Posts Tagged ‘60 votes’

‘Unconscionable’ Worm Harry Reid Demonizes Republicans For 60 Vote Requirement: READ REID’S OWN PREVIOUS WORDS

July 31, 2011

Harry Reid is a worm.  He can’t be negotiated with or compromised with because he is a pathologically dishonest hypocrite who can’t be trusted.

Here is Harry Reid demonizing Mitch McConnell for not allowing his smoke-and-mirrors bill to have a straight up or down vote.  Never mind that Reid had just got through tabling not one but TWO Republicans bills without allowing a vote at all.  And just how in the hell does that foster anything but a bitter and poisonous climate?

“It’s fair to say that the engagement there is not in any meaningful way,” Reid said. “Republican leaders still refuse to negotiate in good faith.” […]

He suggested that delaying tactics being exercised by his Republican colleagues are preventing a measure from advancing in the upper congressional chamber to raise the debt ceiling. The Democratic leader spelled out the word f-i-l-i-b-u-s-t-e-r to make his case.

“You can put lipstick on it, a nice suit, even a skirt on it sometimes, it’s still a filibuster,” Reid said in comments directed at McConnell. The Nevada Democrat suggested that it’d be “unconscionable” for Republicans to use the maneuver to prevent a bill from passing to avert default.

Filibusters (requiring 60 votes)_ are “unconscionable,” are they?  Let’s see how Harry Reid applies that to, oh, Harry Reid.

What is funny” is that I actually had a hard time finding these quotes even though I actually had the VIDEO of one of them.  The mainstream media’s dishonesty, corruption and propaganda are reaching sickening new depths.

Sen. Reid: ‘It’s Always Been The Case You Need 60 Votes’
Jul 29 2011

Sen. Reid Says: ‘The Need To Muster 60 Votes… Is A Tool That Serves The Long-Term Interest Of The Senate And The American People And Our Country.’

SEN. HARRY REID (D-NV): “In the Senate, it’s always been the case you need 60 votes.” (PBS’ “Charlie Rose Show,” 3/5/07)

SEN. HARRY REID (D-NV): “As majority leader, I intend to run the Senate with respect for the rules and for the minority rights the rules protect. The Senate was not established to be efficient. Sometimes the rules get in the way of efficiency. The Senate was established to make sure that minorities are protected. Majorities can always protect themselves, but minorities cannot. That is what the Senate is all about. For more than 200 years, the rules of the Senate have protected the American people, and rightfully so. The need to muster 60 votes in order to terminate Senate debate naturally frustrates the majority and oftentimes the minority. I am sure it will frustrate me when I assume the office of majority leader in a few weeks. But I recognize this requirement is a tool that serves the long-term interest of the Senate and the American people and our country. It is often said that the laws are ‘the system of wise restraints that set men free.’ The same might be said of the Senate rules. I will do my part as majority leader to foster respect for the rules and traditions of our great institution. I say on this floor that I love so much that I believe in the Golden Rule. I am going to treat my Republican colleagues the way that I expect to be treated. There is no ‘I’ve got you,’ no get even. I am going to do everything I can to preserve the traditions and rules of this institution that I love.” (Sen. Reid, Congressional Record, S.11591, 12/8/06)

SEN. HARRY REID (D-NV): “60 votes are required for just about everything.” “I have talked with Senator McConnell about this. You know, we may have to come up with a number of resolutions that require 60 votes. Because, as you know, in the Senate, a lot of times 60 votes are required for just about everything. So that’s certainly one of the things we’re taking into consideration.” (Sen. Harry Reid, Press Conference, CQ Transcriptions, 1/30/07)

I don’t have to quote some Republican to show that Harry Reid is an “unconscionable” dishonest little hypocritical worm.  All I have to do is quote Harry Reid at a slightly earlier time.

Or how about simply point out what Harry Reid is actually doing RIGHT NOW while he himself filibusters even as he demagogues filibustering?

Democrats enforce filibuster against their own debt bill
by Stephen Dinan
Published on July 30, 2011

Senate Republicans want a 60-vote threshold for a debt-limit bill to pass the chamber, but it’s actually Democrats who are enforcing the filibuster on their own legislation, insisting on delaying a vote until 1 a.m. Sunday morning.

Republicans offered to let the vote happen Friday night, just minutes after the chamber voted to halt a House Republican bill. All sides expect Democrats’ bill will fail too, and the GOP said senators might as well kill both at the same time so that negotiations could move on to a compromise.

“We would be happy to have that vote tonight,” Sen. Mitch McConnell, Republicans’ leader, offered.

But Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid objected, even though the vote would occur on his own bill. He instead said the chamber would have to run out the full procedural clock, which means a vote in the early hours Sunday morning.

He said he would be willing to move up the vote if Republicans didn’t insist on a 60-vote threshold, which has become traditional for big, controversial items to pass the Senate. But the GOP held firm on that demand, so Mr. Reid said he would insist on the full process, which he said would show the country that Republicans were being obstructionist.

“There is now another filibuster. That’s what this is. It’s a filibuster to stop us from moving forward,” he said.

Mr. Reid complained that if the House had been held to the same super majority rules the Senate often operates under, Republicans’ proposal never would have passed over there earlier in the day….

I will always wonder how Democrats’ skulls don’t literally explode from trying to contain all the massive hypocritical contradictions that so quintessentially define them.

Then there’s something that I actually didn’t realize: the so-called “Boehner plan” was actually a compromise between Republican leaders, Harry Reid and Barack Obama.  Until Democrats cut and ran and pulled out the rug from their own damned compromise:

CR Editorial Note: Sen. Reid, aka “Quirog of Greazidom” had already worked out the House plan in a compromise with Boehner that blew up the House and the Tea Party as many must have heard today. In other words, this was the negotiated plan that Reid worked out and then promptly voted to table as dead on arrival when it finally arrived in the Senate.
 
 Why did Reid table his own compromised plan?

Enter Barack Hussein Obama, who read Reid the riot act after his smary talk on compromise and needing to “get something done.”
 
You see, a compromise would totally go against Obama’s Cloward-Piven plan to bring everything crashing down around America.
 
That story line is becoming more and more convincing as more facts are unearthed.

Boehner didn’t get ONE single Democrat vote (fact: he got FIVE Democrat votes for the MUCH more conservative cut, cap and balance bill that Senate Democrats trivialized, demonized and tabled) for this compromise plan due to the hard-core partisianship of the Democrats.  Boehner stuck his neck out a mile to compromise with Democrats and his reward was a Democrat chopping block.  Because Boehner couldn’t get any Democrat support for his compromise bill, he had no choice but to “conservative-it-up” to get enough Republicans to pass it.

This entire debt ceiling fiasco is quintessential Democrat hypocrisy.

In demonizing George Bush and then voting “NO” on a debt ceiling increase, Barack Obama lectured:

“The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure,” he said. “It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. … Leadership means that ‘the buck stops here.’ Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better. I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America’s debt limit.”

And since we were talking about the personal dishonesty and hypocrisy of Harry Reid, what did Harry Reid say when Bush was president and he was the same vile piece of rotten filth Senator he is now?

REID: “If my Republican friends believe that increasing our debt by almost $800 billion today and more than $3 trillion over the last five years is the right thing to do, they should be upfront about it. They should explain why they think more debt is good for the economy.

How can the Republican majority in this Congress explain to their constituents that trillions of dollars in new debt is good for our economy? How can they explain that they think it’s fair to force our children, our grandchildren, our great grandchildren to finance this debt through higher taxes. That’s what it will have to be. Why is it right to increase our nation’s dependence on foreign creditors?

They should explain this. Maybe they can convince the public they’re right. I doubt it. Because most Americans know that increasing debt is the last thing we should be doing. After all, I repeat, the Baby Boomers are about to retire. Under the circumstances, any credible economist would tell you we should be reducing debt, not increasing it. Democrats won’t be making argument to supper this legalization, which will weaken our country.”

WHY DON’T YOU ANSWER YOUR OWN DEMAGOGIC QUESTIONS NOW, HARRY REID?!?!?!

Republicans are standing firm for a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution which would require both Republican and Democrat administration and Congress ALIKE to spend within their means.  And Democrats – who constantly deceitfully TALK about cutting spending and having balanced budgets – are willing to fight to the death to avoid allowing EITHER.

Democrats are actually opposing a plan that would entail just a one percent spending cut a year for six yearsJUST ONE PERCENT!!!  So you can rest assurred that everything they say about cuts is nothing more than a lie, and all their bills that claim to “cut” are smoke-and-mirrors lies that rely on bogus premises and meaningless rhetoric and non-binding resolutions and promises of future cuts that future Congresses are in no way bound to uphold.

Meanwhile, the United States is borrowing 43 cents out of every single dollar that it spends.  And Democrats refuse to do anything to even slow it down.

Medicare is going to go bankrupt in less than five years.  And Democrats refuse to do anything other than lie and demagogue and demonize to stop that from happening.  They will not cut spending and make it possible to extend the life of these programs in any way, shape or form.  Meanwhile, they just outright lie about the Republican agenda.

The Democrats are dishonest by definition at this point. The entire party is the party of “God damn America,” the party of hell.

Obama’s Lies And Hypocrisy In Calling For Reconciliation

March 4, 2010

Barack Obama is a liar and a hypocrite who is fundamentally not to be trusted.  And I can prove that charge with his very own words.

From March 3 via UPI:

Obama outlined his proposal that included several Republican-generated ideas and called on Congress to pass healthcare reform within the next several weeks. By calling for an up-or-down vote, Obama noted that several major bills passed by a simple majority — otherwise known as reconciliation, a parliamentary procedure — during several previous administrations, including that of George W. Bush.

Do you want to know how extreme reconciliation is?  Just ask Barry Hussein:

Obama’s Discarded Wisdom
Breitbart.tv has a terrific two-minute video featuring clips of Barack Obama commenting on the need to build consensus before attempting to enact major social legislation. (If the above link doesn’t work, try this one.) As a public service, we’ve transcribed the Obama comments:

• “My understanding of the Senate is, is that you need 60 votes to get something significant to happen, which means that Democrats and Republicans have to ask the question: Do we have the will to move an American agenda forward, not a Democratic or Republican agenda forward?“–CBS-TV election night interview, Nov. 2, 2004

• “The bottom line is that our health-care plans are similar. The question, once again, is: Who can get it done? Who can build a movement for change? This is an area where we’re going to have to have a 60% majority in the Senate and the House in order to actually get a bill to my desk. We’re going to have to have a majority, to get the bill to my desk, that is not just a 50-plus-1 majority.”–Change to Win convention, Sept. 25, 2007

• “You’ve got to break out of what I call the sort of 50-plus-1 pattern of presidential politics. Maybe you eke out a victory of 50 plus 1, but you can’t govern. You know, you get Air Force One–I mean, there are a lot of nice perks, but you can’t deliver on health care. We’re not going to pass universal health care with a 50-plus-1 strategy.”–interview with the Concord (N.H.) Monitor, Oct. 9, 2007

• “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

Although the site that originated the video seems to be anti-Obama in orientation (it’s called Naked Emperor News, presumably meant to compare the president to the character in the fable), we must say that most of what Obama said back then is eminently sensible. He explained almost as well as we can why what he is doing now–pushing Congress to “transform the country” precisely via a “50-plus-1” strategy, is so foolish and dangerous.

Observers will disagree over what combination of ideological radicalism, egomania and sheer cynicism is motivating him, but what is clear is that President Obama is quite different from what Candidate Obama advertised.

Which is a polite way of saying he’s a galling hypocrite who deceitfully said one thing, and then actually did the very opposite thing.

Is Obama worse than Karl Rove, on his very own criterion???  If so, than Democrats should despise him more than they do Karl Rove, unless they too are the same sort of hypocrites.  Further, can we now take this to mean that Barack Obama does not believe in government in the same way he demonized Rove???

Is Obama now proving that he is a “government atheist”?

Barack Obama deserves to be reviled based on his very own standard of judgment.

This is a more substantial citation of one of the Obama quotes above:

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.

Obama specifically said he would disavow the very strategy that he is now embracing.

Barack Obama is at the very top of a list of vehemently reconciliation-damning quotes from Democrats compiled by Human Events:

Barack Obama 4/25/05: “The President hasn’t gotten his way. And that is now prompting a change in the Senate rules that really I think would change the character of the Senate forever…what I worry about would be that you essentially still have two chambers the House and the Senate but you have simply majoritarian absolute power on either side, and that’s just not what the founders intended.”

Would you like to know why Obama said the founding fathers never intended the thing that he is despicably now trying to do?  Here’s how the founding fathers described the US Senate:

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.

Obama is now calling for that which he has already publicly recognized as being something that would “change the character of the Senate forever” in a way he acknowledged was “not what the founders intended.”

Can we all just agree that Obama is unAmerican now???

The Republicans were different back in 2005 from the Democrats today when this argument last took place.  And as usual, they were better.  They didn’t follow through using a procedure that was designed to pass a budget (which is what reconciliation was intended to resolve) for a frankly unconstitutional use.   They certainly didn’t use it to place nearly one-fifth of the U.S. economy under the thrall of their party, as Democrats are trying to do now.

Have the Republicans ever been hypocrites on the issue of reconciliation?  I’m sure they have.  But that’s besides the point in the sense that the Democrats – if they use the procedure now – stand utterly condemned as liars and hypocrites by their very own words:

Hillary Clinton 5/23/2005: “So this president has come to the majority here in the Senate and basically said ‘change the rules.’ ‘Do it the way I want it done.’ And I guess there just weren’t very many voices on the other side of the isle that acted the way previous generations of senators have acted and said ‘Mr. President we are with you, we support you, but that’s a bridge too far we can’t go there.’ You have to restrain yourself Mr. President.

Charles Schumer 5/18/2005: “We are on the precipice of a crisis, a constitutional crisis. The checks and balances which have been at the core of this Republic are about to be evaporated by the nuclear option. The checks and balances which say that if you get 51% of the vote you don’t get your way 100% of the time. It is amazing it’s almost a temper tantrum.

Harry Reid 5/18/2005: “Mr. President the right to extended debate is never more important than the one party who controls congress and the white house. In these cases the filibuster serves as a check on power and preserves our limited government.”

Dianne Feinstein 5/18/2005: The nuclear option if successful will turn the Senate into a body that could have its rules broken at any time by a majority of senators unhappy with any position taken by the minority. It begins with judicial nominations. Next will be executive appointments and then legislation.

Joe Biden 5/23/2005: This nuclear option is ultimately an example of the arrogance of power. It is a fundamental power grab.

Harry Reid 5/18/2005: “But no we are not going to follow the Senate rules. No, because of the arrogance of power of this Republican administration.”

Chris Dodd 5/18/2005: “I’ve never passed a single bill worth talking about that didn’t have a lead co sponsor that was a Republican. And I don’t know of a single piece of legislation that’s ever been adopted here that didn’t have a Republican and Democrat in the lead. That’s because we need to sit down and work with each other. The rules of this institution have required that. That’s why we exist. Why have a bicameral legislative body? Why have two chambers? What were the framers thinking about 218 years ago? They understood Mr. President that there is a tyranny of the majority.

Dianne Feinstein 5/18/2005: “If the Republican leadership insists on forcing the nuclear option the senate becomes ipso facto the House of Representatives where the majority rules supreme and the party of power can dominate and control the agenda with absolute power.”

Hillary Clinton 5/23/2005: “You’ve got majority rule and then you have the senate over here where people can slow things down where they can debate where they have something called the filibuster. You know it seems like it’s a little less than efficient — well that’s right it is. And deliberately designed to be so.”

Joe Biden 5/23/05: “I say to my friends on the Republican side you may own the field right now buy you won’t own it forever I pray God when the Democrats take back control we don’t make the kind of naked power grab you are doing.”

Charles Schumer 5/23/2005: “They want their way every single time. And they will change the rules, break the rules, and misread the constitution so that they will get their way.”

Hillary Clinton 5/23/2005: “The Senate is being asked to turn itself inside out, to ignore the precedent to ignore the way our system has work, the delicate balance that we have obtain that has kept this constitution system going, for immediate gratification of the present President.”

Max Baucus 5/19/2005: “This is the way Democracy ends. Not with a bomb but with a gavel.”

This is a procedure that should simply not be used to pass major legislation which essentially transform nearly a fifth of the economy, and which literally puts our lives and our freedoms on the line.

Major polls such as Rasmussen (44% favoring versus 52% oppose) and Gallup (42% favoring versus 49% opposed) across the board demonstrate that the American people do not want this 2,700 page monstrosity.  The American people not only oppose ObamaCare, but they oppose it by greater margins than that which propelled Obama into the White House.

Just how is it, given that the people clearly do not want this, that the Democrats have any right whatsoever to use a procedure which they themselves demonized to ram it through.

It Aint Just The Tea Party: CNN Poll Shows 56% Say Obama Government A Threat To Citizens’ Rights

February 27, 2010

Barack Obama and the Democrat Party, demagogues that they are, have tried to marginalize and demonize the Tea Party demonstrations from the very outset.

Well, the Tea Party is now 56% of the country on the issue of the threat that the Obama administration poses to freedom and liberty.

CNN Poll: Majority says government a threat to citizens’ rights
Posted: February 26th, 2010 09:00 AM ET

From CNN Deputy Political Director Paul Steinhauser

Washington (CNN) – A majority of Americans think the federal government poses a threat to rights of Americans, according to a new national poll.

Fifty-six percent of people questioned in a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey released Friday say they think the federal government’s become so large and powerful that it poses an immediate threat to the rights and freedoms of ordinary citizens. Forty-four percent of those polled disagree.

The survey indicates a partisan divide on the question: only 37 percent of Democrats, 63 percent of Independents and nearly 7 in 10 Republicans say the federal government poses a threat to the rights of Americans.

According to CNN poll numbers released Sunday, Americans overwhelmingly think that the U.S. government is broken
– though the public overwhelmingly holds out hope that what’s broken can be fixed.

The CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll was conducted February 12-15, with 1,023 adult Americans questioned by telephone. The survey’s sampling error is plus or minus 3 percentage points for the overall survey.

Sean Curnyn makes an excellent point about the issue of Democrats and independents and a “partisan divide”:

“While it says, “only 37 percent percent of Democrats” believe this, I would rephrase that as “even 37 percent of Democrats” feel this way. When you’re losing independents to the tune of 63 percent on this issue, you sure can’t afford to also be losing over a third of Democrats.”

This view that an overwhelming majority of the people – even Democrats – now feel that the government under Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid is out to trample their rights dovetails with an article I wrote last August entitled, “Health Care Debate: As Charges of Nazism Abound, Which Side Is Right?

In that article, I begin with the following:

Nancy Pelosi upped the ante in the health care debate when she responded to a media question in the following manner:

Interviewer: Do you think there’s legitimate grassroot opposition going on here?

Pelosi: “I think they’re Astroturf… You be the judge. “They’re carrying swastikas and symbols like that to a town meeting on healthcare.”

That being in addition to her reference to town hall protesters as “simply un-American.”

And now 56% of Americans are “simply un-American” on Nancy Pelosi’s view.

I’ve always got to point out the fact that “Nazi” stood for “National Socialist German Workers Party.”  And when the aforementioned National Socialist German Workers Party attacked the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics during World War II, it was a war of the left fighting against the left.

How do such leftists think?  They think in Marxist or fascist, totalitarian terms.  It’s just who they are.

You should think about that when you have uber-liberal Bill Maher articulating what essentially amounts to the Democrat reconciliation strategy for health care in an August 24 interview on NBC’s Conan O’Brien program:

“You know, they’re talking about 60 votes they need,” Maher said. “Forget this stuff. You can’t get Americans to agree on anything. Sixty-percent? Sixty-percent of people don’t believe in evolution in this country. He just needs to drag them to it.  Like I just said, they’re stupid. Just drag them to this.”

You stupid morons who believe that you have rights.  Screw you.  You should be FORCED to comply with the liberal elitist intelligentsia.

Only 11 days ago Maher was at it again on CNN’s ‘Larry King Live’:

“But what the Democrats never understand is that Americans don’t really care what position you take, just stick with one,” Maher said. “Just be strong. They’re not bright enough to really understand the issues. But like an animal, they can sort of sense strength or weakness. They can smell it on you.”

Maher isn’t an elected politician – which is precisely why he can say what he’s saying.  But he is attempting to articulate the rationale behind forcing the American people to accept an ObamaCare boondoggle that they absolutely do not want.

It’s not just the polls that prove the American people don’t want the Democrats’ health care agenda; it’s the incredible victory of Scott Brown turning Camelot Republican by promising to be the 41st vote stopping it.  In voting for Scott Brown, the citizens of even one of the most liberal states in the country were effectively telling the Democrats, “We don’t want what you’re trying to impose; we’re taking away your filibuster-proof majority to stop this from happening.”

But the Democrats don’t CARE that you don’t want it.  They believe you are simply too stupid to be allowed to make such a choice for yourselves.  They are going to exercise raw, totalitarian power over you for your own good.

Let’s see what reconciliation is:

  • It is “a change in the Senate rules” that “would change the  character of the Senate forever.”
  • It is “majoritarian absolute power” which is “just not what the founders intended.”
  • It is “the precipice of a crisis, a constitutional crisis.”
  • It evaporates “the checks and balances which have been at the core of this Republic.”
  • It is “almost a temper tantrum.”
  • It is the abandonment of the concept of “a check on power” and an     abandonment of that which “preserves our limited government.”
  • It is something that “will turn the Senate into a body that could have its rules broken at any time by a majority of senators unhappy with any position taken by the minority.”
  • It “is ultimately an example of the arrogance of power.”
  • It “is a fundamental power grab.”
  • It “is a tyranny of the majority.”
  • It is “where the majority rules supreme and the party of power can dominate and control the agenda with absolute power.”
  • It is a “naked power grab.”
  • It is to “change the rules, break the rules, and misread the Constitution so that they will get their way.”
  • It is “The Senate … being asked to turn itself inside out, to ignore the   precedent to ignore the way our system has worked, the delicate balance   that we have obtain that has kept this Constitution system going, for immediate gratification of the present President.”
  • It is “the way Democracy ends. Not with a bomb but with a gavel.”

If reconciliation is what these statements say it is, it is truly a fascist tactic that would only be employed by the most fundamentally unAmerican of totalitarians.

Only a genuinely evil and depraved political party would use such a despicable tactic.

Who said this about reconciliation?

Every single statement comes from Democrats as a result of Republicans merely discussing using the tactic to overcome a filibuster of a Bush judicial nomination.  Every single one.

Interestingly, Dianne Feinstein describes a progression which would start from a bad thing to an incredibly bad thing:

Dianne Feinstein 5/18/2005: The nuclear option if successful will turn the Senate into a body that could have its rules broken at any time by a majority of senators unhappy with any position taken by the minority. It begins with judicial nominations. Next will be executive appointments and then legislation.

The current batch of Democrats skipped the executive appointments and went straight for the legislation where they could most directly impose their will upon the American people.

Americans are stupid, you see.  And the rules shouldn’t matter when it comes to overcoming the objections of hundreds of millions of dumb animals, as Bill Maher calls us.

Cows are herded.  Whether they are milked or slaughtered, it isn’t their choice.  They don’t get to choose.

And don’t think this isn’t the pervasive Democrat attitude toward the American people.

At one point during the health care summit Barack Obama said the following to cut down a Republican:

“Point number two, when we do props like this — stack it up and you repeat 2,400 pages, et cetera — you know, the truth of the matter is that health care is very complicated. And we can try to pretend that it’s not, but it is.”

This referring to Rep. Eric Cantor, who had and was reading and referring to the very Democrat Senate bill that ostensibly was the very subject of discussion.

It’s not a “prop,” Obama.  It’s the bill representing the boondoggle you are trying to cram down our throats.  And while you might think of us as a bunch of stupid animals – just like Bill Maher does – who can’t possibly understand health care, we understand it just fine.  You don’t like Rep. Cantor reading it because you don’t want the American people to be able to actually know what you are trying to impose on us.

But it’s too late, Mr. Elitist-in-Chief.

A solid majority of the American people now understand that you, your administration, and everyone who thinks like you in government represents a clear and present danger to our rights and our freedoms.

The Democrats now want to use “the nuclear option” in a way that no Congress has ever even TRIED to use it before.

They think we’re dumb like animals.  But even the dumbest of animals can bite back after they’ve suffered enough abuse.

The scent of blood is in the air.

Catch you in November.

In Ted Kennedy’s Honor, Let’s Pass ‘Kopechne Care’

November 22, 2009

I wrote this in August after Ted Kennedy passed away.  I decided not to publish it at the time, out of respect for the recently deceased.  But the Democrat leadership rushing out to invoke Kennedy’s name during and after the vote last night made me realize that the time had come to put it out there:

Nancy Pelosi, eager little demagogue that she is, rushed out as soon as she heard that Ted Kennedy had passed to say:

“Ted Kennedy’s dream of quality health care for all Americans will be made real this year because of his leadership and his inspiration.”

Democrat Chairman Howard Dean predicted:

“his [Kennedy’s] death absolutely will stiffen the spine of the Democrats to get something this year for this extraordinary giant in Senate history.” Sen. Chris Dodd: “Maybe Teddy’s passing will remind people once again that we are there to get a job done as he would do.”

And Robert Byrd suggested that the subsequent health care reform be named in Ted Kennedy’s honor.

Mind you, in spite of all the blatant politicizing of Ted Kennedy’s death, Democrats bristle with the suggestion that they are doing what they are clearly doing.

The Democratic politicization of Kennedy’s death hearkens to the so-called “Wellstone effect,” as Democrats showed their true colors “honoring” the death of Democrat Senator Paul Wellstone.

And that has some influential conservative voices sounding the alarm and calling foul.

While most prominent Republicans stuck Wednesday and Thursday to sober condolences — and several Republican operatives said it was too early to accuse Democrats of politicizing a sad moment — the conservative media, as well as some operatives, has seized on the whiff of politicization of his passing, recalling the bitter charges and countercharges that followed Sen. Paul Wellstone’s (D-Minn.) memorial service in 2002.

That service, a sometimes boisterous rally that included calls to carry on Wellstone’s political legacy and some catcalls for Republican speakers, turned the memorial into a central campaign issue, and many observers think the still-disputed event helped elect a Republican to fill his seat.

In all the constant eulogizing of the last couple of days, we learn that Ted Kennedy had this “love of humor”:

Meanwhile, listening to ”Reflections on Sen. Kennedy … Lion of the Senate” on the Diane Rehm Show on the drive home last night, I was deeply moved to hear Newsweek’s Ed Klein tell guest host Katty Kay about Kennedy’s love of humor. How the late senator loved to hear and tell Chappaquiddick jokes, and was always eager to know if anyone had heard any new ones. Not that Kennedy lacked remorse, Klein quickly added, seeming to intuit that my jaw and perhaps those of other listeners had just hit the floorboards. I gather it was a self-deprecating manuever on Kennedy’s part, exercised with the famous Kennedy charm, though it sounds like one of those “I guess you had to have been there” things.

“Ha, ha, ha.  Can you tell me any new ones about that time when I was driving around drunk late at night with a young woman not my wife – what was her name?  Mary Joe Something? – and drove into the drink?  My favorite ones are about how she tried to claw her way out of the car after I abandoned her to die.”

Well, I’ve got a Chappaquiddick joke for you: why don’t we name the health care bill Democrats want to name in Ted Kennedy’s honor “Kopechne Care” instead?  I’d suggest “Chappaquiddick Care,” but it’s too hard to spell, and it doesn’t give proper recognition to the victims this bill is going to abandon by means of medical rationing.

If your elderly parents get sick, the Kopechne Care plan would call for them to be loaded into the back seat of a car and driven off a bridge.  As the cost of the Democrats’ plan becomes more and more expensive, you will see expressions of regret that the “clunkers” cars were all destroyed.

Let me tell you something: the theme of being trapped in a government system with no way out as your care is rationed away from you actually ties in quite well with the terrible fate that Mary Joe Kopechne suffered.

Barbara Wagner, battling to survive cancer in Oregon’s government health care system, would certainly agree.  An IBD editorial tells her story in the context of the larger debate around the government single-payer system that abandoned her to die:

“The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama’s ‘death panel’ so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their ‘level of productivity in society’ whether they are worthy of health care,” [Sarah] Palin wrote.

“Such a system is downright evil.”

Former Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean’s response was, “She made that up.”  Oregon resident Barbara Wagner might beg to differ — as she begs to stay alive. Last year, the 64-year-old received news that her cancer, which had been in remission, had returned. Her only hope was a life-extending drug that her doctor prescribed for her.

The problem was that the drug cost $4,000 a month. The state-run Oregon Health Plan said no, that it was not cost-effective. Oregon’s equivalent of a “death panel” sent her a letter saying it would cover drugs for a physician-assisted death. Those drugs would cost only $50 or so. Oregon could afford that.

“It was horrible,” Wagner told ABCNews.com. “I got a letter in the mail that basically said if you want to take the pills, we will help you get that from the doctor and we will stand there and watch you die.

“But we won’t give you the medication to live.”

The $4,000 could be better spent on someone else.

Death panels are already here it seems, just as they have been for some time in Britain and Canada. The concept behind deciding who lives and who dies and how finite resources should be allocated was described by key Obama health care adviser Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, brother to White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel.

In his paper, “Principles for Allocation of Scarce Medical Interventions,” he expounds on what he calls “The Complete Lives System” for allocating treatments and resources.

“When the worse-off can benefit only slightly while better-off people could benefit greatly,” he says, “allocating to the better-off is often justifiable.”

These are Dr. Emanuel’s words, not Palin’s. We’re not making this up and neither is she. It is not hard to see this formula for rationing forcing children such as Trig and the elderly such as Barbara Morgan to take a number — a very high number.

So let Nancy Pelosi and Howard Dean call it “Kennedy Care.”  I’ll call it “Kopechne Care” – in honor of Ted Kennedy’s first victim.  And point out that if “Kennedy Care” is passed, there will be many, many more victims like Barbara Wagner in the years to come.

It was perfectly fitting for Democrats to honor and mourn the passing of one of their great politicians.  But if they want to turn Kennedy’s passing into a political weapon – and invoke the name of a man who abandoned a helpless woman under his care to die – they had better be aware that it will be a sword that cuts both ways.