Pelosi, House Democrats Re-Take All Americans Hostage, Deny Vote on Obama's Tax Compromise

The Democrats in the House won't even entertain the idea of passing Obama's tax compromise. It was strongly rejected by the Democrats in a House vote, today:

Defying President Obama, House Democrats voted Thursday not to bring up the tax package that he negotiated with Republicans in its current form.

"This message today is very simple: That in the form that it was negotiated, it is not acceptable to the House Democratic caucus. It's as simple as that," said Democratic Congressman Chris Van Hollen.

"We will continue to try and work with the White House and our Republican colleagues to try and make sure we do something right for the economy and right for jobs, and a balanced package as we go forward," he said.

The vote comes a day after Vice President Biden made clear to House Democrats behind closed doors that the deal would unravel if any changes were made.

"Wow did the [White House] mishandle this," a senior House Democratic Source told CNN. "Breathtaking. Members have major substantive concerns and they should have gently guided people to the finish line."

This has been mishandled very badly by the president. Why in the world did Obama not get the Democrats in a room and explain to them why this is a good deal for them and the country? Could he not set aside sometime to sit Pelosi and Reid down and convince them to back this deal? This whole left-wing revolt could have been avoided, if he would have made a little effort to do that.

It is also interesting that, after years of labeling the Republicans as the party of no and uncompromising their ideals to appease their base, it is now the Democrats that are taking this hardline stance to appease their hard-left base.

This will be a disaster for all, if some sort-of compromise isn't reached in time and everyone's taxes go up in January.

Heath Shuler to Symbolically Challenge Pelosi for House Minority Leader

Earlier today, Blue Dog Democrat, Heath Shuler (NC), has announced that he will challenge Nancy Pelosi, if she doesn't step aside and let someone else lead the House Democrats:

North Carolina Rep. Heath Shuler said Sunday he would challenge House Speaker Nancy Pelosi for the leadership of the Democratic minority in the next Congress although he acknowledged that he does not have the votes to win.

"We've just come off the largest ... loss for the Democratic Party in almost a century," Shuler said on CNN's State of the Union. "And to be able to put Speaker Pelosi as minority leader is truly ... unacceptable for our party."

"If she doesn't step aside then ... I'm going to press forward," he said. "I can add and subtract pretty well. I don't have the numbers to be able to win, but I think it's a proven point for moderates and the Democrat Party that we have to be a big tent. We have to be all-inclusive. We have to invite everyone into the party."

Considering that almost half of the blue dogs were voted out last week, the Congressional Democrats will become increasingly liberal than before. Therefore, he will definately be an uphill battle for him to win over Pelosi, unless the liberal Democrats wake up and realize that they need to change leaders, if they want to come back anytime soon. I'll set the odds at 100-1 that Democrats will wise up and move back to the center like they did in 1994.

Good News for Republicans: Pelosi Announces Her Desire to Become Minority Leader of House Democrats

Pelosi was being coy about it yesterday, but this really shouldn't a huge shocker to anyone. With the House Democratic Caucus being more liberal than before, there really isn't much shot that she'll be replaced with a more moderate Democrat:

WASHINGTON — Despite steep losses for her party in Tuesday’s elections, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California said on Friday that she would run to remain the leader of the House Democrats, even as some of her colleagues urged her to step down.

In a letter to her caucus, Ms. Pelosi, who engineered the Democratic takeover of the House in 2006 but became a favorite target of Republicans, said that many of the remaining House Democrats had encouraged her to try to stay on as the leader after the new Republican majority replaces her as speaker — an unusual move in light of the rebuke her party received at the polls.

“Based on those discussions, and driven by the urgency of protecting health care reform, Wall Street reform, and Social Security and Medicare, I have decided to run,” Ms. Pelosi wrote in her letter.

The announcement, made after days of deliberation by the speaker, was intended at least in part to stem a quickening revolt among more moderate and conservative House Democrats who wanted her to step aside. Several lawmakers went public with their opposition in recent days, and many others were expressing reservations privately.

But the party’s loss of 60 seats in the election — many of them held by moderates — has left the remaining Democratic caucus more liberal than before, giving her a good chance of retaining her position if she chooses.

Of course, since her approval ratings are so low, the Republicans are more than "jubilant" over the prospect of Pelosi reprising her role as the face of the Democratic party:

"Given that there are now 60-plus defeated Democrat House members urgently seeking jobs due to Nancy Pelosi’s failed leadership, we welcome her decision to run for House Minority Leader based on her proven ability to create jobs for Republican lawmakers," said National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) communications director Ken Spain.

New Finance Bill Would Create Offices of "Minority and Women Inclusion", Quota-Like Policies-600th Post

The new financial bill that is being mulled upon by the Senate has apparently has some Easter eggs for the left. It would create at least 20 Offices of Minority and Women Inclusion that would implement policies that sound suspiciously like quotas:

In addition to this bill’s well-publicized plans to establish over a dozen new financial regulatory offices, Section 342 sets up at least 20 Offices of Minority and Women Inclusion. This has had no coverage by the news media and has large implications.

The Treasury, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Federal Housing Finance Agency, the 12 Federal Reserve regional banks, the Board of Governors of the Fed, the National Credit Union Administration, the Comptroller of the Currency, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau…all would get their own Office of Minority and Women Inclusion.

Each office would have its own director and staff to develop policies promoting equal employment opportunities and racial, ethnic, and gender diversity of not just the agency’s workforce, but also the workforces of its contractors and sub-contractors.

What would be the mission of this new corps of Federal monitors? The Dodd-Frank bill sets it forth succinctly and simply – all too simply. The mission, it says, is to assure “to the maximum extent possible the fair inclusion” of women and minorities, individually and through businesses they own, in the activities of the agencies, including contracting….

Lest there be any narrow interpretation of Congress’s intent, either by agencies or eventually by the courts, the bill specifies that the “fair” employment test shall apply to “financial institutions, investment banking firms, mortgage banking firms, asset management firms, brokers, dealers, financial services entities, underwriters, accountants, investment consultants and providers of legal services.” That last would appear to rope in law firms working for financial entities.

Contracts are defined expansively as “all contracts for business and activities of an agency, at all levels, including contracts for the issuance or guarantee of any debt, equity, or security, the sale of assets, the management of the assets of the agency, the making of equity investments by the agency, and the implementation by the agency of programs to address economic recovery.”

This latest attempt by Congress to dictate what “fair” employment means is likely to encourage administrators and managers, in government and in the private sector, to hire women and minorities for the sake of appearances, even if some new hires are less qualified than other applicants. The result is likely to be redundant hiring and a wasteful expansion of payroll overhead.

The big question is: what is “fair” employment to these new departments, and how would you enforce such fairness? Does it mean that they just make sure that there is no discrimination or does it mean that their businesses should have a certain “ratio” that would be proportional reflection our society?

This bill will give the office an unprecedented ability to pressure CEOs and other people in leadership positions to terminate any contractor within a company, if they don’t like what they are seeing:

If the director decides that a contractor has not made a good-faith effort to include women and minorities in its workforce, he is required to contact the agency administrator and recommend that the contractor be terminated.

Yet again, the Democrats are trying to grow government bigger, and over step their authority.

Senate Democrats Refuse To A Waste Good Crisis: Move To Quintriple Offshore Oil Taxes

The BP oil spill in the Gulf has lead to a resurgence of anti-oil sentiments in the US. The "drill, baby, drill" chants have been completely forgotten by many people, after they saw helpless birds covered in oil on the news and in the papers over the last few weeks.

Now, this has been the pattern throughout our more recent history. When gas prices skyrocket, people want to drill until there is an accident. Then, people's desire for more oil will dwindle until gas prices go up, again.

We are currently in the swing away from drilling. A recent Rasmussen poll shows that support for offshore drilling has noticeably fallen, since the BP oil disaster.

The Democrats in the Senates have decided to take advantagetake advantage of the sudden shift in the public opinion on the subject:

Senate Democrats are moving to quintuple the tax that oil companies pay into an oil spill liability fund.

The move would raise $15 billion over the coming decade as Congress seeks to shore up the fund in the wake of the catastrophic spill in the Gulf of Mexico. But it's also being used to ease a tax hike passed by the House on investment fund managers.

The new legislation would raise the tax on oil produced offshore from 8 cents to 41 cents per barrel. That's nine cents higher than legislation that passed the House last month.

The tax changes are being made as the Senate again takes up grab-bag legislation extending unemployment benefits and a variety of expired tax breaks enjoyed by both individuals and businesses Senate Democrats are moving to quintuple the tax that oil companies pay into an oil spill liability fund.

The move would raise $15 billion over the coming decade as Congress seeks to shore up the fund in the wake of the catastrophic spill in the Gulf of Mexico. But it's also being used to ease a tax hike passed by the House on investment fund managers.

The new legislation would raise the tax on oil produced offshore from 8 cents to 41 cents per barrel. That's nine cents higher than legislation that passed the House last month.

The tax changes are being made as the Senate again takes up grab-bag legislation extending unemployment benefits and a variety of expired tax breaks enjoyed by both individuals and businesses

A rise in taxes in oil will ultimately cause gas prices to go up, again. This will further cripple the economy and prevent it from quickly recovering from this recession. If this is enacted, $4 gas may seem cheap compared to what is coming.

I'll concede that the massive cost for the Gulf clean-up should be shouldered by BP, but why should every other oil company and, ultimately every American, suffer for one company's incompetence. It's unrealistic to think that gas won't go up at all, as a result of the cost of the spill, but we don't have to make a bad situation even worse.

Arkansas: Bill Clinton Threw Unions Under the Bus While Campaigning For Lincoln

Welcome to the Twilight Zone:

Witness, if you will, Unions seem to have lost favor with some of the more high-profile Democrats. Bill Clinton even threw the unions under the bus in a stump speech for Blanche Lincoln that Lincoln turned into a campaign ad:

Here is an article from the Washington Post, it says “Some national unions made a decision a few months ago, that they wanted to make Senator Blanche Lincoln the quote “poster child” for what happens when a Democrat crosses them. This is about using you and manipulating your votes. If you want to be Arkansas’s advocate, vote for somebody who will fight for you. Vote for Blanche Lincoln.

According to Politico, this isn't just a case of a moderate Democrat trying to get elected in a red-state in a very Republican-friendly political climate. Democrats, such as Andrew Cuomo from New York, have joined in on the dog-pile of the unpopularity of the labor machine.

I believe that this started brewing ever since the near-collapse of the car industry in Detroit. Polls after the bailout of Detroit showed that almost around half of Americans blamed the unions, a close second to the corporate executives of the flailing companies. Many people have begun to see the unions for what they truly are: a parasite on that is slowly sapping the vitality out of our economy.

We Aren't Spending Enough: House Raises Deficit Spending Ceiling By Another $1.9 Trillion, Receives No GOP Support/Update: Democrats Applaud

One week after Obama declared a "spending freeze" on "non-security discretionary spending", the House has voted to spend $1.9 Trillion morethan we have ever spent before:

The House on Thursday voted to allow the government to go $1.9 trillion deeper in debt — or about $6,000 more for every U.S. resident.

The measure, approved 217-212, would raise the cap on federal borrowing to $14.3 trillion. That's enough to keep Congress from having to vote again before the November elections on an issue that is feeding a sense among voters that the government is spending too much and putting future generations under a mountain of debt to do it.

The legislation only passed by 5 votes. After you take into account that not one Republican voted for the bill, Pelosi would have had keep her fellow Democrats in line and not have too many defections in order to pass it. She barely managed to get just enough. However, not all Democrats were amused by this passing:

"I can't think of a more reckless or irresponsible act. Defaulting is not an option," said Rep. Jim McGovern, D-Mass. "If the United States defaults, investors will lose confidence that the U.S. will honor its debts in the future.

There had to be a provision added to the bill in order to get just enough Democrats on board to pass the bill. However, it seems to be punishing the wrong people, if Congress overspends the ceiling, the American people:

To help win passage, Democrats are also adopting — in a vote later Thursday afternoon — budget rules designed to curb a spiraling upward annual deficit — projected by Obama to hit a record $1.56 trillion for the budget year ending Sept. 30. The new rules would require future spending increases or tax cuts to be paid for with either cuts to other programs or equivalent tax increases.

If the rules are broken, the White House budget office would force automatic cuts to programs like Medicare, farm subsidies and unemployment insurance. Current rules lack such teeth and have commonly been waived over the past few years at a cost of almost $1 trillion.

So, if you are a farmer, a senior citizen, or unemployed, screw you. They're going to steal your money and spend it on whatever they want to spend it on. Congress can spend your money better than you can. To be fair, Medicaid, Social Security and food stamps will be exempt from the cuts, but the cuts that would be made would hurt those who are hurting from the bad economy the most. They should find somewhere else to cut spending.

The article goes on to point out that, in a few years, taxes would have to be raised in order to pay for this spending frenzy.

This spending orgy is getting way out-of-line. We need to be spending less on frivlous pet projects not spending more.

Update: The Democrats applaud getting the ability to spend more of your children's money:

Dem: They Told Us Not to Call It Stimulus, Although That's What It Is-Porkulus Lite

A California Democrat was caught on tape during a telephone town hall admitting what conservatives already knew and have been saying for months. The proposed "Jobs Bill" is actually just another mini-stimulus bill. Audio here:

Honest leadership … open government … and the Tooth Fairy.  Breitbart and Naked Emperor News catches Rep. Brad Sherman (D-CA) telling his constituents in a telephonic town hall meeting that the new stimulus bill Democrats will promote in coming weeks is “pretty much similar” to Porkulus, just smaller in scale — which isn’t exactly news, since even Democratic leadership isn’t foolish enough to think they can get another $787 billion after getting nothing more than the loss of 3.4 million jobs from the first one.  In an Orwellian admission, Sherman tells listeners that he’s been told not to call it a stimulus bill, but a “jobs bill,” even though he also admits that the jobs won’t come for years later...

“I’ve been pushing for aid to state and local governments.  First, because my own state is having such severe problems.  And second, from a macroeconomic standpoint, we’re trying to have jobs now, and construction projects, for example — they talk about them being shovel ready, but even if you’re ready to start building a bridge now, a big chunk of that work is going to be done in 2013, 2014.”

Considering that not even half of the money allocated in the first stimulus bill hasn't even been spent, yet. Why must we already pass another one? Shouldn't we spend that money first? This the Democrats in Congress trying to look busy, in order to claim that they are doing something, anything to help create jobs.

The sad fact is that Congress can do very little to stimulate the economy, and what they can do, cut taxes, they aren't doing. A spending spree will not do any long-lasting good. It may create a few government jobs, but it won't create nearly enough private sector jobs to justify the massive expenditure.

Democrats in SEC Overstep Their Authority Forcing Companies to Post Global Warming Risks

They are at it, again. This time it is the Democrats of the SEC that are trying to over reach in the name of global warming:

A politically divided Securities and Exchange Commission voted on Wednesday to make clear when companies must provide information to investors about the business risks associated with climate change.

The commission, in a 3 to 2 vote, decided to require that companies disclose in their public filings the impact of climate change on their businesses — from new regulations or legislation they may face domestically or abroad to potential changes in economic trends or physical risks to a company.

Chairman Mary L. Schapiro and the two Democrats on the commission supported the new requirements, while the two Republicans vehemently opposed them.

“I can only conclude that the purpose of this release is to place the imprimatur of the commission on the agenda of the social and environmental policy lobby, an agenda that falls outside of our expertise and beyond our fundamental mission of investor protection,” Republican commissioner Kathleen L. Casey said.

Ed Morrissey of Hot Air analyzes this new development perfectly in his post:

Clearly, Casey correctly diagnoses the Democrats’ intentions on this point.  They want to highlight the potential damage that some corporations do through carbon emissions, while highlighting the benefits from others who play along on AGW.  Putting this in the jurisdiction of the SEC is a two-fer for the Obama administration — they can claim regulatory gains on both AGW and Wall Street.

But this may hold the potential for enormous backfire.  With the cap-and-trade legislation still on the docket, all of these corporations will have to forecast for higher energy prices, more restrictive manufacturing and service standards, and the costs of retrofitting.  The Obama administration and Democrats in Congress have consistently and drastically underestimated the impact of their bills on the private sector.  Now, by forcing companies to analyze the impact of their environmental agendas on their bottom lines, the American public can get a much clearer and much less optimistic take on cap-and-trade and carbon-tax regulations.  Because those reports will be part of the public record, analysts can compile a daunting picture of the burdens the Democratic agenda will create on private business and economic growth.

This effort still should have been killed as a ridiculous overreach on regulation.  Now that the SEC has forced the matter, their Democratic allies will shortly have reason to regret it.

The SEC is supposed to regulate and police Wall Street not carbon emissions. That is the job of Congress to pass bills like that. All this does is set up the corporations that use carbon-based energy to be demonized by the left and will attempt to shame them into turn to less efficient means of energy production, which will in turn raise energy prices, anyway. The Democrats are trying to sneak cap-and-trade through the back door. It should not go unnoticed by the American people.

Democrats: Forget Blaming Bush Just Call All Conservatives Whackjobs Etc, That'll Win Us Elections

After Coakley crashed and burned using the time-honored tradition of the Democrats campaigning against Bush, it seems that Democrats have seen the light and won't be using the "blame Bush" campaign platform, at least not as much:

“Given the pressure Republican candidates feel from the extreme right in their party, there is a critical – yet time-sensitive –opportunity for Democratic candidates,” a DSCC memo, obtained by CNN, states. “We have a finite window when Republicans candidates will feel susceptible to the extremists in their party. Given the urgent nature of this dynamic, we suggest an aggressive effort to get your opponents on the record.”

Specifically, the DSCC wants Democratic candidates to pin down their likely opponents on several hot-button issues, including:

- Do you believe that Barack Obama is a U.S.citizen?

- Do you think the Tenth Amendment bars Congress from issuing regulations like minimum healthcare coverage standards?

- Do you think programs like Social Security and Medicare represent socialism, and should never have been created in the first place?

- Do you think President Obama is a socialist?

- Do you think America should return to a gold standard?

Basically, they want to pin every conservative as a whackjob or, as Bob Beckel so eloquently put it, “birthers, ‘baggers, and blowhards”. Is this a good strategy to use? Not really, but it may be the best that they can do, after burning almost every bridge they had built with independents:

They’ve got nothing left to offer independents, as Brown’s win proved only too well, and they’re too fatally compromised by ObamaCare to recast themselves as small-government types now. If they want to win the center, their best bet — which doesn’t mean it’s a good bet — is to screech about “birthers, ‘baggers, and blowhards,”

This is really just a desperate attempt by the Democrats to distract from their own real incompetence and the issues, in order to make themselves look better to the electorate. However, I believe that most people will see through their talk and see it as the desperate charade that it really is.

Democrats Hit Replay Button: Candidates Re-Use Bush As GOP Bogeyman

Every time I hear a Democrat talk, I keep having to look at my calendar to make sure that I did step through a time portal and leap back to 2008. No, it turns out that I haven't. It is now 2010, and the Democrats are still blaming Bush for their lack of results:

Democrats swear its not 1994 all over. From the way they're talking, you'd think it was 2006.

Top Democrats are reformatting one of the main talking points from the year they took back the House and Senate, tying opponents in local elections to George W. Bush.

“The only playbook [Republicans] have is the playbook they had for the previous eight years, which drove the economy into a ditch that we're continuing to dig ourselves out of,” Rep. Chris Van Hollen, chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, told The Daily Caller.

Delaware Gov. Jack Markell, chairman of the Democratic Governors Association, cast the election in similar terms.

"Either we return to the failed economic policies of the past or we press forward and continue to focus on what’s most important, which is jobs, jobs, jobs,” he said, in a phone interview.

“If we allow this election to simply be a referendum on us, and not be one in which we remind the electorate where Republicans left the country when Barack Obama took office … then we will face the consequences of not having an election of contrasts,” Menendez said. “If we have an election of contrasts, which we clearly will — our candidates fully understand that this will be an election of contrasts in each and every state — we will fare well.”

Apparently, their only play in their playbook is the "Bush sucks" play.

They want to keep blaming Bush for the bad economy that Obama inherited, and there was some validity to that argument, at first. Bush didn't do a great job of reigning in companies, like Countrywide, Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac, when he had the chance. He didn't take a stand against those who were covering for them, like ACORN, Barney Frank and Chris Dodd. However, the further we get into Obama's presidency the more it becomes his recession, as well.

Obama and Congress passed the stimulus monstrosity to keep us out of a prolonged recession and keep unemployment from hitting 10%. Unfortunately, neither happened. When will they find a new target and strategy?

How can we trust Democrats, like Markell, who claim that they are all about "jobs, jobs, jobs", when they have such a lousy track record for creating an economic atmosphere for job creation, so far?

Gallup: More Americans Want Government Out of Healthcare Than Ever, Gallup Doesn't Know Why...Genius

The debate over government intrusion into our healthcare has brought the issue to the forefront of voters' minds and has forced them to take a real good look at the issue. I don't think what people have concluded is not what Obama and the Democrats had in mind:

More Americans now say it is not the federal government's responsibility to make sure all Americans have healthcare coverage (50%) than say it is (47%). This is a first since Gallup began tracking this question, and a significant shift from as recently as three years ago, when two-thirds said ensuring healthcare coverage was the government's responsibility.

Gallup has asked this question each November since 2001 as part of the Gallup Poll Social Series, and most recently in its Nov. 5-8 Health and Healthcare survey. There have been some fluctuations from year to year, but this year marks the first time in the history of this trend that less than half of Americans say ensuring healthcare coverage for all is the federal government's responsibility.

Gallup went on to understate the fact that there has been a considerable drop, in the last few years. Ed Morrissey breaks it down:

Significant? I’d say.  In 2006, the survey found a 69%/28% split in favor of it being the federal government’s responsibility, or more than 2-1, the apex for statists on health care.  In 2007 the gap narrowed to 64-33, and when Obama got elected a year ago, it had drifted to 54-41 — still better than Obama’s eventual margin of victory.

They found that ever since America is in the "midst of robust debate on a potentially imminent healthcare reform law" support for government has plummeted, but the truly remarkable thing is that they are still totally clueless as to why this support has fallen so far:

The reason behind this shift is unknown. Certainly the federal government's role in the nation's healthcare system has been widely and vigorously debated over the last several months, including much focus on the "public option." These data suggest that one result of the debate has been a net decrease in Americans' agreement that ensuring all Americans have healthcare coverage is an appropriate role for the federal government.

The pollsters had a couple of huge oversights. First, they didn't ask any follow-up questions like: "Why are you against it?". They only asked about their general feelings about it. Also, they only focused on the difference between the Republicans and Democrats. They didn't seem to care about how independents felt. The loss of independent support is probably a huge reason why it has dropped.

Exit thought: With about 70% Democrats still hanging on to the idea of government-run healthcare but most of the rest of America disagreeing, which party is really out of the mainstream?

Abortion Ban Amendment Could Clear Way for Passage of Pelosicare

Pro-Life Democrats have been threatening to kill the bill, if the bill didn't block federal money from funding abortions. However, early this morning, Democrats including Stupak, one of the pro-life Democratic leaders, meet with Pelosi and company to broker a deal between them:

House Democrats reached an agreement on a contentious abortion provision overnight that appears to clear the way for a final vote on health care legislation today.

The agreement will allow a vote on an amendment, authored by Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Mich., and Rep. Brad Ellsworth, D-Ind., that would bar funds going toward abortion under both the public option and any private plans that participate in the new insurance exchange.

If this amendment passes, it might be barely enough to pass the monstrous bill. With all Republicans voting against it, she only afford to lose 20 Democrats. Since there are at least 15 Democrats that are giving a hard no against the bill regardless of the abortion issue, it is going to be a photo finish. The bill is scheduled to be up for a vote at 6pm, if it isn't delayed until Sunday or beyond.

Hypocrisy Alert: Florida Democrats Uninvited Sen Landrieu Because of Her Skepticism of Pelosicare

Democrats and liberals have been crowing about a GOP "civil war" and a "purge" of moderates out of the Republican party. Valerie Jarrett, White House spokeswoman, said that they are trying to inclusive even if all other evidence has said otherwise. Now, the Democratic Party of Palm Beach County, Florida is showing their inclusive spirit:

Democratic Louisiana Sen. Mary Landrieu is out as keynote speaker for the Palm Beach County Democratic Party’s annual fund-raising dinner next week because party leaders dislike her stance on health care reform, county Democratic Chairman Mark Alan Siegel said today.

Landrieu, a moderate who recently described herself as “extremely concerned about a government-run, taxpayer-funded, national public plan,” has not committed to voting to cut off a likely Republican filibuster and forcing a vote on the legislation.

Democrats need 60 votes to invoke “cloture” and force a vote.

“We just didn’t want to have a keynote speaker who’s not committed to cloture. It would have just been wrong,” said Siegel, who said party higher-ups and rank-and-file members had voiced displeasure with the choice of Landrieu as a keynote.

The left-wing blogosphere has been a buzz saying that the reason why the Democrats lost the gubernatorial New Jersey and Virginia is because they tried to moderate themselves and not fully endorse all of Obama's liberal policies.

There is hasn't been a lot of love from the left given to Joe Lieberman when he supported the war, spoke at the RNC for McCain, or spoke out against Pelosicare.

They claim that Republicans are becoming more extreme, yet the Democratic party seems to be doing exactly what they chastise the Republicans for doing.

Purge your Blue Dogs. Purge.

Left Wing Conspiracy Confirmed: NJ DSC: Actually We Did Robocalls Promoting Independent Over Christie

I'm not one to buy into conspiracy theories coming from either side, but this one turned out to be true:

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

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

This is definitely an underhanded move by the Democrats. They are all too obviously playing a little divide and conquer. This type of move reprehensible and shows how scared they are that Corzine will lose:

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

"Yesterday, Jon Corzine's party boss Joe Cryan said that 'No, zero, nada, no,' when asked if he had anything to do with the robocalls," said Kevin Roberts, a spokesman for the Republican State Committee.  "Today, it's clear that Cryan is an outright liar. Corzine's party boss knows what we know - Jon Corzine's record is so dreadful that they feel a need to try to trick voters into a second term."

Rep Stupak (D-MI) Doubles Down On Vow to Stop Healthcare Reform From Funding Abortions, Will Work With GOP

Back in late September, 183 Democrats sent a letter to Pelosi urging her to allow an up or down vote regarding whether the healthcare plan will fund abortion or not. So far, she has refused.

Now, one of the main architects of that letter, Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI), has further angered Pelosi in his pursuit to keep federal money from funding abortions:

Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) on Tuesday threatened that he may work with Republicans to torpedo healthcare reform unless he gets a vote to strip abortion-related provisions out of the House bill.

Stupak wants a floor vote on a measure that would prohibit taxpayer funds from being used for abortions. And in an interview on C-SPAN on Tuesday, he suggested if Democratic leaders don’t give him the vote, he’ll work with Republicans.

I'm sure she is more that "not happy" with you, Bart. She is probably downright livid.

To his credit, he seems to be standing firm on this issue:

The Michigan Democrat said he will not be backing down: “I’m comfortable with where I’m at. This is who I am. It’s reflective of my district. If it costs me my seat, so be it.”

Most of the talk has been about whether Reid can pass the bill in the Senate, but I have some reservations about it passing the House even with heavy Democratic slant. In the end, the House will probably pass it, but it'll pass barely by a slimmer margin than many realize.

Deficit Is Too High, It's Time For the Other 47% to Pay Their Fair Share

Democratic leadership in Congress and the White House are having a hard time reigning in their spending. As a result, deficit spending is at an all-time high. So, the Democrats are looking into ways to tap into a currently untapped resource, the 47% of Americans that don't pay any federal taxes at all.

What is the liberals favorite way to close the deficit gap? Cut funding to Planned Parenthood? Unfortunately, no. They want to raise taxes but not just on the top 10%, but, also, on the above-mentioned 47%. Everyone will feel the effects of the new tax proposition.

President Obama has been steadfast in his pledge that he won't raise taxes on those making less than $250,000. But that doesn't mean only high-income households will be subject to higher taxes.

An increasing number of influential Democrats and fiscal-policy experts have signaled that lawmakers will have to get a handle on the deficit. And they recommend seriously considering the creation of a value-added tax (VAT) on top of the federal income tax.

First of all, did he just say that Obama has been "steadfast" while making sure that us peasants are paying more taxes? Yes, I believe that he did. Smokers might have a different take on that statement. Soon enough, we will all feel the burn, if the cap-n-tax bill that Obama likes is passed.

Anyway, meanwhile back at the Hall of Justice:

A VAT is a slick way of taxing us indirectly without making it sound like they are taxing us. Democrats are very good at that. Aren't they?

For those who don't know what a VAT is:

A VAT is tax on consumption similar to a national sales tax. But it's not just paid at the cash register. It's levied at every stage of production. So all businesses involved in making a product or performing a service would pay a VAT. And then the end-user -- such as the retail customer -- ponies up as well.

Basically, they want to tax the businesses who participate in any way in the manufacturing process of certain goods and services all the way down the assembly line until it gets to us, the consumer. Even though, they will be taxing businesses, mostly, who do you the companies will transfer the added cost to? Yep, us.

Ok, some will be saying that maybe they'll just be taxing high end items like Corvettes, Armani suits, penthouse hotel suites or Starbucks coffee, so the "everyday Americans" won't be paying more, but that couldn't be further from the truth:

That could mean more money out of everyone's pockets when buying virtually anything -- sweaters, school books, furniture, pottery classes, dinners out.

While they don't plan on enacting the plan until the economy recovers, it'll still be a jobs killer and will stifle economic progress, when it is enacted, if it is.

If you are an "everyday American" that wants to wear hand me downs, stay with the same furniture you bought when Carter was president, never go to school, and stay a recluse, you won't be taxed. However, if you are, gird your wallet. The Democrats had an idea.

Gibbs: Obama Not Really That Popular With Trial Lawyers (Just Don't Look Too Close at the Money Trail)

While being questioned about why the Democrats have not been challenging the lawyers, Gibbs not only dismissed the notion that Democrats are favoring their legal brethren but he denies that the trial lawyers has had a big place in their heart for the Jurist-in-Chief:

“Let me step in for one second,” Gibbs said.  “I think you can recall from the presidential campaign, I don't recall us being the preferred candidate of the trial lawyers that you mentioned.”

“Yes you were,” I said. “You got more money than any other candidate when it came to trial lawyers.”

Gibbs then qualified his remarks to only mean the primary.

However, he forgot about all of the love letters that Obama received from his various attorney-suitors that include a whole bunch of money:

In the “presidential campaign” to which Gibbs referred, President Obama received $43,071,129 from lawyers and law firms.

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., received $9,930,296  from lawyers and law firms.

Granted, that wasn't a shocker, but here is the real proof about where the ambulance chasers' loyalties truly lie.:

Okay, but he quickly clarified that he’d meant the Democratic primary, when fellow trial lawyer and former Sen. John Edwards, D-NC, was in the race and was clearly the favorite of many top trial lawyers.

Edwards collected $7,588,701 from lawyers and law firms.

By January 30, the day Edwards dropped out of the race, “the Obama presidential campaign had raised $11,650,779 from lawyers and law firms,” Webber emails me.

Then-Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, dropped out of the race on June 7, 2008. She raised $15,497,787 from lawyers and law firms for her campaign.

By June 7, the Obama campaign had raised $19,133,487 from lawyers and law firms.

Gibbs was 0-for-3.

Here's a added bonus clip of Charles Krauthammer explaining that lawyer do indeed have the Democrats wrapped around their fingers.

Benedict Arlen Calls For Wilson Censure or Reprimand; Rahmbo's Tells the Fib to End All Fibs

Sen. Specter has once again mouthed off without thinking:

From: @SenArlenSpecter
Sent: Sep 10, 2009 9:36a

There ought to be a reprimand or censure of Rep. Joe Wilson to discourage that kind of conduct in the future.

Apparently, he has forgotten how George W. Bush was often treated over the last 8 years. Were there any calls for censures or reprimands for the Democrats that heckled Bush 43? No.

By the way, he another laughable quote from Rahmbo:

"No president has ever been treated like that. Ever"

Um, has he been hibernating the last 8 years?

Heath Care Reform Will Help the Retarded or Something

After Obama's Special Olympics comment a few months ago, you would think that House Democrats would be a little more careful with their choice of words:

The proposed health-insurance bill from the House of Representatives refers to mentally disabled people as "retarded" -- a term advocates, relatives and physicians find outdated and offensive. The bill refers to: "A hospital or a nursing facility or intermediate-care facility for the mentally retarded . . ."

The phrase could cause more problems with groups for the developmentally disabled, who were angered when President Obama referred to his poor bowling skills on "The Tonight Show" as "like the Special Olympics." Obama later apologized.