, really. When you have no answers, start asking the questions.
The problem is that we have been subjected to this tactic for years now. You might say the country was battle weary, but that would only confirm you are a tea partymember extremist out to slaughter some random government official(s). The secret is, though, that Alinsky was right. In Rule #7 he said that "a tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag". The rising opposition in the polls shows that the "issue's not the issue" tactic has become a drag. It's time to start calling them out on it.
The tea partyers know the issues, often better than their representatives, and they are equally as tenacious in their pursuit of an answer as the liberals are in their attempts to avoid the discussion. It promises to be an interesting summer campaign. The big question will be whether the issue is debated, or the issue that isn't the issue.
It's time to take control of the debate and demand real answers to the real issues.
In his book, he discusses the Obama administration's green agenda. On the face, the green agenda is hard to fight - after all, it's all about "saving the planet", and what kind of heartless, selfish person would you be if you wouldn't want to do that?
But if you dig deeper, as Mr. Horner did, you will find that it has, in reality, very little to do with saving the planet - that angle is used merely as a means to an end. For all the hundreds of billions of dollars in taxpayer funds that it will suck up and the unprecidented control over American citizens, there is little or no measurable good for the environment that will come of it. As Horner says, it's all about power and control. The green agenda is a perfect illustration of his quote, "the issue's not the issue". It is being sold as good for us, but in reality it is not. The issue isn't saving the earth, the issue is grasping more power into the ever-expanding federal government.
This phrase, "the issue's not the issue" is something that needs to be remembered and repeated so that all will know it, because within that phrase is the key to fighting back. Understanding your opponent's tactics is the first step in defeating them.
The issue not being the issue concept applies to every piece of legislation that has passed this Congress so far. The stimulus was not about helping the country get back on it's feet. That is just the bill of goods we were sold. That bill was all about consolidation of power. It was a big, wet, sloppy kiss to all of the special interests who helped put the democrats in power. That expensive thank you also acts as a promise of thank yous to come if the democrats stay in power, thus ensuring their legacy.
The health care bill was not about lowering costs, as was sold to us. It was about redistribution of wealth and control over the most important part of your life - your health. If they hold the key to your good health, you're more inclined to vote to keep them happy and in power, and redistribution buys a whole sector of voters.
Cap and trade isn't about the environment, it's about seizing wealth and controlling the energy sector. Period.
The coming election isn't about a referendum on the distinctly leftward tilt towards european socialism that we are currently pursuing - it's apparently about George W. Bush. I haven't quite figured out how yet, but give me time. Suggestions are appreciated.
The democrat's talking points these days are not just a reflection of their desperation, they are also a roadmap for the coming elections. But then, faced with polls like these and these and these, it's no wonder there is a distinct whiff of desperation in the air. It seems that their entire strategy for the 2010 election is "the issue's not the issue" (and blame Bush, of course).
The liberals are geniuses at directing a conversation. This is what they will attempt to do over the next few months. Instead of addressing the issues that are paramount to a majority of Americans, they will redirect the conversation to either other issues altogether or changing the issue to suit their needs. Thus the green agenda is not about power and control, it's about saving the planet somehow. Instead of being accused, they are going to attempt to be the accuser. When they are accused of grasping for power, they will accuse you of hating the planet. Health care doesn't lower costs translates to "you hate people and don't want them to have insurance". Concerns that there is a lot of taxation coming down the pike becomes "you're one of those fringe militia people, aren't you?"
It's a brilliant strategy, really. When you have no answers, start asking the questions.
The problem is that we have been subjected to this tactic for years now. You might say the country was battle weary, but that would only confirm you are a tea party
The tea partyers know the issues, often better than their representatives, and they are equally as tenacious in their pursuit of an answer as the liberals are in their attempts to avoid the discussion. It promises to be an interesting summer campaign. The big question will be whether the issue is debated, or the issue that isn't the issue.
It's time to take control of the debate and demand real answers to the real issues.
Sunday, March 14, 2010
THE SLAUGHTER SOLUTION Updated
The left's desperation over ObamaCare is getting to be quite revealing. They are willing to make just about any promise, grease any palm, to get this thing passed.
They will offer up an amendment for abortion that they promise they will pass - eventually. But House dems have to vote first - just take the Senate's word for the whole amendment thing - they're good for it.
Really.
They are willing to turn a well respected, 92 year old Senator into a hypocrite for the cause. They are even willing to offer your brother a judicial appointment if that does the trick. If those persuasions weren't enough, there is always a little arm twisting to get you to see the light.
The dems have been shut down at every turn, though. so now they are pulling out all the stops, and legality apparently isn't a necessary requirement anymore.
Rep. Louise Slaughter, chairwoman of the House Rules Committee, has come up with a solution to Pelosi's dilemma. Madame Speaker is short on votes and no matter how she tries, she's just not able to win them over. At least her method of pushing out the dead weight has helped her a little. Unfortunately, she still can't manage to cross the finish line. That's where the Slaughter Solution comes in.
In a nutshell, the House will pass a rule that says they 'deem' the Senate bill passed by the House - without actually voting on and passing it in reality.
Isn't it nice that in the land of unicorns and rainbows in which our congress now lives wishes really do come true?
It seems that all Pelosi has to do now is wish for health care to pass, and presto! consider it done. This goes beyond bending the rules. Would someone please check out the trash bin behind the Capitol and see if the Constitution is in it? Maybe the Dalai Lama has seen it.
They have actually resorted to trying to pass the bill without a vote. In the Constitution is very clearly states how a bill becomes a law (emphasis mine):
Please note the very first thing that is required is for both houses of Congress to pass the bill by a majority vote. Rep. Slaughter must have a case of Clintonitis, but instead of wondering what the definition of "is" is, she is wondering what the definition of "vote" is. Let me give you a clue, madame chairwoman - "deeming" something does not constitute a majority vote. Unless, of course, Queen Pelosi has somehow managed to turn our constitutional republic into a monarchy/dictatorship.
Radio host Mark Levin (formerly a constutional lawyer) is calling for Slaughter's expulsion. He calls this effort "brazen" (via American Thinker):
This really is a frightening step. This is in violation of everything this country was founded on.
There is a tiny part of me that wants them to pass this epic piece of manipulation, graft and backroom deals they call a bill this way. There's no way in hell it will pass the sniff test with the Supreme Court. It will get thrown out and we will be rid of it forever. Maybe we'll get a twofer and get rid of the progressives, too.
Oh, and if the bill isn't bad enough as it stands, the House is also talking about adding in the nationalization of student loans for good measure. After all, if you're going to send out a nice big "screw you" to the american people, you may as well double down.
As a bonus, Obama's trip to Asia has been postponed and all congressional hearings have been cancelled to focus on health care. Aren't these the same people who ridiculed John McCain for delaying a debate and suspending his campaign to deal with the financial crisis? What was it they said? Something about multitasking and grandstanding, wasn't it? The economy and unemployment can wait. After all, health care is number...um...eight on the public's priorities list.
The stench of desperation is getting rather cloying these days, isn't it?
UPDATE: Former Bush appointee Judge Michael McConnell weighs in (via The Volokh Conspiracy):
With all due respect, I beg to differ on one point. The Slaughter Solution attempts to allow the House to pass three bills with a single vote - don't forget the nationalization of the student loan industry that they have tucked into the reconciliation.
Aside from that, bravo!
They will offer up an amendment for abortion that they promise they will pass - eventually. But House dems have to vote first - just take the Senate's word for the whole amendment thing - they're good for it.
Really.
They are willing to turn a well respected, 92 year old Senator into a hypocrite for the cause. They are even willing to offer your brother a judicial appointment if that does the trick. If those persuasions weren't enough, there is always a little arm twisting to get you to see the light.
The dems have been shut down at every turn, though. so now they are pulling out all the stops, and legality apparently isn't a necessary requirement anymore.
Rep. Louise Slaughter, chairwoman of the House Rules Committee, has come up with a solution to Pelosi's dilemma. Madame Speaker is short on votes and no matter how she tries, she's just not able to win them over. At least her method of pushing out the dead weight has helped her a little. Unfortunately, she still can't manage to cross the finish line. That's where the Slaughter Solution comes in.
In a nutshell, the House will pass a rule that says they 'deem' the Senate bill passed by the House - without actually voting on and passing it in reality.
Slaughter is weighing preparing a rule that would consider the Senate bill passed once the House approves a corrections bill that would make changes to the Senate version.
Isn't it nice that in the land of unicorns and rainbows in which our congress now lives wishes really do come true?
It seems that all Pelosi has to do now is wish for health care to pass, and presto! consider it done. This goes beyond bending the rules. Would someone please check out the trash bin behind the Capitol and see if the Constitution is in it? Maybe the Dalai Lama has seen it.
They have actually resorted to trying to pass the bill without a vote. In the Constitution is very clearly states how a bill becomes a law (emphasis mine):
First, a bill must pass both houses of Congress by a majority vote. After it has passed out of Congress, it is sent along to the President. If the President signs the bill, it becomes law.
Please note the very first thing that is required is for both houses of Congress to pass the bill by a majority vote. Rep. Slaughter must have a case of Clintonitis, but instead of wondering what the definition of "is" is, she is wondering what the definition of "vote" is. Let me give you a clue, madame chairwoman - "deeming" something does not constitute a majority vote. Unless, of course, Queen Pelosi has somehow managed to turn our constitutional republic into a monarchy/dictatorship.
Radio host Mark Levin (formerly a constutional lawyer) is calling for Slaughter's expulsion. He calls this effort "brazen" (via American Thinker):
Here we have the President of the United States and Congressional leaders actually talking about the possibility of a brazen and open violation of one of the most fundamental aspects of our Constitution and Republic! How we actually make laws!Let me be as clear as I know how. If this is done, this will create the greatest Constitutional crisis since the Civil War. It would be 100 times worse than Watergate.
...It would be government by fiat... meaning there would be no law... the mere discussion by officials in this government is such a grotesque violation of the actual legislative function of Congress [that it] puts us... at the brink. At the brink.
This really is a frightening step. This is in violation of everything this country was founded on.
There is a tiny part of me that wants them to pass this epic piece of manipulation, graft and backroom deals they call a bill this way. There's no way in hell it will pass the sniff test with the Supreme Court. It will get thrown out and we will be rid of it forever. Maybe we'll get a twofer and get rid of the progressives, too.
Oh, and if the bill isn't bad enough as it stands, the House is also talking about adding in the nationalization of student loans for good measure. After all, if you're going to send out a nice big "screw you" to the american people, you may as well double down.
As a bonus, Obama's trip to Asia has been postponed and all congressional hearings have been cancelled to focus on health care. Aren't these the same people who ridiculed John McCain for delaying a debate and suspending his campaign to deal with the financial crisis? What was it they said? Something about multitasking and grandstanding, wasn't it? The economy and unemployment can wait. After all, health care is number...um...eight on the public's priorities list.
The stench of desperation is getting rather cloying these days, isn't it?
UPDATE: Former Bush appointee Judge Michael McConnell weighs in (via The Volokh Conspiracy):
The Slaughter solution attempts to allow the House to pass the Senate bill, plus a bill amending it, with a single vote. The senators would then vote only on the amendatory bill. But this means that no single bill will have passed both houses in the same form. As the Supreme Court wrote in Clinton v. City of New York (1998), a bill containing the “exact text” must be approved by one house; the other house must approve “precisely the same text.”
With all due respect, I beg to differ on one point. The Slaughter Solution attempts to allow the House to pass three bills with a single vote - don't forget the nationalization of the student loan industry that they have tucked into the reconciliation.
Aside from that, bravo!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)