Bloodthirsty Liberal

Michael Capuano: Any child you can kill I can kill better.

Martha Coakley: I can kill any child better than you.

After appearing to waver on her controversial health care position, Attorney General Martha Coakley went on the offensive yesterday and indirectly challenged US Representative Michael E. Capuano over his vote last week to advance a bill with a provision that would limit coverage of abortions.

The issue dominated the US Senate race much of the past week, but Coakley put forth her strongest argument yet on a day when House Speaker Nancy Pelosi came to Boston to give a strong endorsement to Capuano and praise his health care stance.

“There are other matters where, of course, you would be involved in compromise,’’ Coakley said in an interview. “This is one, whether as a congresswoman or a senator, I wouldn’t have compromised on. This is an important issue for me; it always has been.’’

…

Capuano also scored the key backing yesterday of the person who negotiated the health care deal. Pelosi, the nation’s top female politician, said yesterday at the Omni Parker House in downtown Boston that Capuano was a strong congressional leader who cast a courageous vote on health care legislation.

“Any one of us could have found one reason or another not to vote for the bill,’’ Pelosi said. “But that was not any excuse for preventing this historic moment from taking place.’’

I don’t think Pelosi has any pull even here—but that’s not why Capuano supported the bill.

“Don’t you dare cross me, you goombah, or I swear I’ll cut your [bleeping] balls off and shove them down your throat.”

That’s why Capuano supported the bill.

In the race to replace Ted Kennedy (no one can replace him, of course, but anyone can improve on him), there is no depth to which the radically leftist candidates among the Democratic candidates will not sink, and sink happily, proudly, disgustingly.

Just ask any fetus; he or she will tell you:

A day after criticizing Attorney General Martha Coakley for saying she would have voted against a health care reform bill because it contained an anti-abortion amendment, Rep. Michael Capuano said through an aide that he’ll oppose a final version of the bill unless the amendment is eliminated.

…

Capuano faulted Coakley on Monday, saying a vote against the health care bill would have denied expanding health care to 36 million more Americans.

On Tuesday, Capuano spokeswoman Alison Mills said he’ll fight to improve the bill but would vote against it if it included the abortion amendment.

Fellow Democratic candidates Alan Khazei and Stephen Pagliuca also oppose the amendment.

Wouldn’t political calculus suggest that there might be a political gain in setting oneself apart from the rabble in the Democratic Party and oppose public funding for abor—…?

What am I saying? Among Massachusetts Democrats? They’d throw babies into bonfires with pitchforks if they could—and call it alternative energy.

PS: I just heard a radio debate in which Michael Capuano said he’s back in support of the health care bill for which he voted, then said he opposed. Although he will then work tirelessly to allow public dollars for abortions after all. I think Madame Speaker reached out and gave him a little squeeze where it counts.

Hey, Mike, you’re running for Kennedy’s seat, not Kerry’s. Must we have two senators who were for something before they were against it? (Then for it again?)

Somebody ought to give Betsey McCaughey a Medal of Honor or a Nobel or something.

She read the damn bill, something most congressmen and women have no intention of doing.

• Sec. 202 (p. 91-92) of the bill requires you to enroll in a “qualified plan.” If you get your insurance at work, your employer will have a “grace period” to switch you to a “qualified plan,” meaning a plan designed by the Secretary of Health and Human Services. If you buy your own insurance, there’s no grace period. You’ll have to enroll in a qualified plan as soon as any term in your contract changes, such as the co-pay, deductible or benefit.

• Sec. 224 (p. 118) provides that 18 months after the bill becomes law, the Secretary of Health and Human Services will decide what a “qualified plan” covers and how much you’ll be legally required to pay for it. That’s like a banker telling you to sign the loan agreement now, then filling in the interest rate and repayment terms 18 months later.

On Nov. 2, the Congressional Budget Office estimated what the plans will likely cost. An individual earning $44,000 before taxes who purchases his own insurance will have to pay a $5,300 premium and an estimated $2,000 in out-of-pocket expenses, for a total of $7,300 a year, which is 17% of his pre-tax income. A family earning $102,100 a year before taxes will have to pay a $15,000 premium plus an estimated $5,300 out-of-pocket, for a $20,300 total, or 20% of its pre-tax income.

Show of hands, people. How many of you have that kind of money laying around unused?

I didn’t think so.

• Sec. 59b (pp. 297-299) says that when you file your taxes, you must include proof that you are in a qualified plan. If not, you will be fined thousands of dollars. Illegal immigrants are exempt from this requirement.

Somebody was just having fun because that’s just too funny.

But this isn’t:

In addition to reducing future Medicare funding by an estimated $500 billion, the bill fundamentally changes how Medicare pays doctors and hospitals, permitting the government to dictate treatment decisions.

• Sec. 1302 (pp. 672-692) moves Medicare from a fee-for-service payment system, in which patients choose which doctors to see and doctors are paid for each service they provide, toward what’s called a “medical home.”

…

• Secs. 1158-1160 (pp. 499-520) initiates programs to reduce payments for patient care to what it costs in the lowest cost regions of the country. This will reduce payments for care (and by implication the standard of care) for hospital patients in higher cost areas such as New York and Florida.

So if a procedure costs only $100 in Idaho, but $250 in NYC, the New York doc is going to be reimbursed as if her were in Boise? That’s cold.

But now the pièce de résistance:

• Sec. 399V (p. 1422) provides for grants to community “entities” with no required qualifications except having “documented community activity and experience with community healthcare workers” to “educate, guide, and provide experiential learning opportunities” aimed at drug abuse, poor nutrition, smoking and obesity. “Each community health worker program receiving funds under the grant will provide services in the cultural context most appropriate for the individual served by the program.”

Doctors get shafted, but community organizers get the grease. Now, that’s the Democratic Party I know (and used to vote for).

Even they think this bill is a stinker:

Majority Leader Steny Hoyer of Maryland says the vote that House Democrats had scheduled for Saturday could slip to Sunday or early next week.

Hoyer acknowledged to reporters Friday that Democratic leaders don’t yet have the 218 votes needed to pass President Barack Obama’s historic health overhaul initiative.

We’re at the edge of the precipice. Let’s push them off.

So sayeth Nancy Pelosi to her caucus:

Byron York and the Washington Post agree on Nancy Pelosi’s plan to vote on her health-care bill this Saturday — she can’t afford to let Democrats go home to their districts before the vote. In fact, as John McCormack notes, she can’t even afford to keep her promise to have the bill on line for 72 hours before the vote so that their constituents can know what they’re doing. If they went home to face their constituents, Pelosi knows that they would never vote for her massive spending:

…

For party leaders, setting a weekend deadline for passage represented a calculated risk, one that could backfire if the vote — now expected late Saturday or Sunday — fails or must be delayed. But they feared that if members were given more time to consider the legislation, new issues could arise, particularly as lawmakers digest the results from Tuesday’s elections. Most ominous for Democrats were their losses in gubernatorial contests in New Jersey and Virginia, although the party did prevail in House special elections in New York and California.

This is your government in anti-democratic action, straight up. Which is fine, let ‘em try. But there will be unholy hell to pay.

For those not familiar with the quote that provides the title of the post, it’s from A Bronx Tale. Language and violence warning, and definitely NSFW—but once you get to the fight, the best stuff’s done.

And if you find that film analogy unconvincing, picture Nancy Pelosi as Ted Levine in Silence of the Lambs—and if you’ve never seen this scene, don’t start now. Don’t. Do not. It gave me the creeps just perusing it to see if it was the one I wanted.

It was. And don’t.

The Democratic spin is that the losses in New Jersey and Virginia were little local difficulties—something to do with pot holes and snow removal.

Can we run the tape back four years?

ainigriV dna yesreJ weN:

Democratic House campaign committee chair Rahm Emanuel, calling First Read immediately after Kaine’s and Corzine’s victories were announced, argued that it’s clear Democratic voters were already energized earlier in the year when Democrat Paul Hackett nearly won a traditionally GOP-leaning Ohio House district. “I think that’s even more true today.” He also pointed out that the mayors of Detroit, Cleveland, and St. Paul, MN were all losing. “A lot of incumbents are losing to change,” he said. …

Plus ça change, Rahm, plus c’est la meme chose.

President Obama spent so much time in Jersey, he was starting to sound like Tony Soprano, and the quickness with which he turned on “my friend, Jon Corzine” (now labeled a weak candidate) shows he acts like him too.

Sometimes we’re more serious than others when we employ the Liberal Fascism category.

This time we’re deadly serious:

[A] police officer recognized gangbangers, who discovered him and threatened him after discovering where he lived.

…

How would you like to be a New Jersey police officer and look out your window and see several known criminals, including a man you arrested several weeks ago and another who had just been released from prison for shooting a cop? And then find out that the men were sent into the neighborhood by the Democratic Party for GOTV operations – complete with lists of voters names, addresses and phones numbers!

That is what happened Sunday on a quiet street in Morris Township. The officer, who’s name we are with holding, specifically heard the men discussing that he was a police officer and that they now know where he lives. The officer confronted the men and they took off. He contacted the local police who responded and caught up with them and about a dozen other men a few blocks away. According to the police report, the men were known criminals and when asked why they were in the neighborhood they stated they were “campaigning for the Democratic Party.”

My question in the title is entirely serious. Why use cop-shooters and other known criminals to break in—knock on doors, when the New Black Panthers are just down the road in Philly?

They know all about poll monitoring, and the precedent is all set: they won’t be charged.

To vote Republican, press 1.

To vote Democrat, press 2.

If you’re not sure who you’re voting for, please stay on the line and wait for the next available ACORN volunteer:

The Democratic State Committee now admits paying for a robocall to Somerset County voters that slams Republican Chris Christie and promotes independent gubernatorial candidate Christopher Daggett.

A Democratic spokeswoman says the party’s chairman, Joe Cryan, was not aware of the robocalls when he denied that the state committee had anything to do with them yesterday afternoon.

Cryan, who told PolitickerNJ.com yesterday afternoon that the Democratic State Committee had “absolutely” nothing to do with the call, could not immediately be reached for comment…

Before the Democrats owned up to it, Daggett media advisor Bill Hillsman said the call might be a Republican trick to generate a sympathetic newspaper story.

Democrats shilling for Independents is bad enough—but Republicans shilling for Democrats?

This isn’t all she’s done for him, either: He asked her to swing by an event at the VFW and she merrily obliged.

…

The irony here is that it’s moderate Republicans who’ll end up being the big losers from Scozzafava’s betrayal. Not only does she make them look untrustworthy (or rather, more untrustworthy than before) but increasingly it seems like they’re not even going to get Hoffman’s scalp as a consolation prize.

The Republican brand may not be brightening as the Democrat brand fades. But more Americans identify themselves as conservative than ever before. The race in NY-23 could have been predicted without reading a single story.

For our liberal readers, let us do the math and point out that self-identified conservatives hold a 2-1 lead over self-identified liberals.

Oops! Who let the greedy, slimy, shady cat out of the bag?

House ethics investigators have been scrutinizing the activities of more than 30 lawmakers and several aides in inquiries about issues including defense lobbying and corporate influence peddling, according to a confidential House ethics committee report prepared in July.

…

– Ethics committee staff members have interviewed House Ways and Means Chairman Charles B. Rangel (D-N.Y.) about one element of the complex investigation of his personal finances, as well as the lawmaker’s top aide and his son.

…

– The Justice Department has told the ethics panel to suspend a probe of Rep. Alan B. Mollohan (D-W.Va.), whose personal finances federal investigators began reviewing in early 2006 after complaints from a conservative group that he was not fully revealing his real estate holdings. There has been no public action on that inquiry for several years. But the department’s request in early July to the committee suggests that the case continues to draw the attention of federal investigators, who often ask that the House and Senate ethics panels refrain from taking action against members whom the department is already investigating.

…

– The committee on June 9 authorized issuance of subpoenas to the Justice Department, the National Security Agency and the FBI for “certain intercepted communications” regarding Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.). As was reported earlier this year, Harman was heard in a 2005 conversation agreeing to an Israeli operative’s request to try to obtain leniency for two pro-Israel lobbyists in exchange for the agent’s help in lobbying House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) to name her chairman of the intelligence committee. The department, a former U.S. official said, declined to respond to the subpoena. [Okay, so they’re not all corrupt. Ed.]

…

Because of the secretive nature of the ethics committee, it was difficult to assess the current status of the investigations cited in the July document. The panel said Thursday, however, that it is ending a probe of Rep. Sam Graves (R-Mo.) after finding no ethical violations, and that it is investigating the financial connections of two California Democrats.

The committee did not detail the two newly disclosed investigations. However, according to the July document, Rep. Maxine Waters, a high-ranking member of the House Financial Services Committee, came under scrutiny because of activities involving OneUnited Bank of Massachusetts, in which her husband owns at least $250,000 in stock.

Waters arranged a September 2008 meeting at the Treasury Department where OneUnited executives asked for government money. In December, Treasury selected OneUnited as an early participant in the bank bailout program, injecting $12.1 million.

The other, Rep. Laura Richardson, may have failed to mention property, income and liabilities on financial disclosure forms.

Of all the bad luck! How did so many Democrats get nabbed?

So Democrats are to Obama:

Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus said today that he has “serious reservations” about a major global warming bill and warned fellow Democrats to water down the measure in hopes of getting it through the Senate.

Speaking at the start of an Environment and Public Works Committee hearing where he is the second highest-ranking member, the Montana Democrat said he wanted to weaken the bill’s 2020 target for greenhouse gas emissions — now 20 percent below 2005 levels. He did not name a specific midterm target for the heat-trapping gases, instead telling reporters he hoped for “some modification.”

The six-term senator also said he hoped to attach pre-emption language to the Senate climate bill, S. 1733 (pdf), that stops U.S. EPA from implementing a 2007 Supreme Court opinion that opens the door to new greenhouse gas emission standards on industry.

“We cannot avoid a first step that takes us further away from an achievable consensus from common-sense climate change legislation,” Baucus said. “We could build that consensus here in this committee. If we don’t, we risk wasting another month, another year, another Congress, without taking a step forward to our future.”

…

Specter, who faces a tough Democratic primary race next year, pushed back against committee Republicans who warned about the dire economic consequences that would come from passing the Senate climate bill.

“We’re all concerned about job loss,” Specter said, adding that he hopes to work on legislation that can win the backing of industry, environmentalists and labor groups like the United Mine Workers of America.

Like Baucus, Specter said he is looking to change the Senate bill’s 2020 emission targets, but he refused to go far in sizing up what is needed to win his vote.

Cap-and-trade is crapped-out and dead. Latest head-counts show both the House and Senate short of votes for a public option in health care reform. I know it’s too early, and I know the Obama administration fights dirty, but it’s feeling like fourth-and-goal—and a goal line stand would change momentum, perhaps for good.

Be interesting to see how Hillary reacts to any possible defeats of key Obama initiatives. She’s one rat too smart to go down with the ship.

I’ve sold the Democrats short. I thought their whole “Celebrate Diversity” nonsense was just a bunch of hooey. Turns out, they are a “big tent” party (as in circus-comma-freak show)

Plumline’s Greg Sargent has posted the results of a highly confidential House Democratic Party Whip Count which shows 47 Democrats at No on a public option, with another 8 leaning No for a total of 56. A dozen Democratic House members are still undecided. The hard No votes, alone, are enough to kill the bill. The leaked document was produced by the U.S. House Majority Whip’s office.

In a major violation of whipping protocol, the document was shared with Progressive House members who refuse to vote for health reform unless it contains a robust public option. Plumline reports that the Progressive Members of Congress (hard core left-wingers) blamed everyone: the White House and the Democratic leadership for not putting enough pressure on members to vote for the public option, from Plumline:

“House progressives argue that the document should light a fire under Dem leaders. One House progressive tells me he’s convinced that most of the undecideds, and a number of the No votes, can be won over with the right mix of pressure and incentives — which only the House leadership and the White House can provide.”

“Only leadership and the White House can get this done,” this progressive says.

I don’t think even this president can promise enough rounds of golf to satisfy the old boy network.

That’s 68 Democratic congressmen less than enthused with the “robust” public option (though who has anything to say against an enfeebled one?), more than a quarter of the party. And as the excerpt above makes clear, the 47 hard nos alone are enough to defeat the bill if they are joined by all 177 Republicans.

And Reid in the Senate is no more secure.

I’ll believe this thing is dead when I see it buried and can piss on its grave. Not until. But at least I can crack a smile.