[DELETED BY AUTHOR]
13 Dec
Senate GOP Does “Masterful” Job in Derailing ObamaCare!
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.
Sunday, December 13th, 2009 at 10:20 pm | 50 views
Stats
I voted yes, but I could list at least a dozen more things that I think they could and SHOULD be doing.
I also don’t trust them yet. Too many dirtbags are still around from the 2000-2006 period.
The bottom line for me is that considering what they’re up against, they are holding the line, but they have a long way to go until I can register as a republican.
Voted “Yes”!
Pingback: Tweets that mention Senate GOP Does “Masterful” Job in Derailing ObamaCare! -- Topsy.com
Yes. Is it easier for the Senate GOP to find their moral compass now that the rudderless ship Obama seems destined to crash on the rocks? It has not been one year since the Fraud entered the White House and began his gradual descent into ignominy, it doesn’t seem possible that this manufactured persona could regain popular support with his rogues’ gallery of incompetence he has surrounded himself with; but what if he does regain momentum at some point in the next three years, will our GOP maintain their stance against this Progressive Marxism?
Remember, the Liberal base and our younger generations have been subjected to Marxist indoctrination by the public education system and the university system for decades, it is amazing that they are capable of discerning the cancerous core of our Socialist movement and the Global Warming Hoax. After years of subtle brainwashing by the majority of our educators, a process that is still in process, our younger generations may be ill-equipped to resist the siren’s call to Marxism.
Consequently, we who stand guard on the ramparts of Liberty must maintain our vigilance and not become complacent in favorable poll numbers, for it is us and talk radio who have led this fight against tyranny. Take pride in our victories, but remember there is a long way to go before the Marxist in the White House retires in disgrace and this malignancy of international Marxism is exposed and destroyed.
Gonna have to throw an H and an e and a great big old double L NO on that. They can say they’re trying to stop that train, but I ain’t believing ‘em’ till they quit shoveling coal in the hotbox. Just because they don’t intend on sticking it to us as far, fast, or deep as the other guys, don’t mean we ain’t still getting a scrogging.
When I voted, 75 percent of you’all voted ‘agin’ me, and all the comments went the other way. We just gonna have to agree to disagree, cause personally, I’m sore. I’ve been scrogged all I’m gonna be scrogged without at least hollering NO MORE, PERIOD!
If the Pub’s continue doing like they’re doing, THIS BILL WILL PASS! They ain’t doing one blessed thang but winking at the Dem’s with a “Let us slow ‘er’ down a mite so we can git re-elected and we promise we’ll let you have whatever you’all want in the long run and that-a-way you’all won’t have-ta worry bout fresh meat in here in 2010 trying to really stopper-up the works!”
Mark my words, if a HUGE public outcry doesn’t happen, this bill will pass and almost every one of the black stalk mf’ers will be re-elected from both parties.
Gotta’ vote no on this. Here’s a letter-to-editor I sent yesterday in which I heavily borrowed from Erick at RedState:
The paper to which I submitted this letter has a 200 word limit, so I had to cut out some of my best lines, like for example: ” Meanwhile, those “good friends” continue to slur them openly on the Senate floor and no-doubt laugh at their naivete in the cloakrooms. ”
I freely admit that if McConnell has a plan, it is too nuanced for me to understand.
On CSPAN I saw a glimmer of hope yesterday afternoon, though. Sen. McConnell actually uttered the forbidden words, “I object!”, as he handed a motion for cloture on the Crapo Amendment to the clerk. Maybe, just maybe, McConnell has located his long-lost cojones.
Voted NO! I won’t be satisfied until this thing is so dead they are all scared to bring it up again.
I’l begin to have some faith in senate republicans when Snowe, Voinovich, McCain, Grahmnesty, Collins, HATCH and several others are in their home states on a permanent basis. Replace these treasonous, perpetual RINOs with Demint-type voices and republicans will control both houses for decades to come.
Trust but verify … I think they could go off the rails any second …
Interesting that we have so many strong voices arguing against the job our Senate GOP team is doing. Again, considering how weak their numerical position in the senate is and yet how united and they have become and relatively successful in slowing down this train wreck, I’d have to ask what steps the naysayers suggest we take that would be EFFECTIVE without alienating the Indepdents who are flocking to our side????
It doesn’t do much good to bitch if you don’t have a BETTER idea!
Still, I note that the satisfieds outnumber the unsatisfieds by 3 to 1.
P.S. @OLDPUPPYMAX: I hope you are donating money to fund possible replacements in those races. Even still, you’re probabaly going to be disappointed for a long, long time and that only plays into the hands of Obama.
Pingback: Senate GOP Does “Masterful” Job in Derailing ObamaCare! « The Ghostfighters
Yes and Senator Barroso is doing a great job! I have to say that Pat Robertson from Kansas was the best with his cactus allegory. Who knew that the “government channel” will be the one to keep us all informed!
I support our GOP and there is no need for a Third Party. That will only ensured that Zero and his croonies will be in power for a long time.
Keep an eye on Lt. Col. Allen West in Florida. He is running for Congress. Great story!
Pingback: Why Won’t the Senate Republicans Fight? (Updated) « Asheville Tea Party
Mike’s America–
I think the “better idea” is to use parliamentary procedures to shut down the Senate with objection after objection until this bill dies a natural death. (See: Fight. over at RedState) Week by week more Americans turn against this abomination of a bill, and the longer it can be delayed, the better chance there is that it will die.
I do see some signs that McConnell is finally growing a set of cohones, though. If you watched CSPAN yesterday, he actually used the words “I object!” twice. I think this little exchange at the end of the day is the reason that the Senate is not talking health care today:
Why the Republicans don’t demand that a quorum actually be present, I just don’t know.
I added this paragraph to the post:
@John Cooper: I did read the “FIGHT” post at Redstate. It’s linked in the post above. While I personally favor hardball tactics, it’s not a smart way to fight this fight this time.
Again, I’m waiting for someone to show me what we gain by these tactics as compared to what we lose. If we followed the hardline suggestions the storyline in the press would be about the nasty GOP and not the concerns that moderate Democrats have which makes our entire position look so much more reasonable.
I think we would all like to see our GOP Senators get up there and smack the Democrats silly every which way they can. But it wouldn’t serve the greater goal which is to derail this monstrosity of a bill.
P.S. Patvann: Where’d your latest comment go?
The Politico has this update:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1209/30572.html
Isn’t that a better headline than: WH Calls GOP Obstructionist?
@Patvann: Agree with you, still to many dirtbags. I voted yes,but still a Libertarian, hope Mikes American can win me over.
@givemeliberty: I’ll keep trying.
On the subject of “dirtbags” we have a special problem here in SC: Lindsey Graham. Though I wouldn’t call him a “dirtbag” he’s not always a solid reliable conservative vote in the Senate. Most of the time YES, but the exceptions, like this idiocy on global warming, drive SC conservatives like myself to despair.
We thought we had a great candidate to run against him in 2008. Former State Treasurer Thomas Ravenel was an attractive, rich candidate who many thought would give Graham a run for his money until Ravenel got busted for buying cocaine. We got stuck with some nobody to run against Graham whose seat is now safe for the next four years.
It’s not an easy thing to get rid of these RINOS. And still, I’d rather have a RINO than a Democrat voting to support Harry Reid any day.
And if anyone wants to call me a RINO for saying that then I’ll just trot out my photos and credentials with Buckley, Goldwater, Ashbrook and Reagan again… So make my day!
@Mike
Now I KNOW I posted a nice (long) thought-out answer to what I think needs to be done, but it’s not even in spam…. Crap!!!
[MIKE:I found it in my email Pat.... Here it is:]
Anyone want to make a guess as to why health care isn’t being debated on the floor today?
My theory is that at the last minute yesterday afternoon, McConnell said “no more Mr. Unanimous Consent” and dropped a motion for cloture on the Crapo Motion to Commit on the clerk’s desk. Maybe I’m wrong, but I think that one action gave Harry Reid the shivers.
The Crapo motion would commit the bill H.R. 3590 to the Committee on Finance with instructions to report the same back to the Senate with changes that provide that no provision of this Act shall result in an increase in Federal tax liability for individuals with adjusted gross income of less than $200,000 and married individuals with adjusted gross income of less than $250,000.
That’s my theory and I’m stickin’ to it .
Edit for Patvann: I posted a nice long post earlier and it just disappeared, too. Is there a word count limit?
Breaking:
What? No Republicans invited (again)?
@John Cooper.
I looked in the spam-file and nothing of yours is in it. I know for SURE mine got posted, because I saw it…(Curt?)
There is no word-count limit, but sometimes ya might forget to hit the send-button, and if ya leave the page without doing that, it’s lost forever. For comments/posts you really want, write/save it in Word, then post it.
The server seems like it’s on Quaaludes today.
Pat,
I saw your post…briefly.
Then, when I hit the refresh button, it disappeared into the ether.
I found Pat’s post (formatting lost in the translation, but maybe Pat can tweak it] but nothing else from John Cooper…
Sorry John… It wasn’t done on purpose.
As for your theory that the current stalemate is a result of McConnell’s newfound tactics: I’d say it’s one third that and 2/3rd’s Liberman and the other Senate Dems.
Here’s a link to a source for your comment above:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091214/ap_on_bi_ge/us_health_care_white_house
The next 72 hours will be very interesting….
Again, aren’t these the kind of headlines we should prefer rather than: GOP BLOCKS HEALTHCARE FOR AMERICANS?
@Mike
I agree Mike. I like those headlines. I also remember too many Repubs voting for Porculus.
I think that when and if this Bill ever DOES die (It’s like it’s Eddy freakin Kruger), more people will begin to trust them again, including me. I am behind them on this, but my faith was badly shaken back with the Prescription-drug Bill… penned by Kennedy, supported by Repubs, signed by Bush, paid for by my kids, and over-budget already.
(PS Thanks for finding the lost comment.)
Patvann and Mike:
It was a long post with the transcript of McConnell’s objection in the Senate yesterday. I’m 100% positive that I hit the Send button, because the page reloaded like it usually does. My post just wasn’t there when it refreshed.
I’d repost it but it’s probably not worth it. If anyone wants to read it for hisorherself, here’s the link to the Pg. S13131 of the Congressional Record. McConnell starts on the lower right of the page, and continues on Pg. S13132.
The way I interpret this is that McConnell threw down the gauntlet and told the dems that he was going to FORCE an up or down vote on whether the dems are going to “raise taxes on anyone earning less than $250,000″.
I will be very pleased if it turns out that turning dems on dems was the Republican strategy all along rather than just pure luck.
Expect executive branch bribes in an Obama attempt to buy Senate votes for health care. The question is, how much, to whom and from which Obama slush fund will the taxpayer’s money be misused.
@Patvann:
I’m not sure who Eddie Kruger is but, yeah, this health care takeover debacle keeps rearing its’ socialist head.
This whole process has been like Whack-a-Mole on Sammy Sosa strength steroids.
I believe that was meant to be “Freddy Kruger” of the Nightmare on Elm Street series. A character than seems to be unstoppable, wreaking havoc at every turn of the script.
But what the hell… eddie, freddie… tomahto, tomato
I notice the reader poll is staying about 75% approve…
@John Cooper: Is this the comment?
http://www.floppingaces.net/2009/12/13/senate-gop-does-masterful-job-in-derailing-obamacare/#comment-259338
@Don/Aye
LOL!
Yeah! THAT guy!
I got most of the letters in his name!
)
(Only ever saw the first movie, but I heard of his reputation
Mike–
That’s it. I’m now suffering from cognitive dissonance…
Looks like Harkin just announced that the Medicare thing is out. Lieberman got his way.
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/12/harkin-theres-enough-good-in-this-bill-without-medicare-buy-in-trigger.php
The comments are deserving of a large bowel of popcorn, and some time.
So now what?
Just a reminder Mike, majority doesn’t mean right in the long run. Remember Churchill pre and post WW II. Just saying… .., we’ll see.
@Old Ez: I’ve always advocated a conservative governing majority. It’s something we have never had.
But to get there, you first have to have a majority. And I’ll accept a few RINOS in the process.
Yeah, but Mike, I’m saying that if we have to join them to beat them, there is no difference anymore. We have become them and after that, even if they lose, they win. After that, even if we win, we have lost. It’s not about the winning or the losing in the long run. It’s about doing the right thing, fighting for actual values, for freedom for our heirs, not just winning for the sake of winning. The RePub’s have been fighting the ‘join-them’ way since the media fallout after Regan. (progressively more so each year) Where has it gotten them? Think back to 1986. Can you see any significant difference between the RePubs as a group now and the Dems as a group then? I can’t. RePubs have already become the Dems of 20 years ago. Now they’re about to become the Socialist Republicans. It’s a step too far.
Its time to take a Winston stand. Tell it like it is. If the majority won’t see the light now, at least they’ll realize that they have somewhere to turn to after it all goes to crap. That’s right; I think that if the country won’t listen to reason and fight this tooth and nail, they need to see just what we’ve been warning them about. They’ll discover that utopian socialist cake tastes like crap crackers and spit that schist out of their mouth when they get a bite or two. They’ll turn on the people who fed them that foul stench. If they think the RePubs helped that along, do you think they’ll happily turn to them? Now is not the time to be conveying “Ah, just a little bite, not a big bite like the Dems want you to take.” Now is the time to be saying, “Don’t put that crap in your mouth! You won’t like it and it’s almost impossible to get rid of the taste!”
We can’t beat them by joining them. I’d rather live as a mistreated slave who fought for his freedom than a well treated slave who gave his away.
Its time to take a stand. If we lose, let us lose with our dignity and self-respect intact. If we truly believe we are right about the values we are fighting for, we won’t give them up for a pyrrhic victory that costs us the very things we are fighting to preserve.
BTW, I’m not against having a party that takes into account differences in different regions of the country. NC was probably the only place Jesse Helms could have been elected for good reasons. But with only a few changes in his voting pattern, Joe Lieberman might fit as a RePub. I’m just saying that, like a country must have borders, RePubs must have some kind of reasonable limits. If you keep letting anyone run for you who is willing put an R behind their name just to receive millions in campaign money, you are selling the soul of the RePub party and of the country as a whole. My soul ain’t for sale.
One last BTW, Mike, I’m not saying that you want to be a slave or your soul is for sale or intending to insult you in any way. You’ve done a lot of excellent, important work in the past and are still doing that here and now. I respect and thank you for that. It’s simply that we disagree on this. This is the way that I look at it from where I’m at, for me personally.
If it’s any consolation, I hope you’re right and I’m wrong. I hope the RePubs are honestly fighting this and can beat it. However, judging from their past actions, I believe that this is a sham fight. Just enough fight to win re-election next time. I truly hope you’re right about this one. If I’m wrong, I’ll give the RePubs the benefit of the doubt for a long time to come. If I’m right, this finishes me forever with them. There is ALOT more people feeling that way than you’all think. Sorry about the long post.
To anyone who made it this far, Merry Christmas!
@Old EZ
Merry Christmas…I find myself agreeing with you. JFK would be seen as a rabid right-wing extremist in light of what’s going on now. But I think I also see what Mike is getting at.
That is: A few RINOs are harmless, when enough true Conservatives are in power. To get that “power” we might need them, so let’s not dismiss them out of hand. In other words, let’s use them if and when we can, because we will never be truely rid of them.
If there is enough men and women elected, who do exactly what you see needs doing, those few remaining RINOs will be pressed into doing your bidding. If we have enough of a majority, they will be one of 2 things to us: Useful, or harmless. Both of which are better than harmful… which is where we are now.
@Old Ez: I like to follow Ronald Reagan’s example. He’s a great leader to whom I have a small personal attachment. His philosophy was to proudly espouse strong conservative principles and invite conservative Democrats and moderates to join us. And it worked.
Reagan didn’t believe in any “purge” of RINOS and certainly NEVER backed any third party movement, but he let it be known that all were welcome to join the party if they shared our views.
If RINOS accept the conservative majority philosophy and are willing to vote to elect conservative speakers and senate leaders then why not?
Here’s an article by Jeff Lord, who also served in the Reagan White House on this subject:
http://spectator.org/archives/2009/12/08/reagans-december-declaration-g/print
My goal is to make it easier, not harder, for everyone to join a conservative governing majority even if they are not 100% on board with every plank.
There’s always been a problem with any kind of “purity” test. Who is to decide what pure or impure is? Do you get to define the set of issues or do I?
I do however support those in the RNC who are currently asking for a declaration called:
The bottom line is that to get our conservative majority we are going to have to win elections. And I don’t believe we have to sell out our principles to succeed. But if we expect that all candidates in every state or district are going to behave to some arbitrary standard then we will lose.
@Mike
Other than the last one, do you see anything about adherence to the principals of the Constitution in that list?
Will this list be valid in 2016? No.
These are populist in-nature. While I hope and pray for all Repubs to adhere to that list, what we need is a return to the principals. If we do that, the list comes naturally, without specification.
IMO, using Reagan’s name in place of what Reagan stood for seems desperate to me. I’ve been to a bunch of Tea-party, and “partyish” meetings now, and I can assure you, the time for that sort of list, and name-dropping has long past. These people want a return to what defined our country, not a return to any particular president, no matter how beloved. The cynicism is too high out here…
But it is a start. It just better not be the finish, because the Constitution will always be valid, no matter what or who or when the situation calls on it. Reagan knew that, and THAT’S what gave Reagan his appeal, not any list of specific grievances against the incumbent party.
Hell if the Dems believed in the principals of the Constitution…Oh wait. Then they wouldn’t be Dems. To them it’s “inherently flawed”…nevermind.
(ps pls clear spam)
@Patvann: Does this mean you reject the use of the declaration if it doesn’t include a specific about the Constitution? See, this is the problem I have been trying to get at. Folks will dump on whatever good moves the party makes because they left out X,Y or Z.
Yeah, it would be great if we had a list of 20 or 30 points but that might get ridiculous. And we’d still have some guy out there saying he won’t support the party because they didn’t mention the plight of Ukrainian coal miners.
Speaking of the Constitution, Glenn Beck has a segment on that today too:
Hungry, cold, and covered in coal dust. Ukranian coal miners wonder whether they will see tomorrow. Even if they do, there’s no gurantee they will have the sustenance needed to carry out their brutal 36 hour shift. For just $1 a day you too can feed a Ukranian coal miner…
@Mike
Absolutely not. That’s why I said that this is a good start, and that I hope and pray that they adhere to it.
I think very strongly that if they adhere to it, they will get many people to vote for them. I will be one of those people.
My point is at a higher level, and what to aim for to STAY on top, and stay doing what’s good for the country in future election. To stay a party folks can always count on. It’s all about the framing of the issue at hand.
In that light, lets take one of the items on that list, but re-state it within the framework of the Constitution: (number 4)
“In the same way article 1, section 6 of the Constitution forbids the questioning of a voter, we the Republican party will ALWAYS fight against any attempt to force workers to disclose the intent of their vote, be it to government or to a Union.”
It need not be that obvious, nor blatant, and there might even be some pertinent items that don’t have a clean match-up. It there is ZERO match-up, then the Party might want to re-consider their own position. Like the overt support of the defense of marriage act. In these cases, don’t put it on any list or platform at all, simply push it back to the states.
(number 8 )
It is the position of the Republican party, that as the representatives of the republican-system of this great country, the Rights of the States supersedes the powers of the federal government if not specifically enumerated. Because marriage-licensing is not under the perview of the federal government, we hold that this decision should be reserved for the states. If the Republican members within those states choose gay marriage for themselves, we will support it. Likewise should they reject it, we will defend that rejection with the same vigor.
You and I both know that gay marriage is ALWAYS rejected when put to a popular vote, so we have nothing to lose, and everything to gain by taking this stance. 2% of the population will never run over the other 98%, even if a lot of those 98% support the 2%.
But in the meantime, before my little version of nirvanna is realised, I will support the list as published, hoping that future steps are taken to re-focus our government (and my Party) back to what our government (and Party) is supposed to be…although the Reagan bit is still kinda weak.
The Soul of the Republican Party, Part II by Kevin Portteus in Human Events:
@John Cooper
The secondary questions are:
1. How did that portion of the population become indifferent?
2. How does one turn that paradigm around?
The answer to both of these questions is one word:
Education.
The left took over the school system, by first taking over the colleges and universities in the 70′s. They then created the “new and improved” teachers.
Those teachers then took over the primary and secondary schools, and proceeded to impart the anti-American/West/Judeo-Christian, and the pro-communist/gay/green/moral-equivalence precepts.
Thus, we now have drones with brains of mush. 30 years worth in fact, and they grow more in number with each graduating class.
Make some time to review EXACTLY what the National Education Association views as “essential” to our children’s “education”. I warn you…You will be sick to your stomach, and you will find NOTHING having to do with the “3 R’s+science”.
http://www.eagleforum.org/educate/2005/aug05/resolutions.html
We MUST take our school system back in order to fix the very real problem you quoted.
@Patvann: Unfortunately, when you are trying to present a document to the public which you expect them to read, brevity is the only way to go about it. Your additions would make the thing too long.
@John Cooper: Thanks for that addition to the reading list. Lots of good stuff coming up in this discussion.
It’s that balancing act which is so very difficult. As we’ve seen in the discussion here there are some on our side who say “damn you all to hell” if we don’t go their way 100%. And yet, if we water down our principles too much, what’s the point?
The biggest problem from my point of view is one which our country has faced since before the Revolutionary war. Then, one third wanted to break from England. One third did not and one third didn’t really care. It’s the same today. A little more than one third of us are conservatives (but may not all agree on what that means) one third are moderates or Independents who don’t really pay much attention to political issues and one third are libs and Dems who will oppose us on everything.
Meanwhile, I’m gratified by the response in the poll on this post. That 3 to 1 margin expressing satisfaction with the job the GOP senate is doing is holding.
@Mike
Unfortunately, you are correct. Which is why our Founders warned us over and over again about having (and keeping) an educated and involved population, and why the Left fights so hard to do the opposite.
(This thread more than makes up for the “Ian/sock-puppet” fiasco.
)
Mike–
Thank YOU for the great discussion. We’ll have to wait and see how gratified you are with the poll results when this bill passes as it seems on the verge of doing as we speak. You’ve probably heard that Lieberman has caved and Nelson of NE had been threatened with the loss of all military bases in his State. From RedState:
See, the Republicans have been played like a cheap fiddle this entire time. The Democrat leadership cynically introduces some amendment which supposedly “divides” them, never intending to actually pass it. Then they make a big deal of “compromising” by pulling the amendment to bring the “renegades” back into the fold. Meanwhile, the heart of the bill – socialized medicine – is still there and moving forward.
I’m afraid that the Republicans just have no clue regarding how badly they are being fooled. They are making some pretty good speeches, though.
Edit: Say, has anyone noticed who was standing next to Joe Lieberman during his press conference this afternoon? That’s right, Susan Collins. There’s no doubt in my mind that both she and Sen. Olympia Snowe will be stabbing the Republicans in the back on this bill. (As always, I hope I’m wrong.)
@John Cooper: I’ve said repeatedly that I thought Dems would pull the public option at the last minute and declare victory as they roll on to take over our health care.
This bill sucks without a public option or medicare expansion as much as it sucks with one.
But I disagree that our GOP friends are being fooled. They know this sucks too (well maybe not Susan Collins).
The question is: what could they do to stop it that they haven’t already done THAT WOULD WORK?
I’ve asked this about a dozen times on various discussions on this matter and I’ve yet to get an answer.
Every one of the tactics in Redstate’s “Fight” post are delaying tactics at best. The GOP can’t stop anything.
There are still a few cards to play here and it will be interesting to see what happens.
Now, the big question I have is whether that 25% who express dissatisfaction with the Senate GOP effort are going to once again sit on the sidelines as some did in 2006 and 2008 and make it possible for the Dems to fend off the GOP challenge in 2010?
[I do realize that a portion of that 25% are actually Obamatons who just hate the GOP, so the real % of conservatives in that sample is actually much lower]
@Mike
Is the poll reflecting only viewer to this site? if so, the portion of Obamatons is going to be VERY low..No matter there….
You should also remember the emotional-level vote-ratio, because this poll matters nothing in the real world, and it’s also asking a very different question than; “Will you vote next Nov?”
To answer the “big” question, it was estimated that fully 30% of Repubs stayed home in 06 and close to 40 in 08. So guaging the level of outrage at the Dems now, the turnout for Repubs will be huge….even guys like Mr. Cooper are going to go vote, because the rest of the ballot has taken a new importance as well. Even if he doesn’t there will be more than enough to make up for him. The polls now show we get back the House by one member, and those are bound to get even better in 9 months.
So back to the even bigger question…Is there anything at all the repubs can do?
@Patvann: You have a link for those stay at home numbers?
The poll is also posted at Mike’s America which is a much less loony lib friendly site than Flopping Aces. I keep one or two moonbats in a cage and only let them out on weekends. You’d be surprised how many libs there are visiting F.A.
P.S. You’re using that “repubs” lingo…. hmmmm….
patvann;
good posts, but for future reference, if you’re going to focus on a word, and italicize it, make sure you’ve got the right one!
principals = people, e.g. the Founders.
principles = ideas, e.g. the content of the Constitution.
FYI.
@Mike
I remembered the numbers from media reports. (Meaning: Big chance they are wrong)
So I looked again:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_(United_States)
55,000,000 million Repubs in 2004
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_elections,_2006
26,5000,000 Repubs voted nationally = 48% voted 52% stayed home
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/11/06/report-08-turnout-same-or-only-slightly-higher-than-04/
28% voted…But that number sounds too low to me, and I can’t find any absolutes yet.
What’s wrong with using “Repub”? Short-cut doncha know! (Better than “Cons”ain’t it?)
@Brian
)
Thank you. Feel free to add!
(You should use more capitol letters
@Brian
)
Thank you. Feel free to add!
(You should use more capitol letters
Sorry, I don’t caspitulate to ridicule! ;p
@Brian
LOL!
Hay… at leased eye used reel words, knot sum maid up won!
@Patvann: I’m not buying any of those numbers. There’s no way 52% stayed home. I have no idea what they are basing it on and considering that it’s Wikipedia I’m not even going to try.
And yes, “cons” and “repubs” is about the same thing.
@Brian H: Not so simple, guy. If we’re going to play the grammar game, you’ll have to broaden your definitions to the mutiple uses. As Merriam-Webster says, “principal” can be both a noun or an adjective…. therefore “principals” does not solely refer to people.
Will agree that Patvann’s usage of such was meant as a noun, but didn’t want you to mislead by oversimplifying our English language.
Mike’sA, you are ever the optimist and, judging by your Christmas fun post, don’t have a bah humbug bone in your body. LOL But “masterful”? Too benevolent and too high of praise, IMHO.
I think you shortchange the financial news press who did a lot of digging prior to Congressional mouthpieces coming out with talking points. And the CBO didn’t hurt either. I’ll give them credit for standing some ground, but the game isn’t over yet. I’ve yet to see a vote, and if they show any “compromise” throughout the process. i.e. some have teetered if there was an anti-abortion clause. Others if the public option disappeared. Take those two items out and it’s still an expensive pile of manure that will sink the US economy for decades to come, while never addressing the cost of medical services.
If one considers the House bill passage, there was one GOP defector, but credit must also be given to the 39 Dems who bucked their own party.
Point is, this whole notion of confusing financial reform with health care restructuring is a can of worms that was likely to be opened because of the enormity… both in legal doublespeak over a thousand pages long, and for the fiscal impacts. So I’m not as quick to be shocked and awed by the GOP merely because they are smart enough to say no.
I would, however, been far more impressed had they gotten a cogent alternative out to the public in the form of a bill instead of just piece meal talking points that grew over time. Having an alternative plan, even possibly for the CBO to analyze, in the form of proposed legislation that was posted for the public to read would have been the cat’s meow for “masterful”. However if they stick to talking points and generalities instead of constructing legislative language (even in their own back room meetings…), they remain at risk of simply being labeled “the party of no”.
For now, I’ll take any body that throws themself in front of the train wreck. But a smart body would be holding up the bill behind door number two that actually addresses the cost of medical services.
@Mata
Behind door number two was HR3218. But a day or two later the Dems came out with yet another giant version. Because the major-media never bothered covering it, and the ensuing maelstrom that occurred on talk-radio over the Dem monstrosity, it died a lonely, undeserving death
That, and Republicans suck at marketing.
http://usconservatives.about.com/b/2009/08/12/the-republican-health-care-reform-plan-hr-3218.htm
Sorry, Mata, UR mistooked.
If you read more carefully, you will notice that I specified “principals” and “principles”, since those could only be noun plurals, and therefore my concise definitions are accurate (as I was principally concerned with communicating the principles that distinguished them.) 8-P
@ Mike’s America wrote:
Well that’s the question, isn’t it? What would work? Being in the minority, the only option they have is to delay the bill by any means until the American people take the time to learn what’s in it and pressure those on the other side. That seems to be happening, so I say “Keep doing it, only harder”. The other option is to create FUD among the democrats. That seems to be working, too. As I said previously, if it was the republican plan all along to “play nice” while tossing shoes in the works, then I applaud them. We will know very soon.
Oh, and if you were implying that I’m a liberal troll, I take offense at that. I may be wrong on this issue, but I’m probably more a lot conservative than you are.
The Dem’s will give up everything for a Healthcare Bill. They now they are cornered, and will fight even themselves to get SOMETHING to pass. They don’t even care if they lose every future election, as long as they can fulfill not only Obama’s dream, but Roosevelt’s.
We must therefore look at their motives the same way we look at the Taliban’s motives. They have this same sort of Kamikaze outlook in several areas that we MUST not give ANY quarter, because even the smallest incarnation will transform this country into what it was never meant to be.
Healthcare
CO2/Cap n Trade
And next up:
Unfettered immigration.
@MataHarley: You’re not suggesting the GOP doesn’t have any alternative health care reforms to offer? How many are there? A dozen?
@John Cooper: You would have every right to be offended if I implied you are a liberal troll. I’m sorry if the last sentence in my comment #47 wasn’t clear. But I am sure you can agree that there are likely to be a number of lib trolls out there who would vote dissatisfied.
Frankly, I didn’t know whether you had voted dissatisfied but I am guessing now that you did?
Anyway, The whole thing seems to be a bit of a holding pattern this morning. I don’t hear any new hints that Dems have their solid 60 votes or that there are any new roadblocks to them getting to 60 so they may be on track.
The question now is whether Mitch McConnell will use the few delaying tactics he has available to keep this thing from getting voted on before Christmas or not. I’d be in favor of him doing so, but he may realize that the bill’s passage is inevitable and that such tactics will only invite harsher criticism than the faint praise he would get from some on our side for doing it.
I always liked Jim DeMint’s request that the bill be read and was disappointed that he withdrew it. Especially since no one has actually seen the latest bill it would be valid request.
But in the end, if Dems have the votes it won’t matter what the GOP does. Slowing it down until after Christmas would make me feel better but wouldn’t alter the outcome.
I guess the next big question is: should the GOP try and placate that fraction of conservatives who seem never to be happy no matter what or should they try and continue winning the moderates and independents?
No, Mike. I’m not suggesting the GOP doesn’t have ideas. What I’m suggesting is that at no time did the GOP put all their ideas for cost reform and expanded coverage into one bill… as the Dems have done in both chambers.
As @Patvann pointed out, the only effort I saw was HR 3218 back in July, which was introduced and sent on to the Ways and Means committee. It’s now December, and what have they done since – even with increasing public opinion on their side?
That particular bill was woefully incomplete as a solution, only addressing tax credits for your insurance premiums, expanding the amount of individual groups that can be created allowing members to tap into “group” insurance rates that do not allow for denial because of pre’existing conditions by law, and sending on some matching federal funds to the states for high risk pools.
These are three good ideas, but in and of itself, is not a complete picture of reform that would even put a dent in lower costs as a stand alone bill.
What of tort reform to cut both physicians and providers overhead? The ability to opt out of Medicare without losing your SS benefits? How about doing more to equalize the Medicare payments so the privately insured aren’t picking up the slack with higher premiums? Streamlining the bureaucratic red tape that adds to providers costs? Creating tiered health plans that accommodate different levels of coverage from the regular preventive care paid out of a tax credit medical account, a second midline tier which is care for accidents, broken bones, etc, and catastrophic care for the long term illnesses? Then there’s the ability to negotiate pricing for drugs, equipment, etc… providing tax incentives for facilities that purchase and offer state of the art equipment.
And since the states can mandate their own “extras”, each insurance provider can provide state specific riders… all portable interstate… so that everyone can package the basic tiers they want from national competition, and supplement with the state rider.
What I am suggesting is that if the Dems have tome Exhibit A that essentially restructures our health care while doing nothing to curb costs; and if the GOP present a lesser tome as Exhibit B with all their ideas into one single bill; then we joe blow citizens could read both bills and see exactly the ideas each party was presenting as a way to stem rising medical costs which drives up premiums…. the single issue which everyone can agree upon.
To my knowledge, there has been no such complete reform bill out of the GOP. Thus I’ll have to give them a C+ myself. LOL
Now I know they are the minority party, and their complete bill would not be given a shot in the current Congressional. However it would surely end the debate of being “the party of no”, and the bills would be posted on all legislative sites such as Thomas, GovTrack etc for transparency. It would also be interesting to see the complete ideas as contrasted thru CBO accounting. Then the American citizens could lobby and voice their opinion on what they want more intelligently… restructure, or genuine cost reform.
@Brian H… LOL! Yes, as I said, you were correct as far as Patvann’s particular usage as a noun. However I did want to point out why our language is so complex for many as their second language…. as the use of principal(s) as an adjective was completely different than it’s use as a noun. I did not disagree with you, I expanded on it’s use… ala the principal (adjective) ingredient does not refer to a person. Didn’t want people to walk away and assume that principal was only in reference to humans.
Then of course, there is the their-there-they’re syndrome. Then-than options. The nuances go on and on. It’s a very difficult language for most to learn, and yet most developed nations’ are relatively versed in it’s use as a second language in their countries. And probably the universal finance language used.
Now to return to our originally scheduled topic…. how “masterful” the Senate GOP is in “derailing”.
Mike’s America:
“I guess the next big question is: should the GOP try and placate that fraction of conservatives who seem never to be happy no matter what or should they try and continue winning the moderates and independents?”
Right now the Anti-Socialist Party needs All the Friends that they can get and needs to purge their ranks of Socialist leaning GOP members by supporting candidates to replace them, ie: Snowe and a few others that are neither fiscally conservative or represent traditional values. Both Fiscal and Social conservatives are needed.
Pingback: Senate GOP Forces Reading of 767 Page Amendment Stalling Health Bill
@Old Trooper: A purge would only make it that much harder to win back control of either House.
Look at the lessons from Reagan above for more on that subject.
Snowe may end up voting for some version of health care. But right now, she’s one vote that is preventing the Dems from taking this monstrosity to final passage with a majority vote. Would you throw that away?
@MataHarley: Should they really put all that effort into a bill that will go nowhere? I’d rather have them spend their time doing something more productive.
But I will be happy to support your candidacy for U.S. Senate in 2010!
Yes, absolutely they should. Doing so would be *very* productive for them politically, and for the nation at large. It’s a formal presentation of a complete reform idea that cannot escape attention with it’s prominent display on the websites that track government bills. A complete alternative bill would be picked up by media and blogs alike.
And it’s sure a fur piece more productive than simply pointing out the flaws in restructuring the health care system. It’s the “don’t present the problem without including the solution” syndrome.
I would be happy to have your Senate vote, but Gore’s global warming would never allow for a hard core conservative, such as I, to be elected in Oregon. (i.e. that hell freezes over bit first… LOL) Then again, I have a feeling that the Pelosi and Reids would be spending a great deal of time trying to dig up dirt on me to silence any pittance of influence I may have in the chamber. Could keep ‘em busy and less able to cause trouble!
Yes, Mike, I voted “dissatisfied”, but I’m getting more satisfied by the moment:
Senate debate stalls as GOP forces reading from Politico:
I take this as a sign that the Republican leadership is finally coming around to my way of thinking, which is: This is a war for America itself and we should win by any means necessary.
Not only that, but I just heard a radio advertisement by Michael Steele which begins “The Democrats are accusing us Republicans of trying to delay and stonewall their government takeover of health care. You know what? They’re finally right..”
See and listen to the ad: Steele’s New Radio Ad: You’re Right, The GOP Is Trying To Stonewall Health Care Reform
@John Cooper: You and I are moving along parallel lines today. Check my newest post:
http://www.floppingaces.net/2009/12/16/senate-gop-forces-reading-of-767-page-amendment-stalling-health-bill/
@MataHarley: They have laid out alternatives. Doing even more work on that lost cause is pointless.
You mean you don’t want to run in Oregon? Oh come on… surely all our conservative friends will come and help you win.
Republicans need to start being more pro-active. We know what the major issues are, and we know pretty much which issues the Democrats are going to be pushing in the near future. We need conservative leadership that will get to work on creating bills that will address these issues before the Democrats introduce their versions. Republicans elucidated various proposals on how health-car can be reformed utilizing market forces yet where is the bill. I’m not sure to this day if they’ve actually authored and submitted a bill and the Democrats have utilized this inaction to bludgeon the Republicans as a “do nothing” obstructionist party.
Put it in writing:
Job growth proposals
Immigration reform – you know it’s coming and needed
Energy Independence – with a focus on energy not climate
Maybe they could write a bill that requires congressmen/women to pass a written exam on the meaning of the Constitution before they could be appointed to any committee.
oops…. there I go again… “laws I’d like to see”
and the list goes on….
We don’t necessarily need such legislation introduced right away but we should have well developed and well thought out bills ready for introduction when the time is appropriate. What we don’t need is to try to ammend our way out of bad bills introduced by the Democrats.
We need to lead not react.
My point exactly to your reproduced paragraph one, Donald. Talking points never hit home the same way proposed legislation does. Nor can CBO analyze talking points. If the GOP ideas are cost savers, an introduced bill is the only way to substantiate that claim. So my only difference with your similar comment is that I *would* like the bills introduced right away instead of stalling and naysaying. Put the talking points where the mouth is.
And most certainly amending a pile of manure never disguises the reality that it remains a pile of manure. Thus why I’m not shock and awed yet…. The game’s not over, and I wonder just how many RINOs will cave to the amendment enticement.
Mata;
Challenge: construct a sentence in which “principals” or “principles” is an adjective.
Delaying tactics: after Xmas, candidates’/Senators’/Representatives’ thoughts turn exponentially more towards campaigning and cashing in on the incumbent advantage as time passes, and with the polls heading south in a massive flock, the odds of holding all the cats in the herd drop fast. I’d also expect the GOP Sens & Reps to get an earful over the holidays about sticking to their guns, and making sallies into enemy territory to inflict casualties.
About a GOP ‘package’: I’m not sure it would be wise to lock in all the elements to each other. A core GOP message is/has been that taking it slow, instituting individual changes and seeing how they go, etc., is both workable and much safer. I think that position has traction.
@MataHarley
I agree that some of the issues need the legislation introduced right away. Other issues that are not yet high on the list of priorities should still have bills in the works for when the time is appropriate for their introduction.
Good grief, Brian… it’s quite clear from the Merriam-Webster definition I replicated in the comment above …. ala “The principal ingredient in my grandmother’s apple pie is Mackintosh apples”. “The principal metropolitan area in Oregon is Salem”.
Principal is an the adjective to ingredient and metropolitan, and Mackintosh is the adjective to apples. Or, in grammar’speak, it modifies or defines the noun as distinct. Neither sentence using “principal” refer to a “person”. The point was not to confuse further the choice between the two… aka “principal” is only in reference to a person.
Principal can also be used as a noun. ala “The school principal choose to ban Christmas carols”. Or “The principals who founded the principles written into the Constitution are called the Founding Fathers”.
“Principle”, however, does not have dual use as noun/adjective… merely a noun. Thus the reason I said you were correct in that Patvann was using the incorrect version of principle v principal as a noun.
Is this bugging you? LOL Most of us type and pay little attention to spelling and grammar. We’re more interested in getting our point across, and staying somewhat on topic. But when someone feels the need to “grade” a comment, it’s always interesting to add the twist generally found in the English language with our multiple useages of words. It’s a complex language.
I believe the point I was trying to make, perhaps unsuccessfully, is not that an entire bill would be introduced, sail thru committee and be voted on in the chambers, Donald. Merely that packaging the entire concept in a single bill for side by side comparison would be a valuable tool in assessing which method was optimum for reigning in medical costs and rising premiums.
Personally, I wouldn’t want an “all-in-one” bill since I prefer to do it in stages. However the whole GOP enchilada with specifics is sorely needed for scrutiny at this point.
Brian
RE: Challenge
Not with that “s” still hanging on the back of the root-words, she’s not.
I took it from her elucidation that it was the root: “principal”, that can be both a noun, as you singularly pointed out to me, as well as an adjective, which she pointed out you.
Additionally, both word-roots can assume either form.
E.G.:
“He took a principled position with the principal players.”
“The principle behind the difference you see, is the removal of principal from the loan-amount.”
(Vee are zee grammar gestapo, und vee haff vays of taking over zee commentz)
LOL Patvann. And here I thought you couldn’t top your earlier comment…
Lighten up on the grammar critique, and pay attention to the content, Brian. :0)
@Mata
12 years of Catholic schools, and PHd in advanced smart-ass, baby! (Howz B-Rob?)
Muhahahaha!!!:-)
But grammar is such fun!
Mata;
You are being deliberately obfuscatory! My point was that I PURPOSEFULLY used the plural forms, as they can ONLY be nouns. My challenge was for you to attempt to use plurals as adjectives: I note that you avoid the issue entirely.
______
Patvann;
Ya, ya, that’s all obvious. Could have (and should have) gone without saying.
And what do you have against neologistical innovation?
___________
As for the GOP, I take it (from Steele’s interview, etc.) that they are “picking their shots”, and dragging things out with tactics just short of those that would trigger “reconciliation” nuke options. The battle for public image and respect is often at odds with effective legislative tactics, of course. Which brings up a point: the longer this goes on, the more glimpses the public gets of the Democrat sausage machine in operation, and the worse it looks and smells.
So the GOP is walking a line between precipitating an all-out voting war, which they are undermanned to win, and just nibbling on the edges. The longer it goes on, the heavier the artillery they can bring to bear, and the worse the Dem logistics and battle-lines look. To switch back to the other analogy, throwing gravel in the sausage-machine’s gears.
naw… didn’t avoid the issue, Brian. Just mistook your attempt at subtle obfuscating entrapment using pluralities for a more obsessive focus on libidinal energies involving your posterior. Patvann, however, caught your drift. LOL
Now you do know that Mikie’s about to step in as thread nanny in 3….2………..
HI MIKE!
PubbiesRepublicans sure are kickin butt!!@MataHarley: Did someone call me? I’m too busy keeping an eye on Patvann!
He’s busy testing the thread nanny knocking at both the back and front doors simultaneously…. you may have to work overtime. heh
HE STARTED IT!!!
Yeah… that’s because mom always like you *best*!
Depends what “it” means …
seriously off track now… I expect Ian to show up any second and tell us how nasty we are.
He’s looking over here…
Quick, hide behind this:
(don’t let him see the author)
*thick Russian accent*
“Bah! Ian an diss Rob! I smeshed dem like bugs wiss ClueBat of Doom!”
Oi!
Pingback: Will the Senate be working over Christmas recess?