Congressional Democrats: Despite our majorities in Congress, failure to enact our agenda will be the GOP's fault...(UPDATED)

...let's cross our fingers and hope the electorate buys our excuse this time...

The 103rd Congress and the 111th Congress are similar. Both are in the first terms of a Democratic president, and both are considering major healthcare bills designed to overhaul the system. Both congresses had enough Democratic votes in each house to enact any legislative agenda Billy Jeff and Barack Obama imagined. Even though all these are true, of both congresses, the minority party in each, is being blamed for much of the ambitious Democratic agenda stalling. The only difference between the current Congress and the one who met from 1993-1994, is the Democratic majority in the US Senate is now larger, by four seats. It makes no sense for liberals and Democrats to blame Republicans and conservatives for their failures, there must be something more sinister afoot...and I believe it lies in the insecurities Democrats in Congress have about the effects this so-called overhaul will have on future generations.

It has been a tactic used by Democrats since the 110th Congress, when they too had the majority, but blamed their failures on their so-called inability to outshine the then "Dumbass-in-Chief." I had said in the runup to the Election of 2006, that Democrats are better at bitching and whining than they are about actual governing, and the four years they will be in the majority, if the Election of 2010 changes the party structure, and even if it doesn't, what has happened in DC has borne that out. What this president doesn't understand, is that this isn't something he can read in his training manual, "Being President for Dummies." He can't credibly blame his failures to enact his agenda on Republicans. It doesn't matter if his political opposition has a plan or not, (I don't recall any Democrats having alternatives to combat Chimpy McBushitlerton's policy initiatives on national security, other than whining about protecting the rights of criminals) the bill as written has too many problems and as more sunshine is shone on it, public support continues to decline. There was no need for him to preach to the choir in a conference call yesterday...

The problem with HillaryCare lay in the former First Lady's arrogance. She refused to accept compromise and wise counsel from those in the business. Obama, in his adamant effort to not repeat the demise of HillaryCare, is doing the same thing. Unlike Clinton, Obama is doing way more to ensure this bill does as much damage as possible. By calling on the shock troops at the DailyKos, MyDD, and Crooks and Liars, it shows he's not open for compromise and is also putting the future of his party's majority in serious jeopardy. Many of the congressmen and Senators in the 111th ran as all things conservative, and it will pose a great risk to those up for reelection, like Byron Dorgan (D-ND), Blanche Lincoln (D-AR), and Michael Bennet (D-CO). Like Porkulus, which was designed to "jumpstart the economy," ObamaCare will do nothing to shore up healthcare deficits and like the Massachussetts model it is based upon, it will bust at the seams due to its inability to control costs.

While perusing for another article, I came across this one from Geveryl Robinson, who was listening to a talk radio program that was discussing the healthcare given on Indian reservations. Fuck the healthcare systems in nations like Canada, Sweden, or the UK! Let us focus on what type of government care the American Indian receives on reservations, which is a total disaster. The American Indian mortality rate from diseases like tuberculosis, alcoholism, diabetes, and suicide are drastically higher than the rates of other Amuricans. And ObamaCare advocates insist that THIS is a better alternative to our current healthcare system?

So my question is, if ObamaCare passes, where will the Candians go for their healthcare?

Have a great day...

UPDATE 0958, 21072009: Well, so much for compromise...I guess, The Hill reports that Dear Leader plans to veto any semblance of a healthcare plan similar to the one McCain offered on the campaign trail, even though the Obama Administration is mulling the same idea...

It's time for the the All New Blame Game...

...and here's our host, President Barack Obama...

I forgot to tell you, that I am a huge fan of classic gameshows. YouTube has been very essential to feeding this habit.

There has to come a time when President Obama has to stop blaming former President Bush for this recession. He'd have more credibility on this issue if he was not involved in national government before he became president. Even though he spent the last year of his US Senate tenure campaigning, he did have time to support the bailouts that did lead us to the current economic situation. I'd have given him the benefit of the doubt in the first two months of his administration, but he passed the Porkulus, which increased the national deficit, even more than former President Bush did in eight years. And, according to numbers at the Heritage Foundation, Obamessiah's a fool if he believes that this massive spending increase will cut the deficit by the end of his first (and hopefully ONLY) term. It is now time to declare that this is Obama's economy now, and the time for blaming Bush ended the day Obambi took office.

Liberals made fun of the fact that several "conservatives," who expressed their outrage at a misinterpretation of Rush Limbaugh's desires for Obama's policies to fail, ran back to kiss Limbaugh's ring. It was as if Limbaugh was akin to kos and Soros for Democrats. One CNN reporter, Ed Henry, had the audacity to criticize Obamessiah for sticking it to future generations, by forcing them to find a way to pay for this expansion in entitlement spending. CNN's Ed Henry has later heeded the advice of his bosses at CNN DKos and decided to make nice with Obamessiah. Apparently, Mr. Henry was at the salad bar when we had the discussion that Obama cannot be asked the tough questions, since liberals have already declared that to be subtle racism. I see no need to ask the obvious question here, why no one in the Obamedia, offered any letters of apology to former President Bush, when they asked questions that catered to the rabid moonbats of the left-wing base, instead of being objective.

I mentioned in my very first post that several of Obama's cheerleaders are now seeing the crap sandwich that was his entire presidential campaign. Michelle Malkin has a post about the Associated (with terrorists) Press' revelation about the number of jobs that Porkulus was supposed to create (remember how the president jumped on Air Force One and flew to Columbus, OH to claim credit for creating 25 new slots for police officers? Only he failed to mention that those jobs were temporary). He's treating the media, that helped get him elected, worse than they dreamed Bush did, his efforts at being a diplomat are being laughed at by the "petro-dictators," many senior slots in his administration are still unfilled. We are seeing the wheels come off of Barry-O's train, (his bus is in good shape though) and Joe Conason still believes that Obama's policies are above criticism. Liberals howled at their talking point, that former President Bush was using the tragic events of 11 September 2001, to go after Saddam Hussein, but are turning a blind eye to Obama's use of the current economic crisis to push his disastrous social agenda down the throats of the electorate.

As my wise mother used to say, "boy, you can't spend yourself into prosperity," perhaps Obama should have asked my mother what her thoughts are in addressing this mess. I should make it clear that I am not opposed to spending. One must spend money to make money, but at some point, we must engage in a little bit of fiscal responsibility...a concept our dear, fearful leader has yet to learn.

Have a great day...