Bloodthirsty Liberal

We love the appearance on Leno, Scott…

and the victory lap around the state…

But would you drive that heap down to Washington already and kick that Kennedy toady, Paul Kirk, out on his fat ass and start taking some votes?

Though Massachusetts voters have selected Scott Brown as their newest representative in the Senate, Sen. Ted Kennedy’s appointed stand-in, Paul Kirk, is still voting.

Kirk provided Democrats a needed 60th vote to increase the debt limit and to reimpose statutory pay-as-you-go rules for spending, and, though his vote wasn’t needed for passage, he voted to confirm Ben Bernanke to a second term as Fed chairman, Susan Anne Hiller points out at Big Government.

Before and after Brown’s election, discussion centered on whether Kirk would cast the 60th vote on a modified health care bill; the next day, President Obama and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid assured the nation that he wouldn’t and that Democrats wouldn’t “force” a massive health care overhaul through the upper chamber without letting Brown have his say. But Kirk’s overall voting status was less of a focus; turns out he’s still legislating away.

It’s not Scott’s fault, but I wish he’d channel his inner juvie and get medieval on Kirk’s ass.

U.S. Sen.-elect Scott Brown is expected to be seated in the U.S. Capitol by Feb. 11 despite past precedent that had U.S. Rep. Niki Tsongas (D-Lowell) seated within two days of her election.

Brown isn’t concerned about the sluggish approval process because Washington, D.C., pols have promised not to try and ram through health-care reform before he’s officially sworn in.

“Scott appreciates that both President Obama and (Senate) Majority Leader (Harry) Reid (D-Nevada) have said that no major action will be taken on health care until he is sworn and seated,” said Brown’s campaign manager, Eric Fehrnstrom.

Doesn’t mean there haven’t been other important votes. Here’s the list of Senate votes taken since Scott Brown won the election.

Just look at all the votes to raise the debt ceiling by another trillion-plus. Think Scotty’s vote on a filibuster might have changed history? How much can one party steal?

And all we’re left with is “-cracy”, which is close enough for government work to “crazy”:

Highly informed sources on Capitol Hill have revealed to me details of the Democratic plan to sneak Obamacare through Congress, despite collapsing public approval for healthcare “reform” and disintegrating congressional support in the wake of Republican Scott Brown’s victory in Massachusetts.

President Obama, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid all have agreed to the basic framework of the plan.

…

Here’s what I learned top Democrats are planning to implement.

Senate Democrats will go to the House with a two-part deal.

First, the House will pass the Senate’s Obamacare bill that passed the Senate in December. The House leadership will vote on the Senate bill, and Pelosi will allow no amendments or modifications to the Senate bill.

How will Pelosi’s deal fly with rambunctious liberal members of her majority who don’t like the Senate bill, especially its failure to include a public option, put heavy fines on those who don’t get insurance, and offering no income tax surcharge on the “rich”?

That’s where the second part of the Pelosi-deal comes in.

Behind closed doors, Reid and Pelosi have agreed in principle that changes to the Senate bill will be made to satisfy liberal House members — but only after the Senate bill is passed and signed into law by Obama.

This deal will be secured by a pledge from Reid and the Senate’s Democratic caucus that they will make “fixes” to the Senate bill after it becomes law with Obama’s John Hancock.

But you may ask what about the fact that, without Republican Scott Brown and independent Democrats such as Joe Lieberman, Reid simply doesn’t have the 60 votes in the Senate to overcome a Republican filibuster that typically can stop major legislation?

According to my source, Reid will provide to Pelosi a letter signed by 52 Democratic senators indicating they will pass the major changes, or “fixes,” the House Democrats are demanding. Again, these fixes will be approved by the Senate only after Obama signs the Senate bill into law.

Reid also has agreed to bypass Senate cloture and filibuster rules and claim that these modifications fall under “reconciliation” and don’t require 60 Senate votes.

To pass the fixes, he won’t need one Republican; he won’t even need Joe Lieberman or wavering Democrats such as Jim Webb of Virginia.

His 52 pledged senators give him a simple majority to pass any changes they want, which will later be rubberstamped by Pelosi’s House and signed by Obama.

Now, I’ll say what you’re thinking: Dick Morris can’t be the sole source of a story if we are to give it complete credence.

Fine.

But tell me you have complete confidence that there is nothing, absolutely nothing, to this horror story of legislation run amok. Go ahead, I’ll wait.

Maestro, a little music to pass the time?

There is a rub to all of this.

This secret plan being hatched by Pelosi and Reid requires not only a pledge by 52 Democratic senators to vote later for the House modifications. House liberals must actually believe these Senators will live up to their pledge and pass the fixes at some future date.

A Senate source cautions: “Senators more than House members and both more than ordinary people, lie.”

I’m feeling real good about the legislative process right now, how about you?

Some of us are just lighter-skinned than others.

(And no one can hear yo’ di-lec when you typin’, homie.)

“I think if you look at the reports as I have, it was all in the context of saying positive things about Senator Obama,” said Democratic National Committee Chairman Tim Kaine. “It definitely was in the context of recognizing in Senator Obama a great candidate and future president.”

Sen. Diane Feinstein of California said Mr. Reid should not resign, and defended his remark as just a “mistake.”

…

“So the president has accepted the apology, and it would seem to me that the matter should be closed.”

But who cares what some white bitch thinks (if I have the dialect right)?

Let’s find someone of a slightly darker persuasion:

Good point. And we are consistently implored to support the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, so if Negro is okay, presumably so is “colored people”.

Good luck with that.

Others are trying to take the sting out of the word. Let’s see how that goes:

Hmm. Well, if we’re all okay with Negro, I’ll just have to go along.

I’m just glad my mother is no longer alive to see this. If I had used Reid’s language, her hairbrush and my backside would have had a date that would have lived in infamy.

Aggie’s already related Harry Reid’s “light-skinned, Negro accent” comment.

Turns out, he was not alone (I know, shocker):

[A]s Hillary bungled Caroline, Bill’s handling of Ted was even worse. The day after Iowa, he phoned Kennedy and pressed for an endorsement, making the case for his wife. But Bill then went on, belittling Obama in a manner that deeply offended Kennedy. Recounting the conversation later to a friend, Teddy fumed that Clinton had said, A few years ago, this guy would have been getting us coffee.

Like this, Mr. President?

“I like my coffee the way I like my servants, black and sweet.”

And remember Vice President Biden’s appraisal of the man:

Chris Matthews recently described the Republicans as “the party of the Confederacy”—but I wonder if the Confederacy, for all its crimes and exploitations, wasn’t more honest in its dealings with African Americans. Is the Democratic Party now any different from a plantation, with President Obama as merely the HNIC (see the Urban Dictionary or the film Stand and Deliver for a translation—and I don’t mean Hockey Night in Canada)? And who reacts more strongly when they get “uppity”?

PS: It’s all cool, according to Reverend Al:

I have learned of certain unfortunate comments made by Senator Reid regarding President Barack Obama and have spoken with Senator Reid about those comments. While there is no question that Senator Reid did not select the best word choice in this instance, these comments should not distract America from its continued focus on securing healthcare or creating jobs for its people. Nor should they detract from the unquestionable leadership role Senator Reid has played on these issues or in the area of civil rights. Senator Reid’s door has always been open on hearing from the civil rights community on these issues and I look forward to continue to work with Senator Reid wherever possible to improve the lives of Americans everywhere.

Good to know we have a “get out of jail free” card for the next time we refer to a person’s skin color or ethnic accent as qualities to consider when choosing a president. Of course, it would be our first time.

PPS: Does President Obama break out into a cold sweat every time he caucuses with his own party? I would. Those folks are crazy-a** mother[bleepers].

Apart from the soft racism of low expectations, Harry Reid demonstrates the usual racism

Washington (CNN) - Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid apologized Saturday following reports he had privately described then-candidate Barack Obama during the presidential campaign as a black candidate who could be successful thanks in part to his “light-skinned” appearance and speaking patterns “with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one.”

Journalists Mark Halperin and John Heilemann reported the remarks in their new book “Game Change,” according to an excerpt published by The Atlantic late Friday.

“He (Reid) was wowed by Obama’s oratorical gifts and believed that the country was ready to embrace a black presidential candidate, especially one such as Obama - a ‘light-skinned’ African American ‘with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one,’ as he said privately. Reid was convinced, in fact, that Obama’s race would help him more than hurt him in a bid for the Democratic nomination,” they write.

“I deeply regret using such a poor choice of words,” Reid said in a statement to CNN.

“I sincerely apologize for offending any and all Americans, especially African Americans for my improper comments.

- Aggie

How I admire the Democrats. Any party that would put itself before state, before country, before the will of the people must be one hell of a political party:

It looks like the fix is in on national health-care reform - and it all may unfold on Beacon Hill.

At a business forum in Boston today, interim Sen. Paul Kirk predicted that Congress would pass a health-care reform bill this month.

“We want to get this resolved before President Obama’s State of the Union address in early to mid-February,” Kirk told reporters at a Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce breakfast.

…

[I]f Brown wins, the entire national health-care reform debate may hinge on when he takes over as senator. Brown has vowed to be the crucial 41st vote in the Senate that would block the bill.

The U.S. Senate ultimately will schedule the swearing-in of Kirk’s successor, but not until the state certifies the election.

Today, a spokesman for Secretary of the Commonwealth William Galvin, who is overseeing the election but did not respond to a call seeking comment, said certification of the Jan. 19 election by the Governor’s Council would take a while.

“Because it’s a federal election,” spokesman Brian McNiff said. “We’d have to wait 10 days for absentee and military ballots to come in.”

Another source told the Herald that Galvin’s office has said the election won’t be certified until Feb. 20 - well after the president’s address.

…

In contrast, Rep. Niki Tsongas (D-Lowell) was sworn in at the U.S. House of Representatives on Oct. 18, 2007, just two days after winning a special election to replace Martin Meehan. In that case, Tsongas made it to Capitol Hill in time to override a presidential veto of the expansion of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program.

…

“This is a stunning admission by Paul Kirk and the Beacon Hill political machine,” said Brown in a statement. “Paul Kirk appears to be suggesting that he, Deval Patrick, and (Senate Majority Leader) Harry Reid intend to stall the election certification until the health care bill is rammed through Congress, even if that means defying the will of the people of Massachusetts. As we’ve already seen from the backroom deals and kickbacks cut by the Democrats in Washington, they intend to do anything and everything to pass their controversial health care plan. But threatening to ignore the results of a free election and steal this Senate vote from the people of Massachusetts takes their schemes to a whole new level. Martha Coakley should immediately disavow this threat from one of her campaign’s leading supporters.”

Coakley later released this statement.

We have some fairly prestigious universities you may have heard of in these parts. And not a few high-tech companies with a lot of computing power. In short, we know how to count votes.

Oh, you bet we do. We can count ‘em so well, we can count ‘em backwards and sideways—make ‘em say anything you want ‘em to. And if the vote should happen not to go our way, we know Washington has our back.

Where exactly shall I place my foamy-mouthed fury? On Obama, Reid, et al, sure. But how did we let it get to this stage? How did we give the Democrats the idea that they could ignore, dismiss, and defecate on us with an airy wave of the hand?

What a fitting testament to the memory of Ted Kennedy (dirt be upon him).

I blame myself not least. I’m more likely to reach for a Sam Adams than behave like one. But I’ll vote for a Whig or a Bull Moose or a Know-Nothing before I vote for a Democrat again. Ever.

I can take the odd bits of gristle, offal, and hair in my links—but this?

As the stomach turns:

Mr. McCAIN. Could I ask my friend about the situation as it exists right now? Right now, no Member on this side has any idea as to the specifics of the proposal the majority leader, I understand, has sent to OMB for some kind of scoring. Is that the way we want to do business, that a proposal that will be presented to the Senate sometime next week and voted on immediately–that is what we are told–is that the way to do business in a bipartisan fashion? Should we not at least be informed as to what the proposal is the Senate majority leader is going to propose to the entire Senate within a couple days? Shouldn’t we even know what it is?

Mr. DURBIN. I would say to the Senator from Arizona, I am in the dark almost as much as he is, and I am in the leadership. The reason is, because the Congressional Budget Office, which scores the managers’ amendment, the so-called compromise, has told us, once you publicly start debating it, we will publicly release it. We want to basically see whether it works, whether it works to continue to reduce the deficit, whether it works to continue to reduce the growth in health care costs.

We had a caucus after this was submitted to the Congressional Budget Office, where Senator Reid and other Senators who were involved in it basically stood and said: We are sorry, we can’t tell you in detail what was involved. But you will learn, everyone will learn, it will be as public information as this bill currently is on the Internet. But the Congressional Budget Office has tied our hands at this point putting it forward. Basically, what I know is what you know, having read press accounts of what may be included.

…

Mr. McCAIN. I admit these are unusual times. But isn’t that a very unusual process, that here we are discussing one-sixth of the gross national product; the bill before us has been a product of almost a year of sausage-making. Yet here we are at a position on December 12, with a proposal that none of us, except, I understand, one person, the majority leader, knows what the final parameters are, much less informing the American people. I don’t get it.

Mr. DURBIN. I think the Senator is correct, saying most of us know the fundamentals, but we do not know the important details behind this. What I am saying is, this is not the choice of the majority leader. It is the choice of the Congressional Budget Office. We may find that something that was sent over there doesn’t work at all, doesn’t fly. They may say this is not going to work, start over. So we have to reserve the right to do that, and I think that is why we are waiting for the Congressional Budget Office scoring, as they call it, to make sure it hits the levels we want, in terms of deficit reduction and reducing the cost of health care.
It is frustrating on your side. It is frustrating here. But I am hoping, in a matter of hours, maybe days, we will receive the CBO report.

Winston Churchill said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried. I wonder if today he’d like to shorten that statement by eight words.

Global warming skeptics have been likened to Holocaust deniers.

Now, those who oppose the health care bill in Congress are said to be no different from the KKK:

“Instead of joining us on the right side of history, all the Republicans can come up with is, ’slow down, stop everything, let’s start over.’ If you think you’ve heard these same excuses before, you’re right,” [Harry] Reid said Monday. “When this country belatedly recognized the wrongs of slavery, there were those who dug in their heels and said ’slow down, it’s too early, things aren’t bad enough.’”

He continued: “When women spoke up for the right to speak up, they wanted to vote, some insisted they simply, slow down, there will be a better day to do that, today isn’t quite right.

“When this body was on the verge of guaranteeing equal civil rights to everyone regardless of the color of their skin, some senators resorted to the same filibuster threats that we hear today.”

Republicans supported slavery? Did anybody tell Abraham Lincoln?

Republicans opposed civil rights? Did anyone tell Congress?

House of Representatives:
Democrats for: 152
Democrats against: 96
Republicans for: 138
Republicans against: 34

Senate:
Democrats for: 46
Democrats against: 21
Republicans for: 27
Republicans against: 6

Even Strom Thurmond, the filibusterer in question, was a Democrat at the time.

As for women’s suffrage, I don’t know what the Republican platform was—but President Wilson (D) only came around when the biddies let him know that their support for the war effort hinged upon his support for their right to vote.

That Harry Reid is a lying, cheating son of a bitch is widely known. Exactly how much continues to astound.

An inconvenient question

We will pay for it with increased taxes, smoke and mirrors, cuts to physician reimbursements, and cuts to Medicare. Among the closet full of Medicare cuts, we find cuts to home health care.

Dozing in a big lift chair, propped up by pillows in the living room of her modest home here, Bertha G. Milliard greeted the nurse who had come to check her condition and review the medications she takes for chronic pain, heart failure, stroke and dementia.

Ms. Milliard, 94, said those visits had been highly effective in keeping her out of the hospital. But the home care she receives could be altered under legislation passed by the House and pending on the Senate floor as Congress returned to work this week.

As they are across the nation, Medicare patients and nurses in this town in northern Maine are anxiously following the Congressional debate because its outcome could affect Medicare’s popular home health benefit in a big way. The legislation would reduce Medicare spending on home health services, a lifeline for homebound Medicare beneficiaries, which keeps them out of hospitals and nursing homes.

Under the bills, more than 30 million Americans would gain health coverage. The cost would be offset by new taxes and fees and by cutbacks in Medicare payments to health care providers.

I am constantly amazed at how the party of compassion hurts the weakest among us. From social programs that encourage unrealistic dependency, through harming truly defenseless elderly patients who wish to remain in their homes, the Democrats are callous and unresponsive to suffering, all the while cloaking themselves in mushy rhetoric.

Here’s an offensive tidbit; home health care workers are overpaid!, according to the bleeding heart Democrats:

Under the legislation, home care would absorb a disproportionate share of the cuts. It currently accounts for 3.7 percent of the Medicare budget, but would absorb 10.2 percent of the savings squeezed from Medicare by the House bill and 9.4 percent of savings in the Senate bill, the Congressional Budget Office says.

The House bill would slice $55 billion over 10 years from projected Medicare spending on home health services, while the Senate bill would take $43 billion.

Democratic leaders in the House and Senate justify the proposed cuts in nearly identical terms. “These payment reductions will not adversely affect access to care,” but will bring payments in line with costs, the House Ways and Means Committee said. The Senate Finance Committee said the changes would encourage home care workers to be more productive.

This is just too rich to ignore:

Home care shows, in microcosm, a conundrum at the heart of the health care debate. Lawmakers have decided that most of the money to cover the uninsured should come from the health care system itself. This raises the question: Can health care providers reduce costs without slashing services?

“Can health care providers reduce costs without slashing services?” Hmm, let’s cogitate on that for a moment. Our government is going to increase the size of the insured by roughly … 10%… 15%… does anyone have this number? But they are not planning to increase the money to pay for this. First of all, that is untrue. Part of the increase will come from new taxes and new fees. But, putting aside that little white lie, do you suppose that you could increase any part of your spending by 10% without it costing more? Purchase 10% more food but somehow cut back on the food that you eat so that it comes out ok? What would you give up? Dining out? Meat? Sweets? All packaged foods? Would you replace brand name products with no-names? How about just buying powdered milk instead of the fresh stuff? Who needs it anyway? Remember, you can’t choose to consume less; you must consume more.

Quality changes have to happen. One could argue that they are just fine. Maybe meat really is bad for us. Certainly sweets are not the greatest for health. And we really don’t need to go out to dinner; we can try out exciting new recipes at home involving lots of powdered milk. But what exactly are these health care cuts and when do we get to find out?

Elections have consequences, and this is a big one.

- Aggie

How much did Mary Landrieu’s health care vote cost the citizens of the United States?

Staffers on Capitol Hill were calling it the Louisiana Purchase.

On the eve of Saturday’s showdown in the Senate over health-care reform, Democratic leaders still hadn’t secured the support of Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.), one of the 60 votes needed to keep the legislation alive. The wavering lawmaker was offered a sweetener: at least $100 million in extra federal money for her home state.

And so it came to pass that Landrieu walked onto the Senate floor midafternoon Saturday to announce her aye vote — and to trumpet the financial “fix” she had arranged for Louisiana. “I am not going to be defensive,” she declared. “And it’s not a $100 million fix. It’s a $300 million fix.”

Sickening. Hope. Transparency. Change.

It was an awkward moment (not least because her figure is 20 times the original Louisiana Purchase price). But it was fairly representative of a Senate debate that seems to be scripted in the Southern Gothic style. The plot was gripping — the bill survived Saturday’s procedural test without a single vote to spare — and it brought out the rank partisanship, the self-absorption and all the other pathologies of modern politics. If that wasn’t enough of a Tennessee Williams story line, the debate even had, playing the lead role, a Southerner named Blanche with a flair for the dramatic.

After Landrieu threw in her support (she asserted that the extra Medicaid funds were “not the reason” for her vote), the lone holdout in the 60-member Democratic caucus was Sen. Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas. Like other Democratic moderates who knew a single vote could kill the bill, she took a streetcar named Opportunism, transferred to one called Wavering and made off with concessions of her own. Indeed, the all-Saturday debate, which ended with an 8 p.m. vote, occurred only because Democratic leaders had yielded to her request for more time.
ad_icon

Even when she finally announced her support, at 2:30 in the afternoon, Lincoln made clear that she still planned to hold out for many more concessions in the debate that will consume the next month. “My decision to vote on the motion to proceed is not my last, nor only, chance to have an impact on health-care reform,” she announced.

Pull you money out of the bank and bury it in the back yard. Stock up on canned goods. These guys are hell-bent on destroying the economy.

Landrieu and Lincoln got the attention because they were the last to decide, but the Senate really has 100 Blanche DuBoises, a full house of characters inclined toward the narcissistic. The health-care debate was worse than most. With all 40 Republicans in lockstep opposition, all 60 members of the Democratic caucus had to vote yes — and that gave each one an opportunity to extract concessions from Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid.

If you go to the link, you can get the details about the goodies that the other 58 Democrats in the Senate received for their votes.

- Aggie