Democrats: We're gonna take our ball and go home...

...and whine about Republican "obstructionism..."

Feeling the heat from not only their constituencies and Congressional Republicans, Democrats seem hellbent on doing something to save their political asses for next year's midterms. It has been President Obama who made ObamaCare the keystone of his presidency, and by god, he's going to call on Congressional Democrats to get something on his desk before the year's out. According to the Politico, it has been Obama who's been adamant about excluding Republican alternatives to his ObamaCare plan. We recall during the Porkulus "debate," how Obama attacked GOP strawmen and Rush Limbaugh by telling the GOP that they had to stop listening to him in order to get things done...and that "he won."

The New York Times is reporting Senate Democrats are mulling the use of a 1974 Senate rule, "reconciliation," to force a simple majority vote on ObamaCare. Ed Morrissey notes the difficulty Democrats will experience if they decide to go this route. Meanwhile, liberals whine that it has been used by Republicans before, except in this case, a majority of the electorate don't support the legislation being considered for "reconciliation." I would presume that if Democrats went ahead with this, they'll pay a political price next year. A better strategy is to listen and seriously consider Republican proposals and cease with the demagoguery.

One can always deduce the motive behind Democratic attempts to ramrod this crap down the throat of Amuricans. Bloomberg is reporting that an ad agency that is creating ads to garner support for ObamaCare owes Senior White House Advisor, David "Astroturf" Axelrod, money and happens to employ his son. Don't expect liberals to cry foul, as they did when Halliburton received contracts for work in Iraq, claiming Cheney's involvement was a conflict-of-interest. Take a sniff...Democrat projection always has that funny smell. Who is it that Democrats claim are on the take again?!?!

It isn't only Republicans who are having drawbacks to this bill. Conservative Democrats continue to have problems with it, and their constituency is continuing to make them aware of their opposition. I'm willing to bet that if the so-called "progressive" wing of the Democratic Party mollified the more conservative members, they'll peel some Republicans as well. The more the bill seeks to placate leftists, instead of all Amuricans, the more willing the opposition feels determined to kill the bill.

It's not that Republicans had no ideas, it's just their ideas weren't considered...

Have a great day...

James Carville: Hey, let's blame everything on Republicans and hope it works...

...that strategy helped us in '06 and '08, why wouldn't it work in '10 and '12?

James Carville was an integral part of the Clinton White House, so his latest claim, that forcing the GOP to filibuster ObamaCare would hurt them politically, is absurd. As I noted in a previous post, the 103rd Congress, that was debating HillaryCare, had more than enough votes to pass any and everything the liberal base wanted. No matter how many times Democrats tried to blame their failures on Republicans, the electorate refused to buy the spin. The major problem for HillaryCare lie in the former First Lady's refusal to listen to ideas that would make the bill better, the same is apparently true for Obama. His reliance on San Fran Nan and Pinky Reid to craft a "bipartisan" bill, knowing they're probably the most partisan people on the Hill, shows that he did not intend to compromise at all.

There is a brouhaha over former House Majority Leader, Dick Armey's assertion that the Soros-funded MoveOn.org ran two "Bush=Hitler" commercials in 2004. I would like to note that while MoveOn.org did not run the ads during Bushie's 2004 State of the Union address, they did condone them implicitly, since they did not condemn the comparison. With that said, I would like to focus on the ad that DID win the "Bush in 30 seconds" contest, which showed children who'd be stuck paying for the alleged $1Trillion deficit, created by the Bush Administration. As I type this, there is an "Obama in 30 seconds" contest (though I would like to assume that no "Obama=Hitler" connections will occur in the fuzzy minds of liberals). I am willing to bet that none of the winning ads will tie Obama to the skyrocketing deficit, if anything, they'll remind us how much in lockstep liberals are with Obama's wrongheaded agenda.

In fact, there are some liberals who are still excusing Obama for voting "present," when he should be out in the trenches, and blaming Republicans. Donny Shaw notes that the White House hasn't really put their full weight behind the "public option," and the president's reticence on it would make it that much more difficult to garner votes in the US Senate. The reason ObamaCare will fail will be the blame of Obama and Democrats, not Republicans and the Right. Jon Stewart, of Comedy Central's The Daily Show pretty much sums up left-wing talking points thusly.

I don't think that Glenn Beck, nor any other prominent conservative, believes our healthcare system is not in need of reform, contrary to Jon Stewart's assertion. I believe our healthcare system is the best in the world, BUT it should not be subjected to the type of revolution Obama and his acolytes wish to foist upon it. Liberals believe everything about the United States is eeevil and corrupt, and must fall in line with European dictates. There is no proof given by ObamaCare proponents that this bill will tweak our system, it will only degrade it, as many opponents fear. As I've always said, if the system being detailed in HR 3200 is the best thing since the iPod, members of Congress and the White House should subject themselves to it...but none of the ObamaCare proponents are talking about that. Instead, ObamaCare proponents rely on demagoguery to silence the bill's critics.

It seems that while liberals are demonizing the GOP for going back to 1994, they need to save even more vitriol for Democrats who are taking the debate there...

Have a great day...

Democrats: Either you're with us, or you're against us...

...which is a policy change from 2001...

For a group of people who complain about conservatives seeing the world in black and white, liberals seem to form their arguments about healthcare insurance healthcare reform in the same frame of mind. Either you agree with the so-called "public option" and everything in the House bill, or you don't want reform at all. There is no time to discuss compromise, in the views of Democrats. The people who are asking the hard questions of their congressional representatives are maligned as "astroturfers," "political terrorists," "mobsters," and "racists." David Broder believes these protesters are going to end up hurting the GOP, which I find troubling since according to a USA Today poll, more independents sympathize with the protesters over Obama/Pelosi spin. It also doesn't occur to Broder to note the frustration Democratic constituents have with their representatives ignoring them, perhaps he's not seen the video of Sheila Jackson-Lee. It seems silly that Democrats expect to get away with griping about Republicans not wanting to compromise, when they [Dems] have already poisoned the well, as they've done many times before.

In their pursuit to prove that Republicans don't want to compromise, Obama absolutists point to placards which depict President Obama as another reincarnation of Hitler, whose name is off-limits, lest the target be Republican (Wonkette believes that Lyndon LaRouche, a Democrat, is now a fringe Republican...or something), use singular episodes of a protester destroying a poster depicting Rosa Parks (more on that here), or make shit up out of whole cloth. The strategy is obvious, if liberals can get away with portraying concerned Amuricans as members of a fringe "I Hate Everything Obama" group, then they can silence other critics of this plan. In addition to all the other questions that remain unanswered by liberals in regards to ObamaCare, why are they so insistent on not holding debate? Was it ok to have our representatives vote on the bill without reading it? I wish the PATRIOT Act received the same consideration from them...

Ann Coulter mentioned on last night's Hannity that Republicans were ready to deal on ObamaCare. It was the Blue Dog Democrats on Henry Waxman's committee that prevented a bill from reaching the House floor before the August recess. That's important, because if Republicans would have given Obama what he wanted, despite the costs, Republicans couldn't adequately oppose Obama's agenda in the future, they'd be a party to it. Coulter suggested that there needed to be some housecleaning on both sides. Thanks to the Blue Dogs and the much maligned "teabaggers," this bill is receiving the sunshine it needs, and liberals don't like it one bit. Their actions throughout this debate makes El Rushbo's statement, about Democrats having to lie to convince voters to vote for them, all the more true.

As I said in the Porkulus debate, if Obamessiah wanted Republican support for his agenda, he wouldn't have excluded them from debate. He called on the Pelosi-Reid cabal to stuff Porkulus down our throats and whined that Republicans had nothing to offer. Though Democrats and their liberals allies would like everyone to believe it's only crazy-assed "reich-wingers" who take issue with ObamaCare, one particular liberal in the Obamedia has some concerns about the so-called "death panel" section, 1233. It'd be wise for liberals to note the concerns Amuricans have about the bill instead of parroting whatever comes from the White House, after all, as Ed Morrissey reminds us, Obama's never been to accomodating to dissent...

Have a great day...

John Dingell: These protesters are not only un-American, they remind me of the KKK!

Dr. Asten: Except these protesters are Amurican, and they're not intimidating people to not exercise their right to vote...

It seems easy for liberals to play fast and loose with words, but that doesn't seem to faze some, who are upset that people are calling ObamaCare protesters "un-American." The only narrative we've heard from liberals about these town halls is how the protesters are united in opposing a black man, even when their congressman is a white male. Even an anchor on Mess-NBC tried to find a racist angle in the word, "socialism." Liberals can't seem to bend their head around the idea that people have legitimate policy disagreements, that do not translate into personal attacks. When I criticize Obama, Democrats, and Republicans, it's not because of their skin color, it's because I believe their train of thought is in the wrong direction. h/t: GayPatriotWest

John Dingell, the longest serving member in the US House of Representatives, recently stated in an interview on Mess-NBC that the protesters at these town halls remind him of the Ku Klux Klan. This is apparently the narrative we're going to hear from ObamAid drinkers for the next 3.5 years, that all our opposition will be solely based on the fact that Obama's black. For me, and I imagine a few other conservatives, we already knew Obama is black, we don't need liberals to continue to remind us of that. Conservatives don't care about labels, that's a liberal hangup. We oppose what Obama and Congressional Democrats have planned for this nation. I would like to remind liberals of their opposition to Condi Rice, Colin Powell, Janice Rogers Brown, Clarence Thomas, and a host of other minority conservatives and they flat out rejected the notion that their opposition was based on their race. Democrats have a history of fighting against equality for blacks and minorities, not Republicans.

Dr. Zero, at HotAir's Green Room, offers an interesting take on the narrative coming from Democrats. He recalls during the 2004 Presidential campaign, how Democrats tried to discredit the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth by calling them "discredited." They didn't note the ease in getting 14 people out of over 300, to sign on to the claim that Kerry earned his medals free and clear, without embellishing his military record. The other group, comprised of over 200, said the opposite. They expressed frustration at the inability to make the allegations from the SBVT disappear, and the mounting pressure to get Dan Rather to eventually recant his "Bush went AWOL 'scoop.'" He goes on to say that if you marginalize your opponent, as Obama and his acolytes have tried to do, Obama will enjoy significant support.

I am glad to see that people are undeterred by liberal fantasies about reliving the Jim Crow Era. I am glad that people are actually looking at their financial circumstances and seeing through the smokescreen being used by Obama and his acolytes. I'm surprised that liberals have not been convinced that calling protesters names like "teabagger" or "mob," is counter-intuitive, but then again, these people are always focused on how the kooks on the right will further alienate the rest of Amurica from the GOP, when liberals need to worry about mainstream liberals' continued alienation from the electorate. Joseph Palermo calls on Obama, and other Democratic pols, to hire MORE union thugs to issue beatdowns on an unruly electorate, that's asking too many damned hard questions (I'm sure that'll win them over...).

Have a great day...

Cynthia Tucker: Obama opposition is rooted in racism...

Dr. Asten: Even if the victim of Obama thuggery is black?

I take a break from politics on the weekends, since I write so many blogs Monday-Thursday. Many of the issues I blog about on Mondays have generally been covered by the punditry before that time. One news item that I did not hear at all in the Obamedia is a story from St. Louis where members of the Service Employees Insurance Union (SEIU) engaged in a beatdown of an ObamaCare opponent, who also happened to be black. As predicted, there was no response from the race-pimping crowd (not that I was looking for one to begin with). The SEIU claims they were the victims in the encounter, but as Ace says, they don't offer a counterpoint to the events that happened. h/t: Kevin Jackson

I can't tell you how many times my white friends, that oppose Obama, are being maligned by my black friends, who support him. My black friends claim my white friends' disapproval is rooted in racism, after eight years of "slavishly" supporting former President Bush (I'm still looking for evidence of that claim). The intent is to browbeat whites into submission, similar to the rhetoric that emanates from the racists of the New Black Panther Party. Invoking the race card to demonize and marginalize opponents of Obama is a nice tactic, not ingenious, but it does not diminish the fact that his proposals are going to have a detrimental effect on this country for the long term. It's a good idea that we NOT give Obama time to sit by and allow this nation to go down the crapper. Obamabots may continue to be deluded into thinking that President Bush is still to blame for the deficit reaching $1.3Trillion, but their browbeating, and outright thuggery, will not silence me...nor anyone else. I don't mind being a martyr for my causes.

Another argument used by my black Obama-supporting friends is whether the people who are criticizing Obama will run for public office. I, indeed, have considered running for political office in the near future. Gwen Ifill's book, which I reviewed last week, gave me even more inspiration to run for office, Barack's rise to the presidency is commendable, as is Massachussetts' governor, Deval Patrick, but their times in office has not. I will stick my money where my mouth is, but the difference between Obama and I, is I'm not going to campaign for a job and bitch and moan because I was ill-prepared.

The reason why the Left believes their protests against Republicans and conservatives are authentic is because these groups are standing in the way of turning this nation into a statist and socialistic one. They pride themselves on trying to make regular, everyday Amuricans ashamed of being in the greatest nation in the world. There is nothing wrong with being patriotic, and proud of this nation. When she's threatened by forces domestic and foreign, I will stand against it. The oath taken by military members does not cover their enlistment or commission, for me, it's an oath taken for life.

They want you to keep quiet and allow Obama to invoke his agenda...don't allow them to get what they want! They're threatened and they don't like it one fucking bit!

Have a great day...

Democrats 2003: Dissent is patriotic!

Democrats 2009: Dissent is manufactured!

As Congress enjoys its summer recess, the details of the healthcare overhaul are being hashed out among the political class and the electorate. Passions are erupting on both sides, with many on the Right going after congressmen in, not only their districts, but others as well. On the Left, the sentiment they cherished throughout the Bush years, dissent, is being dismissed as manufactured by special interests, content with the status quo. Although throughout the buildup and the Iraqi campaign, liberals' talking points were very close to rooting for the enemy, they still had the right to dissent and disagree and those of us who critiqued their talking points made sure we stressed that fact. Unlike six years later, when Obama is pushing a healthcare bill designed to modify about 15% of the US economy, without allowing Congress time to debate it, liberals are calling the same sentiment they cherished so much during the Bush years, as "unpatriotic." Don't sit there confused, you knew it was going to happen...it should be no surprise that liberals often project their feelings on to innocent bystanders.

Throughout President Bush's term, especially after 9/11, liberals were whipped into a frenzy at the thought that he was going to take away their right to disagree. The Obamedia made sure to portray these dissenters as everyday men and women, who were upset at the way President Bush was "destroying this country." They gave them authenticity, even as evidence was uncovered that Hungarian billionaire, George Soros, was funding the entire thing. The contempt shown by the Obamedia and their friends on the Left, towards the protesters at town halls, exposes a recurring theme that has been evident since January 20, 2009, the inability to effectively use the screen to take pressure off the quarterback. One can only imagine the foaming of the mouths of liberals if the Right engaged in this type behavior.

I got the email from the White House that warned me about misinformation during the congressional recess, using one of the president's favorite plays, the strawman. A portion of the email said, "...[o]ver the next month there is going to be an avalanche of misinformation and scare tactics from those seeking to perpetuate the status quo. But we know the cost of doing nothing is too high..." I've said it before, and I'll say it again, no one...and I mean NO ONE, is perpetuating the status quo...at least in the United States. The thought that people who are not only satisfied with their care, are open to reform, but believe that this bill will degrade their care, is not perpetuating the status quo. They don't want what the government is selling right now, especially after Barry-O wanted very little debate on the bills, which currently sit in Congress...and after it was clear the president was talking out of his ass.

Debra Saunders from the San Francisco Chronicle, notes how one Senator, who isn't ashamed at reminding people who she is, went after former Secretary of State Condi Rice for not having any children serving in the Iraqi Conflict, and dismissed criticism of her remarks as "speaking truth to power." Fast forward to 2009, the same senator feels uncomfortable when others "speak truth to power." Even Speaker Mimi has joined the chorus of Democrats, who are being reminded of who their employers are, who claim these protests are not authentic, calling it "astroturfing," (leaving the rest of us wondering "what the hell is in the water in California?). Obviously, these people need to be reminded that this nation was founded on protests that were "organized."

Anti-war protesters beat their chests to show their bravado, and proclaimed they had no fear of BushCo. Their bravery led to some of the most irresponsible rhetoric we've heard from them, and their friends in Congress (I'm sure we all remember Pete Stark's famous speech...and the support it got among the nutroots.). In an op-ed for USA Today, Speaker Mimi and House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, call out the hanging of effigies, the tombstones, and shouting down members of Congress as "unpatriotic," and "un-American" (funny how none of this mattered when it happened to President Bush and Republican members of Congress...). Paul Krugman claims that no one hounded Republican congressmen during President Bush's push for Social Security privatization in 2005, and Jon Henke wants to remind you how wrong Krugman is.

Jake Tapper of ABC News, reports that the hated Congressional Budget Office has released a report that will continue to absurdify (I made a word!) the rhetoric coming from the White House about ObamaCare cutting costs. The response from Democrats in Congress and at the White House was predictable, upset the CBO never gives their proposals any credit. Liberals continue to berate ObamaCare opponents, but they never say a word about its proposed costs, and the fact that the president didn't want debate on this legislation...kinda like Porkulus, which still hasn't worked.

They're continuing to show nervousness as the underbelly of their agenda is exposed...

Have a great day...

Geithner: Let us look to Europe for inspiration...

Dr. Asten: Yes, because they have such a wealth of knowledge...(/sarc)

As the Wall Street Journal article says, "Joe the Plumber's vindication draws nigh." I doubt Sam will get the apology due him by Helen Jones-Kelly, the Ohio DFACS, Democratic Ohio governor Ted Strickland, and liberals who thought it was racist when Obama's tax philosophy was inadvertently revealed on the campaign trail. The Wall Street Journal reports that Treasury officials are scrambling for ways to pay for their pet projects. Soaking the rich will not bring the deficit to manageable levels, Democrats hoped that crap-n-trade would raise enough revenue, but that went up in smoke after businesses pressured Democrats to give up $646B in proposed revenue. There is no other choice but to soak the middle class, which is feeling a small brunt already with the increase in cigarette taxes.

One of the means Democrats and Obama Treasury officials are mulling is an adaptation of the European style "value added tax," or VAT. European officials, according to the WSJ, love this tax because it raises so much money with little notice from the taxpayer. According to its Wikipedia entry, the VAT, in contrast to sales tax, is "neutral with respect to the number of passages that there are between the producer and the final consumer." Michigan had a similar tax, called the "single business tax," or SBT, but it was repealed last year by the Michigan state legislature, approving a voter-approved initiative. I wonder if this example, like the government-run healthcare travesties programs in Maine and Massachussetts, will force Democrats into having second thoughts...I won't hold my breath.

While liberals bend steel, run faster than locomotives, and leap tall buildings in single bounds trying to protect their dear Obamessiah from criticism, back on Earth, people are not happy. In fact, there are increasing numbers of protests to ObamaCare, and other Obama pet projects. Not learning anything from their attempts to demonize and marginalize the Tea Parties, liberals are claiming that conservatives are "hijacking" the meetings these congressmen have with their constituents. My friend Zandar (who I believe has no relation to the ally of COBRA, the enemy of GI Joe) believes they're ambushes (way to channel the Mike Stark, my boy...), and in one post, Zandar compares it to *gasp* "terrorism" (Hide the damn children!)! Here, yet again, Zandar and liberals blame the GOP and conservative groups when the ire of their hateful rhetoric should be directed at Democrats, who have yet to come up with a final bill (I wonder if dodgeball is a fan favorite of liberals...).

I think the thing being overlooked by the self-proclaimed smarter-than-you crowd is the fact that there is no plan to pay for the expansion overhaul of our healthcare system. No amount of wordplay will change the fact that ObamaCare will lead us on the path to European-style healthcare, and its magnificent problems. I believe Obama and Democrats would have been in a better position to pass this crap if all of their political capital wasn't spent on shoving Porkulus and crap-n-trade. All this money is being spent, yet there seems to be no end to it, and definitely no accountability. Liberals want to continue to use the screen play to keep us all distracted, and the quarterback is being sacked every time.

You see when Democrats and their anti-war liberal friends were ambushing Republicans, it was genuine...nowadays, it's terrorism. That should show you that we're on the right track.

Ladies and Gentlemen, Keith Olbermann...fresh off vacation!

Have a great day...

Maxine Waters: I am the fifth most beautifullest person on Capitol Hill!

...beware those who oppose me...

I must mention that The Hill must have been in a hurry to post their annual 50 most beautiful people on Capitol Hill. There is no way in HELL that I will believe that Congresswoman Maxine Waters (D-CA) the harridan who loudly proclaimed she wasn't afraid of George W. Bush and Richard B. Cheney, as if she had something to fear from them, is the fifth most beautiful person on Capitol Hill. No way in HELL! If Waters is the standard, then obviously, Medusa was a Republican congresswoman, since no Republican congresswoman or Senator made the list...lol! I certainly don't corner the market on looks, but this shit takes the freakin' cake!

Waters, in addition to not being afraid of mere men, isn't afraid of the Blue Dog Democrats in Congress either. She rips White House Chief of Staff, Rahm Emmanuel, for instituting his strategy in both the Election of 2006 and 2008, recruiting conservative Democrats in red districts. I, for one, thought Waters liked her party holding the majority in Congress, but you know I'm crazy as hell. At least Waters is on the right track in assigning blame, unlike the White House and stupefied blue bloggers, who continue to blame the GOP.

It's a very good thing that Waters is not on any committee that recruits candidates to run for public office, or she must have been too busy railing against Bush's War in Iraq to notice how many in the electorate were disillusioned by Bush and Republicans' spending habits from 2001-2006. Those "Blue Dog" Democrats won simply because they ran as all things conservative. Rahm Emmanuel is anything but stupid, he knew what he was doing. Had Waters' strategy worked, Ned Lamont would have ousted Joe Lieberman in the 2006 Connecticut Senate race...he didn't. Next year, it will be more difficult to portray Democrats as fiscally responsible in light of Porkulus, Crap-n-Trade, and ObamaScare, so my advice to Mrs. Waters would be to keep her protestations under wraps.

She's not the only one expressing frustration at the "Blue Dogs," as Hank Johnson (D-GA), who had the privilege of ousting Waters' fellow race-baiter, Cynthia McKinney in 2006, claims that opposition to the so-called "public option" was based on racism, since all the "Blue Dogs" are white. San Fran Nan went on a tirade against private insurance companies, calling them "villains." It must be hot as hell on Capitol Hill, with liberals fanning the flames. What liberals don't seem to understand is that profits are not eeevil, in fact, they represent customer satisfaction with the company's product, as Stephen Carter explains for us. A business has every right to fight against confiscatory policies of the government that seek to put it out of business. The so-called public option will do exactly that, by forcing private insurance companies to unfairly compete with government insurance plans, backed by taxpayer subsidies.

For more on the horrors of the so-called "public option," read this post by David Freddoso on Betsy's page...

But Obamessiah wants to assure you he's not antibusiness...it's his policies that are...

Have a great day...

Mark Morford: The Birthers are hijacking the GOP's agenda...

...the crazies on the Left did no such thing about Democrats...

By continuing to blog about the "Birthers," I am not lending them any credibility, because I don't agree with their movement. When I blog about them, I am only discussing how liberals apply credibility with the same standards as the shifting winds. Mark Morford, a blogger at HuffnPuff pokes fun at Birthers and the GOP, by offering up 9 more conspiracy theories they could embrace once the Obama birth certificate story dies. He and I agree that the Birthers have no legs to stand on, in light of the evidence, it's a fallacious claim he makes which gives me a problem. He claims that while the Left has no shortage of crazies, they did not dominate discussion in quite the same way as the Birthers are about the GOP. Anyone remember Trig-gate?

After Sarah Palin was announced as John McCain's running mate in the Election of 2008, journalists were airlifted into Juneau to try and dig up dirt on dear old Sarah. Barack Obama was licking his chops in anticipation for a saucy divorce story that similarly derailed the campaigns of his opponents for the US Senate. Unfortunately, Sarah was still married to her first husband and had children by him. She had no illegitimate children, and she had the highest approval ratings of any governor in the union. Obama, whose lead over McCain was shrinking, began to panic. Soon, there were murmurings in the blue blogosphere about Sarah's fifth child actually being her grandson. "JACKPOT!" Obama said, reminiscing the 1970s and 80s gameshow. He stayed above the fray, but gave a milquetoast condemnation to liberals who pushed the story (and liberals blamed Sarah Palin for not quelling the rumors that started in the blue blogosphere...and they, oddly, don't call on Obama to do the same about the Birthers).

Need another? Look at Troopergate, where Sarah was under investigation for firing the Public Safety Commissioner. Before the investigation was complete, liberals were claiming that she abused her power and that she was unfit for being "a heartbeat away." The investigation found Sarah acted well within her authority to fire Walter Monegan for insubordination. Instead, liberals trumpted the notion that Palin "abused power," which was in contrast to the report. The report claimed she violated an ambiguous ethics law which said, "any public official’s action that benefits a personal or financial interest is a violation of public trust..." Hell, she could be sued for merely releasing carbon dioxide in the air...and liberals felt that THIS was the sole disqualification for her VP candidacy? Obama had many more problems than that. He obviously had become unnerved by Palin, since he referred to her as a "pig" in one of his campaign speeches. I don't think Morford is convinced that crazies on the Left don't make policy for Democrats yet.

In the aftermath of the contentious Election of 2000, liberals became apopletic about the possibility that the winning president can win the electoral vote, but not the popular one. Various conspiracy theories emerged that President Bush conspired with then-Secretary of State Katherine Harris to throw the election his way. There was one article that posed the hypothetical that something was amiss because the governor of the state in question happened to be the brother of one of the candidates. Several news outlets questioned the results of the election in an attempt to make Bush's presidency illegitimate, with chief conspiracy theorist, Michael Moore claiming that the news networks followed the lead of Fox News Channel.

There were murmurings about US forces committing war crimes among the blue blogosphere that got aired on the floor of the US Senate. Everyone, who's honest, recalls Senator Richard Durbin on the floor of the US Senate referring to GITMO as a "gulag," even though no independent report stated that GITMO detainees were being abused. When the tragedy at Abu Ghraib was exposed, at least one prominent Democrat alleged that all detainees in US custody were treated similar to prisoners in Saddam's rape rooms. The Haditha incident brought out more hysterics as Congressman Jack Murtha and Senator John Kerry alleged our forces were killing innocents in cold blood, by breaking into their houses in the dark of night. This, no doubt, was borne on the pages of blue blogs.

In my final episode of the wackiness of liberals being aired out by Democrats, comes the impending Bush impeachment. Because liberals felt that "Bush lied, kids died," since the intel he used to justify the Iraq invasion was faulty, and because they felt Bushie wanted to dismantle the US Constitution amendment by amendment, they believed he needed to be impeached. It was a crackpot idea, in light of many Democrats claiming the same thing Bush did...only years earlier. But that didn't stop the Democrats in the US House of Representatives from staging mock impeachment trials. I think Mr. Morford should take a more objective view of the crazies on the Left, and how they routinely make policy for Democrats, and stop projecting onto Republicans.

Can he explain the regular meetings Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, and other prominent Democrats, have with kos and other liberal bloggers and fellow crazies?

Have a great day...

Democrats: Will someone rid us of these meddlesome Blue Dogs?

...out, out damned spot!

While ObamaCare stalls in Congress, its supporters continue, unabated, to look for any villian to justify why ObamaCare isn't law. They've tried President Bush, but he's been out of office since January. They've tried Rush Limbaugh, three times, and they've all failed. They've tried blaming the Republicans in Congress, only to be reminded they [Democrats] hold significant majorities in both chambers AND have a majority at the White House complex. The president has attempted, yet again, to fool the populace that ObamaCare is necessary. This time, he holds a townhall with members of the American Association of Retired Persons (AARP), Senate Republicans have told Paul Bedard, of US News and World Report, they have talked to at least 1 million people about the looming perils in ObamaCare.

Of course, ObamaAid drinkers will smear the GOP as being satisfied with the status quo, and rooting against the country. The idea is to shift focus from problems within the Democratic caucus, and this bill, and blame the Republican party. It is hard to argue that government can expand healthcare, improve it, and keep costs down. Coming under fire recently, has been the Congressional Budget Office, which has said none of the proposals that claim to save money, will do so, and according to charts at HotAir, even the tax increases proposed by Charlie Rangel, the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, will not be enough to offset the skyrocketing costs. Obama and the Office of Management and Budget director, Peter Orszag, have met with the director of the CBO, which is highly irregular. Ya think they're trying to cook the books on ObamaCare?

Blue Dog Democrats, one of which is my congressman, John Barrow (D-GA), seem to hold the key to the success or failure of ObamaCare. Recently, they met with both Henry Waxman and former House Energy and Commerce committee chair, John Dingell and appeared to compromise. Some reports are indicating differently, as the CBO has yet to weigh in on the costs of an offer made by the chairman. Until then, the Blue Dogs will not compromise. The US Senate, on the other hand, is mulling a strip of the "public option," which is designed to destroy the private healthcare insurance industry, and a strip of the healthcare mandate, which will not only destroy the private healthcare insurance industry, but will drive up costs.

That is the bottom line. Controlling costs, is paramount, despite how ever many liberals bitch and moan. If none of the Democratic-led initiatives have shown to control rising costs, why should Congress support them. Obviously, Democrats believe that the legislative body is answerable to them, not their constituents. During the upcoming recess, our representatives will be asked the hard questions in their districts, especially those who ran as all things conservative in 2006 and 2008. If a majority of the electorate doesn't sleep well at night with the thought of continually rising healthcare costs, then that should be reason enough for Congress to take more time and draft a better bill. The bottom line here is to cap rising healthcare costs, no matter who provides the care. The numbers show ObamaCare is not that vessel...

If Michael Barone is correct, Democrats attempts to continue to grow the federal behemoth will not sit well with an electorate that doesn't favor big government at the outset...

Have a great day...

Lindsey Graham: Sotomayor's confirmation is a really big deal...

...so why should I stand in its way?

It is just being reported that Sonia Sotomayor has received approval from the Senate Judiciary Committee to have her nomination appear on the Senate floor next week. It should be no surprise that the votes were largely along party lines, with 12 Democrats supporting her and 6 Republicans opposing. What's that? You say there's one member unaccounted for? Well look no further than Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), who was the lone Republican voting to approve Sotomayor's nomination to go to the Senate floor. It sounds as if Graham, and any Republican that votes for Sotomayor's confirmation to the Supremes, is hellbent on proving this mantra from liberals that opposition to a minority is racist. Liberals, of course, are of the mindset that all Latinos think alike and will see that a majority of the Republicans on the Senate Judicary committee will see this as a slight, not a disapproval of her policy stances. Who are the racists?

Like Obama, pro-Sotomayor types would like us to forget her rulings and her public statements. Her mask came loose during her confirmation hearings, and was noticed by not only righties, but some lefties as well. Her actions as a judge on the Second Circuit don't line up with her answers to questions during her confirmation hearing. Liberals and pro-Sotomayor types in the Republican party, don't care about that. They're more concerned with showing how "racist" the members of the GOP who don't support Sotomayor are. I'm close to going out on a limb and suggesting that the people who always rely on playing the "race card" to try and stifle dissent, where it is warranted, are damaging this nation...and they don't care.

We did not hear the race card being played by liberals when they decided it was ok to oppose Justice Clarence Thomas, or criticize Dr. Condi Rice every day of the week. They claimed their opposition lie in policy differences, not race. I am sure the electorate votes the same way, at least for the most part. When a person walks into a voting booth, they don't decide their votes on racial lines, they vote based on the candidate representing their views. If liberals' thoughts were correct, Michael Steele would be a US Senator, not necessarily RNC Chairman. Ken Blackwell would be governor of Ohio, not Ted Strickland. President Obama, as a US Senator, voted against Chief Justice Roberts and Associate Justice Samuel Alito, because he did not like their rulings, and I'd believe that about the other 21 Democrats who voted against Roberts and the other 41 that voted against Alito. It would be hypocrisy for Democrats to suggest opposition to Sotomayor is strictly based on the fact the GOP doesn't like minorities.

And when have Democrats been above hypocrisy?

Have a great day...

Liberals: The Republicans have no plan...

...and frankly, we don't either...

The more I hear liberals whine about Republicans' alleged gumming up the otherwise well oiled Obama legislative machine, the more I feel justified in my belief that liberals are expressing frustration at congressional Democrats who have been unable to agree one with another on whose healthcare coverage needs to be screwed first. Obama has gone after Republican strawmen, yet again, claiming that they are happy with the "status quo" (even though no Republican has...) and how his plan will not increase the deficit, but rather yield a savings that could be squandered on other pet projects...like Porkulus II (I made Porkulus II up...). Something just didn't sound right to me, because there was a disconnect between the rhetoric emanating from the White House and what the rest of us read in HR 3200, otherwise known as the Obama becomes your doctor bill. Come to find out, our Dear Leader has frankly no clue what's in ObamaCare...and he's supposed to be the most intelligent president EVUH, at least that's what they tell me...

Perhaps Obama isn't aware that we are in a recession, which is surprising since he continues to use that line as an excuse to blow up the deficit. The electorate wants results, and with Porkulus I not showing any visible signs of working, they're not too keen on giving Obamessiah the green light on overhauling a system that frankly doesn't need it. Sure, our healthcare system isn't without problems, but there is a reason why those in Canada or other parts of the country venture to the US for its healthcare. It's because it's second to none. Howard Fineman writes in Obamaweek, that the "plan" was supposed to change the way people regard healthcare, to improve it and to cut costs. We're waiting to see whether anything coming from HR 3200, or any of its relatives, will do that.

Rushing Congress to pass a shitty bill may be fine and dandy for Obamessiah and Democrats, but it won't sit well with the number of families who will be affected by the craptastic bill. The goal isn't to ensure Amuricans acquire and maintain healthcare coverage, the goal is to make sure Obamessiah fulfills a campaign promise, before his dwindling political capital runs out...no matter what the costs. I ask, "who's playing politics?" It would be hard to argue that Republicans are engaging in such, when the president is demanding Congress stop debate and give him a bill to sign before their August recess. As Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) said, the first time the president uttered the word "crisis," we were handed a $787B piece of shit that no congressman read, and to date, hasn't been spent wisely...and wasn't crafted with the president's assurances in mind, that it be used to "jumpstart the economy." So Obama's a liar when he attempts to blast Senator DeMint by claiming that this bill isn't about him. It is definitely about the O.

What Democrats and Obama, like their lapdogs in the blue blogosphere, don't seem to understand is that most Amuricans view their current coverage with satisfaction. As they were in the HillaryCare debates, they are concerned that ObamaCare will degrade their current coverage. Resistance to healthcare overhaul works, and Republicans are in a good position, because a majority of the electorate is beginning to sour on ObamaCare. Democrats are feeling the heat as well, which explains why committee votes on it continue to be postphoned. There is nothing wrong with Congress taking time to craft a better bill, that benefits all people, instead of Democratic donors and the unions.

Have a great day...