Digby: Replacing conservative Democrats in conservative districts is a win for Obama...

...and Republicans are stupid!

DKos/Research2K recently released a poll that is being used by some liberal blogs as evidence that it is only the Right who's lying in the ObamaCare debate. The numbers, to me at least, indicate that not very many people understand what is in the bills that make up ObamaCare. They aren't hearing the truth from their Democratic congressional delegation, and they're not hearing it from the Teleprompter-in-Chief. If it has only been the Right who's been lying about ObamaCare, then the Left should have been quick to explain why the Right's assertions were wrong. The only thing I've seen ObamaCare supporters do is demonize, marginalize, but offer no rebuttals.

Expressing frustration over conservative Democrats' objections about the bill, blue blogger, Digby, calls on Democrats to oust the Blue Dogs from Congress because he believes they will never side with the president (then why are they Democrats?). Does Digby's finger-wagging indignation lie in his ignorance of the districts these Blue Dog Democrats represent? If Blue Dogs fail to represent their conservative constituents, then a reversal of Rahm Emanuel's 2006 and 2008 strategy will occur. Instead of siding with conservatism-lite, they'll go for the full monty and vote Republican. If Democrats decide to pursue Digby's strategy and campaign against say, my congressman John Barrow (D-GA), by placing an outright liberal in the primary, and he wins, the voters here will go Republican. Digby will have to kiss Obamessiah's "successful" legislation goodbye.

Roger Ebert weighs in on the questionable Section 1233, which mandates "end-of-life" counseling. One can draw similarities between this and the illegal immigration debates during 2006 and 2007. Opposition to government mandated "end-of-life" counseling is conflated to mean the opponents oppose all forms of "end-of-life" counseling, just as opposition to illegal immigration means opponents are "racists," that oppose immigration...oh, and "they hate Obama." No one takes issue with "end-of-life" counseling, when the government gets involved, by mandating it every five years, or sooner if a person is mentally ill, it gets people worried. No one who's railing against "death panels," save a few, have anything to say about that.

Seniors are worried, and are falling away from supporting ObamaCare, and the organizations who are hellbent on supporting it. Obama has proposed a cut to Medicare Advantage, which allows people under MediCare to pay premiums for coverage not available under their traditional MediCare plan (I bet liberals aren't going to call Obama out on that lie...). The only thing liberals seem to be focused on is making sure legitimate concerns are marginalized like kooks who bring guns to Obama greenhouse events. I stress that a majority of people are in support of healthcare reform, despite Obama and his acolytes' insistence of the contrary, they want ObamaCare to make our system more self-sustaining. How he intends to flood the system with his number, 47 million, and keep it "deficit neutral," is beyond me...and everyone else.

But it's only the Right who's lying...remember that!

Have a great day...

Books I've Read...

It's been a while since I've made you, my dear readers, privy to some of the books I've read over the past year. I pride myself on being well-read, and able to accurately summarize the books I read, and challenge you to read, not only books that I've read, but others as well. I should note for any new readers of mine, that I read mostly political history books, but my husband has convinced me to sprinkle a few other ones in the mix as well.

1. Bamboozled, by Angela McGlowan

This book tells how the Democratic Party has always been the party of "segregation yesterday, segregation now, segregation forever." They fought tooth and nail to deny blacks equal treatment under the law after Reconstruction, with Democratic President Andrew Johnson calling the idea "radical." Beleagured by the successful agenda of the Radical Republicans in Congress, the Democratic terrorist arm, the Ku Klux Klan began intimidating not only blacks, but white Republicans, from exercising their right to vote. In the aftermath of the Election of 1876, which resulted in Democratic presidential nominee, Samuel Tilden, winning the popular vote and the Republican presidential nominee, Rutherford B. Hayes, winning the electoral one, came the Compromise of 1877, which effectively ended Reconstruction. The compromise allowed Hayes to succeed Grant as president if he withdrew the US Army, who were enforcing the Republican equality agenda for blacks against Democratic governments hellbent on denying them, from the South.

Blacks consistently voted for Republicans until the Election of 1932, when they believed the effects of the Great Depression affected them, and were sold a bag of crap by Franklin Delano Roosevelt. That's not to say blacks' standard of living in the US did not increase under Roosevelt, and subsequently under Harry Truman, but no significant civil rights legislation passed over their desks, just a few bone throwing moves like FDR's appointment of Mary McLeod Bethune's appointment to the National Youth Administration in 1936 and Truman's integration of the US Armed Forces in 1948. In 1954, the Supremes' decided to overturn Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) with Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, and many Democratic governors in the South, like Orval Faubus (D-AR) and Lester Maddox(D-GA) used their political power to try and stem the tide of racial equality. While Democrats love to claim that Republicans are racists, history shows that more often it has been Democrats who've stood on the side against equality.

Overall, I enjoyed this book. This coupled with Columbia professor, Eric Foner's Short History of Reconstruction opened my eyes about the Democratic Party, which campaigns for minority votes, and then sails the minority down the river.

2. Never Again by former US Senator, US Attorney General, and Missouri governor and state attorney general, John Ashcroft

This book gave an insider's account of Ashcroft's time as both Missouri's attorney general and its governor to his election as a US Senator and appointment as US Attorney General. It tells how during his US Senate reelection bid in 2000, how he felt when his Democratic opponent, also a former governor, Mel Carnahan, was killed in a plane crash shortly before the November 2000 general election. His subsequent appointment to the US Justice Department by President Bush was seen by some, to include my father, as a cave to groups opposed to racial equality, and would set the civil rights movement backwards. At the time, I was agnostic about President Bush and John Ashcroft, although I did poke fun at the fact that a dead Mel Carnahan was able to oust Ashcroft from his senate seat and that Bush's appointment was to make him feel better.

Ashcroft then talks about the messes he had to clean up, from the almost botched Timothy McVeigh execution to Robert Hanssen's spy scandal to Lynne Stewart's coddling of terrorists, at Justice upon being confirmed (I should also note his oath of office was administered by Justice Clarence Thomas, a justice most hated by blacks...and white liberals.), culminating in the September 11th attacks. He frequently cited the "wall," the barrier that prevented federal intelligence agencies from discussing information with federal law enforcement (and vice versa) created during the Carter years and heightened by the Clinton Administration, being a main reason to the inability to read the tea leaves. The PATRIOT Act, was one of his pet causes, which saw this "wall" fall, and lead to subsequent arrests of alleged terrorists and the cessation of terror plots against the homeland.

I enjoyed this book because it cut through the media and liberal spin (I know they're one in the same) about the Bushites alleged desire to foist a theocracy upon the nation by enacting martial law and stealing civil liberties. Rational people understand the danger of buying into liberal fearmongering about the Bush years, even though several protocols were in place to keep civil liberties intact. He didn't have the intention of engaging in political vendettas, as the 82nd Attorney General has mulled. His goal was to keep the US safe from terror, and he did just that...

3. The Breakthrough: Politics and Race in the Age of Obama by PBS political commentator and journalist, Gwen Ifill

During the Election of 2008, the blog Sweetness and Light uncovered a bombshell...that the moderator of the campaign season's only vice presidential debate was penning a book whose success depended on the election of Barack Obama as the 44th President. What the blogger was hoping was that PBS would see the obvious conflict of interest and replace the moderator with an uninterested party, you know, like FNC does with its political debates. In the introduction of the book, she brushes it off, claiming she'd been penning the article for a while, as if that made the controversy any less legitimate.

Although I stated in my last post that this book was entirely an Obama puff piece, it's major theme was one that I kept repeating after Obama won the presidency, that his election marked a major milestone in Amurica's progress on race relations. Black politicians have the double goal of maintaining their ethnic credibility while playing to black and white powerbrokers. She does a profile on three black politicians: Obama, Massachussetts governor Deval Patrick, and one of which I heard of during my time in Montgomery, Alabama, Artur Davis. She starts off with President Obama, and his rise from a community organizer to the 44th President, brushing off his controversial ties to Jeremiah Wright, using a relative of Obama's comments in regards to his association with Bill Ayers...he couldn't help it. She hardly gives voice to Republican minorities who made their own breakthroughs, like Colin Powell, JC Watts, Michael Steele, or Condi Rice. It was all Democrats all the time.

I found this book interesting as well, because the men she profiles all had the same theme, they didn't let the political powerbrokers determine their political fate. Many of the Democratic powerbase wanted Hillary Clinton to face the Republican nominee, but the Obama mantra whipped the grassroots into a frenzy. Deval Patrick had never been elected to public office prior to his election as governor. Artur Davis revoked the advice of Lou Reed, the black Alabama Democratic powerbroker to oust Earl Hilliard from his seat in Congress. They were all told to wait their turn, and they all gave the powerbrokers a collective "FUCK YOU" and went on to successful elections, their time in office, on the other hand...the jury's still out. I should note that yours truly was inspired by their stories and plans to run for public office someday...

Of course this isn't an exhaustive list of all the books I've read throughout the past year, and there will be more book reviews to come. If you decide to pick up any of these books, and enjoy them as I did, let me know.

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...

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...

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...

Zandar Versus The Stupid: Wingers can't read...

...and neither can I...

There is much buzz around the blogosphere about the 1,000 page bill outlining ObamaCare. Investor's Business Daily, reported that there was at least one "uh oh" provision in the bill that prohibits citizens, who have had private insurance in the past, from applying for private care if they lose it due to job losses or if they decide to become self-employed. If a person is currently insured by a private insurance company, they will be allowed to keep their coverage. Under ObamaCare, a citizen will only be allowed the option of private insurance coverage if, and only if, the public option is available. In an effort to prove that "wingers" are stupid, the Zandar at Zandar Versus The Stupid decides to go off on a tirade against those who are calling ObamaCare a blatant attempt at damaging the private sector. And a side note, if I am reading the text of the bill correctly, those who are covered by private insurance companies before this bill goes into effect, or Y1, the private insurance company has five years to comply with those plans created after Y1.

I guess none of this gives Zandar pause, he views it as Obama Derangement Syndrome (ain't it funny how the Left is stealing ideas from the so-called dumbasses on the Right?). The Congressional Budget Office is predicting that unlike the delirious projections coming from the White House, ObamaCare will not save the federal government any money, and will increase the deficit, as Doug Elmendorf, the director of the CBO, told a senatorial committee. Blue Dog Democrats, who are feeling the heel of San Fran Nan's shoe in their collective chests, believe that ObamaCare will do nothing to insure that healthcare will remain affordable and in the long run, may cost people their jobs. Commenters at Media Matters see no problem with the deficit increasing with this bill, they claim it's all for a good cause (even though no one who read the bill sees it that way)...unlike the Global War on Terror, which as of February 2008, cost roughly $700B, or about $100B a year. ObamaCare, according to the CBO has a price tag of about $1T and climbing.

Allahpundit reminds us that it's been exactly a month since Mr. Elmendorf testified that ObamaCare, with all it's promises of unicorns and gooey gooey gumdrops, will still leave a large number of Amuricans uninsured, not to mention waste even more taxpayer money. Can I just say something here? When the "Spendulus" bill was forced down our throats, we were told that this money would shore up the economy and we'd be well on our way to economic solvency. We were promised transparency and a full accounting of the money spent. "Our money," we were told, "would be spent responsibly." Now, once Obama's felt the heat from the wasteful spending of Porkulus, he claims that the $787B was to be spent over the course of two years. Apparently, this "crisis" wasn't one atall. He wants to do the same with our healthcare system, calling the number of uninsured, a "crisis," and we must do something about it NOW.

But at what costs, Mr. President?

Have a great day...