Obama says, “To maintain a strong presidency, we need to pass the bill.”
I thought ObamaCare was supposed to be all about reforming the health care system to make it somehow better. Nope. The REAL point of it is to “maintain a strong Obama presidency.”
Thanks but no thanks, Zero.
I mean, don’t get me wrong. It’s a real tempting offer to support a hard-core partisan liberal big government takeover of our health care system to help you create the illusion that you aren’t such a total loser, after all. But I think I’ll pass, just the same.
Bam feeling queasy
Pleads for health Rx – for sake of presidency
By GEOFF EARLE Post Correspondent
March 5, 2010
WASHINGTON — President Obama yesterday pushed wavering House members to OK health-care legislation for his own political standing and for theirs, as the battle came down to a bare-knuckle brawl for votes.
Obama met with groups of liberal and more conservative Democrats in the White House to try to assemble a winning coalition.
“To maintain a strong presidency, we need to pass the bill,” Obama told the liberals, according to Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.), who attended the meeting.
“He made a very pointed, very realistic case about how this is an opportunity that won’t come around for a long time.”
The heightened presidential pressure came on a day when Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) said a dozen centrist Democrats weren’t willing to swallow Senate language that they say provides federal funding for abortion.
“We’re not going to vote for the bill with that language in there,” Stupak, who leads a faction of anti-abortion Democrats who have voted for health reform, told ABC yesterday.
Congressional leaders say they want to bring Obama’s top legislative priority up for a vote by the end of the month.
On Wednesday, Obama called on Congress to stop debating and hold an “up-or-down vote” using a hard-line tactic called “reconciliation” and having the House take up the Senate-passed bill.
Now that push comes to shove, we see who this health care takeover is and always was about: Obama and the Democrats who don’t want to govern, but rule over us.
Not, “Do it for the people” who clearly don’t want this 2,700-page monstrosity, but rather, please do this for your messiah’s political standing.
And then we find that Obama “made a very pointed, very realistic case” for his chief of staff’s argument that “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste.” Thus we have the continuation of the age-old philosophy of the demagogue: jump on a crisis and ride it to a self-serving power-mad agenda.
And in order to advance his self-serving, power-mad agenda, Obama calls upon a maneuver that he personally harshly attacked only a few years ago:
“You know, one of the arguments that sometimes I get with my fellow progressives–and some of these have flashed up in the blog communities on occasion–is this notion that we should function sort of like Karl Rove, where we identify our core base, we throw them red meat, we get a 50-plus-1 victory. But see, Karl Rove doesn’t need a broad consensus, because he doesn’t believe in government. If we want to transform the country, though, that requires a sizable majority.”–Center for American Progress, July 12, 2006
Obama told us how bad that Rove guy was just a few years ago. Funny, but I don’t remember Karl Rove trying to ram through a partisan agenda that would take over nearly 20% of our economy.
So Obama demonized Karl Rove, but now he’s going to be worse, more partisan, and more destructive to government than Karl Rove ever was.
I understand why “Rove doesn’t need a broad consensus” given your demonization of him, Barry Hussein. The bigger question now is, “Why don’t YOU need a broad consensus?”
Why is he going to do that? Well, to “to maintain a strong presidency,” of course.
Could there even BE a more noble reason for Obama to ruin our health care system and our very system of government than to save his political ass?
Obama told us that reconciliation was “simply majoritarian absolute power” which was “just not what the founders intended.”
Writing to Thomas Jefferson, who had been out of the country during the Constitutional Convention, James Madison explained that the Constitution’s framers considered the Senate to be the great “anchor” of the government. To the framers themselves, Madison explained that the Senate would be a “necessary fence” against the “fickleness and passion” that tended to influence the attitudes of the general public and members of the House of Representatives. George Washington is said to have told Jefferson that the framers had created the Senate to “cool” House legislation just as a saucer was used to cool hot tea.
Ah, but that flies in the face of the demagogue’s “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste” philosophy. And heck, it even flies in the face of “maintaining a strong presidency” now that Obama has foolishly bet his political farm on ramming through his ObamaCare boondoggle.
So now, by all means, let us ignore what the founders intended, let us have that “simply majoritarian absolute power.” Let us take that scalding hot tea and pour it down the throat of the Senate. Let us – again, in Obama’s very own words – “change the character of the Senate forever.”
Does the man whose core promise to the nation -
WASHINGTON — At the core of Senator Barack Obama’s presidential campaign is a promise that he can transcend the starkly red-and-blue politics of the last 15 years, end the partisan and ideological wars and build a new governing majority.
To achieve the change the country wants, he says, “we need a leader who can finally move beyond the divisive politics of Washington and bring Democrats, independents and Republicans together to get things done.”
- now want to be the most poisonous political figure in our nation’s history? Because this hard-core partisan takeover of our nation’s health care system and nearly a fifth of the nation’s economy is going to create the most bitter, partisan, and ugly war we’ve seen since the Civil War. And that is a fact.
Again, in Obama’s very own words:
You’ve got to break out of what I call the sort of 50 plus one pattern of presidential politics which is you have nasty primaries where everybody’s disheartened and beaten up. Then you divide the country 45 percent on one side, and 45 percent on the other, and 10 percent in the middle and (unintelligible) and Florida behind. And battle it out and then maybe you eke out a victory of 50 plus one. Then you can’t govern. You know, you get Air Force One, I mean there are a lot of nice perks for being president. But you can’t, you can’t deliver on healthcare. We are not going to pass universal healthcare with a 50 plus one strategy. We’re not going to have a serious, bold energy policy of the sort I proposed yesterday unless you build a working majority.
Is it okay for a president to completely violate his word and credibility for the sake of his “strong presidency”? He said “we’re NOT” going to do the thing he is now doing. “Break OUT of the 50-plus-one pattern of presidential politics“? Obama is storming the gates to rush IN. No president has even TRIED to pass something to big and so fundamental and so radically transformative with this vile strategy. Is it okay to totally divide the country and poison our system and our society this way for the sake of a “strong presidency”?
Let me put it this way: if Republicans take back the country, and use reconciliation to impose the “Hunt Every Democrat Down With Dogs and Burn Them Alive” Act, do you want Republicans to be able to justify their actions by quoting Barack Obama?
You Democrats, don’t you think for a SECOND that what you are doing now won’t one day come back at you with a vengeance that will leave you even more stunned and terrified than conservatives are today.
Obama’s “strong presidency” will see this country burning in flames.