House Fails To Overide SCHIP Veto & A Democrat Goes Stark Raving Mad


What an embarrassment of a man, let alone a politician:

This idiots tirade was to try to cajole Republicans to overturn the President’s veto of the SCHIP expansion which would give taxpayers funds to those making up to 83 grand a year.  I think this idiot doesn’t understand the word diplomacy huh?

Michelle Malkin notes some recent idiocy from Rep Stark in the past:

Rep. Fortney “Pete” Stark (D-Calif.) is the foul-mouthed poster boy for Liberal Double Standards.

There he was on Capitol Hill last week, sounding more like Eminem than an eminent lawmaker, hurling epithets such as “fruitcake” and “c–ks—r” at Republicans during a mark-up session on pension funds legislation of all things.

Most of the mainstream media coverage of the fracas has focused on the handling of the meeting by House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Bill Thomas , who is accused by Democrats of summoning Capitol Hill police to the scene in order to prevent them from meeting in a committee library to discuss procedural objections.

But while Beltway types squabble about whether Thomas was technically out of order, Stark’s blatantly thuggish behavior has once again gotten a pass from the establishment Left.

According to an official committee transcript, Stark physically taunted fellow Ways and Means Committee member Scott McInnis (R-Colorado) while Thomas attempted to hold a voice vote on the bill at hand. In response to McInnis’ demand that Thomas be quiet while the bill was being read, Stark blurted out: “[O]h, you think you are big enough to make me, you little wimp? Come on. Come over here and make me. I dare you.”

Further goading McInnis, a married Republican gentleman, Stark lashed out: “You little fruitcake. You little fruitcake. I said you are a fruitcake.” According to Fox News Channel, witnesses say Stark then hurled a 10-letter homophobic insult at Thomas better suited for an anti-gay rap records than the Congressional Record. Stark’s press office refused to answer my questions on the record about these remarks…

She then reminds us of his phone call to an enlisted man just returned from Kosovo in which he blew up on him when he dared to write him a letter critical of his job performance:

Stark stooped to name-calling, chastising his constituent as an
idiot: “Probably somebody put you up to this, and I’m not sure who it
was, but I doubt if you could spell half the words in the letter and
somebody wrote it for you. So I don’t pay too much attention to it.”

Near the middle of his rambling message, the Congressman promised
Dow, “But I’ll call you back later.” Why? Stark explained, “[To] let
you tell me why you think you’re such a great, god-damned hero.” (Stark
did not call back.)

House Republican Whip Roy Blunt had this to say in response to Starks lunacy:

“Pete Stark’s statements on the House floor this afternoon crossed
all lines of decency and decorum. As a member of Congress, he should be
ashamed. But as a senior member of the Ways and Means Committee — and
the current chairman of its Health subcommittee — the Democratic
leadership ought to be ashamed as well.

“To claim our men and women in Iraq are serving there for the
president’s own personal enjoyment — and worse, to suggest he’s
actually ‘amused’ by the image of soldiers being killed — represents a
crass appeal to the worst, most base elements of our population. It
dishonors the continued sacrifice of our troops in the field, and
disrespects their family and friends at home who pray for their safe
return. The Democratic leadership should denounce these comments
immediately, and Mr. Stark should apologize for making them as well.”

In the end, after all of his over the top comments the House failed to over-ride the veto, thankfully, and now maybe the Democrats will stop show boating and actually send a bill that will get signed this time.  They knew this thing would never become law.  Instead of actually getting something done they decided the better route would be to get some photo-ops with little kids telling the country that Republicans are meanies because we don’t see the need for a couple making 80 grand a year to get taxpayer help.


The Republicans have put up an alternative that actually makes sense, unlike the Democrats version:

Their alternative, based on a proposal crafted by the Heritage Foundation, consists of three elements:

1) A full reauthorization of SCHIP. The program would continue to cover children in families with incomes at or below 200% of the federal poverty level;

2) A child health care tax credit. Rather than
putting more people on a government-run program, the legislation
advances tax credits to families with incomes between 200% and 300% of
the poverty level; and

3) A health care “federalism” initiative. This
piece would complement both the reauthorization and the tax changes in
expanding health care coverage, and would encourage even more dramatic
health care experimentation at the state level with different
approaches to coverage expansion.

Democrats, including Speaker Nancy Pelosi, have supported the idea of a tax credit, and others, such as Sen. Jeff Bingaman ☼ (D-N.M.) and Rep. Tammy Baldwin ☼ (D-Wis.), have offered legislation supporting the “federalism” approach.

But will a common sense alternative be good enough for the Democrats? 


Great post at Redstate on Nancy Pelosi’s failure, once again:

The truly astounding part of all of this was how simply you could have
avoided it. As our own Bluey
adeptly noted, you were told, point-blank, by Rep. Deborah Price
that the Republicans that voted for this bill originally expected that people
would sit down and come up with something that addressed both sides of the
issue, not the petty political desires of your faction. We were well into the
“haggling over the price” phase of the legislation; you tried for $50 billion
extra and had already gone down to $35 billion, so let us not pretend that you
could not have gone down further. A compromise of $15 to $20 billion would have
easily kept the bill’s current supporters and sliced off enough opponents to
overturn the veto. Plus, you’d have given the President a stinging defeat on a
domestic policy. Plus, you’d have looked like the reasonable one in this

But you didn’t do any of that – you raised, we called, and you had garbage in
your hand.

This speaker will go down as one of the worst of the worst.  Way to go Nancy!

Other’s Blogging:

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Multiple Democrats today hit the talking points of casting the SCHIP debate as a guns v butter issue which has no valid logical connection.

It would make as much of a point to call it out for SCHIP v NASA funding.

Also they repeatedly brought up examples of those already qualified for the program to justify the expansion.

When they totally avoid discussion of the expansion on it’s merits it says volumes.

BTW that was Stark’s 3rd similar incident during the debate today, on the first time he was admonished by the chair on the quality of his remarks and after this one the Republicans called for a procedural ruling point of order and the chair ruled no harm no foul.

Expect the usual moral equivalence defense of Stark with another idiotic assertion that “both sides do it.”

But of course both sides don’t behave like raving idiots.

The House GOP leadership came out swinging hard on this latest affront to civility in the House. And of course I’m sure I’m not the only one who recalls that Pelosi promised civility as well as fiscal responsibility when she took over.

We also beat back the FISA fools who would reinstate rules which protect the civil liberties of terrorists but end up getting our troops killed.

Our leadership in both the House and Senate seem to have gotten the messsage that we expect them to FIGHT AND WIN!

Thanks for the link-back but that is not why I am here.

We in the New Media are in this together. Stark’s ranting verbiage, coupled with his comments later at the KOSmonoff blog is all indicative of deranged and unhinged walking individuals that represent a Clear and Present Danger to our future.

I watched the entire “debate” yesterday and as the fool was rambling on and on and on, not only did I find his references ton the military offensive, it hit me as “Rather” strange that the fool would make mention of someone’s shoes.

What the hell do shoes have to do with the “debate”?

Semi OT update (re: Stark):
Oh you just GOTTA love Blue on Blue

honestly, if this woman actually TRIED to tick off more people, she’d inevitably give an ego boost to polar opposites, and Congressional approvals would rise. You need to really WORK to tick off everyone while not giving a smile to the opposite end of the spectrum-oh wait, I’m smiling