Robert Byrd Is Thoughtful And Principled, Like All Of Congress.

Or not.  I mean, it’s not like he said last year that it would be inappropriate for the Senate to pass health care via reconciliation… Oh.

Well, at least our good public servants up there on Capitol Hill have gone through this legislation from front to back and have a good working knowledge of the bill… Oh.

[Blanche Lincoln] insisted Tuesday she remained opposed to pushing a health care bill through the Senate with a simple majority vote, despite saying she wanted to see what was in the legislation.

Well, that’s reasonable.  She should just sit down with that big ol’ bill and page through it… Oh.

Charlie Rose: Do you have the votes at this moment?
Nancy Pelosi: We don’t have the bill yet.
Rose: So… your response always, any question about if I have the votes, is, I can’t tell you…
Pelosi: …until we have a bill.

What a contemptible bunch of hacks.  November can’t come soon enough.

Apparently Senator Deathpanel Was Unavailable

Louise "Brutal" Slaughter
Now here's a lady that couldn't give a crap about the Constitution or representative government or legislative legitimacy or...

And now we see the Dems begin to abandon any pretense of democratic legitimacy in their mad rush to pass Obamacare BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY!!!  Mary Katherine Ham (mmmm, ham) reports:

I present to you the Slaughter Solution, devised by Rep. Louise Slaughter. (What Sen. Death Panel was not available to put his name to it?). Via Congress Daily ($):

House Rules Chairwoman Louise Slaughter is prepping to help usher the healthcare overhaul through the House and potentially avoid a direct vote on the Senate overhaul bill, the chairwoman said Tuesday.

Slaughter is weighing preparing a rule that would consider the Senate bill passed once the House approves a corrections bill that would make changes to the Senate version.

Now this should surprise no one, for a couple of reasons:  first of all, this bill should have been killed dead long ago if public opinion had anything to do with it, or, for that matter, if congressional Democrats were to be believed when they insisted that such important landmark legislation should only be passed with broad, bipartisan support and how reconciliation would never be an option and whatever other lies they peddled from day to day as they tried to convince us that they ever gave a flying shit about “health care” instead of  raw political power.  And yet, the bill lives.  From that, we can determine that this particular piece of legislation is all about raw political power.

Additionally, the namesake of this “rule” has not made any secret of her contempt for those who disagree with her, as evidenced by the video you see here in which the congresswoman insists that she won’t be giving those crazy people who oppose Obamacare the opportunity to confront her at any town hall meetings.  It’d be interesting to see how she’d handle a similar question today – are 60-70% of the American people John Birchers or irrational weeping messes now for hating this bill?  No matter, I suppose.  Congresswoman Slaughter could care less about your “reasons” for opposing a government takeover of health care.  Why, it’s beneath the dignity of her office to face angry constituents.

Seriously, can this Congress be more contemptible?  Can they be any more corrupt?  Can they be any more arrogant?

The downside of this story is that this constitutionally illiterate thug is in such a safe seat (she won with 78% of the vote in ’08); it’s a greater shame that there are congressional districts filled with voters dumb enough to fall for such awful candidates.  But no matter; if the current trend holds – and considering the arrogance of the Dems, why wouldn’t it – this horrible woman will be safely carted off to the minority after the elections.


It’s The Ideology

Paul Ryan, once again, just saying what needs to be said:

And, I really think it comes down to a political philosophy. And they believe in a political philosophy that is more like a cradle to grave, more of a social welfare state, kind of like you see in Europe versus the American ideal that we’ve known and loved and grown up with. And, so really what this is more about is ideology than health care policy. Because if this was about health care policy we could get a bi-partisan agreement tomorrow. It’s not about health care policy. They are trying to ram it through as fast as they can before their power slips away from them and that’s why they’re trying to create this brand new entitlement which really does have the government takeover 17% of our economy.

Public (And Dick Durbin) to Obama: “You Lie.”

“…on every one of Obama’s specific pledges of cost containment and premium reduction, the public doesn’t believe him.”

Also, “Stupid” Dick Durban had this to say about how much health care premiums will be dropping when Obamacare passes:

Anyone who would stand before you and say ‘well, if you pass health care reform next year’s health care premiums are going down,’ I don’t think is telling the truth. I think it is likely they would go up.

"Stupid" Dick Durbin
Stupid Dick. Oh, wait, I forgot the comma.

A Desperate Liar:

The president’s increased desperation is evident in his arguments. Knowing that he doesn’t currently have enough popular support behind his bill to coax a majority of the House into voting for it, he’s resorting to nonsensical arguments he hopes will strike a populist chord. He’s blaming insurance companies almost unilaterally for rising health-care costs — even though the combined annual profits of America’s ten largest insurers are only $8.3 billion, which is one-seventh of what Medicare loses each year to fraud, and just 0.4 percent of the $2.5 trillion that the United States spends annually on health care. And he’s claiming that Obamacare would be the answer to these higher costs — even though the Congressional Budget Office says that Obamacare would raise insurance premiums in the individual market (the part of the market he’s talking about) by 10 to 13 percent, and $2,100 per family, by 2016 in relation to current law.

These are the arguments of a desperate man. And they are unlikely to prove persuasive either to the American people (again, only 17 percent of whom think Obamacare would lower health costs) or to the most representative branch of their government, which holds the fate of Obamacare in its hands.

Via NRO.

Does Michael Gerson Actually Believe This?

Obamacare is Obama’s idea of “the Middle Path“?

Whatever the legislative fate of health reform — now in the hands of a few besieged House Democrats — the health reformers have failed in their argument. Their proposal has divided Democrats while uniting Republicans, returned American politics to well-worn ideological ruts, employed legislative tactics that smack of corruption, squandered the president’s public standing, lowered public regard for Congress to French revolutionary levels, sucked the oxygen from other agenda items, re-engaged the abortion battle, produced freaks and prodigies of nature such as a Republican senator from Massachusetts, raised questions about the continued governability of America and caused the White House chief of staff to distance himself from the president’s ambitions.It is quite an accomplishment.

For the president, it must also be quite a shock, because he thought he was taking a reasonable, middle path on health reform.

Not a moderate.
Not a moderate.

Look, I know Obama poses as a moderate; that was part of the reason that he was electable in 2008, and even though at this point it’s ludicrous for him to pretend to be concerned about the deficit, the debt, and out of control spending, he still goes out and talks the talk.  Heck, he’s still claiming that Obamacare is going to help bring the deficit down over time even though that claim has been so thoroughly debunked that to do so should make him look like an utter fool every time he opens his mouth on the subject.

No, I don’t think that Obama looks at this and sees a “reasonable, middle path” approach.  I think he looks at this as an acceptable first step on the road to single payer health care.  He would never level with the taxpayers on that, to be sure, because that would be the death of the enterprise.  But the fact remains that Obama is no moderate.  He is not reasonable.  He most certainly is, despite his claims to the contrary, an ideologue.  That is the only reason for him to continue to double- and even triple-down on this nasty health care plan that has been overwhelmingly rejected by the voters.  That’s the reason that he says he wouldn’t mind being a one-term president as long as he gets health care reform.  That’s why the polls showing a growing Republican wave election coming straight at him don’t seem to bother him.  He’s an ideologue.  He’s a true believer. This is exactly the reason why Jeremiah Wright, Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn really did matter in the 2008 election.  Obama was never looking for a “middle way,” because Obama is a creature of the left.  Those of us on the right that pointed this out during the election were derided, mocked, and laughed at.  Now?  Not so much.

You Lie

Smoke up, Barry.
Did you know that behavioral issues account for a large portion of health-care expenditures in the US? It's true. Look it up.

Sorry folks; Joe Wilson was right on this one:

The president, who promised in both word and style to usher in a “new era” of Washington “responsibility,” routinely says things that aren’t true and supports initiatives that break campaign promises. When called on it, he mostly keeps digging. And when obliged to explain why American voters are turning so sharply away from his party and his policies, Obama pins the blame not on his own deviations from verity but on his failure to “explain” things “more clearly to the American people.”

Take the issue he has explained more than any other: health care. In the State of the Union address, Obama claimed that the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) had estimated that “our approach” to health care reform “would bring down the deficit by as much as $1 trillion over the next two decades.” This is, strictly speaking, not true. The Democrats’ “approach” to health care reform includes a permanent change to the Medicare reimbursement rates for doctors, colloquially known as the “doc fix.” The CBO estimated that the doc fix, when combined with the health care reform legislative package, actually “would increase the budget deficit in 2019 by $23 billion relative to current law, an increment that would grow in subsequent years.” This is why House Democrats stripped out the doc fix from the health care bill, and passed it separately; it made the CBO scores look bad, making it harder for the president to present bogus claims about deficit neutrality.

That bit of mendacity only scratches the surface of how Congress and the administration gamed the system to produce nice-looking numbers.

I remember when Clinton was running for office and conservatives were always pointing out that he was a man of low character, only to be rebuffed and mocked by those who claimed that character didn’t matter and it was “the economy, stupid.”  I also remember that in 2008 during the presidential campaign, a lot of former Clinton supporters were appalled at how he (and to an extent Hillary) behaved as she ran against Obama, and finally admitted that yeah, he just wasn’t a very good guy right from the start.  I have a feeling that someday a similar thing will happen with Obama.